ML20234B981

Forwards Attachments to Applicant 871204 Answers to ASLB 14 Questions Re Action Plan Results Rept Ix.Certificate of Svc Also Encl

ML20234B981
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	12/31/1987
From:	Edgar G NEWMAN & HOLTZINGER, TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#188-5279 OL, NUDOCS 8801060063
Download: ML20234B981 (142)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:-- 6275? hhik NEWMAN & HOLTZINOEELRQD USNkC JACK R. NEWMAN 968S L STREET, N.W. wtLuAM E. BAER. JR. ' DOUGLAS L. BERESFORD JOHN E. MOLTZINGER. JR. A E ATON F WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 '87 EC 31 P1 :54 .S R,,mmTE,N. s.A.OU.N.N1.s. 8" G'S" seu'A" "oRANt RAULM.KECK 202+955 66OO E. a EORGE L. EDoAR ANDREW N GREENE* MATMmEN M SMEA DouoLAS o. aaEEM OFFICE OF 5[Uq.t Ae y PmELA A LAcEv JOHN T.'STOUOM.JR 00CKEiING & 'iE4VICf* '"^"" " ". McDERMOTT ^^" ' ' " " * * " ^ " MATHLEEN M BRANCH sErrREv e MuLMAu. s-ES a VAS,LE ERROL R PATTERSON M*CMAEL A. BAUSER JANE 1.RYAN ALVIN M. GUTTERMAN PAUL J. SAviDGE. EDuuARD J. TWOMEY JACOLYN A. SIMMONS JAMES 5.wlLCOX.J. ROSEAT M. SOLOMON KEVIN P. GALLEN CHARLES C.THESAUD.am TMOMAS A. SCMMUTZ NANCY A. WHITE' MsCHAEL F. MCALY RoslN T. WIGGINS* ' RosERT L WHITE - SCOTT A MARMAN $TEVEN P. FRANTZ ZJ;v December 31, 1987 MERm'ERT E"Cc"R N " " ^ * * ' " ERNEST C. BAvhARD. til or couwstL DONALD J, SILVERMAN JOSEPHL.STUBSS cou a Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Texas Utilities Electric Company et at.' Docket No. 50-445-OL and No. 50-446-OL

Dear Sir:

I am enclosing certain documents which are attachments to Applicants " Answers to Board's 14 Questions (Memo; Proposed Memo of April 14, 1986) Regarding Action Plan Results Report IX" filed on December 4, 1987. We would request that these documents be attached to the as-filed pleading. Copies of these documents are being served on all persons listed on the Service List. Sincerely, 8< i ,Q George L. Edgar Enclosures cc: Service List 8801060063 B71231 PDR ADOCK 05000445 0 .PDR 0

.4 ATTACHMENT I COMANCE PEAK DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW CKCKLIST DSAP . CHECKLIST NUMBER CRITERIA LIST NUMBER /REV Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) List the Design Criterio Sources: - General Design Criterio FS AR Section(s) Regulatory Guide (s) ? List Criterio Which Are Being Reviewed: Criterio No. a-t TN-85-6262/4 A-1 i I Attochment ] ___________--____--D

8 Are the Design Criteria for this Design Topic Complete? If "no," describe the missing design inputs. Are the Identified Design Criterio for this Design Topic Consistent? l If "no," describe the inconsistencies. l l l ( Are the Design Criterio Adequately Defined to the Level of Detail Necessory to: 1. Allow the design octivity to be corried out in a correct manner? Yes No 2. Provide a basis for making design decisions and evoluoting design changes? Yes No ) 3. Provide o basis for accomplishing design verification? Yes q No if any of the obove ore onswered "no" describe the lock of detail g TN-85-6262/4 A-2 ) Attachment l l i

l 4 Summarize Results of the Review. 9 Reviewer Date Discipline Coordinator Date 1 1 TN-85-6262/4 A-3 4 Attochment

ATTACHMENT It COMANCE PEAK DESIGN REVIEW

SUMMARY

CNCKLIST CHECKLIST NUMBER DSAP Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) Documents Reviewed: Document Nome Number Rev Date Sofety-Related Yes No Description of Review Scope and Purpose. i I l TN-85-6262/4 B-I Attochment i i

1 -4 List Design Criterio for this Review ( q ) \\ l i l Assumptions Listed for Eoch Document? Yes No Are the Assumptions Reasonable and Volid? Yes No Are the Assumptions Consistent with Design Criterio/ implementing Documents? Yes No Have all Assumptions which Require Verification Been Verified? Yes No Comments on Assumptions (Discuss Eoch "No" Answer Above) ( TN-85-6262/4 B-2 Attochment

Nb Are the References including Dato Sources (for the Documents I \\ Reviewed) Listed? Yes No Are References Suf ficiently identified with Revision or Date? Yes No Comments on

References:

