ML20090K014

ASLB Exhibit B-001,consisting of Cygna Draft Independent Assessment Program Final Rept,Vols 1 & 2, Dtd 831105

ML20090K014
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	02/20/1984
From:	Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES
To:
References
B-001, B-1, NUDOCS 8405230554
Download: ML20090K014 (800)

Text

?

ho. TR-83090-01 l

/

~

$-/'

a -

FINAL REPORT [s -

(c'] G" .\ ?

/

INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM {-j o 3 7 FOR 5 s  !

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION

'qM<['

h Prepared For Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Prepared By Cygna Energy Services 101 California Street, Suite 1000 O San Francisco, California 94111 Approved By I /

Project Manager

//k/b Dat~e i

November 5, 1983 lllllllllllllll111llllll111!!1 5 4] g Q PDR f

l TABLE OF CONTENTS O

Page i

1.0 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

.g.......................................... 1-1 l

1.1 INTRODUCTION

............................................ 1-1 1.2 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................ 1-2 1.3 PROJECT ORGANIZATION........................................ 1-4 1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................ 1-4 1.5 RESULTS ............................................ 1-6

1.6 CONCLUSION

S ............................................ 1-6 1

! 2.0 PROGRAM REVIEW SCOPE ................ ........................... . 2-1 1

2-1

~

2.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES..........................................

2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENT SELECTION.................................... 2-1 i 2.3 DESIGN CONTROL REVIEW (HORIZONTAL REVIEW)................... 2-3 2.3.1 Review of Texas Utilities' Design Control Progran.... 2-4 I 2.3.2 Review of Gibbs & Hill Design Control Program........ 2-5 i

2.4 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATIONS (VERTICAL REVIEW)................ 2-5 9.4.1 Design Change Controls............................... 2-6 i 2.4.2 De s i g n An a l y s i s Co n t r ol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.4.3 Interface Contro1.................................... 2-7 l

2.4.4 Technical Design Review.............................. 2-8 2.4.5 A s -B u i l t Ve r i f i c a t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 3.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................ 3-1 3.1 DOCUMENT COLLECTION......................................... 3-2 3.2 REVIEW CRITERIA ............................................ 3-2 3.3 PROCEDURES ............................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Matrices ............................................ 3-3 3.3.2 Checklists........................................... 3-4 i

i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 1 gag[ ;6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program m snmHH Final Report, TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Page I

3.3.3 Ob s e r v a t i on R e co rd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3.3.4 Potential Finding Report............................. 3-5

3.4 PROGR AM AND IMPLEMENTATION EVALU AT ION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 3.5 PROJECT REVIEW TEAM......................................... 3-10 3.6 SENIOR REVIEW TEAM.......................................... 3-11 4.0 REVIEW RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS................................... 4-1 4.1 DESIGN CONTROL PR0 GRAM...................................... 4-1 j 4.1.1 Texas Utilities Design Control Program............... 4-1 f 4.1.2 Gibbs & Hill Design Control Program. . .. ... .... .... ... 4-1 l

4.2 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUAT!0N................................... 4-2 I

4.2.1 De s i gn C h a n ge Cont rol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 4.2.1.1 Texas Utilities............................. 4-2 i(}

4.2.1.2 Gibbs & Hil1................................ 4-4 4.2.1.3 B ro wn & R oo t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4.2.2 Design Analyses Control.............................. 4-5

!, 4.2.3 Interface Control.................................... 4-6 4.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW EVALUATION................................. 4-6 l

4.3.1 Pipe Stress Implementation Evaluation.... .. ....... ... 4-7

! 4.3.2 P i pe S u p p o rt R e v i e w. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9 l

3 4.3.3 Equipment Qualification Review....................... 4-10 l 4.3.4 El ect ri cal Re v i ew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 4.3.5 Cabl e Tray Support Eval uati on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11

! 4.3.6 A s -B u i l t Ve r i f i c a t i on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-13 4.4 POTENTIAL FINDING REP 0RTS................................... 4 20

4.5 CONCLUSION

............................................ 4-21 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 11 gh{

e g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program gemmHMemme Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 I r l

.I

l TABLE OF CollTEllTS (continued) 5.0 APPENDICES l

Appendix A: Statement of Independence Appendix B: Definitions and Nomenclature i

Appendix C: Documents and Drawings Reviewed Appendix D: Program Review Matrices Appendix E: Design Criteria Appendix F: Observations Appendix G: Potential Finding Reports Appendix H: Checklists l

1 i

l I

e

(

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 111 L*I( L a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ingsmanneetti Final Report, TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION 1.1 CPSES Implementation Review Matrix 1.2 Independent Assessment Activities 1.3 Responsibility Matrix - Mechanical

1.4 Responsibility Matrix - Equipment 1.5 Responsibility Matrix - Electrical and 18C 1.6 Responsibility Matrix - Structural 1.7 Project Organization 1.8 Review Process Floc Chart 2

1.9 Observation tog

2.1 Independent Assessment Activities 4

2.2 RHR Train "B" Flow Diagram O

2.3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Element 2.4 General Arrangement Drawing, Fuel Building 2.5 Responsibility Matrix - Mechanical (Spent Fuel Pool Cooling)

2.6 Responsibility Matrix - Equipment (Spent Fuel Pool Cooling -

! Train A) 2.7 Responsibility Matrix - Electrical and 18C (Spent Fuel Pool l

Cooling - Train A) 2.8 Responsibility Matrix - Electrical and 18C (RHR.- Train B) i 2.9 Responsibility Matrix - Structural 2.10 Vertical Review - Piping and Component (RHR/ Safety Injection)

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. iv L4 [ 6 i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ligelilletillelleimlilliste Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

i j LIST OF EXHIBITS

.i EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION i

2.11 vertical Review - Electrical / Instrument and Controls (RHR/ Safety Injection) j 2.12 Vertical Review - Raceway Supports (RHR/ Safety injection) 3.1 Terminology j 3.2 Review Process Flow Chart i

i l

l i

!O i

1 4

i r

i i

l l

!O i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. v l  %{ g a Comanche Feak Independent Assessment Program Nummmmmmumm Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUIStARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

t At the request of Texas Utilities, Cygna Energy Services developed a program to provide supplementary evidence regarding the overall design quality of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). The program was intended, as shown in Exhibit 1.1, to be used in conjunction with recent NRC-sponsored evaluations, especially the Construction Appraisal Team (CAT) inspection and the Special Investigation Team (SIT) review of the Walsh-Doyle allegations.

The program was also intended to address the concerns and comments expressed by the NRC in letters to Texas Utilities dated May 4 and July 15, 1983.

To address these concerns, Cygna developed an Independent Assessment Program (IAP) which Texas Utilities issued for comments on June 10, 1983. In a letter dated July 15, the NRC provided three basic comments for consideration: (1) the IAP should include a technical design review, (2) the system selected for the technical design review should have demanding design parameters, and (3) the implementation evaluation of the design control program should consider more than the design change and interface control elements. The present Independent Assessment Program is the result of the above evolution.

The scope and methodology of this Independent Assessment Program was trans-mitted to the NRC by Texas Utilities on September 9, 1983 (H.C. Schmidt letter j to D.G. Eisenhut). Subsequent NRC approval of the program was received on September 23, 1983 (0.G. Eisenhut to R.J. Gary).

The general approach taken to achieve the program objectives was to evaluate a given project scope along two distinct paths. The first path consisted of an independent evaluation to assess the design control process used on the project for the selected scope. This review was multi-disciplined and covered j

the design control requirements that would apply to the total plant design

!O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 11

, 6.T { 6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program llelmselleellisteelliitteil F1nal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

effort. This is referred to as the " horizontal" review. The second path was to evaluate the implementation of the design control process in the design of selected systems or elements within the total plant design. This review evaluated the conformance of the technical design to the design control requirements. The design review also evaluated the final design conformance with design criteria and licensing commitments, and tested the validity of the assumptions made and methods utilized in the design process. This is referred to as the " vertical" review.

1.2 SCOPE OF THE WORK The following criteria were considered in selecting the systems or elements for this scope of work:

e the design should be safety-related with demanding design parameters; e the design should represent a cross section of disciplines; O

e the design should have several organizational interfaces; e the design should have characteristics which cannot be performance tested or verified under actual design conditions; and e the design should include a system turned over to the start-up group.

Taking the above criteria into consideration, the following two elements of the safety related systems were chosen for the Independent Assessment Program:

O Texas Utilities Services. Inc. 1-2 g4 { 6 4. Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program uguennumunum Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 J

e the Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Safety Injection System -

Train "B" from the containment sump line penetration to the RHR heat exchanger; and e the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System - Train A f ,

The technical implementation review of the RHR System covered the mechanical, electrical, and structural design aspects of representative components,

, including a review of the design analysis control process. The as-built i implementation review of the Spent Fuel Cooling System covered similiar aspects from a final construction viewpoint, and provided added assurance of

]

the adequacy of the design control process.

The tine period which the review of each element encompassed is as follows:

] ,

• Design Control 1975 to present I

e Structural 1977 to present I

e Pipe Stress 1977 to present i

t e Pipe Support 1980 to present j e Electrical Design 1975 to present In all cases, the major emphasis of the reviest was placed on activities con-ducted after 1977.

)

Exhibit 1.2 depicts graphically the scope of the technical review. Exhibits 1.3,1.4,1.5 and 1.6 indicate the various contractors involved and the scope of their responsibilities for each element investigated.

(

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1-3 g4 { 6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program nummWoNmWWs Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

1.3 PROJECT ORGANIZATION Exhibit 1.7 depicts Cygna's project organization for this effort. The organi-ration was divided into three functional tiers: the Project Team, the Senior Review Team, and in-house consultants. The Project Team was composed of the Project Manager, Project Engineer, and Lead Engineers in the areas of design control review, design review, and as-built verification. This team not only had considerable experience in the specific areas addressed, but several of  ;

its members performed similar functions during the implementation of an independent design review for Grand Gulf Unit I and Enrico Fermi 2.

4 The Senior Review Team was made up of Messrs. B.K. Kacyra, J.E. Ward, E.F.

j Trainor, and L.L. Kamerzell. Mr. Kacyra, the Chief Executive Officer of Cygna Corporation, is a recognized technical expert with significant l comercial and nuclear experience in the field of structural design and dynamic analysis. Mr. Ward is a recognized expert and industry spokesman on regulatory requirements and systems design. Mr. Trainor, Vice President, Quality Assurance, offers extensive experience in the fields of quality assurance and management controls. Mr. Kammerzell, Vice President and Manager 1 of the Western Region Office, has broad-based experience in the nuclear field, including licensing, project managen.ent and systems design. This team, with assistance from in-house consultants, reviewed all conclusions reached by the Project Team and was the final authority within Cygna regarding the adequacy of resolutions.

1.4 METHODOLOGY f

1 The basic steps followed in the review process are listed below:

Step 1: Collect Documents Step 2: Develop Review Criteria

)

Step 3: Develop Review Procedures i

i C

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1-4 g 6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program gammmmmmmm Final Report TR-83090 01, Rev. 0

p Step 4: Conduct Design Control and Technical Reviews O Step 5: Project Team Review Step 6: Senior Review Team

~

Step 7: Report Results In developing the implementation (vertical) review procedures (Step 3),

detailed checklists were prepared. These checklists, which defined for the i reviewer the items to the be verified, formed the basis of the review process. During the conduct of the review (Step 4), the reviewer made note of

, any item which, in his judgement, did not conform to the checklists and acceptance criteria. Each of these items was then evaluated to determine if there was potential design impact. If yes, an observation was prepared. In some cases, further review indicated that the checklist and acceptance I

criteria were indeed met. These observations were then considered to be invalid.

I Each valid observation received a more detailed review to determine if any potential safety impact existed. If the degree of severity and potential design impact was determined to be significant enough after performing this i additional review, the Project Team initiated a Potential Finding Report (PFR). Each PFR was then reviewed by the Senior Review Team for completeness, accuracy and potential impact on plant safety. If, in the judgement of the Senior Review Team, all reasonable efforts had been made to resolve a PFR and a potential impact on safety still existed, a Definite Potential Finding Report (DPFR) would have been written and the item reported immediately to Texas Utilities and the NRC. This review did not identify any DPFR's.

l l

Exhibit 1.8 charts the review process from a line item on the checklist (Step 4) to the final report (Step 7).

i 1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 15 A{ 6 i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program gange Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

1.5 RESULTS The Observation Log (Exhibit 1.9) sumarizes the final status of all observa-tions identified during the course of this review. A total of thirty-six (36) observations were identified. Of these, three (3) were invalid observations and one was identified as a potential finding.

A summary of the valid observations and PFRs, by discipline, is provided below:

Valid Discipline Observations PFR's DPFR's Walkdown 5 0 0 Design Control 7 0 0 Pipe Stress 9 0 0 Pipe Support 4 0 0 Equipment Qualification 0 0 0 Structural 8 1 0 Electrical 0 0 0 Total 33 0 0

1.6 CONCLUSION

S The Independent Assessment Program for CPSES achieved three important objec-tives. The Program was able to :

e assess the adequacy of Texas Utilities' dssign control. process; e assess the adequacy of the design of important safety related systems; and .

A Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1-6 L lt"j g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program llllllllllll111::"""::::::: Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

e draw a substantive conclusion regarding the overall design adequacy s of CPSES.

With respect to the first objective, Cygna 's conclusion is that adequate design control measures governing the design of selected elements of two CPSES safety related systems are being exercised. Specifically, we have concluded that:

• Texas Utilities' design control activities, as defined in thei r design control program documentation, satisfy the project commitments and standard practice;

• The design control activities of Gibbs & Hill satisfy the commitments of contract documents and the CPSES SAR; and e Texas Utilities and Gibbs & Hill have adequately implemented control of design changes, interfaces, and analyses (based on G&H review only) in accordance with the design control commitments as delineated in their respective design program documentation.

The second objective has been met with the following conclusions:

• The review ensured that the design control process has been adequately implemented in the areas of criteria, procedures, interface control, and documentation.

e Selected elements of two safety related systems have been adequately designed to perfonn their intended safety function in accordance with the project commitments, applicable code requirements and industry standards.

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1-7 g{e'j g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll1lll18llllll11ll111llllll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 3 _ _ . - ._.

This scope of werk afforded Cygna an opportunity to examine, in detail, the l CPSES design process on safety-related systems located inside the safeguards building, fuel building, and reactor containment. It provided an in-depth look into activities related to mechanical (piping, pipe supports, equipment qualification), structural and electrical engineering disciplines.

This independent assessment program not only followed the flow of information from the preliminary design stage to the as-built condition, but it also assessed the accuracy and completeness of the information at various stages of the design process. Based on the results of our design control and technical reviews, sufficient assurances exist for Cygna to conclude th6t the overall design activities on CPSES are adequate and have been properly implemented.

O t

A l

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1-8 g((tj g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program llllllllll11llll11ll1111llIlll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

i 1

EXHIBIT 1.1 .

C CPSES IMPLEMENTATION k- REVIEW MATRIX Element CAT SIT IAP X

Design Input Document Control X X Design Analysis Control X

Drawing Control X

Procurement Control X X X Internal / External Interface Control X

Design Verification Control X

Document Control X X X Design Change Control X

Corrective Action Control X

Internal / External Audits and Surveillances Control X X Design X

• X As-Built X = Full Review

• = Touched-on, But No Specific Review l

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

(4[M,7j Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

. n,.I....;;llilill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

EXHIBIT 1.2 IIBEPEIGENT ASSESSENT ACTIVITIES O

i 1

, .)

,! Design Analysis l Control I

Gibbs & Hill Design Change

.* Design Control >== me" Lontrol Progras l

Quality Assurance Tetas utt11ttes' Texas Utilities' interface Licensing * ().ality Assurance =

• Design Control ==

• Control Commitaents Program Program O

• Rana 1ning 18 Criterta 10CFR50. App. 8 As-Built Verification me Design cygna nevis scope ---

l l

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

( -

g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

. v .- - - e-- rare, w -+7--- w- --w-'r- q-

EXHIBIT 1.3 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX IECHANICAL (SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING)

Texas ITT Utilities G&H W Grinnel B&R NPSI

1) Conceptual Design X(1) X X(2)

2) Design Criteria X X(2)

3) System Design X X(2)

4) Piping Layout X

5) Pipe Stress Analysis X

6) Input to Pipe Stress a) ARS X b) SAM X c) Hydrodynamic Loads N/A d) Support Stiffness X

7) Pipe Support Design X X(4) X

8) Pipe Anchor Design X X X

9) Equipment Supports X

10) Installation X

11) Purchase Specifications X

12) Procurement X

13) As-Built Drawings a) Pipe X b) Pipe Supports X (1) Approval Only (2)For NSSS components including R.H.R. system (3) Balance of plant ,

(4) Responsible for a majority of the supports O

L) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. .

LTi J t i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1811111llllll11111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

O O O EXHIBIT 1.4 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX EQUIPENT (SPENT FUEL POOL COOLIIIG - TRAIN A)

Texas Bingham Borg-Utilities G&H J. Dat Willamette Warner Posiseal B&R

1) Conceptual Design X(1) X

2) Design Criteria X

3) Qualification Requirements X

4) Input Design Loads X

5) Analysis, Qualification Reports and Fabrication Drawings

a. Cooling Water Pump X

b. Heat Exchanger X

c. Butterfiyvalves X

d. Check and Gate Valves X

6) Purchase Specifications X

7) Procurement X

8) Instellation X

9) As-Built Configuration X 4

(1) Approval Only Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

4{pj ,

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

EXHIBIT 1.5 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ELECTRICAL AND I&C (SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING TRAIN A)

Texas Utilities G&H Reliance B&R Conceptual Design X(1) X 1)

X

2) Design' Criteria X

3) Pump Motor Design Specification Contractor Purchase Order X 4)

X

5) Equipment Qualification Requirements X

6) Design Package Document X

7) Cooling Pump Motor Control Panel X

8) Electrical Power and Control One-Line Diagrams

9) Cable Specification and X Routing Requirements .

X

10) Cable Tray and Raceway Design '

11) Instrumentation Design X X

12) Procurement X

13) Installation

14) As-Built Configuration X (1) Approval Only

(

I O

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

gg {ej g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O imillie=" . . .

l EXHIBIT 1.5 (continued)

O RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ELECTRICAL /INSTRIE NT AND CONTROLS (RHRTRAINB)

Texas Utilities G&H Westinghouse B&R

1) System Descriptions X

2) System Logics X

3) Electrical Wiring Diagrams X

4) Equipment Qualification X Requirements ,

5) Equipment Qualification X p 6) Pump and Valve Procurement X

\ and Specifications

7) Electrical Power and X One-line Diagrams

8) Instrument and Control X Diagrams

9) Schematic and Connection X Diagrams

10) Termination Diagrams X

11) Cable and Raceway Supports X

12) Cable and Raceway Schedule X

13) Installation Specifications X

14) Installation X (1) Approval Only i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

LTFJ t i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

EXHIBIT 1.6 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX (STRUCTURAL)

Texas Utilities G&H B&R

1) Conceptual Design X(I) X

2) Design Criteria X

3) Building Arrangement X

4) Seismic Analysis X

5) Structural Analysis X

6) Input Loads a) Ground Spectra X b) Other Loads X

7) Structural Design X

8) Final Drawings X

9) Purchase Specification X O' 10) Procurement X

11) Construction X

12) As-Built Configuration X (1) Approval Only l

n Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

LT Oj2.A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program imlillilimimmililllin Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

t EXHIBIT 1.7 l

l _

PROJECT (RGANIZATION O

~

l l

SENIOR REVIEW TEM PROJECT MNAGER B.K. Eacrya n. Williams J.E. Ward E.F. Trainor L.L. Eammerzell i

IN-MOUSE CONSULTANT 5 T. Wittig (Design Reviews) *--------.

P. D1Donato (Design Control)

J. Minichiello PROJECT ENGIK ER -

(Comes & Standards) TECHNICAL J.P. Foley (Licensing) J. utnichtello A.P. McCarthy (ISC)

I I STRUCTURAL REVIEW PIPE STRESS REVIEW EQUIPE NT QUALIFICATION REVIEW GROW LEADER EROW LEADER W OUP LEADER C. Liu J. Nintchtello A. Cauell DESIGN CUNTROL ELECTRICAL /I&C KVIEW

' As-OUILT VERIFICATION Int 00P LEADER WOUP LEADER GROUP LEADER P. DiDonato A. Moersfelder R. Ness LEGEIS Project Direction

===== Consultation l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

({ g , Independent Assessment Program Proposal No. 583-12C, Rev.1

EXHI81T l'.8 REVIEW PROCESS FLOW CHART ORIGINATOR REVIEWER PROKCT REVIEW SENIOR REVIEW TEAM a-e I

a. ..ij

.i w .. ./ i...me. .

CHECMLIST I *

.a . \

""t. ,.= u..

I . . .

,e E. _ y ....  %, . ..=.=.. =

. . . .,,,. ,,,,,,, a .

c c., . .

"=-

==,.a .,

. :".:'".'.7.*"'

. = = > ->

N& -  :..:=gg,:::;

i

= =i=.

n, i.e.=.is.:

i ..i s.

' .E. .i . .

, OssERVATION

... .mm

,. . .i / . . . =

.. ............. .. . .... ... . ..... .. .. ... ..... . .. ... ... _ V. . ~=

POTENTIAL l FINDING , , , , ,,,,, ,,,,,,

REPORT . .im . e..e .s ..si

... .. . e.- c.a. . - . ..

.. . ......= ,,,_

. . . . . .. . ... wn.

......n

..d lM Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

L% M t i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

M m T 17 EXHIBIT 1.9 O observation O t'h L 9 i ifl Log 111!!I111ll11!!!I11111111111ll Rev.No. Date classincation 3 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated No. Description Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N DC-01-01 The CPSES Document Control Center (DCC) does not. X X X X X accurate listing of design changes generated aga,naintain an nst drawings and specifications. This was substantiated upon review of eighteen drawings, seven specifications and approximately 112 associated design changes. These discrepencies are as follows:

Design Change Affected Document Missing from DCC Log Dwg. 2323-S-0800 DCA-12534 (Rev. 1)

Dwg. 2323-El-0018-01 DCA-16358 Dwg. 2323-S-0801 DCA-713 Dwg. 2323-S-0825 DCA-7850 (Rev. 4)

DC-01-02 The Design Change Log Books maintained by site file custodians X X X X X did not include the posting of all design changes. This was substantiated upon review of the Document Control Center list of design changes against affected documents versus the site file .

custodian Design Change Log Books.

AFFECTED MISSING DOCUMENT DESIGN CHANGE LOCATION SPEC MS-20B.1 DCA-14781 Purchasing SPEC MS-208.1 DCA-14026 (Rev. 2) Purchasing DWG 2323-El-0018-01 DCA-9222 (Rev. 1) Electrical SPEC MS-46A DCA-11193 (Rev. 2) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-11939 (Rev. 1) Purchasing Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 1 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

E M-g: .n O

J Observation Log Ca')

o L9 s Y tillllillllllilllillllllllllil Rev,No. 3 Date 10/5/83 classification Definito Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated No. Desctlption Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N SPEC MS-46A DCA-14349 (Rev. 1) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-16383 (Rev. 1) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-17620 Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-13037 Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-18073 Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-10413 (Rev. 3) Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-17849 Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-17852 Purchasing DC-01-03 An initial review of fourteen drawings disclosed that one (Gibbs X X X X X

& Hill drawing 2323-S-0801) was not stamped "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES." A further sample of 20 drawings disclosed that four drawings lacked the required stamp.

DC-01-04 The Field Design Change and Review Status Log, as maintained by X X X X X the Design Change Tracking Groups (DCTG) was reviewed for com-pliance to Procedure CP-EP-4.7 " Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design Changes." The review disclosed:

1. The DCTG status log did not accurately reflect all out-standing design changes listed (e.g. Specification 2323-ES-100, DCA-9695; 2323-S-0800, DE/CD's, DCDDA's, FICR's).

2. The DCTG status log does not accurately reflect the status of design change documents to be incorporated versus design changes not to be incorporated (e.g. DWG. 2323-S-0801, DCA-81 and DCA-92).

Texas Utilities Services Inc. Sheet 2 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O y==+= 7 ;y C) Observation Log O

\,s A in Y iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllli classincation Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observation N Y N Y N Y N Y N Deectlption Y No.

3. The DCTG status log contains design changes entered against the incorrect affected document. (DCA-1803 was listed against another specification when it should have been listed against MS-208.1.)

4. The DCTG status log identifies design changes as applicabl to certain documents when in fact they have been voided.

DC-02-01 A review of 3pecifications MS-13,15, 29A, and 64, and associ - X X X X X ated revisions and addenda, disclosed that several revisions of specifications MS-13 and MS-15 for safety-related mechanical equipment were apparently issued to the owner prior to perform-ance of design review and/or resolution of design review com-ments as fdllows:

Date Resolution Date issued Date Design P.O. of Design Spec. Rev. to TD:I Reviewed Issue Review Comments MS-13 0 2/19/75 2/14/75 N/A 2/24/78 '

MS-13 1 1/1/76 5/27/76 9/11/79 MS-51 ADD 1 10/30/74 12/11/75 N/A No comments MS-51 1 9/9/75 12/31/75 N/A 3/19/76 MS-51 2 11/19/75 3/23/76 3/20/75 8/2/78 DC-02-02 Gibbs & Hill Design Specification MS-200 specifies ASME III, X X X X X 1974 edition, through Sumer 1974 Addenda as a design basis.

However, the computer code (ADLPIPE Version 2C) used for pipe stress calculations AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 incorporates the require-ments of ASME III, 1974 edition, through Winter 1975 Addenda.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 3 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

'M - -

O Observation (~a')

A L9 s id Log 111111111!I111!!!!!!!l11111111 Rev No. Date cleasincation 3 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observation No. Descripilon Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 0C-02-03 Pipe stress problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 were analyzed using the X X X X X computer program ADLPIPE Version 2C dated 4/77. However, the ADLPIPE version dated 9/72 is specified in the CPSES FSAR.

PI-00-01 Gibbs and Hill does not specify any weld mismatch (6) when X X X X X determining stress intensification factors for butt welds.

PI-00-02 Gibbs & Hill uses a 20% increase in the upset and emergency X X X X X condition allowables when considering welded attachment stresses in combination with general piping stresses.

PI-00-03 Gibbs & Hill has no procedure for checking that an adequate X X X X X number of modes are considered in the dynamic analysis. All modes up to 33 Hz are included in the analysis.

PI-01-01 The wall thickness used for the computer analysis piping seg- X X X X X ments 16"-SI-074-151R-2 and 16"-SI-073-151R-2 was 0.5 inches.

The correct value is 0.375 inches, PI-02-01 The response spectra for the containment structure at elevations X X X X X 805.5' and 860.0' were not included in the analysis for problem 1-70. These are needed to envelope the attachment at penetra-tion MII-5 (elevation 820 ' 9/16" ) . Cygna did note that the SAM for the containment building were included in the proper analysis.

PI-02-02 Support RH-1-064-010-S22R (previous tag number RH-1-062-001- X X X X X S22R) is modelled 14 inches downstream from its correct, as-built location on piping segment 8"-RH-1-064-601R-2.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 4 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

4___-.__-

y _

O observation Os t*h L 9 6 O Log Illilllillfilllillittillllilli Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 classification Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated No. Description Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N PI-02-03 In the welded attachment analysis for the restraints in Problems X X X X X 1-70, the analyst used the maximum thermal expansion loads for the equation 11 check, rather than the range of the loads.

PI-02-04 The reinforcing pad used in the welded attachment analysis for X X X X X anchor SI-1-037-005-S32A was 10" long rather than the 8" shown in the latest drawing. Cygna did note that the loads used were a conservative set from a previous revision of the piping analy-sis.

PI-02-05 The incorrect pipe schedule (80 instead of 40) was used in cal- X X X X X culating the allowable forces and moments for the RHR heat exchanger,tubeside nozzles. The correct schedule produced lower allowables.

PI-03-01 In the finite element analysis for penetration MS-1, 2, 3, 4, X X X X X the geometry below the lower taper (for =2") was modeled incor-rectly, due to an error in element generation. The error resulted in an area of the model with triangular holes adjacent to triangular steel.

PS-02-01 The embedment lengths shown on the drawing (6-1/2" and 3-1/2") X X X X X do not match those.in the calculation (7-3/4" and 5")

PS-09-01 The working range for spring hanger SI-1-042-002-S22K (i.e. top X X X X X up or bottom out) was not checked to ensure that the travel due to seismic movement was within the working range of the hanger.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 5 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

6_; _ O observation c';

A Lt , Y Log lilillllillllllittlitillitilll Rev,No. 3 Date 10/5/83 classification Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observation ' Y N Y N Y N Osectlption Y N Y N No.

PS-10-01 The design input data for support RH-1-064-010-S22R contained an X X X X X error in the X displacement sign (+.395 " vs. .395"). This error appears on the form transmitted from the pipe stress group to the pipe support group for use in the design.

PS-12-01 The allowables for a "PUH" style U-bolt were used in the design X X X X X calculation. The bill of materials calls out a " PUS" style U-bolt.

CTS-00-01 Self-weight excitation due to the weight of the support was not X X X X X considered in the tray support design.

CTS-00-02 Gibbs & Hil.1 performed the calculation of total resultants for X X X X X component loads as follows:

a. For anchor bolts, Gibbs & Hill included the dead load in the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) combination of component seismic forces. This resultant is 9% less than the actual combination where the dead load effects are added ,

absolutely to the SRSS of the seismic forces,

b. Combined component member loads were calculated from static and dynamic loads (i.e., dead, live and seismic) using the algebraic summation method for the following cable tray supports: I l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 6 of 13 Independent Assessn.c.it ."regram; 83090

, 2+ : m O observation o 8BMiY 1.09 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiminisiiilii!

Hev. No. 3 0 818 10/5/83 classification Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated No. Description Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Standard Details Aj, 83 , C j, and Dj (where i = 1 to 5, depending on the number of tray levels), details A, B, C, and D of drawing no. 2323-El-0601-01-S, wt.1ch are based on Standard Detail Dj , and Standard Details 4, 5 and 7.

CTS-00-03 In the review of cable tray support calculations, Cygna dis- X X X X X covered the following deficiencies in the modeling assumptions for frame analyses:

a. Cable tray Standard Details Ay, Bj , C, and D , where i = 1 to 5 depending on th: r. umber af tray levels,jand Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S which are based on Standard Detail 9 9, are modeled as plane frames. Two basic configurations are analyzed. The first configuration consists of two vertical members, called hangers, connected by horizontal members, called beams, which support the cable trays. This configuration is typical for Standard Details A j, B and C The second configuration consists of one vertlcal hadg. er and one to ,

four beams which are attached to the hanger at one end and a concrete surface at the other. This second case it typical of Standard Detail D, and the related Details A, B, C and D. All anchorage points were modeled as pinned in the plane of the frame.

Both support configurations are modeled with vertical and horizontal cable tray loads at the beam to hanger joints Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 7 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

!=.r d , C) Observation C')

v

..m

(*h L9 6 f1 1 Log fliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllillilll classuication Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Findino Finding Closed Isolated Observation Description Y N Y N Y N Y N Y I4 No.

instead of at the beam tray support points. The total hori-zontal and vertical load distribution was assumed to be spli* equally between the beam support points.

The above assumptiest are deficient for the following reasons:

1. Placing tray loads at the bcam-hanger joints does not reflect the actual loading conf!3uration.

2. For Standard Detail D9 , the 50% - 50% load distribution is unjustified since there is a flexible hanger on one side and concrete on the other.

These modeling errors affect the analysis by eliminating the effects of local bending stresses as well as portions of the axial stress in the beams. Futhermore, for Standard Detail D , where loads were placed at the beam ends which were c,onnected to the concrete surface (these points being modeled as simple supports), load effects were totally removed from the structure. .

b. End connections consisting of angles anchored to concrete by either one or two bolts were modeled as hinges in the cable tray support frame analysis. The assumption of a fixed joint is more appropriate considering the rigidity of the base angle connection.

CTS-00-04 Cable tray Standard Details A 9

, B9 , Cj and Dg, where i = 1 to 5, X X X X X depending on the number of tray levels, Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S which are based on Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 8 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

M..-_.==-

O observation c' (s

L*kk k 1 (_()h Illlillitilliffiltlilllllil!Il classincation Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observation No. Desctlption Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Standard Detail Di , and and Standard Details 4, 5 and 7 were modeled as plane frames. Frame analysis and design were based upon a single ratio of height to width, whereas the ratio varies over the range of frames installed. Tray loads were placed in various directions in an attempt to simulate the worst case combination for the frame members. For Standard Detail D and 4 Details A, B, C and D, an analysis of the base plate /ang16 and the anchor bolts included only loads with the largest accelera-tion factors.

The above analysis procedures are deficit for the following reasons

1. Selection of height to width ratio for the frames does not provide a proper insight into the behavior of all frame members when the ratio varies over such a wide range. For example, the hangers (vertical members) would be subject to larger bending stresses when the ratio is low.

2. The use of loads with the largest acceleration values in the analysis of the base plate / angle and anchor bolt system is unconservative it precludes the possibility of vertical loads being directed upward, i.e. cpposite gravity. The imposition of upward forces on one beam and downward forces on an adjacent beam coupled appropriately with other forces could result in anchor bolts with higher loads than as originally calculated.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 9 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

d-Mms id O observation Log O

liffilitiliiiiiiiiiiiiiilillll classification Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observation No. Desctlption Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N CTS-00-05 The anchor bolts, base plate / angle and channel of cantilever X X X X X support Detail "E" were originally designed as two-way restraints to resist axial loads on the channel and moments about its major axis. In order to use Detail "E" on a cable tray riser, where it must act as a three-way restraint, the channel section was modified to resist moments about its weak axis. The ability of this configuration to function as intended, i.e., to also resist moments about the weak axis, could not be guaranteed since the anchor bolts and the base plate / angle were not evaluated for such a load.

CTS-00-06 The analysis and design of Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill X X X X X drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S was based upon the analysis and design of Standard Detail D 9, where i = 1 to 5 depending on the number of tray levels. The orientation of the major axis of the C6 x 8.2 section, used as a hanger for both support series, differs by 90 degrees. The major axis for Standard Detail Dj is out of the plane of the frame while for Details A, B, C and D it is in '

the plane of the frame. As a consequence, Details A, B, C and D .

are more flexible than Standard Details Dj. This was not con-sidered in the analysis. In addition the changes in the design of the beam connections to the hanger were not evaluated.

CTS-00-07 Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S X X X X X utilize base plates with concrete expansion anchor bolts to attach the beam members to vertical concrete surfaces. In the initial base plate analysis, the plate was evaluated as a pinned-pinned beam. The resulting plate stresses exceeded allowables. A second check of plate stresses was made, assuming ,

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 10 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

!M

- .m-----,

C) w Observation Log

('/)

w M L9 6 f l i flililiiiillillilliiiiiiiiiiii classincation Rev.No. 3 case 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observetton N Y N Y N Desctlption Y N Y N Y No.

that the plate acted as a fixed-fixed beam. The calculated stresses were then found to be acceptable.

The use of a fixed-fixed assumption is not necessarily representative of the actual situation.

CTS-00-08 The cumulative effect of the following analysis techniques X X X X X (PFR-01) and/or procedures may have a potential impact on plant safety:

Observation No, Description Checklist No.

CTS-00-01 Neglect of self-weight CTS-11, -13, -24, excitation of Cable -25, -32, -33, Tray Support. 35, -37,

~38, -39 CTS-00-02 Improper load combination All by the SRSS method or the algebraic sum method CTS-00-03 Errors in computer CTS-2, -3, -10 ,

modeling due to improper -11, -13. -24, load placement and assump- -25, -26, -27, tion that a rigid one- or -28, -29, -30, two- bolt base angle behaves. as a pinned -32, -33, -34, connection. -35, -36, -37,

-38, -39 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 11 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

M,= v-O observation c)

N Log o LO , Y Illllllllilillllillllill!!!!!!

classification Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated Observation Description Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N No.

CTS-00-04 Failure to consider the CTS-11, -13 -24, sensitivity of modeling -25. -32. -33, to frame size and load -34, -35. -37, combinations. -38, -39, CTS-00-05 Cantilever member with a CTS-6, -14, -15, two-bolt base connection -16, -17, -18, used as a three-way 20, -21, -22 restraint.

CTS-00-06 Improper orientation CTS-11, -13, of hanger axis.

CTS-00-07 Unconservative assumption CTS-11, -13 for base plate behavior.

WD-01-01 The upper locknut on the strut for pipe support SF-X-001-015- X X X X X F43R is not tightened.

WD-02-01 The gap between the clamp on support SF-X-007-014-F43R and the X X X '

X X strut on support SF-X-003-003-F43K varies from 1/4" to 7/16".

WD-02-02 The following snubbers were installed 180* from the configura- X X X X X tion shown on the support drawings:

1 SF-X-003-003-F43K 2 SF-X-003-005-F43K 3 SF-X-003-006-F43K

4) SF-X-005-017-F43K Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 12 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

=&

M LM ,IJ O observation Log O

imisiiiiiiiiiillill!!!!!!!II Rev.No. 3 Date 10/5/83 classification Definite Potential Potential Valid Finding Finding Closed Isolated No. Description Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N WD-03-01 The gap between the pipe and the structural steel for restraint X X X X X SF-X-033-007-F43R is 0" and 1" in the unrestrained direction.

The support drawing indicates a required gap of 1/2" on both sides of the pipe in that direction.

WD-07-01 The spent fuel pool cooling pump is single grounded. X X X X X WD-07-02 Temperature indicator X-TI-4837 was not installed. X X X X X WD-07-03 Of the six conduits checked, one instance was found where the X X X X X Cable and Raceway Schedule identified the conduit between Spent Fuel Cooling Panel XLV-06 and T130FCZ33 as C-03015123-2. The installation and routing drawing identified this as Conduit No.

C-13015123.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Sheet 13 of 13 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

- . _ - - . - - - _ - . _ _ - _ _ _ - -- - - _ ~ _ - - - _ _ _

2.0 PROGRAM REVIEW SCOPE This section describes the scope of work for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) Independent As,sessment Program (IAP) concentrated on the areas of design control, design, and as-built verification.

2.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES In order to satisfy the intent of this program and address the concerns and l comments expressed by the NRC, the following objectives were specified for the CPSES Independent Assessment Program: (1) to assess the adequacy of the design control system, (2) to verify implementation of selected elements of the design control system, (3) to assess the design adequacy of a selected system, and (4) to verify a selected as-built configuration. The overall program scope shown in Exhibit 2.1 was selected to fully satisfy the intent and objectives stated above. It included a broad review of the design control program within Texas Utilitiei and Gibbs & Hill, the architect / engineer for p CPSES. This broad, or " horizontal" review, is supplemented by " vertical" d reviews of selected elements of the overall design and design control process.

Specifically, the vertical reviews covered implementation evaluation of three design control elements (design analysis, design changes and interfaces), one design element (Residual Heat Removal / Safety Injection System, Train B) and one as-built verification element (Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System, Train "A").

2.2 SYSTEM ELEMENT SELECTION Selection of the scope was based, in part, upon the guidelines given in the May 4 and July 15, 1983 NRC letters to Texas Utilities. Specifically, the scope should include:

e a cross-section of disciplines; .

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-1 g g g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program gggggggy Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l_

e characteristics which cannot be verified by normal means, such as per-I formance testing; e several organizational interfaces; .

e design changes. .

Based on these criteria, a program was developed which addressed the specific concerns identified by the NRC. Selection of the systems for the vertical or implementation review was guided by the following criteria, taken primarily from the July 15, 1983 NRC letter to Texas Utilities:

• The review should involve a safety-related system; e The system reviewed should include a design and materials interface with the Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) vendor, Westinghouse;

• The system reviewed should include a design and materials interface with the Architect / Engineer (A/E), Gibbs & Hill; e The review should involve a system with demanding design parameters;

• The review should include a system which has been turned over to the start-up group.

l Based upon the above system selection criteria, the design review concentrated on the Residual Heat Removal (RHR)/ Safety Injection System - Train B, from the containment sump line penetration to the RHR heat exchanger nozzle > (Exhibit 2.2). Representative portions of the pipe stress, pipe support, electrical, l instrumentation and controls, and structural disciplines were included.

Further, to augment the technical review, an implementation review of design analysis control was performed on the de' sign process associated with the RHR/ Safety Injection-Train B.

i O qL8i)k A Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-2 mmmimmmimmlill Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

. l Implementation reviews of the remaining two selected elements of the design control program were chosen to provide added assurance that design changes and organizational interfaces were adequately controlled for a completed system.

This complete system, the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System - Train A, was also the subject of the.as-built verification aspect of the review (Exhibits 2.3 and 2.4). This portion of the review was structured to verify that the as ' j built condition matched the appropriate design documents. Similar to the design review, the as-built verification covered the following disciplines:

o Structural

• Electrical i e Piping

• Pipe Support e Instrumentations and Controls 2.3 DESIGN CONTROL REVIEW (HORIZONTAL REVIEW)

An evaluation of the Design Contro' Pr'ograms governing CPSES design was per-formed to ensure that an adequate design control program had been established.

f' This evaluation:

e  !

4 Determined whether Texas Utilities' design control activities as defined in their design control program documentation satisfied licensing commitments and project requirements;

}

e Determined whether the design control activities of Gibbs & Hill 4

satisfied the CPSES SAR and project requirements.

I t This broad review, or " horizontal" review, was conducted to ensure that an

adequate program was in place to provide control over the design and construction activities. , ,

i f

Texas Utilities Services. Inc. 2-3

'eg[ , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program mm Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 4

l

2.3.1 Review of Texas Utilities' Design Control Program l Cygna performed an evaluation of the key elements of the Texas Utilities design control program as applied to CPSES design. The key elements included:

i'

• Design input documents n

• Design analyses control e Drawing control e Procurement control e Internal / external interface control e Design verification e Document control (controlled documents), including revisions e Design change control e Corrective action e Internal / external audits and surveillances This evaluation included a review of the Texas Utilities design control program documentation to assess how well it addressed CPSES SAR commit-ments and project requirements with respect to the above key design control elements. The specific objectives were to:

• Determine the adequacy of the design control program in addressing the specific quality commitments;

• Assess the impact of the design control program deficiencies and/or weaknesses with respect to committed requirements governing design; e Determine areas requiring concentrated attention during the design control program vertical implementation evaluation.

C Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 3 3 ,

Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 11111lll11lll1111lllll!!!lllll

2.3.2 Review of Gibbs & Hill Design Control Program In conjunction with the Texas Utilities design control program review, Cygna performed a review of the Gibbs & Hill design control program.

Gibbs & Hill was selected since they are responsible for a major portion of the plant design. This review assessed how well their design control program addresses the commitments imposed through Texas Utilities con-tract documents and the CPSES SAR. Similar to the Texas Utilities review, the design control program was evaluated against the following key design control elements, as applicable:

e Design input control e Design analysis control e Drawing control e Procurement control e Internal / external interface control e Design verification e Document control e Design change control e Corrective action e Internal / external audits and surveillance The evaluation included a review similar to that done during the review of Texas Utilities' design control program, and identified the design control requirements imposed upon Gibbs & Hill through contract documents and the CPSES SAR.

l 2.4 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATIONS (VERTICAL REVIEW)

Five elements of the design process were selected to augment the program-matical ' horizontal reviews described above: control of design changes, control of design analyses, interface control, design of the RHR/ Safety Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-5 g[q g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 111111111111111111lll1lllll111 l

Injection - Train B System, and an as-built verification of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System - Train A. Because of the detailed nature of the items investigated (i.e., particular system, component, or process), this was termed the " vertical" portion of the Cygna review, an in-depth evaluation of how the design process was being implemented. The organizations responsible for the various aspects of the design / construction process of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and RHR systems are identified in Exhibits 2.5 through 2.9. Each element or system review is described below.

2.4.1 Design Change Controls Cygna conducted an implementation evaluation of the Texas Utilities and Gibbs & Hill design change control system. In this area, the basis for Cygna document sample selection was the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System design drawings and specifications. To supplement this evaluation of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System, Cygna also reviewed the Brown & Root design change control program as it pertains to their responsibilities as N-stamp holder, using the methodology (i .e. , checklist) described in Section 3.

In the review, the Cygna personnel were responsible for:

• Verifying by examination and evaluation of objective evidence that the established design change control program element has been implemented; e assessing the degree of implementation; and e identifying the impact of failures (if any) to implement the quality assurance program.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-6

g. ,

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01,-Rev. 0 18111llll1lll11111lll1llllll-

1 O

4 In the design change area, Cygna focused on drawings, specifications, and s calculations, since changes to these affect the final component. Use of the checklists ensured uniformity in the review and that all changes were noted.

2.4.2 Design Analysis Control For the design analysis control evaluation, Cygna focused its activities on the Gibbs & Hill design of the Residual Heat Removal system - Train B.

These evaluations were performed at the Gibbs Hill offices both in New York and at the Comanche Peak jobsite. Using checklists, the Cygna personnel reviewed calculations, computer programs, and their references to ensure that the procedures noted in the program review had been imple-mented.

2.4.3 Interface Control In the Interface Control implementation evaluation for Texas Utilities C and Gibbs & Hill, Cygna again focused on the design and construction of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System. As a supplement, the Brown & Root activities in this area were also included. For Texas Utilities, the external interface control review evaluated the activities performed by the following subcontractors:

e Gibbs & Hill e ITT-Grinnell-e Brown & Root (N-stamp review only) e Joseph Oat e Reliance e Bingham Willamette e Borg-Warner -

l e Posiseal l

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-7 g{tj i i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lililitilllitilliimillilllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O I

l 2.4.4 Technical Design Review I

V In addition to the design control implementation review, Cygna performed a design assessment which consisted of the multi-disciplined technical review of the Residual Heat Removal / Safety Injection System (RHR) -

Train B. Cygna reviewed the design starting from the most recent revision of the drawings and applicable design documents. The mechani-cal, electrical, instrumentation and controls, and structural aspects of the design as performed by the responsible organizations were evaluated.

Each review discipline is discussed below to provide additional insight into the depth of the efforts.

Mechanical Review Activities The mechanical review activities considered the flow of information between Texas Utilities and its engineering consultants and contractors as detailed in Exhibit 2.10. It reviewed the information received and how it was integrated into the design of the RHR/ Safety Injection system for Comanche Peak. The division of this work is summarized in tabular form on Exhibit 2.5.

This review concentrated on the pipe stress analysis of the RHR/ Safety Injection System (Train B) piping from the containment sump penetration to the Heat Exchanger Nozzle and all branch lines out to the first anchor. Pipe supports located on the main flow path and branch line anchors, as well as the seismic qualification of the RHR pump, were also included. The review verified the design adequacy and ensured that technical information was properly transferred between organizations, such as, from Gibbs & Hill to the pipe support designer. The review included a detailed evaluation of the following:

' Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-8 l M t-j . , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l ,,,;,;;,,,, . Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

-

• Criteria Documents; V

e Pipe Stress Analyses (Gibbs & Hill problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70);

e Pipe Support Design (by TUSI and various subcontractors);

e Equipment Qualification Requirements (Seismic Qualification of the RHR Pump by Westinghouse); and e Flued Head Design (Penetration MS-2, by Gulf and Western).

In keeping with the philosophy of this program, the criteria / design instructions were reviewed, followed by the implementation of those instructions.

Structural Review Activities The structural review of the RHR system consisted of a design check of 4

% the supports for the cable trays that carry the power supply cable to the pump. To verify the adequacy of the supports, the following items were reviewed as a minimum (see Exhibit 2.12):

e Supporting spacing, e Loads and load combinations, o Stresses in structural members, welds, anchor bolts and base-plates, o Allowable stresses in the above.

The scope here included forty separate cable tray supports. Since many of these supports were " typical", these forty were designed by Gibbs &

Hill using fifteen standard details. Thus, the scope, in a sense, also included all supports designed using those same standard details, l

i

1. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-9 i te (( j g ,

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1111111llll181111111111111llll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l

l l

l r __ -- . .l

Electrical Review Activities ,

As shown in Exhibits 2.7 and 2.11, the electrical discipline review focused on two specific design areas. The first area was the RHR Train B pump motor power current between the 6.9 KV Safeguards Bus 1EA2 and the pump motor (TBX-RHAPRH-02). The review was limited to the power circuit and did not include the motor control circuit. One endpoint of the review was at the terminal on the high voltage side of the control transformer. The review did not assess the design adequacy of the input power circuits to the Safeguards Bus.

The second focus of the electrical review was on the control circuit for isolation valve 1-8811-B located outside of the containment in the valve isolation tank. The review began at the 120 V terminals on the valve circuit control transformer. The review assessed the control circuit design as it interfaces with annunciator system, process computer, moni-tor light box, and other motor operated valve control circuits.

Cygna first reviewed the SAR commitments and preliminary requirements, Westinghouse interlock sheets, design instructions and general motor and cable design specifications to obtain review criteria. The electrical power distribution, cable separation and routing, and equipment qualification requirements were also noted. Cygna also reviewed the flow of information across the various interfaces to ensure the use of correct design data. The design calculations were then reviewed to ensure adequate implementation of the criteria and data.

2.4.5 As-Built Verification The final activity to assure that the systems, components and structures were installed to the latest design documents was the as-built walkdown i of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System - Train A. The as-built review O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-10 A{y, Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 3

1111111lllll11111lll11llllll11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

team performed a detailed field veri fication including check of com-ponents associated with the mechanical, structural, electrical, and instrumentation and control areas. Examples of the checks performed include- -

I e Identification, location and installation of piping and mechanical  !

equipment.

• Location, configuration and detailing of pipe supports and supporting structures, e Cable and raceway identification, installation, routing, separation and termination, e Instrumentation location and identification.

i e Equipment location, orientation, anchorage, support structures, and identification.

V 1

- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2-11 A[ g 3 Comanche Peak-Independent Assessment Program 111111111llll111111111ll111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

EXHIBIT 2.1 IISEPElBEllT ASSESSENT ACTIVITIES g....... ....

..)

M*DesignAnalysis l l.

L.... Control Gibbs & Hill Design Change

'e Design Control >== "* Lontrol Program m>

Quality Assurance Texas Utilities' Texas uttittles' interface Licensing

• Quality Assurance -

• Design Control == mm Control ComeIteentf Program Progran 4 - . .. -

Remaining As-Butit e 18 Criteria '* Vertftcation 10CFR50. App. B

.. J me Design Cygna Revt scope - - - - - - - - - - - -

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g[ ,

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lummlililllNimilililli Final Report TR-83090 01, Rev. 0 l

i HIBIT 2.2 RHR TRAIN '8" FLOW DIAGRAM

RESIDUAL HEAT EXCHANGER j TBX-RHAHRS-02 i

,  %/ ALTERNATE POWER SOURCES ,

n

e. xv sArEauARO aus

! 10-4W4-1-002-401R-2 '

Al+-1-034-401R-2 TEirORARY STRAset 1 1- C && v

^

u j v (.,, -

, i 1

e-Rw-i-oe4-e04-2 t l _conTRottOsc  ! e-Ru-i-eio-e0 :2-2 RESIDUAL HEAT i - EmunciATiOu LOaic  ! myg y

_ uAmuAi. couTROt  : VALVE ISOLATION TANK i

- PROCESS COMPUTER OUTPUT--' TBX-RHAPRH-02 o i

CPf-RHATVT-02 i

TRAIN "B" N COssTROL TRANSFORMER j e '

I g AAA i ( -

yg - -

l EMPANSiON JOefT 1.-31-1-075-401R-2 1 -PENETRATION MS-2 l

i i

i j Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

. ~ . - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _.m . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . _.. _ _ _ _ _ m . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _

d

.s EXHIBIT 2.3 SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING ELEE NT

..t .. r (CP1-W AltW-05)

Caeltog Iseter Pump q Irate A

,dIEI'

.) -w M l L i.

A i

, Inset ,schenger

, (CPI-U AstW-32) j --- C Irele B "" * . .

} _ m. ., m_,

~ ~ ' '

-U- C Il4 mur G

~

., a i (CPR-M APW-82) y I ,

i I s f -

,I I , , , < ,

l

:  : :

-< , 7. ,, ,

)

i ti .f *3 .;7 F

ee t F o n;

:: : :

vv t-*ln le:. mal onure . 3 i .

kk 3I . I"'. ' '8"'51. .

T-f 5hrger EisMlles

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

unit & hit 2 4 "MN Speat fuel Peel

! Spent fuel Peel (IUP 4 Places) f

-- w-. _

.. - -. w -

l l Texas Utilities Services Inc.

! ({P; , F i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program c - Final Report TR-83090-Ole Rev. 0 l

5 EXHIBI 4 EERAL ammaannENT 01UWING FUEL BUILDING 9' O _" e

N / *

• Plant horth

\.

/ .

Twel Mandling Bridge Cradt

// OP,. \ '

~ ~ , , . . . . , r. , c ,-

e.  % fl00m RAIL

. - . . _ _ .- . -. .. =. -- -- --

$PfMT / \ .#

• htW IUIL STORAGE Pli PtNI IUEL NO. 1 g

, /

c~ .

\ -

( Contatament ,

and Reactor

( ,Cgat deent i - -

and Reactor m _

fl01)R RAlt , . m j h L 1

4o 1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Lyd Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program m' '

k Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

1 EXHIBIT 2.5 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ECHANICAL (SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING) _

Texas ITT Utilities G&H W Grinnel B&R NPSI

1) Conceptual Design X(1) X X(2)

2) Design Criteria X X(2)

3) System Design X X(2)

4) Piping Layout X

5) Pipe Stress Analysis X

6) Input to Pipe Stress a) ARS X b) SAM X c) Hydrodynamic Loads N/A d) Support Stiffness X

7) Pipe Support Design X X(4) X

8) Pipe Anchor Design X X X

9) Equipment Supports X

10) Installation X

11) Purchase Specifications X

12) Procurement X

13) As-Built Drawings a) Pipe X b) Pipe Supports X (1) Approval Only (2)For NSSS components including R.H.R. system (3)Balanceofplant (4) Responsible for a majority of the supports O

d Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

L% [tj i i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11llll1111:1ill111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

O O O EXHIBIT 2.6 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX EQUIPfENT (SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING - TRAIN A)

Texas Bingham Borg-Utilities G&H J. Oat Willamette Warner Posiseal B&R

1) Conceptual Design X II) X

2) Gesign Criteria X

3) Qualification Requirements X

4) Input Design Loads X

5) Analysis, Qualification Reports '

and Fabrication Drawings

a. Cooling Water Pump X

b. Heat Exchanger X

c. Butterfly valves X

d. Check and Gate Valves X

6) Purchase Specifications X

7) Procurement X X

8) Installation

9) A -Built Configuration X (1) Approval Only Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

.. Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Li Ld. i 11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O IMMUNNEREINEM

EXHIBIT 2.7 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ELECTRICAL AND I&C (SPENT FUEL POOL ConLING T"N M A)

Texas Utilities G&H Reliance B&R

1) Conceptual Design X(1) X

2) Design Criteria X a

3) Pump Motor Design X Specification l 4) Contractor Purchase Order X

5) Equipment Qualification X Requirements i

6) Design Package Document X

7) Cooling Pump Motor X Control Panel

8) Electrical Power and X Control One-Line Diagrams O 9) Cable Specification and Routing Requirements X

10) Cable Tray and Raceway X

, Design

11) Instrumentation Design X

12) Procurement X

13) Installation X

14) As-Built Configuration X (1) Approval Only I l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g4 [ , g

~

i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 116161111111101111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 1

EXHIBIT 2.8 0

b RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ELECTRICAL /INSTRlmENT AND CONTROLS (RHRTRAINB) -

Texas Utilities G&H Westinghouse B&R

1) System Descriptions X

2) System Logics X

3) Electrical Wiring Diagrams X

4) Equipment Qualification X Requirements

5) Equipment Qualification X

6) Pump and Valve Procurement X and Specifications

7) Electrical Power and X

, One-line Diagrams

) 8) Instrument and Control X Diagrams

9) Schematic and Connection X Diagrams

10) Termination Diagrams X i

11) Cable and Raceway Supports X

12) Cable and Raceway Schedule X

13) Installation Specifications X

14) Installation X i

d i

n U i Texas Utilities Services Inc.

6.4 [ 6 a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program MilllisillitilllMillisil Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

l 1

i EXHIBIT 2.9 RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX (STRUCTURAL)

Texas Utilities G&H B&R

1) Conceptual Design X(1) X

2) Design Criteria X

3) Building Arrangement X

4) Seismic Analysis X

5) Structural Analysis X

6) Input Loads a) Ground Spectra X b) Other Loads X

7) Structural Design X

8) Final Drawings X

9) Purchase Specification X

10) Procurement X

11) Construction X

12) As-Built Configuration X (1) Approval Only Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

A { ;g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Hillilililllllfilllillllilill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

I EXHIBIT 2.10 i

VERTICAL REVIEW  !

PIPING Als COMPONENT  !

(RNR/SAFETYIfWECTION) 1 O

SAA/CouCtpfuAL -

M51 din

)

f Sf5 Tim Am FLOW DIAGAARS (IElfinuouM) f f T MSIGk CAlfft!A M 5!th CalTERIA P! E55 P2PL 15 1 I f

P2PlhG LAf0WT (Gen) 6 mattA! AL 4 (OulPMthi SPECIFICAfluh5 (S4H) f

. _ .!"__"'"' 5 ggsm!g Long$ N yLLOP N00tL5 pet 55unt apu j I I 1 M 5utf5 STI M u!TM ALLouA8tts Mt!PT EWEfat (Gen)

,____I '

_____t._

FLuto elitt/fou!PmEnf PIPE SWPPoef NEAD Of5tGm ieALuAi!on A m AmCnos DillGN (GULF 8 E571Rs) (utlilannouM) (talentLL)

___y _ _,

I ftAm5Fla 0F Len95 to SftWCTlmt 4

PWMP An0 94 Lyt vaLvt Aa0 (ges) Am Ent ut gua 181CA 104 (WE518eeMOW5t) (utlileEm0ull)

A8-4 WILT IRAsla l (fv51) .

uum g_______- , to,, ,a,.n irito Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Asses: ment Program bymimimmtemIlli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

EXHIBIT 2.11 VERTICAL REVIEW ELECTRICAL /INSTRtK NT & CONTROLS O (RHR/ SAFETY INJECTION) 54R/0f5!G4 KQUIRLENT5 t

$YSTEM K5CRIPi!0u1 (ESTlussouSt) t t t EQUIPENT !sTERLOCK SPECIFICAfl045 5Mitti (W5finEMOU51) (W5finGn0U$t) h (LECTRICA f WIRlhG DIAfsRAM5 i s '

(W5flh6HOU5t) l q

_ _ _ - I PROCURE It3 TRIM NT Amo (QUIPEnt CONTROL OIAEAAMS (EST!stMOU5t) (ElH3 & MILL)

~--- L_

3CE m TIC AND 4

Comattfloh DIAGRAMS:

11-0062 SER111 (GINS & MILL)

---

g-

- - L.- ,

TERMleAT10m DIA6AAM5

($1M5 & MILL)

CASLt AND AACleAt j 3CMEDutt (111700 5tRIES) j (SIM5 & MILL)

.--- 3 PULL CARDS

(&lM3& MILL)

I IN5f4LLAflon '

(Obest & ROOT)

Lista To as vertfled

} sy w F_- " -

i I

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

, , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i

,, Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

EXHIBIT 2.12 VERTICAL REVIEW RACEWAY SUPPORTS (RNR/ SAFETY INJECTION) ,

- l SAR/ DESIGN REQUIREMENTS DESIGN PLANT CRITERIA PHYSICAL LAYOUT (GIBBS& HILL) (GIBBS & HILL)

J__, l SEISMIC I SUPPORT DESIGN I TRAY I

LOADS (GIBBS & HILL)

! (BASED ON MAXIMUM I SPACING SPECIFIED I

LAYOUT (GIBBS & HILL) l BY VENDOR  !

l I L__(GIBBS & HILL) I o __I TRANSFER LOADS TO STRUCTURE (GIBBS & HILL) 1 r FABRICATION SPECIFICATION (GISBS & HILL)

INSTALLATION (8ROWN& ROOT) j- g venfted i

l O Texas Utilities Services. Inc.

g[ , , Coreanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

, Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

3.0 ETH000 LOGY This section describes the methodology for the Texas Utilities CPSES Indepen-dent Assessment Program. In contrast to the previous s'ection, which described the scope of the review effort, the present section deals with the tools and procedures used by Cygna Energy Services to conduct the reviews.

In order to facilitate an understanding of the project approach discussed below, Exhibit 3.1 provides a listing of the specific terminology which was established with the NRC during the Independent Design Verification Programs for Mississippi Power & Light and Detroit Edison. The same terminology was used in this Independent Assessment Program for Texas Utilities.

Essentially, the approach involved performing the review, noting unsatisfac-tory items, evaluating design impact, noting all observations, and evaludting any potential safety impact. To accomplish this, the review followed the basic steps listed below:

• Collect Documents

• Develop Review Criteria e Develop Review Procedures e Conduct Review and Implementation Evaluations

• Project Team Review e Senior Review Team o Report Results Exhibit 3.2 shows the review process from a line item on a checklist (Step 4) to this final report (Step 7). Throughout the process, items identified as having potential impact on plant safety were given immediate 6ttention. By focusing its extensive quality assurance and technical experience in this program Cygna ensured that every potential finding received the prompt attention of both the project team and senior review team. This important O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-1 L k & Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program MMMMMMmM Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l l

step assured Texas Utilities of the timely notification of any items concluded to have a definite potential for impacting plant safety.

s Each of these basic steps of Exhibit 3.2 is further described in the following subsections.

3.1 DOCUMENT COLLECTION Cygna collected and reviewed documents in two stages. During the first stage.

the review teams identified those central documents which guide the design control process, such as the SAR, QA manuals, and project procedures.

Reviewing these central documents provided an understanding of how the work

! process was structured and directed. During the second stage of data collec-1 tion, the review teams identified and gathered those documents needed to complete the review. To facilitate the review process, the review teams i

conducted the implementation review at the most convenient work location, typically where the documents were kept. This enabled the teams to develop a better understanding of both the documents aad the methods used in their generation. Appendix C contains a list of all documents and drawings reviewed

by Cygna Energy Services during this Independent Assessment Program, i

j 3.2 REVIEW CRITERIA t

] A key element in the review was the development of review criteria to measure l the adequacy of the design and design control process. These review criteria were a composite of licensing commitments. CPSES requirements, industry codes and standards, and Cygna engineering and design experience. These review

criteria provide a means for measuring the adequacy of a system design and I design control pror.ess.

Texas Utilities' and Gibbs & Hill's QA programs were evaluated using a matrix criteria which compared the key elements of their design control program to V) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-2 g 6 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program g a m men gsu Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

industry standards and licensing commitments. In a similar manner, each technical discipline (mechanical, structural, electrical, walkdown) developed detailed project criteria. These criteria are contained in Appendix E.

, 3.3 PROCEDURES The horizontal review was guided by matrices, while the vertical reviews were guided by checklists. These tools identified key elements to be evaluated during the design control review and implementation evaluation, respectively.

. Any time a reviewer determined that a line item on the matrix or checklist was j inadequately addressed, the item was noted on the checklist or matrix, as 1 appropriate. All discrepancies were reviewed by the Project Review to deter-mine if it should be recorded as an observation. Any observations later determined to a have potential safety impact were recorded as a " Potential Finding Report" (PFR). Matrices, Checklists, Observation Records and PFR's are described in more detail in the following sections.

3.3.1 Matrices The programmatical reviews involved developing a quality program matrix, which identified the quality requirements committed to with a cross correlation to the Texas Utilities and Gibbs & Hill design control program. The completed matrices are provided in Appendix D. Appropriate portions of the following Texas Utilities design control documents were used to develop the matrix:

e CPSES OA Program l

• CPSES Project Quality Engineering Procedures e CPSES Project Quality Engineering Instruction e CPSES Site Document Control Procedure t

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-3 L Jk & Comanche Peak In<tependent Assessment Program ,

mmmWWmme Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l l

l

l i

I Using these matrices the adequacy of the Texas Utilities and Gibbs & Hill l design control programs was evaluated with respect to the licensing i' comitments and. project requirements. If any aspect of the design control program was found to either not address or-Inadequately address a

- requirement, the matrix element was marked " unsatisfactory" and the discrepancy is recorded in the comments column of the matrix.

i 3.3.2 Checklists i Appendix H contains the completed checklists from the vertical implemen- f j tation evaluations. As a reviewer checked each line item on a check-j lists, its adequacy was evaluated against the review crierta. If the i requirements were met, the line item was marked " satisfactory." Whenever i significant conservatisms were identified, they were so noted in the j " comments" column. If the reviewer was not fully satisfied that the j j requirement had been met, the " unsatisfactory" column was checked, and the discrepancy was recorded in the comments column. In order to assess ,

! the degree of implementation of the Cygna-prepared checklists to focus the review activities towards key areas of the five implementation

] processes, the checklist contained key design control element attributes l l (questions derived from procedural commitments to be reviewed during the review) and design evaluation guidelines. Emphasis was placed on  !

i developing attributes pertaining to activities which, if not properly I l implemented, would result in the greatest impact on quality. The check-  !

j list served the purpose of ensuring depth and comprehensive coverage in i the review. It was intended to be utilized only as a guide during the evaluation process and did not restrict the review investigation. To j provide further review continuity, the individuals who participated in l the actual review were involved in the preparation of checklists. This  ;

ensured that it was performed in accordance with both the content and '

{

j intent of the checklist. ,

4 i

l-i n

U Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-4 g , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ,

WWWMemmMW Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 i

+

.a.. ,=m, ...-wm-. n. , - , , - - - , , ~ 4..-,- ,,m-.m ~-m -

c- wn,,- .m-< 4~,w,-g, -,,,--my,y,,.,--,,,-,ey_n.,,,n-myysv-,w,,-c,,,,,r,,,-,,-,,9 ,~,-m-se-,--w,,,

When a discrepancy is noted, it is recorded on the checklist and then

! reviewed by at least two members of the project team. It is the resonsibility of these team members to evaluate (1) the completeness and j accuracy of the discrepancy, and (2) the potential ~ design impact.

4 If the information is both complete and accurate, and if the discrepancy has potential impact on design, an Observatton is recorded.

3.3.3 Observation Record i

Completed Observation Records are shown in Appendix F. The observation number is a unique number sequentially assigned to each observation within a checklist. It contained a description of the discrepancy, the j requirements, and an initial assessment of the potential design impact.

4 Each observation record was prepared by the originator of the observation and then reviewed by a qualified person assigned by the Project l Manager. Based on this review, an evaluation by the Project Team, consultation with Cygna specialists, and discussions with Texas Utilities technical and quality assurance staff, an Observation Record Review was

! then prepared. This review record documents an assessment of probable ,

l cause and resolution of each observation. This determination was approved by the Project Manager and the observation originator.

l 3.3.4 Potential Finding Report l

j Completed Potential Finding Reports (PFRs) are contained in Appendix G.

! Each PFR was assigned a sequential number starting with 01. On this form, the cognizant reviewer recorded a description of the observation,

an assessment as to the extent of- the observation plus an evaluation of

, the design and safety impact. The PFR was then reviewed by the Senior Review team for completeness and accuracy.

I E

1 .

t i

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-5 a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program mummmmmmum Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

If the Senior Review Team determined that the observation did indeed have

~

a definite potential impact on plant safety, the finding would have been reported to Texas Utilities and the NRC by the Project Manager.

3.4 PROGRAM AND IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Reviews of the CPSES design control process were divided into two areas:

o Program adequacy e Extent of program implementation i

The assessment of design control program adequacy was performed on Teras Utilities and Gibbs & Hill, the architect / engineer. Three elements of the program (design analysis, design change, and interface controls) were used to assess the extent of program implementation at Texas Utilities and Gibbs &

Hill. Additional confirmation of the program implementation was achieved through an as-built walkdown and design review.

Each review team consisted of at least two individuals jointly capable of performing and reviewing the work. These review teams were guided by the review criteria matrices and checklists descibed in the previous subsections.

Members of the teams performed the initial reviews, completed the matrices and checklists, and originated observations.

In the program matrix area, the reviews concentrated on the following areas as essential to plant safety:

• Design input control

, o Design analysis control e Drawing control

! e Procurement contrul -

e Internal / external interface control Texas Utilities Services Inc. 3-6 g,*h { g 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program llellHeleNINelluulinlill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

e Design verification e Document control e Design change control e Corrective action '

• Internal / external audits and surveillance

! The matrices and checklists developed ensured that the governing criteria would be met and that any deviations would be noted as observations.

l l

In the technial implementation review, the Cygna teams assessed the adequacy of the design analysis for the following areas:

I e Pipe Stress Analysis

]

Check inp!!t data (pressure, operating modes, anchor movements.

l dynamic loads)

Verify that the computer model uses the proper geometry, section properties, supports, components Ensure special features are considered (Valve stem frequencies, nozzle load checks, local stress analysis for lugs)

Review stress report data (load cases and combinations, valve accelerations, piping displacements) e Pipe Support Design Review input data (required support stiffness, support type, piping deflections and loads)

Review design calculations (welds, members, standard components, i

, Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-7 Li ( 6 a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Nummenspump Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

i proper computer modeling, consideration of base plate flexibility)

Check support drawings (type, location, clearances, size of members, weld data, anchor bolt data) e Equipment Qualification

,. f f

- Review Qualification ' file (adequate documentation, proper references) ,-

f Check drawings and load' input (dimensions, weights, material properties, pressure, temperature, dynamic loads)

Review design calculations (structural integrity, operability, computer modeling)

Review test results (conformance with standards, similarity to actual component, natural, frequencies Test Report Spectra)

• Flued Head Review input data (materials, pressure, temperature, piping loads)

Review computer model (dimensions, material properties, method)

Review stress report (code checks, hand verification of model) e Structural Design (Cable Tray Supports)

,, ie I

Support spacing check ,

Review of loads and load combinations (dead, live, seismic) b t s s Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-8

, g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program umMNNNmWNNNmm Final Report TR-83090 01, Rev. 0

<f l

(, 'y

( i

V l

Review of stresses and use of allowables (members, welds, anchor l bolts, plates)

Electrical Review (Power and Instrumentation a'nd Controls)

Js

- Verify that electrical distribution system one-line diagrams comply with basic design considerations of electrical engineering.

Review electrical power and control systems overall design against appropriate regulations and standards identified in SAR.

Review electrical design criteria for voltage tolerance limits and incorporation into the RHR pump assembly specifications and motor nameplate data.

Check cab'le size for adequate ampacity, voltage drop and short circuit considerations.

Check cabla voltage rating and insulation rating against electri-cal design criteria Check cable specification and cable manufacturer's data for incor-poration of cable ratings.

Review cable schedule and raceway (conduit) design for maintenance of voltage and system separation requirements.

.a Check short-circuit analysis for maximum fault current . at the generator bus caused by a fault at RHR-Train B pump.

Check breaker interrupting rating for compliance with 6900V switchgear specification.

7 d' V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-9 0 LT[#3g-i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 18111111lll1ll1111111111111lll F1nal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O L

bh _ _ _ _

l l

1

- Check protective relay settings.

O -

Verify conformance of the Gibbs & Hill control circuit with design input documentation from Westinghouse. -

Verify that design documents and specifications identify Nuclear Safety Related components as appropriate. l Check interconnection ano control cable identification and routing against the cable and raceway schedule and routing design criteria.

Check electrical isolation between safety and non-safety currents.

• As-Built Walkdowns Check component locations against drawings Review installation against specifications and vendor data O -

Review identification of cables and raceways l

Check welding and support orientation l As is evident from the above, the Cygna implementation review teams considered those areas important to plant safety and subjected each to a detailed review.

3.5 PROJECT REVIEW TEAM Exhibit 3.2 illustrates the role of the Project Team review in' the decision l process. When a discrepancy or an observation was identified, a Project Team review was performed to verify the accuracy of the concern, its completeness, the design impact, and the extent. Given this information, the potential safety impact could be evaluated.

fD V Texas Utilities' Services, Inc.

3-10 t [t'j g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessmeat Program l11811111111111111111111ll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

~'

Once an observation was determined to be the proper course of action an V integral part of the Project Team review was an interface with Texas Utilities to confirm the accuracy of an observation and to evaluate the design impact.

To maintain independence, all such interfaces with~ Texas Utilities were j recorded in the form of conference reports or telephone conversation reports. l In addition to reviewing observations, the Project Team also reviewed the completed checklists to verify their completeness and accuracy.

3.6 SENIOR REVIEW TEAM All valid observations and PFR's were reviewed by the Senior Review Team. A cognizant member of this team, assisted as necessary by Cygna in-house consultants, reviewed each observation for completeness, accuracy, and poten-tial impact on plant safety. Based on their assessment, the Senior Review Team then would do either of the following:

• Appecve the Project Team conclusions.

• Direct the Project Team to perform more work, such as clarifying data, redirecting the review, or performing additional asussnents within the current work scope.

The Senior Review Team also evaluated the collective safety impact of observa-tions that were individually concluded to have insignificant safety conse-quences. During the entire review process, those potential findings were identified as having potential safety impact received immediate and first priority attention. Should the Senior Review Team conclude that the observa-tion did have a definite potential impact on plant safety, the finding would be reported immediately to Texas Utilities in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21.

l be . Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3-11 l LTFj g i_ Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l lilllilllliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l

l

l EXHIBIT 3.1 TERMINOLOGY Term Definition Checklist A listing of key items to be checked during the independent l assessment. The checklist provides a guide to the reviewer; it is neither all inclusive nor limiting.

Review Criteria A compilation of acceptable procedures and standards. The adequacy of the design and design control process is measured against these criteria.

Observation Identification of an item in apparent nonconformance with the project review criteria and judged to have potential design impact. An observation does not imply an assessment with respect to design adequacy.

Invalid Any observation which is judged to be inaccurate as a Observation result of further review. l Valid An accurate and complete observation as judged by the Observation Project and Senior Review Teams, which requires further review to assess design impact.

Potential A valid observation having a potential impact on plant Finding safety as judged by the Project Review Team.

Vertical Review A review of selected systens or elements of the total plant design.

Horizontal A quality assurance review of design control procedures and Review their implementation.

Definite A potential finding verified by the Senior Review Team to Potential have a potential impact on plant safety. This is a Finding reportable finding to CG8E under requirements of 10CFR Part 21.

() _

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

NMi i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11lllllll111111llll111llllllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

} 0 EXHIBIT 3.2 REVIEW PROCESS FLOW CHART ORsGINATCR REVIEWER PROJECT REVIEW SENIOR REVIEW TEAM cou.ns .... n.s p o uosi:

.n I

.ns . ..s g

.s wev =i .. ..w . .

/. .i CHECKLIST e

= = . I "'

=_:: . ,,,

l=:a l - : ..... ..

g es .u.

e.r - y ...s. .

.m niss . suas

... . s....: .c ....... 6 .

.n. . . . . . .

...on.e c.u.s w ==

.. .ss.u

a. . s.u

.nc.n

";',*"'.7,*"" *"'-

.o :a a <=-= m :

...n - n u. -  :.,.n.,.7,-l:,

. ,,...u.a = ==

• i A, . -. . n I i- l.l

... u u.  :

, ci . i -

OBSERVATION a .: .s . .

n. = . n.n.

wn ..i / .n n. a .n . . . .

== -.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . ... ._-_ . ...... .,_ . _N. T;;.;;..

. ..an.

POTENTIAL g -

FINDING """ "'* ....

REPORT . p i.. an.n i ..u. .

....... .os.a c.cs. w . u ..

. .u.w.m . .a=wn. i

. n .. .n.

...... .. . ... w n. -..

......n . . . ....

..n....

..n... -

. . u ..

u.. n...

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

i,.4 ( t i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lillHIHililllNINNiilllill Final Report TR-83090-01. Rev. 0

4.0 REVIEW RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 3

(V After preparing the criteria, matrices, and checklists described in the previous sections, the Cygna review team completed 'the assessment of the defined scope. Appendix C contains a list of the documents reviewed by Cygna.

This section describes the results of each assessment and draws a final con-clusion concerning the design of the plant. Each phase of the assessment is detailed in the following paragraphs. Also included are the descriptions of the observations noted during the review and their resolution. All completed observations are contained in Appendix F.

4.1 DESIGN CONTROL PROGRAM 4.1.1 Texas Utilities Design Control Program.

The review of the Texas Utilities documented design control program resulted in no observations. The design control program, as documented in the CPSES DA Plan, Project Quality Engineering Procedures and '

Supporting Instructions, Site Document Control Precedures and the Quality Procedures in total, adequately addressed the requirements of ANSI-N45.2.11 draft 2, revision 2, " Quality Assurance Requirements for the Design of Nuclear Prwer Piants,' as committed ta in the CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report. This conclusion is supported by the quality program matrix shown in Appendix D, which identifies the quality require-ments committed to with a cross correlation to the respective procedural controls within the Texas Utilities design control program documents.

4.1.2 Gibbs & Hill Design Control Program The review of the Gibbs & Hill documented design control program resulted in no observations. This design control program as documented in the (d

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-1

) d Ojg i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11lll111lllllllllllllllll1lli1 F1nal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

? _

i Gibbs & Hill CPSES Project Procedure and Project Guide Manuals adequately

( addressed the requirements of ANSI N45.2.11 draft 2, revision 2. This conclusion is supported by the quality program matrix as shown in Appendix D, which identifies the committed quality requirements with a cross correlation to the respective procedural controls within the Gibbs

& Hill design control program documents.

4.2 IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION 4.2.1 Design Change Control 4.2.1.1 Texas Utilities The implementation evaluation of Texas Utilities Design Change Control Program resulted in four valid observations, identified as DC-01-01 through DC-01-04, and summarized as follows:

00-01-01 The CPSES site document control center master log of outranding design changes issued against drawings or specifications is not accurate.

DC-0*-02 The CPSES controlled document recipient logs of out-standing design changes issued against drawings or specificiations are not accurate.

DC-01 All drawings are not identified with a marking indi-cating that outstanding design changes have been issued against such.

DC-01-04 The CPSES Design Change Tracking Group design verifica-tion tracking system-is not accurate.

O O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. -

4-2 L*k[**ji i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll11111llllllllll11lllllll1111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O t

TUSI was previously aware of these problems documented by observa-tions DC-01-01 through DC-01-03 through the various other reviews and audits performed at CPSES. In fact, TUSI had initiated planning for a new document control prograin which would alleviate the conditions existing in the Document Control Program prior to the IAP findings. In summary, this program consists of the following actions:

A) Establish document control satellite stations to better contral the distribution of design documents including all associated design changes.

B) Develop an accurate computer manual listing of all . design drawings, listing all outstanding design changes. This entails Texas Utilities performing a complete review of all design documents, design changes, respective Gibbs & Hill (G8H) design review records, the computer listing of design changes issued against G&H-generated design documents, and the newly developed TUSI Design Change Tracking Group computerized design review status listing.

C) Pevise the existing documert control center manually operated desi5n change and design document logging and distribution syr, tem via the use of the new computerized document control system (see paragraph B above). The new computerized system is used as the basis for control of all outstanding design changes issued against affected documents. Further, this listing controls the distribution of design changes to the appropriate satellite files and replaces, in. part, the satellite file manual logging system.

-,v Texas Utilities Services Inc. 4-3 LT[D i a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll::  ::lili Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

The above described system, which was developed and partially instituted during the progress of the IAP is approximately 85".

complete as of October 15, 1983. The Cygna follow-up review of a

~

substantial sample determined that each of the three observations, DC-01-01 through DC-01-03, has been resolved. For complete details of these observations, including their resolution, refer to Appendix F.

In the case of observation DC-01-04, Cygna determined that the computerized listing, at the time of observation identification, was in the process of being developed / refined. Furthermore, this listing was being utilized only as a design review tracking mechanism and not as a control document for a complete / accurate listing of design changes issued. Subsequently, the computerized listing was completed (see discussion above) and incorporated into the newly denloped docuinent control program. At that time, it became the master listing for design changes issued against affected design documents. For complete details of this observa-3 tion and its closure refer to Appendix F.

1 4.2.1.2 Gibbs & Hill The implementation of the Gibbs & Hill design change centrol program resulted in one valid observation (DC-02-01). Thf5 observation identified instances where design specifications and changes had been issued prior to the performance of design review and/or resolution of design reviewer comments.

Investigation into this area revealed that the same condition had been identified through the TUSI audit program during 1975 and 1976. TUSI and Gibbs & Hill conducted extensive corrective action and follow-up activities throughout the 1976 through 1979 time m

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-4 L Fjg i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 19111111lll1111111111lllllllll F1nal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

frame including the institution of additional procedural controls, personnel training, and development of action listings to resolve the audit deficiencies. In addition, after the 1979 time frame, continued monitoring in the form of TUSI and Gibbs & Hill audits and Gibbs & Hill surveillance was performed. In conclusion, TUSI exercised substantial control over the audit deficiencies up through deficiency closure. For specific details refer to the observation contained in Appendix F.

4.2.1.3 Brown & Root The implementation review of the Brown & Root design change control system revealed that any design changes generated were handled via the CPSES design change and document control program. This review resulted in no observations.

4.2.2 Design Analyses Contro_1 The implementation of the Gibbs & Hill destgn analyses control program ,

resulted in two valid observations.

These observations can be summarized as follows:

DC-02-02 Pipe stress calculations were based on an analysis using computer program ADLPIPE version 2C whereas the FSAR listed ADLPIPE version 1C as a design basis.

DC-02-03 The pipe stress analysis was performed using 'a computer program (ADLPIPE) based on the requirements of the ASME III Code, Winter 1975 Addenda whereas the specification requires the use of ASME III, Summer 1974 addenda.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-5 Li L .! i A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11lll111llllllllllllllllllll11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l In each of the cases above, the deficiencies were considered minor with c

no resulting design impact. For complete details, refer to the observations including their resolution in Appendix F.

4.2.3 Interface Control The interface control activities by Texas Utilities and Gibbs & Hill were found to be effective, with no observations identified.

4.3 TECHNICAL REVIEW EVALUATION Cygna performed its technical reviews along two paths. First, Cygna reviewed the general guidelines provided to each engineer to determine if these were in compliance with licensing commitments. Then Cygna reviewed a sample of each calculation to ensure that the guidelines were followed. In cases where the guidelines were unclear or unavailable, Cygna requested additional documentation (for example, see checklist PI-01, note 5). By fcilowing this procedure, Cygna could determine bcth the adequaq of the design methods and

\ also the depth of training given to each engineer.

As a result of the technical review, Cygna identified a total of 29 observations. Of these, Cygna deteratined three ware invalid upon further review. The remaining observations were divided as follows:

• Pipe Stress - 9 e Pipe Supports - 4

• Equipment Qualifications - 0 e Electrical - O e Cable Tray Supports - 8 e Walk Down - 5 t

i cO l .

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-6 l Li L ; L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l 1111l1811111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

Each of the above, except for CTS-00-08 in the Cable Tray Supports, was closed out by either expanded sample size (to determine if the error was extensive) and/or additional calculations (to determine design impact). As a result of

~

the Cygna review in Observation CTS-00-08, Cygna prepared a Potential Finding Report (PFR-1), which is shown in Appendix G and is described in more detail in Section 4.4 of this report.

4.3.1 Pipe Stress Implementation Evaluation The pipe stress review covered two areas:

e The RHR/ Safety Injection piping from the containment sump to the RHR heat exhanger (Gibbs & Hill problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70),

Train B e

The flued head Penetration (Gulf & Western)

In reviewing the pipe stress analysis, Cygna focused on both the general O'

methods anJ tha iglementattun of those methods. In the case of Gibbs & '

Hill, Cygna found the general methods dccumented in the form of Engineering Guides which the analysts follcwed. For Gulf and Western, the Gitts and Hill specification defined the general methods clearly. In both cases, there was adequate reference to the appropriate documents in the calculation packages.

Cygna did have three observations on the general methods used by Gibbs &

Hill. In two cases, PI-00-01 and PI-00-02, Gibbs & Hill had not accounted for factors which could affect the design: weld mismatch as it affects stress intensification factors and an appropriate stress allowable for welded attachments. Through subsequent reviews, Cygna determined that Gibbs & Hill does comply with the phtlosophy of the Code of record and, therefore, there is no significant design impact in PI-00-01 and Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-7  !