(Discuss Eoch "No" Answer Above) 4 i I 1 Were Changes from Specified Design Criterio identified, os well as the Reasons for the Chonge? Was on Appropriate Design Method Used? Explain: TN-854262/4 B-3 Attochment

r List Computer Programs Used. Verified Proorom Reference __Yes/No l t Are the Computer Outputs Reasonable Compared to inputs? Explain TN-85-6262/4 B-4 Attochment

Summarize Results of the Review. l h { l Discrepancies identified (if opplicable) (Reference DAPTS DlR Number) List Attachments: Reviewer Date l Discipline Coordinator Date TN-85-6262/4 B-5 At tochment

A W Ad W EN T.2ZZ- ,-~~ tili If 1 1. Fm M = J W l .v - l U .W 4 'I 'Es U lrE Bw f b l E 5! w g, !I I ! s r5 na i I'!*!-l! l lEIEs.-[, l 8!! 8l" 5 W t e s n [in d if [ g! 8 I a 5 Imd -3 gi II l=2 l I l 3 ?!!: si g B g" 5 I a J! !!4 3! l I5E i s' lil!I"s; Iljl'8 !4 n. t ejI E I !a l = a<EE 3 gs! ga4ga a, n i ,fi rs (* IE i 2 i i !ti d gud !=; I'I jg !g p! i ag g 1 I!! 0 .g a l1 ,g a [I= lIs iIl ,3 a I5 i! l Ia E* f !" I, g; sin I p< r' !!s ri R$ W li E

Q w

l W gg j' 5 [ mtI =,=fi u![P Ir I i i 3'.b

• 9 Is -!

r.e W si s s uf geEI g8 g,. ed r e <- si $.3 l',I.s I.I#g =.8'X -{*I I34 558 Ii' I 'E;f !! [,Ilies" il III l g!!)st'!,!j![14 =8 E 8 .s. ,3 .g, II!!Eili'8 i3*5 'I s !fi"i E 3 1 W i,,lfi ElEst=is!!l i!i;I f el !!'I iii ggg=ggggg;!gglt gg.ll55z['tiII: I 8E 'i Ie III a wi' Is !r ggr sg g=,g g.-s ri; I !g !i *[ igfi, g,2 g e ll i!=. Ili F IyE l!!i l! I!*l l!! g hd h,"g ;,,,j Ela.lEiE!!!!,! ji l sat a sg sg G n, z 5 n w i E'I5 n3.,pri 8 mi ig s r!i-a. r3 e_g a *3 i r wg la i!!,IE allel tale If IIX X i E!!! as !!Es !a = e1g-a =c.i wg g w gr [illea ! $ fa)m,,2 I4 1 w I = F m a E i O iE I E 5 5 8 E 5 E I E E E 5 l E-s i i i i ii i i i i i i i i g gi g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g u ! 3 g I M g i W i / X-! e! 5I 4 .kh f .4 l I,4 Ch 8" [ l_<>J., ggl ig i g ii E I ge -I i z .s ,#3 [ -es gg g) ((e i. { ~ l w C l $5 5 i g 'r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - L

.4* IlliE N 1 6-e F 8 U1 H = Jx UW 4 I 2"5 U B I W W w w g 25 w-W ,Eg nli g, e1 i.r i 1-i !!.j,;I!.!.r;Jl=j'iss,i lP;i i i ! i! !s.'j, I 5 ! s) ! ,, n 1.! ij i W r i !i d it 8 li 5 l' g -1; g, r f -w g I; I

mig, ll3.

.g s.: i;. 29 E g~ts;l g. t!!! g g e r i *. I h.. ; El e a 1g[it*,:r-gg l'e !"i i - g is

• 5

II IIj g

g c= r gfE55 12r- !! z E 13 ! 'l r 5*!""*isi I g

! g,ry [j5 E

e e I, ;,;gg g g,. gi g,g i g;E g a[:! *[ s; e=, 158 v w _i,5 g w g= I .g ps g ,,,vg 1 *EI 8 1 !!li;!!itsiI!.lr,}5 i J III lII fr *, i b gg!!!*g, I g,g gjj l ss r E E5 g vi I if IER e f 5 E;. r rl a ;; iism I at 168 I I firs! a.li_=i 15 a!! s i 5 l

• s l;i;e:

rr F E 5 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 I i a' E I O j c. s i s i i i i i i i i i i i ,\\ l L jf g g W W W g W W W W W W g g 'i . m i / 5 U1 5I 56 g l i a a! i WR i M ~ _i t, E ig si 2 t m y I= I e e le e p .e se E =l g 4 s ( b n a g [t n g" g .4 a g R gn E: p !h i.- g. y e i 7 M a. as g i e a.

ema i E$l$ I5Y i E. b. p M M' E, _J WW "5 i 5 x U I .L WI U B h l W W j M i W WE 0E w-I W gp i ll EX I I W EE E g r3 I I l# ri I af 8d . 55 Si! I it <r.g ! ss I n;: gz l st a, a i. 'g E

• d -

I i** M

3

s ! *g"an s,f; i Li133! i 5 5 4 s s1(l3 se* is gg a l s E,E **- t Er E 8 i 1!!!as i g ga gf, g!!si8l-[.*I$(fin i 1 l 18 I

• r.EI5!5gI

!!r E

• I 85,

Ijg .gg ng 2 e gs 5 c s ele te fn_gI8lg=5 2 E Ew 'rI$I $' 3s s n_i ! a,gs5gf*d'iIII!IIl5$rI!