L { ;L i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l lilllilllllllillllllllillllill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 i

PI-00-02. In PI-00-03, Gibbs & Hill had not considered the possible effect of higher order modes on dynamic analyses. Based on the fact that Gibbs & Hill has utilized ADLPIPE correctly and also clearly meets the commitments in FSAR Section 3.78.3.8.1, paragraph '2, Cygna concluded that l further investigation into the potential safety impact of this observa-tion was not warranted. Therefore, each of the three observations was closed, as noted in the resolution in Appendix F.

Review of the two piping problems resulted in six observations concerning implementation of procedure. Of these, one was deemed invalid upon later review. The five remaining observations dealt with:

e Incorrect wall thickness (PI-01-01) e Onission of response spectra (PI-02-01) e Different support location from as-built (PI-02-02)

• Improper use of thermal expansion loads (PI-02-03) s Incorrect allowable nozzle loads (PI-02-05)

Further review showed that all observations could be closed as indicated in their respective resolutions in Appendix F, and that each had insignificaat i'npect on des 15n and safety.

As a general overview, Cygni. found the Gibbs & Hill methods appropriate and, for the most part, well implemented. The Gibbs & Hill "QA Books",

or calculation files, for each problem are easy to follow and contain copies of all needed reference work. In particular. Cygna finds the

" Corrective and future Action" memo at the start of each "QA Book" an excellent method for ensuring that all open items are checked as data becomes available. The depth of the Gibbs & Hill documentation and referencing made the review process proceed smoothly. 1 7

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-8 L LJL A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 181111111lllll11ll111lll1111ll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

-s For the flued head analysis, Cygna had only one observation, on modeling, s which did not affect the design of this head (PI-03-01). Cygna reviewed 15 of the remaining 18 flued head analysis to determine the extent of the )

error and found it isolated to this one problem. Again, the quality of the Gulf and Western documentation made the review task easier. Cygna would like to compliment Gulf and Western on their inclusion of " hand" checks in the final reports to insure that the finite element model was producing the proper results.

4.3.2 Pipe Support Review The pipe support review included all supports on the main flow path between the containment sump and heat exchanger, plus the anchors on all branch lines in problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70. Gibbs & H111 had prepared the pipe support design specification and TUSI, ITT Grinnel, and NPSI had performed the majority of the final large bore pipe support reviews.

Only one observation resulted from Cygna's review of the general methods (PS-09-01). This one general observation relatea to seismic O. displacements outside the working range of springs. After further review, Cygna determined this observation had no significant impact on plant safety and resolved it as shown in Appendix F.

In reviewing the 31 specific pipe support calculations, Cygna had three observations:

• Improper anchor bolt embedment length shown on the drawing (PS-02-01).

• Incorrect data given to the support group (PS-10-01).

• Incorrect allowable loads (PS-12-01).

)

" Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-9 ML L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111llllllll1lllllll11lllllll11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

After further review, Cygna determined that the last two (PS-10-01 and

(/ PS-12-01) were isolated errors. In reviewing PS-02-01, Cygna determined that the embedment length shown on the drawing was not used in the installation and that the length shown in the calculation was the minimum possible. Thus, the difference in lengths has no design impact. Each of the above is further described in Appendix F.

In general, the support calculations were well done. Cygna does suggest that the anchor bolt embeament lengths be removed from the support drawings during the next revision. This would reduce future confusion between the calculation and drawing. Otherwise, Cygna found the calcula-tions well documented and referenced.

4.3.3 Equipment Qualification Review To determine acceptability of equiment qualification procedures, Cygna reviewed the RHR Train B pump (TBS-RHAPRH-02) by Westinghouse. The review included the pump, motor and auxiliary equipment. Cygua found no items requiring further review and found all the Westinghouse documentation in good order. In particular, Cygna reviewed those items noted by the earlier SQRT audit as needing corrections and found that Westinghouse had addressed each appropriately.

4.3.4 Electrical Review In the electrical area, Cygna reviewed the Gibbs & Hill design of both Train B RHR pump power distributions and the isolation tank, Safety Injection System (SIS), valve control circuitry. The review covered both the adequacy of the design documents (compliance with licensing requirements) and the design calculations themselves. In the review, Cygna found no items requiring further assessment and, therefore, had no observation in this area.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.- 4-10 L L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l11111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

t - -- - __ _

, 4.3.5 Cable Tray Support Evaluation

-Gibbs & Hill produced the structural calculations and designs for the cable tray supports.

~

Rather than have one specif1c calculation for each tray support, Gibbs & Hill used standard support details, e.g., a standard 3 level support or 2 level support. These standards were further separated into one, two or three way restraint designs. Gibbs &

Hill then collected similiar " standard" designs and evaluated them in a single generic calculation. In cases where only one aspect (e.g. , base plate) of a design was typical of, for example, ten designs, each of the ten designs would first have a separate calculation for their unique features. Each calculation would then reference the first for the design of the common aspect. These standard designs were shown on their respective drawings and sent to the field. The field assigned the actual supports numbers for each tray support.

Cygna reviewed those supports associated with the RHR Pump power supply cable tray. These 40 supports were based on 8 standard calculations, (15 standard details), and represent 43% of the cable tray supports for the plant. Since Gibbs & Hill had not prepared any procedures for performing or trucking these calculations, but used standard structural design methods and allowables (AISC), Cygna did not perform any reviews in the procedural araa.

Gibbs & Hill used both hand calculations and finite element techniques in the analysis of the frames. In the review of the standard calculations, Cygna found seven areas which required further review for design impact. Of these seven observations, three involved the computer analyses and assumptions, two involved assumptions made for hand calculations, and two applied to loads and load comination methods. To resolve the seven observations, both' Cygna and Gibbs & Hill performed detailed calculations to determine:

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-11 L. [JL A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program j 111111111ll1llllll11llllll1111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

l __

l l

l

• the validity of the original assumptions e the effect of conservatisms in the original- analysis e the design impact of changes in support geometry and modeling As shown in the resolution of these observation in Appendix F, Cygna determined that all seven observations produced no significant impact on the design or on the safety of the plant. Basically, the conservatisms present in the original design (tray weight, "g" values) outweigh the effects of later design changes. The process of using conservative input loads for initial designs is normal practice.

In reviewing each checklist and observation, Cygna noted that each standard calculation had one or more design deficiencies. Thus, in observation CTS-00-08 Cygna questioned not only each deficiency by itself, but the cumulctive affect. As noted in that observatten, Gibbs 4 Hill had redone each entire calculation, combining the Cyr.3 c.ov ents with the latest information. These calculations showed that sufficient margin to allowable stress levels existed for the supports within the review scope, 1bere was no clear assurance, however, thac sufficient margins existed for all the other support designs within the plant.

Because of this, Cygna has prepared PFR-1, which is presented in Appendix G and discussed further in Section 4.4 In conclusion, Cygna has found that the Cable Tray Supports within the Cygna scope are adequate. The design and revision process are, however, l difficult to follow; Cygna suggests that a set of standard instructions be prepared for design, revision and review of Cable Tray Supports. Such a set should include a set of justified assumptions and would ensure uniformity across the design process.

I

/~N Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-12 g {e* Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report _TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 1811111111llll111llllll1811111

l l t

4.3.6 As-Built Verification O

The as-built verification of the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System was separated into the following, easily definable, categories:

~

e Electrical, Instrumentation ,2nd Controls e Mechanical - piping supports e Structural There were seven walkdown observations consisting of three Electrical, four Mechanical and zero Structural. The validity of these observations and their consequences with respect to impact on plant safety are discussed in the following subsections.

Electrical Walkdown The basis of the walkdowns was to verify that the field installation is in comp 11ance with the latest revision of the relevent construction documents and drawings. Incluaed in this was a review of separation requirements, grounding components, cable installation and cable terminations.

Separation Requirements:

The field verification of electrical separation requirements was performed by reviewing the separation in the following control panels as well as the electrical raceway installation:

e Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Panel e BOP Auxiliary Relay Rack 1

• B0P Auxiliary Relay Rack 4 -

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-13 Li [ k A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 181111111111111111111111111111 F1na1 Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

f The above panels and raceway were found to be maintained in accordance v with separation criteria of the electrical erection specification and requirements described on the cable tray and conduit plan drawings.

Grounding:

The review of the electrical grounding system consisted of verifying that the raceway system and spent fuel pool cooling pump had been grounded in accordance with the requirements of the electrical erection specification and grounding drawings 2323-El-1703 & 1703-01.

The following observation was made:

• WD-07-01. The Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Pump is single grounded rather than double grounded as required by drawing 2323-El-1703-01.

m This observation has been determined to be invalid since using only a single ground will have no impact on the performance of the pump or plant safety. This observation is therefore closed.

Components:

The components review effort was performed for equipment and instrumentation associated with Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Train A.

The verification consisted of two stages: first, a review of component locations and fluid system interfaces with respect to plant drawings and secondly, a check of the component's type and model.

The following observation was made:

l 1

WL 1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-14 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 191111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

l e WD-07-02. Temperature indicator X-TI-4837 had not been installed.

O The temperature indicator is scheduled to be installed at a later date in order to avoid damage from ongoing construction ~ 1n the area. Per the instrument installation checklist for this item, dated 7/22/81, this item has been turned over to B8R and TUGCO. This is in conformance with Brown

& Root Procedure No. 35-1195-ICP-4, Rev. 6. It has been determined by discussion with TUSI that this temperature indicator is not a safety related item. This observation is therefore closed.

Cable Installation:

The cable installation review consisted of four items, the most important of which was the routing. The three other review items were cable supporting, spacing and bend radius requirement.

The cable routing review verification was limited in the case of control and instrument cables to assuring that the cables enter the proper O conduit and that the conduits tie to the correct tray section. Only a limited review was possible due to the fact that identification of cables after they enter the tray system becomes extremely difficult. One reason for this difficulty is that the cables are tagged only at the end point. This, coupled with the large number of cables in the trays, made verification of the total routing impossible without disconnecting and sending a signal through the conductors.

In the case of the 480 Volt Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Pump motor leads, the routing of the 3-1/C-750 MCM was verified up to the location at which it l left the Fuel Building.

The review area for the cable riser supports was limited to two locations. These were the conduit riser at the Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-15 L jL A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 191111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

pump for the notor supply cable and the tray riser at tray sections

\

T120/FBU12 and T120/FBU11. This is a 14' vertical drop.

The spacing of power cable in trays was also verified. This was performed for the 3-1/C-750 MCM power cables associated with the spent fuel pool cooling pump. This circuit was chosen since it was the only one in the sample which required cable spacing. The spacing of the cables was verified throughout the tray runs in the Fuel Building.

The installed bending radius of cables was reviewed in the field.

Initially some of the permanently trained cables appeared to have a bend radius less than the normal standard for that size cable. A review of plant files showed correspondence sich cable vendors allowing the decrease in minimum bending radius, 1

The following observation was made:

e WD-07-03. The Cable and Raceway Schedule identified the conduit between Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Panel XLV-06 and T130FCZ33 as C-030/15123-2. The installation and routing drawing identified this as conduit No. C-130/15123.

For this particular case the difference in ids concerned only the unit number. However, in order to provide assurance that there were no further discrepancies of this type which might have an impact on design or plant safety a further review was performed by Cygna. To ensure, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the above discrepancy was an I isolated case, a random sample of (eight) 8 safety related conduits in the fuel building was chosen from drawings FSE-234-El-800 and FSE-234-El-802. The conduit numbers and their termination points were verified against the identification given in the raceway schedule. Each conduit, O

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-16 Li ( ; L 1 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 181111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

and one of its termination points was then located in the field. All O identification numbers were verified to be correct. As a result of this l further investigation, Cygna is satisfied that the mis-labelling of conduit C-13015123 is an isolated case and has 'no potential impact on design or plant safety. This observation is therefore closed.

Cable Termination.

The cable termination verification consisted of reviewing the cable field termination against the requirement of the connection drawing and cable schedule. The review included twenty-three (23) cables associated with the spent fuel pool cooling system.

The review confirmed that cables were installed in accordance with the connection drawing. In the cases where field jumpers were required, these were also verified to be in agreement with the connection drawing.

It was further noted that cable E0/018815 is listed as being deleted in the Unit 1 cable schedule issue 308. The cable is terminated at the Unit 2 BOP Auxiliary Relay Rack 4 in accordance with connection drawing E2-0158. The termination of the cable at Motor Control Center EPS-EPMDEB-3 was verified.

Mechanical Walkdown (Piping and Supports)

The purpose of the walkdown was to verify the as-built location of pertinent features of the piping system such as valves, branch connections, elbows and suppects and to verify the as-built condition of the supports.

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-17 i A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111lll1lll116611lll11H1111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

Except in the few places where any form of measurement (either accurate O. or approximate) was not possible, the location of all of the piping elements was verified to be in conformance with the relevant drawings.

There was a total of 91 supports on the selected piping system, 48 of which were fully accessible for inspection. The configuration and general form of all of the remaining 43 supports were found, by visual inspection, to be in agreement with the design drawings. In addition, the accessible dimensions and hardware data for seven (7) of the 43 supports were checked.

The following observations resulted from the Mechanical Walkdown:

• WD-01-01. The upper locknut on the strut for support SF-X-001-015-F43R has not been adequately tightened down.

The problem had previously been reported to the NRC via SDR t!o. 113.

Implementation of the corrective actions, as outlined in SDAR-CP-83-13 dated 6/9/83, will provide assurance that there is no impact on design or plant safety. This observation is therefore closed.

e WD-02-01. The clearance between the strut of pipe support SF-X-003-003-F43K and the pipe clamp of support SF-X-007-014-F43K varies from a minimum of 1/4" to a maximum of 7/16".

It has been confirmed by J. Finneran (Texas Utilities) that the reported clearance is sufficient to avoid any interference due .to the calculated ,

pipe movements. This observation is therefore closed.

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 18 L L L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11114411111111111111111lll1lll Fina1 Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

l 1

l e WD-02-02. The following snubbers were installed 180 (inverted) from the configuration shown on the support drawings:

1) SF-X-003-005-F43K

2) SF-X-003-003-F43K

3) SF-X-003-006-F43K

4) SF-X-005-017-F43K Brown & Root Procedure No. CP-CPM 9.17 dated 5/31/83 addresses this prob-lem and permits such a reversal. This observation is therefore closed.

• WD-03-01 The gaps between the pipe and the support steel for support SF-X-033-007-F43R are 0" and 1" in the unrestrained direction. The support drawing indicates a required gap of 1/2" on both sides of the pipe in that direction.

The discrepancy with the design drawing was uncovered by Texas Utilities during their walkdown activities. Per As huilt Reverification Form No.

1267, dated 3/3/83, this matter has been transmitted to design review.

This observation is closed based on the " acceptable-as-is" determin3 tion of the TUSI design review, indicating the effectiveness of the Texas Utilities as-built program.

Structural Walkdown The structural walkdown consisted of inspection of the following:

e The floor, walls and ceiling of the Unit 1 Pump Room for spalling,

voids general formwork, etc.

1 I d Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-19

!' LNI.DL A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11:111111111111111111111111111 F1nal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

e The location, size, finish and grout of the foundations for:

V a) Pump CPX-SFAPSF-01

~

b) Heat Exchanger CPX-SFAHSF-01 c) Radiation Monitor X-RE-4863 e The location and size of the penetrations for:

a) Pump suction from the pool 4

b) Pump discharge to the pool e A randomly selected sample of 5 cable tray supports in Pump Room 1 and the adjacent area.

A thorough inspection of the interior of the Pump Room was not possible since all surfaces have been painted. However, the exterior walls, which had not been painted, exhibited good workmanship. All other items proved to be satisfactory.

4.4 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORTS During the course of the independent assessment frogram, Cygna identified a total of thirty-three valid observations, including one which was considered to be a potential finding. As described in Section 3.0, Methodology, an

" Observation" is any nonconformance to the review criteria having potential design impact and a " Potential Finding" is an observation considered to have a significant potential impact on plant safety. After further review, the potential finding, or PFR, was determined to have no definite impact on plant safety and was closed. Consequently, this PFR was not reportable under the guidelines of 10CFR21. In the following paragraph, the resolution of the PFR is discussed. Appendix G contains more detailed documentation for this potential finding. -

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-20 L l A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 19111111188111111118N11111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O s

PFR 01. In reviewing the cable tray support design within the Cygna scope, Cygna noted various technical deficiencies in each design. While each deficiency, by itself, did not affect the acceptability of these support designs, there was no assurance that the ' cumulative effect would not have a potential impact on plant safety.

This PFR was closed based on four considerations:

• Gibbs & Hill initiated analyses on the supports within the Cygna scope and incorporated the Cygna comments. An examination of the results shows that the design margins for support components are more than 10%.

• The designs within the Cygna scope of review covered 43% of the supports in the plant.

e Any field changes to a particular support are reviewed and approved by Gibbs & Hill. Any subsequent changes to that support O. reference all changes made to it, thus ensuring that the approval considers all changes, e There is no potential safety impact.

4.5 CONCLUSION

The purpose of this Independent Assessment Program was to provide added assurance that the design process in place at Texas Utilities produced an acceptable design. Cygna Energy Services has conducted a detailed review of both the design process, from the development of criteria through the final, as-built design, and the quality assurance procedures necessary to the control design activities. While Cygna did find certain instances where the process or procedures were not apparently adequate, more detailed review showed Cygna O

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-21 L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

that each had a negligible impact on the plant design. In conclusion, Cygna's 4

O- review when considered in conjunction with previous reviews of CPSES, shows j that- the design process in place at CPSES is acceptable and meets the licensing commitments in the CPSES FSAR.

O i

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4-22 l L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program j liliittillittilillHilililli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

t -. - - - . - , .

, i I .

N0fENCLATURE t "o. .  !

'ADR - - AuditDeficiencyReport(B&R)

ANI - Authorized Nuclear Inspector (or Inspection)

ARMS'- / Automate 4 Records Management System ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers B&PV - Boiler and Pressure Vessel ,

B&R - Brown & Root BRH - B&R Hanger Drawing BRHL - Hanger Location ISO dm - B&R Piping ISO

CAR- Corrective Action Report (B&R)

/ CMC - Component Modifl cation Card

, s . ,' CP - Comanche Peak

+ >

CFP - Comanche Peak Project (Letter or Group)

CPPA>- Comanche Peak Project ARMS

, CPPE - Comanche Peak Profect Engineering CP3ES - Comanche Peak Stesm Electric Station CVC - Change Verification Checklist l '

DC - Design Criteria  !

DCA - Design Change Authorization DCC - . ,

~

Document Control Center 9 DC/DDA - e' Design Change / Design Deviation Authorization DCTG - Design Change Tracking Group DE/CD or t D/E C/D or

• 4 D/E CDR - Design /Engir:eering Change / Deviation Request DRCL - Distribution Routing Control List EESV -

.,'Er.ginyeringEvaluatio$ofSeparationVariance Field' Interpretation / Clarification Request

' Fi/CR -

FMHS - Field Modified Hanger Sketch FSEG - I , Field Structural Engineering Group F bid Verification Report FVR -

s G&H - Gibbs & Hill '

G&H/NY - Gibbs & Hill /New Yor'x' '

li s x gs OlFT - HotFunctionalTesting' j ,0 Hx 6 H6rt Exchanger l .%

't , s

( s - __

,) -

p

(> . Texas utiln.it.: Sevices A nc. 1 i, 'yl1 g Comanche Peak Indepenoeist. Assessment Program

[ . 3 I I/ " lilllilllill!$$,iE 11111ll Final

4. -

) Paport TR-83090-01,,Rev.,0 ,s

'h,

. 3 ( '..

l' ?r t .

r.

. s( j t i d _- .

d._'_: -

7 7 pH w

IIDEllCLATLRE (Continued)

O -

I&C - Instrumentation & Control  !

IEG - Instrument Engineering Group ISO - Isometric r.

N MRR - Material Receiving Report

(,3 NCR - Noncomformance Report OD - Outside Diameter 7 050 - Over Short Damaged Report

~ PC - Project Coordinator PDR - Piping Deviation Record Form (B&R)

P0 - Purchase Order PPSE - Comanche Peak Pipe Support Engineer

<s PSG - Procurement & Surveillance Group (B&R)

PSDG - Pipe Support Design Group f '

PSE - Pipe Support Engineering 2

QA - Quality Assurance

• Quality Control QC -

O ( QE - -Quality Engineering A

() RHR - Residual Heat Removal c RIR - Receiving Inspection Report RWN - Room Work Notification SAM - Seismic Anchor Movement SDAR - Significant Deficiency Action Request s SHF - Secondary Hot Functional Io SI - Safety Injection SSAG - Site Stress Analysis Group ii SWA - Start-up Work Authorization SW0 - Stop Work Order (B&R)

THE - TUSI Nuclear Engineering TUGC0 - Texas Utilities Generating Company c); TUSI - Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

f~ TSAB - Technical Services As-Built Group 4

TSFC - Technical Services File Clerk

• [ .j TSG - Technical Services Group TSMD - Technical Services Mechanical Drafting WRC - Welding kesearch Council i

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 3!- Li [ g i Comanche Peak Inde' pendent Assessment Program N liimmimillimilllimil Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

}

L' .- - . - - . .. . _ .

O STATEENT OF IlOEPENDEllCE This statement attests to the fact that Cygna Energy Services and the members of the Independent Assessment Program project team have no vested interest in the outcome of our effort to provide added assurance as to the adequacy of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) design process.

Cygna Energy Services has performed no engineering design work or construction services on the Texas Utilities' CPSES project, nor for any other Texas Utili-ties project. However, from October 4 to October 6,1982 Cygna conducted a seminar on general probabilistic risk assessment for management and licensing personnel.

No member of the Cygna Project Team nor of the Cygna Energy Services corporate management has ever worked for Texas Utilities nor been associated with any design activities on- the CPSES project while employed by any other O organizati_on.

No member of the Project Team or any corporate officer or any relative thereof owns stock in Texas Utilities.

I believe this satisfies the current NRC requirements regarding the ,

independence of the engineering firm.

i

?rw' ~ l UA7{o '

Lar Vic Kdninerzell sident

[ '

Date O' Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

thtj t i Cmanche Peak Independent Assessment Program filtii.... .:;lil Final Report, TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

_ . - _ _ - ~ . .. __ . -

l LIST OF DOCUENTS REVIEWED v

1. Gibbs & Hill ASME Class 2 & 3 Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Rev.

3; DCA-16064 against Rev. 3

2. Gibbs & Hill Nuclear Safety Class Hangers and Supports Specification 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3 plus DCA's thru 18453

3. Gibbs & Hill Response Spectra for the RCL, Rev. 1

4. WCAP 8587, Rev. 4 " Methodology for Qualifying Westinghouse WRD Supplied NSSS Related Electrical Equipment"

5. WCAP 8587, Rev. 5

6. Westinghouse Doc. EQDP-AE-2, Rev. 4 "Large Pump Motors Outside Containment"

7. Westinghouse Doc. 8598A, Rev. 1 " Equipment Qualification Test Report

- Westinghouss LMD tiotor Insulation" (WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS)

8. Westinghouse Doc. EQAL-TBX-Rev. 1 "Auditable Link Document for Comanche Peak Unit 1"

9. CPSES/EQR file for RHR Pump Motor

10. TEC Letter for Review of RHR Pump Motor l

11. Westinghouse Letters WPT-4910 and WPT-4907.in in Respnse to NRC Questions on the Pumps l

..) Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 1 of 27 LT[# Jd A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

"""""""!!!I16I111111ll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

l LIST OF DOCl#ENTS REVIEWED

12. CPSES/FSAR Section 3.9N (Nuclear) " Mechanical Systems & Components"

13. CPSES/FSAR Sectica 3.98 (B0P) " Mechanical Systems & Components"

14. CPSES/FSAR Section 3.7N (Nuclear) " Seismic Design" l

15. CPSES/FSAR Section 3.78 (80P) " Seismic Design"

16. CPSES/FSAR Section 8 " Electric Power":

a) Table of Contents b) Section 8.1

17. CPSES/FSAR Section 3.7B(A) " Computer Programs used in Static and Dynamic Analysis"

18. CPSES/FSAR Section 3.10N " Seismic Qualification of Seismic CAT 1 Instrumentation & Electrical Equipment

19. CPSES/FSAR Section 5.4.7 and 5.4-49 thru 5.4-64, "RHR System"

20. CPSES/FSAR Section 7.1 " Instrumentation and Controls", and 7.6 "All other Instrumentation Systems Required for Safety"

21. CPSES/SER Pgs. 3-14-18; 3-21-27; 5-1-8; 5-17-20; 7-1-4; 7-26-28; 8-1-18

22. Gibbs & Hill Spec. 2323-MS-74 " Mechanical Penetrations" t

Texas Utilites Services, Inc.

l Page 2 of 27 l Li. .l d 2 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l II::

Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

I

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

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED O

23. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Equipment Specification on Class 2 Pumps-Based on ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III -

Rules for Construction of Nuclear Power Plant Components, Doc.

1. 578815, Rev. 2, Dated 9/6/73

24. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Equipment Specification on Class 2 Auxiliary Pumps and Motors, Addendum 952516, Rev. 2, Dated 10/14/75

25. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-43B, Rev. 4 " Piping Nuclear Shop Fabrication in the Field" Plus DCA's

26. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-5S-30, Rev. O " Structural Embedments" Plus DCA's

27. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-43A, Rev. 4 " Shop Fabrication of

Piping 8" Nominal Diameter and Larger and Piping Material Supply Requirements" plus DCA's.

28. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-71A, Rev. 1, " Expansion Joints -

Nuclear" plus DCA's 1

29. Gibbs & Hill Calculation SCS-101C, Set 5, Rev. 2, " Cable Tray Supports"

30. Gibbs & Hill Calculation SCS-113C, Set 3, Rev. 3, " Cable Tray Supports"

31. CPSES/FSAR Pages 3.8-69 thru 3.8-114.

(WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS)

O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 3 of 27 )

L ( )i i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l li:.  ::lillililllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DOCl#EllTS REVIEWED

32. Westinghouse E-Spec G-678852, Rev. 2 (WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS)

33. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. letter to Gibbs & Hill, " Functional Capability of ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Stainless Steel Elbows, Ref:

TXX-3423", Dated 10/19/81, Doc. No. CPPA-13,349

34. Gibbs & Hill letter to TUGCo, " Functional Capability of ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Stainless Steel Elbows", Ref: 1) CPPA-13,3492) TXX-3414 3) TBX/TCX-4705", Dated 3/25/82, Doc. No. GTN-58279

35. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Memo to ITT, NPSI, TSDRE, & TSVCE's,

" Snubber C-C and Settings, Ref: TCR-96/96A; CPP-8092; Pipe Support Snubber Class (9/14/82); NPSI-TD-03, Revs. 3 & 4", Dated 7/23/82

36. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. letter to NPS. " Minimum C/C for NPSI Sway Struts", Dated 5/6/82, Doc. No. CPPA-18,801

37. NPS TWX to Terry Kerlin (Texas Utilities Services, Inc.), " Minimum C/C for NPSI Sway Struts (Attachment 1), Ref: CPPA-18,831", Dated 5/28/82 38 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. letter to Gibbs & Hill, "As-Built Stress Analysis", Dated 7/20/83, Doc. No. CPPA-32,211

39. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. letter to USNRC, " Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Functional Capability of ASME Code Class 2 and 3, Stainless Steel Elbows", Dated 10/15/81, Log #TXX-3423, File #903.6 lO

Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 4 of 27 Li.(d L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1111111111llllll111111lll11lll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

l

LIST OF DOCUENTS REVIEWED

40. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Memo, " Separation Criteria for HILTI's, Ref: CPPA-20142, CPP-7649, CPP-7716, TSBR-99, ICN-1912",

Dated 7/22/82, Doc. CPPA-21,550

41. Gibbs & Hill, " Analytical Engineering Guide, AEG-511, Integral Welded Attachments to ASME Code Class 2 and 3 Piping Stress Analysis Engineering Guide", Dated June 1981, Rev. 0

42. Brown & Root, Inc. CPSES, " Maximum Allowable Offset in Final Welded Joints", Procedure #CP-CPM-6.9D, Dated 3/30/83, Rev. 5 (pp. 21 & 22)

43. G&W Penetration Stress Report, " Appendix C, Description of Lineariza-tion Post-Processor" (pp.80-120)

44. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Memo, " Controlled Procurement Documents Specification SS-21, Ref: GTN-62449, Dated 11/23/82, Expediting Request 1274", Dated 12/6/82, Doc. CPPA-25,383

45. "Section 3.4 Residual Heat Removal System" (pp. 68 thru 114), Rev. O to PFD-RD-285-4 (WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY DOCUMENTS)

46. Baseplate Input Summary Test

47. STRUDL Output for Baseplate Test

48. Baseplate Output Sumary Test J

O" Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 5 of 27

d. .{JtfA. Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program n,.. ...... :!!!! Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DOCl#ENTS REVIEWED  ;

i

49. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Calculation AB-1-70, Sheet No. 50,

" Attachment Stress Calculation for Support SI-1-037-005-S3A"

50. Gibbs & Hill " Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Cable Tray Support",

Calculation SCS-101C, Set #1; SCS-104C, Set #1; SCS-146C, Set #8

51. Brown & Root, Inc. CPSES " Installation of HILTI Drilled-In Bolts",

Doc. No. CEI-20, Rev 8, Dated 1/26/83

52. Gibbs & Hill - Texas Utilities Services, Inc. " Cable Tray Supports -

, Safe Guards Building - Unit 1"

53. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Specification "Thermocouples and Resistance Temperature Detector Assemblies", Specification No. 2323-MS-622 (Code Class 2 & 3 - ANS Safety Class 2 and 3), Rev. 1, Dated 12/22/76

54. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Specification " Quality Assurance for 10/18/83 Procurement of Materials and Equipment" Specification No.

2323-GS-903, Rev.1, Dated 4/8/74

55. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Specification " Seismic Criteria for Equipment Design", Specification No. 2323-55-20, Rev. 4, Dated 8/9/76

56. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Specification " Temperature Elements Specification Sheets", Specification No. 2323-MS-622, Rev. O, Dated 8/28/75 Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 6 of 27 L lJk A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11lll181llllll1111111lll111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

l

l LIST OF DOCIE NTS REVIEWED

57. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Standard Thermowells, Dwgs: XB-2323-M-501, XB-2323-M-502

58. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Technical Data Sheets to Specification l 2323-MS-622, Rev. 1 i

59. Addendum No. 1 to Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Specification 2323-MS-622, Rev. 1, Supplement No. 3, Dated 1/12/78

60. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Specification " Pressure Switches Specification 2323-MS-615", Rev. 1, Dated 3/28/77

61. Gibbs & Hill letter to TUGC0 re Electrical Erection Specification 2323-ES-100, Rev. 2, Doc. #GTN-51481, Dated 1/30/81 O 62. Construction Progress and Cost Monitoring Report for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Dated April, 1982, by Southern Engineering. Co. of Georgia

63. Construction Progress and Cost Monitoring Report for the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Dated September, 1982, by Southern 9 Engineering Co. of Georgia

64. Design and Construction Self-Initiated Evaluation Dated 10/82 by Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

65. USNRC dockets to Texas Utilities Services, Inc. re Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance, Dockets 50-445; 50-446, Dated 12/3/82 v) Texas Utilites Services,'Inc. Page 7 of 27 L a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111lll11lll111111111tll11111!I Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

i LIST OF DOCtNEllTS REVIEWED

66. NRC Management Meeting - Bethesda 12/16/82

67. INP0 -DC Design Control Evaluation Summary and Details

68. Licensee Correspondence Dist. re Region IV Response to R.J. Gary letter on SALP, Dated 1/31/83

69. USNRC letter to Texas Utilities Services, Inc. re Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) Board Report Dockets No.

50-445 and 50-446, Dated 1/31/83

70. USNRC letter to Administrative Judges In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Co., et al., (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Dockets No. 50-445 and 50-446 - SALP Hearing, Dated 2/08/83

71. Inspection Report - Special Inspection Related to Walsh - Doyle Matter Report 82-26/82-14, 2/15/83

72. USNRC letter to Administrative Judges In the Matter of Texas Utilities Generating Co., et al., (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Dockets No. 50-445 and 50-446 - ASLB ,

Hearing, Dated 2/24/83 l 73. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Memoranda re Construction Assessment Team (CAT) Results and Region IV Concerns Sumary and Action Plans, Doc. QTQ-298, Dated 3/3/83

74. CAT Team Concerns, Dated Approx. March 8(?)

O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. P',ge 8 of 27 i Li. .ld L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

! 11ll1616!ill1811111111ll181111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev O l .

LIST OF DOC K NTS REVIEWED

75. Memo from H. Schmidt (Texas Utilities Services, Inc.) re Independent Design Verification Program - Transcript of a meeting between NRC Management and the NRC, Dated 3/22/83

76. TUGC0 Memoranda re Construction Appraisal Team Inspection, Doc. #TUQ-1620, Dated 4/18/83

77. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Memoranda re Construction Appraisal Team Inspection (TWG-1720; TI-081, 082, 087, 088, Doc. QTQ-331, Dated 5/2/83

78. USNRC dockets to Texas Utilities Services, Inc. re Summary of Meeting on Comanche Peak Added Assurance Program, Dockets No. 50-445 and 50-446, Dated 5/4/83

79. Provisional Response to NRC Construction Appraisal Team (CAT)

Inspection Findings

80. Resident Inspector Testimony

81. Licensing Correspondence Distribution re CAT Draft Report

82. Purchase Order Supplement No. 1 Indicating Differential Pressure Switches, Doc. No. GTNB-16266, 2323-MS-616, Rev. 1, Dated 5/2/77

83. Texas Utilities Generating Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station " Strut Jaming Devices", Dated 6/21/83, Ref: SDAR CP-83-13 O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 9 of 27 ,

t t i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program mmmillmmmummi Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

/ LIST OF DOC N NTS REVIEWED l

84._

Brown & Root, Inc. - CPSES - Cable Pulling, Doc. No. EEI-7, Rev. 5, j j Dated 10/8/82

85. Gibbs & Hill Piping Erection Specification and DCA's and CMC's for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Doc. No. 2323-MS-100, Rev. 6, Dated 3/15/82

86. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Manual and Self Actuated Butterfly /-

Water Disc Valves Specification 2323-MS-20C, Rev. 2, Dated 8/9/76

87. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Manual for Power Operated, and Self-Actuated Steel Valves 2.5 Inches and Greater, Specification No. 2323-MS-208.1, Rev. 2, Dated 8/12/76

88. Gibbs & Hill, Inc. Mechanical Erection Specification for Comanche O Peak Steam Electric Station, Doc. No. 2323-MS-101, Rev. 3, Dated 7/18/78

89. Brown & Root, Inc. " Instrument and Tubing Installation and Inspection", Doc. No. 35-1195-ICP-4, Rev. 6 Dated 6/22/82

90. Gibbs & Hill, " Control Boards Nuclear-Safety Related Specification 2323-MS-605, Rev.1, Dated 8/31/76 (Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Ref. 07506) - 2 VOL M S

91. Gibbs& Hill,"LevelSwitchesSpecificationNo.2323-MS-620(Code Class 2 & 3 - ANS Safety Class 2 and 3), Rev. 1, Dated 10/20/75, (Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ref. 07570) l O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 10 of 27 Li.( kA Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l 191111166111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l LIST OF DOCUENTS REVIEWED O

92. Gibbs & Hill, " Flow Elements Specification No. 2323-MS-624 (Code l Class 2 & 3 - ANS Safety Class 2 & 3)", Rev. 1, Dated 11/8/76 (Texas UtilitiesServices,Inc.Ref.07624) 93 Gibbs & Hill, " Temperature Indicators Specification No. 2323-MS-621 (ANS Safety Class 2 and 3)", Rev. 1, Dated 10/20/76 (Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ref. 07621)

94. Gibbs & Hill, " Pressure Gauges Specification No. 2323-MS-614", Rev.

1, Dated 10/5/76, (Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ref. 07614)

95. Bahnson letter to TUGC0 re TUGC0 QA Audit Report TBS - 3, Specification MS-85, Doc. #BSC-2114, Dated 4/25/83

< 96. Brown & Root CPSES Document Control Program, DCP-3, Rev. 15, Dated 1/17/83

97. Bahnson Procedure Change Notice - Design Control Procedure, Procedure fQFP 3.002 CP1, Rev. 2, Dated 10/25/82

98. Texas Utilities Generating Co. letter to Bahnson Svc. re TUGC0 QA Audit, Report TBS-3, Doc. #QXX-1338, Dated 3/29/83

99. Brown & Root, Inc., " Construction Requests for Engineering Design Changes", Procedure CPM 4.1, Rev. O, Dated 1/19/81 100. FSAR - Chapter 17.0, " Quality Assurance (QA), Dated 10/2/81

{

l O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 11 of 27 L L 5 i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll1lll111111111111lll111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

I LIST OF 00CtK ilTS REVIEWED 101. FSAR - Appendix 17A, " List of Quality Assured Items", Amendment 38, Dated 2/14/83 102. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Quality Assurance Plan, Prepared

- by Texas Utilities Generating Company and Texas Utilities Sve., Dated 3/31/83 103. Texas Utilities Quality Documents Index 104. CPSES/FSAR - Section 9.2.1 - Station Service Water System 105. CPSES/FSAR - Appendix 1A(B) - Discussion of Regulatory Guides (Balance of Plant information), Amendment 8, Dated 11/30/79 106. CPSES/FSAR - Appendix 1A(N) - Discussion of Regulatory Guides (NSSS

( Related information) Amendment 8. Dated 11/30/79 107. Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Project Procedures Manual, Prepared by Gibbs & Hill, March 1972 108. Brown & Root Quality Assurance Manual, Dated 12/01/82 109. Texas Utilities Generating Co., Letter to Bingham Willamette Co., re

" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, TUGC0 QA AUDIT Notification,

! Bingham Willamette, Gibbs & Hill Spec. Nos. CP-11; 12; 13; ISA & 15C, TBW-5, QA Audit File TBW-5", Dated 1/13/83, Doc. #QXX-1258 O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 12 of 27 k & Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111616611111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

i LIST OF DOCLBEIITS REVIEWED 110. Texas Utilities Generating Co., Letter to Bingham Willamette Co., re 4

" Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, TUGC0 QA Audit Report TBW-5, i l Bingham Willamette, QA Audit File - T8W-5", Dated 3/8/83, Doc. #QXX-1314 t

. 111. Texas Utilities Generating Company Surveillance Report " Trip Report -

Siemens - Allis", Rev. 1, performed 1/29/81, Doc. #QAA-2765, Dated

] 5/13/81 i

! 112. Texas Utilities Generating Company Surveillance Report " Trip Report -

Bingham Willamette - Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Water Pump", performed l 1/3/80 113. Texas Utilities Generating Company Surveillance Report " Trip Report -

Bingham Willamette - Pumps", Performed 8/14/79, Doc. #QAA-763 i 114. Texas Utilities Generating Company Surveillance Report " Trip Report -

Bingham Willamette - Pumps", Performed 7/17/79, i

115. Brown & Root CPSES Document Control Program, Doc. No. DCP-3, Rev. 16, Dated 8/5/83 l

i j 116. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Nuclear Engineering Design Verification of Field Design Changes to Vendor Drawings", Procedure l

1. CP-EI-4.5-17, Rev. O, Dated 11/3/82 i

117. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Design and Verification Control for Pipe Support Engineering", Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-1, Rev. 4, Dated 12/1/82 3

' O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 13 of 27 d( t a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lullentinienneuillellit Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

O G

LIST OF 00C M ilTS REVIEWED 118. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Approval & Design Verification of Small Bore Field Design Changes", Procedure #CP-EI-4.5-11, Rev. 3, Dated 12/1/82 119. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Field Verification of i Small Bore Lines Connected to Seismically Qualified Equipment",

Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-38, Rev. O, Dated 12/17/82 120. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " General Program for As-Built Piping Verification", Procedure #CP-EI-4.5-1, Rev. 8, Dated 1/4/83 l

121. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Final Review of Pipe Support Engineering Design", Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-37, Rev. 2, Dated 3/23/83 122. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Design Change Control for Large Bore Pipe Supports", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-8, Rev. 5, Dated 3/23/83 123. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Design Change Control for Small Bore Class 1, 2, & 3 Pipe Supports", Procedure #CP-El-4.6-10, Rev. 6, Dated 3/23/83 .

124. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Design Control for Instrumentation and Control", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-4, Rev. 3, Dated 8/27/82 Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 14 of 27 l L8 I L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l leiteillleillemlillliltlilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

p LIST OF DOCtK NTS REVIEWED G

125. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Approval & Design Verification of Large Field Design Changes", Procedure #CP-EI-4.5-10, Rev. 2, Dated 10/20/82 126. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Design Change Control Instructions", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-1, Rev. 8, Dated 2/22/82 127. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Instruction for Control of Design Documents", Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-3, Rev. O, Dated 5/28/80 128. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Design Change for Field Modifications to Procurement Equipment", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-5, Rev.

O, Dated 10/10/80 i

129. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Piping Deviation Record Form Evaluation", Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-26, Rev 0 Dated 9/14/81 130. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Piping Deviation Record Form", Procedure #CP-EI-16.1-1, Rev. 3, Dated 1/26/82 131. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Structural Engineering Group

! Design Control Instruction", Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-4, Rev. 1, Dated 12/14/81 132. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Civil Structural Engineering Group Instruction for Processing CMC's", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-7, Rev. 2, Dated 5/15/81 l

l I

O .

Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 15 of 27 dLJt a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program litillet;;,,,,,,;; :;,, Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l LIST OF DOCUEllTS REVIEnlED

q v

133. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Design Control for Instrument Engineering Group", Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-6, Rev. 1, Dated 8/1/81 1

134. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Performance Instruction for Piping Analysis by SSAG", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-9, Rev. 1, Dated 8/3/81 135. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., "As-Built Verification Program for Structural Steel Supports", Procedure #CP-EI-4.6-12, Rev. O, Dated 5

8/13/81 136. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Design Document Control by TSMD",

Procedure #CP-EI-4.0-22, Rev. 4, Dated 4/26/83 137. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Technical Services Engineering i Instruction for Pipe Hanger Design Review and Certification",

Procedure #CP-EI-4.5-4, Rev. 4, Dated 2/17/83 138. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., CPSES Project cedures Index, Dated 6/17/83, Rev. 143 139. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Field Design Change Procedure",

Procedure #CP-EP-4.6, Rev. 7, Dated 11/13/80 140. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Environmental Qualification of Class l 1E Equipment Certification", Procedure #CP-EP-4.2, Rev. 2, Dated 3/9/83 4

141. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Records Turnover Activities", Procedure #CP-EP-18.0, Rev. O, Dated 8/14/81 l

Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 16 of 27 L JL A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11111111101011188111 # 11111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

1 LIST OF D0ct3ENTS REVIEWED 142. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., "TSG Design Control", Procedure #CP-EP-4.4, Rev. O, Dated 8/27/81 143. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Procedure for Resolving Inspection Discrepancies at Receiving", Procedure #CP-EP-16.0, Rev. 1, Dated 1/18/82 144. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Procedure for Evaluation of Separation Criteria for Expansion Anchors", Procedure #CP-EP-4.3, Rev. 2, Dated 11/25/81 145. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Design Verification", Procedure #CP-EP-4.5, Rev. 1, Dated 2-18-80 146. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design Changes", Procedure #CP-EP-4.7, Rev. 1 147. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Equipment Classification Procedure",

Procedure #CP-EP-4.8, Rev. O, Dated 5/24/82 148. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Design Control", Procedure #CP-EP-4.0, Rev. 3, Dated 6/11/82 149. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Drawing Update Activities", Procedure #CP-EP-4.9, Rev. 0, Dated 10/25/82 150. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Processing Nonconformance Reports",

Procedure #CP-EP-16.1, Rev. 2, Dated 10/29/82 1

Texas Utilites Services Inc. Page 17 of 27 !

L L 6 a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program imimitilllimilillilimi Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l I

l p LIST OF DOCtNEllTS REVIEWED V 1 i

151. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., CPSES Engineering Instructions Index, Dated 6/9/83, Rev. 71 i

152. Brown & Root CPSES, "ASME Quality Assurance Procedures / Instructions",

Doc. #CP-QAP-0.10, QI-QAP-0.20, Rev. 30, Dated 5/12/83 l

153. Brown & Root, Inc., " Control of Nonconforming Items", Doc. #CP-QAP-16.1, Rev. 15, Dated 6/2/83 i 154. Brown & Root, Inc., "QA Audits", Doc. #CP-QAP-19.1, Rev. 1, Dated 12/9/82 155. Brown & Root, Inc., " Design Control", Doc. #CP-QAP-4.1, Rev. 1, Dated 12/11/81 156. Brown & Root, Inc., " Source Surveillance", Doc. #CP-QAP-8.3, Rev. 3, Dated 8/19/82 157. Brown & Root, Inc., " Supplier Audits", Doc. #CP-QAP-8.4, Rev. 1, Dated 8/19/82 158. Brown & Root, Inc., "Stop Work", Doc. #CP-QAP-17.2, Rev. O, Dated 1/12/82 159. Brown & Root, Inc., " Corrective Action", Doc. #CP-QAP-17.1, Rev. 4, Dated 2/2/83 160. Brown & Root, Inc., Memoranda re Quality Document Index (Listing of Current CP-QAP's, CP-QP's, QI-QP's), Dated 6/2/83 i

O LJ Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 18 of 27

6. J6 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11111111111111111lll14l1811111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

- LIST OF DOCWENTS REVIEWED l

161. Brown & Root, Inc., General Quality Procedure QP-2.0, " Procedure for Evaluating & Reporting of Defects, Non-compliance and Deficiencies",

Dated 12/1/82, Rev. 3.

162. Texas Utilities Generating Co, "SDAR Status Tracking", Procedure #CP-QP-15.6, Rev. O, Dated 2/5/82 163. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Audits", Procedure iCP-QP-19.0, Rev.

2, Dated 4/1/82 164. Texas Utilities Generating Co., "Significant Construction Deficiencies", Procedure #CP-QP-16.1, Rev. 5, Dated 7/23/82 165. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Tracking of Audit Reports / Corrective Action Reports", Procedure #CP-QP-15.7, Rev. 1, Dated 1/25/83 I

O Texas Utilities Generating Co., "CPSES Site Quality Assurance /Qualtty i 166.

i Control Organization", Procedure #CP-QP-3.0, Rev. 8, Dated 8/24/82 167. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Corrective Action", Procedure iCP-QP-17.0, Rev. O, Dated 5/12/80 4

i 168. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Record Turnover to TUGC0 Operations Group", Procedure #CP-QP-18.6, Rev. O, Dated 1/3/80 169. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Supplier Evaluation", Procedure CP-QP-8.1, Rev. 1, Dated 1/28/80 i

O .

Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 19 of 27 i dM6 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program milmmilmilmilmilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l LIST OF DOCUIEllTS REVIEWED O

170. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Inspection Verification for Room Turnover", Procedure #CP-QP-21.0, Rev. 2 Dated 6/3/83 171. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Inspection Report", Procedure #CP-QP-18.0, Rev. 11, Dated 5/19/83 172. Texas Utilities Generating Co., "As-Built Verification", Procedure

1. CP-QP-11.13, Rev. 6, Dated 5/20/83 i 173. Texas utilities Services, Inc., " Design Change Verification",

Procedure #CP-QP-15.4, Rev. 4, Dated 5/20/83 3

174. Texas Utilities Generating Co., "Nonconformances", Procedure #CP-QP-

! 16.0, Rev. 9 Dated 5/24/83 175. Texas Utilities Generating Co, "Startup/ Turnover QA Activities",

! Procedure #CP-QP-15.2, Rev. 3 Dated 4/16/81 i

176. Texas Utilities Generating Co., "As-Built Piping Verification l Instructions", Instruction #QI-QP-11.13-1, Rev. 8 Dated 1/04/83 177. Texas Utilities Generating Co., " Class 1E Conduit Raceway , ,

Inspections", Instruction #QI-QP-11.3-23, Rev. 6, Dated 2/10/83 178. Gibbs & Hill Project Guide, Section 24 - Processing CMC's and DCA's, l Dated 2/3/83 t

179. Gibbs & Hill Project Guide, Dated 4/6/83 l

l O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 20 of 27 l L a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l IllillelMilWMimill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 .

,, _ ._ , _g. _g w - y y _

wT w t'-

LIST OF DOCLBENTS REVIEWED 180. Gibbs & Hill Calculation No. SCS-146C, Set #8, " Investigation of Existing Cable Tray Support Cases for Det. S.E., F, & HPWG-El-0601-01-S, Rev. 3" 181. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Flanged Joint Study in Accordance with ASME Code,Section III, NC-3658.2 and 3", Dated July, 1983 182. NUREG/CR-0371# " Stress Indices for Girth Welded Joints Including i Radial Weld Shrinkage, Mismatch, and Tapered-Wall Transitions",

Published September, 1978. (NOTE: This report contains information of a preliminary nature and does not represent a final report) 183. Gibbs & Hill As-Built Stress Verification - Analysis Results - Other l Calculations, Problem No. AB-1-70, Sheet Nos. 24 and 44 184. Gibbs & Hill Section 4.2.4.5 of Specification No. 2323-ES-100,

" Technical Requirements for the Termination of 600 V Instrument Cable and Thermocouple Extension Wire", Dated 10/15/80, Rev. 2 185. CPSES Procedure TNE-DC-7, " Preparation and Review of Design Drawings", Rev. O, Dated 3/7/83 l

186. CPSES Procedure TNE-DC-7, " Preparation and Review of Design l Drawings", Rev. 1, Dated 6/8/83 l 187. Texas Utilities Generating Company IOM "TUGC0 QA Audit Notification TCP-61, Engineering: Drawing Update Program, January 4-7,1983,QA i

Audit File: TCP-61", Dated 12/7/82 I

O G Texas utilites Services, Inc. Page 21 of 27 L 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l meanthmuinni Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

LIST OF DOCIM ilTS REVIEWED 188. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. IOM "QA Audit TCP-61, Engineering Drawing Update Activities,

Reference:

QTN-618", Dated 2/7/83 189. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. "TUGC0 QA Audit TCP-61, Engineering Drawing Update Activities, Reference QTN-618", Dated 2/28/83 190. Texas Utilities Generating Company IOM "TUGC0 Audit Program - Gibbs &

Hill", dated 10/20/83 191. FSAR Change Request on Sections 3.78, 3.78 (A) and 3.98, Dated 10/2/83 t

192. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. IOM "CPSES Document Control Center",

Dated 9/6/83 193. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. " Operating Instructions - DCC i Satellites", Dated 10/24/83 194. CPSES Document Change Notice No. 5, "DCP-3, Document Control Program", Rev. 16, Dated 10/24/83 195. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ION " Closeout of TGH-3 & TGH-4", Dated 8/15/83 196. Texas Utilities Generating Company " Quality Assurance Audit TGH-10, Gibbs & Hill, Inc.", QA Audit File: TGH-10", Doc. #QGH-55, Dated 6/13/79 l

1 O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 22 of 27 L L a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l 181116 18611111116611161111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O j

I LIST OF DOCINEllTS REVIEWED 197. Gibbs & Hill "1980 2300 MW Installation 03016 Response to TUSI QA Audit of Gibbs & Hill, Ref: TGH-1435, Audit Report No. TGH-3",

Doc. #GTN-6808, Dated 2/10/76 198. Gibbs & Hill "1980 2300 MW Installation 03016 Response to TUSI QA Audit of Gibbs & Hill, Ref: TGH-2698, Audit Report No. TGH-4",

Doc. #GTN-13596, Dated 11/22/76 199. Gibbs & Hill "1980 2300 MW Installation 03016 Response to TUSI QA Audit of Gibbs & Hill, Ref: 1) TGH-2698 2) GTN-13596", Doc.

1. 14629, Dated 12/30/76 200. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. " Evaluation of Response to Audit TGH-4, File Nos. 00100, 03016, & 03048", Doc. #TGH-4040, Dated 1/20/77 201. Gibbs & Hill "1980 2300 MW Installation 03016 Response to TUSI QA Audit of Gibbs & Hill, Ref. 1) TGH-2698 2) GTN-13596 3) GTN-14629 4) TGH-4040", Doc. #GTN-15944, Dated 2/18/77 202. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Small Bore (Site Scope)

Piping Stress Reanalysis", Procedure No. CP-EI-4.0-35, Rev. 1, Dated 3/23/83 203. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Review of Pipe Support Required Prior to System Operation", Procedure No. CP-EI-4.0-30, "Rev. 1, Dated 12/6/82 Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 23 of 27 L 6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program tellisiltiliittelillimilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l LIST OF 00CtN IITS REVIEWED l

204. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " General Instruction for Site Mechanical Engineering Design Group", Procedure No. CP-EI-4.0-15 Rev. 2, Dated 7/21/82 205. Texas Utilities Services, Inc., " Control of Stress Analysis for Pipe Support Engineering", Procedure No. CP-EI-4.0-13, Rev. 7, Dated 3/15/83 206. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. CPSES " Design Control General Requirements", Procedure No. TNE-DC-1, Rev. O, Dated 5/27/83 207. CPSES/FSAR Section 6.2.4.1.3, "Special Containment Isolation Provisions- (#2) - Containment Sump Recirculation Lines" 208. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-55-9, Revision 5, Section 20 O

209. NPS Baseplate Verification Manual, Revision 3.0 210. Gibbs & Hill Procedure ME-1, " Damage Study Procedure", Rev. 0 211. Gibbs & Hill Guide AEG-501, " Thermal Stress Analysis for ASME Code Section III, Class 2 and 3, ANSI B31.1 Piping Systems", Rev 0. Dated June 1981 212. Gibbs & Hill Guide AEG-503 " Pressure and Deadweight Analysis", Rev.

5, Dated April 1981 O Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 24 of 27 LN l ) 6 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilllilllllMIMillWill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DOCLK NTS REVIEWED 213. " Stress Report for Penetrations - Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2", Report ER-103-79, G&W Manufacturing Company, Flued Systems Division ,

e l '

• /,

Gibbs & Hill Valve Acceleration Study Methodology 214.

l ll 215. CPSES/FSAR - Appendix 17A " List of Quality Assured Items", Anunendment qts 3 38, Dated 2/14/83 ) t), . i.

216. Mcdonald Engineering Analysis Report ME-174 " Structural Integrity and Operability of Residual Heat Removal Pump 8X20WDF 1-R, Order 037-

! 36060 for Westinghouse Corporation, WNES E-Spec 678815" .;

'f .

217. W Report M010101 " Seismic Analysis for the RHR Pump Motor", Dated g'.

7/7/82 b h:(

218. W Report M010102 " Seismic Analysis Report for the Comanche Peak Unit ,,,. i

).,

1 RHR Pump / Motor Assemblies", Dated September 1983

i 'i 219. Westinghouse E. Sepc G77474, " Auxiliary Pump Motors", Rev. O, Dated I

3/13/72 i

/ -

I 220. Instruction Manual for Ingersoll-Rand Order No. 037-36060, Item 9A/B ,

(

221. Instruction Manual for Westinghouse Motor G.0. NA-68861-L7, S.O.

7GF66285 .

222. Qualification Sumary of Equipment for RHR Pump 8X20WDF and Motor i

)'

5810P39 by Ingersoll Rand / Westinghouse Large Motor Division t, l

l i

9 Texas Utilites Servi.es, Inc. Page 25 of 27 j-t% { g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program HmmHHmmHmmHH Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

(

q c- ,

\ ,# .

' I

, b '\ /

o-- (t,

,j s (

~O'  %,

i i' 3

\, \,1 ' ..

h;1- .; 6 Y '

s.

h, '

.., , , 's LIST OF 00CtMNTS REVIEWED e e , ,x /g

(

• [.

- je g,, / s'y s

5 (s ,' r p / .223.

Attachment 1) to MSIs -3678 i 44 224. libbs & Hill "7.2 kV Sdtchgear,and Accessories", Specification 2323-

' ,)' ,

y,

/

i, t

'j0.;S-5,Rev.1 3

( 3

\ , , I y s e s' 225.)< s.Gibbs&HIlf,*ElectricMotor-DetailedSpecification(NuclearSafety i

4 VsN s' fv%ted), Sp'eif,)otion,2322-ES-lD, Rev. 4 1 i i t ' A, s\ t, / 3 ,

s>'  ; o.,

a n, , ,

\ 22h

, G10b3 & Hill "8'k'I Insulited,/?oever Cable", Specification 2323-ES-13A,

/

., R5v.1 i' . i' \

I, ,,,- ,

t ,

\.

\ 5 l ./,

'(

i \ \

\

227. Gibbs { 51111 " Cab 1'e had l /g .iceway Schedul ", -Specification 2323-EI-b, / 1700. Issue 301 '\'

' ,-t s j- ( /

q ';

• i- l ( s[ q. ,

s l

2kE. , Gi.ts &/IIH '

" Control,'M$ards", Specification 2323-MS-605, Rev. 2 i

,. 1

(, it i, l<o r i

g 229. Gitcs& Hill"ElectricalhectionSpecihication",No.2323-ES-100,

,l i

,,s ,thv.E, /. / f 1

f ,

I ,

' ( 10. s ',6ibbs& Hill"SolidStatds1,solationEquipment", Specification 2323-f l ES 74, Rev.1 /l '

's \, 1 f,

( ,

.g2K. , Gibbs & Hill ' Motor Cm tro? Centers", Specification 2323-ES-7, i\ .'.

i ,kr ,.

Ad:fendum 1 to Rev.1 ( N, t g 's ..

i '/ \ i,

( 232. ,

Gibbs & Hill " Preparation of Procurement Specification Procedure",

y ,,

Specification 2323-05-5, Rev. 6 .,

i s . -s ,

i

,- y i i 3 33. f , Gibbs & Hill "Notor Li:,t", Specification 2323-EML-1, Rev. 0

( - .

• ) . ) ,\ '- l l, _ ,/ 6 9 '

I o, q

[ 1, l's TexasUtilitesServices,IM. . Page 26 of 27 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

< 6 l MIillMilMMMM ' Final Report TR-83090(-01, Rev. O \ ^ ;

s s

g. ,o ,

I ,) ' i

/,

o /< &e/-  : a. . --

l ~ LIST OF DOCUENTS REVIEWED 234. Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-P-46-426, Rev. O I

i 235. Gibbs & Hill " Cable and Raceway Schedule", Specification 2323-EI-17W, Issue 301 236. Gibbs & Hill " Protective Relaying Procedure", Document 11-2323-001, Rev. 1 237. Gibbs & Hill " Ground Fault Protection", Guide EEG-3.2 238. Gibbs & Hill Design Control, DC-5, Rev. 6 239. Gibbs & Hill Short Circuit Calculation VIII-6, Rev. 1 m

240. Gibbs & Hill Cable Size Calculation VIII-1, Rev. 2 0 241. Westinghouse Electric Corporation " Master Index by Westinghouse, Standard Information Package Model 412", Document No. 952516, Rev. 2

(

2 L t O ., .

Texas Utilites Services, Inc. Page 27 of 27 i 4 i M lri- Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

?% llllllllll11111111111lllllllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

3 d- . _

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION BRP-SF-X-FB-016A 1 10 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-016A 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-005-015-F43S 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-005-016-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-017-F43K 1 8 Support Drawing SF-X-005-018-F43S 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-019-F43R 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-005-020-F43R 1&2 3 Support Drawing l

SF-X-005-032-F43K 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-005-033-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-034-F43R 1 1 Support Drawing SF-X-005-035-F43R 1 1 Support Drawing SF-X-005-036-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 1&2 10 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-017A 1 2 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-004-002-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-004-003-F43K 1 3- Support Drawing SF-X-004-004-F43K 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-004-005-F43K 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-004-006-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing O

(.) Texas Utilities Carvices, Inc. 1 of 11 d[*'j i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lit:::::::::. "ll11lll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

%_ - c-.. m- - - _ - =r

LIST W DRAWINGS REVIEWED SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION SF-X-004-007-F43K 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-004-008-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-004-009-F435 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-007-007-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-008-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-009-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-010-F43K 1 4 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-017B 1&2 8 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-0178 1 2 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-003-002-F43S 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-003-003-F43K 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-003-004-F43K 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-003-005-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-003-006-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-003-007-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-003-008-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-011-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-012-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-013-F43K 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-007-014-F43K 1&2 3 Support Drawing Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 of 11 LT{tj i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program timillHilllilillitilllillli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i-

l LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED O SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION l

SF-X-007-015-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing l SF-X-007-016-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing l BRP-SF-X-FB-018 1 11 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up l l

BRHL-SF-X-FB-018 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clun-up l

SF-X-011-001-F45S 1&2 3 Support Drawing l SF-X-011-028-F45A 1&2 3 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-022 1 4 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-022 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-001-002-F43R 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-001-006-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-010-F43R 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-011-F53S 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-001-012-F43K 1&2 2 Support Drawing SF-X-001-013-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-015-F43R 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-001-016-F43K 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-017-F43R 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-018-F43R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-001-019-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing O

Q .

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

[4,[rjt j Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 3 of 11 1lll111111111lllll11fl1llll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DRAWIl0GS REVIEWED p SPENT FUEL POOL C00LIf06 SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

V DRAWIl0G 100. PAGE REY. DESCRIPTION SF-X-001-020-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-021-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-001-022-F43K 2 5 Support Drawing SF-X-032-023-F53R 1 2 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-027 1 8 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-027 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-033-003-F53R 1&2 5 Support Drawing SF-X-033-004-F53R 1&2 5 Support Drawing SF-X-033-005-F53R 1&2 6 Support Drawing SF-X-033-009-F53R 1 2 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-028 1 12 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-028 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-033-001-F53R 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-033-002-F53R 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-033-006-F43R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-033-007-F43R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-033-008-F43R 1&2 3 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-033 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up

. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 of 11 LT[*j i - i . Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lllllll111llll1llllll111lll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED O SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION l BRHL-SF-X-FB-033 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up  !

SF-X-001-023-F43R 1&2 3 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-034 1 6 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-034 1 4 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-032-012-F53K 1&2 2 Support Drawing SF-X-032-013-F53K 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-032-014-F53S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-032-015-F53K 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-032-016-F53S 1-3 3 Support Drawing f SF-X-032-017-F53R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-032-013-F53R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-032-019-F53R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-032-020-F53R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-032-021-F53S 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-032-022-F53K 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-032-024-F53S 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-032-025-F53K 1&2 2 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-040 1 8 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-040 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up h

' Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 5 of 11 T 4 i H .' fj Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program -

Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 IIlllilill3lIllillilllllillll

1 LIST OF DIUWINGS REVIEWED SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION SF-X-005-008-F53R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-023-F53R 1&2 2 Support Drawing SF-X-005-024-F53R 1 3 Support Drawing i l

SF-X-005-025-F53R 1 5 Support Drawing l SF-X-005-026-F53K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-027-F53R 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-028-F43R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-005-029-F43R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-005-037-F43R 1 2 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-041 1 11 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-041 1 7 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-005-001-F53R 1&2 6 Support Drawing SF-X-005-002-F53R 1&2 5 Support Drawing SF-X-005-003-F53R 1&2 5 Support Drawing ,

SF-X-005-021-F53R 1&2 2 Support Drawing SF-X-005-022-F53R 1 2 Support Drawing SF-X-005-031-F53R 1 3 Support Drawing BRHL-SF-X-FB-23 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRP-SF-X-FB-052 1 2 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-Up p

U Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 6 of 11 L '[ t i Comanche Peak Independent-Assessment Program

)

- 1lllll1llllll1lll111lllll1llll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED f SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION BRP-SF-X-FB-053 1 1 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up 2323-Al-0520 1 8 Primary Plant Fuel Building Floor Plan at El. 810'-6",

825'-2" & 802'-0" (FSAR Diagram) 2323-Al-0521 1 8 Primary Plant Fuel Building Floor Plan at El. 838'-9" &

841'-0" (FSAR Diagram) 2323-Al-0522 1 4 Primary Plant Fuel Building Floor Plan at El. 860'-0" &

899'-6" (FSAR Diagram) 2323-El-0004 1 8 6.9 KV Auxiliaries One Line Diagram Safeguard Buses 2323-El-0005 1 9 480V Auxiliary One Line Diagram Safeguard Buses O 2323-et-ooo9 1 1o ce t i e t a oiesei ce er ter Safeguard 480V MCCS One Line Diagram 2323-El-0010 1 10 Common Auxiliaries & Control Building Safeguard 480V MCCS One Line Diagram 2323-El-0018-1 1 16 208V, 120V and 118V AC One Line Diagram 2323-El-0020 1 11 125V DC One Line Diagram 2323-El-0056 60 5 Spent Fuel Pool HX & Pump Rm Fan Cooler 2323-El-0071 14 5 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Water Pump-01, Tag

1. CPX-SFAPSF-01 2323-El-0071 15 5 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Water Pump 02, Tag

1. CPX-SFAPSF-02 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 7 of 11 i $ i d g' Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilllilillililillilillilillili' Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

1 LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION l 2323-El-0071 16 3 Spent Fuel Pool Skimer Pump Tag CPX-SFAPSF-1 2323-El-0071 19 5 Spent Fuel Pool Misc. SW 2323-El-0071 20 5 Spent Fuel Pool Misc. SW 2323-El-0071 21 4 Spent Fuel Pool RTDs Connection Diagram 2323-El-0077 2 CP-1 ANN Term CAB 1-TC-30 Bay 2 2323-El-0077 3 CP-1 ANN Term CAB 1-TC-30 Bay 2 External Connection - Diagram 2323-El-0139 1 10 Solid State Safeguard Seq. CAB "A" Unit 1 Interconnection Diagram 2323-El-0148 1 7 BOP Analog Rack Interconnection Diagram 2323-El-0155 1 20 B0P Auxiliary Relay Rack #1 External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0158 1 19 B0P Auxiliary Relay Rack #4 External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0173 6 9 Spent Fuel Pool Panel CPX-EIPRV-06 External Extension Diagram 2323-El-0174-14 2 16 Vent - Vertical Panel Interconnection Diagram 2323-El-0800 1 16 Fuel Handling Building Tray & Conduit Plan El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0800-11 1 4

, 2323-El-0800-12 1 2 2323-El-0800-S 1 2 Fuel Handling Building Cable Tray Support Plan El. 810'-6" Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 8 of 11

[4[d g'ij Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lillililllitiliittiililllillll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED

( SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0801 1 12 Fuel Handling Building Tray & Conduit Plan El. 838'-9", 841'-0" 2323-El-0802 1 13 Fuel Handling Building Tray & Conduit Plan El. 860'-0" 2323-El-1703 1 6 Miscellaneous Typical Grounding Details 2323-El-1703-01 2 5 Miscellaneous Typical Grounding Details 2323-E2-0158 1 6 B0P Auxiliary Relay Rack #4 External Connection Diagram 2323-E2-0162-04 1 2 Unit #2 Comp I/O CAB 01 Zone 6 Interconnection Diagram 2323-M1-0230 2 11 Flow Diagram - Component Cooling Water System 2323-M1-0235 1 10 Flow Diagram Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Clean up system 2323-M1-0800 1 6 Composite Piping Fuel Handling Building Plan Below El. 813'-6" 2323->il-0801 1 4 Composite Piping - Fuel Handling Bldg. Plan Below El. 840'-0" 2323-M1-0803 1 4 Composite Piping - Fuel Handling Bldg. Plan Below El. 860'-0" 2323-M1-0806 1 9 Composite Piping - Fuel Handling Bldg.

Sections 2323-M1-2103-5 1 4 Locally Mounted Pressure Instruments Nuclear Service - Outside Containment 2323-M1-2235-1 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool' Cooling and Clean-up System 2323-M1-2235-2 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Clean-up System 2323-M1-2235-3 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Clean-up System 1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 9 of 11 LT[tj t r a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program T

, , , , , , Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

,, , -, - - , - - - - .w- w. --- e

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-M1-2235-4 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Clean-up System 2323-M1-2235-5 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling and Clean-up System 2323-M1-2517 1 4 Fuel Building El. 838'-9", 845'-9", 860'-0",

918'-3" 2323-M1-2518-1 1 4 Fuel Building El. 810'-6" 2323-M1-2518-2 2 4 Fuel Building El. 810'-6" 2323-M1-2617 1 3 Instrument Location & Air Piping Fuel at El.

838'-9" 2323-M1-2618 1 3 Illegible Drawing Description 2323-S-0800 1 5 Fuel Building - EL. 810'-6" Mat Outline 2323-5-0801 1 6 Fuel Building - EL. 810'-6" Mat Reinforcing 2323-S-0802 2 3 Fuel Building - EL. 810'-6" Mat Reinforcing 2323-S-0803 1 4 Fuel Building El. 838'-9" (Outline Sh-1) 2323-5-0813 2 10 Fuel Building - EL. 810'-6" thru 918'-3" Outline 2323-5-0820 2 6 Fuel Building Misc. Sections & Details 2323-S-0825 3 4 Fuel Building Misc. Sections & Details 2323-S-0826 1 5 Fuel Building Concrete Inserts Plan at El.

810'-6" 2323-5-0835 1 6 Fuel Building - Outline & Reinforcing at El.

802'-0", 800'-2" & 785'-6" 2323-S-0901 1 4 Cable Tray Support b

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 10 of 11 g {ti ? Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

!!!! Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O lililitilllllibi:lllli l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED i O SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-S-0902 2 5 Cable Tray Support 2323-S-0903 3 5 Cable Tray Support 2323-S-0904 5 5 Cable Tray Supports E-17621 1 6 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling Pump Vendor Drawing 21287150 22E 7 GE Wiring Diagram Size 6 FVNR Starter 5713 1 3 Vert. Spent Fuel Pool H.X.

(2) Pass Tube Side (1) Pass Shell Side Assembly Drawing O

1 l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 11 of 11 LT(PJi,i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i lllllllllllllllllllllll11m11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtK NT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

O oc/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.  ;

0-999 SERIES 00031 0 2323-S-0801 5 00036 0 2323-S-0825 2 1 I

00043 0 2323-S-0820 5 00069 0 2332-S-0800 4 00156 1 El-0500-01-S 2 00156 1 S-903 5 00286 1 2323-S-0814 3 00286 1 2323-S-0803 3 00295 0 2323-M1-0803 2 1 00339 0 2323-S-0826 5 i 00345 0 2323-S-0800 4  !

00352 0 2323-S-0800 4 i 00353 0 2323-S-0826 5 i 00512 1 2323-S-0800 4  :

00512 1 2323-S-0813 9 1 00535 0 2323-S-0825 3 00535 0 2323-5-0839 3 00552 0 2323-M1-0801 1 ,

O 00866 00876 00898 0

1 2323-S-0800 2323-El-1701 4

10 1

0 2323-M1-0800 4 00898 0 2323-M1-0805 5 00962 0 2323-M1-0800 4 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333E3333333333333333 1000 SERIES 01114 0 2323-S-0825 4 01141 5 2323-S-0803 4 '

01141 5 2323-S-0842 4 l 01173 0 2323-5-0800 5 '

01173 0 2323-S-0803 4 01286 1 2323-S-0825 4 01420 0 BRP-PN-1-503 1 01420 0 2323-M1-502 2 01420 1 2323-M1-0801 3 01481 0 2323-5-0901 2 01481 0 2323-S-0902 2 01481 0 2323-S-0903 2 i

1

() tg[

a g i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1 of 24 WNWHNWWWWWg Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHANGE DOC N NT LISTING O SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

1000 SERIES (cont'd) I 01564 0 2323-S-0903 2 01584 0 2323-S-0803 4 i

01588 0 2323-S-0803 4 01588 0 2323-S-0804 4 01596 0 2323-S-0903 2 01619 0 2323-M1-0851 1 01619 0 2323-S-0825 4 01661 0 2323-S-0902 2 01749 0 2323-S-0811 2 01749 0 2323-S-0813 10 01749 0 2323-5-0850 2 01886 2323-S-0901 01926 0 2323-S-0803 4 01927 0 2323-S-0803 4 01927 0 2323-S-0806 5 01969 3 2323-S-0903 4 01969 3 2323-El-0712-01-S 6 ,

01971 0 2323-S-0903 4 O ....=......==....=.............=.....==................................. .....

2000 SERIES i

02002 0 2323-S-0803 4 02002 0 2323-S-0804 4 02002 0 2323-S-0344 4 02040 0 2323-S-0902 3 02055 5 2323-S-0903 4 02056 0 2323-S-0903 3 02084 0 2323-S-0903 3 02164 0 2323-S-0803 4 02187 1 2323-S-0903 5 -

02217 0 2323-S-0825 4 02291 0 BRP-DD-X-FB-05 1 02291 0 2323-M1-800 6 1 02304 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-038 1 02304 0  !

2323-M1-800 6 j 02305 0 2323-M1-800 6 02305 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-03A 2 02306 0 2323-M1-0801 3 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 2 of 24 A (ej g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

, Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O 1111ll11111lll11lllllll111lll1 l

_ ___ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCLNENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A) l CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV. ,

l 2000 SERIES (con't) 02306 0 BRP-CP-X-FB-01 1 02307 0 2323-M1-800 6 02307 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-04 2 02308 0 2323-M1-0800 6 02308 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-05 5 02310 1 2332-F1-0800 6 02310 1 BRP-CC-1-FB-02 1 02319 0 2323-M1-0800 6 02319 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-05 5 02320 0 2323-M1-0801 3 02320 0 BRP-CC-1-FB-02 1 02341 0 2323-M1-2110-01 1 02341 0 2323-M1-2110-02 1 02417 0 2323-M1-0800 5 02417 0 SW-2-FB-001 4 02618 2 2323-S-0901 4 02625 0 2323-S-0813 10 02646 5 2323-5-0903 5 0 02769 02836 02836 4

3 3

2323-S-0903 2323-S-0707 2323-El-1702 4

9 6

02896 4 SF-X-011-009-F45R 0 02901 3 2323-5-0902 5 02904 5 2323-S-0903 5 02904 5 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 02916 1 2323-S-0825 4 3333=33333=3333333333333333333333333====33333333=3333333=33333=333333333333333 3000 SERIES 03115 0 2323-M1-0801 3 03120 8 2323-S1-0605 9 03120 8 2323-S1-0611 5 03120 8 2323-S1-0633 10 03120 8 2323-El-1702 5 03138 0 2323-M1-0703 11 03138 0 2323-M1-0703-1 11 03138 0 2323-M1-0704-1 6 03138 0 2323-M1-0800 5 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 3 of 24 gg(

e .

, i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111lll111111mll11:1111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING

, SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DeC/DCA/

FICR NO. REY. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

3000 SERIES (con't) 03138 0 2323-M1-0801 2 l 03243 2 2323-S-0800 5 l 03243 2 2323-5-0803 4 03243 2 2323-El-0801 6 03307 0 2323-S-0835 6 03364 0 2323-El-1701 5 1 03370 1 2323-M1-0800 6 03370 1 2323-M1-0740-01 4 03370 1 2323-S-0820 6  ;

03375 1 2323-El-1702 1 l 03377 7 2323-El-0718 4 03377 7 2323-El-1702 5 03423 1 2323-S-0901 3 i 03464 17 2323-S-0930 1 03464 17 2323-S-0902 5 03586 2 2323-S-0825 4 03586 2 2323-S-0824 5 03595 8 2323-El-1701 9 0 03595 03664 03665 8

0 0

2323-S-0785 2323-S-0835 2323-S-0835 7

6 6

03666 0 2323-S-0835 6 03667 0 2323-S-0835 6 03668 0 2323-S-0835 6 03669 0 2323-S-0835 6 03697 1 CS-1-326-001-555R 0 03877 0 2323-El-1701 5 03947 0 2323-S-0901 3 33333333333333333333333333333333=33333333333333333333333333333=333=3==3333=3=3 4000 SERIES 04052 1 2323-M1-1103 11 04052 1 2323-S-1107 9 l 04052 1 2323-S-1108 9 i 04052 1 2323-S-0820 6 04135 0 2323-S-0902 4 04178 18 2323-El-1702 6 04182 1 2323-S1-0624 21

() .

Texas Utilities Systens, Inc.

geg'[tj g . i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 4 of'24 l ,_ 3,,,,,,,,,7. . Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l

I

DESIGN CHANGE DOCLNENT LISTING q SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

L)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

4000 SERIES (con't) 04182 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 04182 2 2323-M1-0806 8 04182 2 2323-M1-0801 3 04343 1 2323-El-1701 7 04377 0 2323-S-0835 6 04564 0 2323-S-0803 4 04564 0 2323-S-0814 4 04574 0 2323-M1-0800 6 04574 0 BRP-DD-2-FB-001 0 04651 0 2323-M1-0801 3 04651 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-18 5 04660 0 2323-S-0801 6 04693 7 2323-El-0900 10 04693 7 2323-El-1701 10 04850 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-45 1 04850 0 2323-M1-0803 1 04851 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-10 2 04851 0

() 04878 0 2323-M1-0801 2323-M1-0806 1

8

.......===...=......................==...........................=.....=.....

5000 SERIES 05088 0 2323-M1-0801 3 05088 0 2323-M1-0806 8 05088 0 CS-2-214-001-A43R 1 05105 1 DD-X-035-005-A35R 0 05105 1 2323-M1-0235 5 05105 1 2323-M1-0801 3 05105 1 2323-M1-0805 8 05105 1 BRP-SF-X-AB-52 1 05169 0 2323-El-1701 6 05257 3 2323-M1-0805 8 05257 3 2323-M1-0801 3 i

05257 3 BRP-VD-X-FB-02 0 05259 0 2323-M1-0801 3 05267 1 2323-S-0902 4 05323 0 2323-El-1701 7 05347 1 2323-S-0901 4 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 5 of 24 l t ag (ej g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program I lillitillimlillimlilllllil Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

{

w _ . . - - -

l l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

6000 SERIES (con't) 06187 0 2323-S-0903 4 06299 2 2323-S-0902 5 06333 0 2323-S-0800 5 06333 0 2323-S-0801 6 06333 0 2323-S-0802 3 06333 0 2323-S-0813 10 06405 0 2323-5-0835 6 06405 0 2323-S-0820 6 06440 2 2323-El-1701 10 06492 0 2323-S-0800 5 06501 0 2323-El-1701 8 06605 0 2323-S-0835 6 06605 0 2323-S-0820 6 06606 0 2323-S-0835 6 06606 0 2323-S-0820 6 06640 0 23230-S-0800 5 06641 3 2323-El-0804 9 06641 3 2323-El-0806 2 06641 3 2323-5-0800 5 06706 3 2323-El-1701 10 06727 0 2323-El-1701 8 06736 0 2323-El-1702-01 5 06762 0 2323-5-0800 5 06764 0 2323-S-0800 5 06848 2 2323-El-1710-02 18 06848 2 2323-El-1700 264 06848 2 2323-El-0500-03 20 06848 2 2323-El-0505 20 06877 9 2323-S1-0550 4 06877 9 2323-S1-0517 1 06877 9 2323-S1-0600 17 06877 9 2323-S-0800 5 06877 9 2323-S-0776 4 06877 9 2323-S-0721 5 l 06877 9 2323-El-1008 10 l

06879 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-011 1 06879 0 2323-M1-0803 3 '

06879 0 2323-M1-0801 3 l /"'T l (m,/ Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 7 of 24 t [tj [ 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

! 1111111ll1111111111111lllll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCLNENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A) oeC/oCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REY. I 1

5000 SERIES (con't) 05499 0 2323-El-1702 3 05501 0 2323-S-0835 6 05508 1 2323-S-0910 9 05526 6 2323-S-0800 5 05593 2 2323-El-1701 8 05645 5 2323-S-0836 2 05671 0 2323-S-0903 4 05672 0 2323-S-0903 4 05673 0 2323-S-0903 4 05674 0 2323-5-0903 4 05675 0 2323-S-0903 4 05676 2 2323-S-0903 4 05677 0 2323-S-0903 4 05678 0 2323-5-0903 4 05679 0 2323-S-0903 4 05680 0 2323-S-0903 4 05683 0 2323-S-0903 4 05690 4 2323-El-1702 5 05723 0 2323-El-1702-01 3 O- 05830 1 2323-El-1702 6 05850 1 2323-El-1701 8 05941 0 2323-El-1701 7 33=3333333=33=33=333333333333=33333333=33333333=3333333333333333333333=3333333 6000 SERIES 06026 2 2323-M1-0801 3 06026 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-08 1 06027 1 2323-M1-0801 3 06027 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-10 2 06046 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-06 5 06046 0 2323-M1-0801 3 06047 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-01 3 06047 0 2323-M1-0801 3 06082 0 2323-S-0800 5 06111 1 2323-El-1701 8 06111 1 2323-El-0717-01 6 06118 1 2323-S-0820 6 06137 0 2323-El-1702 4

() g [tj , ,

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 6 ofl24 NHm: . Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

DESIGN CHANGE DOCUENT LISTING SPENT FUEL FOOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CNC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

7000 SERIES l 07041 9 2323-S-0800 5 07043 0 2323-S-0901 3 07106 3 2323-El-1702-01 7 07130 0 2323-Sl-0577 5 07130 0 2323-S-0803 4 07130 0 2323-S-0843 4 07130 0 2323-S-0847 2 07130 0 2323-S-0848 2 07130 0 2323-S1-0640 12 07130 0 2323-51-0605 9 07130 0 2323-S1-0642 11 07130 0 2323-S1-0648 11 07130 0 2323-51-0614 3 07130 0 2323-Sl-0645 4 07130 0 2323-S1-0643 6 07130 0 2323-S1-0611 4 07130 0 2323-Sl-0644 6 07130 0 2323-S1-0608 4 07130 0 2323-M1-2617 2 0s 07130 07130 0

0 2323-M1-2618 2323-M1-2603-03 2

4 07130 0 2323-M1-2605 3 07130 0 2323-M1-2606 4 07130 0 2323-M1-2607 5 07130 0 2323-M1-2608 4 07191 0 2323-M1-0235 5 07191 0 2323-M1-0801 3 07261 3 2323-S-0803 4 .

07261 3 2323-S-0814 5 07289 1 2323-S1-0570 3 07790 2 2323-El-0602-03 14 07790 2 2323-ES-100 2 07850 3 2323-S1-0413 5 07850 3 2323-Sl-0636 14 07850 3 2323-S2-0636 8 07850 3 2323-S-0765 7 07850 3 2323-S1-0637 11 07850 3 2323-S2-0637 5 07850 3 2323-S-0766 7 f( ') Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 8 of 24 Leg'( Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

, Final lillmlillilitillilimililli Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCUENT LISTING l

SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CnC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

7000 SERIES (con't) 07850 3 2323-S2-0413 5 07850 3 2323-S-0824 5 07850 3 2323-S-0825 4 07850 3 2323-S-0837 2 l 07976 0 2323-M1-0253 5 t

07976 0 2323-M1-0263 5 07976 0 2323-M1-0508 11 07976 0 2323-M1-0509 17 07976 0 2323-M1-0511 10 07976 0 2323-M2-0511 2 07976 0 2323-M1-0523 0 07976 0 2323-M2-0253 0 07976 0 2323-M2-0263 0 07976 0 2323-M2-0508 0 07976 0 2323-M2-0509 0 07976 0 2323-M2-0523 0

==.......===.=..=.......=....=......=..........==..=.........................

08002 0 2323-M1-0800 6 08002 0 2323-M1-0801 3 08002 0 BRP-DD-X-FB-01 2-08008 0 2323-M1-0800 6 08008 0 2323-M1-0801 3 08104 0 BRP-DD-1-FB-01 0 08104 0 2323-M1-0800 6 08116 1 2323-S-0802 3 08127 0 2323-M1-0801 3 08127 0 2323-M1-0806 8 08127 0 2323-M1-0235 5 08128 0 2323-M1-0801 3 08128 0 2323-M1-0806 8 08128 0 2323-M1-0235 5 08450 0 2323-E2-0718-01 2 08450 0 2323-El-0718-01 9 08450 0 2323-El-1702-01 5 08451 5 2323-S-0803 4 08451 5 2323-S1-0522 3 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 9 of 24 A [tj g' , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i 19111111ll11m1:1114llll11111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

I 1

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtNENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

O CMC /DCA/

FICR NC. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

8000 SERIES (con't) 08451 5 2323-Sl-0525 5 08451 5 2323-S2-0522 3 08451 5 2323-S2-0525 5 08451 11 2323-S-0803 4 08451 11 2323-S1-0522 3 08451 11 2323-S1-0525 5 08451 11 2323-52-0522 3 08451 11 2323-S2-0525 5 08501 3 2323-S1-0500 4 08501 3 2323-El-1701 10 08504 1 2323-El-0700-01-S 3 08504 1 2323-S-0903 5 08671 0 2323-El-01701 8 08882 5 W-CB08701-F-1 7 08882 5 W-CB08701-F-2 6 08882 5 W-CB08701-F-3 4 08882 5 W-CB08701-F-4 4 08882 5 W-CB08701-F-5 6

(

08882 08882 5

5 W-CB08701-F-6 W-CB08701-F-7 7

9 08973 0 2323-M1-0801 4 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333=3333333333333333333333333333333333 9000 SERIES 09144 0 2323-M1-0230 8 09144 0 2323-M1-0806 8 09144 0 2323-M1-0801 3 09302 0 2323-S-0825 4 09407 0 2323-El-1701 9 09468 0 2323-S-0820 6 09612 0 2323-M1-0801 3 i 09612 0 BRP-DD-X-FB-004 0 09616 0 2323-M1-0801 3 09616 0 BRP-DD-X-FB-009 0 l 09689 0 2323-M1-0801 3 09689 0 BRP-DD-X-FB-005 2 09721 0 2323-M1-0801 3 09721 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-020 5 i

' () g g'{ ; g e

3 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 10 of 24

! Milllilllilllililllllililli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DC4/

FICR h0. REY. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

9000 SERIES (con't) 09751 5 2323-El-1702-01 7 09835 1 2323-S-0803 4 09835 1 2323-S-0824 5 09985 4 2323-El-1701 10 333333333332=33333E3=3E==3=E3332=333333333=32333======32=3=33=====3333223333=3 10000 SERIES 10004 0 2323-M1-0801 3 10004 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-018 6 10012 0 2323-M1-0803 3 10013 1 2323-M1-0801 3 10013 1 2323-M1-0802 3 10013 1 2323-M1-0803 3 10013 1 BRP-DD-X-FB-06 1 10013 1 BRP-DD-X-FB-07 1 10024 1 2323-M1-0806 8 10024 1 BRP-CC-X-FB-001 0 0 10221 10464 10552 1

0 2323-El-1705 2323-El-1701 4

9 1 2323-M1-0801 4 10552 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-015 5 10553 4 2323-M1-0801 4 10553 4 BRP-SF-X-FB-22 1 10556 2 2323-M1-0608 10 10556 2 BRP-DD-1-SB-6 5 10850 0 2323-M1-0803 3 10850 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-037 1 11001 5 2323-E2-0716-01 7 11001 5 2323-El-0716-01 19 11001 5 2323-El-1701 10 11040 0 2323-El-1701 9' 11040 0 2323-S-0714 7 11137 0 2323-M1-0881 4 11137 0 2323-S-0803 4 11245 2 2323-El-1702 6 11245 2 2323-El-1701 10 11294 0 2323-El-1701 9 11416 0 2323-El-1702-01 7

() ge g [tj g i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Progran 11 of 24 111l1811ll111111llllllll1lllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHANGE DOCINENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

10000 SERIES (con't) j 11499 0 2323-El-1702 6 11658 1 2323-El-1701 10 11804 1 2323-El-1701 10 11811 0 2323-El-1701 10 12123 0 2323-El-1702 6 12187 1 2323-S-0904 4 12211 1 BRP-DD-X-FB-003 3 12211 1 2323-M1-0242 11 12211 1 2323-M1-0801 4 12214 2 BRP-CA-X-FB-001 1 12214 2 2323-M1-0800 6 12214 2 2323-M1-0806 8 12534 1 2323-S-0800 5 12534 1 2323-5-0819 5 12534 1 2323-S-0826 6 12879 0 2323-El-1701 10 12921 0 2323-ES-100 2 12951 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 O 12998 13223 13225 1

0 1

2323-S-0902 2323-El-1701 2323-M1-0801 5

10 4

13225 1 2323-M1-0806 9 13225 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-052 0 13464 0 2323-El-1701 10 13513 3 2323-S-0825 4 13559 4 2323-El-1702-01 7 13561 0 2323-El-1701 10 13581 2 2323-Al-0520 8 13581 2 2323-S-0800 5 14106 1 2323-S-0711 6 14106 1 2323-5-0800 5 14201 2 2323-El-1702 6 14307 0 2323-El-1701 10 14411 1 2323-S-0800 5 14593 0 2323-M1-0801 4 14593 0 2323-M1-0805 9 14593 0 RWM-WP-X-FB-013 0 14629 0 2323-M1-0806 9 14629 0 2323-M1-0801 4

() .

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

ge g (ej , i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 12 of 24 lllll11llll1111111lll11illll11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l l

l i

DESIGN CHANGE DOCIE NT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. /. REV.

l 10000 SERIES (con't) 14629 0 RWM-WP-X-FB-006 1 14711 4 2323-S2-0637 6 14711 4 2323-S1-0F.36 15 14711 4 2323-S1-0637 11 14774 4 2323-S-0800 5 15191 1 2323 r.1-1701 10 15208 3 2323-El-1702-01 7 15210 1 237.3-El-1701 10 15210 2 2',23-El-1701 10 15214 3 2323-S-0714 8 15465 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 15589 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 15738 5 2323-Al-0539 3 15851 1 2323-El-0094 7 15851 1 2323-El-0095 8 15851 1 2323-El-1703-01 5 15868 1 2323-S-0803 4 16017 3 2323-Al-0521 8 O 16017 16130 3

7 2323-S-0803 2323-S-0803 4

4 16287 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 16480 0 2323-S-0903 4 16625 0 2323-El-1701 10 16785 1 2323-S-0800 5 16785 1 2323-Al-0520 1 16800 3 2323-El-0064-09 4 16800 3 2323-El-0064-10 6 16800 3 2323-El-0064-37 3 16800 3 2323-El-0064-38 3 16800 3 2323-El-0064-39 3 16800 3 2323-El-0076-41 1 16800 3 2323-El-0077-08 1 16800 3 2323-El-0080-01 17 16800 3 2323-El-0080-03 17 16800 3 2323-El-0080-04 19 16800 3 2323-El-0080-06 18 16800 3 2323-El-0166 8 16800 3 2323-El-0167 9 .

1680J 3 2323-El-0171-05 10 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 13 of 24 eg [ ; g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program )

lemmimmmimilmill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l,

a >

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTIIIG SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

10000 SERIES (con't) 16800 3 2323-El-0172-10 13 16800 3 2323-El-0172-14 16 16800 3 2323-El-0075-04 4 16800 3 2323-El-0175-05 4 16800 3 2323-El-0511-15C 8 16800 3 2323-El-0511-60A 8 16800 3 2323-El-0511-608 7 16835 0 2323-El-1701 10 16950 1 2323-M1-0268 1 16950 1 2323-M1-0803 4 16950 1 2323-M1-0804 1 16970 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 J

17008 0 2323-El-1701 10 17035 0 2323-El-1701 10 17054 1 2323-S-0825 4 17083 3 8114-0-304 6 17083 3 8114-0-306 7

) 17083 3 8114-D-307 3 17083 8114-D-308 O 17083 17083 3

3 3

8114-D-309 8114-0-300 4

4 5

17083 3 8114-D-310 4 17083 3 8114-D-311 3 17083 3 8114-D-312 2 17083 3 8114-D-313 5 17083 3 8114-D-314 5 17083 3 8114-D-320 5 17083 3 8114-D-050 F ,

17463 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 17667 0 2323-E l.-1701 10 17729 1 2323-S-0902 5 17755 1 2323-S1-0589 7 17793 1 2323-El-1700 308 17793 1 2323-El-0504 11 17817 2 2323-S1-0534-01 1

, 17838 2 2323-S-0902 5 i

17842 2 2323-5-0902 5 17843 0 2323-El-1702-01 7 17900 1 2323-El-2014 15 1

() g (ej i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 14 of 24 1111111111111111111111111lll11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

l

A - A b s 1

DESIGN CHANGE DOCIE NT LISTING l SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A) 1 CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

10000 SERIES (con't) 17912 0 2323-El-1701 10 17921 0 2323-S-0820 6 17930 0 2323-El-1701 10 17948 0 2323-M1-0550 5 17980 0 2323-El-1700 308 18004 0 2323-E2-0607 5 18004 0 2323-E2-0601-01 3 18007 0 2323-El-0710-03 9 18010 0 WD-99X0701-A-4 2 18015 0 2323-E2-0174-02 3 18016 0 W-TC23702-D-1 3 18016 0 W-TC23701-D-1 1 18016 0 W-TC22702-D-1 1 18016 0 W-TC22701-D-1 1 18020 0 2323-El-1701 10 18028 0 2323-El-0030-26 8 10028 0 2323-El-003375 1 2 18023 0 2323-El-0030-30

.1 0 18028 18029 0

0 2323-El-0022 9028-1 G 9

1 18029 0 9029-1 0 18029 0 9030-1 E 18031 0 52105D1-1 C 18031 0 52105D1-10 8 18036 0 2323-El-1700 308 18037 0 2323-E2-1700 157 18038 0 2323-El-709 9 18038 0 2323-El-715-01 11 .

18038 0 2323-El-1700 308 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 20000 SERIES 23456 1 2323-S-0903 4 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 15 of 24 ga g[;g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program imilillientimililllisilti Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 1 _ - - - --

N,. h,,

l i

)

t

/, f) , ,  ?

,. \

.^

p ,

'y i ( , ,

DESIGN CHANGE DtXMENT LISTING t /

t 'SFENT FUO. POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A) 4 , i i

CMC /DCA/

)t FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

1 '

3OJ00 SERIES

!) 31158 /, 2323-S-0903 4 31158 2323-S-0901 3 31199 '

2 >2323-S-0903 5 31923 1 EX-1-009-005-T45 0 P 32456 1 2323-S-0903 4 32453' 1 2323 S-0902 4 32456 1 2323-S-0903 4 32503 0 2323-5-0902 4 32517 3 -

2323-S'0902 4 33683 0 23?3-M1-0801 3 34182 0 233-M1-0801 4 34182 0 233-M1-0803 4 L

34182 0 233-M1-0805 9 34182 0 , BRP-VD-X FB-003 0 35255 0 2323-M1-0801 4 35255 '

0 BRP-DD X-FB-009 2 35402 1 2323-M1-0800 7 35402 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-003A 4 O 36522 36878 36878 0

0 0

2323-S-0901 2323-M1-0806 3

9 c?323-M1-0800 7 36878 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-024 4 37488 5 SF-X-011-025-F45R 30524 3 2323-M1-0803 4 33524 3 2323-M1-0804 1 38677 1 ,

2323-S-0902 4 s

u ......====....................'..........................==..=...............

3.' 40000 SERIES , i, ?

40059 3 2323-M1-0801 4 40059 3 BRP-DD-X-FB-002 1 40067 7 2323-M1-0800 7 40067 7 BRP-CH-X-FB-004 4

< 40068 7 2323-M1-0800 7 40068 7 BRP-Ch-X-FB-003 5 40069 2 2323-M1-0800 7 40069 2 BRP-CH-X-FB-003 5 40070 0 2323-M1-0800 7 4

i

(_ 9 $

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 16 of 24

'y j g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i

s lilliliteilllilimilililll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

., r , ) ,

"1.

' DESIGN CIWUGGE DOCUMENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DIC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REY.

40000 SERIES (con't) 40070 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-004 4 40070 1 2323-M1-0800 7 40070 1 BRP-CH-X-FB-004 4 40111 0 2323-M1-0800 7 40111 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-005 7

, 40111 15 2323-M1-0800 7 40111 15 -

BRP-CH-X-FB-005 4 40112 0 - 2323-M1-0800 7 40112 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-005 3 40112 1 2323-M1-0800 7 40112 1 BRP-CH-X-FB-005 3 40113 10 2323-M1-0800 7 40113 10 BRP-CH-X-FB-006 3 40114 4 2323-M1-0800 7 40114 4 BRP-CH-X-FB-006 3 40118 2 2323-M1-0800 6 40118 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-005 8 40134 2323-M1-0800 O

1 7 40134 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-040 4 40204 0 2323-M1-0801 4 lp 40204 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-026 2

13, 42006 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-016A 6 i -[ 42006 1 2323-M1-0801 4 42007 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 0 42007 1 2323-M1-0801 4 43385 0 2323-M1-0803 4 43385 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-028 4 43472 0 2323-M1-0801 4 43472 0 2323-M1-0806 9 43501 4 2323-M1-0801 4 43501 4 BRP-CH-X-FB-009 1 43501 4 3RP-CH-X-FB-006 4 L 'a' ,_ 43502 2 2323-M1-0991 4 r 43502 2 BRP-CH c.-it<011 0 43521 1 233?-P'-9U.1 4 43521 1 BrF-ot 7, 008 0 43522 4 23J i-M1 -e.:< , 4 43522 4 BRP-CH-X-FB-010 1 43788 3 2323-M1-0801 4

• ^

! .Ije-l ' ' (~/ Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 17 of 24

!' , t eh'( ; g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l -

111lll11lllllllllllll111lll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

.r

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtBENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

U.m CMC /DCA/

FICR N0. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

40000 SERIES (con't) 44067 7 2323-M1-0800 7 44067 7 BRP-CH-X-FB-004 4 44108 2 BRP-CP-X-FB-003 2 44108 2 2323-M1-0801 4 44108 2 2323-M1-0804 1 44432 0 2323-M1-0803 4 44893 1 2323-M1-0800 7 44893 1 2323-M1-704 13 44893 1 2323-M1-719 11 44893 1 BRP-SW-1-AB-007 13 46408 0 2323-M1-0801 4 46408 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-27 5 46408 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-30 7 46408 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-44 8 46408 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-41 8 47388 3 2323-M1-801 4 47388 3 BRP-SF-X-FB-54 0 47388 3 2323-M1-0806 9 47452 0 2323-M1-0703-03 8 fs 47452 0 2323-M1-0801 4 47452 0 BRP-DD-X-AB-034 1 48458 1 2323-M1-0800 7 48458 1 BRP-CH-X-FB-003 5 48459 1 2323-M1-0800 7 48459 1 BRP-CH-X-FB-004 4 48460 1 2323-M1-0800 7 48460 1 BRP-CH-X-FB-005 3 48460 2 2323-M1-0800 7 48460 2 BRP-CH-X-FB-005 4 48461 3 2323-M1-0800 7 48461 3 BRP-CH-X-FB-006 4 48965 0 2323-M1-0800 7 49018 0 2323-M1-0800 7 49047 1 2323-M1-0704- 13 49047 1 2323-M1-0800 7 49047 1 2323-M1-0704-01 8 49047 1 BRP-DD-1-AB-017 4 49047 1 BRP-DD-1-AB-004 8 49047 1 BRP-DD-1-FB-001 2

() . .

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Leg'[tj { g Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 18 of 24 llllll111111lll111lllllll1llll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtNENT LISTING  ;

r SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A) i i l

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

40000 SERIES (con't) 49147 0 2323-M1-0801 4 49147 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-16A 7 1 49525 5 BRP-SF-X-FB-052 1 49525 5 2323-M1-0801 4 49996 4 2323-M1-0241 7 49996 4 2323-M1-0800 7 49996 4 BRP-DD-1-FB-001 2 49996 4 2323-M1-0806 9

==================================================================

50000 SERIES 50176 2 SF-X-011-006-F45R 0 50406 0 2323-M1-0801 4 50406 0 2323-M1-0804 1 50406 0 BRP-CD-X-FB-003 3 51522 1 BRP-CC-2-FB-01 6

() 51522 51530 51530 1

0 0

2323-M]-0801 2323-M-0801 BRP-CC-1-FB-002 4

4 7

51531 0 2323-M1-0801 4 51531 0 BRP-CC-2-FB-002 4 51816 4 SF-X-011-026-F45K 1 51928 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-16A -8 51928 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-28 5 51928 0 2323-M1-0801 4 51928 0 2323-M1-0800 7 52651 0 2323-M1-0800 6 52651 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-005 4 52668 0 2323-M1-0801' 4 52668 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-008 1 53017 0 2323-M1-0800 7 53017 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-006 4 53234 2 2323-M1-0801 4 53234 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-021 0 53236 2 2323-M1-0801 4 53236 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-053 0 53239 4 BRP-SF-X-FB-178 2 53239 4 2323-M1-0801 4

() e gg{jgi Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 19 of 24

ll111;;... ~:::I Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

. - - . -e , n ., p ,--- -- -

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtNENT LISTING '

SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

\s /

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

50000 SERIES (con't) l 53239 4 BRP-SF-X-FB-22 3 53240 7 BRP-SF-X-FB-17A 3 53240 7 2323-M1-0801 4 53240 7 BRP-SF-X-FB-15 9 53396 3 BRP-SF-X-FB-053 0 53396 3 2323-M1-0801 4 53396 3 2323-M1-0806 9 53403 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-037 2 53403 0 2323-M1-0803 4 54665 0 2323-M1-0804 1 54665 0 2323-M1-0801 4 54665 0 2323-M1-0805 9 54665 0 BRP-WP-X-FB-05 2 56014 1 2323-M1-0801 4 56014 1 2323-M1-0805 9 56300 2323-S-0901 4 57099 1 RWM-WP-X-FB-042 0 57099 1 2323-M1-0803 4 57099 1 2323-M1-0804 O- 57189 1 2323-M1-0311 1

3 57189 1 2323-M1-0801 4 57196 1 2323-M1-0311 3 57196 1 2323-M1-0801 4 57203 0 2323-M1-0801 4 57203 0 2323-M1-0806 9 57203 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-054 0 57205 0 2323-M1-0801 4 57205 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-054 0 '

57205 0 2323-M1-0806 9 57662 0 2323-M1-0235 7 57662 0 2323-M1-0800 7 57662 0 2323-M1-0806 9 57677 1 2323-M1-0801 4 57677 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-007 10 57762 0 RH-1-RB-001 9 57762 0 BRP-RC-1-RB-005 7 58338 0 2323-S-093 5

() -

e Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 20 of 24 g g'{tj g f, Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 lllllll1111ll11lllll11lllll111

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtNENT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CNC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

60000 SERIES 61123 4 2323-M1-0801 4 61123 4 2323-M1-0235 9 61123 4 BRP-SF-X-FB-021 1 61144 3 2323-M1-0801 4 61144 3 2323-M1-0235 9 61144 3 BRP-SF-X-FB-052 1 61145 3 2323-M1-0801 4 61145 3 2323-M1-0235 7 61145 3 BRP-SF-X-FB-053 0 63723 0 2323-M1-0801 4 63723 0 BRP-CH-X-FB-ll 1 64338 2 2323-El-0501-01-S 3 64377 1 2323-M1-0801 4 64377 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-019 6 64532 2 2323-M1-0801 4 64532 2 2323-M1-0806 9 64532 2 2323-M1-0235 1 64532 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 8 64544 2 O- 64544 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 2323-M1-0235 3

8 64544 2 2323-M1-0801 4 64544 2 2323-M1-0806 9 64547 1 2323-M1-0235 8 64547 1 2323-M1-0801 4 64547 1 2323-M1-0806 9 64547 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-0178 2 64548 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 3 64548 2 2323-M1-0235 8 ,

64548 2 2323-M1-0801 4 64548 2 2323-M1-0806 9 64603 0 2323-M1-0800 6 64603 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-04 5 64603 1 2323-M1-0800 6 64603 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-04 5 64604 1 2323-M1-0800 6 64604 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-05 10 64605 0 2323-M1-0800 6 64605 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-01 5 64606 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-02 8

() .

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 21 of 24 eg~[tj y.u-a o- ,..g, ,iFinal Report.TR-83090-01, Rev. 0' Comanche Peak Independent Asse

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING p)

\--

SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

60000 SERIES (con't) 64606 0 2323-M1-0800 6 64607 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-010 6 64607 1 2323-M1-0235 7 64607 1 2323-M1-0801 4 64607 1 2323-M1-0805 9 64609 1 2323-M1-0800 7 64609 1 2323-M1-0805 9 64609 1 2323-M1-806 9 64609 1 BRP-SF-X-FB-006 9 64638 4 2323-M1-0235 8 64638 4 2323-M1-0801 4 64639 5 2323-M1-0235 8 64639 5 2323-M1-0801 4 65606 0 2323-M1-0800 6 66408 0 2323-M1-0235 8 66408 0 2323-M1-0801 4 66408 0 2323-M1-0806 9 66408 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 3 O 66409 66409 66409 0

0 0

2323-M1-0235 2323-M1-0801 2323-M1-0806 8

4 9

66409 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-017B 2 67625 1 SF-X-011-008-F45R 0 69335~ 1 2323-S-0901 4 333333333=333333333=3333=33=3==333333333333333333333=3333333333333333333333333 70000 SERIES 71857 0 2323-M1-0235 '8 71857 0 2323-M1-0801 4 i 71857 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-006 9 74277 3 2323-M1-801 4 74277 3 BRP-SF-X-FB-054 0 77652 1 2323-S-0903 5 77750 2323-S-0901 4

() g '[ i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 22 of 24 ll111ll111!!'"" :!!!!!Il Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

l DESIGN CHANGE DOCtDENT LISTING 1 SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A) )

CNC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

80000 SERIES 80253 2323-S-0903 5 80254 2323-S-0903 5 81690 0 2323-M1-0801 4 81690 0 2323-M1-0804 1 81690 0 RWM-WP-X-FB-015 1 4

81699 0 2323-M1-0801 4 81699 0 2323-M1-0804 1 81699 0 RWM-WP-X-FB-001 2 81700 0 2323-M1-0801 4 81700 0 2323-M1-0804 1 81700 0 RWM-WP-X-FB-004 1 82988 1 2323-S-0903 5 83003 2323-S-0904 5 83011 2323-S-0903 5 83378 0 2323-M1-0803 4 83378 0 2323-M1-0235 8 83378 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-037 3 83421 0 2323-M1-0801 4 i 83421 0 RWM-WP-X-FB-017 0 f/

s- 85219 1 SF-X-004-008-F43K 3 87394 1 2323-M1-0801 4 87394 1 2323-M1-0237-01 8 87394 1 BRP-VD-X-FB-004 1 87472 1 2323-M1-0801 4 87483 3 BRP-SF-X-FB-017B 4 87483 3 2323-M1-0801 4 87483 3 2323-M1-0235 9 87483 4 BRP-SF-X-FB-0178 6 87483 4 2323-M1-0235 CPI 87491 2 2323-M1-0235 CPI 87483 4 2323-M1-0801 4 87491 2 BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 6 87491 2 2323-M1-0801 4 88682 1 SF-X-011-004-F45R 1 89526 0 GHH-SW-1-SB-019 3 I

() gg(

e , ,

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 23 of 24

.;;;,,  ::llll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHMIGE DOCtKMT LISTING SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

C CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

90000 SERIES 90526 0 BRP-SF-X-FB-26 3 90526 0 2323-M1-0803 4 90821 0 2323-S-0903 5 92012 0 2323-M1-0803 4 92012 0 2323-M1-0801 4 92012 0 BRP-WH-2-802-001 2 92023 0 2323-M1-0803 4 92023 0 2323-M1-0801 4 92023 0 BRP-WH-1-802-001 2 93418 0 2323-S-0903 5 93450 1 2323-5-0902 5 93454 0 2323-El-0802-S 2 93454 1 2323-El-0802-S 1 93455 0 2323-El-0802-S 2 93455 1 2323-El-0802-S 1 O

() eg ( ) g ,

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 24 of 24

........;;;ii;; ..........;;l Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 ,

l 4

i l l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING SYSTEM (TRAIN A)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REY. DESCRIPTION BRP-SF-X-FB-016A 1 10 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-016A 1 3 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-005-015-F43S 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-005-016-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-017-F43K 1 8 Support Drawing SF-X-005-018-F43S 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-019-F43R 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-005-020-F43R 1&2 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-032-F43K 1 4 Support Drawing SF-X-005-033-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-005-034-F43R 1 1 Support Drawing SF-X-005-035-F43R 1 1 Support Drawing SF-X-005-036-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing BRP-SF-X-FB-017A 1&2 10 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up BRHL-SF-X-FB-017A 1 2 Spent Fuel Pool Cooling & Clean-up SF-X-004-002-F43S 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-004-003-F43K 1 3 Support Drawing SF-X-004-004-F43K 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-004-005-F43K 1&2 4 Support Drawing SF-X-004-006-F43R 1 3 Support Drawing O

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1 of 11 g

g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

...

!!!!!!!!Illlllilillil Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION Illegible 7 Conduit, Cable and Miscellaneous Details BN-1440-R1a 1 - FSI Type 10 Inverted Cone w/ Mesh BRHL-RH-1-RB-001 1 3 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-RB-002 1 3 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-002 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-003 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-004 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-005 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-006 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-007 1 2 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-008 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-010 1 1 Residual Heat Removal BRHL-RH-1-SB-015 1 1 Pesidual Heat Removal

BRHL-SI-1-RB-061 1 0 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-RB-062 1 0 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-SB-001 1 3 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-SB-004 1 3 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-SB-006 1 2 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-SB-007 1 1 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-SB-008 1 3 Safety Injection BRHL-S1-SB-019 1 2 Safety Injection O

V 1 of 30 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

LT[ ; g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

/;: Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

1 LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED

.s RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B) l l

DRAWING N0. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION BRHL-SI-1-SB-031 1 1 Safety Injection BRHL-SI-1-SB-033 1 1 Safety Injection BRP-RH-1-RB-001 1 12 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-RB-002 1 9 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-002 1 5 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-003 1 8 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-004 1 5 Residual !ieat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-005 1 9 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-006 1 8 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-007 1 11 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-008 1 6 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-010 1 6 Residual Heat Removal BRP-RH-1-SB-015 1 7 Residual Heat Removal

, BRP-SI-1-RB-061 1 9 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-001 1 7 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-004 1 18 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-006 1 6 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-007 1 5 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-008 1 16 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-019 1 10 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-031 1 6 Safety Injection

! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 of 30 l t i A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l l1111lllllllllll11lll111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

{

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION BRP-SI-1-SB-033 1 8 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-SB-061 1 8 Safety Injection BRP-SI-1-RB-062 1 9 Safety Injection C-8X20WDF86XC9-C 1 3 General Arrangement FSE-00176 1 11 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Support at El.

790'6" FSE-00187 1 6 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Support Plan El.

810'-6" FSE-00202 1 3 Safegaurd Bldg. Cable Tray Support Plan El.

852'-6" FSE-00206 1 4 Electrical Equipment Cable Tray Support Plan El. 852'-6" FSE-00212 1 5 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Support Plan El.

831'-6" F42242 1 K 10" Type 7613 Butterfly Valve Fisher Shaft "C-3" ANSI Class 300# W/656NS-60 Diagram Act.

I.D. #10BA740 F42310 1 E Butterfly Valve RH-1-003-001-542S 1 4 Support Drawing RH-1-003-002-S42R 1&2 2 Support Drawing RH-1-003-004-S32S 1 4 Support Drawing

! RH-1-003-005-S42K 1&2 2 Support Drawing RH-1-003-006-042K 1 2 Support Drawing l

RH-1-003-007-S32R 1 2 Support Drawing i

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 of 30 l

L*b[d6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program llll111lllllll1111llll11llllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED O'

v RESIDUAL MAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION RH-1-003-008-S32K 1 2 Support Drawing RH-1-003-010-S42R 1 1 Support Drawing RH-1-003-011-542R 1 2 Support Drawing RH-1-004-001-S425 1&2 3 Support Drawing RH-1-004-002-542R 1-3 2 Support Drawing

RH-1-004-003-532R 1 2 Support Drawing RH-1-004-003-S32R 1 3 Support Drawing

RH-1-004-004-S32S 1&2 5 Support Drawing RH-1-004-005-S42K 1 1 Support Drawing RH-1-004-006-542K 1 2 Support Drawing RH-1-004-007-S32R 1&2 1 Support Drawing RH-1-004-009-532K 1&2 2 Support Drawing RH-1-007-001-522R 1-3 2 Support Drawing RH-1-007-002-S22R 1 1 Support Drawing

RH-1-007-002-5225 1&2 3 Support Drawing RH-1-007-004-S22K 1 2 Support Drawing 4 RH-1-007-005-S22K 1 3 Support Drawing RH-1-007-006-S22R 1&2 1 Support Drawing l RH-1-007-007-S22K 1&2 1 Support Drawing RH-1-007-008-S32R 1&2 3 Support Drawing RH-1-008-001-522R 1&2 1 Hanger Drawing

\

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 of 30 L*h[ t A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111111111111111111llllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWIllGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIll B)

DRAMIllG 110. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTI0li RH-1-008-002-522R 1&2 1 Hanger Drawing RH-1-008-002-S22S 1&2 1 Support Drawing RH-1-008-003-532R 1&2 3 Support Drawing RH-1-008-004-S22R 1 1 Support Drawing RH-1-008-005-522K 1&2 1 Support Drawing RH-1-008-006-S22R 1&2 1 Hanger Drawing RH-1-008-006-S22K 1&2 1 Support Drawing RH-1-008-007-522R 1 3 Hanger Drawing RH-1-008-008-522K 1&2 0 Hanger Drawing RH-1-010-003-S22B 1 3 Hanger Drawing RH-1-010-004-522K 1 2 Hanger Drawing RH-1-010-005-522R 1 2 Hanger Drawing RH-1-016-001-532R 1 3 Support Drawing RH-1-016-002-S22R 1 2 Support Drawing RH-1-016-004-522R 1 2 Support Drawing RH-1-016-005-522R 1 4 Support Drawing RH-1-016-700-S22K 1&2 2 Support Drawing RH-1-010-001-522R 1&2 3 Hanger Drawing RH-1-021-001-522R 1 3 Support Drawing RH-1-021-002-522R 1&2 4 Support Drawing RH-1-021-003-522R 1&2 2 Support Drawing pd Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 5 of 30 A[ g.i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

LIST OF DIUWINGS REVIEWED O RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DlWWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION RH-1-024-001-S22R 1 4 Support Drawing RH-1-024-002-S22R 1 3 Support Drawing RH-1-024-009-S22K 1&2 3 Support Drawing RH-1-024-010-S22R 1&2 5 Support Drawing RH-1-024-011-S22R 1&2 1 Anchor Drawing RH-1-026-001-522R 1 4 Support Drawing RH-1-026-003-522R 1&2 3 Support Drawing RH-1-026-004-522R 1&2 3 Support Drawing

! RH-1-026-005-S32R 1&2 4 Support Drawing

RH-1-026-006-S32K 1&2 4 Support Drawing RH-1-056-001-S22R 1 4 Support Drawing RH-1-062-002-S22R 1&2 5 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-001-522R 1&2 3 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-002-522R 1&2 4 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-003-S22R 1 4 Hanger Drawing ,

RH-1-064-004-522L 1 4 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-005-S22R 1 4 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-006-522K 1&2 3 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-008-522K 1&2 3 Hanger Drawing RH-1-064-007-S22R 1&2 2 Hanger Drawing ll RH-1-064-009-S22R 1 3 Hanger Drawing Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 6 of 30 L4 [ 6 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 181116166411111111111111111lll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

l 1

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED O RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION SI-1-030-001-S32R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-030-003-S22A 1-3 1 Anchor Drawing SI-1-030-003-532A 1-3 1 Support Drawing SI-1-030-004-S32R 1&2 2 Support Drawing SI-1-032-001-S32R 1&2 3 Support Drawing SI-1-032-003-S32R 1&2 4 Support Drawing SI-1-037-002-S22R 1&2 2 Support Drawing SI-1-037-003-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-037-004-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-037-005-532A 1&2 1 Anchor Drawing SI-1-038-003-522R 1 4 Support Drawing SI-1-038-004-S22R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-038-013-522A 1 2 Anchor Drawing SI-1-038-015-S22R 1 3 Support Drawing i SI-1-042-001-S22R 1 6 Support Drawing

SI-1-042-002-S22K 1&2 4 Support Drawing i

SI-1-070-001-522R 1&2 5 Support Drawing SI-1-070-002-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-070-003-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-070-004-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-070-005-522R 1 4 Support Drawing l

0-Texas Utilities Services. Inc. 7 of 30 A{jg i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 161111;;,... .;;;;;;; Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMDVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION SI-1-070-006-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-070-007-S22A 1&2 1 Anchor Drawing SI-1-071-001-S325 1 2 Support Drawing SI-1-071-002-S32K 1&2 2 Support Drawing SI-1-071-003-S32K 1&2 2 Support Drawing SI-1-071-004-532K 1 2 Support Drawing 51-1-072-001-532S 1 1 Support Drawing SI-1-072-002-S32R 1&2 1 Support Drawing SI-1-072-003-532K 1&2 3 Support Drawing SI-1-072-004-S32K 1&2 1 Support Drawing SI-1-073-700-S32R 1 2 Hanger Drawing SI-1-074-700-532R 1 1 Support Drawing SI-1-075-001-S22K 1&2 2 Hanger Drawing SI-1-075-001-522R 1&2 2 Support Drawing SI-1-075-002-522K 1 3 Hanger Drawing SI-1-075-003-S22K 1 3 Hanger Drawing SI-1-075-003-522R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-076-001-522R 1 2 Support Drawing SI-1-076-002-S22K 1&2 3 Support Drawing

! SI-1-076-003-522R 1&2 2 Support Drawing l

SI-1-076-004-S22K 1 2 Support Drawing Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 8 of 30 t% ( L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11ll11111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL EAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B) l ORAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION SI-1-079-001-S325 1 4 Support Drawing SI-1-079-002-S42S 1 4 Support Drawing SI-1-079-003-S42R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-079-006-532R 1 2 Support Drawing SI-1-079-007-542K 1&2 2 Support Drawing SI-1-079-008-S42R 1 2 Support Drawing SI-1-079-009-S42K 1 1 Support Drawing SI-1-079-010-S32K 1 1 Support Drawing SI-1-.079-011-S42R 1&2 1 Support Drawing SI-1-196-002-S32R 1 3 Support Drawing SI-1-196-003-S32R 1 2 Support Drawing SI-1-196-004-S32R 1&2 3 Support Drawing SI-1-197-002-S32K 1&2 3 Support Drawing i SI-1-197-003-S32R 1 1 Support Drawing SI-1-325-001-532R 1&2 2 Hanger Drawing SI-1-325-002-532R 1&2 0 Hanger Drawing SI-1-325-002-S32R 1&2 1 Hanger Drawing SI-1-326-001-S32R 1&2 0 Support Drawing SI-1-326-002-S32R 1&2 1 Support Drawing 115E053 1 E Motor Op. Gate Valve Model 10000GG8400000 115E067 1 E Motor Op. Gate Valve Model 100000GM84FE800 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 9 of 30 A[;6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll1111111111lltllll11111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l

[

(q g

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-Al-0500 1 10 Primary Plant - Unit 1 Containment & Safeguard Building Plans @ El.

773'-0" and 790'-6" 2323-Al-0509 1 10 Primary Plant - Unit 1 Containment & Safeguard Buildings Plans @ El.

808'-0" and 810'-6" 2323-Al-0529 1 6 Illegible Drawing 2323-DSPM-4 2 Damage SRDY Schedule Protection Matrix 2323-El-0001 1 8 Plant One Line Diagram Units 1 & 2 2323-El-0003 1 9 6.9 KV Auxiliaries - One-Line Diagram -

Normal Buses 2323-El-0003 1 10 6.9 KV Auxiliaries - One-Line Diagram -

Normal Buses 2323-El-0004 1 9 6.9 KV Auxiliaries - One-Line Diagram -

Safeguard Buses 2323-El-0019 15 24/48V & 125/250V DC One Line Diagram 2323-El-0023 - 3 Phrasing & Synchronizing Diagram Unit 1 2323-El-0027 1 9 6.9 KV Three Line Diagram - Safeguard Buses 2323-El-0027 2 9 6.9 KV Three Line Diagram - Safeguard Buses 2323-El-0027 12 9 6.9 kV Three Line Diagram - Safeguard Busses 2323-El-0027 51 8 6.9 kV Switchgear Bus 1EA2 RHR PP #12 2323-El-0030 22 4 6.9 KV Switchgear Safeguard - Bus 11A2

! Undervoltage Aux. Relays i 2323-El-0030 68 3 6.9KV Switchgear Safeguard - Bus 1EA1 Second

Level Undervoltage Relays Schematic Diagram Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 10 of 30 L L 6 A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program litimillitillisimillililli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l l

LIST OF DRAWIIIGS REVIEMED RESIDUAL EAT RENDVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8)

, y t INtAWIIIS NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 69 2 6.9KV Switchgear Safeguard Bus 1EA1 - Second 2323-El-0030 Level Undervoltage Relays Schematic Diagram 70 3 6.9KV Switchgear Safeguard Bus 1EA2 Second 2323-El-0030 Level Undervoltage Relays Schematic Diagram 07 12 6.9 kv Switchgear BUSI EA2 Breaker # 1EA2-2 2323-El-0031 Schematic Diagram 1

51 7 6.9 KV Switchgear Bus 1EA2 Residual Heat 2323-El-0031 Removal PPf12 Tag #TBX-RHAPRH-02 BKRIAPRH2 Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0031 52 3 6.9 KV Switchgear Bus 1EA2 - Residual Heat Removal PPf12, Tag iTBX-RHAPRH-02 BKRIAPRH2 Sw. Development and Conn. Diagram 2323-El-0038 11 6 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-FCV-510 - Main Feedwater Control Valve 2323-El-0038 17 6 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-FCV-540 - Main Feedwater Control Valve 2323-El-0038 75 4 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2186 - FW. Loop 2 to Sg. #2 Main FW. Nozzle Isolation By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 75 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2187 - FW. Loop 3 to Sg. #3 Main FW. Nozzle Isolation By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 77 4 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2187 FW. Loop 3 to Sg. #3 Main FW. Nozzle Isolation By Past j

Valve l

2323-El-0038 78 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2188 FW. Loop 4 to Sg. #4 Main FW. Nozzle Isolation By Pass Valve l

O Texas Utilities Services. Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11 of 30

( [t 6 3 INiilllllfilllN 'llHilllHi Fina1 Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 1 l

f

[' LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0038 79 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2188 FW. Loop 4 to Sg. #4 Main FW. Nozzle Isolation By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 80 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2193 FW. Loop 1 to Sg. #1 Aux. FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 81 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2193 FW. Loop 1 to Sg. #1 Aux FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 82 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2194 FW. Loop 2 to Sg. #2 Aux FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 83 4 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2.'94 FW. Loop 2 to Sg. #2 Aux FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 84 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2195 FW, Loop 3 to Sg. #3 Aux FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 85 4 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2195 FW. Loop 3 to Sg. #3 Aux FW Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 86 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2196 FW. Loop 4 to Sg. #4 Aux FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0038 87 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-2196 FW. Loop 4 to Sg. #4 Aux FW. Nozzle Purge By Pass Valve 2323-El-0045 03 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-4167 Pressurizers to Primary Sample System Control Valve.

2323-El-0045 06 6 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-4170 RC Loop 1 and 4 to Primary Sample System Control Valve 2323-El-0045 11 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-4175 Accumulator 1 thru 4 to Primary Sample System Control Valve n . Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 12 of 30 d[ 6 d Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

l LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED O

v RESIDUAL EAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8) l MAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0045 2 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-4176 Pressurizer Steam Space to Primary Sample System Control Valve 2323-El-0045 13 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-4178 RHR Loop to Prim. Sample System Control Valve 2323-El-0045 14 5 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-4179 RHR Loop to Prim Sample System Control Valve 2323-El-0048 04 8 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-3486 Serv. Air HDR to Containment Isolation Valve 2323-El-0048 05 6 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-3487 Serv. Air HDR to Containment Isolation Valve 2323-El-0049 06 5 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-4759 Refuel Water

' to Containment Spray Pumps 02 and 04 l

2323-El-0049 14 6 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-4783 Sump Recirc.

l

' Valve Isolation Tank 02 2323-El-0050 19 7 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-4575 Containment Spray Heat Exch. 02 Discharge Control Valve 2323-El-0053 31 6 Electrical Area El. 810'-6" Fan - 18 Tag

1. CPI-VAAUSE - 18 2323-El-0053 42 4 RHR Pump Room Fan Tag # CPI - VAAUSE -02 2323-El-0059 22 6 Motor Operated Valve X-HV-5529 - Containment Hydrogen Purge Air Exhaust to Fan 02 Damper 2323-El-0059 23 5 Containment. Hydrogen Purge Supply - Fan 03 Tag #CPX-VAFNCB-03 2323-El-0059 24 6 Containment. Hydrogen Purge Supply - Fan 04 Tag #CPX-VAFNCB-04 2323-El-0059 25 6 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-5536 - Contain-ment Purge Air Supply Isolation Valve O

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 13 of 30 g [ a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program letimlilllittilllellemilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DIUWIllGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL lEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B) l INtAldIIIS NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0059 26 6 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-5537 - Contain-ment Purge Air Supply Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 27 7 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-5538 - Contain-ment Purge Air Exh. Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 28 7 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-5539 - Contain-ment Purge Air Exh. Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 29 6 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-5540 - Containment Hydrogen Purge Air to Exhaust Units Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 30 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-5541 - Containment t Hydrogen Purge Air to Exhaust Units Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 31 9 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-5542 - Containment Hydrogen Purge Air to Exhaust Units Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 37 7 Solenoid Operated Valve 1-HV-5548 Containment Press Relief Disch. Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 51 9 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-5562 - Containment Hydrogen Controlled Purge Supply Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 52 7 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-5563 - Containment Hydrogen Controlled Purge Supply Isolation Valve 2323-El-0059 59 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-HV-5580 - Hydrogen Purge Exhaust By Pass Valve 2323-El-0061 01 6 Motor Operated Valve 1-8100 - Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Water Isolation 2323-El-0061 4 6 Motor Operated Valve 1-8111 Charging Pump Miniflow Isolation i

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

a. Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 14 of 30 L 6 namentiliittlet Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

l

l LIST OF DRAWIIIGS REVIEWED ,

f RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING 100. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0061 5 6 Motor Operated Valve 1-8111 Charging Pump Miniflow Isolation 2323-El-0061 14 9 Motor Operated Valve 1-LCV-1128 Volume Control Tank Inlet Isolation Valve 2323-El-0061 15 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-LCV-112C Volume Control Tank Inlet Isolation Valve 2323-El-0061 17 5 Motor Operated Valve 1-LCV-112E Refuelling Water Storage Tank to Charging Pump Valve 2323-El-0062 11 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-8804A Residual Heat Removal Pump 2 to Charging Pump 2323-El-0062 12 7 Motor Operated Valve 1-8804B Residual Heat Removal Pump 2 to Charging Pump 2323-El-0062 13 9 Motor Operated Valve 1-8806 Refuelling Water Storage Tank to Safety Injectio Pumps 2323-El-0062 14 5 Motor Operated Valve 1-8807A Suction Header Cross Conn.

2323-El-0062 15 5 Motor Operated Valve 1-88078 - Suction Header Cross Conn.

2323-El-0062 22 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-8811A Sumpt to #1 Residual Heat Removal Pump 2323-El-0062 23 8 M0 Valve 8811B - Sump to #2 RHR Pump 2323-El-0062 24 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-8812A Refuelling Water Storage Tank to RHR Pump Isolation 2323-El-0062 25 9 M0 Valve 1-8812B - RWST to RHR Pump #2 -

Isolation j 2323-El-0062 26 6 Motor Operated Valve 1-8813 SIS - Pump

' Miniflow Isolation Valve O

D Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 15 of 30 A{ g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11lll11llll111111ll11lll111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMDVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0067 60 6 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-18-2 Monitoring L1Jht Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0067 61 4 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-48-1 Monitoring Light Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0067 62 5 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-48-2 Monitoring Light Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0067 63 4 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-4B-3 Monitoring Light Schematic Diagram

, 23?' El-0067 64 3 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-238 Monitoring Light Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0067 65 1 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-45B Monitoring Light Schematic Diagram

2323-El-0071 46 3 Missing O

V 2323-El-0071 47 3 Missing 2323-El-0071 48 3 Missing 2323-El-0071 49 3 Missing 2323-El-0071 50 3 1-SSII-1 Miscellaneous System Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 51 3 1-5511-1, 125V DC Status Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 52 3 1-5511-1, Preferred Off-site Indicating Lights and Miscellaneous Relays Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 53 3 1-5511-1, 118V AC Indicating Lights and

Miscellaneous Relays Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 54 3 1-5511-2, Diesel Gen. and Station Service Water Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram n

V .

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 17 of 30 A[ 6 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Illitettilitillattitoliittlill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWIIIGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

ORAWIIIG 100. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0062 79 1 1/P Converter 1-HCV-943 2323-El-0062 80 2 MCC 1EB1-1, 1EB2-1, 1EB3-1, 1EB4-1, 1EB3-2, 1EB4-2 Interposing Relay Comps Connection Diagram 2323-El-0063 1 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-8701A - RHR Loop Inlet Isolation Valve 2323-El-0063 2 13 Motor Operated Valve 1-87018 Residual Heat Removal Loop Loop 2 Inlet Isolation Valve Normal Power Supply 2323-El-0063 03 8 Motor Operated Valve 1-8702A Residual Heat Removal Loop 1 Inlet Isolation Valve Normal Power Supply l

2323-El-0063 4 8 M0 Valve 1-87028 - RHR Loop 2 Inlet Isolation Valve 2323-El-0063 08 5 Motor Operated Valve 1-88168 Residual Heat Removal Cross Conn.

l 4

2323-El-0063 11 1 Motor Operated Valve 1-87018 Residual Heat Removal Loop 2 Inlet Isolation Valve Alternate Power Supply 2323-El-0063 12 1 Motor Operated Valve 1-8702A Residual Heat Removal Loop 1 Inlet Isolation Valve Normal Power Supply 2323-El-0064 42 3 Pressurizer Vent Sov 1-HV-3609 Schematic and Connection Diagram l

2323-El-0064 43 3 Pressurizer Vent Sov 1-HV-3610 Schematic and Connection Diagram 2323-El-0067 59 2 Monitor Light Box 1-MLB-18-1 Monitoring Light Schematic Diagram

' \

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 16 of 30 t i a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program listillef!Illlililiitillililli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEnlED o

y) RESIDUAL HEAT REMDVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING ND. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0071 55 3 1-5511-2, Containment Spray and Control Rm. HVAC System Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 56 3 1-SSII-2, Safety Injection and Component Cooling Water System Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 57 3 1-SSII-2, Residual Heat Removal and Hydrogen Purge System Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 57 6 1-5511-2 Residual Heat Removal and Hydrogen purge System Ind, lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 58 3 1-SSII-2, Miscellaneous Systems Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 59 3 1-SSII-2, 1258 DC Status Indicating Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 60 3 1-5511-2, Preferred Off-site Lights and Miscellaneous Relays Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 61 3 1-SSII-2, 118V AC Indicating Lights and Miscellaneous Relays Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 62 3 1-5511-1 Safety System Inoperable Indication Light Schematic Diagram -

2323-El-0071 63 3 Not Legible 2323-El-0071 65 3 1-5511-1 Safety Chilled Water and PRIM Plant ESF Vent. Exhaust System Ind. Lights Schematic Diagram 2323-El-0071 68 3 1-55I1-1 Safety Chilled Water and PRIM Plant Vent. Exhaust System Ind. Lights Schematic Diagram t i O Texas Utilities Services Inc. 18 of 30 4( 6 a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program NININNNIHillHHilHilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

t -

I LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT RENOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-00/6 15 CP-1 Annunciator Lamp Cabinet 1ALB-10B Schematic Diagram Sh. 3 2323-El-0076 16 - Annunciator Lamp Cabinet 1-ALB-10B -

Schematic Diagram Sh. 4 2323-El-0076-36 - 5 Annunciator Lamp Cabinet ALB-4B Schematic Diagram Sh. 1 1

2323-El-0076-37 - 6 Annonciator Lamp Cabinet 1-ALB-4B Schematic Diagram Sh. 2

2323-El-0078 06 CP-1 Annunciator Logic Cabinet CPI-ECPRCR-098 (7) External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0080-07 - 15 Solid State Isolation Cabinet CPI-ECPRCR-16 (Train "A") External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0080-08 - 13 Solid State Isolation Cabinet CPI-ECPRCR-16 (Train "B") External Connection Diagram 2323-61-0080-09 - 15 Solid State Isolation Cabinet CPI-ECPRCR-16 External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0110 - 14 Solid State Protection System Train "A" Output Cabinet #1 Interconnection Diagram Solid State. Protection System Train "B" 2323-El-0110 - 13 Output Cabittet #1 In':erconnection Diagram 2323-El-0166 - CP-1 80P Auxiliary Relay Rack #8 CPI-ECPRCR-18 (Rev 7) External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0167 - CP-1 B0P Auxiliary Relay Rack #9 CPI-ECPRCR-19 (Rev.7) Externa)ConnectionDiagram 2323-El-0167 - 9 B0P. Auxiliary Relay Rack #9 - CPI-ECPRCR-19 External Connection Diagram 2323-El-0171-06 - - Main Control Board CPI-ECPRCB Inter-connecti,on Diagram Texas Utilities Services Inc. h 19 of 30 A L ;g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

. l v l

) Ih  :

qi>

e:

/;

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B) y; DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0171-07 13 Main Control Board CPI-ECPRCB Inter-connection Diagram j,

2323-El-0171-08 Main Control Board CPI-ECPRCB Inter-connection Diagram

,, 2323-El-0171-09 11 Main Control Board CPI-ECPRC8 Inter-if connection Diagram 2323-El-0171-10 10 Main Control Board CPI-ECPRCB Inter-a connection Diagram 2323-El-0172-10 14 Termination Rack CPI-ECPRTC Inter-

[ connection Diagram 2323-El-0172-11 4 Termination Rack CPI-ECPRTC Inter-connection Diagram 2323-172-42 - -

Not Legible 2323-El-0172 23 3 Termination Rack CPI-ECPRCTC Inter-connection Diagram 2323-El-0172 22 3 Termination Rack CPI-ECPRCTC Inter-connection Diagram 2323-El-0172-10 - -

Termination Rack CPI-ECPRCTC Inter-connection diagram 2323-El-0172-11 - -

Termination Rack CPI-ECPRCTC Inter-connection diagram 2323-El-0172-12 - -

Termination Rack CPI-ECPRCTC Inter-J>s connection diagram M #

2323-El-0172-42 -

Termination Rack CPI-CPRTC Inter-

- connection Diagram

" 1

., 2323-El-0174- 17 Ventilation Vert. PNL CPX - ECPRCV -01 Interconnection diagram sh. 01 1

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 20 of 30 t i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilillmlilllittiililllitilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

I

(

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL EAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING MO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0175-05 ERF Computer Multiplexer Cabinet #2 CPI-ECPRCR-24 Digital External Connection Diagram Train B 2323-El-0511 18A 1 Penetration E-18 Train "B" 2323-El-0511 188 6 Penetration E-15 Train "B" 2323-El-0511 60A 6 Penetration E-60 Train "A" 2323-El-0511 60B 7 Penetration E-60 Train "A" 2323-El-0511 60C 2 Penetration E-60 Train "A" 2323-El-0511 60D 6 Penetration E-60 Train "A" 2323-El-0511 66A 1 Penetration E-66 Train "A" 2323-El-0511 75A 2 Penetration E-75 2323-El-0511 77A 5 Penetration E-77 RHR Valve Isolation Tank CPI-RHATVT-01 2323-El-0511 79A 5 Penetration E-79 RHR Valve Isolation Tank CPI-RHATVT-02 2323-El-0600 15 Safeguard Bldg. Tray & Conduit Plan E1. 785'-6" 2323-El-0600-01 16 Safeguard Bldg. Tray & Conduit Plan E1. 773'-0" 2323-El-0600-1-5 2 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Support Plan E1. 773'-0" 2323-El-0600-ll 3 Safeguard Bldg. Tray Segment El. 773'-0" 2323-El-0600-12 2 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Segments El. 785'-

6" & 773"-0" i  ;

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 21 of 30 t( [ g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O I

l

LIST OF DRAWIIIGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REl10 VAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWIIIG NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0600-S 2 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Support El. 785'-6" 2323-El-0601-01 9 Safeguard Bldg. Tray Plan El. 790'-6" 2323-El-0601-02 14 Safeguard Bldg. Tray Plan El. 790'-6" 2323-El-0601-03 16 Safeguard Bldg. Tray Plan El. 790'-6" 2323-El-0601-01-5 4 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Support Plan

, 2323-El-0601-11 3 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Segments El. 790'-6" 2323-El-0602-01 20 Safeguard Bldg. Tray & Conduit El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0602-11 1 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray & Conduit Support Plan, El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray & Conduit Plan El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0602-03-5 2 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray & Conduit Plan El. 831'-6" 2323-El-0603-01 19 Safeguard Bldg. Tray & Conduit Plan 2323-El-0603-01-5 2- Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Support Plan El. 852'-6" 2323-El-0603-11 3 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Segments El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0603-11 3 Safeguard Bldg. Cable Tray Segments El. 852'-6" 2323-El-0607 22 Safeguard Bldg Tray and Conduit Sections and Details O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 22 of 30 L8 [. iA Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ,

lillululliittilillintellill Final Report -TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0700-01 9 Auxiliary Building Cable Tray Support Plan El. 790'-6" 2323-El-0700-02 18 Auxiliary Building Conduit Plan El. 790'-6" l

2323-El-0700-012 3 Auxiliary Building Cable Tray Segment El.

790'-6" 2323-El-0700-015 3 Auxiliary Building Cable Tray Support Plan El. 790'-6" 2323-El-0701-10 8 Auxiliary Building Tray Plan El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0701-12 4 Auxiliary Building Conduit Tray Segment El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0708 18 Auxiliary Building Tray and Conduit Sections

& Details N

2323-El-0712-01 24 Cable Room & Auxiliary Building Tray & Cable Plan, El. 807' & 810'-6" 2323-El-0712-02 10 Cable Room and Auxiliary Building Tray Plan, El. 807' 2323-El-0712-03 8 Conduit Part Plan & Sections 2323-El-0712-11 7 Cable Room & Auxiliary Building Tray & Cable Plan, El. 807' & 810'-6" 2323-El-0712-12 7 Cable Room & Auxiliary Building Tray & Cable Plan, El. 807' & 810'-6" 2323-El-0712-16 5 Cable Room & Auxiliary Building Tray & Cable Plan, El. 807' 2323-El-0713-01 12 Auxiliary & Electrical Control Building Conduit Plan, El. 792' & 790'-6" 2323-El-0713-02 19 Auxiliary & Electrical Control Building Conduit Plan, El. 792' & 790'-6" O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 23 of 30 t (tj i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilla""" diiiilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED

/ RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REY. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-0712-12 4 Auxiliary & Electrical Control Building Cables at El. 792' 2323-El-0715-01 11 Cable Room Sections & Details 2323-El-0716 17 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray at El.

810'-6" 2323-El-0716-01 20 Electrical Equipment Area Conduit El. 810'-6" 2323-El-0716-12 4 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray Segments 2323-El-0717-11 2 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray Segments at El. 831'-6" 2323-El-0718 7 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray Segments El. 852'-6" 2323-El-0718-01 17 Electrical Equipment Area Conduit & Equipment Arrangement Plan, El. 852'-6" 2323-El-0718-5 1 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray Support Plan, El. 852'-6" 2323-El-0718-5 7 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray &

Conduit Plan 2323-El-0718-11 3 Electrical Equipment Area Cable Tray Support Plan, El. 852'-6" .

2323-El-0722 10 Safeguard Building 480 V MCC Detail 2323-El-0800-S -

2 Fuel Handling Bldg. - Cable Tray Support Plan El. 810'-6" i 2323-El-1020 11 Yard Main Grounding Plan i

2323-El-1021 10 Reactor & Safeguard Building Grounding El.

773', 783'-7", and 790'-6" l

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 24 of 30 t

{ t a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program llllllllllll111llll11111111lll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING N0. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-El-1701 10 Conduit and Cable Tray Legend and General Notes and Details 2323-El-1703 1 6 Miscellaneous Typical Grounding Details and Notes 2323-El-1703 2 5 Miscellaneous Typical Grounding Details and Notes 2323-JIPM-1 11 - Jet Impingement Protection Matrix 2323-M1-0002 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant Plan El. 905'-9" 2323-M1-0003 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant Plan El.

873'-6" 2323-M1-0004 1 E GeneralArrangementsPrimaryPlantPlanEl.

860'-0" & 852 -0" 2323-M1-0005 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant Plan El.

835'-6", 832'-6" & 831'-6" 2323-M1-0006 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant Plan El.

810'-6" & 808'-0" 2323-M1-0007 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant Plan El.

790'-6" 2323-M1-0008 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant Plan El.

773'-0", 785'-6" - Sections A-A & B-B 2323-M1-0009 1 E General Arrangements Primary Plant -

Section C-C 2323-M1-0010 1 B General Arrangements - Turbine Area Plan El.

852'-6" & 930'-0" 2323-M1-0011 1 B General Arrangements - Turbine Area Plan El.

807'-6" & 803'-0" O

- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 25 of 30 g4[ i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lililillittlittilililillililli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

1 l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED O RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING MO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-M1-0012 1 8 General Arrangements - Turbine Area Plan El.

792'-0" & 778'-0" 2323-M1-0013 1 B General Arrangements - Turbine Area Sections D-0, E-E, & F-F 2323-M1-0232 CP-3 Flow Diagram Containment Spray System 2323-M1-0260 -

6 RHR Flow Diagram 2323-M1-0261 1 10 SI Flow Diagram 2323-M1-0262 2 9 SI Flow Diagram 2323-M1-0263 3 9 SI Flow Diagram 2323-M1-0502 1 0 Reactor Containment Penetrations

. 2323-M1-0503 1 3 Reactor Containment Penetration & Details 2323-M1-0503-01 1 2 Reactor Containment Penetration & Details 2323-M1-2200-01 1 5 I&C Diagram - Legends, Symbols, Notes 2323-M1-2200-02 1 5 I&C Diagram - Channel Allocation & Flow Diagram - I&C Dwg. Cross Reference 2323-M1-2200-03 1 3 I&C Diagram - Logic Symbols 2323-M1-2200-04 1 2 I&C Diagram - Inst. Function Designations 2323-M1-2200-05 1 2 I&C Diagam - Notes for ICD's 2323-M1-2200-06 1 3 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety System Inoperable Indicator Logic 2323-M1-2200-07 1 4 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety System Inoperable Indicator Logic 2323-M1-2200-08 1 2 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety System Inoperable Indicator Logic O

U Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 26 of 30 L [d a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11111lllltllll4ll111111ll111ll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l

1

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMDVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-M1-2200-09 1 2 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety System Inoperable Indicator Logic 2323-M1-2200-10 1 3 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety System Inoperable Indicator Logic 2323-M1-2200-10A 1 3 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety System Inoperable Indicator Logic Special Light Boxes 2323-M1-2260-05 1 4 Inst. and Control Diagram Residual Heat Removal System 2323-M1-2261-03 1 3 Inst. and Control Diagram Safety Injection System 2323-M1-2263-05 4 Instrumentation and Control Diagram Residual Heat Removal System 2323-M1-2263-06 1 4 Instrumentation & Control Diagram Channel O(/ 8809/8812 Safety Injection System F.D.,

Sheet 3 2323-M1-2263-08 1 4 I&C Diagram - Chan. 8821/8825 Safety Injection System F.D. Sheet 3 2323-S-0901 1 4 Cable Tray Support Sheet 1 2323-5-0902 2 5 Cable Tray Support Sheet 2 2323-S-0903 3 5 Cable Tray Support Sheet 3 2323-S-0904 5 5 Cable Tray Support Sheet 5 2323-S-0907 7 2 Cable Tray Support 2323-S-0908 8 1 Cable Tray Support 2323-S-0909 9 1 Cable Tray Support l

' Texas Utilities Services, Inc. . 27 of 30 L {tj i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111llllIllllll111111lll1111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

I l

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED

(

s) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8) l DRAWING N0. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 2323-S-0910 Cable Tray Support Frame - CSM 53 CSM 53a 2 CSM 53b 4 CSM 53c 2 CSM 53d 3 2323-S-0919 9 3 Cable Tray Supports Conn. Details to Embedded Plates 2323-51-0500 1 4 Drawing List-General Noted & Refereces 271C336 28 RHR Pump No. 1 (Westinghouse Drawing) 271C336 29 RHRPumpNo.2(WestinghouseDrawing) 2716336 370 Motor Operated Valve 1-8701B (Westinghouse Drawing) 2716336 372 Motor Operated Valve 1-8702B (Westinghouse Drawing) 2716336 396 Motor Operated Valve 1-8809A (Westinghouse Drawing) 2716336 397 Motor Operated Valve 1-8809B (Westinghouse Drawing) 2716336 401 Motor Operated Valve 1-8811A (Westinghouse Drawing)

2716336 402 Motor Operated Valve 1-8811B (Westinghouse Drawing) 2716336 403 Motor Operated Valve 1-8812A (Westinghouse Drawing)

! 2716336 404 Motor Operated Valve 1-88128 (Westinghouse Drawing) 2969-1 1 Type IIMI Basket Strainer A

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 28 of 30 L4 [Pji i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program millimi;.................. Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

LIST OF DRAWINGS REVIEWED RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING NO. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 300-J49738 1&2 5 Pump and Motor Outline 5018539 1 Residual licat Exchanger 5699 1 8 Eight Valve Isolation Tanks Assembly and Details 5700 1 4 Eight Valve Isolation Tank Details 5701 1 8 Eight Valve Isolation Tank Details 5770 1 1 Tank Supports-Isolation Valves Assembly and Details 5773 3 Joseph Oat Inc.

RiiR tiest Exchanger Outliens 7237005 8 Functional Diagrams Safeguard Actuation Signals 802252 B1 0 Penetration MS 1,2,3,4 8372003 1 1 Motor Gave Valve MOD 14000GM84FEliO10 8372013 1 1 Swing Check Valve MOD 08000CS8400000 8372015 1 1 Swing Check Valve MOD 100000CS8400000 8372017 1 1 Swing Check Valve MOD 14000CS8400000 8372020 1 1 Swing Check Valve MOD 08000C58200000 8372034 1 1 Motor Op. Gate Valve MOD 06000GM82FBB000 8372035 1 1 Motor Op. Gate Valve MOD 08000GM82FBB000 8372D42 1 2 MNL Op. Gate Valve MOD 06000Gli82000000 8372D47 1 1 Motor Op. Gate Valve MOD 08000GM84FEB010 8372050 1 1 Motor Op. Check Valve MOD 14000GM84FEB010 l

U Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 29 of 30 t [ g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l 19m11ll111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

LIST OF DRAWIIIGS REVIEWED i RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DRAWING 100. PAGE REV. DESCRIPTION 8373D42 1 - Westinghouse Valve 10GM78FN 8760060 18 Solid State Protection System Interconnectio Diagram 9501058 Ingersoll-Rand General Arrangement ,

8X20WDF Pump O .

I l \

\

\

l

! 1 A

U .

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 30 of 30 ~

Li L J i A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilittletilllilitimitilllill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

1 DESIGli CHANGE D0ctmENT LISTIIIG q RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

V CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

0-999 SERIES 00026 0 2323-51-0500 1 00085 0 2323-S1-0500 1 00108 0 2323-S1-500 2 00142 0 2323-51-0500 3 00154 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 00155 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 00156 1 2323-El-0500-01-S 2 00157 1 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 00158 0 2323-El-0602-01-5 1 00159 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 00161 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 00163 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 0 00165 0 2323-El-0602-01-3 0 00167 0 2323-51-0500 3 00168 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 00169 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 0 00170 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 00175 0 2323-S1-0500 4 00176 2323-S1-0500 4 0- 00185 00186 2

1 1

2323-El-0601-01-S 2323-El-0601-01-5 3

3 00254 2 2323-S1-0500 4 00345 2 2323-S-1107 9 00373 See FDCR 00965 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 00972 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 00973 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 00977 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 00994 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 00995 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 0 00996 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 1000 SERIES 01051 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 01062 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 0 01073 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 01101 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2

() e gg'{ g_,

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1 of 20 lltll11111lll1811111111ll1lll1 F1nal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

DESIGN CHANGE DOCLNENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B) cnC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

1000 SERIES (con't) 01102 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 01103 1 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 01104 4 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 01112 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 01113 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 01116 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 01138 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 01139 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 0 01140 3 2323-El-0602-01-5 1 01352 0 2323-El-0601-015 1 01481 0 2323-S-0901 2 01564 0 2323-S-0903 2 01596 0 2323-S-0903 2 01805 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 01831 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 01833 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 01834 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 01837 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 0 01854 01886 01891 2

0 0

2323-El-0601-01-S 2323-5-0901 2323-El-0602-01-5 3

0 0

01918 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 01946 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 0 01969 3 2323-El-0712-01-5 6 01971 0 2323-S-0903 4 01974 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 33333333333333=33333333333333333333333333333==3333=3=33333333333=33333333333=3 2000 SERIES 02011 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 02039 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 02039 0 2323-El-0700-01-S 3 02055 5 2323-S-0903 4 02056 0 2323-S-0903 3 02058 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 0 02079 0 2323-S-0903 3 02082 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 02084 0 2323-S-0903 3

() ,eg[

Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

., , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 2 of 20 111111111111111111111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O I

DESIGN CHMGE DOCIDENT LISTING

( RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

2000 SERIES (con't) 02095 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 0 02102 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 02126 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 02180 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 02181 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 02183 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 02187 1 2323-S-0903 5 02430 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 02446 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 02449 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 02452 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 02457 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 02470 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 02490 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 02518 2 2323-S-0901 4 02538 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 02616 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 2323-5-0901

() 02618 2 4 02622 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 02633 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 02634 0 2323-El-0602-01-5 1 02637 1 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 02639 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 2323-El-0716-S 5 02642 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 02644 1 2323-El-0602-01-5 1 02646 5 2323-S-0903 5 02648 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 02649 2 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 02652 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 02656 3 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 i 02671 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 02769 4 2323-5-0903 4 02799 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 02904 5 2323-S-0903 5 02904 5 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 3 of 20 !

geg ( ;g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l11111111111111111111111111lll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCUENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CNC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

3000 SERIES 03237 3 2323-S2-0634 03313 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 03412 0 2323-El-601-01-5 3 03423 1 2323-S-901 3 03424 1 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 03425 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 034326 2 2323-El-0718-S 2 03469 0 2323-El-0800-S 1 03479 4 2323-S1-0500 4 03479 4 2323-El-1705-01 2 03498 1 2323-El-0602-01 4 03599 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 03611 0 2323-El-0800-S 1 03616 0 2323-El-0800-S 1 03626 4 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 03627 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 03628 0 2323-El-0718-5 1 03631 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 O' 03633 1

0 2323-El-0718-S 1 03643 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 03648 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 03684 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 03685 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 03710 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 03745 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 03746 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 03811 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 03817 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 03893 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 03947 0 2323-S-0901 3 03982 0 2323-El-0718-5 1 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 4000 SERIES 04021 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 04021 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 04116 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 l (-s_,) Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 4 of 20 g 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Progran.

lilillittlilllitillitillHilli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

lt_

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtMENT LISTING p RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

O CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

4000 SERIES (can't) 04119 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 04121 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 04130 3 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 04182 1 2323-S1-0624 21 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 04469 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 04471 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 04472 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 04502 8 2323-El-0718-S 1 04504 1 2323-El-0718-5 1 04515 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 04518 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 04522 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 04526 1 2323-El-0718-5 1 04528 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 04530 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 04535 4 2323-El-0718-S 1 04538 1 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 04542 2323-El-0718-S O' 04546 2

1 2323-El-0718-S 1

1 04552 7 2323-El-0800-S 2 04556 3 2323-El-0718-S 1 04557 1 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 04558 3 2323-El-0718-S 1 04559 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 04563 1 2323-El-0727-S 1 04564 0 2323-El-0727-5 1 04565 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 04566 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 04567 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 1 04904 0 2323-El-0603-01-5 1 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333=3333=33333333=333333333==3 5000 SERIES 05219 1 El-0601-01 6 05347 1 2323-S-901 4 05368 0 2323-El-0718-01 5 05671 0 2323-5-0903 4 l

l

() og[ ,i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 5 of 20 g; g Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

DESIGN CHANGE DOCLNENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REY. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

5000 SERIES (con't) 05672 0 2323-S-0903 4 05673 0 2323-S-0903 4 05674 0 2323-S-0903 4 05675 0 2323-S-0903 4 05676 2 2323-5-0903 4 05677 0 2323-S-0903 4 05678 0 2323-S-0903 4 05679 0 2323-S-0903 4 05680 0 2323-S-0903 4 05683 0 2323-5-0903 4 05959 6 2323-S1-0500 4

2233333 =33 3333=333= 333==E=3 3333333 3 333333333333=3= 33==23= 3= 3333333 332333==

6000 SERIES 06100 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 06101 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 06102 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3

/) 06104 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 "V 06106 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 06108 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 06109 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 06116 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 06127 0 2323-El-0727-5 1 06124 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 06125 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 06126 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 06129 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 06137 0 2323-El-0718-01-S 1 06141 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 06149 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 06150 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 06151 3 2323-El-0800-S 2 06153 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 06157 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 06157 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 06187 0 2323-S-0903 4 06191 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 06199 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 I

j

() g Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

[ , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 6 of 20 I lilililllilliihilllimlilill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

.i

DESIGN CHANGE DOCUENT LISTING

""" "' "'" '^' " "^'" "'

CD oc/oCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

6000 SERIES (con't) 06239 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 06423 0 2323-El-0606 11 06423 0 2323-El-0718-01 7 06557 1 2323-El-0727-S 1 06800 0 2323-El-0718-01 8 06911 1 2323-El-0727-S 1 06916 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 06917 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 06938 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 06939 1 2323-El-0603-01 4 2323-El-0603-01 1 06949 2 2323-El-0603-01 5 06956 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 06971 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 06972 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 06990 3 2323-El-0718-S 1 06995 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 0 333333333333333333=33333333333=33333333333333333333333=333333333333333=3333333 7000 SERIES 07166 1 2323-El-0601-01 6 07292 4 2323-M1-0263 8 2323-M2-0263 2 07166 2323-M1-2608 5 2323-M2-2608 2 2323-M1-2607 6 2323-M2-2607 1 2323-M1-2508-01 5 2323-M2-2508-01 2 2323-M1-0605 14 2323-M2-0605 4 2323-M1-0616 11 2323-M2-0616 2 2323-M1-0606 13 2323-M2-0606 2 2323-El-0600-01 16 2323-El-0600 15 2323-El-1700 295 i

() gg[

e Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

, , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 7 of 20 111lll111llllllll1111111111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHANGE DOCUENT LISTING RESIDUAL EAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/

FICR N0. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

7000 SERIES (con't) 07166 (con't) 2323-E2-1700 138 07724 0 2323-El-0718-01 9 07974 11 2323-ES-100 2 2323-S1-0500 4 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333==333333=3333333=333333333333333 8000 SERIES 08104 0 2323-S1-0500 4 08207 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 08208 4 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 08215 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 08217 4 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 08230 4 2323-El-0800-S 2 08231 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 3 08232 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 08240 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 08255 3 2323-El-1701 9 08255 0 08258 08501 3

0 3

2323-S1-0500 2323-El-0718-S 2323-S1-0500 4

1 4

08258 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 08263 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 08264 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 08294 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 08501 3 2323-51-0500 4 2323-El-1701 10 08504 1 2323-El-0700-01-S 3 08507 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 08510 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 08515 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 08516 1 2323-El-0716-01 11 2323-El-0718-01 9 08516 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 08517 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2

, 08522 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 08524 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 l 08528 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 08530 1 2323-El-0601-01-5 4 i

I~'/

T Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 8 of 20 i

\--

g ( 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program limitilllilitillilitilililli Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtMENT LISTING (m

RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

8000 SERIES (con't) 08531 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 08532 5 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 08542 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 08556 5 2323-El-0718-S 1 08574 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 08575 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 08583 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 08589 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 08592 3 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 08595 0 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 533333333333333333333333333333333333333353533333333333333333333333333333333333 9000 SERIES 09031 0 2323-El-0713-1 8 2323-El-0601-1 6 09542 1 2323-El-1700 264 2323-El-0704 12 0 09542 2323-El-0603-02 2323-El-0603-02 2323-El-0602-01 13 11 14 2323-El-0601-04 8 2323-El-0602-02 11 2323-El-0602-03 11 09922 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 09927 3 2323-El-0800-S 2 09928 3 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 09935 4 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 09942 2 2323-El-0601-01-5 4 09966 0 2323-El-0800-S 2

, 09970 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 09973 7 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 09983 0 2323-El-0718-01 10 09983 0 2323-El-0720 13

() gh{e g i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 9 of 20 lilllilllillillilitimillittiFinal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

i

l DESIGN CHANGE DOCUMENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/  !

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

l 10000 SERIES 10347 0 2323-51-0500 4 10462 0 2323-El-0718-01 10 2323-El-0720 13 10463 0 2323-El-0718-01 10 11056 3 2323-El-0718-S 1 11085 2 2323-S-0910-CST-36 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 11248 1 2323-El-0718-01 11 11560 0 2323-El-0603-01 10 12014 6 2323-El-0601-12 2 2323-El-0601-01 8 2323-El-1700- 308 12109 4 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 12145 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 12179 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 12187 1 2323-S-0904 4 12199 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 12496 1 2323-El-0601-01 8 O 13388 6

2323-El-1700 2323-S1-0500 2323-AS-31 235 4

1 13404 1 2323-El-0601-01 8 13559 4 2323-El-1702-01 7 13597 1 2323-El-0601-01 8 2323-El-0601-12 2 2323-El-1700 253 13689 0 2323-El-1700 253 2323-El-0603-01 12 2323-El-0608 6 13771 0 2323-El-0601-01 8 14484 1 2323-El-0062 6 2323-El-0062 4 2323-El-0062 6 2323-El-0062 6 2323-El-0062 6 2323-El-0062 7 2323-El-0062 3 2323-El-0063 9 2323-El-0063 6 1

() Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

eg[ gi Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 10 of 20 MilmlilllimilmmmlFinal Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

DESIGN CHANGE DOCtK NT LISTING RESIDUAL EAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

(]

V CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

10000 SERIES (con't) l 14484 (con't) 2323-El-0611 1 2323-El-0511 1 2323-El-1700 264 2323-El-1710 12 2323-El-0601-01 8 15203 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 15230 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 15233 0 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 15312 0 2323-S1-0500 4 16418 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 16419 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 16420 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 16421 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 16422 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 16454 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 16465 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 16470 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 16480 0 2323-S-0903 4 O 16496 17855 0

0 0

2323-El-0601-01-S 2323-El-0718-S 2323-El-0718-S 3

1 17861 1 17876 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 17921 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 17923 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 18285 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 18287 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 18291 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 18309 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 '

18313 0 2323-S-0901 4 18323 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 18328 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 30000 SERIES 30256 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 30271 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 1 30285 4 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 30293 1 2323-El-0800-S 2

! () Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

t eb [tj i 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11 of 20 gpWNmmmHMm Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O l

l'

l DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

l 30000 SERIES (con't) l 30450 1 2323-El-06010-01-S 3 30457 0 2323-El-0718-5 1 30460 3 2323-El-0800-S 2 30464 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 30466 3 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 31158 0 2323-S-0901 3 31165 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 31182 4 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 31199 3 2323-S-0903 5 31211 0 2323-El-0718-5 1 32469 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 32493 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 32513 2 2323-El-0601-01-5 4 32515 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 32522 5 2323-S-0910 1 33609 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1

, 34099 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 34110 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 35529 0 2323-El-0718-S Os 35535 0 2323-El-0602-01-5 1 1

35537 3 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 36522 0 2323-S-0903 3 39857 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 40000 SERIES 41227 0 2323-El-0727-5 1 41230 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 41231 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 42316 2 2323-E2-0718-S 1 43207 5 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 43229 3 2323-S-0910- 12 43244 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 43247 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 44508 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 44509 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 44510 2 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 44511 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 l Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 12 of 20 eg[ ,3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111lllll11111111111111lll11 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O j

l DESIGN CHANGE DOCtNENT LISTING p_ RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

V cnc/oCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

40000 SERIES (con't) 44512 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 44515 0 2323-El-0718-S 2 44518 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 44566 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 44569 0 2323-El-0603-01-5 1 44572 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 44573 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 44630 2 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 44631 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 45578 7 2323-SI-072-001-532S 46871 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 46887 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 46889 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 47013 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 47017 0 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 47039 4 2323-El-0718-S 1 48770 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 48838 2 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 O 48839 48841 48842 1

1 1

2323-El-0600-01-S 2323-El-0601-01-S 2323-El-0601-01-S 2

3 3

48343 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 48844 3 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 48845 1 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 48850 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 48852 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 48854 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 48855 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 48860 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 48877 0 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 48920 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2

! 48924 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 46927 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 48934 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2

, 48951 1 2323-El-0603-01-S 1 l

i

() Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

ge g[ ;g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 13 of 20 i illuillitilllillimitmml Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 1

i

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING p RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

V CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

50000 SERIES 50470 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 50476 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 50482 0 2323-El-0600-01-5 2 50484 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 50582 5 2323-El-0800-S 2 53405 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 52408 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 52467 1 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 52470 2 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 52476 5 2323-El-0718-S 1 52478 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 52564 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 53760 2 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 53783 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 53785 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 54862 3 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 54863 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 54920 0 2323-El-7185 1 0 56191 56281 56300 2

0 0

2323-S-0910 2323-El-0601-01-S 2323-S-0901 3

1 4

56315 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 56317 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57220 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57228 0 2323-El-0718-5 1 57291 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57298 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 57304 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57306 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 57303 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57315 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 57317 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57320 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57321 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 57322 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57323 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57327 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57328 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57329 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 14 of 20 a

gg[3gi Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l 11111111111ll11441611lll111111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 l

DESIGN CWWIGE DOCulENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

O cnC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

50000 SERIES (con't) 57380 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 l 57382 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 1 l 57386 2 2323-El-0718-S 1 l 57395 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 57397 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 57399 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 58232 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 58233 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 58235 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 58236 - 0 2323-S-0800-S 2 58238 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 58239 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 58268 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3

! 58272 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 58273 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 58276 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 58283 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 58284 1 2323-El-0300-S 2 O 58285 58337 58338 0

1 0

2323-El-0800-S 2323-El-0601-01-5 2323-S-903 2

3 5

58340 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 58341 3 2323-El-0727-5 1 58358 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 58363 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 59592 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 59594 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 59640 3 2323-El-0718-S 1 59644 0 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 59646 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 59648 1 2323-El-0800-5 2 59676 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 59683 1 2323-El-0601-01-5 3

() e gg'[ g 3 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 15 of 20 imimmilmilimilmill Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 1

, 1

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING RESIDUAL EAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

DIC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

60000 SERIES 60275 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 61665 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 61804 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 61805 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 61806 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 61847 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 61848 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 64341 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 65276 2 BRH-SI-1-072-004-S32K 1 65766 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 66909 3 BRH-RH-1-008-008-S22K 0 69024 BRH-RH-1-008-001-S22R 1 69092 7 BRH-SI-1-326-001-532R 0 69186 0 2323-El-0601-01-5 3 69331 0 2323-El-602-01 13 69335 1 2323-S-0901 4 69346 3 2323-El-0600-01-S 2 O 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 70000 SERIES 70518 6 BRH-RH-1-008-002-S22S 1 70825 6 BRH-RH-1-007-007-S22K 1 71049 1 2323-El-0602-01 13 75426 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 75427 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 75428 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 .

75429 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 77093 3 BRH-RH-1-008-006-S22k 1 77652 1 2323-S-0903 5 77750 0 2323-S-0901 4 77753 5 2323-El-0800-S 2 ,

77803 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 77899 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 16 of 20 g [ g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program litillHilllillHilillHilllll Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O i

i l

, OESIGN CHANGE DOCIE NT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8)

CNC/DCA/ l FICR NO. REY. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

80000 SERIES ,

80253 0 2323 S-0903 5 s >80254 0 23237S'-0903 5 s '80285 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 80290 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 80292 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 80293 1 2323-El-0718-S 1 80383 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 80388 6 2323-El-0718-S 1 80858 5 BRH-RH-1-024-UO9-S22K 3 81965 5 BRH-SI-1-079-009-S42K 1 82686 0 2323-El-0800-S 2

, 82777 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82814 0 2323-El-0602-01-S~ 2 82824 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82825 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82826 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82827 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82829 2 2323-El-0602-01-S . 2 82830 2323-El-0602-01-S O

1 2 82831 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82905 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 83906 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 82907 1 2323-El-0602-01-S' 2 829&3 1 2323-S-0903 t, 5 83003 0 2323-S-0904 5 83011 0 2323-S-0903 5 83015 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 83059 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 83060 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 83061 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 83063 2 2323-El-0602-01-S '

2 83705 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 85720 3 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 85794 1 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 85846 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 85907 0 2323-El-0600-01-S '

2 86121 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 86127 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 86128 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 f'S Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 17 of 20 4

-/ t [ i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment-Program litillimillimimmilmi Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0 ,

s 1

.o DESIGN CHANGE DOCtMENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B)

CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

80000 SERIES (con't) 85129, 4 2323-El-0802-01-S 1 87647 2 BRP-CS-1-A8-070 0 88240 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 88271 3 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 88273 3 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 88300 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 88302 2 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 88303 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 88304 3 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 88339 2 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 88440 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 88503 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 88311 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 88524 1 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 88525 1 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 88527 1 2323-El-0800-S 2 88562 1 2323-El-0600-01-5 2 O L'"s'"'""""""""""'""'"""'"'""""

90727 4 SEE CMC

'90756 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 9D759 2 2323-El-0800-S 2 90760 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90761 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90762 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90764 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90765 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90766 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90782 0 2323-El-0800-S 2

9'J783 1 2323-El-0800-S 1 2 90784 0 2323-El-0800-S 2

! 90785 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 l 90786 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 i

90787 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90789 0 2323-El-0800-S 2 90815 1 2323-El-0727-S 1 90821 0 2323-S-0903 5

) Texas Utilities Systems, Inc. 13 of 20 g g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

g .

. :iiiiii, Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

i DESIGN CHANGE DOCLSENT LISTING l

() RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN B) l CMC /DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

90000 SERIES (con't) 90881 0 2323-El-0727-5 1 90883 0 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 91861 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 93170 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 93177 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 93203 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 93204 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 93234 1 2323-El-0601-01-S 2 93236 0 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 93277 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93300 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 93320 1 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 93345 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 93410 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93411 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93418 1 2323-S-0903 5 93428 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93438 1 2323-El-0727-5 1 93460 O 93462 93469 0

0 0

2323-El-0718-S 2323-El-0718-S 2323-El-0601-01-S 1

4 1

93473 0 2323-El-0603-01-S 2 93476 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 93482 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 93530 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 3 935?1 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93532 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93533 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93534 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93535 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93549 0 2323-El-0727-S 1 93601 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 93602 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 93609 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 93610 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 93611 0 2323-El-0601-01-S 4 93641 0 2323-E2-0601-01-S 1 l

l l

l

() ge g[

jg i Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program.

19 of 20 111i111111lll111111llllllll111 Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

DESIGN CHANGE DOCl#ENT LISTING RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM (TRAIN 8) cnC/DCA/

FICR NO. REV. AFFECTED DWG. REV.

j 90000 SERIES (con't) 94240 0 H1-263 CP-2 i M1-522 5 BRP-SI-1-RB-062 11 94473 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 94475 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 94475 0 2323-El-0602-01-S 2 94480 0 2323-El-0603-01-5 2 94526 0 2323-El-0602-01-5 2 94612 0 2323-El-0718-S 1 O

O Texas Utilities Systems, Inc.

A[;;i;;..g. ........;

, Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 20 of 20 i

.... Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O s I

I

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

m r f

U t (

CUMANCHE PLAZ SILAM (LtLINIC SI AllON INutPENDENT A55f 55 MENT PRENAM - TEIAS UTILillES QUAtlIV A55UilANCI PNUL. NAM MAINIX . DE5IGN CONTROL GOVERNIPG DOCUMENTS TUSI PROGRAM Wivi[id tilN M45.2.!!