• I-o f!I eg I

E r, E ra i .fie*er ::e IE =6 gg as l r s E I.l.12 w

• e;i-rggsgg_gr.!t 8

e Rga Ig m e e 33 I -a res=*;; egs egagggI,, tl.D giS a !!! n! tis !!! -[ [ ral gl e 1 jr lrt g 5 g;.* gl I lI 3 gj u g 3 g g 5 -1E -...! tiff =><$ [IE! *I 4 ij -=Is *s,35-ss - F E E I i I I Bit a# B I a-E E 3 3 3 $i ! l a = l 4 D I l ,I N 5 k k e g I m EE E [3 I5 t Eg E-i g a; [I; k EB !3 jd R" I3 a. t, iz f! il) l a< l i i i 5 t Pl s. f !! Wg L l 1

i-T"E a Ij!i EE 11 F !v m i M Ife J l g M ig l UW 4 lI

• s U

lW$ BW Bw w> Ia WE 25 w- _ W. a = gg m a m x e E I I g al8 W E. j.': l g*t! !lI E 8 8g "I l2 I s: U gI'I 3 2 b w f :i=j!g! Eg E =a[i=n=trgly,!8g!;a;1 g E 1g!j,l[lIn [ji [f[r;R s'ig=j:$ Ie i 3 "f t= E-t E gj gih i 2 m E-r a e a. W insfin n E 8 g; g 4 g a; g; II j;il8I a i g i i

,3, [i d

s E

• i z

a s, le se mly! 15 g i=. I In-eI,1 li[IdP-l251gi:g 8 ;i , _ st gnlag,I*l8 e e = t 2 sg= =. s e e s = .:s l,i!ms,hI " eg

• =

3 s .g! r g-i*i=:E.g 3. is.! I [. [ _)! I !.!g$.!j;;,!*gI5 l i i= E I! I gi i i l si!.lasl is !Ii!f it.gi; ! g 20 g..I_ a. -s.E g-g M <=4 i! a e d ie i,; sa !"! :5 j lg. - s d 8 l gy g =i ( l 4 4 I ( E! E E I 4 I. jm[' j si ii i i i i iii i I I I i i j; 2 i i in e vi i .w I N:i I p m = 55 rE I tv II,d s r m!c= !s al I-s" jid i-i >- I 3 5 i f 8 sl i =jg g3 wR E lJ i g.g gd f g!! g -E .4 t z< i la-g.r,3 4 I- = i g g { g ..i g !e.;, gg; i t l L 4d 5 I i i e* l l d t

l r ,--~, II!i EE i F \\ W L n. .J .V o u I w a l .T E$ l U [WV sW w w 9 WE .O R. I1 W mi 3 u l e l ! Et gd Is i = I:!r[s* el El p il ni jf g" lr,I c n I's "li w 3 -a f a in i 8 8 In.: n! i -r 1 'l 1 n_r!_'i P in e=e= x3,r==g,i g a*gn !,n a si a y g a 5,. nig ni !:3$ es 'Is er = 8: vin Ign: a r -x z a

• isil j5 is sefelse[_t Egg 5*

Ii e 1. Istng i lig 5-lis t,*ri :i; l'K I;ia "! E s iga = *: g-a ,!gf

g

! in d g

r -s

==1 m 8;E ei!e,f = ess l:I5g i 8 I-wEl w I ,e 3; 1 I; i I i el "ar~ Igy -sns II i E la i ilif It I aI 88!5 -5 m (E I Bga 52 E BI-EEm II 5 F Eo ,I ,I ,I ,I I E ,E ,I E, I i i E ,i ,E l g 1

• f g

g g g e n g g g g g g g n g g i ! I EE g l 4 [g= m g -= N :- !!g arg I, n

s t

SE lis? 'f? If 3i U 5W ig!! II! F! Eg I 35! gggegggg![- ll U !;*E$ !!$_$$i E r!! , z g gg g gg gg-i < 1 -1 1 l 5a ,hi lI