NO. QUAtlIV PROI. RAM REQUIREMENT 5 LIN( FSAR QA PLAN CP-E P CP-QP CO W NTS

• Q4 hoguirements for the Design of Ibclear Pouer Plants" 1 Are prxedures developed to assure that design 2. 2  !?.l.3 3.0 4.0 N/A actiettles are carried out in a planned, controlled, orderly and correct manner?

2 Do the program procedures cover the following:

a. Responsibilities or organtaations involved in 2. 2 17.1.3 3.0 4.0 3. 3 tne prcgram. such as owner. A-E. N555 supplier 13.2 13.3 and other contractors?

b. Responsiblitties within design organtrations? 2. 2 17.1.3 1.0 4.0 N/A 13.2

, c. Technical information encharges across esternal 2.2 17.1.3 1. 2.1 4.0 N/A and Interal interfaces? 13.2

d. Document control including review, approval. 2.2 17.l.6 6.0 4.0 15.2 release, distributton, and revision? 13.4

c. Maintenance and retention of design documents. 2.2 17.1.3.7 17.0 4.0 19.6 17.1.17 13.6

f. Management restew of status and adequacy of 2.2 17.1.3.5 3.0 4.0 Ig.0 prograaf 12.3

g. Necessary training of personnel performing 2.2 17.1.1.1.l(2) N/A N/A 3.0 activities covered by ANSI M45.2.lli 13.3

h. Identifying appropriate design input? 2.2 17.1.3.4 3.01 4.0 N/A 13.3 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Ab a

i A Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

O t O CUMANCHL PE AK 5f t AM LLECINIC SI AlluN INDEPENDENT ASSES 5 MENT PRILRAM - IIIAS UiltillES QUAllIV 4550 DANCE PR(ENAM MAikl1 - Ot51GN CONTkut GOVERNIE DOCUMENT 5 Tust PRtERAM NEvlEW IIEM M45.2.!!

NO. QUAttif PR0t. RAM REQUla[MENi1 LINE F5AR QA PLAN CP-EP CP.QP C0 pet [NT5

t. Preparation of design criteria, standards and 2.2 17.l.3 3.01 4.0 N/A other criterta? 13.3

j. Specifying quality levels, acceptance standards. 2. 2 17.1.3.5 N/A 4.4 N/A and record requirements? *

k. Selection of design vertitcation networks? 2.2 17.1.3 3.01 4.5 N/A

1. Performance of design vertitcations? 2.2 17.1.3 3.01 4.5 N/A

m. Conducting audits of design activities. 2.2 17.1.3.6 3.03 N/A 1g.0 their reporting and followup.

n. Taking corrective action? 2.2 17.1.16 16.0 N/A 17.0

o. Controlling design changes? 2.2 17.l.3 3.03 4.0 N/A 13.4 Besign Input hogstrements 3 Are design inputs, such as design bases. 3.1 17.1.3.5 3.0 4.0 N/A regulatory requirements, codes and standards, g 3.3 Identified, documented and their selection reviewed and approved?

4 Are Changes from spec 1f ted design inputs 3.1 17.1.3 3.03 4.5 N/A identtfled, approved documented and controlled? 13.1 5 Do design inputs include the applicable 3.2 17.1.3 N/A 4.4 N/A requirements of ANSI N45.2.ll. Para. 3.27 Besign Process 6 Are procedures sufftctent to assure that applicable 4.1 17.1.3 3.03 4.0 N/A design inputs are correctly translated into spect.

fications, drawings, procedures and instructions?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

{ ' , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O lummmmmWElla

'V J s

\

I .

C(MANCHE PEAK SitAM LLtCINIC 5f AlluN

INDEPENDENT A55E55MLMI FR(LRAM - IERAS UittlilE5 QUAttit ASSURANCE PR(LRAM MAINit - DE51GN CONINOL GOVERNIE DOCUMENTS TUSI PROGRAM REVIEW liEM M45.2.ll LINE F5AR QA PLAN CP-E P CP-QP CGOIENTS NO. QUAttif M0 GRAM REQUIRENENTS Are appropriate quality standards identified. 4.1 17.1.3 N/A 4.4 N/A

?. 17.1.1.1.l(9) 13.3.?(2) documented and their selection restewed and approved?

Is traceablitty provided from final design to 4.1 17.1.3 3.02 4.0 N/A 8

ortgtnal input?

13.4(c )

Besign Analyses g is analysts (calculations, camp.. etc.) 4.2 17.1.3.4 h/A 4.0 N/A sufficieetly dotatted as to purpose, method. 13.3 assumptions design input. references, and units '

so that it can be readily understood?

Are calculations identified by subject. 4.2 N/A N/A 4.0 18.6 10 13.3 ortgtnator, revlemer and date such that 13.1.1 (GENERAL) they are retrievable?

11 Design Analysts 4.2 Are procedures written to provide for 4.2 17.1.3.4 3.0.1 4.0 18.6 the folloutng: 13.1.1 (GENERAL)

4. Identifying documents to permit ready reference and retrieval?

b. Defining the objective of the analyses?

c. Definttton of design inputs and their sources?

d. Documenting the results of literature searches or other applicable background data? 4 4

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

' , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

^  %

U J O 4

COMANCHL PLAK SILAM (LECINIC SIAllUN IMDEPf MDENT R55E55MLNT PROGRM . TEXA5 UTILITIES QUALITF ASSURANCE PR& RAM MAIN!I Ol5tGN CONTROL i

GOVERNIIG DOCUMENTS TU51 PROGRM REvitu ITEM M45.2.!!

LINE F5AR QA PLAN C P-E P CP-QP CppitNi$

MO. QuAttiv PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

e. Documenting assumptions and identifying those assumptions that must be vertfled as the design proceeds?

f. Identification of machtne calculations including machtne type, code or prograsuntng.

'taputs and outputs?

g. Review and approvalf Drawings Are procedures estabitshed for the 4.3 17.1.3.1 3.0 4.9 11.13 preparatten and control of drawings? 5.0 (as-built)

SpectfIcat1ons Are procedures established for the 4.4 17.1.3.2 3.0.1 N/A h/A Responstbtllty for preparatton and control of spectftcations? spectitcation is by Al i

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g{ Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

M

0%

- %s CDMANCHL P(AK SILM LLECiult 5f All0N INDEPEN0(NT A55E55Mthi PMOGRM - IERA5 UTIllll!5 QUALIlf ASSURANCE PR0t. RAM MATN!I - DL5If.h CUNiuGL GOVIRNIE DOCUMENTS TU5! PRT.RM Rtvi(W IffM M45.2.ll Co*EN15 LINE F 54p QA PLAP CP.E P CP-OP ND. QuALiff PRK. RAM REQUIREMENT 5 Are provisions for internal and enternal 5.1 17.1.1 3.0.1 4.0 N/A 12 17.1.l.5 13.2 interfaces estabitshed for: 5.2 4.6

a. Identification of Interface? '

13.6

b. Responsibilities for organtrations?

c. Lines of communications?

d. Documentation requirements for the flow of design informatton?

6.1 17.1.3.5 3.0.1 4.5 N/A 13 Are Design Vertitcation Provisions established (by whom. documented / auditable, entent)? 6.2 6.3 17.1.3.5 3.0 4.5 N/A 14 .00 Design Vertftcation Methods include:

a. Design Reviews?

b. Alternate Calculations?

c. Qualtftcation Testing?

Oscument Centrol 7.0 17.l.6 6.0 4.0 N/A 15 Do procedures assure that documents, and changes thereto are reviewed for adequacy, approved for release by authortred personnel and properly distributed?

Does Design change control include provisions 8.0 17.1.3 3.0.3 4.6 N/A 16 for the reason for changes and their appropriate restew/ approval?

9.0 17.1.16 16.0 N/A 17.0 17 Is a system established for corrective action?

Are audits of Design Controls performed? 11.0 17.1.18 18.0 N/A 19.0 18 10.0 18.0 18.6 19 15 record of documents and revisions established per ANSI M45.2.9 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

({ g ,

ggggggggg Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

r

% s a

COMANCHE PEAK STE AM ELECTRIC 5TAilun th0EPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM - TERA 5 UitLITIES QUAtlif A55URANCE PR(I;RM MATRin - DE51G4 [0NTROL GOVERh!E DOCUME NTS TU51 PROGRM RE VIEW ITEM N45.2.Il NO. QUALITT PR0f. RAM REQUIREMENT 5 t,1NE FSAA QA PLAN CP.E P CP.QP C(poqENT5 20 Are changes restowed and approved by the 7.0 4.7 N/A same organtrations doing ortgtnal unless spectftcally delegated?

21 De procedures for document control include: 7.0 . 18.0 3.0 Document control g3.6 acttuttles are the

a. Identification of personnel postttons or responsiblitty of respoestble orgentaattons? troun 8 Root (Per

b. Identification of proper documents used for the design?

c. Coordination and control of design interfaces?

d. Assure that proper documents are accessible

, and used?

e. The establishment of distributton Itsts?

EEGEIS N45.2.lt American hattonal Standards Institute for

• Design of Nclear Power Plants" draf t 2 revision 2.

F5AR Commenche peak Steam Electric Station Final Safety Analysts Report.

04 Plan Commenche Peat Steam Electric 5tation (kality Assurance Plan CP.EP Commenche Peat steam Electric Station Engineering Procedure Manual CP.QP Commenche Peat steam Electric Station Quality Procedures Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 4[ J' ,

Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O NWNWNNWNNNENN 4

C)%

c

(

9 CDMANCHE PEAK SilAM EttCIREC 5fAfl04 INDEPENDENT A55(55 MENT Pa% RAM - GIBBS & HILL QUALITY A550EANCE PROGRAM MAINIX - DEstGN CONTROL GOV {RNIE DOCUMENTS Gl885 & HILL PRT. RAM (LEMENT5 M45.2.Il PROJECT PROJECT ITEM CDpseENTS LINE PROCEDURis GUIDES NO. Quattiv PRmRAM RE0ulatMENTS

• QA Asquirements for the Destys of Ibclear Peuer Plants

• Are procedures developed to assure that design 2.2 AC-7 and DC-8 All 1

acttuttles are carried out in a planned, controlled, orderly and correct manner?

2 De the progran procedures cover the folloutng:

a. Responsibilities or organtrations involved in 2.2 PA-3 and DC-13 III-2 through 7 V

the program, such as cuner. A E. N555 suppiter and other contractors?

b. Responsibilities utthin design organtrations? 2. 2 PA-3. DC-8 and DC-13 III-2 through 7 2.2 DC-7,13.0 and 111-12 through 21

c. Technical information enchanges across enternal DC-13 and interal interfaces?

d. Document control including revleu. approval. 2.2 DC-3. DC-7 DC-7 V-3-3b V125 release, distributton, and revision? Also see Ites (b) 2.2 QA-9 Various

e. Malatenance and retention of design documents.

f. Management review of status and adequacy of 2.2 PA I N5 program?

Necessary traintag of personnel performing 2.2 QA-5, 13.9 QA Manager. Vid g.

activities covered by ANSI M45.2.llt Identifying appropriate design input? 2. 2 DC-7 M5 h.

preparation of design criteria, standards and 2.2 DC-2 N5 1.

other critertaf Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

y ,, , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

/] .

g

\

F.OnANCHE PE AK STEAM ELECiktC STATION INDEPENDENT ASSES 5 MENT PkUGRAM - Gl565 & MILL QUALITY A55URANCE Putt, RAM MAf tlI . DESIGN CONikOL GOVERNIE DOCtstEni$ Gl885 8 HILL PW% RAM ELIMENT5 ITEM M45.2.II PROJECi Pa0JEC1 No. QuALIfv PhoGaAM REQuIaEMENTS LINE PaDCEDueE5 GUtDE5 COMMENis J. Specifying quality levels, acceptance standards. 2.2 DC-5. g4.5 accords, and record requirements? Various

k. Selection of design vertf tcation networts? 2. 2 ,

DC-8 M5

1. Performance of dest e verifications? 2.2 DC-8 N5

m. Conducting audits of design actiettles. 2.2 QA-4 N5 their reporting and followup.

n. Taking corrective action? 2.2 QA-2 and QA-4 N5

e. Controlltag design changes? 2.2 DC-g V-7c. V-68. V128.11-5 gesty Input Requirements 3 Are design inputs, such as design bases. 3.1 DC-8. g3.0 N5 regulatory requirements, codes and standards, teentified, documented and their selection reviewed and approved?

4 Are Changes from spectfled design inputs 3.1 DC-g N5 teentified, approved, documentes and controlled?

5 De design inputs include the applicable 3.2 DC-8. g3.4 MS requirements of ANSI N45.2.ll. Para. 3.Z?

Sesign Process 6 Are procedures sufficient to assure that applicable 4.1 DC-8. g3.0 N5 design taputs are correctly translated into spect.

fications, drautags, procedures and instructions?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

'g { ' ,

Comanche Peak Independent. Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O INNNNNEulWNNINN

r

% sg C(MAhCHE PEAK 5IEM EEECTRIC 5tation th0EPEu0Ehi A55E55MEh! PRUGRAM - b!B85 8 MILL QUAllif A55URAnCE PW01 ARM MAikl1 - DESIGN COnfuut t.Uvt R4 t IG DUCumE NT S 61585 8 MILL PR(LRAM ELEMENT 5 ITEM R45.2.!! PROJECT Pe0 JECT LIhE PROCEDURES LUIDES Copeefhis h0. QuAllif PR% RAM REQu!RtMENTS 7 Are appropriate w itty standards teentified. 4.1 DC-8, 13.0 h5 documented and their selection restened and approved?

8 Is tracoattitty provided from final design to 4.1 . DC.F. W.0 N5 ertgtnal taput?

Besign Analyses 9 Is analysts (calculations, comp. etc.) 4.2 DC-7. W.O M5 sufftClantly detailed as to purpose, method, assumpttees, design input references, and units se that it can be readtly understood?

Are calculations identified by subject. 4.2 DC-7. W.0 h5 10 ertgtnator, resteuer and date such that they are retrievablef 11

• Dest p Analysts Are procedures arttten to provide for the 4.2 DC-7. M.0 ks fellowing:

a. Identifying documents to perett ready reference and retrieval?

b. Deftalag the objectine of the analyses?

c. Deflattien of dest e inputs and their sources?

d. Secummettag the results of literature

s. arches .c .ther miscabie b. cage.und deta?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

'4 { .

luuuumuWu'uuuuul Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

O  %

b COMANCHE PEAR STEM tLECTRIC 5f Allut thDErinDEmi A55E55MEni PROGRM - 61ss5 & MILL QUAttif A$$URANCE PRtLRAM MATRII - DESIGN CONTROL GovtRN!sG DocunENTS GISus & M!tt PROGRM Etinimis PROJECT ITD M45.2.It PROJECT C! pet his Lih[ PROCEDURES GUIDES NO. Quatlif PROGRAM REQulREMENTS

• e. Documenting asseseptions and identifying those asseseptions that must be vertfled as the design proceeds?

f. Identif4 cation of machtne CalCulattons tecludtag machine type, code or prograsustag, taputs and outputs?

g. Reutem and approval?

e Drestags Are procedures established for the 4.3 DC-3 v.125. V-79.

preparation and control of drautags? 11-2. V-126 e Spectftcations 4.4 DC-5 T!! l through 2 Are procedures established for the prepare.

tien and control of specifications? Typical subjects to be covered by such procedures are:

DC-5. 14.0 Vill.1-2

a. Format requirements. DC-5. Appendia; DC-5-4 vill-Am

6. Identificatten systen. DC-5. 15.0 vill-la

c. Review and approval reestrements. DC-5. 17.0 N5

d. Issuance and distributton,

e. Revisions. DC-5. 16.0 Vill-2 DC-5. Appendia; DC-5-IV M5

f. Indicatten of states. DC-9. 92.9 N5

g. henconformance. h5

h. Storage and control of ortstaals or DC-5. 17.0 easter coptes.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g[ , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. 0

~

COMANCHE PEA SitAM ELECiulC STATION InDEPENDthi ASSES 5 MENT PROGRm . Gl685 8 MitL QUAtlIV A550RANCE PRUGRm MATRII - OtilGa ContRot e

GOVER41E DOCUMt4TS GlB85 & HILL PROGRm [ttMinf5 N45.2.ll PROJECT PROJECT ITIM Capett nTS Llut PROCEDURES GUID(5 NO. QUALITY PROGRAM REQUIREMthis 12 Are preetstons for Internal and esternal 5.1 DC-13 taterfaces established for: 5.2 DC.13. gf ! and 3.1 1882 through 7

a. Identtf tcation of Interface? DC-f3. g2.2 and 3.2 till2 through 21

t. Respenstbtltttes for organtrattens?

c. Lines of communications? 0C-13. g2.3 and 3.3 Documentation requirements for the fles llc-13. g3.4 Page 24; Page 29 d.

of design informatton?

Are Design verification Provistens established 6.1 DC-8 h5 13 (by whom, documented / auditable, estent)? 6.2 6 De Design Vertftcation IRethods include: 6.3 DC-8 h5 14

a. Des 1gn Revisus7

t. Alternate Calculations?

c. Qualtf tcatten Testing?

Sacumiset Centrol De precedures essere that documents, and F.0 DC-3. DC.5, and DC-F V-3. Page 24. Page 29 15 changes therete are resteued for adequacy. Also, see item 21 approved for release by authorized personnel and properly distributed?

16 Does Design change centrol teclude provtstons 8.0 DC-9 Page 24. Page 29 for the reason for Changes and their appropriate restew/ approval?

Is a system estantished for corrective action? 9.0 04-1 and QA-4 as 17 18 Are audits of Design Centrols performed? 11.0 QA-4 mi l

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

'g { ' A Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O M

O c\

e COMANCHE PEAK STLAM (LECTRIC STAllun llotPf uDthi ASSES $Mtai pe0L. TAM . Gl885 & MILL QUAttif ASSURANCE PROGRAM MATRlt . DESIGN CONTROL GI8ss 8 ultL Pa0[, RAM (LEM(RIS Govtan!E DUCtsetmT5 PiDXCT PROJECT ITER R45.2.Il GUIDE 5 Ctmeq[nT5 Lint PuoCEDuali no. (pIALITT PusaAst aEquitEMEnis QA.g ks Ig is record of documents and revisions 10.0

- estatllshed per Anst M5.2.9 (para.10.0).

7.0 DC.g TU51 Control 20 Are changes restewed and approved by the saw orgentrattens doing ortgtnal unless spectftcally delegated?

7.0 Document Control is not 21 De procedures for document control include: spectftcally addressed in a separate precedure,

a. Identtitcatten of personnel posittens er However, each procedere that respenstate organisettens? describes the processtag of such documents as specs,

b. Identtitcetten of proper documents used for Gramlags. CalCs. etc..

the desty? describes the document control requirements for that specific

c. Caerdinetten and control of desty interfaces? document, t.e.. DC.3 98.1.

DC.S. 17.1 and DC.7. g5.0.

d. Assure that proper documents are access 16te In adottton. QP.g eescribes and used? records processing and DC.1

e. The estatitsament of distrthutten lists? describes correspondence control.

LEEN M5.2.lt Wican hattenal Standards lastitute for '9esten of thsclear pguer plants" draf t 2. reviston 2.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g{ Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program m' , '

Final Report TR-83090-01, Rev. O

Job No. 83090 s Doc. No. DC-1 Rev. 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PIPE STRESS DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.

l Prepared by h C h [ tM 4.[3 h

.C. Minichiello Date Independent Review by I 24RMb4A v

/o[3[f'S T. Nguyen (/ ~Date Approved by ,

N. Williams L /IM /8['/[D Date CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 November, 1983 i

M

p TABLE OF CONTENTS

\

Se.ction Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

3 2.0 SCOPE .................................................

CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS............... 4 3.0 1

3.1 Piping........................................... 4 3.2 Flued Head....................................... 5 4.0 DESIGN................................................. 5 4.1 General.......................................... 5 4.2 Classification of Piping Systems................. 5 4.3 boundaries....................................... 6 4.4 Design and Operating Conditions ................. 7 4.5 Geometry and Computer Modeling................... 7 4.6 Loading and Stress Requirements.................. 9 4.7 Loading Combinations............................ 13 4.8 Stress Limits.................................... 13 4.9 Nozzle Load Check................................ 13 4.10 Sleeve Clearance Check.......................... 13 5.0 EXHIBITS............................................... 14 i

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 2 of 14 l 'eg { 3 , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1 111116661141111111111811111111 i

)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

U The purpose of this document is to provide the criteria to be used for the review of the Piping Stress and Flued Head Analyses fob Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES). This Design Criteria shall be used in conjunction with Work Instruction 1,

" Assessment Procedures," for details on the review methodology and documentation requirements.

2.0 SCOPE The scope of the pipe stress and flued head review includes the following portions of the Residual Heat Removal / Safety Injection (RHR) system, Train B:

• Class 2 containment sump recirculation piping from containment penetration MS-2 to the suction of RHR pump

() TBX-RHAPRH-02 (Gibbs & Hill Stress Problem 1-069 ) .

e Class 2 RHR piping from the discharge of the reference pump to the tubeside inlet of RHR heat exchanger TBX-RHAHRS-02 (Gibbs & Hill Stress Problem 1-070).

• Penetration MS-2, including the entire forging and the

containment sleeve between the flued head and the con-tainment wall.

l l

! n-N- Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Page 3 of 14 "o 83o'or oc- > "*v-tininonniiiannun 3ob

I 3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUNEfffS This section lists the industry standards and design basis that were applicable during the design period arid should have been imhlemented. These codes, standards and references provide a criteria that the design can be evaluated against.

3.1 Piping The design and stress analysis shall be reviewed for conformance with:

3.1.1 USNRC Standard Review Plan, Chapter 3 (NRC SRP).

3.1.2 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, 1974 Edition, including Summer 1974 addenda.

Notes Later editions of the ASME code may be used if the requirements of paragraph NA-ll40 are met.

If so, the analyses will be reviewed accord-ingly.

3.1.3 The following Gibbs and Hill, Inc. Project Design Specifications:

e 2323-MS-200 Revision 3. (ASME Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 piping), hereafter noted as Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

e 2323-MS-100 Rev 6 (Piping Erection), hereafter noted as Project Design Specification 2323-MS-100.

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 4 of 14 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ini 3ob "o 830'os oc-2> a*v 2 ti

1 e 2323-MS-46A, Rev. 3 (Nuclear Safety Class Hangers O and Supports), hereafter noted as Project Design Specification 2323-MS-46A.

3.1.4 CPSES Final Safety Analysis Report 3.2 Flued Head The design and stress analyses shall be reviewed for conformance with:

3.2.1 ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, 1974 Edition, including all addenda thru Summer 1976 3.2.2 Gibbs and Hill, Inc. Project Design Specification:

2323-MS-74 Section 3, including amendments 1 thru 5 (Mechanical Penetrations), hereafter noted as Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74.

O 4.0 DESIGN 4.1 General All piping systems shall be reviewed for conformance with the requirements of the Code as stipulated in Subarticles NC-3600 for Nuclear Class 2 and NE-3000 for Nuclear Class MC components.

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 5 of 14 L%b ( , a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll111111ll1111111161811111111 Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev.1 l l

)

j

-~ 4.2 Classification of Piping Systems J

4.2.1 Nuclear / Quality Nuclear and quality system classifications are specified in Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Tab?.e 3.1-2.

4.3 Boundaries 4.3.1 Piping system boundaries are designated on the flow diagrams for Nuclear Class 1, 2 and 3 piping and are described in Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

Piping /MC boundaries are shown in Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74.

4.3.2 The dimensional location of each piping boundary is shown on the Piping Isometric Drawings.

4.3.3 Piping Analyses may be decoupled when:

a. The ratio of the moments of inertia of the run and branch piping exceeds 10.0.

b. The restraint configuration and piping layout of the branch line is such that the effects of any large mass (e.g., valves) on the branch line will not significantly affect the run pipe.

4.3.4 Flued Heads and major equipment nozzles (RHR pump, heat exchanger) shall be considered as anchor points in the piping analyses.

1 i

(

- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 6 of 14 1 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l

L A Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1 lilllililllllllilllillliliitti

o 4.3.5 Anchor points for flued head analysis are as b described in Section 3.6.4.3 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74.

4 . '4 Design and Operating conditions Analysis data shall be reviewed for conformance with the following:

4.4.1 The design pressures and temperatures for each piping system tabulated in Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Appendix 3, and Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74, Table 3.6-1

) 4.4.2 The operating pressures and temperatures for the piping tabulated in Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Appendix 8, and Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74, Table 3.6-1.

4.5 Geometry and Computer Modeling 4.5.1 The piping geometry used as input data for computer analysis shall be reviewed for conformance with the latest revision of the Brown & Root "BRHL" isometric drawings.

Analysis isometrics shall be compared to the Brown & Root as-built isometric drawings (BRP as-built drawings) for

< conformance with the following tolerances:

• Maximum centerline deviation is 2" as per Project Design Specifiertion 2323-MS-100, Section 4.9.

n'" Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 7 of 14 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program L L A Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1 IllitilletilElllllitilli

Geometries which do not conform to this tolerance shall be

() reviewed for impact upon the analytical results.

4.5.2 Restraint locations input for computer analysis shall be reviewed for conformance with the latest revision of the "BRHL" isometric drawings.

When compared to the pipe support as-built configuration, these locations should be within the tolerances of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-46A, Section 3.6.2.1.1, i.e.,

e for 2" and smaller: +6", -12", (between supports);

• 2* plumb.

e for 2 1/2" and larger: smaller of e 12" or 1 OD;

• 2* plumb.

Restraint locations which do not conform to these tolerances t

' shall be reviewed for impact upon the analytical results.

4.5.3 Pipe properties shall be reviewed for conformance with Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Appendix 3.

4 4.5.4 Material properties shall be reviewed for conform-ance with Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Appendix 3, the associated piping isometric drawings and ASME B&PV Code,Section III, Appendix I.

4.5.5 Poisson's ratio shall be taken as 0.3 for all metals at all temperatures.

i t

O k- # Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 8 of 14 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program L k & Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1 11111114141618 141111116466111

p 4.5.6 Mass point spacing shall be reviewed for adequacy of U representing the dynamic properties of the system up to 33 Hz for seismic analysis.

4.5.7 Valve modeling shall be reviewed for conformance with the following conventions:

a. Weights and centers of gravity shall be as specified on the applicable vendor supplied valve assembly drawings, except as amended in 2323-MS-200, Appendix 10.

b. For extended operator valves, modeling of the operator shall be such that the first frequency of the valve stem equals or exceeds 33 Hz.

4 . 5 . 8_ Flange modeling shall be reviewed for conformance with the following conventions:

O a. Flanges shall be considered as additional lumped weights,

b. Flange thickness shall be assumed as the same thickness of the pipe for purposes of modeling stiffness.

4 . 5 . 9_ The penetration assembly (flued head) finite element modeling shall be reviewed for conformance with Fig. 74-1, Rev. A, of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74 and the appropriate fabrication drawings.

O V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 9 of 14 g g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Prc Jram Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1 111111111116161611661111111lll

i l

I 4.6 Loading and Stress Requirements

()

v Review to assure that each load case meets the general require-ments as specified in the Code with emphasis placed upon the following particular items.

4.6.1 Stress intensification factors shall be reviewed for conformance with:

a. ASME B&PV Code,Section III subarticle NC-3670.

b. Applicable Bonney Forge Reports for weldolets.

4.6.2 Pressure Effect The effect of internal pressure shall be considered in com-puting longitudinal stress per the Code.

O 4.6.3 Gravity Analysis

a. Review to assure that the weight of the pipe, fluid, insulation, fittings, flanges, valves (including actua-tors) and other in-line components have been considered.

4.6.4 Thermal Analysis

a. Review to assure that and all thermal modes have been considered.

b. Review to assure that the effects of thermal movements from equipment nozzles have been considered.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 10 of 14 gh[

e g a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ggggggggg Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1

/N 4.6.5 Seismic Analysis b

a. Review to assure that 1/2 SSE and SSE spectra at appro-priate damping values for all pertinent buildings at the proper elevations have been enveloped. Individual building response spectrum curves are provided in Appendix 5 of of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

b. Review to assure that damping values are consistent with CPSES-FSAR Table 3.7 B-1 1.e.,

Damping Ratio (Percentage) 1/2 SSE SSE Pipe Size Pipe diameter greater 2 3 than 12 inch'ss

() Pipe diameter less than or equal to 12 inches 1 2 The damping ratio is assumed to be the same for all modes.

c. Review to assure that the method used for combining modal responses conforms to NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92 ,

revision 1.

d. Review to assure that analysis cut-off frequency used was at least 33 Hz.

e. Review te assure that piping is designed and supported such that the acceleration of the active valves does not t b s_/

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 11 of 14 L 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program pilmillisellisiltilli Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev.1 i

exceed 3 g in any horizontal direction, 2 g in the ver-() tical direction, or lower g values as required by the ,

respective manuf acturers. f 4

f. Review to assure that at least 90% of the mass has been included in the computer calculation for dynamic

! analyses. If this criterion is not met, the results j

will be evaluated on a case by case basis to assure that the calculated loads and stresses are acceptable.

' 4.6.6 Seismic Anchor Movement (SAM) Analysis Review to assure that seismic differential anchor movements have been considered. If piping passes between buildings, proper phasing should be taken into account. Movements are j

provided in Appendix 5 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

l O 4.6.7 Restraint stif fness input shall be reviewed for I conformance with Table 3.4-1 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

I 4.6.8 Flange design shall be reviewed for conformance with the stress requirements of the Code paragraph NC-3647.

4.6.9 Functional Capability _

Review the maximum primary stress data to insure that the piping can deliver rated flow under all conditions as required in NRC SRP Section 3.9.3.

i O Texas Utilities' Services, Inc. Page 12 of 14 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l eb{ , a gegeggemme Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1

4.6.10 Flued Head Loading Flued head applied loads shall be reviewed for conformance with Table 3.6-2 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74.

4.7 Loading Combinations 4.7.1 Load combinations for nuclear class 2 piping will be as specified in ASME Code Subarticle NC-3650 and in Table 5.2-1 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200. Load combinations for the Flued Head fitting will be as specified in ASME Code Subarticle NE-3100 and in Table 3.6-3 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74.

4.8 Stress Limits

, 4.8.1 Stress limits for the Class 2 piping shall be in accordance with the Code, except as modified in Table 5.2-1

) of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200 for essential piping. For the flued head fitting, Table 3.6-3 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-74 shall apply.

4.9 Nozzle Load Check 4.9.1 Equipment nozzle loads shall be reviewed for conformance with the applicable data from Appendix 4 of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

V Page 13 of 14 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

g g 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i

111111111111114166111641111111 ' Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev. 1

r l

l r

4.10[ Sleeve Clearances 4.10.1 Sleeve clearances (piping passing thru floors or walls) shall be reviewed to insure no interference between the pipe and sleeve.

l 5.0 EXHIBITS None O

./

I I

i) l 1

'O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 14 of 14 (qgitj g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job. No. 83090; DC-1; Rev . 1 lE::.

m Job No. 83090 Doc. No. DC-2 i

Rev. 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW PIPE SUPPORT DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.

Prepared by d. [d /# 8)

S. Luo & C. Liu Date l us 'o/3/33 o I:d* C" C"' L C.Wong h C h Date Approved by A% /6 J

. Min 4chiello Date l

CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES l 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 November 1983 L

111111lll1111111lll11llllllll1

s TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Section 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.l 3

2.0 SCOPE..................................................

3 3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS...............

4 4.0 DESIGN.................................................

4 4.1 Physical Requirements............................

8 4.2 Restraint........................................

9 4.3 Loading Combinations.............................

9 4.4 Allowable Stress.................................

9 4.5 Anchor Bolt Design...............................

O 5.0 EXHIBITS...............................................

11 l

t i

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 2 of 11 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

( (( 3 ,

lll Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. I HL m.

t I

I 1

I I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document establishes general technical criteria to be used in the review of pipe supports, shock suppressors, and anchors associated with the Residual Heat Removal / Safety Injection system piping scope described below. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the pipe supports are capable of supporting the piping system during all conditions of operation by transmitting the loads from the pipe to the building structural members. This document shall be used in conjunction with Work Instruction 1,

" Assessment Procedures," for guidelines on the review methodology and documentation requirements.

2.0 SCOPE This criteria document shall be used in the review of pipe g-s supports and shock suppressors located along the main flow path

\~s)' of the Residual Heat Removal / Safety Injection System - Train B taken from the heat exchanger (Tag No. TBX-RHAHPS-02) to the containment penetration MS-2. In addition, anchors located on the branch lines which define the stress analysis problem bounds shall be reviewed in accordance with this' document.

3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS Based on industry standards and codes in effect at the time of the original design, as well as documents which form part of the licensing basis for Comanche Peak, the following list of reference documents shall be used for the review:

n v Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 3 of 11 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ge [{ri g Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1 1811111111lll111111111lltlllll

e ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Sub-Ca section NF, 1977 edition.

e American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., AISC Steel Construction Manual, 7th edition.

e American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code, AWS D.l.l., 1979.

• Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 2.

e Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-MS-200, Revision 3.

e Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3.

4.0 DESIGN 4.1 Physical Requirements 4.1.1 Stiffness The stiffness of a pipe support in the pipe's restrained direction must meet the required stiffness shown in Exhibit 4.1-1 according to the nominal size of restrained pipe. The stiffness calculation shall consider the combined effects of the support frame and mechanical components (except springs). The flexibility of the building structure shall not be included in the stiffness calculation.

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 4 of 11 l

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

'eg { J '-

titL..

........... J o b N o . 8 3 0 9 0 ; DC-2; Rev. 1 l

~ _ _ - ._ -.

l 4.1.2 Gaps A gap shall be provided to accommodate radial expansion and construction tolerances. The maximum total gap allowed in the restrained direction is 1/8". In unrestrained direc-tions, the support design shall allow clearance for the most severe thermal plus seismic movements of the pipe. Proper installation tolerances shall be provided where thermal movement cannot be accommodated within the specified gap minus 1/16".

4.1.3 Deviations The design location of the supports should be within the tolerances of Project Design Specification 2323-MS-46A, Section 3.6.2.1.1, i.e.,

s e for 2" and smaller piping: +6", -12" (between

% supports).

e for 2 1/2" and larger: the smaller of 12 inches or one pipe diameter.

4.1.4 Spring Supports Spring supports shall be capable of exerting a supporting force equal to the load, as determined by weight-balance calculations, plus the weight of all hanger parts, such as clamps and rods, that will be supported by the spring. The design shall be such as to prevent complete release of the component load in the event of spring failure or misalign-ment. Any variability of a supporting spring force A

U Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 5 of 11 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

,og{inhmumi Emmmun,- 3b" 83 9 '~ C-2; nev. 1

-s resulting from movement of the component shall be considered in the loadings used in the stress analysis of the com-ponent. The spring's available travel will be checked Spring against all the thermal and seismic movements.

' support shall also be designed for a maximum variation in supporting effort of 20 percent for a total travel resulting from thermal movement of the pipe.

4.1.5 Rod Hanger Rod hangers shall be subjected to tensile loading only if specific gapping instructions are indicated on the drawings. Rod hanger assemblies shall be designed to allow anticipated thermal horizontal movement without subjecting the pipe to extraneous loads. The maximum swing angle due to horizontal pipe movement should be less than 4*. If the swing angle of the rod is in excess of 4* and/or the total movement is in excess of two inches, the hanger shall be O of fset two-thirds of the thermal movement towards the direc-tion of movement. Rod hangers for piping more than 2-1/2 inches should not be less than 1/2 inch diameter.

4.1.6 Snubbers The snubber assembly shall be offset two-thirds of the ther-mal movement in the cold position if the swing angle exceeds 5* and/or the total movement of the point of attachment on the pipe is in excess of two inches. The midpoint of ther-mal travel for snubber strokes shall be set at the midpoint of the total travel with hot and cold settings established accordingly. The maximum travel range of the snubber must be checked under maximum thermal movements.

D J Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 6 of 11 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i L Ji A Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1 l

llll111111111lll1mllll111111 ,

I

4.1.7 Sway Struts O

Sway Struts are used to restrain movement of piping in one direction while providing for thermal movement in the unrestrained direction. Functionally, the rigid sway struts are similar to snubbers except that the sway strut does not In allow free thermal movement in the restrained direction.

other words, the sway strut takes up static and dynamic loading. The maximum swing angle due to misalignment or thermal movement should be less than 5*.

4.1.8 Base Plates and Anchor Bolts Base plate stiffness and prying effect shall be considered in the design review of the pipe supports. The Teledyne method, a finite element analysis, or any rational analysis may be used to check the adequacy of the base plate and anchor bolts.

4.1.9 Structural details shall conform to the require-ments of the AISC Manual of Steel Construction.

4.1.10 All seismic supports shall be plus and minus restraints. Regardless of other imposed loads, the pipe must be physically restrained in each direction along the restraining axis.

4.1.11 The support calculations shall reflect the actual support geometry and load distribution. Changes to the is.itial geometry, or use of one geometry to qualify a  :

1 different geometry, shall be justified. j l

l f'M:

t LJ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 7 of 11 gibitj - , 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

................... ... Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1

. ...........i.

l l

l l

f'"N 4.2 Restraint Loads

\sl The loadings that shall be taken into account in designing a component support include, but are not limited to, the following:

e Weight of the component, insulation, and normal con-tents (DL). Pipe and component weights from manufac- l turer's data, e Loads generated by restrained thermal expansion. These include temperatures at normal operating conditions (TH).

e Friction loads (FL) are to be applied in the direction of thermal movement. Its magnitude shall be the fric-tion coefficient times the algebraic sum of the pipe's dead load and the normal thermal load, but shall not be s less than the pipe's dead load. The friction coef-

. ficient for steel on steel shall be 0.3 and for steel on teflon 0.07.

e Safe Shutdown Earthquake, Inertia and anchor movement loads included (SSE).

• Pipe Impact Loads (PI) e Jet Impingement Loads (JI) 4.3 Loading Combinations The following loading conditions should be used for the design review of pipe supports:

O V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 8 of 11  !

L I JL A mm;;..

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1 1

1) Testing condition DL

2) Design and normal operating condition DL 4 TH + FL

3) Upset operating l condition DL + TH + 1/2 (SSE)

4) Emergency operating condition DL + TH + SSE + PI + JI

5) Faulted operating condition DL + TH + SSE + PI + JI 4.4 Allowable Stress Allowable stresses should follow the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Subsection NF, and the appropriate sections of American Institute of AISC Specifications, and structural steel members should meet all the AISC requirements.

Exhibit 4.4.1. contains a table of allowable stresses to be used 7-(_/ in the review for A36 steel, A307 bolt and E705 weld at room temperature.

4.5 Anchor Bolt Design 4.5.1 Applications

a. Concrete expansion anchors should not be used indiscri-minately. For important work, bolts should preferably l be cast-in-place, welded, or grouted in drilled boles or in cast-in-place sleeves. Where those types of installation are for good reason impractical, expansion anchors may be used.

l 0 '

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 9 of 11 tillfjt i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ll1lllllllll11111llll11llll111 Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1

b. Anchors must be at least 1/2" diameter when used for

) structural connections or for anchorage of pipes greater than 2" diameter.

c. Embedded length of anchor shall be exclusive of thick-ness of grout pad or other overlay.

4.5.2 Allowable Loads

a. Allowable loads shown in Exhibit 4.5-1, shall apply to anchors installed in ordinary concrete with ff = 4000 psi only.

b. For concrete strength between 3 ksi and 5 ksi, the data in Exhibit 4.5-1 may be ratioed up or down.

c. Allowable load values given in this standard shall not be increased because of short duration of loading (e.g., for wind or seismic loads),

d. If center-to-center spacing of anchors is less than 10 diameters and/or if distance from edges of concrete to center of anchor is less than 5 diameters, the allow-able loads shall be reduced in accordance with the Project Design Specification 2323-SS-30, Appendix 2.

e. For anchors which will be subjected simultaneously to pullout and shear forces, the allowable load values used must satisfy the following formula:

P S

( ,D )+(3 D )<1 l

3 (G Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 10 of 11 L LJk A. Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1llllllllllllll11llll1lllllll1 Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1

i

(~' where:

P D' ED = allowable loads (pullout, shear), reduced for spacing or edge distance if appropriate.

P C' S C = design loads to be used in cases where pullout and shear loads may occur simultaneously.

5.0 EXHIBITS Exhibit 4.1-1 Stiffness of Piping Supports Exhibit 4.4-1 Allowable Stresses Exhibit 4.5-1 Allowable Load on Expansion Anchors t

l l

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Page 11 of 11 til'(tj g . i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program ltll:: ""'"::::! Job No . 83 090 ; DC-2; Rev. 1

EXHIBIT 4.1-1 SPRIM CONSTANTS (STIFFNESS) 0F PIPING SUPPORTS (Application for Seismic and Thermal Analyses) 1)'RigidRestraints Nominal Translational Rotational Pipe Size Stiffness Stiffness j (in.) Kt(lb./in.) Kr (in.-lb./ rad.) j 1

Under 6 2 x 10 5 1 x 10 7 6 to 14 1 x 10 6 1 x 10 8 Over 14 5 x 10 6 1 x 10 9

2) Mechanical Shock Arrestor O' Nominal Pipe Size Rated Load Stiffness (in.) (lbs.) K (lbs./in.)

1 Under 2 1,000 1 x 10 5 2 to 6 3,000 2 x 105 8, 10, 12 10,000 3 x 105 Over 12 35,000 1.35 x 10 6 Note: Stiffnesses shown here are obtained from the reference document, Gibbs & Hill, Inc. Specification No. 2323-MS-200, Revision 3, Table 3.4-1.

I i

C\

(_,/ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1 11111llll liittilllitililll

EXHIBIT 4.4-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES Load Case Testing, Normal & Upset Stress Value KSI Emergency Faulted Tension 0.6 Fy 21.6 Shear 0.4 Fy 14.4 Web Crippling 0.75 F 27.0 F perANSE Sppendix XVII-2213 Bending As per ASME 1.33 x Normal As per ASME Appendix Allowable Code, Section XVII-2214 III, App. F Bearing 0.9 Fy 32.4 Allowable O Bolts Tension & Shear Tension per ASME Appendix XVII-2460 Anchor Bolt (See Exhibit 4.5-1)

Welds (Fillet, Full Per or Partial Pene- ASME III,NF tration): Table NF-3292.1-1 Combined Stress Per ASME Appendix XVII-2215 Catalog Items Catalog Values 1.5 X Catalog Values Note: Allowable stresses are for designs based on room temperature.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 A [ j , , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program J ob No. 83090; DC-2; Rev.1 tillilillitillitillililimill

~'

EXHIBIT 4.5-1 .

Q ALLOWABLE LOAD ON EXPANSION ANCHORS KWIK-BOLT l

DESIGN ALLOWABLE TENSILE & SHEAR LOADS * (lbs.)

~ Factor of Safety FS = 4.0 *FS = 5.0 Diameter Embedment Tension Shear Tension Shear 1/4" 1-1/8" 364 653 291 522 1-1/2" 556 653 445 522 1-3/4" 675 653 540 522 2" 781 653 625 522 2-1/4" 827 653 662 522 2-1/2" 837 653 670 522 3/8" 1-5/8" 588 1276 471 1021 2" 756 1276 605 1021 2-1/2" 975 1276 780 1021 3" 1075 1354 860 1083 3-1/2" 1150 1354 920 1083 4" 1187 1354 950 1083 4-1/2" 1200 1354 960 1083 1/2" 2-1/4" 1377 2079 1102 1663 2-3/4" 1800 2079 1440 1663

[. 3-1/2" 2362 2079 1890 1663 4-1/2" 2806 2558 2245 2046 5-1/2" 3012 2558 2410 2046 6" 3075 2558 2460 2046 5/8" 2-3/4" 1650 2880 1320 2312 3-1/2" 2275 2890 1820 2312 4-1/2" 3000 2890 2400 2312 5-1/2" 3575 3359 2860 3087 6-1/2" 4000 3859 3200 3087 '

7-1/2" 4250 3859 3400 3087

• Anchorboltallowablesarebasedonafactorofsafetyequalto5andff equal to 4000 psi in the review.

'O y/ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 Apg , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilillllilllllitilllililllillI Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1

EXHIBIT 4.5-1 (N + (continued)

ALLOWABLE LOAD ON EXPANSION ANCHORS KWIK-BOLT DESIGN ALLOWABLE TENSILE & SHEAR LOADS * (lbs.)

Factor of Safety FS = 4.0 *FS = 5.0 Diameter Embedment Tension Shear Tension Shear 3/4" 3-1/4" 2537 4283 2030 3426 4" 3350 4283 2680 3426 5" 4125 4283 3300 3426 6" 4500 4616 3600 3693 7" 5250 4616 4200 3693 8" 5750 4616 4600 3693 9" 5875 4616 4700 3693 1" 4-1/2" 4000 6719 3200 5375 5" 4725 6719 3780 5375 6" 5860 6719 4688 5375 7" 5860 6719 4688 5375 8" 5860 8622 4688 6898 9" 5860 8622 4688 6898 10" 5860 8622 4688 6898 O' 1-1/4" 5-1/2" 6-1/2" 5750 6775 8920 8920 4600 5420 7136 7136 7-1/2" 7775 8920 6220 7136 8-1/2" 8650 8920 6920 7136 9-1/2" 9450 8920 7560 7136 10-1/2" 10225 8920 8180 7136 1/2" 3-1/4" 2496 2860 1997 2280 4-1/4" 3695 2860 2956 2280 5-1/4" 3641 2860 2913 2280 6-1/4" 3786 2860 3029 2280 i

1" 6-1/2" 8741 6884 6993 5507 )

8-1/2" 12452 6884 9962 5507

! 10-1/2" 12439 6884 9951 5507

• Anchorboltallowablesarebasedonafactorofsafetyequalto5andff equal to 4000 psi in the review.

1

() eq Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 4

l I tillfill lilllitilllll$lllJob No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1

i EXHIBIT 4.5-1 (continued)

(. - SUPER KWIK-BOLT DESIGN ALLOWABLE TENSILE & SHEAR LOADS * (lbs.)

- Factor of Safety FS = 4.0 *FS = 5.0 Diameter Embedment Tension Shear Tension Shear 1-1/4" 8-1/8" 10675 10369 C540 8295 10-5/8" 13420 10369 10736 8295 13-1/8" 16230 10369 12984 8295

• Anchorboltallowablesarebasedonafactorofsafetyequalto5andff equal to 4000 psi in the review.

Note: Please refer to reference documents, Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-S5-30, Appendix 2, Pages 3 and 4, for these anchor bolt allowable loads.

f

(_),) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 5 eg { . ) , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-2; Rev. 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiilllillllilllll

--- ~ r -

Job No. 83090 Do:: . No . DC-3

0. Rev. 1 INDEPENDENT DESIGN REVIEW CABLE TRAY SUPPORT DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR PLANT - UNIT 1 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.

Prepared by I I 8}

C. Liu Date n'ir,"';"' %TdA<muw to/sles M. T. de Guzman Date Approved by kh N. Williams M /8[#/[D Date CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 November 1983 1

11111111!! " ""lll l

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

........................................... 3 2.0 SCOPE.................................................. 3 3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS............... 4 4.0 DESIGN................................................. 4 4.1 Physical Requirements............................ 4 4.2 Loads and Load Combinations...................... 5 4.3 Allowable Stresses............................... 5 4.4 Base Plate and Anchor Bolt Design................ 6 5.0 EXHIBITS............................................... 8 i

e 1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 of 8 g g [tj g a

i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 1111111lllll1668ll111111111lll Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This criteria document is intended to establish general guide-lines to be used in the review of the cable tray supports associated with tray segments carrying the power supply cable for the RHR - Train B pump (TBX-RHAPRH-02). The review shall ensure that the cable tray supports are adequate to transmit the loads from the cable trays to supporting building structural members.

This document shall be used in conjunction with Work Instruction 1, " Assessment Procedures," for details on the review methodology and documentation.

2.0 SCOPE This structural review will consist of a design review of the supports for the following tray segments that carry the power supply cable for the RHR - Train B pump (TBX-RHAPRH-02) .

TllGEAB30-0870-4915-4767 TllGEAB29-0870-4909-4767 TilGEAB30-0870-4909-4768 TllGEAB26-0870-4909-4772 TilGEAB25-0869-4909-4777 TilGEAB24-0869-4909-4786 TilGEAB23-0869-4901-4786 TllGEAB22-0869-4901-4812 TllGSAB50-0871-4904-4889 TllGSAB49-0868-4910-4889 TilGSAB48-0868-4914-4889 T11GSAB47-0868-4930-4809 TllGSAB46-0867-4930-4900 TilGSAB45-0867-4938-4900 TilGSAB44-0843-4938-4900 TilGSAB07-0828-4938-4900 TllGSAB01-0801-4938-4900 TllGSAB02-0801-4914-4900 TllGSAB03-0782-4914-4900 TllGSAB04-0782-4909-4900 TllGSAB05-0782-4901-4899 TllGSF007-0785-4890-4875 TilGSF008-0785-4886-4875 s/ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 of 8 L [ej, g , Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 111111111lll11lllll!Illlll1lll Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1

3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS O

V 3.1 Gibbs & Hill Calculation SCS-1016, Set #5, " Cable Tray Support Design Criteria and References," Rev. 2.

3.2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4.

3.3 American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc., AISC Steel construction Manual, 7th Edition.

3.4 American Welding Society, Structural Welding Code, AWS D.l.l., 1979.

3.5 Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 2, ' Design Criteria for Hilti Kwik & Super Kwik Bolts'.

3.6 Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specificaton No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 3,

() ' Design Criteria for Screw Anchors'.

1 4.0 DESIGN 4.1 Physical Requirements As described in Reference 3.1, the design should assume that the distance between two cable tray supports is 7 feet or less with a tolerance of plus or minus 6 inches along the tray run. This means that in an extreme case the nominal span may be increased by one foot, i

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 of 8

gg[;g, a Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program I 111ll111lll11lll11111111111111 Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 l

l

i f

l Spacing of longitudinal supports, in general, should not exceed

() 40'-0" for a continuous cable tray run. Unless otherwise verified by calculation, at least one longitudinal support shall be placed in each straight segment of cable tray run.

The assumptions used in modelling the support shall be clearly stated and justified. The model, whether a computer finite element or a hand calculation, shall reflect the actual support l

geometry and load distribution. Changes to the initial geometry, or use of one geometry to qualify a different geometry, shall be justified.

4.2 Loads and Load Combinations Loads and load combinations to be used in the design review should be determined in accordance with US NRC Standard Review Plan, Section 3.8.4. The loadings that should be taken into account in the design of the cable tray supports are as follows:

O e Dead Load (DL), including any permanent loads, and their related moments and forces.

e Live Load (LL), including any movable equipment loads and their related moments and forces.

e Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE)

The following loading conditions should be used:

1) Operating Condition DL + LL + 1/2 (SSE)

2) Safe Shutdown Condition DL + LL + SSE

(/ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 5 of 8 egf; ,

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 lilillilillllllilllllllilillli

4.3 Allowable Stress Allowable stresses should follow appropriate sections of American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual. Exhibit 4.3-1 can'tain the Table of Allowable Stresses which should to be used for A36 steel, A307 bolt and E70S weld at room temperature.

4.4 Base Plate and Anchor Bolt Design 4.4.1 Applications

a. Concrete expansion anchors should not be used indiscri-minately. For critical work, it is preferable that the bolts be cast-in-place, welded, or grouted in drilled holes or in cast-in-place sleeves. Where these types of installation are impractical, expansion anchors may be used.

b. Base plate stiffness and prying effect should be con-(} sidered in the design of the cable tray supports.

Teledyne method, a finite element analysis or The comparable method may be used to check the adequacy of the base plate and anchor bolts.

c. Embedded length of the anchor should be exclusive of thickness of grout pad or other overlay.

4.4.2 Allowable Loads (Expansion Anchors)

a. Allowable loads shown in Exhibit 4.4-1, shall apply to anchors installed in ordinary concrete with f6 = 4000 psi only.

i l

) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 6 of 8 l Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

. og gg.,{ ', ' , . Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1

b. For concrete strength between 3 ksi and 5 ksi, the data O

(_j in Exhibit 4.4-1 may be ratioed up or down.

c. Allowable load values given in this standard shall not be increased for short duration loading (e.g., for wind j or seismic loads).

l

d. ,If the center-to-center spacing of anchors is less than 10 diameters and/or if the distance from edges of concrete to center of anchor is less than 5 diameters, the allowable loads shall be reduced in accordance with the Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-SS-30 Appendix 2.

e. For anchors which will be subjected simultaneously to

. pullout and shear forces, the allowable load values used must satisfy the following formula:

(

P C),[SC)<1 D D where:

P D, SD = allowable loads (pullout, shear), reduced for spacing or edge distance if appropriate.

P C, SC = design loads to be used in cases where pullout and shear loads may occur simultaneously.

O k-m Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 7 of 8 g 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program I 1114llll111111111lllllllllllll Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1

4 4.4.3 Allowable Loads (Screw Anchors)

The design criteria and allowable loads for screw anchors shown in Gibbs & Hill, Inc., Specification No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 3, should be met.

5.0 EKHIBITS Exhibit 4.3-1 Allowable Stresses Exhibit 4.4-1 Allowable Load on Expansion Anchors O

i f

i i

i l

O Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 8 of 8 L g i 111111111111111111101111164111 Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 i- -. - _ - . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ , , _ _ _

EXHIBIT 4.3-1 ALLOWABLE STRESSES Load Case Operating Safe Shutdown Stress Value KSI Value ksi Tension 0.6 Fy 21.6 Shear 0.4 Fy 14.4 Web Crippling 0.75 Fy 27.0 Compression F per AISC SecEion1.5.1.3 Bending As per AISC Section 1.5.1.4 Bearing 0.9 Fy 32.4 Bolts 307:

Tension Per AISC Appendix O' and Section 1.5.2 Shear and 1.6.3 Anchor Bolt See Exhibit 4.4-1 Welds (Fillet, Full or 1.6 x Operating Partial Penetration): Allowable Shear 0.3 F 21.0 (WeldMe{al)

Tension 0.6 F 21.6 (BaseMelal)

Combined Stress As per AISC l Section 1.6.1 )

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1 i .

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program IIll fit liinililllillilli Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 i,

I I

l l

l EXHIBIT 4.4-1 I

ALLOWABLE LOAD ON EXPANSION ANCHORS KWIK-BOLT DESIGN ALLOWABLE TENSILE & SHEAR LOADS (Ibs.)

Factor of Safety FS = 4.0 FS = 5.0 Diameter Embedment Tension Shear Tension Shear 1/4" 1-1/8" 364 653 291 522 1-1/2" 556 653 445 522 1-3/4" 675 653 540 522 2" 781 653 625 522 2-1/4" 827 653 662 522 2-1/2" 837 653 670 522 3/8" 1-5/8" 588 1276 471 1021 2" 756 1276 605 1021 2-1/2" 975 1276 780 1021 3" 1075 1354 860 1083 3-1/2" 1150 1354 920 1083 4" 1187 1354 950 1083 4-1/2" 1200 1354 960 1083 1/2" 2-1/4" 1377 2079 1102 1663 2-3/4" 1800 2079 1440 1663 3-1/2" 2362 2079 1890 1663 4-1/2" 2806 2558 2245 2046 5-1/2" 3012 2558 2410 2046 6" 3075 2558 2460 2046 5/8" 2-3/4" 1650 2880 1320 2312 3-1/2" 2275 2890 1820 2312 4-1/2" 3000 2890 2400 2312 '

5-1/2" 3575 3359 2860 3087 6-1/2" 4000 3859 3200 3087 7-1/2" 4250 3859 3400 3087 Note: Refer to Section 3.0, Reference Documents (Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

Specification No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 2, Pages 3 and 4) for these anchor bolt allowable loads.

l l

O V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 l

i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l g{ ,

IIllililllillilililllilllllill J b No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 1

4

i e E1HIBIT 4.4-1 ALLOWABLE LOAD ON EXPANSION ANCHORS KWIK-BOLT DESIGN ALLOWABLE TENSILE & SHEAR LOADS * (lbs.)

Factor of Safety FS = 4.0 FS = 5.0 Diameter Embedment Tension Shear Tension Shear 3/4" 3-1/4" 2537 4283 2030 3426 4" 3350 4283 2680 3426 5" 4125 4283 3300 3426 6" 4500 4616 3600 3693 7" 5250 4616 4200 3693 8" 5750 4616 4600 3693 9" 5875 4616 4700 3693 1" 4-1/2" 4000 6719 3200 5375 5" 4725 6719 3780 5375 6" 5860 6719 4688 5375 7" 5860 6719 4688 5375 8" 5860 8622 4688 6898 9" 5860 8622 4688 6898 10" 5860 8622 4688 6898 1-1/4" 5-1/2" 5750 8920 4600 7136 6-1/2" 6775 8920 5420 7136 7-1/2" 7775 8920 6220 7136 8-1/2" 8650 8920 6920 7136 9-1/2" 9450 8920 7560 7136 10-1/2" 10225 8920 8180 7136 Note: Refer to Section 3.0, Reference Documents (Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

Specification No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 2, Pages 3 and 4) for these anchor bolt allowable loads.

O' Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

[ J b No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 lilillililllllilHilllillil

EXHIBIT 4.4-1 ALLOWABLE LOAD ON EXPANSION ANCHORS l

SUPER KWIK-BOLT DESIGN ALLOWABLE TENSILE & SHEAR LOADS * (lbs.) i Factor of Safety FS = 4.0 FS = 5.0 1/2" 3-1/4" 2496 2860 1997 2280 4-1/4" 3695 2860 2956 2280 5-1/4" 3641 2860 2913 2280 6-1/4" 3786 2860 3029 2280 1" 6-1/2" 8741 6884 6993 5507 8-1/2" 12452 6884 9962 5507 10-1/2" 12439 6884 9951 5507 1-1/4" 8-1/8" 10675 10369 8540 8295 10-5/8" 13420 10369 10736 8295 13-1/8" 16230 10369 12984 8295 O

Note: Refer to Section 3.0, Reference Documents (Gibbs & Hill, Inc.

Specification No. 2323-SS-30, Appendix 2, Pages 3 and 4) for these anchor bolt allowable loads.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

' A Job No. 83090; DC-3; Rev. 1 F

,=

i

l l

' Job. Ilo. 83090 t Doc. 11 o . DC-4 Rev. 0 IllDEPEllDEt1T ASSESSf1E!1T PROGRAM  ;

EQUIPMEllT SEISMIC QUALIFICATIO11 REVIEW CRITERIA FOR COMA 11CHE PEAK STEAf1 ELECTRIC STATIO!1 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INC.

Prepared by - h ,_ 9 9h A. D. Cowell Date Independent \

Review by

^

L f 9!/

B. A alh j Date Approved by , !/ j/4g uf,~

i!9 $

11 . 11ilfiadis Date Cygna Energy Services 101 California Street, Suite-1000 San Francisco, California 94111 September, 1983 D

G l111111lll11lll111lllllll11lll

/ TABLE OF CONTENTS

{)T x-

^

Section Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.......................................... 3 SCOPE ................................................. 3 2.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .............. 3 3.0 CALCULATIONS AND TEST REPORTS ......................... 4 4.0 4.1 Calculations .................................... 4 4.1.1 Loading .................................. 4 4.1.2 Stress and Load Allowables ............... 5 4.1.3 Deflection Allowables .................... 6 4.2 Test Reports .................................... 6 5.0 EXHIBITS .............................................. 6 O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 of 6 og{ Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090;~DC-4; Rev. O i11111111lllllllll11llll Ill

l l

l

)

i l

l l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document provides the criteria to be used in the review of

. the seismic qualification of a Residual Heat Removal (RHR) -

Train B pump at Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. This Design Criteria shall be used in conjunction with Work Instruction 1, " Assessment Procedures," for details on the review methodology and documentation.

2.0 SCOPE These criteria apply to the review of the RHR Train B Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02, seismic qualification documents. The review shall include the pump, pump motor, and auxiliary equipment required for pump operation.

3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCE DOCUMENTS O This section lists the industry standards and licensing commitments applicable to the review scope described above. In addition, reference reports and calculations are listed which will provide a basis that the qualification may be reviewed against.

t e ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, 1974 Edition

• IEEE 344-1975 e Westinghouse Equipment Specification 678815, Rev.2 and ,

Equipment Specification 952516, Rev.2 l l

l l

I

-, Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 of 6 L b') k & Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program  !

1::'"

Job Ho. 83090; DC-4; Rev. 0

I Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station CPSES/FSAR 3.9N.3

{}

• and 3.7N

• Gibbs and Hill Specification 2323-MS-200 4.0 CALCULATIONS AND TEST REPORTS Pump calculations and test reports must demonstrate both structural integrity and operability during an earthquake.

" Structural integrity" should be demonstrated by an analysis which shows acceptable stress levels in the pump, motor, shaft, casings, supports and boltings. ' Operability' should be demonstrated by showing the absense of interference between rotating and stationary parts and the uninterrupted flow of lubrication, cooling fluid and electrical power to the pump.

M Calculations ASME Class 2 pump calculations shall be reviewed for compliance with ASME Code Section III, Subsection NC-3400. Additional requirements are given below.

4.1.1 Loading Loading will be a combination of normal design loads and seismic loads, defined as follows:

Normal design and operating loads include pressure, i

l temperature and deadweight loading in conformance with design and operating conditions given in Westinghouse l

l l

I (3 s-._)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 of 6 L l A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilE ... Job No. 83090; DC-4; Rev. 0-

Engineering Specification 678815, Rev. 2. Nozzle loads cue

} to deadweight and thermal transients shall be included.

Seismic loadings will be reviewed for conformance with the appropriate spectra in the Safeguards Building as given in G&H Specification 2323-MS-200. Loadings will be applied simultaneously in the vertical and horizontal directions.

Nozzle loads due to seismic loading on the attached piping will also be included.

The combination of normal design and seismic loads will be reviewed for conformance with CPSES/FSAR 3.9N.3.

4.1.2 Stress and Load Allowables Stress allowables will be reviewed for conformance with ASME Code Section III, Appendix I.

O Allowable loads on bearings will be reviewed against the manufacturer's rating. .

Nozzle loads will be reviewed using the allowables specified in Table 3.1.21.4.2 of Westinghouse Engineering Specification 678815, Rev. 2.

Anchor bolts, base plates and supports will be reviewed against the appropriate allowables (component supports) from the ASME Code, subsection NF.

i l

l l

l O

V- Texas Utilities Services,.Inc. 5 of 6

_L [dL A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 181111llllllll11111llll11lllll Job No. 83090; DC-4; Rev. 0 9

4.1.3 Deflection Allowables The maximum allowable deflections will be reviewed against the manufacturer's specified clearance between rotating and stationary parts to insure that excessive deflections do not impair operability.

4.2 Test Reports Test reports will be reviewed to insure that the tests were conducted in accordance with the requirements of IEEE 344-1975.

The test input will be reviewed to insure that it envelopes the actual input from the supports.

5.0 EXHIBITS

~

None.

l i

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 6 of 6 gill g i Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

- Job Mo. 83090; DC-4; Rev. 0 l

l

Job No. 83090 Doc. No. DC-5 Rev. 1 INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM ELECTRICAL SYSTEM REVIEW CRITERIA FOR

. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES, INCORPORATED 5

Prepared by DAPl. / /8/Nf/T3 A. Moersfelder Date Independent Review by

. Dady wha / /0[3ffff8 Date Approved by f

//f2N N. Williams Dhte

]

i 4 Cygna Energy Services 101 California Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, California 94111 November, 1983

, o y

f TABLE OP (X)NTENTS Section Page 3

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2"0 SCOPE ................................................ 3 2.1 RHR Pump Power Distribution..................... 3 2.2 RHR Valve Control Circuit....................... 4 5

3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCES........................

3.1 NRC Regulatory Guides........................... 5 3.2 IEEE Standards.................................. 6 3.3 Insulated Power Cable Engineers Association..................................... 7 3.4 American National Standards Institute........... 7 3.5 National Electrical Manufacturers Association..................................... 7

() 3.6 3.7 National Fire Protection Association............

Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc.................

8 8

4.0 DESIGN ................................................ 9 4.1 RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 Power Sources............ 9 4.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B_ Control Circuit......................................... 12 5.0 EXHIBITS............................................... 13 Exhibit 2.1 RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 Motor Power Distribution System -. Scope of Review l Exhibit 2.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B -

Scope of Review O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 2 of 13 Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program k d' A Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 111lll1lllllllll11111111111111

1.0 INTRODUCTION

/~N V

This document provides the criteria to be used in the review of the power distribution system associated with the RHR Train B pump and the control circuitry for the safety injection system valve located inside the valve isolation tank. This review criteria is a composite of Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) licensing commitments, CPSES requirements, and -

appropriate industry standards. It shall be used in conjunction with Work Instruction 1, " Assessment Procedures," for details on the review methodology and documentation.

2.0 SCOPE 2.1 The electrical scope includes the power supply from the 6900V Bus LEA 2 to the RHR pump motor TBX-RHAPRH-02 (refer to Exhibit 2.1). The review will assess:

O e the adequacy of the cablings, switchgear breakers and buses, and the RHR Train B pump motor, e the adequacy of the protective relaying for the pump motor, e the physical aspects of the system design including the placement of the switchgear, the routing of cables and their physical separation from AEM redundant trains, e the pump grounding system design, l

() Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 3 of 13 Ljt { g i Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 lill.. ............

E

() e compliance with the licensing and project-specific commitments regarding the power distribution system,

- e the design calculations for the switchgear and cable sizing, ,

1

)

• the adequacy of the design documents including the single line diagrams, relay and metering diagrams, i grounding drawings, equipment specifications, cable tabulations, external connection diagrams, component listing, and tray / conduit routing drawings.

2.2 The control circuit scope includes the manual and automatic system logic that operates valve 1-8811B beginning with the secondary side of the control transformer in the motor control center (refer to Exhibit 2.2). The review will assess:

() compliance with the licensing and project-specific commitments for the control circuit, e the adequacy of the interconnecting cabling and the control circuit components, e the adequacy of the design documentation including the logic diagrams, elementary diagrams, external connection -

diagrams, equipment specifications and the component I list.

l l

l l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 4 of 13 l L L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l l

Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 1811111111h?l111111111111111

3.0 CODES, STANDARDS AND REFERENCES This section lists the industry standards and design bases that were applicable during the design period and which should have been implemented on the project. These codes, standards and references provide the criteria that the design can be evaluated against.

3.1 NRC Regulatory Guides 3.1.1 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.29, Seismic De,ign Classifi-cation (Revision 1, 8/73).

3.1.2 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.30, Que'.ity Assurance Requirements for the Installation, Inspection, and Testing of Instrumentation and Electric Equipment (8/11/72).

() 3.1.3 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.32, Use of IEEE Std. 308-1971, Criteria for Class lE Electric Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations (8/11/72).

3.1.4 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.53, Application of the Single Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Plant Protection Systems (6/73).

3.1.5 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.62, Manual Initiation of Protective Actions (10/73). 1 3.1.6 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.75, Physical Independence of Electric Systems (Revision 1, 1/75). l 3.1.7 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.89, Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Plants (11/74).

l

- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 5 of 13 L*bI LFA Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lil:: Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1

l l

() 3.1.8 NRC Regulatory Guide 1.93, Availability of Electric Power Sources (12/74).

l 3.2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)

Criteria 3.2.1 IEEE 279-1971, Criteria for Protection Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations (Revision 1).

3.2.2 IEEE 308-1971, Standard Criteria for Class lE Power Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

3.2.3 IEEE 323-1974, Standard for Qualifying Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

3.2.4 IEEE 334-1974, Standard for Type Tests of Continuous Duty Class lE Motors for Nuclear Power Generating-Stations.

O 3.2.5 IEEE 344-1975, Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class lE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

3.2.6 IEEE 379-1972, Guide for the Application of the Single Failure Criterion to Nuclear Power Generating Station Protection Systems.

3.2.7 IEEE 382-1972 (ANSI N41.6), Guide for Type Test of Class 1 Electric Valve Operators for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

3.2.8 IEEE 384-1974, Trial-Use Standard Criteria for Separation of Class lE Equipment and Circuits.

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 6 of 13 Ldk ( i.A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program l

Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 111111111lll111111116ll11lll11

() 3.2.9 IEEE 420-1973, Trail-Use Guide for Class lE Control Switchboards for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

3.2.10 IEEE 422-1973, Guide for the Design and Installation of Cable Systems in Power Generating Stations (Draft 3).

3.2.11 IEEE 494-1974, Standard Method for Identification of Documents Related to Class lE Equipment and Systems for Nuclear Power Generating Stations.

3.3 Insulated Power Cable Engineers Association (IPCEA)

Standards 3.3.1 IPCEA P-46-426 (IEEE S-135), Power Cable Ampacities (Volume I Copper, Volume II Aluminium).

i.

3.3.2 IPCEA P-54-440 (NEMA WC 51-1975), Ampacities, Open-() Top Cable Trays.

3.4 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 3.4.1 ANSI C37, Power Switchgear.

3.4.2 ANSI C57, Transformers, Regulators, and Reactors.

3.5 National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 3.5.1 NEMA SG 3-1971, Low Voltage Power Circuit Breakers (9/71).

i 3.5.2 NEMA ICS, Industrial Controls and Systems With Revision 6.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 7 of 13 i*kk i & Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program

! Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 161111111111111111111111111lll

() 3.5.3 NEMA SG 5-1971, Power Switchgear Assemblies (3/71).

3.5.4 NEMA SG 6-1966, Power Switching Equipment.

3.5.5 NEMA MG l-1972, Motors and Generators.

i 1

3.5.6 NEMA VE 1-1071, Cable Tray Systems. l 3.5.7 NEMA AB 1-1975, Molded Case Circuit Breakers.

3.5.8 NEMA FU 1-1972, Low-Voltage Cartridge Fuses.

3.5.9 NEMA PB 1-1971, Panelboards with Revision 1.

3.5.10 NEMA PB 2-1972, Dead-Front Distribution Switchboards l With Revision 1.

() 3.6 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

No. 70-1971, National Electrical Code.

3.7 Underwriters' Laboratories, Inc. (UL) 4 3.7.1 UL-50, Electrical Cabinets and Boxes (1975).

3.7.2 UL-67, Electric Panelboards (Revision, 1975).

3.7.3 UL-891, Dead Front Electrical Switchboards (1975).

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 8 of 13 L ( L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 181111111ll1111ll1111111111111

() 4.0 DESIGN 4.1 RHR Pump #12 Electrical Power Distribution System 4.1.1 Electrical Power Distribution System 4.1.1.1 Verify that electrical and physical separation has been maintained between redundant Class 12 buses in 4

accordance with IEEE Standards 308 and 384.

4.1.1.2 Review 6.9 KV Bus LEA 2 Voltage Profile calculation for compliance with voltage limits specified in IEEE standards.

4.1.2 Motor Power Quality Requirements 4.1.2.1 Verify that voltage and power source selection

() was based on motor horsepower rating as specified in appropriate project design criteria.

4.1.2.2 Review to assure that motor sizing is correct as specified in the appropriate project design criteria.

4.1.3 Power Cable Requirements .

4.1.3.1 Review cable ampacity for adequacy with

, appropriate project design criteria.

i

! e Current carrying capacity should be 25% above motor full load current rating.

l l

l l')

l %J Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 9 of 13 k A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 11111111tl16611111111116141111

()

• Cable should be derated according to type of raceways that it is routed in and the spacing of the trays.

4.1.3.2 Review the design to assure that the cable voltage drop is within the limits established by project criteria.

2 4.1.3.3 Verify that cable size shown on Cable Routing Schedule agrees with the size shown in the cable sizing calculation.

Verify that power cable construction conforms 1

4.1.3.4 l j to cable requirements (conductor size, voltage rating, insulation and jacket material) defined by project l

design documents.

() 4.1.3.5 Power cable routing complies with Cable Routing Schedule and project design documents. l j 4.1.3.6 Power cable tray fill has not exceeded the fill limit defined by project design documents. l 4

4.1.3.7 Configuration of cable tray supports conform f

• i with the latest revision of Gibbs & Hill cable tray plan drawings.

4.1.3.8 Cable tray identification agrees with the latest revision of Gibbs & Hill cable tray identifica-l tion drawings.

- Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 10 of 13 L*bi L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 191111111111111111111111111lll

(') 4.1.4 Electrical Fault Protection

-4.1.4.1 Verify that protective relaying and circuit breaker trip device shown on 6.9KV Bus LEA 2 one line diagram complies with protective relaying design documents.

4.1.4.2 Verify that interrupting capability circuit breaker of the lAPRH2 is reviewed for adequacy with

. Texas Utilities Services project design criteria.

• Three-phase short circuit current rating (interrupting capability) as shown on short circuit calculation agrees with 6.9KV switch-gear procurement specification and purchase order.

() e Interrupting capability is greater than the maximum 6.9KV system three-phase fault.

4.1.4.3 Verify that circuit breaker lAPRH2 and its relay setting records and coordination curves are reviewed for adequacy with the protective relaying philosphy, as follows.

e Setting of Bus LEA 2 circuit breaker agrees with breaker / relay setting records and the protective relaying documents.

• Relay coordination interval as defined by protective relaying criteria has been properly implemented.

O)

V Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 11 of 13 Jk A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lilllHilllilllHill#llHilli Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1

9

() e Time setting of undervoltage relay allows overcurrent relays and circuit breakers to clear any feeder or bus fault before the undervoltage

- relay trips the RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 motor.

4.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B Control Circuit 4.2.1 Verify that the design of the control circuits complies with the appropriate regulations, industry

! standards and project-specific licensing requirements.

4.2.2 Verify that physical separation has been maintained between redundant safety-related equipment.

4.2.3 Verify that the control circuit implemented in accordance with the Gibbs & Hill control circuit documentation conforms to the design input submitted by

() Westinghouse Electric Corp.

4.2.4 Verify that design documents and specifications identify Nuclear Safety Related components as appropriate.

4.2.5 Check interconnecting control cable identification documentation.

4.2.6 Assess the design adequacy of the cable routing procedures, and conformance with the Cable Routing Schedule with the cable routing drawings.

4.2.7 Verify electrical isolation between nuclear safety-related and non-nuclear safety-related circuits.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 12 of 13 L*bk L A Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program lillfilllHillilllitilllHilli Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1

() 4.2.8 Check component identification numbers with Master Component List, design drawings and other design documents.

5.0 EXHIBITS Exhibit 2.1 RHR Pump TBX-RHAPRH-02 Motor Power Distribution System - Scope of Review Exhibit 2.2 Safety Injection Valve 1-8811B - Scope of 4

Review.

1

(

4 l

l O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 13 of 13 L*b b J k & Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 191461111111111111116618111111

EXHIBIT 2.1 O scoeo ar aevica RHR PUMP TBI-RNAPRH-02 MTOR POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 5 v-=r - U- Uwie A vuei.e.av j

'Th - . = = == .a.m. T========== l X5T 2 UUT) t I a (1 i i 1 11J u 1__1_1_ _A 2_u (Y M (Y O (Y m (Y T

)

30s faz iO -;/,-

~

< F

~. 69eev mus seat I p_ l /-- m I- i g

I- _ <__ IArmut _h_

T.) cesarswaaor. i

_ . ,_ . ... 2, _

l I l .- as sonese l l l l Rum. P , 3 l :ps 1 (Pr a ls) l f O

, O ._

n 7R A 1 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

$- b2L Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program i

111tilllilllllilllllilllilllii Job tio. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1 i

EIMIBIT 2.2 SCOPE OF REVIEW SAFETY INJECTION VALVE 1-88118

= ><  !> 4--s

_ tSWA /-BMZA

. s N / on/2A t-BellA O  ::

/ perveu s w a s.

\ svo w s vaaw 4,

n E ____--- 1 X l t_e_~e"X-B i

-- ,- . i

,, , CONTROL LOGIC COMPON E MTS l

__ _ _ _ _ _ ._ g

_"_ , \_ - E - - s N*

g Y /-RN/3 /=33lEB

=>

l O .-

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

h. (") t r A l Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program 11lll1111111111111llllll11111! Job No. 83090; DC-5; Rev. 1

Observation l L4 1 % i- Record lillllllllllllllllilllllllllll O Ch.cklist No. WD.01 Revision No. 0 Observation No. WD-01-01 sheet i et 1 originated ay R.W. Hess f @, h Date 8/5/83 Reviewed By N.H. Williams Mll[M Date 8/15/83 1.0 Description The upper locknut on the strut for pipe support SF-X-001-015-F43R is not tightened.

2.0 Requirement i Locknuts on struts are required to be tightened to prevent rotation of the strut.

I 3.0 Document Reference i Brown & Root Drawing SF-X-001-015-F43R, Rev. 4 4.0 Potential Design Impact 90tation of the strut will cause a different load distribution in neighboring supports. This may increase the design loads in the neighboring supports.

Attachment J

A. Observation Record Review 4

i 4

r o....., ......,..

........ x i . . ., . .. . , , , ,

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

1 Observation

M t i Record Review

ummmm***'*" Attachment A Checklist No. WD-01 Revision No. O Observation No.WD-01-01 sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments l

l 1.0 Probable Cause

! Construction procedures were not sufficiently specific to assure that strut locknuts are adequately tightened to prevent rotation.

! 2.0 Resolution

This deficiency was previously reported to the NRC via Texas Utilities SDAR No 113. TUSI memorandum from M.R. McBay (SDAR CP-83-13) dated 6/9/83 sited the corrective and preventative actions being implemented as follows

1) The construction procedure is being revised to provide assurance that special attention be given to jam nuts to assure they are tight enough.

2) QA/QC will re-inspect all large bore vendor certified inspected supports and all small bore final reviewed inspected supports to assure that strut barrells cannot be rotated by hand.

j 3) 0A/QC will also expand their vendor certified (or final reviewed)

checklist to include the checks in 2) above, for all future inspection.

4) 2) and 3) will include class 5 seismic struts.

Implementation of these actions will assure that there is no impact upon plant  !

safety. Cygna, therefore, considers this observation closed. ]

1 i

111 Approwsis

• '*"*' M , D. % o* nin/D i "***n"e**~ QL C L <Lde-- ** }y Y/ D Q " Senior Rev6ew TeamhtL u s ,.

V* * ' * "* M qt/ W D J h n o*h15 9 j lk Date [ g;j-Texas Utilities Strylces, Inc. Y Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

Obssrvation di 6 i Record IlllilllfilllllilllllfilllIll!

O Checklist No. WD-02 Revision No. O Observallon No. WD-02-01 sheet i o, 1 Originated By R.W. Hess A W ,%_o Date 8/15/83 Reviewed By N.H. Williams $f)[,WUl/Mu., Date 8/26/83

! 1.0 Description The gap between the clamp on support SF-X-007-014-F43R and the strut on support SF-X-003-003-F43K varies from 1/4" to 7/16".

2.0 Requirement i

t The gap between adjacent pipe supports should be sufficient to allow for the i movement of the piping. There is no clear installation criteria to address

this situation.

3.0 Document Reference Brown & Root Drawings:

SF-X-007-014-F43R, Rev. 3 SF-X-003-003-F43K, Rev. 4 4.0 Potential Design Impact i

Insufficient clearance between the pipo supports can lead to interferences when the piping displaces due to thermal and/or dynamic loadings. This can cause unexpected additional loads on the supports and the piping itself.

Attachment i A. Observation Record Review i

4 4

O',..'..".'.. x . . . . n.i v. i 0, n.r . ....,,y, Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation

( , i Record Review mmmmmanumm .

Attachment A Checklist No. WD-02 Revision No. O sheet i of Observation No.WD-02-01 1 i

Yes No l

Valid Observation X j Closed X Comments j 1.0 Probable Cause No requirement to check potential interference problems with the original i

analysis.

! 2.0 Resolution l

~

Texas Utilities has determined that the maximum relative movements at these two points are as follows:

1 Thermal = 0.05" Seismic = 0.0009" Sum = 0.05009" K 1/4" (0.25")

Therefore, this installation meets the stated requirement and the observation is considered to be invalid.

)

i i

III Approvals 4 *'**'" 17, S. h o** ///4/K3 l * **rae** O A c. W . A /A____ o** ir/D Q not u.~e.< qm{.y ')j Q ,, ~ o.t. jjjg)g3 senwr novsw Team Q4 w ~} !) y onte'{j'/yff)

! Texas Utilities Ser&es, Inc. I '

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation M L% i Record lll11llllll1llll11111111lll111 O Checklist No. WD-02, WD-03 Revision No. O Observation No. WD-02-02 s h.et 1 of 1 Originet.d By R.W. Hess / O, M Dat. 8/5/83 Dato 8/15/83 R.vi.wed By N.H. Williams 1.0 Description The following snubbers were installed 180' from the configuration shown on the support drawings:

1 SF-X-003-003-F43K 2 SF-X-003-005-F43K 3 SF-X-003-006-F43K 4 SF-X-005-017-F43K 2.0 Requirement Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-100, Rev. G, dated 3/15/82, Section 7.1.8:

" Seismic restraints including snubbers shall be installed as shown on drawings and according to supplier's instruction."

3.0 Document Reference Brown & Root Drawings:

SF-X-003-003-F435, Rev. 4 SF-X-003-005-F43K, Rev. 3 SF-X-003-006-F43K, Rev. 3 SF-X-005-017-F43K, Rev. 3 4.0 Potential Design Impact Since the snubber will perform its intended function in either position, there is no design impact.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review l

.ut.nt

.......a ......,v. x i0,.,.e..,,,,

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. '

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 u-

o Observation 4( , i Record Review I Attachment A Checkilst No. WD-02, WD-03 Revision No. O Observation No.WD-02-02 sheet i or 1 Yes No Valid Observation X

! Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Prior to May,1982, the snubber installation procedure did not address this particular situation.

2.0 Resolution l The installation of snubbers at 180' from the configuration shown in the design drawing will not prevent the snubber from performing its intended function.

This has been incorporated into Brown & Root Procedure No. CP-CPM 9.17 and was O initiated by a BAR request from Kelly Williams to Pat Clarke dated 5/11/82.

Therefore, this installation does not violate the referenced procedure and there will be no impact upon plant safety. Based on the above, Cygna considers this observation closed.

111 Approvals Or w n.t.e g u , . p g om nMS nowetenean..e gc W om Mc1V3 ,

Q nonet u.n.e., cf4gj], f o* l[/EIL5 s.or n.,s.

1.a y_gW _ _ gy o* II!!S"/D TexasUtilitiesSerMes,Inc. b independent Assessment Program; 83090

_ - . . - -- __ ~ .- __ . . - _ - _ - _ _ - . . - _ - _ - - -.

Observation A L% i Record  :

lillllllilllllllilllllllllllli O Checklist No. WD-03 Revision No. O sheet of Observation No. WD-03-01 3 3 Origineted By p,y, ness gy h Dat' 8/15/83 Reviewed By N.H. Williams "/ rY/) Date 8/26/83 1.0 Description The gap between the pipe and the structural steel for restraint SF-X-033-007-F43R is 0" and 1" in the unrestrained direction. The support drawing indicates a required gap of 1/2" on both sides of the pipe in that direction.

2.0 Requirement Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-MS-100, Rev. 6, dated 3/15/82, Section 7.1.1:

" Installation of supports and seismic restraints shall be done in accordance with manufacturer's assembly and installation drawings."

3.0 Document Reference Brown & Root Drawing No. SF-X-033-007-F43R, Rev. 2 4.0 Potential Design Impact Insufficient clearance to allow free movement of the pipe in its analyzed unrestrained direction will cause increased loads in the pipe support as well as a redistribution of loads and stresses within the piping system.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review i

==

O "' '

isolated X Extenelve l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4L t i Record Review nummumummmm Attachment A 1

I O Checklist No. WD-03 Revision No. O Observallon No.WD-03-01 sheet i of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments f

1.0 Probable Cause Deviation from installation procedure 2323-MS-100 and construction drawing SF-X-033-007-F43R.

2.0 Resolution Further discussions with Texas Utilities revealed that this problem had been identified during the as-built inspection on 2/1/83. The details were docu-mented on As-Built Re-Verification Report Form 1267 and subsequently trans-mitted to the design review group on 3/3/83. Engineering approval to " accept Gi as-is" was given on 4/20/83.

This documentation indicates that the Comanche Peak as-built verification is working effectively. Cygna, therefore, considers this observation closed.

111 Approvals

• * ~ ' ~ n. O. % ,s o' nMrs

"

• c' c"o ~ 'c G 4 c % wM o' hje/n o= HlSN2 Q " Senior Review,M Team Pcgj_

• ' " "== v h M ' M } }1 Date k((h/g TexasUtilitiesSerbes,Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

[

Observation ti ld t i

!!!llllll!!!llllllilllilllllll Record Checklist No. WD-07 Revision No. O Observation No. WD-07-01 o , ,

sheet 1 of 2 Originated By J. Bonner [ _ Date 8/15/83 Reviewed By R. Hess 997, N h Date 8/19/83 1.0 Description The spent fuel pool cooling pump is single grounded.

2.0 Requirement Double grounds are required for motors exceeding 480 V and 100 HP per Gibbs &

Hill Drawing 2323-El-1703-01, Rev. 5, Detail 1.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-El-1703-01, Rev. 5, Detail 1 4.0 Design Impact The double ground requirement is incorporated for personnel safety only. There O- is no impact upon design.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review i

l l

~

l l

1 i

E gg3 n,, n, ,n _ , 4 n , n,,,, ,g ,g,g, , ,, , ,--r-

, ,, a , g ,- . . . ,, a. . , u .

,,g--<.

l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation ahl i i Record Review

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!mmmmi Attachment A O

Checklist No. WD-07 Revision No. O Observation No. WD-07-01 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments l

5.0 Root Cause Construction deviation from Drawing 2323-El-1703-01.

6.0 Resolution Further review revealed that drawing 2323-El-1703-01 " Miscellaneous Typical Grounding details, sheet 2, is not stamped "1E".

p This observation does not affect the operational performance of the pump. The V only consideration is related to personnel safety and not plant safety.

Therefore, this observation is considered to be invalid.  ;

I l

111 Approvals

, 4 g Originator Date ///3/g Project Engineer ( {p dogh Date jj/ g p Project Manager Q

/

g, Date /[gy Senior Review Team

] ,y {, g Date g'[&

TexasUtilitiesSek.es,Inc. [

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation A L% J Record lilllllllllllillllllllill!!!!!

O Checklist No. R evision No.

WD-07 0

, Observation No. WD-07-02 o 3 o, Sheet 1 of 2 Originated By J. BCnner ht h "I'  !!

Reviewed By R. Hess /[. W, 7/-s+4 Date 8/19/83 1.0 Description Temperature indicator X-TI-4837 was not installed.

2.0 Requirement Brown & Root, Inc., Procedure No. 35-1195-ICP-4, Rev. 6, " Instrumentation and Tubing Installation and Inspection."

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-M1-0235, Rev. 7.

4.0 Design Impact None.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review Extent teolated X Extensive Other (Specify)

Texas utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4( t i Record Review

......................m.,,,,

Checkilat No. Revision No.

WD-07 0 l Observation No. WD-07-02 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 5.0 Root Cause Construction deviation from Drawing 2323-M1-0235.

6.0 Resolution TUGC0 is scheduled to install the temperature indicator when all area work is completed. This procedure is followed to avoid breakage. When the system is turned over to operations, a set of temperature indicators are provided for later installation.

O l

111 Approvals j gg Originator /

Date fy/3fg3 Project Engineer Q q[, _

jll2,gl7 _ Date ff/yM Project Mana0er f,) Date//f h l Senior Review Team [ pg Date }/hQ Texas Utilities S P /ces, Inc. 6 Independent AssessMnt Program; 83090

m Observation MC Is.i lllllllllllllllllllllllilllill Record Checklist No. WD-07 Revision No. O Observation No. WD-07-03 , ,

Sheet 1 of 2 originated By J. Bonner [/p{ s cate 8/15/83 Reviewed By R. Hess h, b, p% Date 8/19/83 1.0 Description Of the six conduits checked, one instance was found where the Cable and Raceway Schedule identified the conduit between Spent Fuel Cooling Panel XLV-06 and T130FCZ33 as C-03015123-2. The installation and routing drawing identified this as conduit No. C-13015123.

2.0 Requirement 2.1 Brown & Root, Inc. , Engineering Instruction EEI-7, Rev. 5, " Cable Pulling."

2.2 TUGC0 Instruction No. QI-QP-11.3-23, Rev. 6.

2.3 TUGC0 Instruction No. QI-QP-11.3-23.7, Rev. 4.

3.0 Document Reference 3.1 Cable and Raceway Schedule, Issue 308.

3.2 Gibbs & Hill Drawing No. 2323-El-0800, Rev.16.

4.0 Design Impact The conduit identification number consists of the last five digits (i.e.

15123). This number is consistent with the reference documents and the installation. The first three numbers indicate unit, function, and voltage only. Since the only discrepency is the unit number, there is no safety impact.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review.

Extent teolated X Extensive Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4( t i Record Review

"-"""!!!!!ni Attachment A O

Checklist No. WD-07 Revision No. O observation No.WD-07-02 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 5.0 Root Cause Failure to follow procedures.

6.0 Resolution Cygna conducted a follow-up review to determine if a systematic breakdown of cable identification procedures existed at Comanche Peak. Out of an additional sample of 32 safety related conduits in the Fuel Building, no discrepencies were found. Therefore, this observation is considered isolated and closed.

O W Approvals ,,

,f originator -

/g Date ,f / 3/y 3 Pro)oct Engineer f , j gjgp

~

Date g/gg Project Manager Q,gy[g] - Date ff)q 3 s.nior n.wi.. T.a.n Q_ p[/f D.ie][f / M Texas Utilities Se d s, Inc. [

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

1 Observation d( , i Record Review Attachment A Q '"""""""""'"""""

Checklist No. DC-01-01 Revision No. 1 Observation No DC-01-01 Sheet 1 of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed I X

Comments 1.0 Probable Cause 1

Failure to implement procedures.

2.0 Resolution The identification of this observation acts as a confirmation of the document control problems previously known to Texas utilities through the various reviews and audits performed at CPSES. In fact, prior to the Cygna Independent Assessment Program, Texas Utilities began planning a new document control program which would alleviate the inaccuracies inherent in the existing system. The implementation of this new system entails establishing tighter control over document distribution and an accurate design change tracking system. The major elements of the new system are:

a. Centralization of existing document distribution points (file custodians) into eight remote " Document Control Center (DCC) Satellite" stations.

b. Develop a computerized drawing and design change listing,

c. Perform a systematic verification of the computerized data base to ensure accuracy. '

The centralization of the document distribution points has been instituted. A review to determine whether the institution of this new system resolved the distribution control problems was conducted the week ending 10/28/83 by Cygna. The results of this review are documented on Observation Review Record DC-01-02, Rev.1.

The DCC computerized drawing and design change data base has been developed by the Texas Utilities Design Change Tracking Group (DCTG) using the Gibbs & Hill design verification tracking system as a base listing. Since the Gibbs & Hill system did not include piping and pipe support drawings, a manual tracking system continued to be used by DCC to control this group of drawings. Once the as-built drawings are completed, DCTG intends to add them to the data base as well.

111 Approvals Originator ggQ Date gf.25f?3 Project Engineer g j Date jj/g ]

jf[g/gj Project Mana0er Qgt[g}]fgQ Date 8enior Review Team hu o- Date g g/f0 TexasUtilitiesSeEYices,Inc.'

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation A L% i Record Review Attachment A O "" * ""* " * """'""

Checklist No. DC-01-01 Revision No. 1 Observation No.DC-01-01 Sheet 2 of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments The verification of this data base was conducted to check all Design Change Authorizations (DCA's) and Component Modification Cards (CMC's) issued. This check was conducted in two steps:

a. For DCA's, a comparison of the Gibbs & Hill design verification tracking system output and the DCTG design verification status output was conducted. This comparison was accomplished by cross-checking the two sequential numerical DCA lists to ensure that all DCA's were accounted for. Any discrepancies or voids were resolved by reviewing the actual DCA and the design verification checklist. Upon completion of this review, the DCTG data base was updated,

b. For CMC's, all original design verification checklists (from G&H and Texas Utilities site engineering) were merged and are being reviewed against the CMC's. Upon completion of this review, the TUSI data base will be updated to correct all discrepancies relative to the affected documents and design verification status.

Discussions with Texas Utilities personnel regarding the above mentioned data base development and validation process, a final issue review of all drawings (except structural and piping composites) is nearly complete. This review is being done by qualified discipline engineers who make a determination as to whether design changes listed as outstanding have been incorporated into the drawings. Based on the results of the final issue review, the DCTG data base is updated to accurately reflect the drawing status.

Texas Utilities has initiated a " turnover" program to ensure that all design changes have been incorporated into the final plant configuration on a system by system basis. This includes numerous walkdowns by groups such as QC, Start-up, Completions, and Operations, prior to the system being accepted by the Operations Group (TUGCO).

The effectiveness of this " turnover" was verified by the Cygna walkdown of a completed system -- the Spent Fuel Pool Co'oling System.

111 Approvals Originator ygg Date gggg Project Engineer Q C d h Date gfgJ Project Manager ,g] -

p Date ///g Senior Review Team'{ ] Date h h Texas Utilities SerW ces, Inc.# 1 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4hA Record Review immiimimimimimii Attachment A l O Revision No.

Checklist No. DC-01-01 }

Observation No.DC-01-01 Sheet 3 of 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments As of October 24, 1983 the validation effort was approximately 85% complete. Cygna reviewed this system on October 24-26, 1983 to assure that the document control problems identified in this observation and observations DC-02 and DC-03 had been corrected.

Cygna also reviewed the components of the new system and conducted a confirmatory review of its implementation, the details of which are described in the Observation Record Review for Observations DC-02 and DC-03. We have confidence that the newly developed computerized document listing is accurate with respect to design changes outstanding against effected design documents and tha adequate programs have been put in place to assure that the plant is constructed in accordance with the design and associated design changes. Therefore, this observation is considered closed.

111 Approvals Originator ]g Date jp/27/S(3 Project Engineer Qg C , go Date g[gy Project Manager [

} g Date g4gj Senior Review Team h{ j Date ((g3 TexasUtilitiesSedces,Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i l

- -. 1

NA l% M Observation Record lillllllllllllllllllllllllllll Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. 0 l Observation No. DC-01-02 Sheet 1 of 1 Originated By S. Bibo _8g care 7/29/83 Reviewed By P. DiDonato j@ggg Date 8/5/83 1.0 Description The Design Change Log Books maintained by site file custodians did not include the posting of all design changes. This was substantiated upon review of the Document Control Center list of design changes against affected documents versus the site file custodian Design Change Log Books.

AFFECTED MISSING DOCUMENT DESIGN CHANGE LOCATION SPEC MS-208.1 DCA-14781 Purchasing SPEC MS-208.1 DCA-14026 (Rev. 2) Purchasing DWG 2323-El-0018-01 DCA-9222 (Rev. 1) Electrical SPEC MS-46A DCA-11193 (Rev. 2) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-11939 (Rev. 1) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-14349 (Rev. 1) Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-16383 (Rev. 1) Purchasing O SPEC MS-46A SPEC MS-46A DCA-17620 DCA-13037 Purchasing Purchasing SPEC MS-46A DCA-18073 Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-10413 (Rev. 3) Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-17849 Purchasing SPEC MS-605 DCA-17852 Purchasing 2.0 Requirement CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3 "CPSES Document Control Program 13.2.1.3 requires in part that site custodians post design changes which affect their areas in their respective Design Change Log Books.

3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3,13.2.1.3 4.0 Potential Design Impact The design may be impacted if controlled document holders do not maintain the latest design information associated with tjocuments.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review Extent leolated Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

~ . . . . . - . . . . - - - - . - - _ - -- - _ - _ - - _- --

Observation AL ~"

t i Record Review "H"

82 Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. }

Observation No.DC-01-02 sheet i of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Commerts 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to implement procedures.

2.0 Resolution In order to verify the effectiveness of the steps taken by TUSI (see Observation Record Review DC-01-01) and to assure that the concerns addressed in Observation DC-01-02 have been resolved, a follow-up review was performed by Cygna at CPSES during the week ending 10/28/83. This verification effort consisted of reviewing twenty drawings at eight satellite locations (73 total drawings and 1005 corresponding design changes). The review process was as follows :

1. Controlled distribution lists (computerized) of selected drawings were requested from DCC and reviewed to ascertain which drawings were required to be on file at specific Document Control Center (DCC) satellite location.

2. A computer print-out of all design changes relative to each drawing was requested from DCC and reviewed to ascertain what design changes were issued against each drawing.

3. The files at each satellite location were then reviewed to assure that all required drawings and their corresponding design changes were on file.

This review revealed that all DCC satellites contain all required drawings and the corresponding design changes. In addition, all design changes are posted against appropriate drawings via a manual design change status log or the computerized design change status log. Prior to the institution of the data base merger and validation process described in Observation Record Review DC-01-01, each DCC satellite was required to maintain manual logs of all design 111 Approvals Originator ]g Date /d f 2f Project Engineer Q { gj[

<_ Date

///[ M Project Manager ygp Date

//h/Q l Senior Review Team Q g ] Date d/[D Texas Utilities Se N s, Inc b Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation  ;

Record Review l

4L t i

"""""'"""""""'"" Attachment A Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. 1 Observation No.DC-01-02 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments changes. Although some manual logs are still maintained. OCC satellites now have the capability to ascertain information instantly from the computer data base by remote terminals in the satellites.

In conclusion, Cygna is satisfied that adequate corrective / preventive action have been taken to resolve the concerns addressed in Observation DC-01-02 and therefore, considers this observation closed.

O f

111 Approvale Orighetor ]g Date /()l2fjD Project Engineer

~ {]{ Date g []

Project Managef g Date [jf3/[}

l senior noview Town j Q_[] Date ([/h [D Texas Utilities N ices, Inc.#

l Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

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

m Observation

'4L%'TJ Record O ll11111!Ill11111111111111lll11 Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. 0 Observation No. DC-01-03 Sheet 1 of 1 Originated By S. Bibo gg Date 7/29/83 Reviewed By P. DiDonato j@ g j7 f e 7/29/83 1.0 Description An initial review of fourteen drawings disclosed that one (Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-S-0801) was not stamped "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES." A further sample of 20 drawings disclosed that four drawings lacked the required stamp.

2.0 Requirement Project Procedure Number DCP-3, "CPSES Site Document Control Prv,, cam," Section 3.2.1.3 requires that the document file custodian stamp documents affected by design changes with "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES," prior to issuance.

3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, section 3.2.1.3.

4.0 Potential Design Impact The design may be impacted if controlled document recipients are unaware that design changes have been issued against a drawing.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review Extent leoleted Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

I Observation 4( t n Record Review HHHHHHHHHlHHHHHI Attaehment A Checklist No. DC-01-02 Revision No. }

sheet i of Observ.tlon No.DC-01-03 1 Yes No V. lid Observ.tlon X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to implement procedures.

2.0 Resolution The DCC drawing tracking system described in the resolution to observation <

DC-01-01 is the governing reference for determining if a drawing is affected by design changes. When a drawing request is received in either document control or the satellite stations, the computerized / manual listing is checked to O determine if there are any associated design changes. The drawing is stamped "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES," if applicable.

A follow-up review was performed by Cygna at the CPSES during the week ending 10/28/83. During the review process described in the Observation Record Review for DC-01-02, hard copies of 24 drawings were reviewed to verify that the stamp "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES" had been applied. The results of this review revealed that all hard copy drawings on file at DCC satellites contained the required stamp.

In conclusion, Cygna is satisfied that adequate corrective / preventive action has been taken by TUSI to resolve the concerns addressed in Observation DC-01-02 and therefore considers this observation closed.

. wo..is oc*~~ MhA o=<=

nImis3 Project Eneineer Q{ ( '

_ Date /pQ Q er.>.ct u.n.e.aujilg _ o... ,,jj/v3

= ~c " ~~ '~ L u __ _ HJ ' '

o.<e a krro l TexasUtilitiesSek/ces,Inc.#

! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l i

l Observation ALdi a Record lllllllllililllllllllllllllll!

Checklist No. DC-01-01 Revision No. O Observation No. DC-01-04 sheet 1 of 1 Originated By S. Bibo JgQ Date 7/29/83 l Reviewed By P. DiDonato g j g j 7 p ate 8/19/83 .

1.0 Description '

The Field Design Change and Review Status Log, as maintained by the Design Change Tracking Groups (DCTG) was reviewed for compliance to Procedure CP-EP-4.7 " Control of Engineering / Design Review of Field Design Changes." The review disclosed:

1. The DCTG status log did not accurately reflect all outstanding design changes listed (e.g. Specification 2323-ES-100, DCA-9695; 2323-S-0800, DE/CD's,DCDDA's,FICR's).

2. The DCTG status log does not accurately reflect the status of design change documents to be incorporated versus design changes not to be incorporated (e.g. DWG. 2323-S-0801, DCA-81 and DCA-92).

3. The DCTG status log contains design changes entered against the incorrect affected document. (DCA-1803 was listed against another specification w when it should have been listed against MS-208.1.)

4 The DCTG status log identifies design changes as applicable to certain documents when in fact they have been voided.

2.0 Requirement Procedure CP-EP-4.7,13.3 requires that DCTG maintain a " Field Design Change and Review Status Log" in conjunction with Gibbs & Hill.

3.0 Document Reference i

CPSES Procedure Number CP-EP-4.7, 13.3.

4 4.0 Potential Design Impact The design may be impacted if de.-ign reviews are overlooked.  ;

Attachment A. Observation Record Review -

l l

l A

, Extent teolated Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

-Independent Assessment Program; 83090

, . .,u- . . , - . , - - - - - - - - . __

l l I i l Observation Record Review 4L t i Attachment A O: nimninininiininilini Checklist No. DC-01-01 Revision No. O of Observation No.DC-01-04 Sheet 1 1 Yes No Valid Observation X )

Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to effectively implement the DCTG computer system due to start-up problems.

2.0 Resolution At the time of the Cygna Review, the DCTG status log was being developed from a copy of the Gibbs & Hill tracking system. In the early stages of development, its primary purpose was to status design reviews of design change documents even though Gibbs & Hill was responsible for performing this function. This review did not disclose any problems with the statusing of design reviews.

During follow-up reviews for other observations, Cygna did observe the development of an accurate status listing (refer to Observation Record Review to Observation DC-01-01). This listing now serves as the master listing of design changes and design review status for the Document Control center as well as DCTG.

An assessment has been made by Cygna that the inaccuracies contained in the listing would not impact design. As a result of the Cygna review during the week ending 10/28/83, this observation has been closed. The basis for closure is the fact that the DCTG status listing has been totally verified (refer to Observation Record Review to Observation DC-01-01) as to content and accuracy.

111 Approvals Originator Jg Date jd7(jlg3 Project Engineer {g{p [,, Date ///g Project Manager % (jg Date // /%

Senior Review Team s /

gp g Date [hhg Texas Utilities SeTyypes, Inc. d

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation

, A Ln u' A Record lllllilllllilllllllllllllllll!

checklist No. DC-02-06 Revision No. O Observation No. DC-02-01 Sheet 1 of 1 originated By S. L. Bibo h oate 7/21/83 Reviewed By P. DiDonato j@ggge 7/29/83 1.0 Description A review of specifications MS-13,15, 29A, and 64, and associated revisions and addenda, disclosed that several revisions of specifications MS-13 and MS-15 for safety-related mechanical equipment were apparently issued to the owner prior to performance of design review and/or resolution of design review comments as follows:

Date Resolution Date Issued Date Design P.O. of Design Spec. Rev. to TUSI Reviewed Issue Review Comments MS-13 0 2/19/75 2/14/75 N/A 2/24/78 MS-13 1 1/1/76 5/27/76 9/11/79 MS-51 ADD 1 10/30/74 12/11/75 N/A No comments MS-51 1 9/9/75 12/31/75 N/A 3/19/76 MS-51 2 11/19/75 3/23/76 3/20/75 8/2/78 O 2 .0 Requirement Gibbs & Hill Procedure No. DC-8 (Rev. 6), 4.4, requires that design reviews be completed prior to the issuance of specifications to the utility owner for procurement or construction.

It is also important to note that Gibbs & Hill Procedure No. DC-9 (Rev.1, dated December,1973), in effect at the time of the applicable design, reviews allowed specifications to be signed off by the Project Manager prior to performance of design reviews. Any comments generated during design reviews, however, were required to be resolved prior to issuance of specifications.

4 3.0 Document Reference G8H Procedure No. DC-8 (Revision 6) 4 l

G8H Procedure No. DC-9 (Revision 1) l 4.0 Potential Design Impact The design may be adversely affected if design review comments are not resolved prior to design fabrication and/or installation.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review.

Extent teolated Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.  !

1 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 41 t i Record Review Q H'HHHHHHHHHIHHHH Attachment A Checklist No. DC-02-06 Revision No. O Observ.tlon No.DC-02-01 sheet 1 of 2 Yes No Valid Observ.tlon X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Ccuse Failure to follow / implement established requirements.

2.0 Resolution Texas Utilities Services, Incorporated (TUSI) Quality Assurance department conducted audits TGH-3 and TGH-4 at the Gibbs & Hill New York Office in December,1975 and October 1976, respectively. During these audits TUSI identified deficiencies relating to specifications being issued for bids or O attached to purchase orders either prior to final design review or with design review comments outstanding.

As a result of TUSI audit TGH-3, Gibbs & Hill established procedural controls to assure that project management became involved in verifying the completion of design reviews and the resolutions of design review comments. A Design Review Record Form (DRRF) which documented the design review completion and/or comments was routed through the project management organization, including Quality Assurance. The Project Engineer was required to verify by review of the DRRF that the design review was complete, and when applicable the design reviews were countersigned, indicating that his comments had been resolved.

During audit TGH-4, TUSI identified instances where exceptions to specifications were not being resolved prior to issuing purchase orders. As a result, controls were established by Gibbs & Hill to provide positive tracking and closecut of outstanding items on specifications. Further in depth training was initiated for design reviewers, project and quality assurance personnel.

An extensive follow-up on the TGH-3 and TGH-4 open items was conducted with Gibbs & Hill through correspondence, meetings and auditing. These activities culminated in closure of the above findings during TUSI audit TGH-10 on May 15, 111 App,0vals Orl@.tw Date (Ol2y lG coc< ~*e- OA c1sw c ce n/WP O u.n..e, cg(ygg o.te )//5#3

,nevie. re. < g g py o.te u?iro Texas Utilities Sehes, Inc. #

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4L 6 i Record Review Attachment A O**"**"***"*

Checklist No. DC-02-06 Revision No. O Observation No. DC-02-01 Sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1979. At this time, Gibbs & Hill's corrective actions were evaluated for adequacy and effectiveness. TUSI sampled numerous specifications to verify that design review comments and exceptions to specificiations were being resolved adequately and prior to issuance. Closure was based on: 1) this review, 2) evidence of the Gibbs & Hill Project Manager's signature on the Specification Review Record Form signifying that design review comments were closed, and 3) the fact the Gibbs & Hill quality assurance was tracking open items to verify closure as well as continuing to perfonn audits and surveillances in this area.

Subsequent to TUSI audit TGH-10, Gibbs & Hill activities in the area of initial specification generation and issue decreased substantially while design change activities increased. Accordingly, the TUSI audits emphasized control of design changes including associated design reviews, calculations and drawings as well as a verification of the entire design control program implementation including design reviews. These activities were audited in depth during audits TGH-12,14,15,17,18 and 20.

In conclusion, Cygna has assured itselii that TUSI and Gibbs & Hill have substantially controlled and resolved these deficiencies including their respective assessments of design impact and consider this observation closed.

111 Approvals l

Originator Jfg Date I Project Engineer

{ p ]f Date /g{[]

Os Project Manager Date Senior Review Team ( (( Date jfffg TexasUtilitiesSerNces,Inc[

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation AL n d Record lillllllllllllllllllllllllllli checklist No. DC-02-14 Revision No. O Observation No. DC-02-02 sheet 1 of 1 Originated sy S. Bibo yQ oate 9/14/83 Reviewed sy P. DiDonato gjg.ggoate 11/3/83 1.0 Description Gibbs & Hill Design Specification MS-200 specifies ASME III,1974 edition, through Summer 1974 Addenda as a design basis. However, the computer code (ADLPIPE Version 2C) used for pipe stress calculations AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 incorporates the requirements of ASME III, 1974 edition, through Winter 1975 Addenda.

2.0 Requirement Gibbs & Hill Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Rev. 3, paragraph 5.lb requires that all piping meet the requirements of ASME III,1974 edition, including Summer 1974 Ad6.nda.

3.0 Document Reference 3.1 Gibbs & Hill computer run J-566 for Calculation AB-1-69.

3.2 Gibbs & Hill computer run J-927 for Calculation AB-1-70.

4.0 Design Impact The design may be impacted if the newer computer code utilizes revised allowables or analytical assumptions which conflict with other project design bases.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review.

Extent leolated Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l Observation

( ti Record Review

^""**"'^

O"""""""""""""""

Checklist No. DC-02-14 Revision No. O Observation No.DC-02-02 Sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Root Cause Failure to document the justification for using a computer program which is based upon a later version of the ASME III code.

2.0 Resolution ADLPIPE uses the Code in two ways: for the piping equations and for the stress indices or stress intensification factors. All material properties are input by the user. In comparing the Winter 1975 and Sumer 1974 Code addenda, Cygna O' has found no differences in the piping equations or stress intensification factors. While there are differences in the stress indices for Class 1 reducers, Cygna believes the use of the later indices to be consistent with the i philosophy of the ASME Code, Summer 1974 addenda. Therefore, the use of the later Code by ADLPIPE Version 2C will have no design impact and the observation is closed.

111 Ar,provals l Originator ]g Date m M v3 Project Engineer ( (g gg Date ///gf}3 Project Manager Date }f/ [$

Senior Review Toeg') y)

' (( Date ((/}

Texas Utilities S50 ices, Inc. E Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

l

Observation A 01< J Record lllllillllllllililllllllllllll Checklist No- DC-02-15 Revision No. O Observation No. DC-02-03 Sheet 1 of 1 Originated By S. Bibo .jfQ Date 9/14/83 Reviewed By P. DiDonato /IM/7Moate 11/3/83 1.0 Description Pipe stress problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 were analyzed using the computer program ADLPIPE Version 2C dated 4/77. However, the ADLPIPE version dated 9/72 is specified in the CPSES FSAR.

2.0 Requirement FSAR Table 3.78B (A)-1 specifies that computer code "ADLPIPE version dated 9/72" shall be used.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill Calculations AB-1-69 and AB-1-70.

4.0 Potential Design Impact Failure to follow FSAR licensing commitments could impact plant design if proper assessments of the deviation are not conducted.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review.

e l

V Extent leolated Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4( t i Record Review Attaehment A Checklist No- Rnision No.

DC-02-14 O Observation No.DC-02-03 sheet 1

' 1 l Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to update the FSAR to include references to the computer program versions used in the analysis.

2.0 Resolution 1

All Gibbs & Hill final piping analyses for CPSES are being performed using AOLPIPE version 2C. Texas Utilities originated a FSAR change request on October 2,1983 to update the FSAR accord lngly. Further, ADLPIPE is typical of O many industry programs which undergo changs. to enhance capabilities. Cygna considers it appropriate, from a technical standpoint, to use the later version of ADLPIPE. This, and the origination of the FSAR change request, provides Cygna with the basis for closure.

4 1

~

l

u,,,.v..

O s m. tor Jgg oa'. io/zsIs 3 rrecteno m < h c WM Da //H7fCr c

i O *c - o orie/,w2 /m 2 senior Review T.am g ,f ~ ]f]

o mwrs oatef()',<,Mf]

TexasUtilitiesSerNces,Inc.#

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

Observation M L% d Record  !

I lilllll!!Illlllll!Illllllllill Checklist No. DC-01-01 Re sision No. O Observation No. DC-01-01 Sheet 1 of 1 originated ay S. Bibo Jgg cate 7/29/83 Reviewed sy P. DiDonato Qggg case 7/29/83 1.0 Description The CPSES Document Control Center (DCC) does not maintain an accurate listing of design changes generated against drawings and specifications. This was substantiated upon review of eighteen drawings, seven specifications and approximately 112 associated design changes. These discrepencies are as follows:

Design Change Affected Document Missing from DCC Log Dwg. 2323-S-0800 DCA-12534 (Rev. 1)

Dwg. 2323-El-0018-01 DCA-16858 Dwg. 2323-S-0801 DCA-713 Dwg. 2323-S-0825 DCA-7850 (Rev. 4) 2.0 Requirement CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, "CPSES Document Control Program," 13.3.1 requires in part that a list of all active changes be maintained.

3.0 Document Reference CPSES Procedure Number DCP-3, 13.3.1.

4.0 Potential Design Impact If the Document Control system does not assure accurate distribution of design changes, the constructed configuration may not reflect the intended design, thereby impacting plant design.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review l

l l

Extent teolated Extenalve X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation A Ld i i Record lillllllllllllllllilllllllllll Checklist No. General Revision No. 0 Observation No. PI-00-01 Sheet 1 of 1 Orloinated ay M.K. Mani A. L. M Date 10/6/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello C)p?[d/f_ Date 10/18/83

/ '

1.0 Description Gibbs and Hill does not specify any weld mismatch (6) when determining stress intensification factors for butt welds.

2.0 Requirement 2.1 Brown and Root Inspection Procedure CP-CPM 6.9D, Rev. 5, Section 3.10.1.3 allows 1/32" radial mismatch.

2.2 ASME Boiler and Pre' <"re Vessel Code,1974 edition,Section III, Figure NC 3673.2(b)-1 states that i=1.8 fort <3/16"orf>.1 tor as-welded butt welds.

3.0 Document Reference Computer output for the as-built analyses of stress problems AB-1-69, Rev. O, and AB-1-70, Rev. O.

1 4.0 Potential Design Impact Use of an SIF of 1.8 rather than the value which was used (1.0) may result in stresses greater than allowables.

Attachments A. Observation Record Review k

Q Extent leolated Extenelve X l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

t Observation ut , Record Review IHHHHHHHHlHHHHHH Attachment A

, Checklist No. General N*'I8I " N ' O sheet "'

Observation No.PI-00-01 1 2

- Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments i

l 1.0 Proeable Cause ,

l Inadequate procedures.

2.0 Resolution

! Cygna is concerned primarily with welds at elbow to pipe joints for the following reasons:

a. Welds at reducers will be taken care of by the reducer, SIF = 2.0.

b. Welds at. tapered transition joints (TTJ) will be taken care of by the TTJ , SIF = 1. 9.

c. Welds in long straight runs (between spool pieces) will typically have much lower load and stress levels than near elbows.

In response to Cygna's comment, Gibbs and Hill referenced NUREG/CR-0371 " Stress Indices for Girth Fillet Welded Joints Including Radial Weld Shrinkage, Mismatch and Tapered Wall Transitions" by E.C. Rodabaugh and S.E. Moore

, (1978). In it, Rodabaugh and Moore state that mismatch should be considered for stress indices only for t < 0.237". This was adopted by the ASME Code in the Summer 1981 addenda for transition joints (para. NB-3683.5(a)) and welds 1

(para. NB-3683.4). 'While it has not yet been changed in subsection NC, pargraph NC-3673.2(b) does allow the SIF (1).to be calculated based on the ,

stress indices.(C2 and K2 ) using i = C22 K /2.

IN Approvals i Orteinator g, e % , Date ,,Q[c3 Pr.>ci sae m e M( %.ah /

Date gjg78]

Q rr.>ct ma*o*r f^{q/3/)]}]u& ~

• • '*h/C M s.ai.en.wi. T j a n M _1 C ff/ oate 4//7d i TexasUtilitiesSerheI,Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

A Observation u ,i Record Review 8""H""'"'H H ' Attachment A Checklist No. Rcvision No. g General sheet 7 of p l Observation No.PI-00-01 <

l Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments l

Therefore, for butt welds with t > 0.237" l C2=1 K2 = 1.8 1

i = 0.9 < 1 therefore i = 1.0 i For welds with t < .1875, Gibbs and Hill has used an SIF of 1.8, so it is only those welds on piping where .1875 < t < .237 which may have unconservative SIF's. From the piping specification, this situation involves only 3" sch 40 and 4" sch 40 piping. For these, the SIF for an elbow (1.8 and 2.0, respec-O tively) are equal to or greater than the SIF for the butt weld. Thus, the Gibbs and Hill analyses are acceptable and Cygna considers this observation closed.

l 111 Approvais Date Originator A , g, .

I[4(65 Date <

Project Engineer Qg  % -

f f 3'/p-}

Project Mene0er g [g Date / g g Senior Review Team y , p[ Date ((((([]

Texas Utilities Serv N Inc.

i. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation M L% i Record lillllllllllilllllllillllllll!

O Checkilst No. General Revision No. O

~

Observation No. pl.00-02 Sheet 1 of }

originated ay M.K. Mani A L v W oate .10/6/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello C ) ( q L f y g oate 10/18/83

(' '

1.0 Description Gibbs & Hill uses a 20% increase in the upset and emergency condition allowables when considering welded attachment stresses in combination with general piping stresses.

2.0 Requirement The allowable for upset and emergency conditions is contained in the ASME Code,Section III, Paragraphs NC-3611.3(b) and (c), respectively.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill Engineering Guide AEG-511, Rev. O, June 1981.

4.0 Potential Design Impact Use of an increased allowable (1.5 Sy and 2.16 gS ) may result in actual stress levels above the appropriate allowabTes (1.2.SH and 1.8 SH )*

Attachments A. Observation Review Record I

Extent

(

16clated Extens'.ve X l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 t

Observation ut i Record Review HHHHHH'HHHH'HH'H' Attaehment A Checklist No. Revision No.

General O Sheet } of }

Observation No.PI-00-02 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Code Interpretation 2.0 Resolution The Code of Record does not address allowables for local pipe stresses due to welded attachents. The only guidance is in Paragraph NC-3645 " Attachments,"

which cautions the designer against geometries which cause excessive localized bending stress. Gibbs & Hill determined that a 20% increase in allowable, when O adding the highly localized stresses due to welded attachments, is an appropriate increase to preclude excessive distortion. As also pointed out by Gibbs & Hill, later codes (Winter '81) allow the use of 1.8 Sy and 2.25SH allowables for equation 9, Class 2, upset and emergency. White these are based on stress indices rather than stress intensification factors, the majority of the local attachments are on straight pipe, for which indices and SIF's produce identical stresses.

Based on the above discussion, Cygna concludes that Gibbs & Hill has followed an appropriate course and the allowables used would meet the intent of the Code of Record. Therefore, this observation is closed.

lll Approvals Originator 4 A,,,,. Date rt l 4 / 9 3 l Project Engineer Q{ { Qf Date 3./{/yy l Project Manager- gj ,

Date f ]

8enior Review Team gQ h [ Date [ [ [ Q Texas Utilities ServiE Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

[

Observation A f. d 6 i Record 11111111111111111!!Illl11ll11!

v Checklist No. General Rolslon No. O Observation No. pI-00-03 Sheet } of }

Originateo ey M.K. Mani 4 -t M ?" 10/6/83 Reviewed sy J.C. Minichiello G g p g [ j g ate 10/18/83 1.0 Description Gibbs & Hill has no procedure for checking that an adequate number of modes are considered in the dynamic analysis. All modes up to 33 Hz are, however, included in the analysis.

2.0 Requirement CPSES FSAR, Section 3.7B.3.1.a, requires that sufficient modes must be considered to ensure that the inclusion of additional modes will not increase the response of the system by more than 10%.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill Engineering Guide AEG-502 " Seismic Analysis of Piping Systems in Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 0, June 1981.

4.0 Potential Design Impact If a sufficient number of modes is not used in a dynamic analysis, the reported loads and stresses may be underestimated.

Attachments A. Observation Review Record l ,

l l

l l

Q Extent isolated Extensive X l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I

Observation umi Record Review HilllHillHilHHHlHHHH Attaehment A Checklist No. "I'l a N - 0 General ~

sheet of Observation No.PI-00-03 } }

Yes No Valid Obser vation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Inadequate analysis procedure.

2.0 Resolution Upon further review, Cygna found that Gibbs & Hill does instruct their engineers to review the dynamic results for adequate support loads. As an example, Gibbs & Hill ran the Feedwater lines just outside containment up to 33 Hz, but did not find sufficient response in the supports. They then reran O the same lines up to 60 Hz. Thus, while there is no written p.ocedure, Gibbs &

Hill does exercise good practice in reviewing the results.

In the CPSES FSAR, Texas Utilities commits to using for piping analysis the ADLPIPE program (Section 3.78.38.1, pg 3.78-61) which is a public domain program accepted by the NRC for use in nuclear analysis. Since Gibbs and Hill uses the program properly and satisfies the other comitments in that section of the FSAR, including the cutoff frequency, Cygna considers this observation closed.

111 Approvals MM d.@ . M Date gi Q[g 3 Project Engin.or Q p Date g []

C> .e

- - - m as n>{L n a . . . atsi+,

r ae 1.wg g,_ _ pp oate uMirs

! TexasUtilitiesSerNces,Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation Ali d Record lllll1111ll1lll11111!!l1111!I1 O Checklist No. Revision No- 0 PI-01 Observation No. PI-01-01 _

Sheet 1 of 1 Originated BY M.K. Mani A -l[ . M Date 10/6/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello O M[JdDate

'i 10/18/83  !

[

1.0 Description The wall thickness used for the computer analysis piping segments 16"-

SI-074-151R-2 and 16"-SI-073-151R-2 was 0.5 inches. The correct value is 0.375 inches.

2.0 Requirement Gibbs & Hill Specification 2323-M-200, Rev. 3, " Design Specification for all ASME Section III, Code Class 2 and 3 Piping," Appendix 3, which contains Gibbs

& Hill 2323-MS-43A by reference.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs & Hill QA Binder AB-1-69, Revision 0, Sheet 6 " Analytical Data-Pipe Material and Properties."

O 4 .0 Potential Design Impact For deadweight and seismic loading, stresses will increase by approximately 25%. For thennal expansion, stress levels will remain basically unchaged, since the loads are directly related to the thicknesses, while stresses are inversely related.

Attachments A. Observation Review Record i

E xtent l

leolated )( Extensive l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

l Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

1 Observation 4L t i Record Review m:::: ~ ""' Attachment A Checklist No. Revision No.

PI-01 O sheet of 2

Observation No.PI-01-01 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Analysis oversight.

2.0 Resolution For these two segments, Cygna has recalculated the stresses for the most significant design case, that being pipe break exclusion. In this recalcula-tion, Cygna assumed the pressure, deadweight, OBE, and thermal expansion stresses would increase by .5/.375 (see calculations below). Since stress O levels are still below .4 (1.2Sy + S )gand equation 9 (0BE) are well below 1.2 Sg (approximately 257, of alTowabTe), the error in thickness has no design impact. Since this was the only error in thickness out of 38 piping segments (problems 1-69 and 1-70) Cygna concludes that the error is isolated.

CONTAINMENT ISOLATION Per Section 6.2.4.1.3 of the FSAR, the guard pipe past containment, isolation tank, and bellows are no longer needed as part of containment since stresses between the flued head and valve are below .4 (1.2 SH +3A ). Cygna checked independently the results 111 Approvals Originator M . (< Q Date [f[p3 Project Engineer Qg { g 7 Date g }

Project Manager M pgy Dateg Q Senior Review Team i

[- Date [ [G Texas Utilities ServNs, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4L t i Record Review HIHlHHHHlHIHlHHHHI Attachment A Checkilst No. pg gy Revision No. O Observation No.pI-01-01 sheet 2 ' 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments Joints 701-706 (Train 1) (corrected t = 3.75)

Maximum equation 9 = 3158 x ,jf5 = 4210 psi (pt. 706)

Maximum equation 10 = 9778 x ,jf5=13037(pt.1705)

Sum = 17247 psi 1.2 Sg+SA = 1.2 (16600) + 27650 = 47570 Ratio = 5 0 = 0136 < .4 OK 7_31-1735 (Train B)

Maximum equation 9 = 1265 x ,jf5 = 1687 psi (pt.1735)

Maximum equation 10 = 11449 x ,jf5 = 15265 psi (pt. 735)

Sun = 16950 psi Ratio = = 0.36 < .4 OK There will be no breaks postulated between the penetrations and the isolation valves.

til Approvals Originator A, g, M Date n[4[tj Project Engineer ( gg Date gy/f'J

• N* ' *** W , Y) h/jw *

}/f Senior Review Team

[ g/ ' Date

/((/((d TexasUtilitiesSerNces,Inc. T Independent Assessment Program; 83090

g A LGi f a Observation Record llllllilllllllllllllllllllllll Checklist No. Revision No. O PI-02 -

Observation No. PI-02-01 Sheet } ot 1 originated By M.K. Mani h* lt.gDate 10/6/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello d i b M 10/18/83 f

1.0 Description The response spectra for the containment structure at elevations 805.5' and 860.0' were nct included in the analysis for problem 1-70. These are needed to envelope the attachment at penetration MII-5 (elevation 820'-1-9/16"). Cygna did note that the SAM for the contair. ment building were included in the proper analysis.

2.0 Requirement Gibbs and Hill Specification 2323-MS-200, Rev. 3, paragraph 5.6.1.4b.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs and Hill QA Binder AB-1-70, Rev. O, Sheet 10.

4.0 Potential Design Impact There is no design impact on this system since the response spectra used in the analysis envelope the above noted spectra at all the natural frequencies of Problem 1-70. The prime concern is the omission of one building's spectra in piping running betwen buildings.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review E xtent leolated X Extensive l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

I l

Observation gmi Record Review  :

mmmunimunnunn' Attachment A Checklist No. PI-02 R*I " N

• O Observation No.PI-02-01 sheet 1

' 1 Yes No valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Insufficient documentation justifying the omission.

2.0 Resolutt.'

Of the piping problems which interconnect two buildings, Cygna chose a random sample of 32 to review. Gibbs and Hill chose the appropriate spectra for each problem. Based on this extended review, Cygna concludes that the error is isolated.

4 I

l

! 111 Approvals i

Orklnator A ,4 Date o(4 (g y Project EngineerQfA C ~"]/ gg/g__ Date g/h7]

O "*n,.c'~"=a;f]A ,W LHu w c' N/s/r3

, n.v . ,. gga j D.,. uys 7c TexasUtilitiesSeNces,Inc[

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation A f.% i 11ll111!!Il111111lllll11111111 Record O Checkiist No. Revision No.

PI-02 O Observation No. PI-02-02 S h'es t } of 1 originated By M.K. Mani A t'. . C Date 9/30/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello Cd/ ,m)[JJ[/cate 10/18/83

[

1.0 Description Support RH-1-064-010-S22R (previous tag number RH-1-062-001-S22R) is modelled 14 inches downstream from its correct, as-built location on piping segment 8"-RH-1-064-601R-2.

2.0 Requirement The tolerance for support design location is t 1 pipe diameter per Gibbs and Hill Specification 2323-MS-46A, Rev.'3, Paragraph 3.6.2.1.1.

3.0 Document Reference a) Brown and Root. drawing BRHL-RH-1-SB-003, Rev.1.

b) Gibbs and Hill QA Binder AB-1-70, Rev. O.

4.0 Potential Design Impact Stresses due to deadweight and seismic will increase approximately 10-20% in this region, due to the increase in span.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review i

l 0

leolated )( E xtenelve l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

l

Observation g( t i Record Review msnmunnununnin Attachment A Checklist No. pl.02 Revision No. 0 .

j sheet i of Obse,rvation No.pl.02-02 i Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Insufficient documentation of location discrepancy in Binder AB-1-70. A similar change, with supports RH-1-010-005-S22R and RH-1-010-001-S22R modelled 10" apart but later designed at one location (CMC 74706), is well documented and evaluated in the memo at the beginning of Binder AB-1-70, Rev. O.

2.0 Resolution Since the stress levels are low (<50% of allowable), the increase in stress will not affect the design. This is the only support (out of approximately 100) in Problems 1-69 and 1-70 which was modelled out of location.

Accordingly, Cygna concludes that the error has no design impact, is isolated, i and needs no further investigation.

4 111 Approvals Originator p.p Q Date g[f,{g3 Pro)oct Engineer { '-]y f Date y/ph Project Manager cp { Date

[/

Senior Review Team p{ , g Date [f/h/p TexasUtilitiesSeMes,Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation M1% i Record lilllilllillllllllllilllllllli Checklist No. Revision No.

PI-02 -

O Observation No. PI-02-03 sheet i of 1 Originated By M.K. Mani d. L. M Date 10/18/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello CC%, aM Date 10/28/83 y .

1.0 Description In the welded attachment analysis for the restraints in Problems 1-70, the analyst used the maximum thermal expansion loads for the equation 11 check, rather than the range of the loads.

] 2.0 Requirement The range of thermal expansion load is required by:

a) ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code,Section III, Subsection NC, Paragraph NC-3652.3 j b) Gibbs and Hill Engineering Guide AEG-511, Revision 0, June 1981.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs and Hill QA Binder AB-1-70, Rev. O, Sheets 45-51.

4.0 Poter.tial Design Impact use of the range of thermal expansion loads may result in stresses above allowables.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review i

l l

Extent )

l Isolated Extenelve X l Other f 3pecify) l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 t 1

1

, Observation 4L t i Record Review

""""'"#'#""'""'"" Attachment A Checklist No. PI-02 Revision No. O J Sheet of

, Observation No.PI-02-03 3 y I

Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments

! 1.0 Root Cause Possible misunderstanding of the Gibbs and Hill procedure 2.0 Resolution l

Using the range for the 3 rigid restraints, Cygna calculated the following:

Load CYLNCZ General g Support Range Stress Stress Total Allow i

SI-1-032-003-S32R 2700 10362 6763 17125 45000 RH-1-064-007-S22R 1300 5172 5128 10300 4400 RH-1-016-001-S32R 8615 11225 9328 20555 44000 i

The remaining 4 restraints are springs or snuhbers and have no thermal load. Thus, there is no increase in stress above allowables.

Cygna also noted that the correct method was used for the welded attachments in anchors of Problem 1-70 and in all supports in Problem 1-69. Based on this, Cygna considers the error isolated. In addition, the RHR system will probably show the largest percentage difference (between maximum load and range), since it has many modes of operation. Thus, Cygna expects the error would have the most impact on

this system. As the new calculations show, the impact on design is negligible and the observation is closed.

i I

111 Approvels o e .ior a . g. A_... o** a / 4 I cr>

proi.ci so.in , %( E oa* s/r/P3 project Manager [ Q h /g g Date//h d Senior Review Team } ,

[ h Date f,hj7C TexasUtilitiesSerE:es,Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

(

Observation i d L% Ti Record llllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

( Checklist No. PI-02 Revision No. 0 Sheet } of

}

I l Observation No. PI-02-04 Originated By M.K. Mani A L. b~ Date 10/6/83 j Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello O C_3bM Date 10/18/83 7

1.0 Description The reinforcing pad used in the welded attachment analysis for anchor SI-1-037-005-S32A was 10" long rather than the 8" shown in the latest drawing. Cygna did note that the loads used were a conservative set from a previous revision of the piping analysis.

2.0 Requirement N/A.

3.0 Document Reference j Gibbs and Hill QA Binder AB-1-70, Rev. O, Sheet 53 and memo. AM-WA-233A.

I i 4.0 Potential Design Impact The use of the correct pad size may increase stresses above allowables.

Attachment

, A. Observation Record Review l

E x t erit teolated y Extenelve l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

l

-_ . -- _. _ , , .. - -- . - - - --_ . - . . . . - - - _ _ - . __._\

Observation 4( , i Record Review inunununununnnin Attachment A Checklist No. PI-02 "* ""' O sheet of Observation No.PI-02-04 3 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments i

i 1.0 Probable Cause Per discussions with Gibbs and Hill, the analyst had used engineering judgement to determine that the size change would not increase stresses above allowables, even using the conservative set of loads.

2.0 Resolution Cygna requested Gibbs and Hill to rerun the 'CYLN0Z" program with the correct size and conservative loads (see attached). The maximum ratio of stress to O allowable is now 0.88, justifying the judgment of the Gibbs and Hill analyst.

This observation is, therefore, invalid.

111 Approvals Ori.in. tor jt. g y om oI 4(es Project Engineer Qg { jd -- Dete g / p g }

O eron.ct u...e.r e y) & .e-1 A 1 7, o j , o~ nkK3 o~ t(thr>

e.n ..v,.. ,.

puy7 Texas Utilities Seh ces, Inc. b Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation A N i- Record llillllllllillllllllllllilllli Checklist No* Ruision No.

PI-02 O Sheet 1 of Observation No. PI-02-05 1 Originated By M K. v Date 10/18/83 M.K. Mani Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello O C 9 / _ u /d /j[g Date 10/28/83

/ ' 't l

1.0 Des,.ription The incorrect pipe schedule (80 instead of 40) was used in calculating the

! allowable forces and moments for the RHR heat exchanger tubeside nozzles. The

correct schedule produced lower allowables.

2.0 Requirement a) The correct pipe schedule is provided in Gibbs and Hill Specification 2323-M-200, Rev. 3.

b) Westinghouse Specification G-679150, page 14, requires allowable loads to be based on the thickness of the attached pipe.

3.0 Document Reference Gibbs and Hill QA Binder AB-1-70, REv. O, Sheet 44 4.0 Potential Design Impact

- Decreased allowables may results in actual loads being higher than allowable loads, necessitating review by the vendor.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review I

l 1

Estent leoleted Estenelve X l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l Observation  !

4( t i Record Review mem***"" Attachment A Checklist No. Revision No. O PI-02 sheet of Observation No. PI-02-05 1 3 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Design oversight, i 2.0 Resolution i

l Cygna recalculated the allowable loads and found the maximum ratio of actual j to allowable was 0.98, which occurred only for the upset shear load. The

remaining ratios were all less than 0.85. All other nozzle allowables in l Problems 1-69 and 1-70 were calculated correctly. In addition, Cygna expanded 4 its review to include the pump nozzle on the diesel generator system. Cygna

revewed 33% fo the nozzle calculations and found no discrepancies. Thus, this observation is closed.

l e

t Ill Approvals N ator g, , Date gg { 4 { {;3 Pro >ct Engineer Q[ ( 7 Date [/[/p ]

Project Manager / I j

~

Date ph/

Senior Review Team h

o

[ Date kf((

Texas Utilities Sesd c,es, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

i

)

Observation A Mi i Record 1111111lllll11lll!!I1111111111 O Checklist No. PI-03 R evision No. 0 s heet i of 4

Observation No PI-03-01 i Originated By J.C. Minichiello @ 7/ D*** 10/6/83

1. Date Reviewed By M.K. Mani A-K M 10/18/83 1.0 Description In the finite element analysis for penetration MS-1, 2, 3, 4, the geometry below the lower taper (for =2") was modeled incorrectly, due to an error in element generation. The error resulted in an area of the model with triangular holes adjacent to triangular steel.

HOLEg STEEL l 2.0 Requirement N/A.

3.0 Document Reference

" Stress Report for Penetrations, Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Units No.

I and 2," Report ER-109-79, G&W Manufacturing Co., Flued Systems Division, Page 36.

4.0 Potential Design Impact This error has little impact on the stresses in the head since it is the only load path to the head. The only concern is a similar error in the other models

, which may affect design.

Attachment A. Observation Record Review l Extent teoisted X Extenelve l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation

, U t i Record Review ininuninnunnunun' Attachment A Checklist No. PI-03 Revision No. O Observation No.pI-03-01 sheet i

of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Root Cause The analyst or checker may have noticed the error and determined it would not affect results. The root cause, if the analyst or checker did not so note, would be insufficient detail in checking. If either noticed, then a comment should have been added to the report.

2.0 Resolution

! Cygna reviewed 15 of the remaining 18 flued head reports and found no repetition of the error. Cygna concludes that the error is isolated.

i i

I i

111 Approvals Originator Gj (g ,p [ p Dete y/ @ ]

Project Engineer #{") ( g Date ,p f. f 7 ]

Project Manager g[ g Date fj [g Senior Review Team' , _

] Date jf ((J Texas Utilities S M es. Inc. T Independent Assessment Program; 83090

L i Observation  ;

A L% i Record j lillllitillllillllllillllllll!

I.

Checklist No. Revision No. O PS-02. PS-03 s h_eet i of Observation No. PS-02-01 3 Criginated By 6. J40 Date 10/21/83 S. Luo Reviewed By .] Minichiello Q ~7,/g Date 10/28/83

/

! 1.0 Description The embedment lengths shown on the drawing (6-1/2" and 3-1/2") do not match those in the calculation (7-3/4" and 5")

2.0 Requirement Cygna Design Criteria DC-2, Section 4.1.11, requires that the design calculation accurately reflect the drawing.

3.0 Document Reference I

a. TUSI Pipe Support Calculation SI-1-325-002-S32R, REY 1.

b. TUSI Pipe Support Calculation RH-1-021-001-S22R, REV 3.

4.0 Potential Design Impact The use of the improper embedment length during installation may not develop

. the required allowable loads.

Attachment A. Observation Review Record.

i 4

.. tent

,se,.,e a . . .e ne, v. x i . . . , . . .. . . , ,,

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

independent Assessment Program; 83090

~w -

Observation dL 6 i Record Review l

"""""""*""'"""" Attachment A ,

Checklist No. PS-02, PS-03 Revision No. O Observation No.pS-02-01 sheet i of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Failure to check drawing information against that called for in the design calculations.

1 2.0 Resolution )

Discussion with Texas Utilities revealed the following:

e Embedment lengths placed on the drawing are not used for installation.

e For "HILTI" bolts Brown and Root Installation Procedure CEI-20 is O followed.

i e Bolts are purchased in accordance with the total bolt lengths specified on the drawing.

Based upon this information, Cygna investigated the potential impact on as-built embedment lengths. The investigation centered on the specified total length and torquing requirements.

During the design, the calculati'ons ensure t at adequate embedment lengths are provided by taking into account total bolt length, plate thickness, grouting, and thread length (which is determined by bolt length). The total length is j then specified on the drawing.

During installation, the bolts are torqued in accordance with the Brown & Root procedure. In order to satisfy thit torquing requirement, there must be sufficient thread both above and be%w the top surface of the plate. I 111 Approvals Originator 3, Date l t / (/ / g b Rokt Engher g[ { gg ,_

Date ff/.j/D

"I~'~~

> </n  !

O ~ senior neview Team <>r)

• w s 1>~6

' ' ' ' ' " ' ~

oste j Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4L t i Record Review

""""H""""""""" Attachment A O Checklist No.

PS-02. PS-03 Revisi n No. n sheet 7 of p Observation No.PS-02-01 l

Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments By satisfying the bolt length and torque specifications, the minimum embedment length requirement is also satisfied. This is because insufficient embedment length would raise the threaded portion of the bolt beyond the top surface of the plate, thus preventing the bolt from being torqued.

Cygna therefore considers he observation closed, however, it is recommended that the embedment length be deleted from the drawings since it is adequately addressed by the installation procedures.

1 1

O i

f I

I I

l j

in 3 .e,ov.i.

W oor $ fw De'* 11/u / 65 Project Engineet ,fp[( ]g Date g/y/[']

) Protect Man oer @g ggfJgL oste jjfg g i senior neview Team gyQy, f j[ " oete y jj-(fy,3 Texas Utilities ServMs, Inc. "

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation g%oi At Record lilllillillfillllllilllilllll!

O Checklist No. pS-09 Revision No. 0 Observation No. PS-09-01 s heet 1 of 2 originated BY S. Luo 4h Date 9/28/83 Reviewed By J. Minichiello r

Q WMD* i 10/4/83 1.0 Description The working range for spring hanger SI-1-042-002-S22K (i.e. top up or bottom out) was not checked to ensure that the travel due to seismic movement was within the working range of the hanger.

2.0 Requirement Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-2, Section 4.1.4, requires the design to consider the effects of seismic motion.

3.0 Document Reference i Texas Utilities calculation for Hanger No. SI-1-042-002-522K.

i

! 4.0 Potential Design Impact Combined seismic and thermal movements exceeding the working range of the spring hanger may result in an ineffective design due to loss of spring action.

Attachment  ;

A. Observation Review Record.

l l

l l

j l

I

.at.nt -

........ . . . . ..,ve x i . t , .t i ... . ,,,,

l Texas Utilities Services. Inc. '

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

l

Observation

4L t i Record Review n um m m uim Attachment A O Checklist No. PS-09 Revision No. 0 Observation No.PS-09-01 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 5.0 Probable Cause i Failure to evaluate the effects of seismic motion in the original pipe support i design.

6.0 Resolution A review of the as-built stress analyses by Texas Utilities showed that seismic

piping movements are small and may be neglected in checking spring travel.

Based on Cygna's review of stress problems AB-1-69 and AB-1-70, we agree with this assessment and consider this observation closed.

i i .

I i til Approvale o ***< 5, & om n/o/83 1 "*c' ws"< G L C '1/n. d d b- ** WWJ'3 1 t

O **c' waaae*< Q Lcy/ M d j f w e n om hh/79 i senior neview Team W g pff

~

oste g/[ffj

! Texas Utilities S3ibch.es, Inc.#

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

Observation ALn i. Record lilllllllillllililllllllllllll O Checklist No. PS-10 Revision No. O Observation No. PS-10-01 shm 1 of 2 orloineted sy S. Luo f , [a Date 10/20/83 Reviewed sy J. Minichiello O_ 9/, ,,My oste 10/31/83 y (

1.0 Description The design input data for support RH-1-064-010-S22R contained an error in the X displacement sign (+,395 " vs. .395"). This errea appears on the form i transmitted from the pipe strets group to the pipe support group for use in the 1 design.

2.0 Requirement Cygna Design Criteria 83090 DC-2, Section 4.1.7, requires the use of correct design inputs.

3.0 Document Reference TUSI pipe support calculation RH-1-064-010-522R, Rev 3.

4.0 Potential Design Impact The transmittal of incorrect loads or displacements to the pipe support group may lead to underdesigned or improperly designed supports.

Attachment A. Observation Review Record OEntent feeleted X Entenelve l other (specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 -

Observation d (m a Record Review immmimmimimmli Attachment A 4

Q Checklist No. PS-10 Revision No. O Observation No.PS-10-01 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments l 5.0 Probable Cause Insufficient checking by the pipe stress group.

6.0 Resolution The error has no design impact on the strut, since the swing angle is less than 1/2 and, therefore, the strut needs no offset. Since this was the only data transfer error found in 31 supports, including all displacements and loads, Cygna considers this observation isolated and closed.

O Ni Approvals Originator Date ll[/)./ Q Project Engineer .gg{p g Date W / #-Mek7 ,

Psoject Manager g }

Date j h[Q '

k Senior Review Team _( ] (( Date khhg TexasUtilitiesSerybd,Inc. d Independent Assessment Program; 83090

. . ~ . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ . _ . . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . . _ _

Observation g%

aL f a Record lililllillllllillllilllillllli O Checklist No. pg,77 Revision No. O Observation No. PS-12-01 sheet 1

' 2 Originated sy S. Luo 6. $ Dat* 10/20/83 Reviewed By J. Minichiello C. M , ,/goate 10/31/83

/

1.0 Description The allowables for a "PUH" style U-bolt were used in the design calculation.

The bill of materials calls out a " PUS" style U-bolt.

2.0 Requirement 2.1 Gibbs & Hill specification 2323-MS-46A, Revision 3, Section 3.6.2.2.1.

2.2 NPSI Catalog, LCD tables which list allowables for U-bolts.

3.0 Document Reference TUSI pipe support calculation RH-1-062-002-522R, Rev 5.

4.0 Potential Design Impact Since the allowables for a "PUH" style U-bolt are approximately twice as high as " PUS" style U-bolt, use of the correct allowables-may lead to hardware failure.

Attachment A. Observation Review Record l

l O Extent Isolated y Extensive l Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 41 i a Record Review mr Attachment A Checklist No. PS-12 Revision No. O Observation No.PS-12-01 sheet 2 of 2 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 5.0 Probable Cause Insufficient review by the checker.

6.0 Resolution The allowable load for a " PUS" style U-bolt is 4706 lb. This is. inadequate for

<. the original design loads. However, the as-built loads are 3915 lb. which is within the " PUS" allowable load.

Although the original allowables were chosen incorrectly, there was no design impact since the as-built loads are sufficiently low. Cygna considers this 1

observation closed since this is the only hardware error found in all the supports reviewed.

I d

IN Approvals Originefor f, Date f I / (j / g 3 Project Engineer ,. ][ ( p Date geg}

Project Manager gp} Date ff y Senior Review Team # g Q[ g/ Date g /p Texas Utilities Ser N ek Inc. [

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

M Observation

[41C Id lillllllillllllll!!!!llllllll!

Record

'O Checklist No. Various R evision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-01 Sheet 1 of g Originated By C. Liu /> [( oate 10/18/83 Reviewed By J. Minichiello () , $/,.aMoate 10/29/83

/ '

1.0 Description Self-weight excitation due to the weight of the support was not considered in the tray support design.

2.0 Requirement 2.1 Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1, Section 4.2, requires that all appropriate loads should be considered.

2.2 Gibbs & Hill, Texas Utilities-Cable Tray Supports Design Criteria SCS-101C, Set 5, Rev. 2.

3.0 Document Reference 3.1 Computer Output Binder DMI-SP, approved 10 November 1978. Applicable sections O as below:

Standard Detail Binder Section Aj Reg. Cases At to A 3 Dj (Details A, B, C, D) Reg. Cases D to D i 5 3.2 Calculation Binders Detail Gibbs & Hill Calculation No.

Standard A i SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 7, 30, 72, 73, 94 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9, 10, 11 Standard A2 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 8, 30, 72, 73, 74,95 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9, 10, 11 Standard A3 SCS-1010, Set 1, Shts. 9,10, 30, 72, 73, 75, 96 SCS-122C, Set 1, Shts. 9, 10, 11 Standard Di to D 5 SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5, 6,10, 34, 35 Standard A, B, C, D SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5, 6,10, 34, 35 Standard 4, 5, 7 SCS-104C, Set 4. Shts. 4. 6. 9. 40. 41. 43 nv Extent isolated Extensive X Other (Specify)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l M Observation l

[4Li'IU lill!llilllllill!!!lllllllllll Record Checklist No. Various Revision No. O sheet 2 2 Observation No. CTS-00-01 of orloinated ay C. Liu (>,{ % oog, 10/18/83 Reviewed By J. Minichiello Q gf g oog, 10/29/83

. g (

4.0 Potential Design Impact

Inclusion of support self-weight excitation effect may lead to total stresses which

! exceed the allowables.

l Attachments A. Observation Review Record O

a Extent A Other (Specify) isolated Extensive Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

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

- Observation ,

At t i Record Review muunm*""""'"" Attachment A Checklist No. Various Revision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-01 shut i of y Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Inadequate design procedures.

2.0 Resolution The original support analysis used cable tray weights of 35 or 40 psf whereas the maximum actual tray weight is 28.8 psf, a minimum reduction of 17.75 percent. Tray support weights for the largest frames (i.e., those with four or more tray levels) are approximately 10 percent of the total tray weights. As member sizes for smaller O frames are identical to the larger frames, use of the larger cable tray design weight effectively accounts for the self-weight excitation (

Reference:

Cygna technical file 11.2.1.50, pgs. 1-3).

Based on the overall conservatism of the design approach, Cygna considers this observation closed.

111 Approvals l orteinator fp f ( Date g/g/g3 Project Engineer -

[fQQ d Date J,fd7 Pro 6ect Manseer Q & Q)fjy,y ' D*'*

                                                                                                                          //lKlWb
        ..n o,R. ~ . ,      5gny;; - n                                                               o.'                  0 7s Y r3  \

Texas Utilities dr d , Inc. # Independent Assessment Program; 83090

     ,W L*h M M Observation Record illllllilllllllllllilillllllli                                                                                            i Checklist No.                Various                                              Revision No.         O Observation No. CTS-00-02                                                           S h'ee t 1   of      2 Originated By                 J.P. Russ          C f/ g                      ,

oate 10/28/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello Q '- 1 { ,f @ ate 10/28/83 f/ 'l 1.0 Description Gibbs & Hill performed the calculation of total resultants for component loads as follows:

a. For anchor bolts, Gibbs & Hill included the dead load in the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) combination of component seismic l forces. This resultant is 9% less than the actual combination where the dead load effects are added absolutely to the SRSS of the seismic forces.

b. Combined component member loads were calculated from various static and dynamic loads (i.e., dead, live and seismic) using the algebraic sumation-method for the following cable tray supports:

Standard Details Aj , B Cg, and D ! number of tray levels)j, details A,j B, (where i =D1oftodrawing C, and 5, depending on the no. 2323-El-O; 0601-01-S, which are based on Standard Detail Dj , and Standard Details 4, V 5 and 7.

2.0 Requirement 2.1 The dead weight and live load effects should be separated from the seismic effects and combined appropriately in order to obtain the worst case.

2.2 Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1, Section 4.2, lists the proper method for combining dead, live, and seismic loads . 2.3 CPSES FSAR, Section 3.7N.2.6 requires that any combined total response due to seismic loads be combined by the square root of the sum of the squares method. i 3.0 Document Reference al. Improper combination by SRSS was performed in all Gibbs & Hill cable tray calculations within the Cygna scope e.xcept those for Type SP-7. Extent teolated Estensive X Other (Specify) ) ! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

M Observation M C Id Record lilllllililllillllllillllllll!

  %d Checklist No.                                                                                                                  Revision No.                          O observation No. CTS-00-02                                                           _

sheet 2 of 2 Originated By J. Russ b - [- Date 10/28/83 Reviewed By J. C. Minichiello [aj/ Date 10/28/83 g < bl. Computer Output Binder DMI-5P, approved 10 November 1978. Applicable sections as below: Standard Detail Binder Section Ai Reg. Cases A to A 3 Di Reg. Cases D to D 5

b2. Calculation Binders

;                                            Standard Detail                                                     Calculation No.

4,5,7 SCS-104C, Set 4, Shts. 4, 6, 9, 40, 41, 43 4.0 Potential Design Impact The improper use of either the SRSS or algebraic sum method could result in unconservative levels of load or stress which may affect support integrity. Attachment A. Observation Review Record l , P . Extent l 1solated Extensive X Other (Speelfy) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ) Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

               , , - - - - - , ,      r,   -
                                             ,c ,   ,-- .. ..,, - - , , , - , - . , , - -        , . , , . - , . . . - - , , - - . , -                . , - - - - - . , ,

Observation L t i Record Review 11111llll11111111111llll11ll11 Attachment A O I Checklist No. Revision No. g Various Sheet i or Observation No. CTS-00-02 i Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments 1 1 1.0 Probable Cause i The probable cause of this observation can be cited as a lack of consistent design practices for frame analysis and design. 2.0 Resolution i The deficiencies noted in Sectu,a 1.0 may be resolved as follows: ., a. To evaluate the use of unconservative component load resultants, Gibbs & Hill compared their original resultants to those developed from the correct combinations of dead and seismic loading for all plant elevations where cable tray supports are located. These recalculated resultants exceeded the original values by a maximum of 3 perecent. This is an i acceptable tolerance for an SRSS combination (

Reference:

Cygna Technical File 11.2.1.50, Pgs. 4-13).

b. Though the frame analysis employed the algebraic summation method, care was taken to ensure that maximurn member loads, which were equal to the absolute sum of the dead and each seismic load component, were selected for use in the member design.

Because of the foregoing statements, there is no impact on safety and this observation is closed.

     = wo st                        ,,  n               m
     *'*"*'" M (. V < A . ()/&                                                                                   **rAL. /1BD
     " ~' c"*+ G4 c9/MsA- -                                                                                      o~ sAv23 C) ~ ~'..v'i.-ML w'sMtua -                                                                                      "~              uxnra 1.a. w w , _         g - -                                                           os,e hb Texas utilities Sd hices, Inc.D Independent Assessment Program; 83090

iiiiiEEEIE Observation Mid Record es Illililllllillllilllllllllllll

    \

L/ Checklist No. Various Revision No. 0 Observation No. CTS-00-03 _ sheet 1 or 3 Originated By J.P. Russ M, [d - Date 10/28/83 Reviewed By J. Minichi d o h Q /m, ,u[/ht- Date 10/28/83

                                                 /

1.0 Description In the review of cable tray support calculations, Cygna discovered the following deficiencies in the modeling assumptions for frame analyses:

a. Cable tray Standard Details A B,C and D on the number of tray levels,jan, dj Details j

A,j B,

                                                                               , where C and iD=on 1 to 5 depending Gibbs  & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-S which are based on Standard Detail Dg , are modeled as plane frames. Two basic configurations are analyzed. The first configuration consists of two vertical members, called hangers, connected by horizontal members, called beams, which support the cable trays. This configuration is typical for Standard Details Aj , Bj and C.j    The second configuration consists of one vertical hanger and one to four beams which are attached to the hanger at one end and a concrete surface at the other. This second case it typical of Standard Detail D
    ;                       and the related Details A, B, C and D. All anchorage points were modeled          1 d                         as pinned in the plane of the frame,                                              l Both support configurations are modeled with vertical and horizontal cable tray loads at the beam to hanger joints instead of at the beam tray support points. The total horizontal and vertical load distribution was assume 1 to be split equally between the beam support points.

The above assumptions are deficient for the following reasons:

1. Placing tray loads at the beam-hanger joints does not reflect the actual loading configuration.

2. For Standard Detail 0 , the 50% - 50% load distribution is unjustified 4

since there is a flexible hanger on one side and concrete on the other. These modeling errors affect the analysis by eliminating the effects of local bending stresses as well as port. ions of the axial stress in the beams. Futhermore, for Standard Detail Dj , where loads were placed at the beam ends which were connected to the concrete surface (these points being modeled as simple supports), load effects were totally removed from the structure. _ Extent isolated Extensive X Other (Specify) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation g% AL fo Record . lilllll!!Illillllillllllllllit j O Checklist No. Revision No. Various O

                                                                                                    ~

Observation No. CTS-00-03 shut 2 of 3 Originated By J.P. Russ k[ [h Date 10/28/83 Reviewed By J. Minichie do O $ ,/ m d e d ,_ Date 10/28/83 4 - 4

b. End connections consisting of angles anchored to concrete by either one or two bolts were modeled as hinges in the cable tray support frame analysis. The assumption of a fixed joint is more appropriate considering the rigidity of the base angle connection.

2.0 Requirement Since the conditions described above do not properly model the local effects ) due to actual loading in the frame members or the actual geometry and load distribution in the connections, the requirements set forth in Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev. 1, Section 4.1, are not met. 3.0 Document Reference al. Computer Output Binder DMI-5P, approved 10 November 1978. Applicable secions as below: Standard Detail Binder Section A j Reg. Cases Al to A 3 Dj (Details A, B, C, D) Reg. Cases Di to D 5 bl. Calculation Binders Detail Calculation Binder Ref. Standard A l SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 7,30,72,73,94 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A 2 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 8,30,72,73,74,95 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A3 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,30,72,73,75,96  : SCS-122C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,11 ' Standards D g to D 5 SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35

Standards A, B, C, D SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 4

Extent leolated Entenelve X Other (Specify) Texas lJtilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i.

Observation A L% . i Record llllillllillllllllllllllllllil Checklist No. .arious Revision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-03 _ s h~ wet 3 of 3 Originated By J.P. Russ G ,/ g[_. _ _ Date 10/28/83 Reviewed By J. Minichielkb ( ,) % [ g / h [ [>.- Date 10/28/83 [ bl. Gibbs & Hill Drawing 2323-S-0903, Rev. 5. b2. Gibbs & Hill Calculation No. SCS-101C, Set 1. 4.0 Potential Design impact . Support integrity may be affected for the following reasons:

a. More appropriate modeling techniques may result in higher calculated member and connection stresses.

b. An inappropriate assumptian concerning joint fixity may lead to an i unconservative design of support base connections.

Attachment A. Observation Review Record 1 1 i l l o....n, leelsted .a tenelve X Other (Speelfy) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Obsorvation At t i Record Review umummummun Attachment A Checklist No. Various Revision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-03 sheet 1 of 1 Yes No Valid Observation X Closed X Comments i l i 1.0 Probable Cause The probable cause of this observation is a lack of documentation and/or . justification of the modeling assumptions. For the frame members this may be

concluded from the fact that although the beams were underloaded, the hangers

were conservatively loaded by the analysis assumptions. The analysis package

did not address the appropriateness of the assumptions for either the loadings or the end connection fixity.

l 2.0 Resolution The deficiencies described in Section 1.0 were resolved as follows: i a. Gibbs & Hill reevaluated the supports in question incorporating Cygna's

comments and utilizing a response spectrum modal analysis to reduce some conservatisms implicit in the original spectral peak analysis. The results of these analysis revealed that although the support members as designed were highly stressed, stresses did not exceed allowable levels

(

Reference:

Cygna Technical File 11.7.1.50, Pgs. 31-69).

b. Further analysis by Gibbs & Hill (

Reference:

Cygna Technical File 11.2.1.50, Pgs. 31-37) and an alternate review by Cygna indicate that the i difference between fixed and pinned connections for one or two bolt base angles does not alter the acceptability of the support. For the foregoing reasons, Cygna considers this observation closed. I Ni Approvals g

      **'~          %K (FA                    fL                                                  *~s d./mr
      " *c' W W G L                c %. L 4dge-                                                                    OA7P3 Q "e.*s*r*n".m.**,'.#NGYN1h                                                                     **** n / s / Y T
                       .,n' y;p,; - JJM y-/                                                 o.,e       tjggj Texas Utilities Sek ces, Inc.C Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

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

Observation A Mi i Record illlllill!!lllllllllilllllllll Checklist No. Various R evision No. O' Observation No. CTS-00-04 shest 1 of 2  ; Originated By J.P. Russ 4/j7 g~ oate 10/18/83 j Reviewed By J. Minichiel M Q q jg@ Date 10/20/83 1.0 Description Cable tray Standard Details Ai , Bj , C j the number of tray levels, Details B, A,j and C and D onD ,Gibbs where i =drawing

                                                                                           & Hill   1 to 5,2323-depending o El-0601-01-5                                                      and and Standard Details 4, which are based   on   Standard   Detail Dj,is and design were based I                  5 and 7 were modeled as plane frames. Frame analys upon a single ratio of height to width, whereas the ratio varies over the range of frames installed. Tray loads were placed in various directions in an attempt to simulate the worst case combination for the frame members. For Standard Detail Dj and Details A, B, C and D, an analysis of the base plate / angle and the anchor bolts included only loads with the largest acceleration factors.

The above analysis procedures are deficit for the following reasons:

1. Selection of height to width ratio for the frames does not provide a O proper insight into the behavior of all frame members when the ratio varies over such a wide range. For example, the hangers (vertical members) would be subject to larger bending stresses when the ratio is low.

l 2. The use of loads with the largest acceleration values in the analysis of the base plate / angle and anchor bolt system is unconservative it precludes the possibility of vertical loads being directed upward, i.e. opposite gravity. The imposition of upward forces on one beam and downward forces on an adjacent beam coupled appropriately with other forces could result in anchor bolts with higher loads than as originally calculated. 2.0 Requirements If standard details are selected as the design method, proper consideration should be given to ensuring the evaluation of the worst case. Since the conditions described above do not consider the range of height to width ratios and all possible combinations of loadings, the supports modeled thusly do not i meet the requirements set forth in the Cygna Design Criteria, DC-3, Rev.1, Section 2.0, Scope, Section 4.1, Physical Requirements and Section 4.2 Loads ! and Load Combinations, i Estent i leolated Estensive X Other (Speelfy) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation MMi Record lilllllllllllilllllllllllllIll Checkilat No. Various R evision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-04 s h**t 2 of 2 Cristnated ay J.P. Russ Q __.. [ d Date 10/18/83 Reviewed By J. Minichie do O i M/[f,_._. Date 10/29/83 (' 3.0 Document Reference A. Coriputer Output Binder DMI-5P, Approved 10 November 1978. Applicable sections as below: Standard Detail Binder Section A, Reg. Cases At to A 3 a Dj (A,B,C D) Reg. Cases Dg to 0 5 B. Calculation Binders 4 Detail Calculation Binder References .i i Standard A g SCS-1010, Set 1, Shts. 7,30,72,73,94 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A2 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 8,30,72,73,74,95 SCS-122C, Set 3, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard A 3 SCS-101C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,30,72,73,75,96 SCS-122C, Set 1, Shts. 9,10,11 Standard D i to 0 5 SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 A, B, C, D SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5,6,10,34,35 Standard 4, 5, 7 SCS-104C, Set 4, Shts. 4,6,9,40,41,43 4.0 Potential Design Impact i l By not investigating the sensitivity of the supports to the aspect ratios and the effect of differing load directions on anchor bolt forces, both member stresses and anchor forces may be undervalued. Designs based upon these lower

;                load values may be overstressed and fail locally when actual tray loads are applied.

l

                                                                        ~

i Attachments i A. Observation Review Record a Estent leolated Estenelve X Other (Speelfy) ! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation l 4( t i Record Review m u usimin u n l Attachment A lO Checklist No. Various "

• O sheet of Observation No. CTS-00-04 3 3 Yes No

! Valid Observation x Closed x i Comments 1.0 Probable Cause The use of " engineering judgement" in the initial phases of cable tray design may be cited as the cause of the observation on not considering the height to , width ratio when analyzing the cable tray supports. This statement is borne out when considering the analysis and design of supports using hand calculations, where again, no consideration was given to the height to width i ratio. 1

            " Engineering judgement" may also be given as the reason for failure to consider the loading combination described above which may cause higher loads in the anchor bolts.

l 2.0 Resolution Though initial analysis and design of members and anchor bolts was deficient 4 and' constituted a possible safety concern, further analysis (see Cygna  ; Technical File 11.2.1.50, pgs. 31-69) by Gibbs & Hill, incorporating Cygna's coments, revealed that sufficient margin existed to compensate for the increased member stresses and bolt loads. Therefore this observation may be termed as closed. 'I t s e El Approvals o'***' M / den:: f}L ** S Adeife3

     **aeae v O A c N s 4 4 6                                                                                **    oNA2 reu *"K*c fuf, WlffDjJM                                                                               D*       n)SlY3

, Q ' senior ne*w Team # fJ i $ osie g// //p Texas Utilities STeices, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l Observation g% AL Id Record 111111!!Il1111111!!!!!!!111111 O Checklist No. Various Revision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-05 sheet 1 of 1 Originated sy C.Liu 6{N cate 10/18/83 Reviewed By J.C. Minichiello O d [ a f[m , f j J te 10/31/83 v { / 1.0 Description The anchor bolts, base plate / angle and channel of cantilever support Detail "E" were originally designed as two-way restraints to resist axial loads on the channel and moments about its major axis. In order to use Detail "E" on a cable tray riser, where it must act as a three-way restraint, the channel section was modified to resist moments about its weak axis. The ability of this configuration to function as intended, i.e., to also resist moments about the weak axis, could not be guaranteed since the anchor bolts and the base plate / angle were not evaluated for such a load. 2.0 Requirement 2.1 Cygna Design Criteria 83090-0C-3, Rev. 1, Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 establish allowable stress limits and anchor bolt design considerations, respectively. 2.2 Designs should consider the functional application and associated requirements. 3.0 Document Reference 3.1 Gibbs & Hill Calculation SCS-146C(II), Set 8, Sheet 21. 3.2 Texas Utilities Design Change Document CMC-88306, Rev. 4. 4.0 Potential Design Impact Failure to consider the effects of the loads from the additional restraint direction may result in unacceptable stress levels and non-functional supports. Attachment A. Observation Record Review. r Estent l leolated Estenelve X Other (Specify) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Obsorvation A( t i Record Review , umumunnummmm Attachment A

                                                                          l'"       '-

Checklist No. Various 0 sheet of Observation No. CTS-00-05 i 3 Yes ,No Valid Observation X Clo s e d X

 ;     Comments 1.0 Probable Cause Inconsistent procedures.

2.0 Resolution Based on the actual "g" values and the assumption that the compression zone under one side of the base plate and tension force in the anchor bolts will form a moment resistant couple, Gibbs & Hill (

Reference:

Cygna Technical File 11.1.2.1.50, Pgs.14-30) provided evidence that the assumption is O satisfactory. An alternate investigation of base plate and anchor bolt behavior by using a finite element computer program (Base Plate II, by CDC) was performed by Cygna and provided results which also ensure the acceptability of the supports. Cygna, therefore, considers this observation closed. i 1 111 Approvals l 0,leinator { [* oate /f/p((

       %t ue~.r               QsL       c    =u_&.n.-                                            o~      /KAi3 0 n.w, mn.e.r                       tfg          , .,,

o.,e wijg3 l

                  . . v.a.n   so}j,g$g g;           j                                                   o.iq   g' m TexasUtilitiesSerhs,Inc.#

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation 4 A L% i lilillllllillilFillllfilllll! Record Checklist No. Various R evision No. 0 , Observation No. CTS-00-06 Sheet } of } l Originated By J.P. Russ Q /9, [ 2_. --- Date 10/19/83 l Reviewed By J.C. Minicd ello 9 C fr[ . , Oh Date 10/29/83

                                                /          '

1.0 Description The analysis and design of Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 was based upon the analysis and design of Standard Detail Dj , l where i = 1 to 5 depending on the number of tray levels. The orientation of

!                the major axis of the C6 x 8.2 section, used as a hanger for both support series, differs by 90 degrees. The major axis for Standard Detail Dj is out of i                 the plane of the frame while for Details A, B, C and D it is in the plane of 1                 the frame. As a consequence, Details A, B, C and D are more flexible than
;                Standard Details D,. This was not considered in the analysis. In addition the

! changes in the design of the beam connections to the hanger were not evaluated. 1 2.0 Requirements Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1, Section 4.1 requires that the analytical model accurately reflect the actual support geometry. l ! 3.0 Document Reference 4 3.1 Computer Output Binder DMI-5P, Approved 10 November 1978, Section: " Reg. Cases D t to 05 '" 3.2 Calculation No. SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5, 6, 10, 34, 35. 4.0 Potential Design Impact The modeling error in member orientation will result in higher member stresses for Details A, B, C, and D than were originally calculated by analysis of Standard Detail Dj. As design of Details A, B, C, and D is based upon Standard Detail Dj, the members may be overstressed and fail locally when the actual loads are applied. Attachments A. Observation Review Record . Estent teolated Estenelve X Other (Specify) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Obsorvation u ,, Record Review ammusumuum Attachment A Checklist No. Revision No. yg Observation No.rTR.nn fM 1 1 Yes No Valid Observation y Closed y Comments 1.0 Probable Cause i The observation described above may be attributed to insufficient review of documents, (i.e. analysis and design of Standard Detail Dj, by both the originator and checker of the calculation for Details A, B, C, and D) and lack of consistent evaluation of the various design considerations (i.e. connections). 2.0 Resolution Though the initial analysis of Details A, B, C, and D constituted a potential design deficiency, further analysis by Gibbs & Hill (see Cygna Tech. File 11.2.1.50, ppg. 31-69), incorporating Cygna's comments, revealed that sufficient design margin existed to compensate for the increased stress levels. Therefore, the observation is closed. 1 l l

      "'^**'      _      _    n              -

O**"*'* O? ($R h&- D*' T N < /f B 3

      ~~c' cf c 1 & c - 7/ L s L                                                         **'c        nMn c d ***                                                                       **'* ll/5lE3 0 "se*new'nev"iew         % [ g ,1TeamAtL
                                     ~ pff          %fMJh))>1%                           oste [f[/EO Texas Utilities SerTites, Inc. Y l      Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

t

Observation A M i fi Record lilllllillllillllllillllllllll O Checklist No. Various Revision No- 0 1 Observation No. CTS-00-07 sheet 1 of 1 Originated By J.P. Russ C j /[d_ _ Date 10/19/83 ! Reviewed By J,C, MjnjCijf[IlO h C [ w.a Ih__ Date 10/29/83 y 1.0 Description Details A, B, C and D on Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-El-0601-01-5 utilize base plates with concrete expansion anchor bolts to attach the beam members to vertical concrete surfaces. In the initial base plate analysis, the plate was evaluated as a pinned-pinned beam. The resulting plate stresses exceeded j allowables. A second check of plate stresses was made, assuming that the plate ,

 ;                  acted as a fixed-fixed beam. The calculated stresses were then found to be acceptable.