", - v-1i11 st i a I wr. 11 b u m lg, w _J u u / .W 4 f I ss ,i U ,1 l B lE I w w bw s ft w 2

s i

a a s a i a a a n w-gg W 8e 1 E. W i P g z i e = w = m b l 3 3 3 E 8 8 8 E 5 s sssss s a s i a, si !!= = = = = = n 8 s s s e s s s s s e e v v v v v lq a3 5 ! l m =tg! v 4 g nI aI I v. t 5 t t g m e! g y I_ w s l a(., !=l s a = f g= t 5 .vf a 1 *m lE i E = s = = I ia as 8 I~== II ii 5-s= I.I!s ni 3= E I ! I!! ti r 3 f !! !g.9 ga =g lm sa - = tg c= 39 9 =.9 = mv= af I! !$ h! g '! I las,f,I lf;kI h5 !!$!hlI !If k f i =s =s gs 'a a,1 d usa, n ga a is a.g. I s rs r< -8 =a -=e is 9 s= e o ugr ' z< n-rs- =- ariEipsgis,ro-5-n 8= -i as rua d s54 g-s Er

sa i<

l l I a. i di l i sg E I II i1

i ema e, [III EE l i

• I e II m

M E. J W M l l l ~ U W 4 I E=E 0 I lr$ B I w l*: ti ~ g (l e w-11 l(' W Eg f I E E E E 5 5 5 E E I s m 8 i ia l r1 W s sig i gli I E s E i 2 E e E E5 0 t i wI w a mg = W E u 5 vil I In.5 3 g g 5 e a a a5 I i 2 a i s e i I i 5-s s e s e e s e s s s s s s s u E l l g 'j; W W W W W W W-W W W W W W W W i 1 o i 5 I I I : =I 4 I I g=I!=I sI Ii!=I*g Ig 4 i i N:, i, E,ili5--[=l5fi ii !!i i r i, = = = 5 =

• =

= =r!i N ab =i c E H m n I ,< *I it sI v; i i na,,s f mI E gi [-f !! ! I 'I !! y -I e p. p -= !,laE33g.g, EM EI, bl 'I E I!? ! <J jh Ih h l h !s ;t g!., li? l8;5-81 f 5 l? 8 ? gt 5% ! w? a51IEW!!)555iIIEE!2EiIEi! ele!EllElinE!EE!!"N!E IZ l k ~ Be i ,k f (

,~ 4 a. Ei!J ~Ef 5.Il s o m l E. J IlW W l w UW 4 'I !! 5 ,U lWl B W b N Ir W e .s W gi e a s = = 2 i Q d I 8 a l In li.II!lW!!r$gi{'ng$$lR$"l! v 11 .5! ! nr1 11 !;g l'! I"r W 'O I ! fr if r n! t e' I i' I e !si.! g!'~i:l .ggI p i I i ep3.g: ) EI-I It s t",l !=f n. W 525! is 4 lij!!!Ih;v:ps!Hil-lsi!. 5 3 II 18 l t g25 ! 5 ! i:!ii]s rI15 til =5 f! [ i ll:i!lii ii!!j!! ii! s l G lis' i4 If i;i r. I-i ljdj!ii !I:it IlIllin I!! Ili ll!!! !!! !isli li! !!:lI !! !ili il! !! !!!ii! 8 Ise t vi lii re O I I i I i I I I I I E I E E 0, g -g g g a g v v v W W W s s s s 5 g g n e e e e e e e v m U h U i 9 i n l, g2 n=, ac~ v., 6 > m r? e = !e5kk '!!l= J f I.~ k '!?> h !i 15 $!IIiEl!!!!! I!!I I!iH [ l.

em~ lili If 1. Fm J l u l uW I ss u lW lrl B 5t e M il tw W I E ._s d 5p 8 2 E E 3 li I a n W sa r. gi s , fig l hl I' si O !l !3!!! 5 s_is!:r.l["a,32-I!i!!!! E -d E. I g. ,== " n. i < L, . id s og Ag =p i.l'ia ! !!!)ir!!!,iiii IIIiij'li!, !iiij!l 1 I, !i it is .9 ,ij.e1!,iii m !!!ru'lii!ii. i!! si 8 5: sit. im =ts,, sig lij,sl.,,= - s :361,IS.is -r.E .is 3 p I Eo. 3 2 2 i E I E I E s s a a !i n. eg s s s s e e e s s s e v i i a g g g g g g g i g g g g g jj u i 54 8 ri ; li.". = *, Eine Eje !'y e 8 il s E5 j m E lIl!ii !<! hiI l I vis viv.i!wl Im fsitie!85* gal,gi, !?ig!!a; re e i >. 5!r,55 = 4 ~l l )' J tis rirn 5p e j!s! { -ft: 3 I n s isti! !!.ge g!gisis lk issliiii5 \\ I \\ 8 5. r i /Ex i