4 , The use of a fixed-fixed assumption is not necessarily representative of the actual situation. 2.0 Requirement Cygna Design Criteria, 83090-DC-3, Rev.1 Section 4.1 requires that the 1 i O analytical model accurately reflect the actual geometry and load distribution. 1 3.0 Document Reference Calculation No. SCS-104C, Set 1, Shts. 5, 6,10, 34, 35. i 4.0 Potential Design Impact The assumption of a fixed-fixed beam for the behavior of the base plate is inaccurate as its use results in unconservatively lower stresses. A more precise modeling assumption would result in higher plate stresses which may exceed code allowables. Attachment A. Observation Review Record I Estent , leolated Entenelve Other (Speelfy) ! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090

           - _ .       . _ _    ___ . _ -            .    - _ _ - -        -    -                  ~    _ - _ -      .__- -.

Observation u man Record Review Attachment A j Checklist No. Various n ! Observation No. CTS-00-07 shut 3 of 3

        ,                                      Yes      No l      Valid Observation                         x Closed                                    X I

Comments 1 l 1.0 Probable Cause The observation described above may be attributed to insufficient documentation of assumptions by the originator end insufficient review by the checker of the i calculations. 2.0 Resolution Though the initial analysis of the base plate for Details A, B, C and D had

!                potential design impact, further anal                                                 Cygna i

Technical File 11.2.1.50, pgs. 31-69)ysis , whichbyincorporated Gibbs & Hill the (

Reference:

base plate as a

beam element in the computer analysis of the frame, revealed base plate stresses which do not exceed code allowables. Therefore, this observation is considered closed.

i i 1

.. _ m _

      ~*~ M                               ( M DL_                                               c~.r & a _
      ".~< c# ~               w&               L M~ LA                                          c~     <wns c~

i O ~en~6er s moviewgy W Team'~~~

                                             } ~ ;ff ~(41m.'11 hihL                             ceteffjh/.sN3   g gy TexasUtilitiesServiYes[Inc.                  O' '

! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

i . Obscrvation ALni Record a fillllillllllllllllllllllllll! u Checklist No. Various R evision No. O Observation No. CTS-00-08 , _ sheet 1 or 2 Orleinated my J.P. Russ G ,g gg Date 10/28/83 neviewed sy J. Minichiello O g f $ / g et. 11/3/83 g i 1.0 Description The cumulative effect of the following analysis techniques and/or procedures may have a potential impact on plant safety: Observation No. Description Checklist No. CTS-00-01 Neglect of self-weight excitation of CTS-11. -13. -24, Cable Tray Support. -25, -32. -33, -34

                                                                                                   -35, -37, -38, -39 CTS-00-02                    Improper load combination by the SRSS             All j                                              method or the algebraic sum method CTS-00-03                  Errors in computer modeling due to                  CTS-2, -3, 11 l                                                 improper load placement and assump-               24. -25, -26, tion that a rigid one- or two- bolt                 -27. -28, -29, -30, j                                               base angle behaves as a pinned connec-              -32, -33, -34, -35, tion.                                               -36, -37, -38. -39 CTS-00-04                   Failure to consider the sensitivity                CTS-11. -13. -24, of modeling to frame size and                       -25. -32. 34,

'. Ioad combinations. -35 -37. -38, -39, CTS-00-05 Cantilever member with a two-bolt CTS-6, -14. -15, base connection used as a three- -16. -17. 19 way restraint. -20. -21. -22 CTS-00-06 Improper orientation of hanger CTS-11, -13, axis. CTS-00-07 Unconservative assumption for base CTS-11. -13 ! plate behavior. 2 O.. tent leelsted E.tenelve X Other (speesty) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090

Observation A L% i Record lilllilllllllill!!!llilillllli .

O Checklist No. Revision No.

Various O sheet p of p observation No. CTS-00-08 _ l orleinated my J.P. Russ O.M //[__ Date 10/28/83 l Reviewed By J. Minichi oh [2e_d/!ald[/-- Date 11/3/83 1 e n j j 2.0 itequirement , 1 l 2.1 Cygna Design Criteria 83909-DC-3, Rev.1. , J 2.2 Gibbs & Hill, Texas Utilities Cable Tray Supports Design Criteria SCS- ! 1010, Set 5, Rev. 2. 3.0 Document iteference j Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binders: SCS-101C SCS-146C i SCS-122C SCS-187C SCS-104C SCS-125C 4.0 Potential Design Impact Acting alone or in combination, the deficiencies described in Section 1.0 may > lead to unacceptable support loads or stresses. If these or similar deficiencies exist for supports outside the review scope, such potentially generic deficiencies may have a significant safety impact.

;        Attachment j                    A.            Observation Record Review.

i 1 l I O .n.en, ! leeleted .s tenolve y Olher (Specify) i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment program; 83090

! Obsorvation us i Record Review

                                          ""                                                                                                          Attachment A
                          *    "*I    **                                                                                                              Rowlelon No,                            g Various sheet                   of Observation No. CTS-00-08                                                                                                                1                              1 f                                                                                           Yes                         No
 ;                    Valid Observation                                                      X j                     Closed                                                                                            X l                     Comments J

l 1.0 Probable Cause

 .                             Inadequate procedures and documentation.

i 2.0 Resolution See PFR-01. 1 lo i i i l l i i i 111 Approvele

                      ***"*M                                fJx /f&- -                                                                                                            o*'* yak A8L j                      " m'c                                            c. ~2L,. 4 &                                                                                                  c

nk&J O "'*' "# ~ *~A7}LQhn'LJR G;L h o eMn s.ni.r R.vi v y4u f % .T ~ pff oate' f//3"frJ TexasUtilitiesSehces,Inc.# l Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l r l . _ . - - - , - - - . , . . . - . . - - . - , , . . - - - . - - , - - . - - - . - . - - - . - . . , - . - - - - - . - - ~ . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - . - - - -

Potontial d (% 4 Finding i Report PFR No. 01 Revlelon No. 0 Observation No. Sheet 1 of 6 i Description See Attachment A (sheet 4 of 5). 4 1 i f i 4 j Require.nent i

1. Cygna Design Criteria 83090-DC-3, Rev.1.

2. Gibbs & Hill, Cable Tray Support Design Criteria SCS-101C, Set 5, Rev. 2.

f !O I J / Reference Documente Gibbs & Hill Calculation Binders: SCS-101C SCS-146C SCS-122C SCS-187C SCS-104C SCS-125C Entent l leeteted sitenesv. A other (specity) !O Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I

Potontial di t i Finding lililllllllllllililllllllillli O "

• P

PFR No. 01 Revision No. 0 Sheet 2 of 6 Design impact Acting alone or in combination, the deficiencies described above may lead to , unacceptable support loads or stresses. If these or similar deficiencies exist for supports outside the review scope, such potentially generic deficiencies may have a significant safety impact. i Potential Safety impact See Attachment B (sheet 5 of 5). I l (

                                     % .<-- Y     Y n,                    k                                 A)v /183 o*euwsk fexasUtilitiesServices,Inc.
                                                                                                        ;gh Independent Assessment Program; 83090

   ..                  -.           _ .         . .-..- - _ ~__ -._ -._.. ._ -                      . -      -.   - -           .. - _. . . -. . - __- -. -

1 Potential A ( ;, i Finding l O '"""""""'""'""""' Report 4 , PFR No. 05 ' Revision No. O S heet 3 of 6 1 11 Senior Review , Yes No Further Review Required A i Valid Observation X Pctential Safety impact X Comments a I 1 l i i O 1

l f

f a i f Al owed By o0nitant Senior Re wer Date , L th ) b l ctsana.., monts y' . l O Ptolect Mangger Date l l 4 Approv8ed S M1Mh& Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ms/r3 l Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

Sheet 4 of 6 POTENTIAL FIlOING REPORT NO. 01 g ATTACHENT A The cumulative effect of the following analysis techniques and/or procedures may have a potential impact on plant safety: l l Observation 1 No. Description Checklist No.  ; CTS-00-01 Neglect of self-weight excitation of CTS-11, -13, -24,  ! Cable Tray Support.

                                                                -25, -32, -33, -34,
                                                               -35, -37, -38, -39 CTS-00-02          Improper load combination by the SRSS    All method or the algebraic sum method CTS-00-03          Errors in computer modeling due to       CTS-2, -3, -10, -11 improper load placement and assump-      24, -25, -26, tion that a rigid one- or two- bolt       -27, -28, -29, -30, base angle behaves as a pinned connec-    -32, -33, -34, -35, ,

tion. -36, -37, -38, -39 CTS-00-04 Failure to consider the sensitivity CTS-11. -13 -24, of modeling to frame size and -25, -32, -33, -34, load combinations. -35, -37, -38, -39, CTS-00-05 Cantilever member with a two-bolt CTS-6, -14, -15, base connection used as a three- -16, -17, -18, -19 O,s way restraint. -20, -21, -22 CTS-00-06 Improper orientation of hanger CTS-11. -13, axis. CTS-00-07 Unconservative assumption for base CTS-11, -13 plate behavior. The generic implications of these observations on cable tray supports through-out the plant should also be addressed. l (q s/ Texas Utilities Services, Inc. t*((tj i i. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 IMillMHillWIWilHim j i l

Sheet 5 of 6 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT NO. 01 ATTACIMENT B The resolution to Observations CTS-00-01 through CTS-00'-07 shows that each observation, when considered on an individual basis only, has no impact on plant safety. To evaluate the cumulative effect of these observations on tray supports across the plant, four factors were considered:

1. The margins to allowable stress and load levels in members and anchor bolts as determined by the Gibbs & Hill reanalysis effort.

2. The percentage of the total number of supports in the plant that were reviewed by Cygna.

3. The process by which field deviations from the original support design are reviewed.

4 The overall conservatisms in the design process for cable tray supports. Each of these considerations is discussed below. In response to the noted Observation, Gibbs & Hill reanalyzed a large per-centage of the tray supports reviewed by Cygna. Their reanalysis incorporated O) ( (1) Cygna's comments, (2) more detailed modeling, and (3) specific response spectra (

Reference:

Cygna Technical File 11.2.1.50). An examination of the results shows that there is more than a 10% design margin in the support components, and, it should be noted, this reanalysis used conservative loadings. Based on a survey by Gibbs & Hill, it was determined that the Cygna review covered a major portion of CPSES cable tray supports. Specifically, Cygna reviewed 60% of the generic support designs, which accounts for 70% of the designs. The remaining support designs are special application, of which Cygna reviewed 5%. In total then, 43% of the plant's support designs were reviewed. This quantity is sufficient to draw substantive conclusions concerning the overall design adequacy and plant safety. Field deviations to the original cupport designs are satisfactorily addressed on CPSES. When a support with a deviation from the original design is installed, a Design Change Deviation (DCA) or a Component Modification Card (CMC) is issued by site personnel. These documents are reviewed by Gibbs & Hill to ensure that the deviations are acceptable and do not prevent the support from meeting its functional requirements. In the case of several l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. g{tj { , Independent Assessment Program; 83090 16llll111111111111111111111111

Sheet 6 of 6 POTENTIAL FINDING REPORT NO. 01 )

                                                                                                 \

[-)s

 's                                              ATTACIMENT B changes to any particular support, all previous change documents are listed on each subsequent CMC or DCA. The document trail, as described, provides a basis to evaluate the support's ability to meet its functional requirement.

Overall, the design process for cable tray supports provides for plant safety. In addition to the above considerations, this conclusion is substantiated by the following items:

• The Gibbs & Hilll reanalyses used assumed tray weights which are more than 20% greater than the actual weights.
• The reanalyses employed conventional damping values. Such flexible frames, especially if highly stressed, would be candidates for higher -

damping values, o Cable tray support systems are typically ductile, with considerable load-sharing capabilities. Thus, local overstressed conditions can potentially be accomodated by the overall system. Based on all the above, Cygna has concluded that this potential finding has no impact on overall plant design or safety. The potential finding is closed. O l ( \ L- / Texas utilities Services, Inc. ge g'{tj g ,_ Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1111111111lll11111111111111111 I

O O O Design Control Process 4 . .. .LW d 111111111111111111111111111111 Assessment Checklist i Checklist No. Page of Riviewer(s) DC-01-01 1 8 i P. Toner /M. Maire g i Orginization/ Activities Reviewed Review Dates 7/11/83 - 7/18/83, 7/25/83 i TUSI Design Control General Personnel Contacted J. Finneran, J.R. Van, P. Chang, B. Hill, K. Williams, P. Patel, R. Baker, G. Mcpheeters, M. Strange, C. Moehlman, L. Popplewell, G. Creamer, A. Vega, D. Walsh item No- Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

1. Where design change interfaces CP-EP-4.0 Materials reviewed for this and exist, have the following been 13.2.2 all remaining checklists DC-01-03 prepared? through DC-01-08 are attached.

a. Identification of X Key personnel or organizations Titles and responsi- in procedures bilities of key per-sonnel.

b. Establishment of lines X Procedural coverage of comunication and (EP, El procedures) controls.

4

c. Control and distribu- X Procedural tion of documentation.

j 2. Have design change inputs been CP-EP-4.0 X Design changes were reviewed. Notti identified, documented, reviewed 13.3 design changes were not generally and approved on a timely basis? incorporated (e.g. structural, architectual) in a timely manner into drawings & specifications.

3. Are incoming documents received by CP-El-4.0-1 X Reviewed a sample of incoming PSE devices verified and receipt 13.1.1 documents. In each case, the acknowledged? procedure was followed.

i i j Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

O O O Design Control Process L '* Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of nt' n1_n1 9 A Item No Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i 4. Has an engineering committee been CP-El-4.0-1 X The committee was composed of a appointed by PSE for the review of 13.2.1 Head, both Chief Engineers, 4 Lead

in-house engineering data? Designers, QA representative plus 2 others depending upon discipline.

5 Do PSE design package files CP-El-4.0-1 X consist of: 13.2.3 Item e (Drawings) maintained in i a. Cover sheet? DHE-3 all active packages only.

b. Design verification sheet? DHE-6 4 c. Finished sketches? DHE-4

d. Calculation sheets? DHE-5

e. Check copies of drawings?

f. Computer input / output sheets 1

(if applicable)?

g. Final drawing (s)?

h. Other documents, as applicable?

6 Has the engineer initialled and CP-El-4.0-1 X For those calculations reviewed dated the cover sheet and each 13.2.6 in support of design changes, the calculation sheet? engineers intials were included as required. \ l 7. Has the PSE design verifier: C P-El-4. 0-1 X Per procedure for those verified.

a. Initialled sketches (DHE-4)? 13.2.6 i

b. Initialled each calculation sheet (DHE-5)?

c. Signed and dated the design

^ verification sheet (DHE-6)?

d. Initialled and dated the cover

, sheet (DHE-3)? Texas Utilities Services Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process f.4 Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

8. Has the PSE drafter initialled CP-El-4.0-1 X Per procedure for those verified, the finished drawing and dated 13.4.2 and initialled the cover sheet (DHE-3)?

9. Has the PSE drafting checker CP-El-4.0-1 X Per procedure for those verified.

high-lighted the drawings, 13.4.3 indicating corrections in red and initialled and dated the check copy?

10. Has the PSE drafting checker CP-El-4.0-1 X 1. Per procedere for those initialled each final drawing 13.4.5 applicabl:t drawings reviewed. '

and intialled and dated the 2. See Attat.nment 1 for a list cover sheet (DHE-3)? of drawings reviewed.

11. Has the PSE design verifier CP-El-4.0-1 X 1. Per procedure for those signified final completion 13.5.1 and applicable drawings reviewed.

(including final drawings) by: Figure 1 2. See Attachment 1 for a list

a. Printing name, signing and of drawings reviewed.

dating design verification?

b. Initialling and dating cover sheet (DHE-6)?

c. Initialling each check copy?

i 12. Has the lead PSE engineer CP-El-4.0-1 X 1. Per procedure for those initialled and dated each final 13.6 applicable drawings reviewed. i drawing and the cover sheet 2. See Attachment 1 for a list of drawings reviewed. (DHE-3)? ! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. hdependent Assessment Program; 83090 l

l-i o o Design Control Process o l L 4L t i Assessment Checklist (cont.) l . . . # .. Checklist No. Page of f & R I nt'_n 1_n1 ltem No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UN3AT NA Comments ! 13. Is a card index maintained of CP-El-4.0-3 X Either cards or sheets l all drawings received from G8H 13.2.3 maintained. by the Field Design Group which indicates the drawing number,

'                                  current revision number, the transmittal letter which forwarded the drawing, and the date the i

drawing was received?

1. CMC used for a specific one 14 Does FSEG document, in writing, CP-El-4.0-4 X any changes in criteria or new 12.4.2 time change, criteria to CPECM? 2. DCA used for a Generic /New Item

15. Does the FSEG supervisor main- CP-El-4.0-4 X A list exists and is maintained tain a list of persons qualified 12.5.1 by the FSFG supervisor, and authorized to check, approve and design review documents?

16. Are FSEG design change documents CP-El-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, j initialled by the draftsman or 13.5 4

preparer? i 17. Has the FSEG engineer performing CP-El-4.0-4 X Review of CMC /DCA disclosed that review and/or design calculations 13.6 he initials each calculation and

initia11ed each document? performs the design review, i Are FSEG documents approved, CP -E l-4. 0-4 X FSEG approves changes and drawings 18.

in initialling, by an 13.7 only; calculations are reviewed and authorized approver? checked by G8H/NY. 1 i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

              .                                      . _ . - _ _ _ .                                                 -                         .----_       m . -

O O O Design Control Process L k Assessment Checklist (cont.) DC-01-01

                                                                                                                                                      **5     8 Item No               Review Attnbutes       Reference Document     SAT UNSAT   NA                    Comments

19. Are all FSEG controlled drawings CP-El-4.0-4 X Per procedure as noted in stamped and given a control 13.8 and Document Control Center i 65 Figure 6 number?

20. Is a log maintained indicating CP-El-4.0-4 X 1. Nr procedure for sample re'iewed.

the controlled distribution, 13.8 and the number of copies issued, Figure 1 2. 50 topies are generally issued issue dates of revisions and to craft, 20 to QC and copies receipt acknowledgement date? to DCC 18 and G8H/NY.

21. . Are FSEG documents issued by CP -E l-4. 0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

transmittal form? 13.9 and Figure 2 j 22. Has each FSEG design change CP-El-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

document been reviewed? 13.11.1 i

i

23. Is a design review log main- CP-El-4.0-4 X 1. Design Reviews by G8H.

tained that indicates document 13.11.2 2. The log states "G8H". and revision number, design review responsibility, design i review date and design reviewer? i 24. - For of f-site design review, has CP-El-4.0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. ', FSEG informed the review organi- 13.11.3 i zation in writing and has the review organization formally acknowledged review completion? 4 1 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O Design Control Process o t

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

GeCHSt N .Page g of g 0C-01-01 Item No Review Attributes negerence Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments Does FSEG maintain a log for each CP -E l-4. 0-4 X 1. Per procedure for internal

25 documents drawing that shows any deviations 13.12.4 and for that drawing? Figure 4 2. Logs for older drawings received from DCC are not completely up to date when compared with DCC.

3. See Attachment 7 for the change matrix CP-E l-4. 0-4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

26. Does the FSEG file custodian

                             . acknowledge DCA/CMCs by             13.12.5 and initialling and dating the         Figure 5 deviation distribution sheet?

Do FSEG controlled copy holders CP-El-4.0-4 X Reviewed Audit file for FSEG audits

27. 13.13.1, 3.13.2 performed.

j audit their design change logs bi-annually by coming to FSEG and 3.13.3 for a log comparison followed by

;                                 an audit of their files vs. the

!' log? Are these audits confirmed in writing? Does IEG maintain a log for each CP-El-4.0-6 X Log indicated applicable CMCs 4 28.

drawing indicating the applicable 12.5 i CMC's and review status?

I Are I&C FSIs modified by CMCs or CP-El-4.0-6 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. j 29.

drawing revisions and approved by 13.1.4

  !                               designated persons?

4 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 5

1 O O O Design Control Process 4L '* Assessment Checklist (cont.) CheckHst No. Page 7 of g DC-01-01 item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

30. Does IEG forward design changes CP-El-4.0-6 X No changes identified as to PSDG for engineering 13.1.A applicable to PSDG.

evaluation?

31. Are 2323-I-001 package drawings CP-El-4.0-6 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

! modified by CMC or drawing revi- 13.2.4 sions and does the CPPI8C engi-neer make a determination, if the modification is a design change? ! 32. Are 2323-I-001 modifications ap- CP-El-4.0-6 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

proved by designated personnel 13.2.4 l and, if design changes, forwarded to PSDG for engineering evaluation?

j 33. Are 2323-I-002 design changes: CP-El-4.0-6 These are exceptions to designs and will not be incorporated,

a. modified by CMC or drawing X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

revision?

b. approved by CPPISC engineer? X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

t

c. transmitted to EDS for X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

design review? Are design' change documents CP-El-4.0-22 X A card file is established per the 34. from vendors to TSMD logged in? 13.1 procedure and includes drawing #, revision #, date received, date released, Letter Transmittal #. ]

35. Are BRPs initialled by the CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, drafter and reviewer? 13.2.1

! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O i Design Control Process 4.Lt i Assessment Checklist (cont.) DC-01-01 *8 8 f tem No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments I

36. Is a log maintained indicating CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

all outstanding design changes 13.3

against BRPs?

37. Are all documents which have been CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure noted on two BRPs incorporated into BRPs referenced? 13.3 in production.

38. Are changes to drawings " clouded" CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

with the new revision number 13.3 indicated in a small triangle? Are all previous " clouds" and revision numbers removed?

39. Has the checker initialled all CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. '

, drawings? 13.3

40. Are "as-built" BRPs initialled CP-El-4.0-22 X None observed by both the drafting approver 13.4 and the TSAB coordinator?

41. Have BRHs prepared from FMHSs CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, j and VCDIs had the Brown & Root 13.5.1 and i logo and revision block added, Attachment A

annotated with "blueline" and l been initialled by the drafter, checker and approver?

42. Have "bluelines" been initialled CP-El-4.0-22 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, by engineering? 13.5.1 and either signed or initialed.

Attachment A . Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ATTACl9ENTS (DC-01-01) INDEX 1 Page Description 4 1 General Notes Regarding Design Changes 2 Attachment 1 - Drawings Reviewed with Respect to Change Incorporation. 3 Attachment 2 - Specifications Reviewed with Respect to Change Incorporation. 4 Attachment 3 - Design Change Authorizations (DCA's) Reviewed. 5 Attachment 4 - Component Modification Cards (CMC's) Reviewed. , 6 Attachment 5 - Miscellaneous Design Change Documents Reviewed. 7 Attachment 6 - DCC Drawing Distributions 8-10 Attachment 7 - Change Distribution Matrix. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. t4[ej s' M Independent Assessment Prograra; 83090

O O O ATTA09ENT (DC-01-01) NOTES REGARDING CHANGE DOCUMENTS k I A. Not all change documents reviewed are within the project scope; however, they were noted (erroneously) to be applicable to documents within the scope and, therefore, were reviewed on an administrative basis only. , B. FI/CRs were presented as information, not change paper. However, it was noted that similar changes were on other paper presented as change paper. Furthermore, they were listed as change paper in DCC (e.g. FI/CR #288 vs. DC/DDA 20) and were generated per procedures prior to the current DCA/ CMC system. i 1 4 i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O o ATTACMENT 1 (DC-01-01) - DRAWINGS REVIEWED WITH RESPECT TO CHANGE INCORPORATION 2323-5-0800 Rev. 5 2323-S-0801 Rev. 6 2323-S-0825 Rev. 4 2323-M1-0235 Rev.10 2323-M1-0806 Rev. (Illegible) 2323-M1-2235-03 Rev. 4 2323-M1-2517 Rev. 5 2323-El-0005 Rev. 9 2323-El-0018-1 Rev. 16 2323-El-0020 Rev. 11 2323-El-0800-11 Rev. 4 l 2323-El-0800-12 Rev. 2 2323-El-0801-11 Rev. 1 , 2323-El-0802-11 Rev. 2 BRHL-SF-X-FB-022 Rev. 1 SF-X-005-019-F43R (SH 182) Rev. 4 5713 Rev. 3 - Joseph Oat Co. E-17621 Rev. 6 - Bingham - Williamette Co. Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

,                                                                                 IA{tj { fij Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l ! O O O ATTACHMENT 2 (DC-01-01) l i SPECIFICATIONS REVIEWED IN RESPECT TO CHANGE INCORPORATION 2323-MS-13 (Rev. 6) - Bingham Williamette - CW Pump  : 2323-MS-208.1 (Rev. 2) - Borg-Warner - 10 & 12" Gate Valves . 2323-MS-20C (Rev. 2) - Posiseal - 10" Butterfly Valves 2323-MS-46A (Rev. 3) - ITT Grinnel - Pipe Supports 2323-MS (Rev. 2) - Joseph Oat - Heat Exchanger 2323-MS-605 (Rev.1) - Reliance Elect. - Pump Panel 5 2323-ES-100 (Rev. 2) - Electrical Installation i 4 k i ( 4 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. geg'[tg g i_ Independent Assessment Program; 83090 tilNillllllNNil#NNilllli l

O O O ATTAC K NT 3 (DC-01-01) DESIGN CHANGE AUTHORIZATIONS (DCA) REVIEWED (Rev. O unless otherwise noted) , 3243 Rev. 2 9695 15669 3586 Rev. 2 9878 Rev. I 15680 Rev. 5 4182 Rev. 2 10735 Rev. 1 15730 4878 11193 Rev. 2 15826 5088 11780 Rev. 3 15920 5137 Rev. I 11939 Rev. I 16101 5526 Rev. 6 12534 Rev. I 16371 6082 13037 16383 Rev. 1 6333 13513 Rev. 3 16477 Rev. 2 6492 13581 Rev. 2' 16785 Rev. I 6640 14026 Rev. 2 16858 4 6641 Rev. 3 14060 16928 Rev. 1 6762 14106 Rev. I 16937 6764 14349 Rev. I 17054 Rev. 1 6877 Rev. 9 14411 Rev. 1 17235 7041 Rev. 9 14629 17620 7850 Rev. 3 14646 Rev. I 17810 Rev. 1 7850 Rev. 5 14708 Rev. I 18073 8042 14774 Rev. 4 18142 8321 Rev. I 14781 9302 15359 Rev. 2 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. A {tj .' d Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ATTACWEENT 4 COMPONENT MODIFICATION CARDS (CMC) REVIEWED (Rev. O unless otherwise noted) 8127 8128 9144 10024 Rev. I 13225 Rev. 1 < 36878 i 43472 47388 Rev. 3 499% Rev. 4 53396 Rev. 3 l

57203 57205 ,

57662 ! 64532 Rev. 2 64544 Rev. 2 64547 Rev. 1 i 64548 Rev. 2 64609 Rev. 1 64632 Rev. 3 66408 66409 I 90526 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. i Independent Assessment Program; 83090 rN. [.d L L 11

O O O ATTACl5ENT 5 (DC-01-01) MISCELLANEOUS DESIGN CHANGE DOCUMENTS REVIEWED (Rev. O unless otherwise noted) - Design Change / Design Deviation Authorization (DC/DDA) 20 92 Rev. 1 866 2170 Rev. I 26 352 Rev. 2 1114 2217 31 512 Rev. I 1173 2391 36 535 1286 Rev. 1 2353 69 713 1619 2916 Rev. 1 81 828 2015 Field Interpretation / Clarification Request (FI/CR) 219 288 345 Design / Engineering Change / Deviation Request (D/E C/D) 4 S-207 S-214 S-649 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 r 8' 'l' g , ,'Ji?11 L Mill 1 Nil 111NINNIMNI

O O O ATTACIGIENT 6 (DC-01-01) DCC DRAWING DISTRIBUTION DEPT. No. of Copies 65 1 74 2 100 1 j 1 65 = Field Structural Engineering l 74 = Civil Engineeirng 100 = Pipe Support Engineering 1 i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 LN.ljk

       .p,1
    ., ,  tyggni
                                                                                               -_ - -m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O O O ATTACIMENT 7 (DC-01-01) CHANGE DISTRIBUTION MATRIX N = NO, Y = YES, NR = NOT REVIEWED Page 1 of 4 IN DCC IN DCTG IN FILE CUST0DIAN DOCUMENT / CHANGE LOG RUN LOG (DCC) REMARKS SPEC MS-13/DECDS-687 Y N Y DECDS-332 N N Y DECDS-611 N N Y DECDS-405 N N Y 1438 N N Y 2 MS-46A/DCA-148 et ALL See Note A I DCA-10735 R1 N Y Y (DCC-055) Is a void DCA-11193 R1 N N Y (055) Rev. 2 issued DCA-11939 R1 N Y Y - Is a void DCA-14349 N Y Y - Rev. 1 issued DCA-13393 R2 N Y Y = Is a void DCA-16383 N Y N - Rev. 1 issued i DCA-14349 R3 N N Y = Latest is Rev. 1 DCA-17620 R3 N N Y a latest is Rev. 0 DCA-13037 Y Y N a Missing in DCC-055 DCA-18073 Y Y N - Missing in DCC-055

MS-51 /DECD-20 Y N Y = Incorporated N Y a DECDS-87 Y N--2 ~-

[* Ilk'32fil Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 mummmmmma i

O O O ATTACl#ENT 7 (DC-01-01) CHANGE DISTRIBUTION MATRIX N = NO, Y = YES, NR = NOT REVIEWED Page 2 of 4 IN DCC IN DCTG IN FILE CUST0DIAN LOG RUN LOG (DCC) REMARKS DOCUMENT / CHANGE MS-51 DECDS-114 Y N Y (OSS) Y - DECDS-619 Y N DCA-9316 Y N Y - Y - DCA-18142 N N MS-508/DCA5137 R1 N N Y - In file wrong Spec N N Y - Should be 21-B1 (Note B) DCA-16477 DCA-14781 Y Y N - Applicable DCA-14060 Y N N - Wrong Spec DCA-1803 N Y N - Wrong Spec DCA-14026 R1 N N Y - Rev. 2 issued MS-605/DCA-10413 R2 N N Y Rev. 3 issued N = DCA-17849 Y Y DCA-17852 Y Y N - ES-100/DCA-7974 R8 N Note C Y Y Rev. 10 issue 1 DCA-891 Y Note C N N - Voided DCA-12470 Y Note C N N - Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

     .g,           Independent Assessment Program; 83090
 ,L   L ' .i L i unummumummun

O O O ATTA09 & T 7 (DC-01-01) CHANGE DISTRIBUTION MATRIX N = NO, Y = YES, NR = NOT REVIEWED Page 3 of 4 IN DCC IN DCTG IN FILE CUST0DIAN DOCUMENT / CHANGE LOG RUN LOG (DCC) REMARKS ES-100 DCA-16700 Y Note C N N (055) Voided DCA-9695 Y N Y - Applicable DCA-8981 N N Y - Voided . ES-100 See Note D 2323-S-0800/DCA-12534 Y N NR Rev. 1 issued 2323-S-0801/DCA-20 N Y N DCC-65 Picked up on Rev.6 DCA-26 N Y N - not indicated DCA-81 N Y N = On Drawing DCA-92 N Y N = On Drawing (Note E) DCA-713 N Y N = Marked " Deviation" 2323-5-0825/DCA-7850 R3 Y N Y = Rev. 1 issued DCA-2015 N Y N = Clarification DCA-2391 N Y N (DCC 12) DCA is voided 2323-El-018/DCA-9222 R1 Y Y N . DCA-16858 N Y NR Clarification 2323-El-20/DCA-14708 R1 N Y N DCA is voided MS-20B1/DCA-17810 RO Y Y N R0 correct DCC-55 has R 2 DCA-14060 Y NR N DCC has against wrong Spec M, 7 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ATTAC E NT 7 (DC-01-01) CHANGE DISTRIBUTION MATRIX Note A - The following changes are listed as not incorporated on the DCTG run and are not listed in the DCC open change log: 148, 321, 369, 516, 937, 957, 1785, 1962, 2117, 2145, 2190 (R3), 2658, 2780, 2847, 3106, 3107, 3124, 3133, 3144, 3305 plus 24 others. Note B - Many CMC's adding new valves to procurement scope not included, as these would be indicated against piping drawings. Note C - Master Spec File i Note D - On DCTG run approximately 24 changes listed as open have actually been incorporated. Note E - Changes marked in log " Deviation" were dropped by DCC from active change log. GEt;ERAL NOTES

1. The "NI" on the DCTG tracking log has no direct relationship to the "Will/Will not be incorporated" block of the change document.

2. The DCTG tracking logs in general do not indicate voiding change document. The log also enumerates all revisions issued against a change document.

3. In DCC-55 it was noted that many change documents were filad in the incorrect file against the wrong P0/ Spec. (e.9. Spec MS-605/DCAs - 13091, 16064, 17519,). Many duplicate entries were also noted on the change log.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. gg-j { y, Independent Assessment Program; 83090 N

O O O Design Control Process LM ^ Assessment Checklist

• N cbckHst No. "*** '

J. P. Toner DC-01-02 1 5 i 7/11 8 12/83 i CPSES Site Document Control

   * ""es contacte

, F. Strand, R. Smith, P. Parker, S. Brown, K. Norman, D. Hatley, D. Bleeker, H. Hutchinson Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments J DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUE NTS See Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for a list of documents reviewed.

1. Are controlled document Brown & Root X The DRCL is on computer output.

recipients identified by DCP-3 See sample format in Attachment 6 their respective control 13.1.1.1 to Checklist DC-01-01. numbers on the Distribution Routing Control List (DRCL)?

2. Does the Document Disposition DCP-3 X Per procedure but also includes Form list recipient control 13.1.1.1 the signature of recipient.

numbers, document number, and Attachment 2 the quantities distributed?  ; 3 Are all design changes distri- DCP-3 X Refer to Attachment 7 in Checklist buted to holders of affected 13.1.1.1 DC-01-01 for Design Change controlled documents? distribution. 4 Are issuance and receipt of desigr DCP-3 X The initials of the recipient

 ;                 changes documented on the Document         13.1.1.1                               appear on the form.

Distribution tog by signature or Attachment 5 initial of the file custodian? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 __ m _ _ __ ____m. _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ .

O O O Design Control Process A. ,L '* Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page g of I DC-01-02 5 I tiem No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

5. Are reproduced " controlled" DCP-3 X Noted on all controlled documents identified with the 13.1.2 documents reviewed.

                 " CONTROLLED COPY" stamp and is the control number entered in the shaded area of the stamp?

6. Are all documents properly DCP-3 X Checked for revision / approval approved or released for use 13.1.3 prior to processing, prior to being issued by DCC for construction?

I

7. Are G8H Design Drawings which DCP-3 X None noted as part of this do not contain a numerical revi- 13.1.3.1 review, sion designation of at least "0" or which contain an alpha revi-sion designation stamped with the following:

                  " PRELIMINARY COPY - THIS DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED AND IS NOT

TO BE USED FOR ANY PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY."

(NOTE: If G&H approval letter revises the status of a prelimi- t > nary drawing to TUSI Status 1, it may be issued as a controlled , drawing.)

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 4.,L '2 Assessment Checklist (cont.) N checkHst No. Page of

)                                                                                                                    _

item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 8 Are revisions to documents which DCP-3 X Vert fied distribution to affect other controlled documents, recipient file custodians ' including design changes and 13.1.4.1 document change notices, dis-tributed to the same control

recipients receiving the affected '

i document?

9. Are all documents distributed DCP-3 X Refer to Observation by DCC and affected by design 13.1.4.2 DC-01-03 change documentation marked with the following: "THIS DOCUMENT

• 1 AFFECTED BY DESIGN CHANGES"?

RECEIPT & ACCOUNTING FOR CONTROLLED DOCUENTS Are design change documents DCP-3 X Distribution accountability was

10. '

distributed and maintained at 13.2.1.3 found to be satisfactory except the same location as the for logging. See Item No. 11 affected documents? below. I

11. Do the site file custodians DCP-3 X 1. Compliance varies within each  !

post design changes which affect 13.2.1.3 109 Refer to Observation  ! - their areas in their Design Attachment 1 DC-01-02. ! Change Log Book (Attachment 1)? 2. See Attachment 7 to Checklist DC-01-01 for a listing of the ' distribution matrices. l i Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. ! Independent Assessment Program; 83090 ,

. O O O Design Control Process

      'M         t i                                                                        Assessment Checklist (cont.)

i milumissimillmil i checklist No. "* 4 '5 j DC-01-02 i item No Revew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments t i' 12. If the design change received DCP-3 is the first issued against an 13.2.1.3 affected document, does the ,

;                    site file custodian perform the following tasks:

i a. Stamp the controlled X 1. Refer to Observation

!                             copy of the affected                                                             DC-01-03 i                              design document with:                                                        2. See Attachment 7 to Checklist
  .                           "THIS DOCUMENT AFFECTED                                                          DC-01-01 i                              BY DESIGN CHANGES"?

b. Make a log sheet for X Logs are reviewed.

I the affected document? -

c. Note the design change X number on the log sheet? -

MRIIITEIIAIICE & SToltAGE OF DOCUEllTS 4'

13. Does DCC maintain a file of DCP-3 X 1. Per procedure for sample -

current document revisions and 13.3.1 reviewed. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS? 2. See Attachment I to Checklist DC-01-01 t 14 Does DCC maintain a listing of DCP-3 X Computer run for drawings; all Documents (Item 13 above) 13.3.1 manual card system for changes and a list of all active

changes?

p l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i a

                             - s .-

O O Design Control Process o i M '

                          '2                                                             Assessment Checklist (cont.)

mummmmmme CheckHst No. Page of nc n1_n? s s item No Rev.ew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comrrents DISTRINTION OF DOCUENTS FROM j > DCC SATELLITES

15. Are Documents distributed from DCP-3 X Applicable to Satellite 300/301/30; DCC Satellites in accordance 13.5 only, other satellites were being with a distribution matrix , Attachment 6 mobilized during this assessment.

n (Attachment 6 to Checklist . DC-01-01)?' i i 4 i i i i e i j Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l i l

O O O Design Control Process dyjlj Assessment Checklist Revkwer(s) Checklist No. Page of p 03 M. Maire Orgtnization/ Activities Reviewed Review Dates 7/12, 7/13, 7/18/83 TUSI Drawing Update Activities Personnel Contacted M. Strange, S. Ellis, R. Williams itim No. Review Attnbotes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments See Attachments to checklist DC-01-01 for a list of documents < reviewed.

1. Has the nuclear engineering CP-EP-4.9 X The Design Change Tracking Group 4 manager established, documented 12.3 (DCTG) is established to approve and implemented a program for design changes the review and approval of l

design changes?

2. Has the DCTG incorporated field CP-EP-4.9 1 design changes into design 13.1 drawings in accordance with the following criteria?

i Per procedure for sample reviewed.

a. The G8H DCA/ CMC checklist X 4

(Ref.1-C) specifies incorporation or,

b. DESIGN CHANGE AUTHORIZATIONS X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

(DCA's) state the change However, each DCA is further "will be incorporated in reviewed for incorporation and the design documents," or, initial determination can change. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M. 'f Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checkhst No. "*9' '7 DC-01-03 2 4 Ittm No Review i'> nbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

c. COMPONENT MODIFICATION CARDS (CMC's) are designated as follows:

1. Piping CMC's - designated X See comment in item 2b.

                        " design changes" or
                        " deviations"

2. I&C CMC's - designated X See comment in item 2b.

                        " design changes" or " deviations"

3. Other CMC's - designated X Some CMC's are one time changes

                        " design changes." CMC's                                             which will not be incorporated designated " deviations"                                             (S-910 FSEG; 001 for 1 & E) shall generally not be incorporated.

3. If the criteria above has been CP-EP-4.9 X None observed during this review.

modified, has the request for 13.1

modification been made by CPPA Transmittal and approved by the Nuclear Engineering Manager or G8H/NY?

4 Have Design Changes which have CP-EP-4.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. not been incorporated into the 13.1 j drawings been dispositioned in accordance with Section 3.4? i i i ! Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ind: pendent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process

h. $

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. Page of

tiem No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

5. Have safety-related field design CP-EP -4. 9 i changes been approved by one of 13.2 the following methods?

a. Receipt of Gibbs & Hill X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

DCA/ CMC checklist 4 specifying design - review completion, or

b. Receipt of approved X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

vendor design change transmittal letter specifying completion 4 of design control act-i ivities, or

c. Receipt of CPSES X Not observed during this review.

Nuclear Engineering DCA/ CMC checklist ! specifying design l review completion, or

d. Receipt / review of com- X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

pleted site engineering i review documentation. i Site approval of non-safety related changes shall constitute approval.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

         ~   .     . .       .               _    . _ _ - -               __ _                              ..-

o o Design Control Process o .

L 4L

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checkilst N "*9' '

                                                                                                                -03              4    7 item No                 Review Attnbutes        Reference Document         SAT UNSAT    NA                     Comments

6. Do drawings revised off-site CP -E P -4. 9 X Drawings reviewed contained incorporate the (typical) 13.4.1 the design change statement "This drawing has been incorporation status, revised to incorporate the fol-lowing design changes," (list design change and revision numbers)?

7. Have all revised drawings not CP-EP-4.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, updated by site organizations 13.4.1 been forwarded to DCTG for control of review, approval, and issue for

! Construction by DCC?

8. Have revised drawings been CP-EP-4.9 X Pipe / conduit support drawings reviewed by DCTG and documented 13.4.2 are entered in the computer l

l with Field Design Change and Attachment I but not logged a controlled. 4 Review Status Log /Affected Document Update Report?

9. Have revised drawings been CP-EP-4.9 X This procedure was modified by l

stamped with the designated 13.4.2 TNE DC-7 Rev.1 (6/8/83) i stamp? Attachment II l 4

  . Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

{ Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 4 M Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. DC-01-03 "*S' 5 '7 item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

10. Has the Field Design Change CP -E P -4. 9 and Review Status Log /Affected Attachment I Document Update Report been X 1. Reviewed computer listing, filled in to include drawing which had inconsistencies number, latest revision number, in the accuracy of the data, s all pertinent DCA/ CMC (latest See Observation DC-01-04.

, revision) numbers, the appro- 2. See Attachment 7 to Checklist priate incorporation status for DC-01-01. each DCA/ CMC, the signature and date of preparation by DCTG, and the signature /date of approval I by CPP Discipline Engineer? Per procedure for sample reviewed i

11. Have revised drawings and their CP-E P -4. 9 X update report been submitted to 13.4.2 and also by letter of transmittal the applicable CPP Discipline Attachment III Engineer using the form prescribed?

12. Has the CPP Discipline Engineer CP-EP-4.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

indicated approval on both the 13.4.2 drawing and update report using Attachments I the designated format? and II

13. Has the completed package been CP-EP-4.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

i returned to DCTG7 13.4.2 If unacceptable items are noted, CP-EP-4.9 X Internal routing for correction 14. has the package been returned, 13.4.2 then forwarded to DCTG unapproved, to DCTG for resolu-tion and resubmitted? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 4L

  =========
               '

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. Page of

                                                                                                               ,   ,g               g    7 l       item No               Review Attributes          Reference Document   SAT  UNSAT     NA                       Comments 5

4 For drawings incorporating design changes by off-site organizations: i 15. Have drawings been reviewed by CP-EP-4.9 X Stamped for sample reviewed but i DCTG and stamped? 13.4.3 modifled by THE DC-7, Rev. 1. Attachment II

16. Have drawings been submitted to CP-EP-4.9 . X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

CPP discipline engineer using 13.4.3 the specified transmittal form, Attachments II approved and returned to DCTG, and III

signed and dated?

\

17. Have unacceptable items been CP-EP-4.9 X None observed for sample reviewed.

l 13.4.3

noted by CPP Discipline Engineer and the drawings i

returned, unapproved, to DCTG for resolution and resubmitted? l l For revisions performed by site organizations: 18 Has the original title block CP-EP-4.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. been superseded and a new title 13.5 block added? l l l j Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

O O O Design Control Process

     %2i
   =========

Assessment Checklist (cont.) checklist No. "*9' 7 '

 ;                                                                                                                             DC-01-03                  7 Item No                                 Review Attributes                Reference Document SAT   UNSAT    NA                    Comments Have G8H and vendor drawings                                     CP-EP-4.9                          X       For G8H and vendor drawings

19. reviewed on site, revisions revised on site been approved 13.5

by the appropriate CPP Dis- Attachment IV were not applicable.

j cipline Engineer using the ' specified format? Have unacceptable items been CP-EP-4.9 X None observed for sample reviewed ! 20 noted and the drawing returned, 13.5 } unapproved, to DCTG for resolu-4 tion and resubmittal? i j 21. Have update reports been pre- CP-E P -4. 9 X Per procedure via the DCTG pared for " status only" when 13.6 computer listing. l , design changes have not been

, incorporated? (See also Item #4),

22. Have approved revised drawings CP-EP-4.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

i drawings been forwarded to 13.7 , Document Control with the appropriate update report? j Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

s

O O O Design Control Process M* Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Checklist No. Page of DC-01-04 1 9 J.P. Toner /M. Maire ,

Orgamration/Actmties Reviewed Review Dates 7/11/83 - 7/18/83 TUSI Field Design Change Control Personnel Contacted

F. Strand, R. Hooten, G. Creamer, M. Stange, P. Patel, R. Baker. C. Moehlman, L. Pop)lewell, J. Finneran i Item No. Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 9

) Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for documents reviewed. GENERAL Have all design changes /devia- CP-EP-4.6 X Currently only DCA's or CMC's

1. are generated for design changes.

tions to specified design / con- 12.5 struction requirements been docu- Prior to current procedure mented by a Design Change Author- requirements, design changes ization (DCA) or a Component Mod- were also issued as DE/CD or ification Card (CMC)? DC/DDAs. See Attachment 5 to Checklist DC-01-01. DESIGN CHANGE AUTHORIZATION

2. Has the DCA form been completed CP-EP -4. 6

as follows

Attachment 1 &

Figure 1 a) DCA Number - assigned by X Per procedure for sample Administrative Services revised. See Attachment 3 Office when DCA is ready to Checklist DC-01-01. j for signature. 4 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

!  Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process b..

 ========

a- Assessment Checklist (cont.) ' Checklist No. Page of nc_n1_n4 7 o itsn No Review Attributes Reference Docurrent SAT UNSAT NA Comments i b) "WILL" or "WILL NOT" be in- X Per procedure for sample corporated designated rela- reviewed. For guidance only tive to design document as final status determined at 1 design review stage. c) Safety Related Document de- X Per procedure for sample reviewed. . signated d) Originator of the DCA X Per procedure for sample reviewed. (either CP&E or Original De-signer) e) Applicable Specification / X Per procedure for sample reviewed. Drawing / Document (including , revision) f) Details - adequate descrip- X Per procedure for sample reviewed. 4 tions or references to other documents which clearly il-lustrate the problem and its resolution and sufficient information to reflect "as-built" configuration. Per procedure for sample reviewed, 4 g) Supporting Documentation - X reference to such items as telcons, telex, DE/CD's, field change notices, etc. h) Vendor Transmittal Required - X Per procedure for sample reviewed. yes or no? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page 3 "' DC-01-04 9 Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments .

1) Review & Approval - Field CP-EP-4.6 X Original designer's (vendor's) originated design charges /de- 13.2 contract may expire. If so, the viations shall be approved by The appropriate reviews are done

- the Original Designer's de- by TNE on site. signated site representative. The Engineering Manager shall X None observed for sample reviewed. maintain written authorizatior of personnel designated as a

                     '"G8H Design Rep" or Design

, Reps any other vendors. DCA Revisions i

3. Have revisions to DCA's been ac- CP-EP-4.6 complished by completing the DCA Attach. 1 &

as indicated above (Item 2) with Figure 1 the following exceptions: X Per procedure for the a) The same DCA number will be 34 revised DCA's reviewed, used followed by the appro-priate revision number. See Attachment 3 to Checklist DC-01-01. X Per procedure for sample reviewed, b) The " Details" section will contain the following: "This l- revision voids and supersedes DCA No. , Rev. ." Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M. t1 Assessment Checklist (cont.)

     =========

Checklist No. Page of item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments I c) If it is necessary to void X Per procedure for sample reviewed. . or rescind a DCA, it shall be done by revision and the following statement should be added to the " Details" section: "This revision voids DCA No. and all revisions thereto". Component Modification Card 4 Has the CMC been completed as CP-EP-4.6 22 CMC's were reviewed. See follows: Attach. 2 Attachment 4 to Checklist Figure 2 DC-01-01, a) Serial No. prenumbered X Controlled in DCC by a or as estabTTshed through log book. ! supplemental instructions. I b) Section 1 - Application - X Per procedure for sample reviewed. state generic category of i work such as pipe, electrical i or mechanical equipment, etc. c) Weld Mod - 0 or Non-Q? X Per procedure for sample reviewed. I d) Design Change / Deviation - X Per procedure for sample reviewed. Cross out the one that doesn't apply - Enter "N/A" if not a change or deviation to design, Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

1 O O O Design Control Process

di unummmmusume i i Assessment Checklist (cont.)

checklist No. DC-01-04 " 5 '9 Item No Reven Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments e) Section 2 - Drawing No. enter the complete number and revision of the affected de-sign basis and/or construc-tion drawing as follows:

• Electrical - enter design X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

drawing numbers?

• Piping and Instrumentation- X Piping was found satisfactory.

Enter the design and con- Instrumentation uses i struction drawing numbers DCA if a G8H drawing is involved, for all design change / deviations and constructior drawing numbers for all construction changes.

                         . Pipe Supports - enter the                              X                      Per procedure for sample reviewed.

construction drawing numbers. f) Section 3 - Line No./Componen1 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. No. - Enter the specific identiTication number of the i component to be modified

1.e., spool number, equipment no.). It is not required to enter the pipe support number, If a number of items are

, affected, enter "SEE SKETCH". Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 4.0ni Assessment Checklist (cont.)

    ==========

Checklist No. rage of item No Revew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments g) Section 4 - Reason for change- X Per procedure for sample reviewed. State briefly the reason for change. If to implement a change properly approved by the Original Designer, clearly state this fact (e.g., to implement DE/CD 8600). h) Section 5 - Instruction-des- X Per procedure and monitored by cribe accurately, the change welding engineering, to be made: e Where there are no welds or material removed or added, enter N/A in the appropriate blocks, e For removal and/or additior of welds / materials, check l the appropriate block and enter all weld numbers and)

or bill of materials, check the appropriate block and enter all weld numbers and/

or Bill of material item numbers removed and/or added.

                                                                                                                                       ~

! i) Section 6 - Provide a sketch X Per procedure for sample reviewed. indicating the new arrangement when necessary for clarifica-tion. Tcxas Utilities Services. Inc. i Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checkhst No. DC-01-04 Page 7 of g item No Reven Attribu'es Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments j) Section 7 - Originator - enter X Per procedure for sample reviewed. ! name of individual preparing the modification, If original desi k) Approval-Field originated CP-E P -4. 6 X available (i.e.,gner was out vendor not of design changes /daviations 13.2 shall be approved by the business, etc.) the review Original Designer's designated was performed on site. site re resentative. The Eng-l' ineerin Manager shall main-tain wr tten authorization

of personnel designated as a "G8H Design Rep" or design reps of any other vendors.

CE Revisions 1

5. Have revisions to CMC's been ac- CP.EP-4.6 11 revised CMC's were reviewed.

4 complished by completing the CMC Attach. 2 See Attachment 4 to Checklist as indicated above (Item 4) with Figure 2 DC-01-01. , the following exceptions: I X Per procedure for sample reviewed. c) The same CMC number will be used followed by the appro-priate revision number. If the reason for revision is X Per procedure for sample reviewed. b) ,! different from the original, the additional information shall be entered in Block 4 (Reason for Change). i 1 Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process i.L *-1 Assessment Checklist (cont.)

               =========

Checklist No. P'9*8 '9 DC-01-04 Item No Reven Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments c) The following note shall be X Per procedure for sample reviewed. added to the CMC: "This re-vision voids and supersedes i document Serial Number . Rev. ". d) If it is necessary to void a X None observed for sample reviewed. CMC, the original card shall be marked " VOIDED-NOT SUPERSEDED". Note: Voided CMC shall not be reactivated.

6. Has the HFT DCC group been noti- CP-El-4.0-37 X None observed far sample reviewed, fled of any design changes for 14.0 pipe supports listed for HFT

and SHF7 i 7. Has the ME group clerk maintained CP-El-4.6-1 X Per procedure fir sample reviewed.

a log of CMCs issued? 13.2.1

8. Are 10-day CMCs issued stamped CP-E l-4.6-1 X None observed for sample reviewed, appropriately? 13.3 and Figure 1

9. Are G8H field modifications CP-El-4.6-5 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, received as DE/CDs and is a 13.1 Procedures allLw a CMC to be DCA then prepared? written in lieu of a DCA. In all such cases rev'ewed procedures are properly follow d.

t i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l i Independent Assessment Program; 83090

! O O O Design Control Process 41 i i m ii Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of g ! ttem No Revew Attritustes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments I 10. Are unresolved exceptions to DE/CDs CP-El-4.6-5 X None observed for sample reviewed. returned to G8H/NY by transmittal 13.4 and } and the associated DCA rescinded? Attachment A t i j i , I I i } i . Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ! Independent Assessment Program; 83O?0 h 4

O O O Design Control Process AM a - Assessment Checklist

         ==========

Reviewer (s) Checklist No. Page of J.P. Toner DC-01-05 1 6 M. Maire Organization /Actmties Reviewed Review Dates 7/11/83 - 7/13/83 TUSI Desian Control General Personnet Contacted M. Strange S. Ellis Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for documents reviewed.

1. Have adequate TSG instructions CP-EP-4.4 X 1. TSG is now THE; therefore, been prepared to supplement the 12.4 procedure requires revision.

TSG Design Control procedure? 2. See CP-EP-4.9 and Checklists DC-01-03 & DC-01-07.

2. Has TSG maintained a record of CP-EP-4.4 X Not observed during this review.

designers acting for other 12.4 individuals? Have personnel involved in the

3. CP-EP-4.5 X Personnel training records were design change control program 12.5 not reviewed. However, personnel been trained and indoctrinated interviewed indicated knowledge in accordance with CP-EP-2.0 of procedural requirements.

and the records attesting to j their proficiency being control-

led by TSG?

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) checklist No. DC-01-05 "'" 2 '6 Item F20 Reve Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

4. Have design change documents CP-EP-4.4 X Per procedure for sample taken.

been prepared in a matter which 13.1 See Attachments 3 & 4 of will permit verification of Checklist DC-01-01 for documents design input and insure adequate reviewed. identification, review, approval and design verification? Have revisions to dedicated CP-E P-4.4 X Der procedure for sample reviewed, 5. desigri change documents been 13.1 controlled by means commensurate with the requirements for pre-viously issued documents? During the construction phase, CP-EP-4.4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, 6. has TSG coordinated appropriate 13.2.1 interface activities when the application of TSG design change activities impacted the design scope of the respective respon-sible organizations? Has the control of interface CP-EP-4.4 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. 7. activities by TSG been properly 13.2.2 documented on the correct form Figure 1 to assure: '

a. identification of design interfaces,

b. review of design documents, and

c. control of the document during review?

T xas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process hi* Assessment Checklist (cont.) Minuuuuuuuuun Checklist N ' DC-01-05 ""' 3 6 I Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments j i ! 8. Has TSG established an adequate CP-EP-4.4 X Established DCTG per procedure tracking system? 13.2.2 CP-EP-4.7 l

9. Has design change verification CP-EP -4.4 X Timeliness by G8H/NY was poor.

been conducted to verify the 13.3.1 Establishment of site group adequacy of design and to pro- has improved turnaround,

vide assurance that the design i change meets specified design change inputs.

10 Has design change verification CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample, i been performed by one or more 13.3.1 Most verifications were done of the specified methods, and by at G8H. However, documents j personnel other than those who which have been reviewed performed the original design by G8H were observed to have change? checklists which contain the elements necessary for design verification.

2. See DC-02 Series Checklists for ;

a discussion of G&H procedures.

11. Has the verification of design CP-EP 4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample.

j changes included an evaluation 93.3.1 2. See item 10 for discussion. of the effects of the changes on the overall design?

12. Have deficiencies determined in CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample.

the verification process been 13.3.1 2. See item 10 for discussion. resolved in accordance with

established processes?

1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process Mh mammmmmmma Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of item No Reven Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 4

13. Do the results of design CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample, change review address whether 13.3.2 2. See item 10 for discussion.

design inputs were correctly 1 selected and incorporated into the design?

14. Are assumptions necessary to CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample, 13.3.2 (2) 2. See item 10 for discussion, perform the design activity ade-quately described? Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent re-verifications when the detailed design activities are completed?

15. Are the appropriate quality and CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample.

quality assurance requirements 13.3.2 (3) 2. See item 10 for discussion, specified?

16. Are the applicable codes, stand- CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample, i ards and regulatory requirements 13.3.2 (4) 2. See item 10 for discussion.

including issue and addenda prop-erly identified and are their requirements for design met?

17. Are the acceptance criteria in- CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample.

corporated in the design docu- 13.3.2 (15) 2. See item 10 for discussion.

!                                                                                             ments sufficient to allow verif t-cation that design requirements i                                                                                              have been satisfactorily accom-plished?

4 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process h Assessment Checklist (cont.)

;                                                                                                              checkHst No.                     Page   of ttem No                       Reven Attnbutes             Reference Document   SAT UNSAT       NA                   Comments i

18. Have pre-operational and sub- CP-EP-4. 4 X 1. Not observed in this sample.

sequent periodic test require- 13.3.2 (16) 2. See item 10 for discussion. . ments been appropriately specified?

19. Are handling, storage, cleaning CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample.

and shipping requirements 13.3.2 (17) 2. See item 10 for discussion, ] specified? 20 Are identification requirements CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample. j specified? 13.3.2 (18) 2. See item 10 for discussion.

21. Are requirements for record pre- CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample, paration review, approval, reten- 13.3.2 (19) 2. See item 10 for discussion.

tion, etc., adequately specified? i

22. When using alternative calcula- CP-EP-4.4 X 1. Not observed in this sample, tions for design change verifica- 13.3.3 (a) 2. See item 10 for discussion.

l tion has the appropriateness of the assumptions, input data and code requirements been reviewed?

23. If qualification testing has been CP-EP-4.4 used for design change verifica- 13.3.4 tion:

I

a. Has the testing been designed X 1. Not observed in this sample.

to demonstrate adequacy even 2. See item 10 for discussion. under the most adverse conditions? Tcxts Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) checkhst No. Page of

                                                                                                     ,   ,               g    g h No                          Revew Attributes     Reference Document  SAT UNSAT    NA                    Comments

b. If the testing is designed X 1. Not observed in this sample.

to verify a specific design 2. See item 10 for discussion. feature, have the other features been vertfled by other means?

c. Has the testing been per- X 1. Not observed in this sample, formed in accordance with 2. See item 10 for discussion.

procedures that ensure the pre-requisites have been set, adequate instrumentation is available and necessary monitoring is performed? Have design change documents been CP-EP-4.4 X No internally verified 24 reviewed and approved by the man- 13.4 documents noted in scope (G8H) ager of Technical Support upon completion of preparation, inter-face and verification activities?

25. Have approved design change docu- CP-EP-4.4 X Per procedure for sample ments been distributed and 13.5 reviewed.

returned as required?

26. Have significant deficiencies CP-EP-4.4 X Nonconformances noted were found and nonconformances discovered 13.6 satisfactory. No significant during the design change process TUGCO/TUSI OA Plan deficiencies noted.

been documented in accordance with the TUGCO/TUSI OA Plan? T;xas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M^* Assessment Checklist I M Checklist No. P.ge of Wd 4 J. P. Toner DC-01-06 1 M. Maire Revev Dateg l Organsration/Actenties Bewewed 7/12/83 - 7/15/83 i TUSI Design Verification (Design Changes) i

!                            w contacted l                                                      C. Moehlman. L. Popplewell, R. Baker, K. Hooten, j                                                      G. Creamer, P. Patel, J. Finneran ftem No                     Remew Attributes            Reference Document      SAT    UNsAT    NA                       Comments See Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for a list of documents reviewed.

1. Has Design Change Verification CP -EP -4.5 X 1. Pipe support & I&E perform been done in accordance with 13.1 verification; G8H performs the '

instructions that outline the balance. requirements and/or the methods 2. See DC-02 Series Checklists for i to be used? G&H reviews. j Per procedure for sample reviewed.

2. Has Design Change Verification CP-EP-4.5 X l

been performed by someone other 13.1 than the one who performed the

;                                              original calculation?

3. Has Design Change Verification CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure where applicable.

included an evaluation of the 13.1 effects of the change (s) on the overall design?

4 4 When applicable, has the Design CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. Change verification been verified 13.1 by the original designer? Tcxts Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process ALn i Assessment Checklist (cont.) ChechNst No. Page of item No Deven Attut>utes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

5. Have deficiencies identified CP-EP-4. 5 X None observed for sample reviewed. l '

during design change verifica- 13.1 tion been identified, documented and resolved as per the require-ments of TUGC0/TUSI CPSES QA Plan?

6. If alternate calculations were CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, used for design change verifi- 13.2(a) cation, were the appropriate

assumptions, input data and code requirements used in the original calculation reviewed?

j 7. If qualification testing was I used for design change ' j verification: i

a. was the qualification test- CP-EP-4.5 X None observed for sample reviewed.

4 ing designed to demonstrate 13.3(a)

adequacy even under the most adverse conditions?

b. if the qualification testing CP-EP-4.5 X None observed for sample reviewed, j was designed to verify a 13.3(b) 1 specific design feature, were 4

the other features verified i by other means? a l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

2 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

  - -                    _                                                                            r-  --            -      -                _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - -

O O O Design Control Process din

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

   ==========

CheckHst No. Page of 3 4 Item No Revew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT Ut4 SAT NA Comments

c. was the qualification test- CP-E P-4. 5 X None observed for sample reviewed.

ing performed in accordance 13.3(c) with procedures which made provisions for ensuring that the prerequisites had been met, that adequate instru-mentation was available and that necessary monitoring was performed? Was the design change verifica- CP-EP-4.5 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. 8. 1 tion method, results, and veri- 13.4 fier's approval documented? Is a log maintained of indivi- CP-E!-4.0-1 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, . 9. duals who have approval of design 12.4 change verification authority? Are design change documents CP-EI-4.5-4 X The stamp was not put on cover

10. sheet but on the table of listed on the design review 13.1.2 cover sheet, and is that sheet contents which follows the cover stamped " Design Reviewed," sheet. A written statement was used in lieu of a stamp.

signed and dated by 'The cognizant engineer'? Has PSE been notified by 3 part CP-EI-4.5-4 X None observed for sample reviewed, 11. memo of unacceptable design 13.1.3 changes? Are these menos logged and tracked by TSFC? I Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process dLn i Assessment Checklist (cont.) j checkus No DC-01-06 *4 4 hews No Reven Attnbutes Rete,cate Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

12. Is the status of review of design CP.EI-4.5-10 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. '

change packages logged by PSE? 13.3

13. Are forms DHE-37, DHE-40, and CP-EI-4.5-10 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

DHE-41 used, in addition to 13.4 DHEG, for approval and design , change review? l 14 Is a list status of CMCs CP -EI -4.5-10 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. reviewed forwarded to DCTG? 13.8 and CP-EI-4.5-11

• 13.10

15. Does the current revision of a CP-EI-4.5-11 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

! field design change appear in 13.1 the CMC log?

16. Is the approval of design change CP-EI-4.5-11 X The correct No. is DHE-37 due to j

indicated on form DHE-35? 13.5 a typo in CP-EP-4.5-11.

17. Is NE verification of design CP-E!-4.5-17 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. , '

change in accordance with the 14.1 and specified check list? Attachements IA, IB

18. Is NE design review in accordance CP-EI-4.5-17 X Per procedure for sample reviewed, with the specified check list? 14.2.2 and Attachment 2 Texas t!tilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090  ;

                                               ~

O O O Design Control Process N^-* Assessment Checklist

=========

checklist No. Page } of 1 Wd J. P. Toner DC-01-07 3 M. Maire organeateAcimtes nen .o neve- oate' 7/12 - 13/83, TUSI Field Design Change Control - DCTG

Nsonnet Contacted M. Strange, C. Knight, S. Ellis stem No Reve Attreutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments l Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for documents reviewed.

1. Have DCAs and CMCs been received CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed but most are hand carried j by DCTG from CPPE groups in the 13.1 specified manner?

2. Has DCTG obtained the pertinent CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for drawings supporting documents? 13.1 reviewed

3. Have conduit support field CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for design changes been transmitted 13.2(c) "S-910 Series" documents directly to G&H/NY by FSEG with a copy of the transmittal letter being sent to DCTG?

4 Have all other types of design CP-EP-4.7 X Cable / Pipe suppo-t for info only changes been sent to DCTG for 13.2(A) disposition as appropriate? (B)(D)[E)(F) I i Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

o O O m Design Control Process i 2^ Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklest No- Page of ne_01_n7 7 3 UNR 880 Re % Attreutes Reference Document SAT Ut4 SAT NA Comments Unit I review done by G8H on site 5 Has the reviewing engineer for CP-EP-4.7 X as much as possible. Pipe changes pipe desigt changes indicated if 13.2(A) do not go to PSE. the changes should or should not

                                                       ~

I be transmitted to G&H/NY, SSAG l or PSE? - i

                                                           ' Nave design changes transmitted            CP-EP-4.7                  X                         Per procedure via
                                 , 6.                                                                                                                        letters of transmittal
                                          .                   to G&H/MY been transmitted with           13.2(A)(4)
                  -                                           the specified documentation? 1            Attachment 1 CP-EP-4.7'               T                           Perprocedur'e[andper

. 7. Has site review been documented CR-EP-4.6 on the face of the change 1T.2(A)(1) document? i Have the changes been statused CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure and indicated

8. 13.2 as a computer run.

in the Field Design Change and Review Status Log, indicating the appropriate reviewing agent? CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample

9. Has DCTG controlled / retained reviewed site reviewed pipe design 13.2(A)(1) changes that have been completed, until transfer to DCC?

T;xas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

m.- - - O O O Design Control Process

           *L       t i                                                                   Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. DC-01-07 " 3 '3 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

10. a. Have field design changes CP-EP-4. 7 X Per procedure for sample

' other than pipe, pipe support, 13.2(F) reviewed. If vendor was not conduit support, cable tray Attachment 1 available, transmittal was and instrumentation been done internally. transmitted to the original i designed using the specified documentation?

b. Has DCTG maintained a Field CP-EP-4.7 Maintained by DCTG Design Change and Review Status Log?

i 4 l 4 1 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

         ' Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process LM g Assessment Checklist

 " " " " # *'                                                                                                                                                             CheckHat No.                    "'9'       '

J.P. Toner, S. Bibo, M. Maire DC-01-08 1 7 org1nization/ Activities nevieweo Review oates 7/11/83 - 7/26/83

      .TUSI Interface Control Personne contacted M. Strange, R. Kissinger, G. Creamer, A. Vega, C. Moehlman, R. Hooten, P. Patel, G. Purdy, J. Finneran. L. Popplewell, R. Williams, D. Walsh item No.                                                                                   Review Attributes            Referer.ce Document SAT                   UNSAT    NA                  Comments Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for documents reviewed.

When an interface has been CP-EP-4.0 X Refer to Checklist DC-01-01, 1. identified, have the following 13.2.2 Item flo. I been established and approved:

a. Titles and responsibilities of key personnel?

b. Lines of communication and controls?

c. Control and distribution of documentation?

2. Have persons installing expan- CP-EP-4.3 X Approval by EESV (Engineering sion anchors not meeting the min- 13.2.2 Evaluation of Separation imum separation requirements Attachrent 6 Variance), on a risk basis.

obtained engineering approval l prior to installation and is that

approval on the proper form?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process Assessment Checklist (cont.) t '* checklist No. DC-01-08 "* 2 '7 Item No Rewew Attnbutes Aeference Docuneent SAT UNSAT NA Comments Has the control of interface CP-EP-4.4 X None observed in this sample. 3. activities been documented 13.2.2 in accordance with the Figure 1 2 ' Design / Review Interface' Form and include

a. -Identification of design interfaces?

b. Review of design documents?

c. Control of the document during review?

4 Has TSG established an adequate CP-EP-4.4 X TSG is now TNE which has tracking mechanism to provide 13.2.2 established the Design Change circulation, return, and resolu- Tracking Group (DCTG).

tion of comments of documents submitted for interface review?

Do the results of design reviews CP-EP-4.4 X Review done for G8H and I&E;

5. others not observed, I address the satisfaction of 13.3.2 design interface requirements?

Have field originated design CP-EP-4.6 X Not necessarily a site represen-

6. ' tative - can be G&H/NY, EDS, changes / deviations been approved 13.2 by the original designer's desig- vendors, etc. Others on site nated site representative? have been approved by the origi-nal designers to perform reviews.

7. Does'the Engineering Manager CP-EP-4.6 X Written authorization was have written authorization of 13.2- evident.

                                                                             . personnel designated as design representatives?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ind: pendent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process

  .4(ti                                                                           Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. DC-01-08 Pa" 3 ' 7 Item No neview Attnbutes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

8. Does the distribution of field CP-EP-4.6 X Basic distribution to Custodians change / deviation documents 13.3 was found to be satisfactory; satisfy the basic document con- also refer to Checklist DC-01-02 trol requirements of interfacing for further discussion, organizations?

9. Have reviewing agencies for CP -E P -4.6 X None noted during this review.

design verification notified 13.5 the Engineering Manager / Disci-pline Field Engineer of unaccept- < able changes / deviations?

10. Have significant changes /devia- CP -EP-4.6 X None noted during this review.

tions to engineered items invol- 13.6 ving A/E and vendor interfaces for equipment foundation details been reviewed with both the A/E and the vendor prior to approval in accordance with the documenta-tion requirements of CP-EP-4.7 ' and CP-EI-4.6-3?

11. }Mve DCAs and CMCs indicated the CP-EP-4.6 X Handled through the DCTG applicable vendors and/or other Attachments 1 and 2 per procedure.

t organizations that must provide l approval and/or recaive copies? All changes go to G8H.

12. Do the site reviewing engineers CP-EP-4.7 X for pipe design changes determine 13.2.A.1

and document those changes that should be transmitted to G8H/NY?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) checklist No. DC-01-08 "*** 4 '7 ltem No Revew Attnbutes Reference Doument SAT UNSAT NA Comments

13. Are changes requiring G8H/NY CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

review and changes involving 13.2.A.2 Most G8H changes are significant changes transmitted and 3.2.A.3 now handled on site. to G8H/NY, SSAG or PSE as appropriate?

14. Are field design changes trans- CF-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

mitted to G&H/NY transmitted 13.2.A.4 with the correct form? Attachment 1 l 15. For pipe support design changes, CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. does the DCTG indicate the 13.2.B Also the log is computerized. appropriate reviewing agent in the ' Field Design Change and Review Status Log'?

16. For conduit support field design CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

changes, does FSEG transmit 13.2.C design changes directly to G8H/NY with a copy 'o DCTG?

17. For cable tray support field CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

design changes, does FSEG 13.2.D transmit the changes to DCTG r which then transmits them to !, G8H/NY?

18. Do instrumentation CMCs requiring CP-EP-4.7 X Per procedure for sample transmittal to G8H/NY, get 13.2.E reviewed. DCAs are transmitted

transmitted to DCTG for to G8H whereas CMCs to EDS.

retransmittal to G&H/NY? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process b's Assessment Checklist (cont.) checkHst No. "*9* 5 ' DC-01-08 7 ffem No Rewew Attnbutes neference Oxument SAT UNSAT NA Comments i 19. For field design changes other CP-EP -4. 7 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. than pipe, pipe support, conduit 93.2.F support, cable tray and instru- Attachmenc 1 mentation, are the changes trans- ! mitted to DCTG for retransmittal to the original designer, using the prescribed format? Do DCTG and G8H/NY maintain the CP-EP-4.7 X However, the runs do not

20. necessarily coincide due to TUSI Field Design Change'and Review 13.3

. Status Log in conjunctior' with transmittal to vendors for each other? review and approval. Are requests for equipment _ clas- CP-EP-4.8 X None noted during this review, {' 21. sification evaluation forwarded, 93.1 on the specified form, by the Figure 1 initiator to DEG? Are copies of approved REC's CP-EP-4.8 X None noted during this review.

     '22.

transmitted by DEG to the 13.3 initiators? CP-EP-4.9 X Criteria not modified, ! 23. When modifications to the Originator makes determination, criteria for the drawing incor- 13.1 poration of DCAs/ CMC's are approver agrees or disagrees desired, does DCTG request these with that determination. from G8H/NY or the Nuclear Final interpretation by design Engineer Manager by CPPA verifier. Transmittal ? l t Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 _ . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ___ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _____-_a _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ -

O O O Design Control Process

    - Ln

• mummmmmmm Assessment Checklist (cont.)

checklist No. " ' DC-01-08 6 7 Item No Review Attnbutes Acte,ence Doesment SAT UNSAT NA Commen:s 24 Does DCTG confirm approval of CP-EP-4.9 safety related field design 13.2 changes by:

a. Receipt of Gibbs & Hill DCA/ X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

i CMC checklist specifying design review completion? or

b. Receipt of approved vendor X Per procedure for sample reviewed.

design change transmittal letter specifying completion of design control activities? l or

c. Receipt of CPSES Nuclear X Per transmittal.

Engineering DCA/ CMC check-l list specifying design review completion? or

d. Receipt / review of completed X Per transmittal.

site engineering review , documentation? j 25. Are all revised drawings not CP-EP-8.9 X Per procedure for sample reviewed. updated on site forwarded to 13.4.1 DCTG for control, upon receipt { at CPSES?

,       26. Are drawings, revised by off         CP-EP 4.9             X                     Reviewed but not stamped site organizations, reviewed and     13.4.3                                      per TNE DC7, Rev 1.

stamped by DCTG on receipt? Attachment II I i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I

O O O Design Control Process N. Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. Page of 7 item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i

27. Are drawings, revised by off CP-EP-4.9 X Not stamped on CP-EP-4.9 i site organizations, submitted to 13.4.3 Att II.

the applicable CPP Discipline Attachrtents II anc III

!                                                      Engineer using the prescribed form, approved and signed off as prescribed?

4

28. Are MRs, RIRs'and OSDs being CP-EP -16.0 X None noted during this review, forwarded to PMG for review and 13.0

resolution?

4 1 4 i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

 . Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

O O O Design Control Process Assessment Checklist Revkww(s) Checklist No. DC-02-01 Page } of 3 i S. L. Bibo S. C. White organization /Activitecs Reviewed Review Dates 7/18-7/22/83 D; sign Change - G8H Headquarters Personnei contacted C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G&H Project QA Engineer itzm No. Review Attnbutes  ! nefarence Dot.urneat SAT UNSAT NA Comments i DESIGN CHANGES

1. Are changes or deviations that GAH Procedure X See Attachment 1 to this l

are made to a G8H design document PC - 9 Checklist. after the document has been issued 12.2 and for fabrication or construction, Appendix PC-9-1 documented on a Design / Engineer-ing Change / Deviation (DE/CD) form?

2. Has the originating discipline PC-9 X See Attachment 1 Job Engineer reviewed the change / 12.3 deviation for 10CFR21 applicabi-lity and checked the appropriate block on the DE/CD form?

i

3. Have all appropriate interdisci- PC-9 X See Attachment 1

! pline approvals been obtained on 12.4

                                  -the DE/CD form?

4 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process

L '* Assessment Checklist (cont.)

checklist No. , DC-02-01

                                                                                                                                    "*9' 2 '3 Item No               Review Attributes        Peterence Docume.;t    SAT  UNSAT    NA                      Comments

4. Have DE/CD's been submitted for PC,9 X See Attachment 1 independent design review, and has 12.4 this review been documented by ap-proval signature of the DE/CD?

5. Does the project maintain & peri- PC-9 X DECD Log (5/20/83) odically issue a log of DE/CD's 12.5 used to verify status, etc.

issued?

6. Are copies of the approved DE/CD PC-9 X See Attachment 1 transmitted to TUSI for further 12.4 processing?

REVISIONS

7. When the DE/CD is revised, are PC-9 X See Attachment 1 the changes identified by use of 52.8.1

a margin side bar and revision number, and is a revision number added to the DE/CD number?

8. Are revised DE/CD's processed in PC-9 X Sec Attachment 1

the same manner as the original? 12.3.2 4

  - Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Ind: pendent Assessment Program; 83090

                                                 ~

O O O Design Control Process M. - '

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

111111111111111111111111111111 Checklist No. "*9'3 '3 DC-02-01 Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i DETECTION (CORRECTION OF DESIGN

!                       DEFICIENCIES)

9. Are potential design deficien , PC-9 X None observed during this review cies, significant design devia- 12.9.2

tions or errors reported to the Job Engineer, the responsible Project Engineer and the Project QA Supervisor via memo?

10 If it is decided that the report- PC-9 X None observed during this review ed deficiency is valid, has the 12.9.4 Project Engineer sent a memo to the Project Manager advising him of the decision?

11. Has the Project Manager insti- PC-9 X None observed during this review tuted appropriate C/A in the de- 12.9.5 ,

sign change process and taken measures to prevent recurrence? I 12 Has the Project 0A Supervisor in- PC -9 X None observed during this review stituted QA Program changes, as Paragraph 2.9.6 4 necessary, to monitor the defi-I cient area? 1 d Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O o ATTACHMENT 1 (DC-02-01) o COPIES DESIGN COMMENTS APPLICABILITY INTERDIS INDEPENDENT DECD TRANSMITTED DECD DEFICIENCIES DECD REV. 10 CFR 21 REVIEW / DES. REVIEW TO TUSI REVISED? REPORTED NO YES DATE DATE LOG NO. NO. 3-14-79 OK GTN-35015 N/A N/A MS-13 (RI) S-1438 0 X N/A 3-19-79 GTN-39445 YES-0K N/A MS-13 (RI) S-611 1 X 8-1-79 8-?3-79 OK 8-29-79 1-16-79 OK MEMO 1-19-79 N/A N/A MS-64 (RI) l S-1317 0 X 1-17-79 9-11-79 OK GTN-39986 N/A N/A MS-13 (RI) S-1795 0 X N/A 9-18-79 9-20-78 OK GTN-30258 YES-OK N/A MS-51 (R2) S-649 1 X N/A 9-25-78 4-6-78 OK GTN-26458 N/A N/A MS-13 (RI) S-405 0 X 4-5-78 4-27-78 4-7-81 OK GTN-53134 N/A N/A MS-51 (R2) S-2433 0 X 2-10-81 5-5-81 6-29-81 OK GTN-54780 N/A N/A MS-13 (RI) S-2460 0 X 4-24-81 8-13-81 GTN-54778 N/A N/A MS-64 S-2495 0 X 7-10-81 8-10-01 0K 8-13-81 GTN-39750 N/A N/A M1-0801 S-1368 X 8-17-79 9-5-73 OK M1-0806 1 9-10-/9 LOG NOT AVAIL. N/A N/A S-0801 0 N/A 6-27-79 OK S-11828 X OK AFFECTED nnctlMENTS Texas Utilities Services, Inc. [ *ti { d [ M Independent Assessment Progrcm; 83090 11111111111111111MilllHI

O O O Design Control Process ME^ Assessment Checklist l Reviewer (s) Page of l S. L. Bibo CheckHat No. DC-02-02 1 5 i S. C. White , Org".nization/Actmties Reviewed Review Dates Processing of Design Changes (DCAs and CMCs) , Personnel Contacted C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G8H Project QA Engineer item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL i'

1. Are copies of CMC's/DCA's forward- G8H Project Guide X Based on review of Project ed from the CPSES site to G8H New (PG)-24 Coordinator Files York? 1C.1

2. Has the Project Coordinator (PC) PG-24 X Based on Review of:

for CMC's/DCA's logged the re- 1C.2 1. CMC Affected Document Report ceived date for each document (CPR 501) dated 7/16/83 on a form or entered it directly 2. DCA Affected Document Report into the log by CRT, and (CPR 501) dated 7/12/83 indicated the distribution? 3 Has the PC identifled the re- PG-24 X See Attachment 1 for ceived date and the CMC /DCA num- 1C.3 Review of Actual Checklists ber on the " Change vertification Checklist for CMC's and DCA's" form (Attachment B) and attached this form to each DCA/ CMC for distribution to the Lead j Discipline Engineer? j Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 3 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

f

O o Design Control Process o

L

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

                                   ========

Checklist No. ' DC-02-02 "* 9' 2 5 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference (A)cument SAT UNSAT NA Comments

4. Has the Lead Discipline Engineer PG-24 X See Attachment I for review indicated the required inter- 1C.S.A scope, discipline review on the Change Verification Checklist (CVC) form, i and completed all appropriate lines?

4 Has the Lead Discipline Engineer PG-24 X See Attachment 1 (Discp. Review)

5. & reviewed logs maintained by maintained a status log for CMC's/ 1C.5.A l

DCA's which are being routed discipline engineer l through interdiscipline sign-off? If a design review is required, DG-24 X See Attachment 1 6. j has the complete package been 1C.5.B i sent to the appropriate inL dependent design reviewer? i Is the CMC signed off by the Job PG-24 X See Attachment 1 7. Engineer? TC.S.C i Has the PC performed the follow- FG-24 X Based on review of computerized

8. logs for CMC /DCA ing: TC.7 o logged in the disposition and completion of review

date for each CMC /DCA?

l o logged changes to the 1 affected G8H documents , Unit designation, or safety related "0" classif-t ication? o logged remarks? l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ ____ - me - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O O Design Control Process o 4.,L t

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

                             =========

checklist No. "*9' ' DC-02-02 3 5 Item No Revicw Attnbutes Heference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments o reviewed the final distri- ! bution of the CMC /DCA enter - ed on the CMC? o made final distribution of the CMC /DCA package? I Checked N.Y. Log - G8H j 9. Is a computerized log entitled PG-24 X ! " Design Change Authorization SE Master Index" maintained at both the job site and G8H, New York? , Is a computerized log entitled PG - 24 X Checked N.Y. Log - G8H . 10.

                                                                                " Component Modification Card               1F Master Index" maintained at both the job site and G8H New York?

11. Are Revisions to CMC's/DCA's DG - 24 X -

i processed in the same manner as 1G new CMC's/DCA's? If it is necessary to change the PG - 24 X None observed  ; i 12. i status of a completed CMC /DCA, are 1K the following steps performed: 0 the PC indicates on the original CMC that the pre-vious desposition is no longer valid? o the PC attaches a new CMC i over the original and notes the change of status in the remarks section? 1 ' Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

;                        O                                                                       O                                                        O Design Control Process                        o M                                                                                                                     Assessment Checklist (cont.). '

Checklist No. DC-02-02 Page 4 of 5 Item No Review Attnbutes Arterence Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments o the new CMC (with the origi - nal CMC & DCA/ CMC) is pro-cessed as a new CMC /DCA?

13. Have the responsible disciplines PG - 24 X See Attachment 2 to this Checklist for a list of DCA's, notified the PC via memo when 1L approved CMC's/DCA's are incorp- '

orated into G8H documents (Attach- + ment F)?

14. Has the PC logged the incorpora- PG - 24 X Based on review of computerized ,

tion of CMC's/DCA's in the "INC" 1L log (See Attachment 1) column of the appropriate Master Index log?

15. For G8H affected documents for PG - 24 X Based on review of computerized

! which the CMC indicates that 1L log (See Attachment 1) the DCA/ CMC will not be incor-porated, has the PC entered "NI" in the "INC" column of the appropriate master Index Log? 1 i NOTE: ! 1. No drawing incorporation shall be made without approval from TUSI and/or the G8H Project Manager

2. No DCED shall be incor-porated into any G8H document without approval of the associated DCA.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

=-

)

O O O Design Control Process if J i Assessment Checklist (cont.) Mmmumummimmi checklist No. ' DC-02-02 "*'* 5 5 item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

16. For incorporation of CMC's/DCA's PG - 24 X None observed i NOT reviewed by G8H, were the ilM i

T6Tlowing steps taken:

1. For non-safety related changes, the Project CMC /DCA Team shall verify (using the appropriate master index) that 1 the design change is approved?

i NOTE: If the change being incorp- , orated is not already in the project files, a copy shall be sent to the j Project CMC /DCA team. l 2. For safety related or non-safety related - 0A Program

Applicable changes, the Pro- -

l ject DCA/ CMC Team shall verify

that the change is approved (see above),then either

o The design change must be reviewed by G8H prior to i incorporation?