w-~~ 5 a I 1 ,s l= M J ig M ! ) U W I-e"5 U lWl BW bw w 1a WE 05 w-W gg i E e a a e e e e E b i W r a,s g 8 g=E g=f g=r gr gr ,gi g=r g ,r g s is:,j j g an!!! j'p;e :! al m s= n= a, = ua !! I! =! u fi 8 gg I r I e !g (,,gg al jlijg!'ll l Q. W i !e af et et ,, i. 3a Ig it 'i'i'i'l'!!!!!l!!I-i f !if li! I:.fs !if g g! l!! li ! ! ! I.!.!!!!!I.!.!!!!!!!!'l!!!a'iiIg Elii ! ! f z t I! I I 2 5 i i I!l"lIi I-ru . I m l g! g lif =, g-if!a !g ai g Ii!ii!ii!ii!fil!!isii!11!iir!!!d!!!!!!!I ! J se i o i f 8 E I I I i E E i El EIEEE3E i f e el a a a a a a a a a a a as aaaaaaa a W W W W W W W W W W W WW WWWWWWW i, i I$ I a i s ! i, p_ 4 It.r s (!- i i I e

m s

i y :lE i hi Its't si n!si f.i 81 g! .gi si .gi lib I 9 if 4 re [s. ee elrls }J EW [! s! t ,?lg!?!v!IE!!2!!31555 I!i!!i!IE 3 51 j f 15

v. 11 It

-8 -5 t l2 3a ~ t Hqif s j i

un >! # r g la sm s v. J M j u W d i I E2$ u s IV W r w g i r 1 W i e 25 w-i p l' ' W E e 8 8 )!l s In-f i, = I

l.

i ilg!r,:g!!lg,I.e;ie,!!Id!I!,g. 8 11g,i!!!!!!!!tila..sesi.n.,n!,!!!!a_ l l e 3 !g.. a g !s'iIg!it!l1!j, i .si i I I in~!' !o! z a sgl!si1.j;I i I 8 e e $ gi! g sie= I

i. :

e 1 .p.2 lisl3ggits[1g[i[5n=l=l!=relj=,Ia w = f a i = a s-j g" c je el r - I3 1 n l l m E 5 It I gr = : g

c

.g.i g,g!s. >I i .i !il!Y!!ill!!!!!!i!!!!!lgl!!!!il!!.l!lilii! g_ i s i E t O 5 E$ 55 E 5 5 5 3 i S 5 5 5 E t E ] c t it it t i i i t t t t i t t t t g g-f g gg gg g W g g g g g g g g g g g 3 i W (W f se 13 5 5 E .t = W :55 $~ M 9E ItgI_3 I g >65 bl 8l4rit g!4 i J ':;g 5 I I :3 Est-I

• 5

!S E g.85-z 39 te3 l3ag33aug .l ! E 11 ji a l r i

r 'a. k

• "E i

$i!i EI t E. l! [I i b l H $w l J WW i ") i 5 M U ) k I =5 l u 3 h w r i M g i EW l l l W r

s j

E 4 4 R S 3 3 3 y gE u in!,Er5!ili5!=;l5l8lIl i fr. E II l 5 5 =., I il in i5 i w l:!I 3 ~16i I e ;; " I. !g a. 8 liii I. (! g g;; j;(l *"! gi ll !I 5 aga eg s r, 3.: In e != g . =.- .ga g E.a ef I = i I., "E-w g g r= E l I EE .i

3 a

E ESI EE !i !! !!I I ! LEE i "I l'! = !!g! I.,Ei! [Ilf! g"el I E s$E "i,l38*E!rg"15!El z s i O i i,i" Es

==g g I[ 8[E 8 n H g e s t9 Ig y -Ino I

s II E Egr-5-i s

h K E! sEn

• m

!rsi!!!!r;I11nsaln!illiil!!!I<Ii!Ifiilglr!l:i. ss!!ie I 8 s a a ril is av i !!i 11 si \\ E i 5 4 I E I I E I i 3 i i O = d d d d i d d d d i d d d d d L 1 Of g g g g W W g g g W W W W g g 1 O i, ! El5 lI IEi il I rE-t! .lBf,),*-s s 65 I.m t.g j m E .p .p*. Im '_=i. . lfi g-t e!! nit !r*. I5!. saa!s' m d ilg" es 8 sir *6ssg[mla i p e i >-- r-eI,e. J te W 5a EE ' el Es gg" E si $ f i*!,d!! l( "E Eit EN !D. g* Cmd il53!.Ithrli;!i ! z ggsglggf;) lir r ii I <. O ,a w [k I p E .s

,~ a. !ili st t. 11 Fm = J g x l i UW I E*E U. lW$ 3W Er tr W e s i w-r W gp 1 C E { g a 5 I m 2e n;. 15 su iy

• s h g,;,;,,_s i

5

n. 9 a;5al n8d g! l W

e g go a o a 5 3 a i l.,se =ggr

• 1 lIlss*i

= g llE!l3 5 g,i g,( g!! if )f Ej 8 [ill{EE$lj= 3 = t 8 [ g,I!=l*g-l g s![3g4 1x E, l 0-r = i!IElEI!;"!";a!*ag!lrl1!=gIf!!,Is I 5 I i'I i! E z S I {l!!ll.!l#-iIl e E si 8' eI sj ~ IS is., o li I a;n Ia l;!!! llg! ag;gg;II 85 er g j i m" 5 s a; g i_. I. ri _,, =u is in m!s til P : >!v is,1 l n il !l it.!n!! ijigl i n'i is a!sss..Ifl_!!li!!ni;;i_':,.9i,i:;= 3 d I!! I si ; s el l = is ,,o F E i i t I 5 E 8 i I E I i i t 3I e-e e e e e e e e e e e e ee E W f .t t t t t W W W W W W W g 42 !i i .ia i im = ]y l;W lE Id I" ti a!

ggr-E "j

i. ggf!$ II. i I i H j r 1 l!i g g,. 7 j. !a 5 n! sR fl at [=g 8g5*0 II.