OR l 0 The document must be i design reviewed after in- ! corporation? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ATTACl#ENT 1 (DC-02-02) JOB ENG DESIGN REVIEW INCORP. STATUS ON SIGN-0FF AFFECTED RE0'D COMPUTERIZED INCORPORATION CKLIST DISCP REQUIRED DCA NO. REV ATTACH REVIEW DATE NO YES DOCUMENT (PER DCA) PRINT-00T STATUS (ACTUAL)

• NOT YET 2237 1 N0 8-1-79 7-13-79 - 8-23-79 MS-13 (RI) YES OK
• NOT YET 1587 0 N0 1-17-79 1-16-79 - 1-16-79 MS-64 (RI) YES OK
• NOT YET 4140 0 N0 3-15-79 3-15-79 -

3-16-79 MS-13 (RI) YES OK 9-4-79 9-11-19 MS-13 (RI) YES OK NOT YET 5748 0 N0 NO - 2-8-83 X MS-13 (RI) YES OK NOT YET 15498 0 YES NO - 7-16-81 X - MS-51 (R2) YES OK NOT YET 10279 0 YES NO 7-3-80 7-3-80 7-17-80 MS-51 (A1/R2) YES OK NOT YET 6839 0. YES

                                                                                       >10-21-81      X    -

MS-13 (RI) YES OK NOT YET 10908 0 YES NO 9-13-78 - 9-10-72 MS-51 (R2) YES OK NOT YET 2872 0 N0 NO 4-5-78 3-31-78 4-6-78 MS-13 (RI) YES OK NOT YET 1797 0 N0 - 4-3-78 4-3-78 5-2-73 MS-51 (R2) YES OK NOT YET 1827 0 N0 - 10-19-81 10-16-81 10-15-81 MS-64 (RI) YES OK NOT YET 10911 0 YES -

• Discipline and design review information obtained from applicable DE/CD.

(See Attachment A list for references to OE/CD's) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 N,LV. u.% t !d m

O . O O l l ATTAdeENT I (DC-02-02 continued) JOB ENG DESIGN REVIEW INCORP. STATUS ON SIGN-0FF AFFECTED REQ'O COMPUTERIZED INCORPORATION CKLIST DISCP REQUIRED DCA NO. REV ATTACH REVIEW DATE NO YES DOCUMENT (PER DCA) PRINT-00T STATUS (ACTUAL) M1-806-8 YES TO BE INCORP NOT YET 4182 2 YES NR 5/16/80 X - NOT YET M1-801-3 YES TO BE INCORP M1-2212-06 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 9655 0 YES YES 4/28/81 X - INCORPORATED M1-2235-03 YES INCORPORATED INTO REV. 4 INTO REV. 4 Mi-2241-01 YFS INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO REV. 4 INTO REV.4 MI-2517 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 16937 0 YES YES 4/18/83 X - 11005 0 YES YES 7/15/82 - 7/9/82 El-0033-42 YES INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO REV.3 INTO REV.3 El-0005 YES TO BE (SEE DCA 1100S INCORPORATED REV.1) El-1700 YES - DWG NOT CHECKED 11005 1 YES YES 12/1/82 - 11/25/82 El-0033-42 YES INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO REV.3 INTO REV.3 El-0005 YES INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO REV.7 INTO REV.7 El-1700 YES - DWG NOT CHECKED 14708 0 YES YES 1/26/83 - 1/24/83 El-0020 YES TO BE INCORPORATED INCORPORATED  ! (COMPUTER BEING INTO REV.12  ; UPDATED) 4/25/83 El-0020 YES' TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 14708 1 YES YES 4/26/83 - S-0825 YES TO BE INCORP NOT YET 17054 0 YES YES 4/21/83 X - 4/27/83 S-0825 YES TO BE INCORP NOT YET 17054 1 YES YES 4/28/83 - Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

                                     ,                      Independent Assessment Program; 83090 L         (.D L f A 1 01111111101101l111111011H

O . O O ATTACHMENT 1 (DC-02-02 continued) DESIGN REVIEW INCOR STATUS ON JOB ENG INCORPORATION AFFECTED REQ'D COMPUTERIZED CKLIST DISCP SIGN-0FF PECUIRED NO YES DOCUMENT (PER DCA) PRINT-0VT STATUS (ACTUAL) CMC NO. REV ATTACH REVIEW DATE E-0181 -

                                                                                                                                                                 -          NOT CHECKED -

879 0 YES YES 3/21/83 X - DWG DETERMINED TO BE OUT-0F-SCOPE S-0825 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 13513 3 YES NR 5/27/83 - 5/27/83 S-801 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 4660 0 YES NR 6/27/79 - 6/27/79 (DE/CD) CALC 235-1 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 6047 0 YES YES 1/22/80 X CALC 235-3 YES INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO 6027 1 YES YES 1/22/80 X INTO REV.1 REV.1 10/29/81 1 CALC 235-3 YES INCORPORATED INCORPORATED INTO 10850 0 YES YES 2/21/80 X INTO REV.1 REY.1 10/29/81 M801-REV.3 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 10553 4 YES NR 7/23/81 - 7/17/81 l CALC 235-1 YES TO BE INCORPORATED NOT YET 10552 0 YES NR 1/24/80 - 1/25/80 CALC 235-3 YES INCORPORATED INCORPORATED 4851 0 YES NR 1/22/80 X - INTO REY.1 INTO REV.1 10/29/81 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ; ATTAC K NT 2 (DC-02-02) INCORP INTO DCA NO. DWG NO. REV. P.C. NOTIFIED VIA MEMO 9655 M1-2235-03 4 YES 11005 (0) El-0033-42 3 YES (GTN-57539) 11005 (1) El-0005 7 YES (GTN-60195) } 14708 El-0020 12 YES 9655 M1-2241-01 4 YES ^ f 4 i i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

      ., Independent Assessment Program; 83090 M

O O O ATTAC K itT 3, (DC-02-02) DCA NO. APPLICABLE DOCUMENT DE/CD NO. l 2237 (RI) 2323-MS-13 (RI) S-611 (RI) 1587 2323-MS-64 (RI) S-1317 4140 2323-MS-13 (RI) S-1438 5748 2323-MS-13 (RI) S-1795 4 15498 2323-MS-13 (RI) N/A 10279 2323-MS-51 (R2) S-2433 6839 2323-MS-51 (R2) N/A < l 10908 2323-MS-13 (RI) S-2460 2872 2323-MS-51 (R2) S-649 1797 23?3-MS-13 (RI) S-405 1827 2323-MS-51 (R2) S-649 l 10911 2323-MS-64 (RI) S-2495 i

 }

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 N

O O O Design Control Process i d.L ' i Assessment Checklist

=========

Checklist No. Page of Reviewer (s) S. L. Bibo . DC-02-03 1 3 S. C. White Review Dates Organization /Actmties Reviewed 7/18-7/22/83 G8H - Design Change Control - Specifications PefSonnel Contacted C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G8H Project GA Engineer Review Attributes Refe ence Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments ! Blem No I ! GENERAL . 1. Are revisions / changes to specifi- DC-5 X 1. The following specifications were! cations processed in the same man. 16.1 reviewed: MS13, MS29A, MSS 1, < ner as the original specification 1 MS-64 [

2. All revisions and addenda were checked. Refer to Attachment 1 l

i of this Checklist for details of i the review.

2. Are subsequent issues of specifi- DC-5 X cations reviewed and approved 16.2

by supporting disciplines when the new issue has revisions I affecting their areas of responsibility?

i 3. Are the specification revision DC-5 X  : number and date conspicuously 16.4 identified on the cover sheet directly below the original issue date? t - Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

O O O Design Control Process iL 's Assessment Checklist (cont.) MNMNMENMNMNN CheckHst No. DC-02-03 "*" 2 3 Item No Revew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments )

4. For specifications requiring DC-5 X Requirement incorporated in design review (i.e., Nuclear 16.5 Revision 6 to DC-5. The speci-Safety Related and Non-nuclear fications reviewed as part of Safety Related-0A Program this program had design reviews Applicable), has the cognizant conducted in accordance with an Engineer attached a list to the earlier revision to DC-5.

specification identifying the following information by para- i graph and page number: e Design Change Documents , i (DCA's/ CMC's) incorporated into the spec? e Other revisions to the spec? i e Design change documents which have been previously design reviewed?

5. For specifications not requiring DC-5 X Only looked at specifications

. design review, has the Cognizant 16.6 requiring design review Engineer attached a list to the specifications which lists design change documents (DCA's/ CMC's) in-corporated into the specification?

6. Do revised specification pages DC-5 X contain the revision number in 16.7 the upper right hand corner and are line bars and revision numbers added to the right margin

, to identify the text change? l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 4.L 6i Assessment Checklist (cont.) } Checklist No. Page of item No Revew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i i DOCUMENTATION / DISTRIBUTION

7. Does the Project Manager retain DC-5 X a complete specification (record 17.1 copy) including the original i Specification Record Review fom ,

j (Appendix PC-5-V) and the list of

revisions (see items 4 & 5 above) j l in the Project Dept. files? l l

4 4 i 1 1  ; e I Texas utilities Services, Inc. t Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

O O O . ATTACMENT 1 (DC-02-03) Page 1 of 4 SPECIFICATION NO. 2323-MS-13: REV. 1 (9-15-75)

                        " SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING WATER PUMPS"
,                                                            APPLICABLE                     DESIGN REVIEW           COMENTS SPEC REVIEW               REV./DATF                          BY/DATE         RESOLVED /DATE 1-8-75                  Orig /1-6-75                   L. Giannuzzi /2-4-75   Yes/2-24-78 2-18-75                 Addendisn 1 to                 L. Giannuzzi /3-10-75  No comments Orig /3-10-75 9-10-75                 Rev. 1/9-10-75                 E. Norovitz/1-7-76     Yes/9-11-79 SPECIFICATION NO. 2323-MS-51: REV. 2 (3-20-75)
                        " SPENT FUEL POOL NEXT EXCHANGER" 7-23-74                 Ori9/7-16-74                   L. Giannuzzi /10-10-74 Yes/12-9-74 8-28-74                 Addendum 1 to                  E. Horovitz/12-11-75   No comments **

Orig /8-27-74 9-5-75 Rev. 1/3-20-75 E. Horovitz/12-31-75 Yes/3-19-76 11-11-75 Rev. 2/3-20-75 E. Horovitz/3-23-76 Yes/8-2-78** 12-4-78 Addendem 1 to R. Morris /11-18-78 No comments Rev. 2/9-18-78 s Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 Lik".A L T A

O O O ATTAC K MT 1 (DC-02-03 continued) Page 2 of 4 SPECIFICATION NO. 2323-MS-64: ADD. 2 TO REV.1 (9-7-77)

                     " SPENT FUEL POOL DEMINERALIZER" 11-26-75                Ori g/10-8-75             H. Klinsky/10-6-75   Yes/10-6-75 9-2-76                  Rev. 1/6-22-76            H. Klinsky/8-16-76   No coments 5-5-77                  Addendum 1 to             H. Klinsky/4-18-77   Yes/4-29-77                       ,

Rev. 1/3-21-77 ., 1-13-78 Addendum 2 to M. Chiruvolu/11-1-77 No comments Rev. 1/9-7-77 4 Date of acceptance by Project Manager

                     ** Instance where date of resolution of design review coments post-dates the date of final acceptance by the Project Manager See Checklist DC-02-02, Item No. 6B l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 lg'iL, IA L .

                                                                              ~

3:n - -- - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _

2 . ,^

..

                               ~
                                     - , , , e;
                                                                                                                                          ~
                                                                                                                                                                          ._  x
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 -y                -
                                                                                                                                        -                                  ,~                                                           ,, :
  , . , y ~/                             ..
                                                                                                                                                          ~                       ~                      ,

'{ : *=l ,- ,

                                                      * ~ ,
                                                                                                                              ~                             ~~ :.
                                                                                            /                                         -

e

                         '                   ~~~             ' ' ~

ATTA$ENT 1 (DC-02-03 continued)

                                                                                                                                                                                                             - ?-

J- ' P 7 ~ - Page 3 of 4

                                                                      ~

SPECIFICAYION_MS-013: SPENT Tt!EL POOL COOLING WATER PUMPS s

                                                                        ~,-*         -

REV. NO. AFFECTED REV. INCORPORATED - s - '_DCA'NO.

                                                                                                                                                                     ~

01797 00,- 01 NO . s - f' ',- -02237 x- 01 01 NO _ ,

c ~~

                ^

0414& ~ C .- _ 00 01 NO

                                                                          .v                     .      .

05i48, 00 01 N0

                                                    -                        -~                  .-m ,                .

I- r ', In908 00 01 NO- -

               ;L 15498                                    00                           01 ---                            N0                                                         i f_-                                           .

{lc- ~ ~ .-

    ' ~

SPECIFICATION MS-051: SPENT FUEL POOL HEAT EXCHANGER

      =

01827 00 02 NO 02872 00 02 NO 06839 00 02 N0 4 10279 00 02 NO SPECIFICATION MS-064: SPENT FUEL POOL DEMINERALIZER 01587 00 01 NO 10911 00 01 NO Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

                                              ,                 Independent Assessment Program; 83090 Li.kd L                 i f

i

                                                                                                           *h

_ [ r.

                                                        -l ~ ~ ~
                                                                                             ~'

e ~ ; ;/ .

   A ; '       c                :                                                        ,

ATTACHMENT 1 (DC-02-03 continued) Page 4 of 4 SPECIFICATION DC-5 (REV. 2) DEC.1973 e Provide for design review e Does not provide for design review sign-off on same form as now SPECIFICATION DC-9 (REV. 1) DEC. 1973 e Allows for sign-off by project manager prior to design review e Also provides for resolution of comments prior to issue. Consnents may have been incorporated into the outstanding SPECIFICATION DCA SPECIFICATION MS-29A " STRAINERS" Rev. 1: 9/7/76 Design-Review Comments Resolved PM 1-14-77 E. Horovitz 11/1/76 12/3/76 Rev. 0: 6/9/75 1-27 L. Giannuzzi 5/2/75 5/19/75 t t Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l N")LTd Lik

......g i,

O O O Design Control Process dM Assessment Checklist RIviewer(s) Checkhst No. DC-02-04

                                                                                                                                                                        "*  1 7

S. C. White Org1nization/ Activities Reviewed Review Dates G&H Design Change Control - Calculations Personnel Contacted i B. Czarnogorski: G8H Project QA Engineer { ltem No. Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL

1. Does the Job Engineer raintain DC-7 X Reviewed the following Cales:

a file and index of calculations 13.1 Calc 235 Series: in his discipline? 235-1-Spent Fuel Pool Pressure drop 235-3-Spent Fuel Pool Skimmer i 235-4-Cask Pit & Transfer Canal pump dre Are calculations which are clas- DC-7 X Calc 235-1, Rev. 1, 2, 3 ! 2. l sified as " Nuclear Safety Related' 12.2 or "Non Nuclear Safety Related-0A Program Applicable" design re-viewed? PREPARATION ~

3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Calc 235-1, 235-3, and 235-4 1 G8H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 standard calc sheets (Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat and orderly 4

manner so that assumptions, methods, and results can be readily checked? i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

;  Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l _ ) . d t 7 e n t a o ' 4 d e l e 4 4 c - t a r 5 5 s( 2 5 3 2 l e y t 3 2 3 2 st ' R e O es cl

               '                                             f                     d                                  d
               '         d i    "            n                         y         a                     n                                  n a                        t          S                     a                                  a s                              e ok rc t

n e 3

                             ,                     f a         a r

3 3 m - S e - - Pe m o 5 3 r l c 5 3 5 3 _ l h 4 c 2 a u 2 2 oC r 0 2 1

                             ,                     l e

c N t 1 1

                            -                        u         o                      -                                  -

tt 0 5 N n nn C

                  -      5 3

5 3 3 oe D 2 1

                                                       ,     l j

2 2 c Cms c 5

                                                      -                             c                                 l n       o l

C a 3 2 h l C a C a g s N ie t is ss l k A es c e N DA C h T A

-                   S N

U T X X X X A S t n e O m u c o D 1 2 3 1 e c n 71 71 72 73 e r - - . - - e C4 C4 C4 C4 fe D1 D1 D1 D1 R e -  ? h d d t h - e e  ? ee , pt ta t t s h ve l oe ic ?a a n tit l te wi dl ?l o - ta a h f eeee ?i h g nid es di tRlR e et is 0 dh es a b h' sp i h o , t etr e ts aa l etct yay t om pu h

                                                                                                                    ?

tpe i l 9 0 etv nl Reie n rs &s wrt? 3 l ao gc flf i us t oi) 8 s p c i yapa a pa nl dft e  ; te mn sg t S pS t  ? ou e ,s u .m b u oon en di e fr A r n o f& o ?n s i s t e td se .s ca cio? nr t t i r ratI ti) so w aama Seae c sso t nei?c ar ii lf e. i I g A ema - nl l rl s n o c t si g ii , ,or w rrl7 ol rcgc n einagf n st( e sP ei aou - i o auou o mtet nii en ceya t e v pf cC tf eNrN i eiruitt e a P - t t d e pd nh ndtd ct R enl D l i n ria l e cn n a: anf mneg eii r ve p cx uh uoAo l gt oeoidi l t rm d i ct NNQN unscrcfil edih f nb g es eehd l ci ss hrcn af : l w eaai e ti ae uep cose* n

• aoeeoeee cl r

ccy er ss sq p eeo l el ap es aefA rni oo raro iA Df Act c t Hro( Aot i t l n i e td Un o e OM N . . sp m 4 S 6 7 ae xd te I en TI

                      ]          ,i !          il'               ;j      )~         l                !  )   il!          ;l                i ;: i          '

O O O Design Control Process L

• Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checkiist No. 89* ' DC-02-04 3 7 Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

8. When a computer is used to per- DC-7 X Calc 235-4, Rev. 2 ,

fann a calculation is this fact 14.3.2 Calc 235-3, Rev. 1 ' noted in the reference section? Calc 235-1, Rev. 3 (Noted in data sec.)

9. Is the first page of the computer DC-7 X Calc 511-2, Rev. 2, filed in separat' input sheet identified, reviewed, 14.3.2 binder and acceptable, and approved in the same manner Calc 531- Filed in a seperate binder as that of a hand calculation?

                                ~

Approved per DC-7 14.3.2 10.- Are attachments to cales identi- DC-7 X Calcs 235-1, 235-3, and 235-4 fled as " attachment," identified 14.3.3 with the calc number, and include the total number of attached pages? CHECKING & APPROVING

11. After the preparer has completed DC-7 X

 -              the calc, is it given to an                E.4.1 assigned checker?

12. . Is the calc checked by one of DC-7 X Line-by-line check of calcs i the following methods: 14.4.2 235-1, 235-3, and 235-4 l e line by line calc check?

i e alternate calc? ! e identical calc? e compare inputs & results of computer calcs with similar computer cales? Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

'  Independent Assessment Program; 83090 Y

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) checklist No. Page of 4 7 Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

13. Is supporting documentation of DC-7 X Review memos are filed in Calc these checking methods maintained 14.4.3 books indicating comments on on file by the Job Engineer? Calc reviews 14 Upon completion of the checker's DC-7 X Calcs 235-1, 235-3, 235-4 review is each calculation sheet 14.4.5 completed with the checkers initials, date, and method used for checking?

, 15. When design review is required, DC-7 X Calc 235-1 is a copy of the calc transmitted 14.4.6 1 to the Design Reviewer? ! 16. Has the Job Engineer indicated DC-7 X Calcs 235-1, 235-3, and 235-4 his approval by signing and dating 14.4.7 the original calc cover sheet? CHANGES / REVISIONS

17. When a calc is modified to reflect DC-7 X Entire page redone and new changes, are these changes record. 14.5.1 revision indicated i ed on the original calculation by i one of the following methods:

e a single line drawn through 4 the material to be changed l and the correction added? e the entire page is redone? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. i Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l O O O

Design Control Process M. ni Assessment Checklist (cont.)

mummmmma I Checklist No. ""9' ' DC-02-04 5 7

Item No Revew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

18. Are changes easily recognizable DC-7 X 235-1, Rev. 3 and identified by adding the re- 14.5.2 235-3, Rev. I vision number next to the change? 235-4, Rev. 1 i

19. For changes / revisions, has the DC-7 X Reviewed various Calc Revisions.

preparer done the following: 14.5.3 235-1, Rev. 3 e entered the next sequential 235-3, Rev. I calculation revision number 235-4, Rev. 1 on the cover sheet? e listed each individual page number that was added, de-leted or revised on the cover sheet? e completed the information (initials, date, revision number) at the top of each affected page? e transmitted the calculation to the checker? i ! 20. Has the checker indicated his DC-7 X Line-by-line check j concurrence with the change by 14.5.4 l initialing / dating the affected pages and identifying the check-ing method used? i I Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M. ii Assessment Checklist (cont.) 4 ? Checklist No. Page of 7 Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

21. Do calculation revisions undergo DC-7 X the same review and approval as 14.5.5 the orginal?

22. Are voided or superseded calcul- DC-7 X None observed

, ations marked as such and do 14.5.6 l they indicate the document it is replacing? l FILING / INDEXING

23. Are computer sheets bound in bin- DC-7 X See Item 9 of this checklist ders, properly indexed and filed? 14.6.1 i

24. Does the calculation index ' con- DC-7 X

tain the following

14.6.2 l

e calculation number? - e subject? e revision number?. e classification (i.e., safety related)? e void or superseded (if-

                                  -applicable)?

25. Is the calculation index kept DC-7 X

current 14.6.3 1 -

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O . Design Control Process 4L ii Assessment Checklist (cont.)

         =========

checklist No. "'9' ' DC-02-04 7 7 item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments f i DISTRIBUTION

26. After calculation approval DC-7 X i (including Design Review if 15.1 applicable) the Job Engineer i

forward a copy to the

 !                    Duplicate File?

1 i 27. Does the Job Engineer forward, DC-7 X

as a minimum, a copy of the com- 15.2 l

puter inputs to the Duplicate File (for computer cales)? a 4 1 l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

.                          O                                                                       O                                                                                    O Design Control Process U. i

• Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Checklist No. Page of S. L. Bibo DC-02-05 1 2 l S. C. White

 ! Organuation/Actmtes Rewewed                                                                                    Review Dates 7/18-7/22/83 DC-3, Rev. 5, " Drawing Production Procedure" Personnel Contacted C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer
'                                           B. Czarnogorski: G8H Project QA Engineer item No.                              Rewew Attnbutes                   Reference Document SAT   UNSAT    NA                   Comments

1. Is there evidence that all

                                      " nuclear safety related" drawings and changes thereto exhibit / display:

a. Evidence of the drawing being DC-3 X See Attachment 1 to this Checklist

                                           " checked" for: completeness,              14.1                                      for a list of drawings, accuracy, correctness, adher-ence to design documents, i                                           correctness / adequacy of lay-l out, and OSHA Requirements?

b. Evidence of approval by the DC-3 X See Attachment 1.

squad leader of the origin- 15.1 ating discipline?

c. Evidence of a design review DC-3 X See Attachment 1.

in accordance with DC-8 15.3 l (design review procedure)?

d. The lead discipline job DC-3 X See Attachment 1.

Engineer / Supervising Engineer 15.4 I approval for: conformity with established design concepts, 1 satisfactory checking, adher- ! ence to SAR requirements, and l adherence to codes and i standards? l Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process R'* Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. " ' DC-02-05 2 2 f item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

e. Evidence of the Texas Profes- DC-3 X See Attachment 1.

l sional Engineer or Regis- 15.8 1 tered Architect stamp on all I drawings issued for fabrica-i tion, construction, or j installation? l f. Evidence that incomplete or DC-3 X See El-0020 unfinished drawings which 15.9 have been released for con-struction indicate a hold area ] and that, when the " hold" is i removed, the drawing indicates a new issue number? Evidence, that if a drawing DC-3 X See M1-2517, Rev. 5

             ! g. cnange is determined not to     16.2 i

r equire a design review due j to the nature of the change,

such a determination is i documented, by memo, from 4 the job engineer to the

design reviewer?

h. Evidence that all DCA's and DC-3 X See Attachment 2 to this Checklist l CMC's which have been incor- 16.3 for a list.

I porated into the drawing are identified on the drawing? . 1. Evidence that all drawings DC-3 X See Attachment 1. are reviewed and approved by 18.1 4 the Project Manager? i t i' Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

;    Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ATTAC M NT 1 (DC-02-05) Page 1 of 3 DRAWING SQUAD LEAD P.M. P.E. DESIGN REVIEW NO. REV. TITLE CHECKED APPR DISCP APPROVAL STAMP ?ERFORMED COMMENTS M2517 1 INSTRUMENT x x x x x NR REV. I to DWG was not safety TABULATION related - DWG changed REY. 2 l 2 l x x x x x YES - l 3 l x x x x x YES - i l 4 l x x x x x YES Based on D. Review of DCA 8244

                                +        5        +            x        x       x       x        x           NR   Revised as final issue to transfer to TUSI (SITE)

M1-2235-03 4 SPENT FUEL POOL x x x x x NR Not safety related COOLING SYSTEM M1-08015 1 FUEL HANDLING BLD x x x x x YES - CABLE SUPPORTS El-0020 1 125 V DC x x x x x YES -  ! l 2 l x x x x x YES - l 3 l x x x x x YES - l 4 l x x x x x YES - l 5 l x x x - x x YES -

                                +        6      +              x        x       x       x        x        YES                     -

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. p Independent Assessment Program; 83090

a -a._, ,d --w - - - . t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 W m 3 W MC

              >W WE                                                            t.o  M         M             M              M   to  M aa       M      M     M          to      M   to to O    W      W     W          W       W   W  W             W    W         W             W              W   W   W 6    >      >     >          >       >   >  >             >    >         >             >              >   >   >

v M o. 5 1 g W S e M O. M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M

                -m g %. M O     4 e>

N h M M M M M M M M M M M M M M J W. a. a. g 2

         - o.                                                                                                                           e W    km                                                                                                                        O E    y M      M       M     M           M      M   M  M              M   M             M          M             M   M  M       m ag                                                                                                                        m
                                                                                                                                       *E I                                                                                                                                    uo C S=
         <    hm Og.       M      M     M           M      M   M  M              M   M             M          u             M   M   M   ~g o

A .e . t. w a. W up

'                  O                                                                                                                 w C m     M      M     M           M      M   M  M              M   M              M         M             M   M   M    em W                                                                                                                 @m E                                                                                                                     W I                   U                                                                                                                  me
                                                                                                                                      &M

( - ac m # I g eM e e-. C 3 PW l i m evC M

                   -                                                                                                                  M.

m p > _ _ _ _ > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g M O .- - N @ M W e O # N

                   $   N      W     @           m           m  M             N   M             W          M             W    5  W
                                                                                                                                            '"I s                 O                                       M N
              -        g,                                      @,                                                       _   _ _

fa O

                                                                                                                 --c   .a o

3 I

• J inem DC '

w ;5 k m am-8a m , w ax

                                                                                                                                                         #c u CG C 3

w MC

                               >w                   $.

Nh o M w V o M w M w M w M w M w M w M w M w M w M w w > h > > > > > > > > > >

     -                            5 0"                   5
     ].                        =

w M 1 x x x x x x x x x x x x m m g %- d Im o .s rg x x x x x x x x x x x x W. a. g -a

     - o.                                                                                                                                                             e A                                                                                                                                   @

M x x x x x x x x x x x x m og =

                                                                                                                                                                     *E u ne
     <                            a                                            x                 x             x    x     x bm gm     x             x   x       x                                                                          x      x       x
                                                                                                                                                                    ;k o

Mc . U4 w 5uf U M x x x x x x x x x x x gm W vi e Z W U

• me G*

                                                                                                                                                                   * *'C W

e. M w- M F C I m H J v* W lll eg e.

i sc E aC H $V e l ~ 8 d SW a

                                                                                                                                                                    .1
                                                                                                                                                                    .e l                                  p   >             +          -              -                 -             -     +     j               - -             +         p C                w                                                                  ww                                        HM CO               ::3                                                                DH T                6                                                                  LM e

y @ C , g n ,, gn g g g g ,, ,,[

d S o $ f l gg 5,

                                                    +  g
                                                               -               -                 - -                 +    g
                                                                                                                                          -      -         +       muuta E      W                 M                                                                  M j                               g

O o ATTACWENT 2 (DC-02-05) Page 1 of 3 o INCORPORATION STATUS INCORPORATION CMC /DCA INFORMATION REMARKS AGAINST NOT REQ'D INCORP POSTED ON DWG DRAWING CMC f DCA # 8Y REV YES NO NA NO. (REV) DWG REV REQ'D x 4 x Computer print-out shows 1 DCA M1-2517 NONE 8244 3 x NOT YET x Outstanding 16937 5 3 x 4 x Print-out shows 0 DCA's M1-2235-03 NONE  % 55 outstanding x NOT YET x El-8015 NONE 4947 1 x NOT YET x 6927 (1) 1 x NOT YET x 6947 1 x Print-out shows x NOT YET 8588 (1) .I NOT YET x 16 DCA's outstanding 11040 1 x 1 x NOT YET x plus 3 DCA's 11040 (1) x NOT YET x indicated as "NI" 18310 1 x NOT YET x 48872 1 x 48873 1 x NOT YET x NOT YET x 48874 1 x 48875 1 x NOT YET x NOT YET x 48876 1 x 50564 (1) 1 x NOT YET x NOT YET x 50564 (2) 1 x 59586 1 x NOT YET x NOT YET x 80380 1 x x NOT YET 88221 (1) 1 x x 93238 1 NOT YET

                                         *Information taken from:                      1) 7/16/83 Computer Run-Report CPR 501 " CMC affected Document Report"

2) 7/12/83 Computer Run-Report CPR 501 "DCA Affected Document Report" Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

y Independent Assessment Program; 83090 IWWillllNilNIEllNIRi

O O ATTACISENT 2 (DC-02-05) O Page 2 of 3 CMC /DCA INFORMATION INCORPORATION SIATUS INCORPORATION DRAWING CMC # DCA # AGAINST NOT REQ'D REQ'O INCORP BY REV POSTED ON DWG REMARKS NO. (REV) DWG REV YES NO NA El-0020 NONE 6709 6 x 10 x 13073 10 x 11 x 13432 10 x NOT YET x 13432 (1) 10 x NOT YET x Print-out shows 13432 (2) 10 x NOT YET x 6 DCA'a outstanding 14708 10 x NOT YET x 14708 (1) 11 x NOT YET x 15669 11 x 12 x 16371 11 x NOT YET x El-0005 NONE 9362 1 x (NOTE 1) x Note 1 - Computer Log shot 7117 4 x NOT YET x DCA 9362 Incorp into REV. 7117 (1) 4 x NOT YET x 11005 6 x NOT YET x Print-out shows 3 outstanc 11005 (1) 6 x 7 x DCA's S-0801 NONE 20 5 x NOT YET x 26 5 x NOT YET x 31 5 x NOT YET x Print-out shows 81 5 x NOT YET x 8 DCA's 92 (1) 5 x NOT YET x outstanding 713 5 x NOT YET x 4660 6 x NOT YET x 6333 6 x NOT YET x i

                                        *Information taken from:             1) 7/16/83 Computer Run-Report CPR 501 " CMC affected Document Report"

2) 7/12/83 Computer Run-Report CPR 501 "DCA Affected Document Report" Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

                                              ,              Independent Assessment Program; 83090 lik".I L   A N

m e. ATTACIMENT 2 (DC-02-05) Page 2 of 3 CMC /DCA INFORMATION INCORPORATION STATUS INCORPORATION DRAWING CMC # DCA # AGAINST NOT REQ'D REQ'D INCORP BY REV POSTED ON DWG REMARKS NO. (REV) DWG REV YES NO HA S-0825 NONE 36 2 x NOT YET x 535 3 x NOT YET x 1114 4 x NOT YET x 1286 (1) 4 x NOT YET x 1619 4 x NOT YET x 2015 4 x NOT YET x 2217 4 x NOT YET x 2391 4 x NOT YET x 2916 (1) 4 x NOT YET x 3586 4 x NOT YET x 3586 (1) 4 x NOT YET x 3586 (2) 4 x NOT YET x Print-out 7850 4 x NOT YET x shows 21 DCA's 7850 (1) 4 x NOT YET x outstanding 7850 (2) 4 x NOT YET x plus 2 indicated 7850 (3) 4 x NOT YET x as "NI" 9302 4 x NOT YET x 13513 4 x NOT YET x 13513 (1) 4 x NOT YET x 13513 (2) 4 x NOT YET x 13513 (3) 4 x NOT YET x 17054 4 x NOT YET x 17054 (1) 4 x NOT YET x

             *Information taken from:                1) 7/16/83 Computer Run-Report CPR 501 " CMC affected Document Report"

2) 7/12/83 Computer Run-Report CPR 501 "DCA Af fected Document Report" Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

     .e.            3e=               Independent Assessment Program; 83090 r%

L l'.2]ifil rammmmmunu

O O O Design Control Process d i n' summmmmmma

• Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Checklist No. Page of S. L. Bibo DC-02-06 1 3 S. C. White Orgamration/Actietees Remened Rewew Dates ,

7/18-7/22/83 4 DC-8, Rev G. " Design Review Procedure - Calculations, Drawings, Specifications" 14esonriel Contacted C. Chapman: G8H Project Engineer B. Czarnogorski: G8H Project QA Engineer item No Reven Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Reviewed List Maintained by P. M.:

reviews are performed by quali- 12.2 Design Document fled personnel and are such Reviewed JDisc Reviewed personnel identified on a list Scheller Elec Dwg El-0005 of designated design reviewers Renko Elec Dwg El-0020 maintained by the Project Giannuzzi Mecl: Specs Manager? Horovitz Mech Specs Morris Mech Specs < Totten Mech Calcs

2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Based on not signing documents as i reviewers are independent in 12.3 preparer / checker & based on review that they have had no input into of P. M. list and discussions with the design they are tasked with P. M., P. E. and Lead Discipline

, reviewing? Engineers 3 Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X Seperate checklists for each utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 discipline (i.e. Mech, Struct, l to each discipline and do the Elec. etc.) are used. In addition, checklists establish the items within each discipline, there are , to be addressed by the reviewer specific checklists for each type of ' and identify the source document (i.e. Specs, Calcs, Dwgs) documents? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process

    *h n i M uuuuuuuuum Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. Page of

                                                                                                                    , ,                                        g    3 Stem No                  Revew Attnbutes             Refeeence Document      SAT UNSAT    NA                       Coraments

4. Is there evidence that the DC-8 X Based on review of Computer design reviewer has verified the 13.2 Binder Logs for calculations i

computer programs used as design input and is such verification documented on the checklist?

5. Are all comments generated as a DC-8 X For drawings, calculations &

result of the design review docu- 14.2 specifications, reviewed mented on a design review record? Design Review Record Forms

6. Is the design review activity DC-8 completed prior to: 14.4

a. Issuance of drawings 'or X See Attachment I to this Checklist 1 construction or fabrication?

b. Issuance of specifications X Refer to Observation DC-02-01 and

, to the owner for procurement Attachment 2 to this Checklist. or construction? 7 Is the design review record D' -8 X For dwgs/ calc / specs - compared

signed by the design reviewer 14.6 Sign-off by Reviewer with and co-signed by any other P. M. List of Authorized specialists who participated in Reviewers the review?

)                                                                                                                                                                     i
;                                                                                                                                                                     t i.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process L4 L 4 i Assessment Checklist (cont.) m checklist No. DC-02-06 "* 3 3 Item No Reven Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

8. Are the design review packages DC-8 X Filed by Document maintained by the responsible 14.7 (i.e. Specification MS-13 etc.)

Job Engineer / Squad Leader?

9. Is there evidence that the chief DC-8 X Reviewed memos to file from Engineer evaluates the perfor- 15.1 Chief Engineer for 1980, 1981, mance of his reviewers on an 1982 and 1983 evaluating per-annual basis and is such evalu- formance of B. Lusin (Elect.),

ation documented? P. Totten (Mech.) and Renko (Elect.) I

10. Is there evidence that the pro- DC-8 X Audit No. Dates Discipline 2 ject GA department conducts 16.2 audits of design review 11 2/15/83-3/11/83 PBS activities?

6 1/18-20/83 Special l Analysis i 10 8/11/82 PBS 1 5 7/30/82 Special i Analysis 1 i ) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

,.                                                                                                                                                                        l

O O O ATTAOSENT 1 (DC-02-06) Page 1 of 1 DRAWING NO. REV ISSUE DATE DESIGN REVIEW DATE S-0825 1 2/25/77 2/24/77 S-0825 2 3/25/77 3/23/77 i S-0825 3 8/5/77 7/26/77 ^ S-0825 4 12/20/77 12/9/77 E-0020 11 10/29/82 10/26/82 E-0020 10 1/20/82 1/6/82 i 8/3/81 E-0020 9 8/11/81 E-0020 8 6/1/81 5/11/81 i l 1 l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090 7 N

                                                                 .                                                                    t

O O O ATTAOSENT 2 (DC-02-06) Page 1 of 2 TRANSMITTAL OF SPECIFICATIONS: SEE DC-02-06: ITEM 6B SPEC MO. REVISION ACCEPTABLE DESIGN REVIEW RESOLUTION TRANSMITTAL I ! MS-13 ORIGINAL 1-8-75 2-4-75 2-24-78 GTN-2449 2-19-75 MS-13 REVIISON 1 9-10-75 1-7-76 9-11-79 7 I, MS-51 ORIGINAL 7-23-74 10-10-74 12-9-74 GTN-1174 ADDENDtM 1 5-29-74 MS-51 ORIGINAL 8-28-74 12-11-75 NO C0tWENTS 8-30-74 , I MS-51 REVISION 1 9-5-75 12-31-75 3-19-76 GTN-4778 9-9-75 MS-51 REVIISON 2 11-11-75 3-23-76 8-2-78 GTN-5725 11-17-75 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 N

O O O ATTADOENT 2 (DC-02-06) Page 2 of 2 Contrary to the requirements of DC-8 (REV. 6), Paragraph 4.4, several revisions of Specification Nos. 2323-MS-13 and 2323-MS-51 were apparently issued to the owner prior to performance of design review and/or resolution of design review connents. It should be noted that procedural requirements in place at the time of the applicable design reviews allowed for the following: '

• DC-5 (REY. 2), dated December 1973, required design review to be performed, but did not require a separate design review sign-off on the checklist form currently in use.
• DC-9 (REV.1), dated December 1973, allowed for sign-off of specifications by the Project Manager prior to performance of design review, but also required resolution of design review conenents prior to issue.

The specific instances discussed above are as follows: SIGN-0FF BY DESIGN REVIEW SPEC NO. REY. DATE PROJECT MANAGER PERFORMED RESOLVED MS-13 0 1-6-75 1-8-75 2-4-75 2-24-78 MS-13 1 9-10-75 9-10-75 1-7-76 9-11-79 MS-51 0 7-16-74 7-23-74 10-10-74 12-9-74 t MS-51 ADO 1 8-27-74 8-28-74 12-11-75 NO COMMENTS 0 MS-51 1 3-20-75 9-5-75 12-31-75 3-19-76 MS-51 2 3-20-75 11-11-75 3-23-76 8-2-78 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 m

O O Design Control Process o ' dW^ Assessment Checklist summmmmmmm Checklist No. Page of W S) DC-02-07 1 3 S. L. Bibo S. C. White Orgamration/Actanties Remened Rewew Dates 7/18-7/26/83 G8H Interface Control (GAH Project Guides, Section V) Personnee contacted M. Strange (SITE), C. Chapman: G&H Project Engineer B. Czarnocorski- G&H Profect GA Enaineer item No. Reven A*tnewtes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Cornments Are changes in disciplines' Q- Sect. 4.a X Amendment 38 to FSAR Section 17A

1. was signed off by all disciplines Lists submitted to the mechanical- Page V-3 nuclear job engineer for incor- including Mechanical Job poration into the project 0-List? Engineer Does G8H send drawings to TUSI for Sect. 4.b.(3) X Per PC-2, Rev. 2, TUSI Approval of

2. dwgs is no longer required and approval and, at the same time, Page V-3a aperture cards to DCC7 cards no longer sent (Refer to

' Client letter TSG-1759 (12/30/82)

3. Does G8H maintain an up to date Sect. 4.b.(6) X See Attachment I to this Checklist listing of CPSES Monconformance Page V-3a approval delegation?

4 Are records of nonconformance ap- Sect. 4.b.(6) X Via Distribution of proval by CPSES forwarded TO G8H7 Page V-3b DCA/ CMC /DECD's

5. Are disapproved documents return- Sect. 4.b.(8) X See Attachment 2 to this Checklist ed by CPP Engineer to G8H/NY on a Page V-3b Status 2 document form?

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process h ii Assessment Checklist (cont.) N CheckHst No. Page of ltem No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i

6. Does Administrative Services sub- Sect. 4.b.()) X Project guida requirement deleted mit a copy of the construction Page V-3b per discussion with M. Strange (TNED drawing log to the Resident En- DCA's are forwarded to vendors for gineer each Monday morning? INFO only because vendors will not approve DCA's (See CP-EI-4.6.3) 1

;              7.        When a field modification is made,           Sect dd.C.1                             X        See item 6
 !                       does G8H (jobsite) forward a DCA             Page V-7e to the vendor for approval?

8. Are revisions of drawings receivec Sect. dd.C.S.d X See Attachment 3 to this by G8H from vendors stamped as re- Page V-7h Checklist.

quired?

9. Are DECDs forwarded by G8H to Sect. dd.C.5 X 1. GTN Letters are standard format 1 TUGC0 using the specified trans- (Page V-79) and 2. See Attachment 4 to this

mittal form? Attach. A Checklist.

t

10. Where DECDs are safety related, Sect. dd.C.5 X DECD's are processed by DCA l l

does TUGC0 direct the vendor (Page V-79) (See Item 7 above) to perform appropriate design and Attachment A reviews? See also Sect. 24. 4 (Page V-72)

11. Is the status of CMCs/DCAs avail- Sect. 24.C.8 X Computerized Report for CMC /DCA able to both TUSI and GAH through Page V-70 maintained by G8H NY but can be accessed by TNE 1

the computerized data bank?

12. Does G8H/ job site follow up open Sect. 24.I X See Item 7 above CMC /DCAs submitted to vendors? Page V-73 l

i l Texas Utilities Services. Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process C 2- Assessment Checklist (cont.)

   ==========

checklist No. "*9' 3 *' 3 DC-02-07 Item No Revew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UtJSAT NA l Comments Are TUSI letters of Transmittal to Sect. PG-24 X See Attachment 3 13. G&H/NY filed by G8H/NY in "incom- Attach. D 1 ing" and "875 (CMC's) general 18(1) t file"? Page V-86 , 1 Does TUSI document requests for PG-28 X See Attachment 4 i 14 i transfer of drawings by GaH/NY? 18.1 Page V-125 l

;        15. Are original drawings sent by G8H/           PG-28               X                       See Attachment 5 to this Checklist l               NY to TUSI forwarded by Transmit-            18.1 tal letter with letter copies                Page V-126 4                 distributed as specified?                    and Attachment A After original drawings have been            PG-28               X                       Based on a review of updates to

16. computerized print-outs (mark-ups) i, transfered from GaH/NY to TUSI 18.2 i

! does TUSI transmit specified up- Page V-126 l dates to GaH/NY?

17. Is the site design review team PG-29 X 1. GTN 64874 (4/5/83) - P. Gilson 4'

supervisor approved by TUSI? SC approved by G8H V.P. - addressed Page V-128 to TUGC0

2. GTN 66504 (6/29/83) -

4 B. Wilcoxson approved by GaH V.P. - addressed to TUGC0

,        18. Does TUSI/DCTG forward copies of              PG-29              X                       Review of files l

CMCs/DCAs to the G8H Team Super- 1E.1(a) ! visor? Page V-129 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O 2 ATTAC30ENT 1 (DC-02-07) DC-02-07 ITEM 3 GTN-59862 - 6/21/82 - Delegates G. L. Mcpheeters to approve all mechanical non-conformances onsite GTN-59155 - 5/14/82 - Up to date listing of G8H personnel at CPSES site with authorization to perfonn design reviews and sign-off authority GTM-47433 - 7/30/80 - Delegates R. Estes to approve all I&C nonconformances onsite GTN-48941 - 9/10/80 - Delegates 7. Kissinger to approve all Civil / Structural nonconformances onsite i GTN-51223 - 1/13/81 - Delegates C. Creamer to approve all I&C nonconformances onsite i I Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 m i

O O O ATTACISENT 2 (DC-02-07) DC-02-07: ITEM 5 TUS! STATUS LETTER NO. DATE SOURCE DOCUMENT REV 1 2 3 4 REMARKS TGH-10228 1/12/78 GTN-23529 M1-0630 0 x M1-0631 0 x M1-0632 0 x M1-0633 0 x TGH-4650 4/28/77 GTM-18078 M1-606 2 x M1-601 2 x M1-601-01 3 x M1-602 7 x M1-608 7 x M1-609 7 x M1-610 4 x M1-611 4 x TGH-2945 12/3/76 GTN-13637 M1-601 0 x M1-601-01 0 x TGH-1778 4/20 GTM-7756 M1-602-609 0 x M1-612-618 0 x e STATUS 1 = Approved 2 = Approved as noted 3 = Not approved 4 = Information only

                                                                                         ~

Texas Utilities Services', Ior. _ i Indeperufent;.".sses_sment Program; 83090 A"U LM L k f A t

                         ,i                                                                                                             -

N -

                                                                             ~                            0 -f.
                                                                                                                         .~~
                                                                          -              =-

p 7- ,

                                                                                                                                    ~
                                                                                                                             ',                                      m._
                                                                                                        ~
                      .-                              -                ~

3; _

                                                                                                                     ~
      -                                                                                                                                                                                      ~

L- - _- .~ _

     ~
                                                                                                             .-         f                                                                                                              _                                 ,

f ATTAONENT 3 (DC-02-07)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   , -y et-02-07: ITEM 8
     ,g                                                                                                 .

VE;; DOM RELIANCE ELECTRIC CO. - REY. NO. APPRNED BY G&N l, DRAWING NO. STAMPE ,D AS REQUIRED

                                                                                                           ~                                                                                                             _
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ~
                                                                                             ,                         N-CB04813-F/7                               7                                    6/22/81                                           YES                  ---

i; _ r -- ~- -

                                                                                                          ~~

W-CB04813-F/1 1 12/7/79 YES (g. y ~

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       .x__
                                                          -                                  ~^-

s

    .',,,._                                                                                                          VtirQ_ CNERAL. ELECTRIC CO.
                                                                                 '                                                    ~
                                                                                           -                                          78                            1-                                    4/4/79                             _

YES < y

                                                                       ~                ~                                                                                                                                                            ,-
         -                                                                     ~

DC-02-07f' ITEM _13 - l' .

                                                                                                                     ~

CPPA NO. DATE - _ ,' SUBJECT -

                                                                                                                                                                                                ~

b, _- m

       =

v _

                                                       ' .-        ~ ~ c 1,                                                                        31231 J /     ,6/15/83                                         CMC # C-431 31166          6/10/83                                         CMC f C-4IS TO C-481 30661          5/25/83                                         CMC # C-463 TO C-469 30350          5/11/83                                         CMC f C-446 TO C-453 30125           5/4/83                                         CMC # C-438 TO C0445 29505          4/11/83                                         CMC # C-421 TO C-425 l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

                                                                             .                          Independent Assessment Program; 83090 LY(d t r il l

imummmmmmmu

y . 3 ATTACl5EllT 4 (DC-02-07) DC-02-07: ITEM 14

1) CPPA-28, 138 dated February 28, 1983 McBay to Ballard RE: Unit 2 Mechanical - Flow diagram update

2) 1.etter of January 14, 1983

                                                                                          ~

Calder to Ballard RE: Unit 1 instrumentation drawing update and transfer DC-02-07: ITEM 9 GTN NO DATE DECD NO. 65463 5/9/83 S-2723 (REV. 0) 54016 7/8/81 5 2506 (REV. 0) 52922 4/22/81 S-2366 (REV. 1) 57514 2/11/82 N-817 (REV. 0) 57241 1/25/82 S-2588 (REV. 0) 63834 2/11/83 S-2706 (REV. 0) 55102 8/31/81 S-2341 (REV. 3) 55340 9/16/81 S-2529 (REV. 0) Texas Utilities Services, Inc. [ T [4"'(fil j Independent Assessment Program; 83090 111111111111111111111111118111

l O O O ATTACl#ENT 5 (DC-02 'J7) DC-02-07: ITEM 15 t TRANSMITTAL DOCUMENT TRANSMITTED DISTRIBUTION PER P.G. #28 - ATTACH A Pg V127 NO. DATE NUMBER REV TITLE TNE ARMS TUGC0 TUGC0 TUSI OPER SITE DISC ENG GTN-63320 1/18/83 M1-0202 12 MAIN STEAM REHEAT PUMP M1-0233 10 STA. SERVICE H3 0 SYS. x x x x x M1-0235 10 SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING GTN-63505 1/26/83 M1-0229 12 CCWS x x x x x GTN-63367 1/20/83 M1-0267 9 LIQUID WASTE PROCESS x x x x x FLOW DIAGRAM GTN-66034 7/13/83 El-0020 12 125 V DC 1-LINE DIA x x x x x GTN-66435 6/27/83 M1-2311-01 7 VENTILATION - SAFETY x x x x x CHILLED Hp0 SYS GTN-65659 5/17/83 M1-2235-01 4 SPENT FUEL POOL COOLING x x x x x AND CLEANUP SYS GTN-65300 4/28/83 M1-2722-01 2 SECONDARD PLANT SMAPLING x x x x x

                                                       ,                   Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Lk id 2, a Independent Assessment Program; 83090 111111111111111111

O O O Design Control Process A L-n i 111111111111111111111m111111 Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Checklist No. "'9' ' DC-02-08 1 7 J. Toner orgtnintion/ Activities Reviewed Review Dates Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Processing of Calculations (Electrical) personnei contacted P. Lalaji S. Matirovich B. Czarnogorski item No Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL

1. Does the Job Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed calculation index for a file and index of calculations 13.1 electrical calculations fi, led in in his discipline? the G8H Job Book.

2. Are calculations which are DC-7 X Calculation IV-1 "6.9 KV Bus classified as " Nuclear Safety 12.2 Voltage Study" and Calculation ,

Related" or "Non-Nuclear Safety VII-1 " Cable Sizing Calculation" Related-QA Program Applicable" were both design reviewed, design reviewed? PREPARATION

3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 2 for i G&H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 calculations reviewed.

4 standard calculation sheets (Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat and orderly manner so that assumptions, methods, and ! results can be readily checked? E - Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 J - _ - -

, O O O I Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist.(cont.) checklist No. DC-02-08 "" 2 '7 llem No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments l 4. Has the preparer completed all DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 2 for the required information at the 14.1.2 calculations reviewed, top of each calculation cover sheet (Appendix DC-7-1)? S. Are calculations designated with DC-7 X Calculation IV-1 was designated one of the following classifica- 14.1.3 "Non-Nuclear Safety Related QA tions: program applicable" and e Nuclear Safety Related? Calculation VII-1 was designated e Non-Nuclear Safety Related- " Nuclear Safety Related." QA Program Applicable? e Non-Nuclear Safety Related?

6. Do calculations contain the DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 2 for following: 14.2.1 calculations reviewed.

e statement of purpose? e conditions & assumptions?

• references?

e computations? e findings? e identification & high-lighting results?

7. Are references listed within the DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 2 for calculation and identified for 14.3.1 calculations reviewed.

positive traceability (i.e., title, date, copyright date, issue)? i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process Mt ' i- Assessment Checklist (cont.) i N Checklist No. ""9' ' DC-02-08 3 7 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

8. When a computer is used to per- DC-7 X There were no computer runs form a calculation is this fact 14.3.2 associated with Calculations noted in the reference section? IV-1 and VII-1.

9. Is the first page of the computer DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 8.

input sheet identified, reviewed, 14.3.2 and approved in the same manner i as that of a hand calculation?

10. Are attachments to calculations DC-7 X There were no attachments to identified as " attachment," 14.3.3 Calculation IV-1. Calculation identified with the calculation VII-1 contained 17 pages number, and include the total identified as " Attachment A."

number of attached pages?

CHECKING & APPROVING

11. After the preparer has completed DC-7 X The checker is identified on the the calculation, is it given to 14.4.1 cover sheet of Calculations IV-1 an assigned checker? and VII-1.

12. Is the calculation checked by DC-7 X For Calculations IV-1 and VII-1, one of the following methods: 14.4.2 the line by line checking method was e line by line calculation used, i check?

e alternate calculation? j e identical calculation? e compare inputs & results of computer calculations with similar computer ' calculations? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. i Independent Assessment Program; 83090 4

O O . O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) j checklist No. 89' 4 ' DC-02-08 7 j Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

13. Is supporting documentation of DC-7 X The review method is documented

, these checking methods maintained 14.4.3 on the electrical group checklist on file by the Job Engineer? for Calculations IV-1 and VII-1.

14. ' Upon co'npletion of the checker's DC-7 X Calculation IV-I was initialed t review is each calculation sheet 14.4.5 by the checker on 1/31/83 with completed with the checkers the line by line checking method initials date, and method used indicated. Calculation VII-I for checking? was initialed by checker on 8/15/80 and the line by line method was indicated.

1

15. When design review is required, DC-7 X Both Calculations IV-I and VII-I is a copy of the calculation. 14.4.6 were design reviewed.

i transmitted to the Design 2 Reviewer?

16. Has the Job Engineer indicated DC-7 X Calculation IV-I was signed by his approval by signing and 14.4.7 the Job Engineer on 5/18/83 and I dating the original calculation calculation VII-I was signed by cover sheet? Job Engineer on 9/9/80.

1

l. Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O Design Control Process o l 1 I ^ Assessment Checklist (cont.) i checklist No. "*9' ' l DC-02-08 5 7 l l ' Item No Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments l CHANGES / REVISIONS d

17. When a calculation is modified DC-7 X Calculation VII-I page 17 was

to reflect changes, are these 14.5.1 revised and annotated "R2" with changes recorded on the original margin indicators; also various calculation by one of the pages of the calculation were following methods

identified "R1" with margin indi-i e a single line drawn through cators. Calculation IV-I the material to be changed original calculation, was replaced and the correction added? in its entirety by Rev.1.

e the entire page is redone? l 18. Are changes easily recognizable DC-7 X Refer to Item No.17 of this and identified by adding the 14.5.2 checklist. I revision number next to the 4 change

19. For changes / revisions, has the DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 17 of this 14.5.3 checklist, preparer done the following:

e entered the next sequential calculation revision number on the cover sheet? e listed each individual page number that was added, deleted or revised on the cover sheet? 1 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. j Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O M' * . . Design Control Process Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. "'9' ' DC-02-08 6 7 f tem No naview Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments e completed the information (initials, date, revision number) at the top of each affected page?

• transmitted the calculation to the checker?

20. Has the checker indicated his DC-7 X Calculations IV-I and VII-I concurrence with the change by 14.5.4 were reviewed.

initialing / dating the affected 1 pages and identifying the check-

ing method used?

21. Do calculation revisions undergo DC-7 X All revisions reviewed the same review and approval as 14.5.5 (Calculation IV-I and VII-I,

, the orginal? Revisions 1 and 2) were reviewed / approved by the same groups who reviewed the originals, i

22. Are voided or superseded calcul- DC-7 X There were no voided or ations marked as such and do 14.5.6 superceded calculations in they indicate the document it the electrical review scope, is replacing?

FILING / INDEXING

23. Are computer sheets bound in DC-7 X There were no computer runs binders, properly indexed and 14.6.1 associated with the electrical filed? calculations reviewed.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 m _.

O O O Design Control Process bii

              ========

Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. DC-02-08 "' 7 7 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 4

24. Does the calculation index DC-7 X Calculation IV-I was identified contain the following: 14.6.2 on the calculations index in e calculation number? Book #2, Tab IV.

e subject? Calculation VII-I was identified e revision number? On the calculation index in Book e classification (i.e. , #7, Tab. VII. safety related)? e void or superseded (if applicable)? Is the calculation index kept DC-7 X Electrical index - latest update 25. current? 14.6.3 6/83. DISTRIBUTION After calculation approval DC-7 X Reviewed the Job Engineer's copy 26. (including Design Review if 15.1 of Calculations IV-I and VII-I. applicable) does the Job Engineer Duplicate files are maintained forward a copy to the by Texas Utilities (site). Duplicate File?

27. Does the Job Engineer forward, DC-7 X Duplicate files are maintained as a minimum, a copy of the cc.n- 15.2 by Texas Utilities (site). No puter inputs to the Duplicate computer inputs were applicable to i File (for computer calculations)? calculations reviewed.

1 l l l l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process AD'* Assessment Checklist mmmmmmmmmm Page of

 "'* * "I *)                                                                          Checklist No. DC-02-09                   }    2 S. Bibo J. Toner neview oates organization / Activities Reviewed                                                                  9/12/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Design Review of Calculations (Electrical)

Personnel Contacted p 9 j B. Czarnogorski ltim No. Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments j

1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Reviewed the 1/20/83 list of reviews are performed by quali- 12.2 authorized design reviewers.

fied perscnnel and are such Calculation IV-I and VII-I personnel identified on a list were design reviewed by of designated design reviewers B. Lusin who is on list of maintained by the Project design reviewers. l l Manager? Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Review of Calculation IV-1 and l

2. VII-I revealed that B. Lusin

                                                                                                                                      ~

reviewers are independent in 12.3 that they have had no input into had no input. the design they are tasked with l reviewing?

3. Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X Calculations IV-I and VII-I utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 documented design reviews on to each discipline and do the checklist titled " Design Review checklists establish the items Checklist - Electrical to be addressed by the reviewer Calculations."

and identify the source documents? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process Assessment Checklist (cont.) L t t l checklist No. DC-02-09 Page 2o' 2 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i

4. Is there evidence that the DC-8 X No computer programs were used design reviewer has verified +he 13.2 for calculations IV-I and VII-I.

computer programs used as design j input and is such verification documented on the checklist?

. 5. Are all comments generated as a DC-8 X Calculations IV-I and VII-I had result of the design review docu- 14.2 comments documented on design mented on a design review record? review record sheet and the comments were resolved.

i

6. Is the design review record DC-8 X Both calculations IV-I and VII-I signed by the design reviewer 14.6 were signed by a design reviewer.

and co-signed by any other No co-signers were noted for l specialists who participated in those reviewed. the review?

7. Are the design review packages DC-8 X Calculations IV-I and VII-I are maintained by the responsible 14.7 filed with the Job Engineer for Job Engineer / Squad Leader? design review information.

T i J Texas Utilities Services, Inc. 1 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process

4. ,b^^ Assessment Checklist maammmmma Checklist No. Page of Reviewer (s) _ _

, J. Toner Orgrnization/ Activities Reviewed Review Dates Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Processing of Calculations (Mechanical) Personnel Contacted W. Cristali B. Czarnogorski i It2m No Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments GENERAL

1. Does the Job Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed the piping calcu-a file and index of calculations 13.1 lation index "CPSES As-built in his discipline? Piping Analysis Tricking Report" dated 6/28/83 and the mechanical calculation index dated 7/6/83.

4

2. Are calculations which are DC-7 X Reviewed calculations AB-1-69 classified as " Nuclear Safety 12.2 "RHR/ Safety Injection System" and

Related" or "Non-Nuclear Safety AB-1-70 "RHR System" i Related-QA Program Applicable" design reviewed?

PREPARATION fI I 3. Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Reviewed Calculations AB-1-69 G8H New York) prepared on G&H 14.1 and AB-1-70. l' standard calculation sheets (Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat 4 and orderly manner so that assumptions, methods, and results can be readily checked? i i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M. - ii Assessment Checklist (cont.) m======== Checklist No. DC-02-10 Page 2 of 7 , item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Commeats

4. Has the preparer completed all DC-7 X Reviewed Calculations AB-1-69 ,

the required information at the 14.1.2 and AB-1-70. ' top of each calculation cover sheet (Appendix DC-7-I)?

5. Are calculations designated with DC-7 X The identifications are as one of the following classifica- 14.1.3 follows: AB-1-69 " Nuclear tions: Safety Related" AB-1-70

• Nuclear Safety Related? " Nuclear Safety Related."
• Non-Nuclear Safety Related-QA Program Applicable?
• Non-Nuclear Safety Related?

I 6. Do calculations contain the DC-7 X Reviewed Calculations AB-1-69 following: 14.2.1 and AB-1-70. e statement of purpose? e conditions & assumptions?

!                      e references?

e computations?

;                      e findings?

e identification a high-lighting results?

7. Are references listed within the DC-7 X Both Calculations AB-1-60 and calculation and identified for 14.3.1 AB-1-70 make reference to G8H positive traceability (i.e., specification MS-200 Rev. I dated

title, date, copyright date, 9/81. Reference should be to Rev.

;                  issue)?                                                                     dated 9/81.    (See Attachment 1) a l

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

, O O O l Design Control Process L t i Assessment Checklist (cont.) l Checklist No. DC-02-10 Page 3 of 7 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference oocument SAT UNSAT NA Comments

8. When a computer is used to per- DC-7 X Calculation AB-1-70 makes fonn a calculation is this fact 14.3.2 reference to use of ADLPIPE Version IC. However, the

! noted in the reference section? actual computer program used was ADLPIPE Version 2C. (See Attachment 1) i

9. Is the first page of the computer DC-7 X Calculation AB-1-69 is input sheet identified, reviewed, 14.3.2 supported by Computer Job #566 and approved in the same manner (9/9/82) and AB-1-70 is as that of a hand calculation? supported by #927 (8/16/82).

Both runs contain a preprinted stamp with required sign-offs. 1

10. Are attachments to calcula'tions DC-7 X Calculation AB-1-69 has 343 identified as " attachment," 14.3.3 pages of attachments identified identified with the calculation on a " Calculation Attachment number, and include the total Index" and AB-1-70 has 367 pages number of attached pages. of attachments identified on a

                                                                                                   " Calculation Attachment Index."

i CHECKING & APPROVING

11. After the preparer has completed DC-7 X Checkers are identified on the i the calculation, is it given to 14.4.1 calculation cover sheet for an assigned checker? Calculation AB-1-69 and 1-70.

I i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090 1

O O O , Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. DC-02-10 "* 4 7 l Itim No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments )

12. Is the calculation checked by DC-7 x Calculation AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 one of the following methods: 14.4.2 used the line by line checking e line by line calculation method, i check?

e alternate calculation? e identical calculation?  ; e compare inputs and results ' j of computer calculations with similar computer calculations? 4

13. Is supporting documentation of DC-7 x Supporting documentation for

                                                                                                   ' the line by line checking method these checking methods maintained   14.4.3 on file by the Job Engineer?                                                         is identified by the "As-Built Stress Analysis Checklist" which was filed with both calculations AB-1-69 and AB-1-70.

i

14. Upon completion of the checker's DC-7 x Calculations AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 review, is each calculation sheet 14.4.5 both contain checkers' initials, j completed with the checkers and date and indication of line i initials date, and method used by line checking. -

for checking?

15. When design review is required, DC-7 x Calculations AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 is a copy of the calculation 14.4.6 were both design reviewed.

transmitted to the Design Reviewer?

; Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

j Independant Assessment Program; 83090 t

O O O Design Control Process

n. '* Assessment Checklist (cont.)

checklist No. Page ' 5 7 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

16. Has the Job Engineer indicated DC-7 x Calculation AB-1-69 was signed his approval by signing and 14.4.7 by the Job Engineer on 9/17/83 dating the original calculation and calculation AB-1-70 was cover sheet? signed by the Job Engineer on 8/20/82.

. CHANGES / REVISIONS

17. When a calculation is modified DC-7 x Both Calculations AB-1-69 and to reflect changes, are these 14.5.1 AB-1-70 were Revision 0 as-built ,

changes recorded on the original calculations. calculation by one of the following methods: e a single line drawn through - the material to be changed and the correction added? e the entire page is redone? Are changes easily recognizable DC-7 x See Item No. 17 above, 18. and identified by adding the 14.5.2 i revision number next to the l change? For changes / revisions, has the DC-7 x See Item No. 17 above, 19. preparer done the following: 14.5.3 e entered the next sequential l calculation revision number on the cover sheet? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process U. '* Assessment Checklist (cont.) immmmmmmma Checklist No. Page of

                                                                                                                               , ,                             g          7 Item No                                          Review Attnbutes         neference Document   SAT  UNSAT    NA                              Comments i                                              e listed each individual page number that was added, deleted or revised on the cover sheet?

e completed the information (initials, date, revision number) at the top of each affected page? e transmitted the calculation to the checker? i 20. Has the checker indicated his DC-7 x See Item No.17 above. concurrence with the change by 14.5.4 4 initialing / dating the affected pages and identifying the check-i ing method used?

21. Do calculation revisions undergo DC-7 x See Item No. 17 above.

the same review and approval as 14.5.5

;                  the orginal?

22. Are voided or superseded calcul- DC-7 x None found.

ations marked as such and do. 14.5.6 ! they indicate the document it is replacing? FILING / INDEXING Are computer sheets bound in DC-7 x Calculations AB-1-69, Job #566

23. and AB-1-70, Job #927 were both binders, properly indexed and 14.6.1 filed? bound / filed and indexed.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. DC-02-10 Page 7 of 7 Item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments 24 Does the calculation index DC-7 x Reviewed the 7/8/83 mechanical contain the following: 14.6.2 index which indicated that all e calculation number? calculations were safety related, i e subject? ! o revision number? e classification (i.e., safety related)?

e void or superseded (if

! applicable)?

25. Is the calculation index kept DC-7 x See Item No. 24 above.

current? 14.6.3 DISTRIBUTION

26. After calculation approval DC-7 x Reviewed the Job Engineer's copy

(including Design Review if 15.1 of calculations AB-1-69 and applicable), does the Job AB 7 0. Duplicate files are Engineer forward a copy to the maintained by Texas Utilities (site).

Duplicate File?

27. Does the Job Engineer forward, DC-7 x Duplicate files maintained by

as a minimum, a copy of the com- 15.2- Texas Utilities (site).

l puter inputs to the Duplicate File (for computer calculations)? 1 i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. i Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O ATTACMENT 1 (DC-02-10) Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Controll - Processing of Calculations (Mechanical) Checklist DC-02-10, Item #8 Incorrect recording of reference documents on calculations is considered a minor administrative problem with no design impact. In the case of the ADLPIPE version reference error, traceability l exists with the computer analyses output which identifies the correct version (Version 2C). In the case of Specification MS-200, the revision date was always correct; however, engineers did not change the preprinted reference sheet fann to correctly reflect the revision number of the specification. This oversight had been previously brought to the attention of the Gibbs & Hill engineering staff and is being corrected as subsequent revisions are initiated to pipe stress calculations. 4 Texas Utilities Services. Inc. 4l's t r8 L '.iifil IMIMH W WH110mim Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process U. i* Assessment Checklist

mummmmmmme

                   "' * " (*)                                                                                                                            ""9'             ' 2 S. Bibo                                                                          CheckHst No. DC-02-11                     1 J. Toner orgrnization/Activii.es neviewed                                                                   Review cates 9/10/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Design Review of Calculations (Mechanical)

Nrsonne: Coniactw H. Mantel B. Czarnogorski C. Chapman item No Review Attributes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Reviewed the 8/3/82 list of reviews are performed by quali- 12.2 authorized design reviewers.

fled personnel and are such Calculation AB-1-69 was design personnel identified on a list reviewed by P. Zarney and l of designated design reviewers Calculation AB-1-70 was design

maintained by the Project reviewed by H.Y. Chang.

i Manager? , Both individuals were on the list. i 2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X Review of Calculation AB-1-69 reviewers are independent in 12.3 revealed that P. Zarney had no that they have had no input into input. For Calculation AB-1-70 H.Y. Chang had no input.

the design they are tasked with

] reviewing? I ! 3. Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X Design review for calculation utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 AB-1-69 and AB-1-70 were to each discipline and do the documented on checklists checklists establish the items entitled " Design Review to be addressed by the reviewer Checklist - Calculation and Analysis - Applied Mechanics." and identify the source documents? l I Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l Independent Assessment Program; 83090

, l , , ,!

d .

           )   .

0 b y ;2 n8 0r t 2 g/ 7e n n 7 n

                                                       - g                d2i0                          e .

o ' mg - eiu . 1i

                                                       - s e8s2 n/ /

1 nn io c tsc0 i el7 Be Ad g7s8 i 1 a B gi Ant s( 2 da - l s/wn . Ea Oes ot m t c1 d el 9 d st '

                    '            sl            -      nhA .                s an7 re 0       n    nbr aoo il rB                at            d i       "

li oA e wo 1 wi ed Jf n cl kHf 9n .v 9 ts c d 6otl 9r ev 6 ei - ok rc n e h e&tn sa 1 ses eo 6eBi e

                                                                            - wAv               1tw h

e m csi th e 1 e es - Pe m o fbk6 bl 9 Bnsr Ae Bvo inra w Bhi Atv l h C oic- mde A ei n swr i e Ge1 smrr rtgr oC r 1 e h - cecB nooe occw n onl sn ai e n odn tt 1 nh A i e i gueg ieg etr tdrs ticdi tli nn 2 d es aa t asl s ais oe 0 inwn voeo e ii l u hwn ee l eae-udch o c l fe u ce d Cm C D 5vt l chim aoeo tvm l ed ahnyo tc l rr aeo n s o y1 ea B#rl Cbrc CtabN Cwf g s N ie t is

-      ss          l k      A es            c e     N DA            h C

T A S N U T A X X X X S t n O e m u c o D e

-                            c n

e r 82 82 86 87 fe C3 C4 C4 C4 e D1 D1 R D1 D1

                                                                 ?

- en ud n hg acr ti n oo i s so sdc r , ee dei? a e e d gl ei edtt as de wr dw rert e ab ki? 0 9 hf sci eiw oiea csr 0 tiail tve cvhp ane 3 r fk aei eeti pod 8 s tedic rrv rroc pa e avere e e i wse .m tu h seh nnr eg wnyt egnr eel ir ca b tsuvc nr n a gin iiaa p v d I g t ehshe sg vs eea o At c mch sei eey rhu ,r w nraut tds rdbo tq sP e eers n e h n S e e i v dwg n eed nedw gy/ ct R ieoso mh ghe ibr i n _ vi ri mta itns? s e ve evp d o s gt w ede rm _ e de cf n e yi s e den es errnt r oo dbsii ni Ss ean l i v ei g e ent hgutm e l td edore han ttE ss al e h e ci r es ti p u u ut tn c n i A smpc esn gd e e eib t seono ree sinph rao i t AmJ O Arm Idcid I sast i == l n i e t= td

                 =                                                                                                              Un e
                 =           o                                                                                                   sp
                 =         N ae
           .L =            I m

te 4 5 6 7

                                                                                                       .                         xd en TI 4 ==

iI 1 l lI j

                             =
                                                                       !'                           il          l i

O O O Design Control Process

4. ..L ^, ^ Assessment Checklist

                 * *'                                                                                   checkiist No.                        Page      y of g S. Bibo                                                                                         DC-02-12 J. Toner organization /Actmties newe=ed                                                                neview cates 9/12/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Processing of Calculations (Structural)

. Personnei contactw B. Czarnogorski P. Huang C. Chapman item No. newew Attributes neference Document SAT UNsAT NA comments i GENERAL

1. Does the Job Engineer maintain DC-7 X Reviewed the structural master a file and index of calculations 13.1 calculation index for cable in his discipline? tray and conduit supports.

2. Are calculations which are DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C sets 1 classified as " Nuclear Safety 12.2 and 3 and SCS-104C, sets 1, 4 Related" or "Non-Nuclear Safety and 5 were design reviewed.

Related-QA Program Applicable" design reviewed? PREPARATION l 3 Are calculations (originated at DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C sets 1 and G8H New York) prepared on G8H 14.1 3 and SCS-104C sets 1, 4 and 5 standard calculation sheets were reviewed.

 '                          (Appendix DC-7-II) in a neat and orderly manner so that assumptions, methods, and results can be readily checked?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Ind: pendent Assessraent Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process Et

• mummmmmen Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. Page of DC-02-12 2 8 11em No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments 1

4. Has the preparer completed all DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C sets 1 and the required information at the 14.1.2 3 and SCS-104C sets 1, 4 and 5 were top of each calculation cover reviewed.

sheet (Appendix DC-7-I)?

5. Are calculations designated with DC-7 X The identifications are as follows:

one of the following classifica- 14.1.3 Calculation SCS-101C, Set 1 - tions:

                                                                                                       " Nuclear Safety Related."

e Nuclear Safety Related? Calculation SCS-101C, Set 3 -

• Non-Nuclear Safety Related- " Nuclear Safety Related."

QA Program Applicable? Calculation SCS-104C, Set 1 -

• Non-Nuclear Safety Related? " Nuclear Safety Related." l Calculation SCS-104C, Set 4 -

                                                                                                        " Nuclear Safety Related."

Calculation SCS-104C, Set 5 -

                                                                                                        " Nuclear Safety Related."

6. Do calculations contain the DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C, Sets 1 following: 14.2.1 and 3 and SCS-104C Sets 1, 4 e statement of purpose? and 5 were reviewed.

e conditions & assumptions? e references? e computations?

• findings?

e identification & high-lighting results? I j l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l i

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) CheckHst No. DC-02-12 Page 3 '8 Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments t

7. Are references listed within the DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C, Sets 1 calculation and identified for 14.3.1 and 3 and Calculation SCS-104C, positive traceability (i.e., title, Set 5 were reviewed.

date, copyright date, issue)? X No references are applicable for calculations SCS-101C Sets 1 and 3. 8 When a computer is used to per- DC-7 X Computer applications were not form a calculation is this fact 14.3.2 used for Calculations SCS-101C, , noted in the reference section? Set 3 and SCS-104C, Sets 1 and 4. t

9. Is the first page of the computer DC-7 X Refer to item No. 8 above.

input sheet identified, reviewed, 14.3.2 and approved in the same manner as that of a hand calculation?

10. Are attachments to calculations DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C, Sets 1 identified as " attachment," and 14.3.3 and 3 and SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 include the calculation number and 5 had no attachments.

l and the total number of attached

pages?

i l CHECKING & APPROVING

11. After the preparer has completed DC-7 X Calculation SCS-101C, Sets 1 l

' the calculation, is it given to 14.4.1 and 3 and SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 an assigned checker? and 5 are signed by a checker. Texas utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 4.b'* Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. ""' ' DC-02-12 4 8 l Item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

12. Is the calculation checked by DC-7 X The following checking process one of the following methods: 14.4.2 was performed:

e line by line calculation SCS-101C, Set 1 - line by line check? check.

e alternate calculation? SCS-101C, Set 3 - line by line e identical calculation? check. e compare inputs & results SCS-104C, Set 1 - line by line of computer calculations check. with similar computer SCS-104C, Set 4 - line by line calculations? check.

SCS-104C, Set 5 - line by line check, t

13. Is supporting documentation of DC-7 X The supporting documentation for these checking methods maintained 54.4.3 line by line checks of structural on file by the Job Engineer? calculations is the Job Engineer's j copy of the calculation which

, indicates checkmarks (red, or black for photocopy) next to each number and/or line of the l computation. i

14. Upon completion of the checker's DC-7 X Calculations SCS-101C, Sets 1 l review is each calculation sheet 14.4.5 and 3 and SCS-104C Set 5 contain completed with the checkers checkers initials, date and initials date, and method used checking method.

,                                           for checking?                                                                   Calculations SCS-104C, Sets 1 and 4 contain checkers initials, date and line by line check marks I

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M. Assessment Checklist (cont.) checklist N "*9' *' 8 DC-02-12 5 ite= No nevew Attnbutes neference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

15. When design review is required, DC-7 X Design review was performed on is a copy of the calculation 14.4.6 Calculation SCS-101C, Sets 1 transmitted to the Design and 3 and SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 Reviewer? and 5

16. Has the Job Engineer indicat.ed DC-7 X See Attachment 1 to this checklist.

his approval by signing and 14.4.7 dating the original calculation cover sheet? CHANGES / REVISIONS

17. When a calculation is modified DC-7 X Calculation SCS-101C, Sets 1 to reflect changes, are these 14.5.1 and 3 and SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 changes recorded on the original and 5 were reviewed. Changes were calculation by one of the indicated on cover sheet and following methods: in the body of calculation by such e a single line drawn through methods as notes, the revision number; 4

the material to be changed in a triangle next to the change, and the correction added? margin indicators, etc. e the entire page is redone?

18. Are changes easily recognizable DC-7 X SCS-101C, Sets 1 and 3 and l SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 and 5 were

;             and identified by adding the               14.5.2 revision number next to the                                                          reviewed. All revisions are I              change ?                                                                            recognizable / identified by the next revision number.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. DC-02-12 Page g of g Itrm No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments

19. For changes / revisions, has the DC-7 X Calculation SCS-101C set 1 and 3 i preparer done the following: 14.5.3 and SCS-104C, Set 1, 4 and 5 were o entered the next sequential revised and identified as required calculation revision number on the calculation pages and on the cover sheet? cover sheet. Calculation

) revisions were reviewed and e listed each individual page number that was added, approved in the same manner deleted or revised on the as the originals. cover sheet? i e completed the information l (initials, date, revision number) at the top of each affected page? e transmitted the calculation to the checker?

20. Has the checker indicated his DC-7 X All changes to calculations  :

SCS-101C, Sets 1 and 3 and concurrence with the change by 14.5.4 initialing / dating the affected SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 and 5 l

'                        pages and identifying the check-                                                               were initialed and dated by ing method used?                                                                               the checker and the checking method (line by line) was indicated.

21. Do calculation revisions undergo DC-7 X The revisions to calculations the same review and approval as 14.5.5 SCS-101C, Sets 1 and 3 and the orginal? SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 and 5 were  !

reviewed and approved in the i same manner as the originals, i 4 Texas Utilities Services Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 m I * ,'- .

                                                            .                                           t                      n      . -         *

[l _ll J Desigii Contrloi Process

                        .l        *
                                                                        ~
                                                                                                       ~
                                                                                                             /            Assessment Checklist (cont.);
              - NMENNNRMMMENN                                                                                                           -

~_ -

                                                                                                                                                                            ~.
                                                                                                 ~
                                                                                                        ..-               checkHst No.      DC-02-12 .. -       P'9<   7         8 Item No                     neview Attnbutes                 Reference Document          SAT    UNSAT     NA                        Comments
                                                                                                                        ~

22. - Are voided or superseded calcul- DC-7 X ' . The voided sei. tion of calculatica ations marked as such and do 14.5.6- - - ' - '

SCS-104C, Set i was properly f' ' they indicate the document it documented. Tha r'emainder.of ,

                                                                                                                                                                                       ~'

calculations had no voidsd/;f ' is replacing? superseded sections. , FILING / INDEXING .c Refer to IEem 8 of.this checklist.

23. Are computer shes!.s bound in DC-7 X

                                                                                                                                      '                 ~

binders, properly indexed and 14.6.1' filed? -

24. Does the calculation inde'x DC-7 X Gased on review of structural -

contain the following: 14.6.2 calculation master index. ~

• calculation number? -.

e subject? e revision number? e classification (i.e. , safety related)? e void or superseded (if applicable)?

25. Is the calculation index kept DC-7 X Index identifies latest j current? 14.6.3 revisions of structural

< calculation. J I i i i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. t Independent Assessment Program; 83090 I

                                       ,,, - 7,
                                        ~;

O O O Design Control Process 4bi2 Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments DISTRIBUTION

26. After calculation approval DC-7 X Job Engineer forwards copy (including Design Review if 15.1 of all calculations to applicable) does the Job Engineer duplicate file (TUSI-site)

. forward a copy to the Duplicate File?

27. . Does the Job Eng',rar forward, DC-7 X Refer to Item No. 8 of this checklist as a minimum o m.S of the com- 15.2 puter inputs to t&- Cuplicate File (for comput*'- (A. ulations)? ,

t i 1

                             - Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l t

O ATTAQ#ENT 1 GIBBS AND HILL DESIGN CONTROL - PROCESSING OF CALCULATIONS (STRUCTURAL) CHECKLIST DC-02-12, ITEM #16 APPROVED BY JOB ENGINEER CALCULATION SET REVISION REMARKS

   -NUMBER                                                    NUMBER         #          YES       NO        DATE 4

SCS-101C 1 0 X 10/15/78 1 X 12/4/78 NONE 2 X 8/15/79 SCS-101C 3 0 X 9/14/78 1 X 11/13/78 NONE 2 X 12/4/78 3 X 5/2/80 4 X 7/9/81 SCS-104C 1 0 X 9/27/78 1 X 4/2/80 NONE 2 X 10/8/80 SCS-104C 4 0 X 9/28/78 NONE 1 X 4/11/80 SCS-104C 5 0 X 10/7/78 1 X 4/4/80 NONE 2 X 10/8/80 3 X 6/10/82 4 X 8/13/82 N{g3 4 yg Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program 11111111lll1111111111111111111

O O O Design Control Process

  'M                                                                                     Assessment Checklist
  " """ # *'                                                                                                                    "*9*   '

checklist No. DC-02-13 1 2 S. Bibo-J. Toner org;nization/Actmties Reviewed Review Dates 9/12/83 thru 9/16/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Design Review of Calculations (Structural)

Personnel Contacted Peter Huang B. Czarnogorski itim No. Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

1. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X See Attachment 1 to this checklist.

reviews are performed by quali- 12.2 fled personnel and are such personnel identified on a list of designated design reviewers maintained by the Project Manager? , 4

2. Is there evidence that design DC-8 X See Attachment 1 to this checklist.

reviewers are independent in 12.3 that they have had no input into the design they are tasked with reviewing?

3. Are all design reviews performed DC-8 X All calculations reviewed utilizing a checklist applicable 13.1 (SCS-101C Sets 1 and 3 and l to each discipline and do the SCS-104C, Sets 1, 4 and 5) were identified as being checklists establish the items to be addressed by the reviewer design reviewed on structural and identify the source checklists for calculation i documents? review (form 722A dated 10/76),

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. l l Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process

                   %, $         i                                                               Assessment Checklist (cont.)

checklist No. Page of

                                                                                                                   , ,                   g            2 f tem No              Review Attributes      Reference Document SAT UNSAT    NA                      CommPnt$

4. Is there evidence that the DC-8 X No computer programs were used design reviewer has verified the 13.2 within scope of documents computer programs used as design reviewed.

input and is such verification documented on the checklist?

5. Are all comments generated as a DC-8 X Coments were documented on result of the design review docu- 14.2 review forms for calculations mented on a design review record? SCS-101C, Sets 1 and 3 and SCS-104C, Set 5.

6.. Is the design review record DC-8 X See Attachment 1 to this checklist. i signed by the design reviewer 14.6 , and co-signed by any other specialists who participated in the review?

7. Are the design review packages DC-8 X Design review packages are i maintained by the responsible 14.7 maintained by the Job Engineer i Job Engineer / Squad Leader? and filed with calculation.

Texas utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 -

O O O ATTACWENT 1 GIB8S & HILL DESIGN CONTROL - DESIGN REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS (STRUCTURAL) CHECKLIST DC-02-13, ITEMS 1, 2 and 6 DESIGN REVIEW IS DESIGN RECORD SHEET AUTHORIZED REVIEWER SIGNED 0FF BY BY PROJECT INDEPENDENT? SET REVISION DESIGN REVIEWER MANAGER DESIGNER NUMBER NUMBER NAME LIST YES NO REVIEWER C0-SIGNER SCS-101C 1 1 E. Kucukozer YES X X NA 2 C. Patel YES X X NA

,     SCS-101C                           3              3      K. Shah                  YES          X                                      X         NA 4     P. Banerjee              YES           X                                     X         NA' SCS-104C                           1              0      E. Kucukozer             YES           X                                     X         NA 1    K. Shah                  YES           X                                     X         NA 2      E. Kucukozer             YES           X                                     X         NA SCS-104C                           4               0     K. Shah                  YES           X                                     X         NA 1     Khan                     YES           X                                     X         NA SCS-104C                           5                1    C. Patel                 YES           X                                     X         NA 1

2 E. Kucukozer YES X X NA 3 G. Joshi YES X X NA 4 P. Banerjee YES X X NA 1 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 ($ (iig[y13 Independent Assessment Program

          ..g

O O O Design Control Process A,N

• Assessment Checklist mmmmmmmmm Page } of

 """"'d'I                                                                                            checklist No. DC-02-14                                                 3 S. Bibo J. Toner orgInkation/ Activities Reviewed                                                                    Review Dates 9/13/83 and 9/14/83 Gibbs & Hill / Analysis Control - Computer Usage personnei contacted B. Fried, M. Tipishana, B.C. Zarnogorski itim No.                                    Review Attributes         Reference Document SAT UNsAT    NA                     Comments

1. Has the Department Manager or EDP-10, Rev. 2 X The following programs were reviewed Chief Engineer approved the 13.c for approval:

Program Ap) rover Form F-736 for the use of the C. Cor)an, 12/81 computer program? ADLPIPE/2C #5017 ADLPIPE/1C #5017 C. Corban, 6/80 ANSYS, Rev. 3 (V67L) C. Corban, 1/82 CYLN0Z, Version 2 C. Corban, 3/82 i ! 2. Have all Class A programs been EDP-10 X The programs identified as follows verified? 13.d were verified. Program Verification Date i ADLPIPE/2C 12/18/81 ADLPIPE/1C 12/18/81 i ANSYS, Rev. 3 12/18/81 CYLN0Z, Version 2 12/18/81

3. Have the programs been verified EDP-10 X a) ADLPIPE/2C, Test Run Job #1262 on the basis of one of the 14.0 was compared with the Verification following: Job #504 for the verification of e hand calculation? ADLPIPE/1C.

e benchmark to another pro- b) ADLPIPE/1C was verified against gram previously verified ADLPIPE/1B via the sample or accepted by the NRC? problem 1-510. e standard test problems? c) ANSYS runs were compared with the Swanson Verification Manual. Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process nii IMEMINNIMIu111111111 Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. DC-02-14 "*** 2 '3 I It m No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments d) CYLN0Z/2 was verified via sample Problem Job #213. i I 4. Have any purchased programs been EDP-10 X The following were reviewed: 4 verified by receipt and review 14.0 a) Independent verification by G8H of seller's verification records for ADLPIPE 2C and IC. or by seller's Certificate b) ANSYS - G8H runs compared with r of Compliance? Swanson Verification Manual c) CYLN0Z/2 test runs Job #213 (3/2/62).

5. Does the verification report EDP-10 X The following were reviewed:

include program description, 14.0 a) Swanson Verification Report for methods, assumptions and ANSYS Version 3 10/1/72 and equations used to model 3/1/75. the physical system? b) ADLPIPE Verification Report Version 2 (see Item No. 3). $ c) CYLN0Z/2 Verification Report ' and User's Manual.

6. Is program verification EDP-10 X ADLPIPE Versions 1C and 2C i' documented using sign off 14.0 No. 5017, ANSYS V67L Rev. 3 Form F-887A? and CYLN0Z/2 Verification Report No. 5102 were reviewed.

l l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. J Independent Assessment Program; 83090 4 - _ - - - - - - - - - - - -

O O O

Design Control Process

4.b'* Assessment Checklist (cont.)

                                =========

Checklist No. Page of item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

7. Does the Director Computer EDP-10 X The following were reviewed:

l a) ADLPIPE/2C was signed by Services sign the F-887A form 14.0 indicating documentation is E. Delorenzo on 12/21/81 included with the source deck b) ADLPIPE/1C was signed by (cards) or " volume / serial number E. Delorenzo on 8/830 and data set name (disc / tape)? c) ANSYS was signed by l E. Delorenzo on 1/8/82 d) CYLN0Z was signed by E. Delorenzo on 3/2/82 4

8. Does the individual placing the EDP-10 X The following were reviewed:

3 official copy of the program on 14.0 a) ADLPIPE/2C by M. Tikimana on the production data set complete 12/18/81. the F-887A form " Program b) ADLPIPE/1C by J.A. Tesoro on Residence" section? 8/14/80 . c) ANSYS, Rev. 3 by M. Tikimana on 3/2/82. d) CYLN0Z/2 by M. tikimana on

3/2/82 Does QA audit approved load EDP-10 X Refer to checklist DC-02-06, l 9.

j modules? 14.0 Item No. 10. ) 10. Do the design requirements of FSAR Table X Refer to Observation DC-02-02 and the FSAR agree with those 3.7B(A)-1 DC-02-03. l applied on the project? 4

Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

O O O Design Control Process M. f Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Checklist No. Page of S. L. Bibo DC-03-01 1 6 Org nization/Actmties Reviewed Review Dates 7/27-7/29/83 Brown & Root Interface Control i Personnel Contacted } G. Purdy, D. Wade C. Bennetzen, R. Tolson item No Review Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

1. Does the B&R site QA Manager QAM X Reviewed procedure CP-SAP-6 Rev. 9 review and approve owner 16.4.4 - " Control of work on station com-provided procedures and ponents after release from con-instructions which affect code struction to TUGC0" & CP-SAP-3, fabrication or installation Rev 12 " Custody tagging of station components."

2. Have NCRs dispositioned "Use X 1. NCR 2807 Rev. 0 & Rev.1 as is" been approved by the reviewed.

engineer 2. See Attachment 1 to this Checklist.

3. Has the Procurement and Sur- CP-QAP-8.3 X Per discussion with TUSI personnel, veillance Group (PSG) Supervisor 12.1, 2.2 a review of surveillance procedural 1 established and executed a system system was determined to be out j for accomplishment and documenta- of scope of Brown & Root project tion and source surveillances? responsibilities.

4 Have hold / surveillance points CP-QAP-8.3 X See Item 3 above. been established during the 13.1.2

 ;                       life of the P.O. or contract?

I 5. Has the PSG Supervisor determined CP-QAP .3 X See Item 3 the extent of an established 13.1.3

;?:r ';r ;;;;;; ' .;;;;M;r.?

j Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 t

O O O Design Control Process M.. Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of item No Review Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

5. Has the PSG Supervisor determined CP-QAP .3 X See Item 3 the extent of an established 13.1.3 a plan for source inspection?

6. Has the surveillance plan been CP-QAP-8.3 X See Item 3 approved by the site QA Manager? 13.1.3

7. Have surveillance activities CP-QAP-8.3 X See Item 3 been perfomed as scheduled? 13.3.1

8. When required have pre-shipment CP-QAP-8.3 X None observed in this sample, inspections been perfonned? 13.5.1

9. Have source surveillance CP-QAP-8.3 X Per discussion with B&R 0A MGR, results been documented on a 13.7 no surveillance activities are "VSR" (at RI)? performed on vendors since B&R onlj purchases bulk material. (See checklist DC-03-02, Item 13.)

10. Have supplier audits been CP-QAP-8.4 X Per discussion with B&R QA MGR &

performed in accordance with 12.1 TUSI Site QA MGR, B&R has no ANSI-N-45.2.12 responsibility to perfonn supplier e Preparation? audits within the scope of this e Performance? review, e Report? e Follow up? e Close out?

11. Are supplier auditors qualified CP-0AP-8.4 X See Item 10 in accordance with 13.1 ANSI-N-45.2.23?

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process M Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page3 of g DC-03-01 item No Acy,ew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

12. Does the PSG document a monthly CP-QAP-8.4 X Corrective action report & audit review of the corrective action 13.4.7 deficiency reports were not re-log to assure timely closure of viewed within this scope, however the ADR's on the ADR log? auditable lower tier documents i

(i.e., NCR's) which would result in i a CAR /ADR were reviewed. l 13. Does the site 0A Manager (or his CP-QAP-16.1 X NCR M74465 & M68715 were reviewed. designee) and a QE plus a QL 13.1.1.6

Supervisor (if necessary) review

! NCR's? i 14 Have NCR for which the disposi- CP-QAP-16.1 X None found during review which tion cannot be agreed upon been 13.1.2.1 indicates referral to higher

referred to higher management? management based on disagreement i of disposition

15. Have NCR's been approved by: CP-QAP-16.1 X See Attachment 1 e Engineering Manager? 13.1.2.1 e TUGC0 Operations QA7 (certain ones per 13.1.2.lb) e QG?

e ANI (repair by WELD and use as is)? i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 _m ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O O O Design Control Process

                      %.       ia                                                                                 Assessment Checklist (cont.)

mummmmmune Checklist No. ' DC-03-01 " 4 6 Item No Review Attnbutes Refe,ence Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

16. Were NCRs which construction CP-QAP-16.1 X None within scope were issued on engineering wishes to proceed with 13.1.2.2 a risk removal basis ,

;                                   on as Risk Removal Basis documented

} in sufficient detail? Approved by :

 ;                                  e   Engineering Manager?                                                                                                         .

l

• Site QA Manager?

e ANI?

• TUGC0 Operations QA?

j (Repair / Rework)

17. Have the implementation of dis- CP-QAP-16.1 X 1. See Attachment 1 for positions been done as required? 13.1.2.3 implementation of dispositions

• Rework / Repair / Return to Vendor / Scrap - cc to 2. Copies are distributed as Construction Superviso'r required by CP-QAP-16.1, l

• Rework / Repair identified 13.1.2.3 1 by "S" to TUGC0 startup
• Rework / Repair to TUGC0 Operations QA e Accept as is to QC Supr f 18. Does the ANI concur in final NCR CP-0AP-16.1 X See Attachment 1 Closure? 13.1.3

19. Are Base / Weld Metal Inspection CP-QAP-16.1 X None observed in this sample.

Reports forwarded to craft 13.2.3 l personnel?

1 i a Texas Utilities Services. Inc. independent Assessment Program; 83090 i

O O O Design Control Process

     'M                                                                                 Assessment Checklist (cont.)

Checklist No. ,g, Page5 ' 6 Item No Revew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments i

20. Upon completion of the correct- CP-0AP-17.1 X See Item 12 ive action review does the QE 13.1.1 Group Supervisor submit a report to the Site OA Manager?

L

21. Has the Site OA Mgr. initiated a CP-0AP-17.1 X See Item 12 .

l " CAR" as a result of the report 13.2.1 of the QE Group Supervisor?

22. Are copies of the " CAR" for- CP-Q AP-17.1 X See Item 12 l l

! warded to: 13.2.2

• Construction Project Manager?
• B&R OA Manager?
• TUSI Manager of Construction?

TUSI Manager of Construction?

• TUGC0 QA Manager?
• TUSI Site QA Supervisor?
• AN!?

i

• QE7

23. Has the BAR QA Mgr been advised CP-0AP-17.1 X No stop work orders were found to ;

by memo and SWO if a satisfactory 13.2.4 be issued for work within this i scope i resolution of a CAR cannot 4 be obtained? 24 Has the Site 0A Mgr notified the CP-QAP-17.2 X See Item 23 Power Group QA Mgr and TUGC0 13.1.1 Site OA Supr of the initiation of stop work activity? Texas Utilities Services, Inc. ! Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process h Assessment Checklist (cont.) a Checklist No. *9' 6 ' DC-03-01 6

Item No Revew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

25. Are SWO's distributed to CP-QAP-17.2 X See Item 23

, e Power Group QA Manager? j e Construction Project Manager? e TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor?

e TUGC0 QA Manager?

e ANI I

26. Does B8R (Houston) plan, CP-QAP-19.1 X Not reviewed as part of site schedule and perform audits of ATT 1 Pg 7 assessment site activities annually? 13.3.4 I

27. Are audits planned, performed, CP-QAP-19.1 X See Item 26

documented and controlled in 12.3.2 l accordance with ANSI-N-45.2.12? ATT 1 Pg 16 (Based on Review of Audit 15.0

Data on Site) f 28. Are auditors qualified in CP-0AP-19.1 X See Item 26 accordance with ANSI-N-45.2.237 12.3.2 I (Site Data) ATT 1 Pg 16 15.0 t

I I i 1 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. i Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

i'  ; '  !  ! s s d e e d S s c at t sI od e r n aew E a S w rnd p anr aoep m s a e u d l n P 7i y ( leeed d r c eo 0h b e o w t 0T s2 d ar et nd . od p au c o C r e n e O e s e d 5 l iR a( 2 n

                                                                                         .t rgs rd n0                       of i ni r e a0                t                          gN            e ai           ot          0             r                a       t m ms c nd -                A e                           oiu f r a             e eF         5 w                      d t n c oow e mms                     3                          e      U o h             -   W d                        uI          d en3T co7 f

mroX of F n a s s .t o n n c3 rt t I Y e an5 .d ee ud c e R E eh u o0 3 d p e  : R ct n orm s n7 8 n h s - / as s M , es I t S 8 a t o yr a d ct e w d d d cF2 ef /e d w at d r f e i if e e er 6 hp oa eo s r r e n s o s o r i ro .n r d up s l o ear o nl I .l l ad c u coor yt s s4 c e g cett 8e5c q r gh s I a4 t N eod C o - e w1 t re m0t e ON rt yQi et s 4 e y a ol r3 e y y l O h a d R ak 0 F e o T I n) - y e w r7 s d f R A T oS eb r r o t i

                                                                                     . oI nCt o t

o T A i P r . u 3 wd o I n n t R d o9 s 3 r n 7 2t NCI i ( oe ls25 es 5 - a c s 0 4 8 1 d e ns d g s EFI s t l 1 2 et i i l E ot f a0 r 8 B I t u eu L R p eoi 3 p 5 a E s es re s - C3 t R R i si sR R

               '4 0FW da                   Cns  UI es(

8 1 V ih l D s a v wR o aT n C I I d I N M 3 3 8 8 / A A

                      /                              2                 A
                   @  5
                      /

1

                                                     /

N N N 7 5 T 3 U 3 8 0 I 8 / A

     )       - F   N  /                               2                A      A 1     E F     A   5                             1                  N      N                             N 0-    S O        /                              /

O - 7 5 3 L N 0- CG1 3 3 C RS C 8

                       /

8

                                                      /

I ( N C 8 2 A A A Q 2 1 N N N 1 / / 6 5 K I E 8 3 3 3 1 3 8 8 8 8 M / / / / T 7 1 1 9 A T @ 2

                       /

1

                                                      /

1

                                                                        /

2

                                                                               /

N A 5 5 7 5 0 3 3 1 9 8 8 8 2 0 I / / / 8 3 N 7 1 A 0 / 8 A 2 1 N 3 8

                       /                               /                       /                             /             ;

_ 5 5 5 1 m a S rg L 3 3 3 1 A 8 8 8 8 2 o RV C / / / / 8 r P COH I Q 5 2 1 1 1 1 9 2

                                                                                                              /

8 y

                        /                              /                 /      /                             /       nt I

P 5 5 7 5 1 an pe A mm 3 1 os 8 8 2 C s ~ O / / 8 e G 2 9 / ss _ T U m 2 1

                                                                         /

2

                                                                                /

8

                                                                                                              /

es i A 7 5 1 t i t _ l n ie 3 3 3 1 8 5 8 8 2 t d G / / / / 8 U n N 7 1 1 9 / sp e E 2 1 1 2 8

                        /

5

                                                       /

5

                                                                         /

7

                                                                                /

5

                                                                                                              /

1 ee wd on Ti - N S S 0 I I 1 T K K C t K t t R R f R S S l I S O W O W 0 W O W &A fO W &A i O E E E E E E E f P R R R R R S S S ,i U U Aj I D ( V E R 0 0 0 0 I L 5 5 R . 6 1 7 7 7 3 0 0 CON I 4 4 7 8 6 8 0 2 7 6 9 2 M M M s a N l1 l  ! i  !'  ! l l i

O O O Design Control Process AMa Imuuuuuuuupumm Assessment Checklist RmWs) CWust No. " ' 3 L ggbo DC-03-02 1 5 Orgaruzation/Actnntes Rewewed Rewew Dates Brown & Root Interface Control Personnel Contacted G. Purdy, D. Wade, C. Bennetzen, R. Tolson item No Rewew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments

1. Has the Quality Engineering 0AM X B&R has no responsibility for Group performed site initiated 13.2.6.1 Auditing / Surveying vendors pro-qualification surveys and viding design services. B&R's audits of vendors providing only interface with vendors is to

design services? purchase bulk material.

Have DCA's and/or CMC's been X Based on a review of discipline

2. QAM issued to the engineer when 14.3 engineer group files and DCC com-the design cannot be completed? puterized disposition lists. (Also see checklist DC-01-02 Item 8)

NOTE: In general, DCA's reflect changes to specs, CMC's to change I documents used directly in construction / fabrication.

3. Does the QE Group verify and QAM X Reviewed the following:

document fabrication or 14.4 BRP-SF-X-054 Rev. 4 - CMC-91934 & installation design changes? CMC-81533 2323-MS-50, Rev.1 - DCA-18058 2323-MS-51, Rev. 2 - DCA-18059 2323-M-801, Rev. 4 & BRP-CC-X-FB-00( Rev. 5, CMC-92150 J 2323-M-801, Rev. 4 & BRP-CC-1-FB-003 Rev. 9, CMC-94219 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

l 0 o Design Control Process o

4. ..Lt1 Assessment Checklist (cont.)

summmmmmme ctiecklist No. DC-03-02 "*9' 2 '5 licm No Rewew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Commen's

!        4           Have any items procured in                QAM                              X       None found - B&R purchases bulk accordance with the require-              15.3.1                                   material only.

ments of a design specification been revised by a design change i prior to shipment to CPSES? Have design changes made by X None found - B&R purchases bulk

5. QAM material only.

' a formal change order, supple- 15.4 mental agreement or letter of instructions to the supplier been reviewed and approved by

 ,                   QEG?

6 Do design documents for changes QAM X Based on review of various design j l have a " Release for construction" 17.2.2a documents - NOTE: This release is ! letter or contain the release by TUSI, not B&R. criteria provided by the engineer?

7. Does the issuance and receipt of QAM X Also see Checklist DC-01-02, Item 4

;                    design changes indicate the               17.3.1 signature of the file custodian on the document distribution log?

Do documents affected by design OAM X Also see Checklist DC-01-02, Item 9. 8 changes indicate "This document 17.3.1 affected by design changes?" Does the file custodian enter the X Refer to Checklist DC-01-02,

9. QAM Item 11.

design change serial number in 17.3.1 the design cnange log? T:xas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

                                                        ~

                                                 ,                           l         [      [

R d G . n M y

       )  .                    a .                                                            t        l t           5                 s                                                 A2rn Qnco n                     t:

rg i o ' oa pk e

                                                          .                             esll tepa                                 e s

c pc ua l p i o pi sd u r se l p m 3 Sp m RR t a s a s O ecl(ts i " 9 er pe ig Pn i s s

                                                                                       &&f a BBom h            ek                     i h

s ts a h t .cl - ok rc n e fH o t iRnu wGab t n m l n Ml Pe o m wa er i s n Ai e l s i l h 2 C iu d oQes va d e e oC i 0 vt v

                      -          ec                      v             .                 serh                  1 r

r 3 rur r 1 stuc tt 0 e ui s r e s m cS u m s nn C

                      -          nt oS                  b                e                  s          mp          e          b o

oe D dd o t I iI r dSoR t I e Cm s el se ai e n o S e e rTrB e P&p Uf& e S e e N n o n g s N o BF N ie t is ss l k A X X X X X es c e N DA h C T A S N U T X - A S t n O D e m u c o 1 3 e 2 3 c 4 5 n 4 6 e r M M A7 M3 A8 M A8 M A8 M6 A1 fe A7 Q1 e Q1 01 Q1 O1 O1 R s d d e n d e .?

                                                                                                                're               d
                                                                                                                                           ?

s - d eo r  ? v e co i e e a h  ? e e o c tt l s ik c tdt l gg hdr -

ee pl vr rn s ee ena tep a r po eaooa e dre vik itp l se ur rmT( m r 0 g neh aec waa u l ech st n esd o 9

0 nyacs ab n rba t p dl n eaa ihet etp v ss fo oc h tnson t e "n f 3 8 h Ees s s ceW s oac i vv rs ue ,e g eii o  ; e gPre t l en de eg dmvtc .m t u na ec df o o Scsn euein ca b i gk ebo sei v) nsd renh nga mn ra icRd o f o nn nr eic t t A r satwr ich ep n p gf e nip i ee (i c? eric iew oh fc idto r nCo I g

                                                                                                                                                    ,o r

n d r e ats tat lf ae r ene t sP e roel gb hn sil s perc en pg vgmd iul e e v fe cet rvpi prdn ct R e oggna da ei l u e i Gsceu i n nnac nih itd Sher ss Eeoid ve yaihi g t l cns cl e te QdDF ) rm ph r c l is paar eibf id es o e p sef p e hhae d/ efntr Ss ceenp ego unGi t wcr un ag hogca t i el e hnga da sgEl i ss atii kt iOp snl o i nsli es gse ecr es p eaps es soef m i A soneh raa reyu ol pl re aiDei t Itedt App Adbs DPaa Ad H s" Rs i t O 'n*===

            =

l n i e td Un e o sp N

            =                       .                        .

2 3 4 5 ae

       .U==                       0 m                               1                                                                                       xd e                                             1                   1                     1           1
            =            It 1                       1                                                                                       en TI

. =

              ,              l
                               !            ;        3ll           ]                :t   l:              ;!            l1'         ;i         I '       l

O O O Design Control Process M i Assessment Checklist (cont.) mammmmmmma Checklist No. Page 4 of DC-03-02 5 item No Review Attnt>utes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

16. Has a functional system for the CP-QAP-16.1 X Based on discussions with Site B&R identification, resolution and 12.1 QC Personnel and on a review of B&R closeout of nonconformances been NRC Files, B&R NCR Computerized established for ASE related Tracking Log, and B&R close-out systems? documentation.

17. Do revisions to NCR's only CP-QAP-16.1 X 1. NCR M2807 was revised for result from: 13.1.5 clarity.

,

• Need for clarity? 2. NCR 2802 Rev. O was generic for
• Need additional information? Unit 182.
• Change in disposition 3. NCR 2807 was issued to delete responsibility? Unit 2.

,                                                                                                           4. NCR 3058 was issued to cover Unit 2.

18. Have NCR's been reopened for any CP-QAP-16.1 X None observed in this sample, reasons other than Item 177 13.1.5.2 i

19. Are Piping Deviation Record CP-0AP-16.1 X Based on Review of Piping Deviation Forms used to document field 13.3.1 Record Forms ME-2162, 2163, 2164, piping deviations from design 2165, 2142, and 2158.

drawings which don't constitute design changes?

20. Are piping deviations documented CP-QAP-16.1 X Based on Review of Piping Deviation per NCR M-2807. 13.3.1 Record Forms ME-2162, 2163, 2164, l 2165, 2142 and 2158 and a review of I the 5/24/83 computerized piping i deviation record status 109 Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

1 Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Design Control Process 91 i i Assessment Checklist (cont.) i checklist No. Page of j _ , Item No Revew Attributes Reference Document SAT UNsAT NA Comments ! 21. Do the crafts request a design CPM 4.1 X Per discussions with B&R Personnel, change from engineering, and 12.0 craft do request (as necessary) design changes from the Engineer.

stop work until receipt of the .

! approved design change? t I l 1 l l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. { Independent Assessment Program; 83090 i-

A o Design Control Process o M.M . . M Assessment Checklist Reviewer (s) Page of J.P. Toner Checklist No.DC-04-01 1 4 M. Maire Organization /Activites Revened Review Dates 7/19/83 - 7/22/83 Supplier Design Change & Interface Control Personnet Contacted R. Gentry, J. R. Yan, R. Wright, B. Jones, B. Hill A. Vega. J. Gore, L. Smaney, D. Anderson Item No Revew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments Refer to Attachments to Checklist DC-01-01 for reviewed documents.

1. Does the procurement document de- P.O./Specificatior x 1. Contained in specification fine the scope of design involve- Contract 2. See Attachment 2 to Checklist ment for the selected company? DC-01-01 for specifications reviewed.

2. Does the procurement document dc- P.O./Speci fication x Contained in specification fine applicable codes and stan- Contract dards and the specific revision?

3. Do the codes / standards and the FSAR 17.1 App. x 1. ASME Revision OK for J. Oats associated revisions contained in lA(B) per FSAR.

the procurement documents agree 2. P.O. 's reviewed: CP-0046A, with committments of the FSAR? CP-0051, CP-0605, CP-00208.1, CP020C

4. Does the procurement document P.O./ Specification x Reviewed P.O., specifications, and define interfaces? Contract correspondence.

Texts Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O Design Control Process O LOh' fd MWWIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIl Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. Page of 4 Item No Revew Attributes Refevence Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

5. Have any noncomformances been TUSI QA x Material was rejected and noted on written against the supplier's Plan Sect. 7.0 unsat receiving inspection reports product at receiving inspection? Related design changes were noted.

Were deficiencies written?

6. Have any in process nonconfor- C-PQP-16.0 x Noted on in process surveillances mances been written against the and pre-shipment inspection reports suppliers product?

7. Was the product subjected to P.O./ Specification x Per change to P.O. and/or change at the supplier's facil- Contract specification ity prior to shipment?

8. Was the product subjected to a CP-EP-16.1 x None observed during this review nonconformance in which the dis-position was " accepted as is" prior to shipment?

9. Were as-built drawings revised to Vendor x Reviewed J. Oats, Borg-Warner and reflect items 7 or 8 above? Drawings Bingham-Williamette

10. Are periodic evaluations conducted QA Plan x Via surveillances and audits.

to assure that vendors quality Section 7 However, audits are infrequent, performance is satisfactory? Section 18 based on surveillance activity.

11. Does TUGC0 audit to assure ade- QA Plan x " Periodic" audits are performed quate reporting and control of Section 15 per (DQI-CS-4.3 & DQP-CS-4) nonconforming items at suppliers facility?

Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

        )                                                         t p

on a c t 4 l e _ y pm n - n s i h r pu  : o ' i h s n t o uc so d n - c 3 t o ,a c y d o p s( g i trf e bl s e Oes n aes a st e g i l vi l p dn r a r eet m ei r i P u rwa a dg o cl d os s di c nH ar ok rc ts n e d e i i s r o r o n m t s . f on o Pe m o o n irn oo e .o i t h C di r a l oC s m

                                   "s sea nt    d u          O.ot Pn                                             i c

r e evt n e f . iR tt l n cd nf nn b . ihe oe oi cA ow l cm rw eS oe re pi eae mel p pe i d , et pF s Cm s oe Nr v i Tom

                                   " ti rv ee Pr tn oe Nm nn I a d

n g s N o ie t is ss l k A es c e N DA h c T A S N U T x x x x x A S i f i t c n e O e p . m 56 8 8 u c 11 1 1 S O.

                                                            /

o tP 1 D nnn nn nn c/ 1 e aoo ao ao an c lii li li ro n e Ptt cc Pt c Pt c ti nt

2. 2 5 .

r e Aee Ae Ae oa 42 fe QSS QS QS Cc H1 R

                              -             ?     -                                            s n-             d   t             -                     n ,       t                    N op              e  i            sse                 ggstc                          aW snu             ct     d            ancR                nief e                 . ezO a      s        eo      uf                onF          ist ap                 y   tiR ooy f       ern hr ao e ?

oiaC ttd d eurs idbDadp ta l anBt r t b tos rns ir0 v i( np sg ,o tod n e i ce nio on ddo1 enc oar r t1t oaa soLc rLt 0 9 nie tfc eti hocd pst1.nol ll e Ia 0 ett aon eat scan ea rfHr 3 iur c e btc i a er 2.ath i r da uo t 8 s cl o ini na lf n big &n  ; te i op doc se boi) un5t ns es n

                                                                                                                            .m b

u fse f er nii itf ame eev a tgy( e r eewqi 4. ro e c , ceSe oiB ca n ur ae rli snt5 i roNp l rtBr nr A t t s ym s std tn apt mc eii5 tl l l ph lIh g r eo piI e lGh I g o sra0 ,r sl e ref tie pcoScnt mi ,to

                   =c eet cmi omo pe n

eyr r eou5 cpq uifNian sh Ahh o ab riO sP e M ai el n rpo ifo ae R . we wcc gsCd ct ftg r cic froF1 r e h n onGn in ve n mi ir tC2 htto) ne roUa rn eei tit fed ee tc p2 g c ppt es i thm? i c eve r the0t u ,u i a s() S s ntrs d ya d nts1 r ddt vsf ee T e i or ul oi i r a  : l ordeer h rsn ss ef e aee et u q eehP E uroeRde t nn erni ruol oii mv v ad e ervt rudi0 O T h o pf s f a .f t n ohi eoD i es A Ascp Dtt Her Asaw5 N Saeb2oi Dtt1 t i t l n i e td Un

        .M o                                                                                                          e N       .           .            .            .                                             .           sp m    2          3            4           5                                              6              ae e    1          1            1            1                                             1               xd It                                                                                                      en TI

O Design Control Process O t t i IMuuuBMENENuuu Assessment Checklist (cont.) Checklist No. "*9' ' DC-04-01 4 4 Item No Aevew Attnbutes Reference Document SAT UNSAT NA Comments

17. Are interfaces sufficient to as- N45.2.11 x Interfaces existed. However, sure the timely flow of technical 12.2 " Timeliness" was poor by both information, resolution of sup- Gibbs and Hill and some vendors.

plier inquiries, etc. Refer to Observation DC-02-01.

18. Were design inputs, Design Bases, N45.2.11 x Per specifications /P.O./

Regulatory Requirements, Codes and 13.1 changes / correspondence Standards) for changes identified, approved, documented and controlled?

19. Does the control of documents in-dicate adequate review, approval, release and distribution, for changes requiring revision of:

a. design criteria? 13.1 x

b. calculations? 14.2 x

c. computer runs? 14.2 x Per procedures. Some, but not all,

d. drawings? 14.3 x changes can be verified as having

e. specifications? 14.4 x been distributed to suppliers

20. If the supplier's program re- N45.11 x None observed during the sample quires design verification of all 11 & 6.2 reviewed, documents (item 19 a-e) and the document was revised due to changes, was design verified per-formed on the revised document?

Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O O Independent Design [*!! L"E U Review Checklist lilllitilllllllill!!!!!!!!!!Il PIPE STRESS Rowlewer M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

1. System Boundaries

a. Check that all required branch lines are included. X See attachment to this Checklist for

, b. Check that the attachment point is justified as an X reference documents. anchor if system starts at a branch attachment point.

                           -      Refer to Flow Diagrams and Criteria for Decoupling, j                                  Cygna Design Criteria DC-1, Section 4.3.3.

2. Piping Classification

                  -        Check for consistency with Flow Diagrams and G8H              X Piping Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

3. Design & Maximum Pressure

                   -        Check for consistency with G&H Design Specification          X 2323-MS-200, Appendix 7.

4. Thermal Loading

a. Maximum Temperature X

                            -      Check fur consistency with G8H Design Specification                                                                                      ,

2323-MS-200.

b. Check if Operational Modes Considered X Three out of the seven thermal modes

                            -      Refer to Appendix 8 in G8H Design Specification                         (numbers 3, 4, M were run. Since 2323-MS-200                                                             other modes are enveloped by these

c. Check Equipment Nozzle Movements X three modes this is considered

                            -      Refer to equipment drawings and check any hand                          acceptable, calculatinnt Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090                                                                                              Sheet 1 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O b" Independent Design [#d"R Id Review Checklist lilllllitilillllllill!!!!!!!!! PIPE STRESS Reviewer M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69 Date 9/23/83 Satisfactory Item Yes No Comments

d. Check Branch Attachment Point Movements (if applicable) X

                         -     Refer to thermal calculation computer output for run pipe.
                         -     Ensure that radial expansion of the run is included.

5. Dynamic Loading

a. 1/2 SSE Spectra X

b. DBE Spectra X

                          -     Check that the spectra at appropriate damping values for all pertinent buildings at the proper elevations have been included in the enveloped spectra and that the proper interpolation technique                                                                      !

(LOG-LOG; SEMI-LOG) have been used (i.e., computer technique matches spectra curves).

6. Seismic Anchor Movement

                -        Check movements to assure that proper buildings             X have been considered. If piping passes between buildings, check movements for proper phase.

4 T xas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 2 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O m Independent Design lilC 1J Review Checklist

    !!!lllll!!!!illll!!!!!!!!!!!!!                                                                  p beviewer                  M. K. Mani                                                           Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69                                                                                 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item                             Yes      No                       Comments

7. Section Properties

a. Pipe OD X 1. The wrong wall thickness was used

b. Pipe Wall Thickness X for pipe segments 16"-SI-074-151R-2

c. Insulation Thickness and Weight X and 16"-SI-073-151R-2. 0.5" was

d. Weight of Contents X used instead of 0.375".

                           -      Refer to G&H Design Specification 2323-MS-200.                      2. See Observation PI-01-01.

8. Material Properties l

a. Sc (Allowable at Room Temperature) X Used conservatively low values for

b. Sh (Allowable at Hot Temperature) X Sh = 16,200, which corresponds to

c. Ec (Thermal Analysis) (Young's Modulus, Cold) X 400*F.

X

d. E

e. ah ((Young's coefficientModulus, of thermalHot) expansion) X

f. Poisson's ratio X

                           -      Refer to G8H Design Specification 2323-MS-200, ASME B&PV, Sec. III, ivpendix I and Cygna Design Criteria DC-1, Sec. 4.5.5 l

9. Geometry

a. Diagnostic Messages X Review used latest BRP and BRHL

b. Element Data Table X drawings.

                           -      Check lengths, pipe properties, material properties, code specification, bend radii and angles.

Tcxas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 3 of 10 l Independent Assessment Program ,

O O O

           ~

d, M Li' f ii taist11111mim!!ratt!! Independent Design Review Checklist PIPE STRESS Reviewer M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 Stress. Problem AB-1-69 o to 9/23/83 j<, S atisf actory ,, Itsf5 -" Yes l No Comments

c. Mode Data Table

                   -     Check for consistency with input and isometric.      X
                   -     Check for nodes between supports in same direction.

d. As-Built Tolerances X

                   -     Check as built drawings versus Stress Report isometrics.

il

                                                    ~~               '

10. Restraints

                                                            ~

f' '

a. Location, type, and orientation X The rigid restraint at node 2711 on

                   -     Check for agreement with isometric and support                       the BRHL drawing was deleted in                          -

detail drawing. analysis and noted in " Corrective and

,             b. Tolerances                                                 X               Future Action" list in Calculation File
                   -     Check for agreement with isometric & hanger                          No. 2323-200-1-69-2.

details,

c. Stiffness X

                   -     Refer to G8H Design Specification 2323-MS-200 Table 3.4-1.

11. Valves

a. Check location X

                   -     Check for agreement with isometric.

b. Check modeling X

                   -     Refer to valve drawing and Cygna Design Criteria DC-1 Sect. 4.5.7.

Tcxas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 ' sheet 4 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

o

                                                                                                                                         ~
      #~       O                                          -

O  :' Independent Design MIA

  @:.1111ll11lltll111ll1!!!!!!!!!!!

Review Checklist PIPE STRESS c: viewer M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 ~ Stress Problem AB-1-69 oat. 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

12. Fittings

a. Check location and type X

                 . Refer to Flow Diagrams and Walkdown.

b. Check the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF) X

               -   Refer to ASE B8PV Sect. III, subsection NC-3670, and computer input.
               -   Insure proper weld mismatch is assumed (1/32" max)            X     See Observation PI-00-01.

for SIF's at butt welds.

               -   Check that as-built reducer angles are provided      X if default SIF (2.0) is not used.

13. Weldolets

a. Check location X

               -   Refer to isometric.

b. Check the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF) X

               - Refer to Bonney Forge Bulletins IW-1-1981 and 775.

14.- Nozzle Flexibility

            -  Check flexibility assumptions.                                          Default support stiffness values
            -  Refer to equipment drawings.                             X              were used.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 5 of 10

O O O

 =C                                                                                                                       Independent Design MiId                                                                                                                     Review Checklist lilllllilillllillllllllillllli PIPE STRESS Rsvlower                                                M. K. Manj                                                       Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69                                                                     Date 9/23/83    i Satisfactory item                            Yes      No                   Comments                 j

15. Penetrations & Sleeves

a. Check modeling X

- Refer to Penetration Details,

b. Check the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF) X

                                                      - Check details to determine proper SIF.

c. Pipe Deflections X Check that deflections do not cause interference.

16. Mass Point Spacing

                                                  -   Check for adequacy to 33 Hz.                            X

17. Cut-off Frequency /No. of Modes

                                                      -   Ensure that all modes up to 33 Hz were considered. X

18. Damping used 1% for OBE and 2% for SSE. Could

                                                  -   Check for compliance with Cygna Design Criteria         X            have used 2% and 3% respectively, since

! DC-1, Section 4.6.5.b. pipe was 12" and greater. I i l

19. Modal Combination

                                                  -   Check compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92.        X I

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i i Independent Assessment Program Sheet 6 of 10

l O O O l E"EZ Independent Design t' [*=M Id It'llllllillllllllllllitilllli Review Checklist PIPE STRESS R0 viewer M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69 _ oate 9/23/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments

20. Gravity Output

a. Check displacements X s

                                   -      Less than 0.1"

b. Check stresses X

                                   -      Satisfy Code equations

c. Check loads X

                                   -      Downward Direction
            '21.         Thermal Dutput
,                        a. Check displacements                                               X
                                   -      Less than 3" or consistent with temperature, piping layout and restraint configuration.

, b. Check stresses X

                                   - Satisfy Code equations.

c. Check loads X

                                   -      Consistent with temperature, piping layout and restraint configuration.

22. Seismic Output

a. Check displacements X

                                   - Less than 1" or consistent with spectra, mass distribution, mode shapes, piping layout and restraint configuration.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 7 of 10

l 0 0 0

                              ~                                                                Independent Design LMW Id                                                                                        Review Checklist lifililillfillillfililillillil                                                                PIPE STRESS l

Reviewer M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69 oete 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments X

b. Check stresses

                       -        Satisfy Code equations, X

c. Check loads

                       - Consistent with spectra, mass distribution, mode shapes, piping layout and restraint

< configuration, The calculated percentage mass Check mass participation X

d. participation used is as follows:

                        -       Check that about 90% of total mass has been included.                                                              X direction = 54%

Y direction = 33% Z direction = 31% See Observation PI-00-03,

23. SAM Output Check displacements X a.

                        -       Consistent with input movements, piping layout, and restraint configuration.

X

b. Check stresses

                        - Satisfy Code equations, X

c. Check loads

                         - Consistent with input movements, piping layout, and restraint configuration.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 8 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O independent Design Mi f l i Review Checklist 1I111111!!111ll111111111111ll1 PIPE STRESS M. K. Mani Checklist No. PI-01 R: viewer ST,ress ProDiem AU-1-09 I O ! Date Satisf actory item Yes No Comments

24. Load Combination ,

                      -      Check for consistency with Cygna Design Criteria     X             See Notes 1 and 2 on attachment to DC-1 Sect. 4.7                                                     this Checklist.

25. Equipment Nozzle Loads

                      -      Refer to the equipment data noted in Appendix 4 to   X G8H Specification 2323-MS-200.

26.. Valve Acceleration Acceleration check was not complete.

                       -     Check against requirements in Cygna Design Criteria          X     See Note 4 on attachment to this to DC-1 Sect. 4.6.5.e.                                             Checklist.

27 Flanges

                        -    Refer to NC-3647 and check that flange calculations  X             See Note 3 on attachment to this include pipe load effects.                                         Checklist.

28. Welded Attachments 1. See Observation PI-00-02.

                        -    Check for consideration of local stresses at lugs             X     2. Note that welded attachment and stanchions,                                                         stresses are well below code Refer to WRC Bulletins 107 and 198.                                     allowables (max ratio = 0.6) for all 12 attachments.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 9 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O

                                                        =                        

4 Independent Design L4N M Review Checklist lilllilllifillllillllilillilli PIPE STRESS Reviewer M. K. Manj Checklist No. PI-01 Stress Problem AB-1-69 Date 9/23/83 S a tisf actory item Yes No Comments

29. Functional Capability

                                                                                    -  Check that piping retains dimensional stability           X               See Note 5 on attachment to this under all loadings (per NRC Standard Review Plan 3.9.3).                  Checklist.

s I i l I i ! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 10 of 10 Independent' Assessment Program 4

ATTA09ENT TO CKLIST PI-01 s (STRESS PROBLEM AB-1-69) REFERENCES

1. Pipe Stress Calculation binder File: 2323-200-1-69-2 System: Safety Injection System

2. Computer Output Run No.: J566 Dated 9/9/82 Program: ADLPIPE Version: -FAST Revision: 2C Date: 2/77

3. Gibbs and Hill File No. 2323-200-1-70-2 "As-built Verification - Problem No. AB-1-70" issued by GTN-60910 dated 20 August 1982.

4. ADLPIPE computer printout for Problem AB-1-70, Issue 0, dated 16 August 1982.

5. Program ISAM, PCM No. 5522, output stored on LMP. IISAM. Data on the TI3332 Label 01.

6. CPSES Line List - entitled LINE __ LIST. RPT, Revision 39, printed 11 January 1983.

7. CPSES Penetration and Sleeve List - entitled PEN-DESC. REPORT, printed 7 July 1983.

NOTES

1. JET IMPINGEMENT A review of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-JIPM-1, Rev.11, shows no impinging jets on the piping in stress problems 1-69 or 1-70. Therefore, no JI loading was considered.

2. PIPE WHIP A review of Gibbs & Hill drawing 2323-DSPM-4, Rev. 2, shows no pipe whip design requirements on stress problems 1-69 or 1-70. Gibbs & Hill design criteria requires all whipping of pipe larger than the target to be prevented, i.e., a larger pipe fails a smaller pipe automatically and must, therefore, be restrained.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program ll1111111lll111111111111:11111

3.OFLANGE EVALUATION O P. Gibbs & Hill did not review every flange. Rather, they performed a study on the most highly loaded lines (SRV and high energy). They used the ASME code method (Paragraph NC-3658.2 and 3) and showed all flanges are below allowables. In the case of problem 1-70, they did review the flange at joint 2238. The maximum ratio of actual moment to allowable was 0.14. Based on the method and sampling, Cygna concurs with the Gibbs & Hill procedure.

4. VALVE ACCELERATION Gibbs & Hill has not completed the valve acceleration checks. They did provide Cygna with a portion of the study, which basically checks the accelerations at the center of gravity against 39 and 29 accelerations. Cygna concurs with this method of verification.

5. FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY Gibbs & Hill does not directly address this in each problem. They do limit the stresses in Class 2 & 3 essential systems to 1.8Sy, which meets NRC criteria as noted in the SER, except for Class 2 & 3 austenitic elbows. TUS1 has answered this on a generic basis for the NRC in:

1) TUSI Letter TXX-3423 (10/15/81) describing their method of evaluation;

2) TUSI Letter CPPA-13,349 (10/19/81) to Gibbs & Hill, directing Gibbs & Hill to proceed;

3) Gibbs & Hill Letter GTN-58279 (3/25/82) summarizing results.

Based on their evaluation, TUSI has shown that functional capability is assured throughout. Cygna has reviewed the results for 1-69 and 1-70 and concludes that functional capability is assured (see attached calculation). The NRC has accepted the TUSI results in Supplement No. 3 to the SER.

   -t ( {ej l g 3 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090

' . 111111111111l1 8 11111111111111 Independent Assessment Program

O O O Cygna Evaluation of Functional Capability for AB-1-69 and AB-1-70. To evaluate the effect of B2 vs. 75j for functional capability, we will first evaluate h for the elbows within 1-69 and 1-70. SIZE 00 t R r h F(I) 6" SCH 40 6.625 0.28 9 3.173 0.25 1.9 8" SCH 40 8.625 0.322 12 4.152 0.224 1.9 10" SCH 40 10.75 0.365 15 5.193 0.203 2.0 12" STD 12.75 0.375 18 6.188 0.176 2.0 14" STD 14.00 0.375 21 6.813 0.17 2.1 16" STD 16.00 0.375 24 7.813 0.147 2.1 Note: (1) the DW + SSE stresses should be increased by p, .895/h.912 ,4 .245 2/3

                                                               .75(.9)/h        3 i

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 g,., . ,,,, Independent Assessment Program

I O

3. FLANGE EVALUATION O O

! Gibbs & Hill did not review every flange. Rather, they performed a study on the most highly loaded j lines (SRV and high energy). They used the ASME code method (Paragraph NC-3658.2 and 3) and showed all l flanges are below allowables. In the case of problem 1-70, they did review the flange at joint 2238. l' The maximum ratio of actual moment to allowable was 0.14. Based on the method and sampling, Cygna concurs with the Gibbs & Hill procedure.

4. VALVE ACCELERATION Gibbs & Hill has not completed the valve acceleration checks. They did provide Cygna with a portion of the study, which basically checks the accelerations at the center of gravity against 39 and 2g accelerations. Cygna concurs with this method of verification.

5. FUNCTIONAL CAPABILITY Gibbs & Hill does not directly address this in each problem. They do limit the stresses in Class 2 & 3 essential systems to 1.8Sy, which meets NRC criteria as noted in the SER, except for Class 2 & 3 austenitic elbows. TUSI has answered this on a generic basis for the NRC in:

1) TUSI Letter TXX-3423 (10/15/81) describing their method of evaluation;

2) TUSI Letter CPPA-13,349 (10/19/81) to Gibbs & Hill, directing Gibbs & Hill to proceed;

3) Gibbs & Hill Letter GTN-58279 (3/25/82) summarizing results.

Based on their evaluation, TUSI has shown that functional capability is assured throughout. Cygna has reviewed the results for 1-69 and 1-70 and concludes that functional capability is assured (see attached calculation). The NRC has accepted the TUSI results in Supplement No. 3 to the SER. J M{,j.7,5 gy , Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 mmN Independent Assessment Program

Cygna Evaluation of Functional Capability for AB-1-69 and AB-1-70. To evaluate the effect of B2 vs. 75j for funct,ional capability, we will first evaluate h for the elbows within 1-69 and 1-70. i SIZE OD t R r h F II) 6" SCH 40 6.625 0.28 9 3.173 0.25 1.9 l 8" SCH 40 8.625 0.322 12 4.152 0.224 1.9 10" SCH 40 10.75 0.365 15 5.193 0.203 2.0 12" STD 12.75 0.375 18 6.188 0.176 2.0 14" STD 14.00 0.375 21 6.813 0.17 2.1 16" STD 16.00 0.375 24 7.813 0.147 2.1 Note: (1) the DW + SSE stresses should be increased by p, .895/h.912 ,4 .245 2/3

                             .75(.9)/h         3 3 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 g Independent Assessment Program

O O O

    . . If we increase the emergency stresses in the worst elbow by 2.1 (conservatively including the pressure stress), we will have a conservative evaluation if the this fails, we can neglect the pressure entirely since By = .1 + .4h = 0 for h < .25.

1-69 run AB-1-69, issue 0 max elbow stress (seg 201) = 15296 psi

            . *. oFC = 32100 psi < 1.8Sy = 38070 psi 1-70 run AB-1-70 issue 0 max elbow stress (seg 626) = 19530 psi
            . . oFC = 41000 psi > 1.8Sy     NQ
            .* . Subtract pressure stress oFC = 2.1 (19530 - 3549) = 33600 psi < 1.8Sy Next highest is 625 (same elbow .*. OK)

Next highest is 621 stress = 14313 psi

            . . opc 621                    E 1-69 & 1-70 are OK.

gg {edi g , j Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 maggg Independent Assessment Program

l 0 o o Independent Design [*iM IJ Review Checklist Illlllllillllillfilllilllill!I PIPE STRESS Reviewer A. Klinger checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments i

1. System Boundaries

a. Check that all required branch lines are included. X 1. See references on the attachment to this'

b. Check that the attachment point is justified as an X Checklist.

anchor if system starts at a branch attachment point. 2. Decoupling criteria satisfied. Refer to Flow Diagrams and Criteria for Decoupling, l - Cygna Design Criteria DC-1, Section 4.3.3.

2. Piping Classification

                         -        Check for consistency with Flow Diagrams and G&H             X i                                  Piping Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

3. Design & Maximum Pressure

                         -        Check for consistency with G8H Design Specification          X 2323-MS-200, Appendix 7.

4. Thermal Loading X

a. Maximum Temperature i - Check for consistency with G8H Design Specification 2323-MS-200.

b. Check Operational Modes Considered X See Note 1 on the Attachment to

                                   -      Refer to Appendix 8 in G&H Design Specification                       this checklist.

2323-MS-200 4 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 1 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O Independent Design Review Checklist

         ~

[4Li'IU lillililllllilllllll!!Illlilli PIPE STRESS Reviewer A Klinger Checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments Check Equipment Nozzle Movements X Calculated by ADLPIPE. c.

                        -      Refer to equipment drawings and check any hand calculations.

d. Check Branch Attachment Point Movements (if applicable) X " Corrective and Future Action Memo"

                        -      Refer to thermal calculation computer output for                         GTN - 60910, 8/18/82 noted that run pipe,                                                               movements used must be checked
                        -       Ensure that radial expansion of the run is included.                    against latest header run.

5. Dynamic Loading

a. 1/2 SSE Spectra X 1. Envelope spectra does not include

b. DBE Spectra X component due to containment building.

Check that the spectra at appropriate damping This, however, does not produce higher loads since the containment building values for all pertinent buildings at the proper elevations have been included in the enveloped spectra are enveloped by the problem spectra and that the proper interpolation technique spectra at all frequencies above the (LOG-LOG; SEMI-LOG) have been used (i.e., computer system's first frequency. 4 technique matches spectra curves). 2. See Observation PI-02-01.

6. Seismic Anchor Movement Check movements to assure that proper buildings X See Item 4d on this Checklist.

have been considered. If piping passes between i buildings, check movements for proper phase. Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 2 of 10 i Independent Assessment Program ,

O O O f f E C s2 Independent Design M *iifd lillllilllilllllilllilllllllli Review Checklist PIPF KTRFRS Reviewer A. Klinger Checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date9/23/83 S e tlef actory item Yes No Comments

7. Section Properties

a. Pipe 00 X Lines 12"-RH-1-036-601R-2 and

b. Pipe Wall Thickness X 10"-RH-1-016-601R-2 have indicated

c. Insulation Thickness and Weight X insulation type B-1 while it should

! d. Weight of Contents X be B-2. There is no difference in l - Refer to G8H Design Specification 2323-MS-200. weight / foot, thus there is no impact.

8. Material Properties

a. Sc (Allowable at Room Temperature) X 1. S h in thermal mode 7 is 18274 psi

b. Sh (Allowable at Hot Temperature) X while it should be 17284.

c. Ec (Thermal Analysis) (Young's Modulus, Cold) X

d. E Young's Modulus, Hot) X 2. See Note 5 on attachment to this

e. ah ((coefficient.of thermal expansion) X Checklist.

f. Poisson's ratio X Refer to G&H Design Specification 2323-MS-200, ASME 88PV, Sec. III, Appendix I and Cygna Design Criteria DC-1, Section 4.5.5.

9. Geometry

a. Diagnostic Messages X

b. Element Data Table X Check lengths, pipe properties, material properties, code specification, bend radii and angles.

l Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 . Independent Assessment Program Sheet 3 of 10

O O O

                           --- T                                                                            Independent Design l             M ii fd                                                                                        Review Checklist
            !!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111!!!!!!!!!

PIPE STRESS i Reviewer A. Klinger checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 l S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

c. Node Data Table X

                                  -      Check for consistency with input and isometric.
                                  -      Check for nodes between supports in same direction.

. d. As-Built Tolerances X ! - Check as built drawings versus Stress Report isometrics.

10. Restraints

a. I_ocation, type, and orientation X See Note 3 on attachment to this i - Check for agreement with isometric and support Checklist.

detail drawings.

b. Tolerances X 1. See Note 2 on attachment to this

                                  -      Check for agreement with isometric & hanger                                 Checklist.

details. 2. See Observation PI-02-02.

c. Stiffness X

                                  - Refer to G8H Design Specification 2323-MS-200, Table 3.4-1.

11. Valves

a. Check location X

                                  -      Check for agreement with isometric.

b. Check modeling X

                                  -      Refer to valve drawing and Cygna Design Criteria                                                                                                      '

DC-1 Sect. 4.5.7. Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 4 of 10

O O O _~ Independent Design

                 !* H C Iii                                                                                        Review Checklist Ill!llillililllilllllillililli                                                                    PIPE STRESS Reviewer                   A. Klinger Checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70                                                                           oete 9/23/83 S a tisf actory item                            Yes        No                    Comments

12. . Fittings

a. Check location and type X

                                        -      Refer to Flow Diagrams and Walkdown.

b. Check the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF)

                                        -      Refer to ASE B&PV Sect. III, subsection NC-3670,     X and computer input.
                                        -       Insure proper weld mismatch assumed (1/32" max)                 X     See Observation PI-00-01.

i for SIF's at butt welds.

                                        -       Check that as-built reducer angles are provided     X if default SIF (2.0) is not used.

13. Weldolets X

a. Check location

                                        - -Refer to isometric,

b. Check the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF) X

                                        -       Refer to Bonney Forge Bulletins IW-1-1981 and 775.                                                          :

Nozzle Flexibility X All nozzles are incorporated into

14. geometry model and modelled properly.

                               -         Check flexibility assumptions,
                               -        Refer to equipment drawing.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 8309P Sheet 5 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O Independent Design (*hle-h' fA Review Checklist lillllilllllllilllililllilllli PIPE STRESS R'; viewer A. Klinger CheckIlst No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments

15. Penetrations & Sleeves

a. Check modeling X

                        -      Refer to Penetration Details.
;             b.        Check the Stress Intensification Factor (SIF)               X i                        - Check details to determine proper SIF.

c. Pipe Deflections

                        -      Check that deflections do not cause interference. X 16         Mass Point Spacing                                                    X
               -        Check for adequacy to 33 Hz.

s

17. Cut-off Frequency /No. of Modes X

                        -       Ensure that all modes up to 33 Hz were considered.

18. Damping

               -        Check for compliance with Cygna Design                      X 4

Criteria DC-1, Section 4.6.5.b.

19. Modal Combination

               -        Check compliance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.92.            X 4

5 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 6 of 10 w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

O O O C Independent Design [*il i fd Review Checklist lillillfilillilillllllilllliti PIPE STRESS Reviewer A. Klinger Checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments

20. Gravity Output

a. Check. displacements X

! - Less than 0.1".

b. Check stresses X

                        -      Satisfy Code equations.

} c. Check loads X

                        -      Downward Direction.

21. Thermal Output

a. Check displacements X

                        -      Less than 3" or consistent with temperature, piping layout and restraint configuration.

b. Check stresses X

                        -      Satisfy Code equations.

c. Check loads X

                        -      Consistent with temperature, piping layout and j                               restraint configuration.

22. Seismic Output

a. Check displacements X

                        -      Less than 1" or consistent with spectra, mass distribution, mode shapes, piping layout and restraint configuration.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 7 of 10

O O O

  = . . ..__

Independent Design j Pil(" W Review Checklist lilllllilllilll!!Illlllilillit PIPE STRESS r l C

• vi'* *r A. Klinger checklist No. PI-02 l Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

b. Check stresses X

                                      -  Satisfy Code equations

c. Check loads X

                                      -  Consistent with spectra, mass distribution, mode shapes, piping layout and restraint configuration.

d. Check mass participation X 1. The calculated percentage of mass

                                      -  Check that about 90% of total mass has been                             used is as follows:

included. X direction = 45% Y direction = 29% Z direction = 48%

2. See Observation PI-00-03.

23. SAM Output

a. Check displacements X

                                      -  Consistent with input movements, piping layout, and restraint configuration.

b. Check stresses X

                                      -  Satisfy Code equations,

c. Check loads X

                                      -  Consistent with input movements, piping layout, and restraint configuration.

4 Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 8 of 10

O O O E%E%ii3 Independent Design A 'd 2 Id Review Checklist 18111111111111111lllllll1I1lll PIPE STRESS C'' A. Klinger Checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date9/23/83 S a tisf actcry item Yes No Comme nt s i 24. Load Combination

                -    Check for consistency with Cygna Design Criteria    X                 See Notes 1 and 2 on attachment to DC-1, Section 4.7.                                                    Checklist PI-01.

25. Equipment Nozzle Load!.

                -    Refer to the equipment data noted in Appendix 4 to              X     See Observation PI-02-05.

G&H Specification 2323-MS-200.

26. Valve Acceleration Acceleration check was not complete.

                -    Check against requirements in Cygna Design Criteria             X     See Note 4 on attachment to DC-1, Section 4.6.5.e.                                                Checklist PI-01.

i 27. Flanges ~

                -    Refer to NC-3647 and check that flange calculations X                 See Note 3 on attachment to include pipe load effects.                                            Checklist PI-01.

28. Welded Attachments X 1. See Note 4 on attachment to this Checklist

                -    Check for consideration of local stresses at lugs                     2. See Observations PI-00-02, PI-02-03, and and stanchions.                                                            PI-02-04. Note that stresses are well within code limits at all 11 welded Refer to WRC Bulletins 107 and 198.

attachments (max. ratio = 0.7) { Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Sheet 9 of 10 Independent Assessment Program

O O O Independent Design f*=!"?Til Review Checklist litilitiililiiiiiillitilllilli PIPE STRESS Reviewer A. Klinger checklist No. PI-02 Stress Problem: AB-1-70 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

29. Functional Capability X See Note 5 on attachment to Checklist PI-01.

             -         Check that piping retains dimensional stability under all loadings per NRC Standard Review Plan 3.9.3.

4 ! Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 10 of 10

O O O REFERENCES FOR CHECKLIST NO. PI-02

1. Gibbs and Hill File No. 2323-200-1-70-2 "As-built Verification - Problem No. AB-1-70" issued by GTN-60910 dated 20 August 1982. ,

j

2. ADLPIPE computer printout for Problem AB-1-70, Issue 0, dated 16 August 1982.

3. Program ISAM, PGM No. 5522, output stored on LMP. IISAM. Data on the TI3332, Label 01. t

4. CPSES Line List - entitled LINE_ LIST.RPT, Revision 39, printed 11 January 1983.

5. CPSES Penetration and Sleeve List - entitled PEN-DESC. REPORT, printed 7 July 1983, t

i Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 R{taj.'y,3 A Independent Assessment Program

   . . - . .         .       _ . -    _    . . -     _       - - . - ~ . -              .- . _ - - - - -       -. -   -- .-.    ..-. . _ -- . - - - - -

O O O

[ ATTAQ9ENT 10 CHECKLIST IW. PI-02

(STRESS PROBLEN A8-1-70)

(For Items #4, 6, 8, 10, 26 and 28)

1. An error in the input of thermal mode 1 from DP 269 to DP 276 ( 4') results in slightly higher thermal expansion. The temperature was input as 280 F instead of 140*F. Based on the support arrangement, the resulting loads and stresses are conservative, plus the existing pipe stress and pipe support load J levels are only 33% of the allowable.

o l 2. DWG BRHL-RH-1-SB-003, Rev.1, shows the location of support RH-1-064-010-S22R (previous tag #RH-1-062- i 1 001-522R) l'-4-1/16" west of the elbow T.I.P. ( at DP 3245). The computer model, however, has the support 2'-6" west of the elbow. While this discrepancy is out of tolerance (14" vs. 8"), stresses in the area are only 50% of the allowable and would not be increased greatly. Since the span reduction is 10%, dead weight stresses would increase 10% at the correct span and seismic 20%. Thermal stresses would also increase (near the elbow) since the correct span would have a shorter " bending leg."

3. The following supports were modelled along the coordinate axes rather than inclined. The impact is -

negligible. 4 l a) RH-1-010-003-S22R 9 DP 1253 (8.6*) i b) SI-1-042-001-S22R 9 DP 793-(7.5') l 4. a) The local stress analyses at the welded attachment appears to be based on a previous ADLPIPE i run, although there is no note to this effect. The loads used are higher than the actual loads, so there is no design impact. There should be a note in the calculation stating that i the actual loads were reviewed and found to be lower. i b) The local analysis for supports SI-1-070-007-S22A and SI-1-037-005-S32A were based on the ] previous support revisions (Revision 0 vs.1). This is not noted in the report. In both i cases there are changes in the supports (8" pad vs. 10" pad, leg angled vs. straight) which o will affect the results. See Observation PI-02-04. f c) According to G8H criteria AEG-511, the support loads used for thermal expansion local stresses should be a range between modes (which is correct). This was not done in the local stress

calculations on pages 45, 46 and 48, however, and results in unconservative stresses. Since I margins are large, this has no design impact. See Observation PI-02-03.

5. The cold modulus of elasticity (E c) rather than hot (E ) was used for deadweight and seismic analyses.

This would shift the natural frequency slightly ( 5%) Hand will not impact these results. I Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 i M jg 3 Independent Assessment Program ! N I

O O O

__ independent Design

[*hL i TJ Review Checklist i

                 !!!!llllillllillllllllilllllll FLUED EAD Reviewer                   J. Minichiello                                               checkIlst No. PI-03 oste 9/23/83 S atisf actory item                         Yes      No                      Comments

1. Geometry Input

a. Check that computer geometry (wall thicknesses, X 1. Model is incorrect (see page 36) in lengths of transition pieces) agree with Fig. 74-1 inboard piping (a vs ) near of 2323-MS-74 and the fabrication drawing. taper. This has no design impact on

b. Check that material properties agree with those X the head since all loads must go through the region and it is from the Code of Record (1977 + S'77 addenda).

c. Check that there is sufficient detail to insurc X sufficiently removed from the head so the validity of the solution. the lower stiffness will have i

negligible effect. (El. 38-92)

2. See Observation PI-03-01.

2. Stress Analysis The pipe weight load stress (1500 psi)

a. Are all piping loads considered (per Project Design X required by specification 2323-MS-74, Specification 2323-MS-747 13.6.4.3, was not added to the flued

b. Is primary containment pressure considered X head " slice" stresses. Since the maximum per Para. 3.6.4.3.a of Appendix "A" of the ratio to allowable is only 0.25, this specification? has no impact.

c. Are the pressure "end cap" loads considered? X 1

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 1 of 2

                          ~

O O O Independent Design [*s iC M Review Checklist Illlilill!!illlilill!!!Illlill FLUED EAD Reviewer J. Minichiello Checklist No. PI-03 Date 9/23/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

3. Code Compliance The proper cases are combined, but the

a. Are the proper load cases combined for: factor for internal pressure is set to

1. General Primary Membrane (<S,) check? X -1.0 (see pages 51 and 396) making it

2. General & Local Primary Membrane + Primary X additive to the external pressure. This Bending (<1.5 Sm) check? is conservative and will not impact

3. Local Primary Membrane (<1.5 S ) check? X design. (affects only the flued head combination). The applied load signs are also reversed so that all effects will be additive.

Texas Utilities Services Inc.; 83090 Independent Assessment Program Sheet 2 of 2

, O O 3,_goii, O Assessment [h n , Checklist 18111111111ll1811ll11111111111 pIPIlls Als PIPE SUPPORTS i C*d***' W

• Checkilet No. WD-01 Page 1 of }}

S. Dillon. R. Hess Review Date 7/1g/83 Setlefactory 1 Item Yes No Commente STRESS PROBLEM 1-151-C l Starting at Spent Fuel Pool Suction Screen (CPI-SFSRSF-02)

1. Screen to penetration Measured from top of pool.

a. Dimensional agreement x No vertical dimension taken.

b. Piping orientatien x

2. Penetration to 90 elbow turn to east and 24 down

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

3. Elbow to support SF-X-032-012-F53K (D.P. 3109) A PSA snubber was used. Further

a. Dimensional agreement x review shows it is equivalent

b. Piping orientation x to that specified.

c. FVR x 4 Support SF-X-032-012-F53K to 90 elbow turn to north 4

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

! 5. Elbow to support SF-X-032-013-F53K (D.P. 3108) Equivalent PSA snubber is used,

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR x t

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

m: O O dC As-Built r' Assessment monummumm Checklist PIPING MS PIPE SUPPORTS CC* " (*) S. Dillon, R. Hess Checkilet No. WD-01 Page 2 of 11 Review Date 7/19/83 Setlefactory

   -                                             Item                          Yes        No                     Comments 4

6. Support SF-X-032-013-F53K to support SF-X-032-014-F535 '

x [- (D.P. 3108) x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR x <

7. Support SF-X-032-014-F53S to support SF-X-032-015-F53K Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

(D.P. 3107) x

a. Dimensional agreement h;- FVR _

x

8. SupportSF-X-032-015-F53KtosuppoktSF-X-032-016-F53S -

(0.P. 3106)- , , ,

                                                          -                       x                                                          ~

a. ~ Dimension'ai agreement '

b.- FYR x

9. Support SF-X-032 bl6-F53S to support SF-X-032-017-F53R Support inaccessible, (D.P. 3105) spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Drawing check N/A

10. Support SF-X-032-017-F53R to support SF-X-032-018-F53R Support inaccessible, (D.P. 3104) spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Drawing check N/A Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

As-Built O Assessment

      ,d%'

• I'l _

Checklist lllll1lllllllllllll1111lll1111 PIPING Als PIPE SUPPORTS Ccviewer (s) S. Dillon, R. Hess checklist No. WD-01 Psee 3 of 11 Review Date 7/19/83 Sallefactory item Yes No Commente

11. Support SF-X-032-018-F53R to support SF-X-032-019-F53R Support inaccessible, spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

(D.P. 0052) x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. Drawing check N/A

12. Support SF-X-032-019-F53R to 45* elbow Measured by ground projection.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

13. Elbow to 45' elbow flat Measured by ground projection.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

14. Elbow to support SF-X-032-024-F53S (D.P. 3102) Support inaccessible,

a. Dimensional agreement x spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

b. FVR N/A

15. Support SF-X-032-024-F53S to support SF-X-032-025-F53K Support inaccessible, (D.P. 3102) spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR N/A 4

j Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

As-Built Q rd lm I llllll111lll1lllllllll11111lll Assessment Checklist PIPING AND PIPE SUPPORTS n: view (s) S. Dillon, R. Hess Checklist No. WD-01 Page 4 of 11 neh Dat' 7/19/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments

16. Support SF-X-032-025-F53K to support SF-X-032-020-F53R Support inaccessible, (D.P. 1212) spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Drawing check N/A i

17. Support SF-X-032-020-F53R to support SF-X-032-021-F53S Support inaccessible, ,

(D.P. 3101) spacing correct - Visually 0.K. '

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR N/A

18. Support SF-X-032-021-F53S to 90 elbow down

a. Dimensional . agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

19. Elbow to support SF-X-032-22-F53K (D.P. 3100) 1. Support inaccessi'le, o

a. Dimensional agreement x spacing correct - Visually 0.K.

Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

b. FVR x 2.

20. Support SF-X-032-022-F53K to valve XSF-144 Handwheel is - 5* off from horizontal

a. Dimensional agreement x 0.K. - within tolerances of MS-100,

b. Valve orientation x Rev. 6.

4 Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

As-Built O Check PIPING NO PIPE SUPPORTS C 0*8' " (*) S. Dillon, R. Hess Checklist No. WD-01 Pese 5 of 11 Re

• w Date 7/19/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments

21. Valve XSF-144.to support SF-X-032-023-F53R (D.P. 61)

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Drawing check x

22. Support SF-X-032-023-F53R to 90* elbow turn to north

a. Dimensional agreement x

, b. Piping orientation x

23. Elbow to TEE at El. 840'-3" x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. Piping orientation x 24 TEE at El. -840'-3" to support SF-X-001-011-F53S (D.P. 3009) Serial numbers on both springs

a. Dimensional agreement x are identical. No design impact

b. FVR x since proper rating spring cans are installed, i 25. Support SF-X-001-011-F53S to support SF-X-001-022-F43K

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR x

26. Support SF-X-001-022-F43K to valve XSF-167

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Valve orientation x Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O 3,_goiit O Assessment - M(eH M Checklist lllllll11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I11111 PIPING NW PIPE SUPPORTS C* " (*) S. Dillon, R. Hess Checkilet No. WD-01 Page 6 of 11 Review Date 7/19/83 S etlef actory item Yes No Comsnents

27. Valve XSF-167 to support SF-X-001-023-F43R (D.P.11)

Dimensional agreement x a. Drawing check x b.

28. Support SF-X-001-023-F43R to 90* elbow turn to west x

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation

29. Elbow to penetration Embedded in concrete (grout)

a. Dimensional agreement x l'-10" from elbow x

b. FVR Measured from top of pool .

l 30. Penetration to suction screen CP2-SFSRSF-01 x No vertical dimension taken.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation

31. Tee at El. 840'-3" to floor penetration at El . 838'-9" Pipe not centered in sleeve but further

a. Dimensional agreement x review shows it meets the 1/2" minimum x allowable clearance of DCA (13177,

b. FVR Rev. 2, based upon 120*F operating temperature.

32. Floor penetration to 90* elbow turn to south-east Dimensional agreement x

a. x

b. Piping orientation i Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O As-Built Assessment A i n fd lilill;; ..iimiiiilli Checklist PIPillG NID PIPE SUPPORTS C" (*) S. Dillon. R. Hess Checklist No. WD-01 Pese 7 of 11 ' Ro s w Date 7/19/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Comments t

33. Elbow to support SF-X-001-012-F43K (D.P. 017) Equivalent PSA snubber is used,

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR x

34. Support SF-X-001-012-F43K to support SF-X-001-006-F43S (D.P. 3006) x

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR

35. Support SF-X-001-006-F43S to 90' elbow down

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

36. Elbow to support SF-X-001-013-F43K (D.P. 3005) Equivalent PSA snubber is used, x

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR

37. Support SF-X-001-013-F43K to support SF-X-001-010-F43R (D.P. 206) x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. Drawing check x

38. Support SF-X-001-010-F43R to 90 elbow turn to east

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x 1

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

m O O 3,_goii, O Assessment 376:M tillHilllilllillililillllilli Checklist pgpgitG MS PIPE SUPPORTS Review (s) S. Dillon. R. Hess checklist No. WD-01 Page g of }} Review Det' 7/19/83 S allef actory item Yes No Comments

39. Elbow to 3" branch line 3"-SF-X-66-151-R-3

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

40. Branch line to support SF-X-001-015-F43R (D.P. 3003) Strut upper locknut not tightened down -

a. Dimensional agreement x 1/16" gap to strut body. See Observation

b. Drawing check x WD-01-01.

41. Support SF-X-001-015-F43R to wall penetration

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR x

> 42. Penetration to support SF-X-001-016-F43K (D.P. 3001) Equivalent PSA snubber is used. , a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR x

43. Support SF-X-001-016-F43K to 90 elbow down

a. Dimensional agreement x l b. Piping orientation x

! 44. Elbow to support SF-X-001-002-F43R (D.P. 3000) Slight gap (< 1/16") between plate and

a. Dimensional agreement x wall along lef t edge - 0.K. per

b. FYR x specification MS-100, DCA #9087, Rev. 5.

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O As-Built

                            ==-              _

Assessment k) $j _d Checklist PIPING NO PIPE SUPPORTS C * 'I' * *' I*I checklist No. WD-01 Page g of }} S_ nillon. R. Hess Roh De'* 7/19/83 S atisf actory item Yes No Comments

45. Support SF-X-001-002-F43R to valve XSF-001

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Valve orientation x

46. Valve to support SF-X-001-017-F43R (D. P. 028) Base plate shimed at back of top of

a. Dimensional agreement x left edge - 0.K. per Specification MS-100

b. Drawing check x DCA #9087, Rev. 5.

47. Support SF-X-001-017-F43R to branch connector BRHL-022 shows branch below support center

a. Dimensional agreement x line but BRHL-022 and BRP-022 dimensions

b. Piping orientation x indicate it is above support center line.

Field check of dimensions confirmed that this is a drawing error.

48. Branch connector to valve XSF-054

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

49. Branch connector to 90* elbow to west

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x Texas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O As-Built O Assessment 3 & I2 Checklist 19111111ll11ll1111111lllllllll PIPIllG AllD PIPE SUPPORTS C'd* **' I*3 Ch*cklist No. WD-01 P898 10 of '11 S. Dil1on. R. Hess R eims Oste 7/19/83 Setlofectory item Yes No Commente

50. Elbow to support SF-X-001-018-F43R (D.P. 4001) x

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Drawing check

51. Support SF-X-001-018-F43R to 90 elbow to south x l

a. Dimensional agreement  !

Piping orientation x b.

52. Elbow to temp. strainer (CFX-SFSRTS-04) spool piece l x

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Drawing check

53. Temp. strainer spool piece to branch connector Dimensional agreement x

a. x

b. Piping orientation

54. Branch connection to support SF-X-001-019-F43K (D.P. 035) 1. Support is located 1 1/2" closer to branch in order to keep clamp off (D.P. 035) x elbow weld still meets t 2" tolerance

a. Dimensional agreement Drawing check x per Specification MS-100, Rev. 6.

b. Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

2. Texas Utilities Services Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O As-Built O Assessment d N@1111.. 1811111811 M ..ml Checklist PIPIllG MOD PIPE SUPPORTS CcviewerW S. Dillon, R. Hess Checklist No. WD-01 Page 11 of 11 Review Date 7/19/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Commente

55. Support SF-X-001-019-F43K to 90* elbow to east

a. Dimensional agreement x 4 b. Piping orientation x 4

56. Elbow to support SF-X-001-020-F43R (D.P. 4100)

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR x i

57. Support SF-X-001-020-F43R to support SF-X-001-021-F43S Drawing error - pipe elevation is not shown on the support (D.P. 4101) x detail drawing. Elevation is

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR x on BRP & BRHL.

58. Support SF-X-001-021-F43S to spent fuel pool cooling water pump (CPX-SFAPSF-01)

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x i

i l Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

As-Built b Assessment , I @d hmlntd d Checklist PIPING NW PIPE SUPPORTS CCd*" I'3 Checkflet No. WD-02 Page 1 of 10 S. Dillon. R. Hess Roh Date 7/21/83 Setlefectory item Yes No Commente STRESS PROBLEM 1-151-A Starting at Pump CPX-SFAPSF-01 Discharge

1. Pump discharge flange to branch line

.                            a. Dimensional agreement                              x

! b. Piping orientation x

2. Branch line to valve XSF-003

a. Dimensional agreement x Valve orientation x b.

3. Valve XSF-003 to branch line

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x 4 Branch line to support SF-X-003-002-F43S (0.P. 1108) Support is located 1" closer to branch Dimensional agreement x in order to avoid elbow weld, still meets a.

b. FVR x t 2" tolerance of MS-100, Rev. 6.

Support SF-X-003-002-F43S to support SF-X-003-006-F43K Snubber is installed inverted from support 5.- drawing depiction. See Observation (D.P. 0028) x WD-02-02.

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR x Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O As-Built Assessment dheiddn, Checklist PIPING NG PIPE SUPPORTS C ' d * " I'3 ' Checklist No. WD-02 Pess 2 of 10 S. Dillon. R. Hess nem one* 7/21/83 Satisfactory item Yes No Commente

6. Support SF-X-003-006-F43K to support SF-X-003-008-F43R (D.P. 0226) x

a. Dimensional agreement Drawing Check x b.

Support SF-X-003-008-F43R to support SF-X-003-007-F43K Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

7. Further review shows it is (0.P. 0260) x equivalent to that specified.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FYR

8. Support SF-X-003-007-F43R to valve XSF-005 Dimensional agreement x

a. x

b. Valve orientation Valve XSF-005 to support SF-X-003-005-F43K (D.P. 0029) 1. Snubber is installed inverted from

9. x support drawing depiction. See

a. Dimensional agreement x Observation WD-02-02.

b. FYR

2. Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

10. Support SF-X-003-005-F43K to support SF-X-003-004-F43K Equivalent PSA snubber is used in both cases, (D.P. 0029) x

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR Texas utilities Services, Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O 3,_soi,, O hZ Assessment L4M rd lillfilliliffillfilillifililli Checklist PIPIIIG Als PIPE SUPPORTS Checklist No. WD-02 P888 3 8' 10 C ** " C*3 S. Dillon. R. Hess ne m oes* 7/21/83 Satisfactory Yes No Comments item

11. Support SF-X-003-004-F43K to elbow to west Dimensional agreement x

a. x

b. Piping orientation Actual dimension is l /l " less than drawing

12. Elbow to elbow to north x shows - 0.K. within t 2 tolerance of

a. Dimensional agreement x MS-100, Rev 6.

b. Piping orientation

1. Inaccessible due to height. Frame

13. Elbow to support SF-X-003-003-F43K (D.P. 0301)

Dimensional agreement x visually 0.K.

a. x 2. Possible interference problem with

b. FVR pipe clamp fran support SF-X-007-014-F43K. Clearance between clamp and strut is only 1/4". See Observation WD-02-01,

3. Snubber is installed inverted from support drawing depiction. See Observation WD-02-02.

14. Support SF-X-003-003-F43K to TEE at El. 822'-4" x

a. Dimensional agreement Piping orientation x b.

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O As-Built O AL W 7 imimillimilillillimill Assessment Checklist PIPIIIG Alm PIPE SUPPORTS i C'*" W S. Dillon, R. Hess CheckHet No. WD-02 Pese 4 of 10 Re h w Date 7/21/83 Item Yo N Commente

15. TEE at EL. 822'-4" to support SF-X-007-015-F43K 1. Some dimensions unobtainable due to height. Visually 0.K.

(D.P. 3600) Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

a. Dimensional agreement x 2.

b. FVR x

16. Support SF-X-007-015-F43K to valve XSF-007

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Valve orientation x

17. Valve XSF-007 to elbow to east

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

18. Elbow to support SF-X-007-016-F43S (D.P. 3701) Support Detail Drawing Errors:

a. Dimensional agreement x a) Drawing shows square tube instead of

b. FVR x actual connection to base plate.

Bill of Materials correctly calls for a round tube. b) Drawing shows incorrect center line pipe elevation. Field measurement matches BRP & BRHL 017B elevation. I 19. Support SF-X-007-016-F43S to elbow 45*

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x Tcxas Utilities Services. Inc.

Independent Assessment Program; 83090

O O 3,_goii, O W MNM 11111111ll11111111111111111111 Assessment Checklist PIPIllG NW PIPE SUPPORTS C'd* **' " S. Dillon. R. Hess checklist No. WD-02 Page 5 of 10 i Review De'* 7/21/83 Sallefactory Item Yes No Comments

20. Elbow to heat exchanger CPX-SFAHST-01 No pipe length. Elbow connected to 4

a. Dimensional agreement x flange at nozzle.

b. Piping orientation x

21. TEE at El. 822'-4" to support SF-X-007-014-F43K 1. Inaccessible due to height.

Visually 0.K. (D.P. 1105) x 2. Possible interference with

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR x support SF-X-003-003-F43K strut.

1/4" clearance from pipe clamp. See Observation WD-02-01.

22. Support SF-X-007-014-F43K to 90* elbow to east

a. Dimensional agreement x Piping orientation x b.

23. Elbow to support SF-X-007-012-F435 (D.P. 4200) Inaccessible due to height.

a. Dimensional agreement x Visually 0.K.

b. FVR N/A i

Support SF-X-007-012-F43S to support SF-X-007-013-F43K Inaccessible due to height. 24 Visually 0.K. (D.P. 4200) x ! a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR N/A 4

Texas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090

As-Built Chec i PIPING NW PIPE SUPPORTS C""**' M CheckNat No. WD-02 Pae* 6 of 10 S. Dillon. R. Hess

Relow Det* 7/21/83 i

'                                                                                                                          Satisfactory Item                       Yes      No                    Comments a

Support SF-X-007-013-F43K to support SF-X-007-011-F43R Inaccessible due to height. .

25. Visually 0.K.

(D.P. 0430) x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FYR N/A l

Support SF-X-007-011-F43R to valve XSF-011 Inaccessible due to height.

26. Visually 0.K.

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Valve orientation x Inaccessible due to height.

!                                                              27. Valve XSF-011 to branch line                               x           Visually 0.K.

a. Dimensional agreement

b. Piping orientation x l 28. Branch line to support SF-X-007-010-F43K (D.P. 1104) Inaccessible due to height.

a. Dimensional agreement X Yisually 0.K.

b. FVR N/A Inaccessible due to height.

29. Support SF-X-007-010-F43K to wall penetration

a. Dimensional agreement x Visually 0.K.

b. FYR N/A

30. Wall penetration to support SF-X-007-009-F43S Inaccessible due to height.

'                                                                                                                                         Visually 0.K.

(D.P. 109) x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR N/A I Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc.

;                                                             Independent Assessment Program; 83090
  - _ _ , _ - _ _ . - - ~ - - - - _ - _ -

As-Built Assessment AN M; Checklist 110NitilllHilllillfililllll PIPIIE MS PIPE SUPPORTS

                        "'d*" I*3                                                                   Checkilst No. WD-02       Page 7 of  10 t nilinn. o_ unce Revh Date      7/21/83 Satisfactory item     Yes      No                     Comments l

31. Support SF-X-007-009-F435 to 90* elbow down Inaccessible due to height.

a. Dimensional agreement x Visually 0.K.

b. - Piping orientation x

32. Elbow to support SF-X-007-007-F43K (D.P. 047) Inaccessible due to height.

a. Dimensional agreement x Visually 0.K.

b. FVR N/A

33. Support SF-X-007-007-F43K to support SF-X-007-008-F43K Inaccessible due to height.

Visually 0.K. (D.P. 047)

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. FVR N/A 34 Support SF-X-007-008-F43K to TEE at EL. 822'-4" Inaccessible due to height,

a. Dimensional agreement x Visually 0.K.

b. Piping orientation N/A

35. Tee at EL. 822'-4" to 90' elbow to north

a. Simensional agreement x

b. Pipi,g orientation x j 36. Elbow to support SF-X-004-005-F43K (D.P. 402) 1. Some dimensions unobtainable due

;                                      a.               Dimensional agreement           x                   to height. Visually 0.K.

b. FVR x 2. Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

1 t Tcxas Utilities Services, Inc. Independent Assessment Program; 83090 l

As-Built

             ,IIlliuRi                                                                    Assessment
             ^ ^plialI'l                                                                  Checklist 11m11111111121m111111111 PIPIIIG afb PIPE SUPPORTS

[**" I*3 S. Dillon. R. Hess Checklist No. WD-02 Paes 8d 10 ,

                                                                                          #*h Date         7/21/83

' Setlefsetory item Yes No Comumente

37. Support SF-X-004-005-F43K to 90* elbow down

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

38. Elbow to support SF-X-004-004-F43K (D.P. 1500) 1. Some dimensions unobtainable due

a. Dimensional agreement x to height. Visually 0.K.

b. FYR x 2. Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

1

39. Support SF-X-004-004-F43K to support SF-X-004-003-F43K Equivalent PSA snubber is used.

(D.P. 1700) x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. FVR x

40. Support SF-X-004-003-F43K to valve SFX-008 ,

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Valve orientation x

41. Valve SFX-008 to 90* elbow to east

a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x

! 42. Elbow to support SF-X-004-002-F435 (D.P. 2701) 1. Support detail shows wrong pipe

a. Dimensional agreement x center line elevation. 0.K. based on ,

b. FVR x BRHL and BRP 017A elevations matching field measurement. ,

i Texas Utilities Services, Inc. , Independent Assessment Program; 83090

As-Built M Assessment [4 LC Id Checklist imii2ilmillimilmim PIPIl0G afb PIPE SUPPORTS L

  "**" I*I               S Dillon. R. Hess CheckHet No.       WD-02                                                      hee 9 of 10 Roh Date           7/21/83 Setlefactory item                               Yes      No                          Commente

43. Support SF-X-004-002-F435 to 45* elbow

- a. Dimensional agreement x

b. Piping orientation x 44 Elbow to heat exchanger CPX-SPAHST-02 No pipe length. Elbow

a. Dimension agreement N/A connected to flange at nozzle.

b. Piping orientation x

45. Tee at ELEV. 822*-4" (Item 33) to valve SFX-006 x

a. Dimensional agreement

b. Valve orientation x

46. Valve SFX-006 to support SF-X-004-007-F43K (D.P. 700) Equivalent PSA snubber}}