• pria h *ji l

W ra n.

-e m2 t t g< [5 E fg d 2 so! .I.f Sjfnd s$..!.!I. S3 8 e l Be i di II i e r 8 j i 0 ____ ___ a

m Taia Y s. g i gE F u m M E. h .A y u u w 4 I E*s U P-lWE B ~ W $E H RW i. W ? T 25 h b$ 5 I E I 5 k [ { t g g as ,I .a <I E Rd i. .a....=.,,,is,i,,.. I, .s. .s g l =jl,. m Igj[E-gs as lg,j!g y I

l

,2 g i R s' !.*I,!! ,g

• g,;j g

s) !3le,rr!r f3 l 2 E g l=s E r I ! IE ije 3* E e g-Ir gr;ig ifljn! l;!! lll[ig!v!g;;g1.gs!y!i ,[: l e <e isurI-0 m i s 4 I M gi -! ggg pr.a fr

j W

Is I il rl !! i!!! I! lj! lig i. g! lgg l;l_l, h l!lr s Eg =si sg el g Eg at (,jjrgg I , ji ll l ir se i !N !j e e 2 m I = Em f. =I a$ If e' $ m-E lE !~ E E IE '_g5 $gElI',5 I I

• Eg gI I

I II- 'I II, E 7 3 i I: E l I H ~ m =a 5 E -n Eu f af

g Eb, r$

en e7 39 s p t.,j Wg g m, g. meg 17 @ r e f gg lI E c 's EE 85 g;lS mA y' I. i a g., IS eg Het I ! ( EE lk $55!I!!!!EI!!!!!!!! lll! lll hljf{ r l. l c' la t 45!sg t e r at + f f

Lili fi 11. [I i Fm {En I M J tg M Igg UW 4 I E5 U i, l lW$ 9 W Et s tr W !1 c

s li w-W gg c

a a 5 e s a g g a j i ~ n a g A I W i a!.- ( l Im Wz = r 8 cr ete .I,I r di )g I I r .a 5 8 lsI ~ I,[ljSE'I IM_ g s is es o., g 8 I b.g-,h.I l e I g h gg ~ g rg rr.m i l#. E W '. I; I I [ gi 8i s;-r!lg III ! a a t

== E 1 t ! !E lI,lg,g i 2 s m 55 ti, a i gs gg it x s[ }* o gr (( gi I, Isar r*p*(,!

;m 8

w E i =g [r is i. e!g. f;== g! si !rli "= = a* gb a ~,e l < =<f,-(, mr ls; t Er as n g r e-Iy 8 w rs E O n*- E I I aneres!s!slia l sils.I!!! I IB = ge o I 5 t E E S E E 5 5 5 5 0 5 52 5 i i 4 g "g W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W i E t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t in 2 i i m r) g/ ) a, e, 3 = I = I I f ak R 4 33 E e I ( m. g ( E E 4,5

• g j{

E E I III E3. gE I m e E..E-I 8 Ef 55 .I -3 I I -s =.3 En. c-i: = l,3,,I t I l' 3 II EiEIb 1E5 g,,I b, i !$ j"=E I. -S. a s= g1 E,-

• • ~

a E

- 8 =. *$ 8-E- h( -2 e r* 3*5t_ *):~ E"B t I 2 I" 82

• 8 "~

r, Z II l"iSiEN'i3!EE!!5 EI EEE EEI If5 555 4 r t 1 i ll Jf~[I g g h ) l

7 titi Si ~,. Il sm r. J r l w 5 o u t W z es u I p I aw r i o r fr W l;< E

s i

w gg 5 e e s e j ! l ~ I !!*a I I lf

• lr e

w 5 8 a a p; r:I l l!;i as! n! r i e,1 8 I t g al ,I rv l I l I- = a- = I!<l 1 a: = c s E

• c s,.

.3 I *a I isliisi !!al:rd r I ~ I a 8 al 11 l E l i" ii i l e na af a e si "i e a,a =g a z e _ n,e II != nd !,!,!i e.a l 8 1;,. - -g _v...r n* . syg ~,,y m => n s ss< Il !! !i !l' ! ! Is ! !! !"y ! ! !:r si s

a al ;[a

!f ! ! in" ri s E" n! ! ! !! !i E, m -f me re r r i ::: ii5 jr = = = a gg

= ar ... _ is = = = Ij

,r si sr si FE i o a esa:as at itsa atan asse s d-e sg s s s s sss ss s ees s e sss ssss s i g a W f f f WWW WW W fff f f fff diff f 3 k } $ i ;

y v

s E gn l'i i m E E E ,E mgE 5:g i EI I I II I II l EI 1 E t 3 58 It {1 fl lg t!*1 5 of 1

E es sa 1 z<

fi.=s li=a lj! !g si! a

g

.li.f=e a ) < 2 2 = I e 3 I wg 1 l 6% *l i l 5 I ig f i

1 wm~ ai Ej!; s m. II F v U1 M f. J g M g UW 4 I as i U ii B f5 W W w w E CR w-W 5p E E E E E E i ' "I O = E i i I W lM N II 3 '!r [ l u I; *8 a 8 as gg i I g _g;e ig(s = TIE g o 'e ra4 a l i Is..b _e ai.r rgi = e a s ,i, ar i* s a w i g E at gr.i!m, E Ef f l 11lI !li "I' In E ril g,ll!l[e r !g l z e EE[ra ign 2 II I m E i (a 5 I' r ll l*! g a r.4 ag ! l ! Er s Iggij= !g;g w = ggg !Ig!yl,sig E a u) I$ a = 1: Elr2= r-r: a y a gi j e 2 i sg [ 3= ii g Er: l.lI! [!,,r, um zu r g.j gg,;3 l g = = tir'Is ;l s _,! I sal !! !! l$ li l g- = = = c e r. p a ,a,a s a, a a a, a s e, s, a, e '1 s s ,ea, e, s a E 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 it42 4 4 4 4 44 ( t i! ng 'i 3 i i sg ti i i [s s a r m g s s l4 I_fI m" E rI I la !I I 3 r p aa o n J $8 af II III BM E! E! -8 j< =% 5 <4 8!? It !? j. l* IEl

1. Es (Ei lie!

EE! ll1 i f i 5. A jI .H I i

L. l

r. 3 ~

\\. uu si 'E. 11 -m M f. I Wg)t M U W 4 x as .U lW5 BW En E H >w a s! 5-j w t i i e e e e e e g u 8 1, =n!!t =,! ! ,;sgI = l p r i >l ' l rihr r w ne ma !I L s g m = i :* I"! 1 !l "Ill if ist g l a gl, = if i i E i, r ggr! 'i ri l r.i s. i i 15 p !!ij i;!! !e!!i!,p!j i;. 1:!4115p:l1a is [ g e ,In si .a atg! agg a r r gg l z i i 8 5 I !!<i !i iilgi liilsI!n!.!liIr;liiL;it:'s srn,n jg,g,iel! m 1, I: I cri gg iri"1}s:tgg ge: r r ,="i 8 i 5 L ir is ri: i til i! ps FE O I I 8 3 5 8 I i I E I E t j e id i G d i s a t d L i e e e e e e e e e e e e e l g b I 'm !=i i E ,i i i -i = i= 1 m ,g g- = = 5 g! If !f EE In 't it i i t. I si E I m l ~ l D 5W 8! si l! 2' I I

E b

8 lti{(({ !s g(( g((lsj } 34 ? t " z i < g I i ,t bE gii 28 L i

b liti if i 't IBl j r F I ~m J l w I [ w i 1 UW 4 I es U j 3' lr$ i W Et l M t fr W tt

s

.i, ' W s-ut a a a a = s a a a i I i ed E E I W

• • I 5

U lI e.st as j O AIE EE E E d er

l-

• !b f

Ige a. 2 si~ na a , s* s,r,1, gy;, ga! ,r = s. in z a,1 y s eg Is !! I! t-g== -, 3,E e r g i N ITI -r I*t m, I i $5*8 ki.<f.ef.rI 15( le ititifitil I al si g -l l u 22.. ,s., g h ,3 ,i E ,I ,5 ,I ,I .I .I .I .i l s-I ,j E f 4 4 4 4 4 W 4 4 ( ( (3 'W 3 U H El al {pf eIf!!EW} 1 i i a Es! E~ 5 gi!! *I .I '$'I lh g !l 'S 8I lI!.e f 35 E I'I~ i i rel555 I*s;E e ! e! *!,1 I =: l >m ! [! g, e !.3 Is I

• t ei e

s ss I e lt at g_gI. ir-l5Ea[e. (" Ir ga ip _!Et s et u ggi e I3 [ 5 ic. :t t f; "E

• IE i$

I$ E 'E

1. I1!r c_

e lz( gggggiggjj,Ilggghg

gifg~s'$fd;gll-l'j!IE lsEjei 2

t gg p

g3 i

t k hg i l A!! ll, i l i

w-:~ a a Illi EE 1 t. l. F 8 M M fu J gg M ~ ". ) !8 UW Z E8 U lWl BW 52 M tt W i E 0E w~ [ W gp 1 9 1 E E E E E E l W b 1 E 4= Q. [ gg E 9E f 2 E e 1 0 C I In i w e m E* g f! -E F Is i Eo' I E 1 i i E E E I E i l< 2-W W W W W W W W W W W ( gI i i 4 e t i t t t t t i 3m E g ! g y$. E rg5si I di l..i E i IE gf$""d d j si gas-["E I I Ed) aI*I5* I se E a B., 5 I.:3 W E a flb!Ei h;e*r 85*' 8 a! 5 -B

• ~2 3

v gfggi,s=jg I !!s9 .a ne,a i! M g n=g5!I I I ! ir!: d al zai a > I sil e! I ;s I!sj*t B M El

• I I

S:gg I _I i*.s f m en -= y sa"g - s_ c a avi. .-3 ,i a EM x.f s as ggggg gg!*g;r. s=Is# ff!!! E5g==r*s l*,l;a gr;s_ ES gf,*sq*, ee55 e-tE !=13=s = I aa !i4 = g s f a s I.e=~s l r g 3 gggg,_g g,gggc, ggg:,.3 _gg o jaat:.g3ggg,ja!g!!!a3 =3 es

• gg, 3 z

l 3m =Aa es s gy g ggg gg5 gggy i r, Nl g3 5 r i l' I h. t mm. -

1 1 em9!n Ei!I!EE l iI r.p 't s i g p. J WW lgg 2 6 U l W 2 1 -I 55 li ! u l1 [rV ,i s i W k i M fr i W l e .e_s W 2 a s s = .gg e i j eli5 u. !*I e W g vi 3lf'=3 elfi I e a f SE EE.

• I aEei 8

in e lii il i ) r ' i! ti~ Ai d ! 11aiii:e 9. si l si a e !qi - r 18g,i,,ii! E I mi,t i Ei^$lii[asniegIIEI: = g,r s-e r s_ai g,a,nI rr[ : s

5

I E =g z e-l[a e E g!! ali!fg [laav[l l l i !* l [i!!5 !i i!I i;E !,1 s# =

==5 =e=is!*a*Isil I_ 8 m se g -!:s [g.i- =. 8'= =i enl iIfn1e'd 3 r E .:_l ,:v,i lm.:.I rgg! s.. E l' ! ! I I r e i i *

• r_gg
• g I

is, BI,__f-.______f_ F E 5 t 3 f I i I E IE BEEEIfii l i O c. t i i i t i t i i ii iititttt t 1 09 4 i W t 4 i i i t it i4W(fitt ( i i 1 ~J 'a I m rs - g-i e 2 5 I $38; g i I I !h !f 15,,Ime se i.n ist !!!, yp m 9i J l 5u tre sse 4 al I g!=3g53ss.3ngS I*sE: y {3S eS 3 s sr-I I I E 5 h5 @ Ekb NI5E lE N I i: e bE a 11 *sg e l L r

em-l$li $$ E. 1 H m,E. H Jw i UW 4 I EE U lWl 3W Eg x Ek 1 W l E w8 -I 0 W g 59 e E 3 I Ig-y l, ll,.s[! !! J lg; u I !! i ,i,m !!g If W 2 i g ll*8 gIIf,ra;il

j r

is I r= i ! =3li!i l ggis:,l!ri!!;;[';Igl! "r E y al _j ir ei a i i imy!s ig! i E. =8 g *if8 mI! $!,rd Wr a d z a II lr ~* II 0 l Ers'. Es n l DIE-eel s IE5 mm E y m g g! Ee g M = s s g,gs t is.i E i!c :;:g g ,g l!! 8 f gg g, g g gg pg! c,5 ggg W a n, sag *e rg E e-I g is gr -l , li s g u Ele f B-I? ing!!=i.j!"::*IgInE r ss,a _3: _l,;[ !il f! _; g l jjj t r _i s E O 3 II E S 8 E I E 5 5 3 g g g g g I 1 Of j 8 # 4 i i i 4 g g g g g g g e e e e e e c a = .l 3 l I!m / 5 4 m E =f f. 33 5: II f I !!K H ps.t F IW m ma i gul [7 EI' 6 ih I "3 f* R$ E" } E s'$ ,i iY: _f$ I J Eg 55d[fisEIS$$i?? ,I !z 5!itii!fis s i i i i 5e

• [

s di i li t 3

h I.II GI I ~ E-ll m i M 'E. J WW l 15 l l u u u W A I E"E U 1 k> 3W lW w w R$ W i .E OR w-E R E 5 E 3 5 3 R 8 s 4 g. g W I'i Es.- f 8 !z 81 II ;2 e si lir;1 sp s ii e er irrt D. W ga

• jf jg;,

3 !st-i g,i l*5li Ild[3 5 er fe = m ll ,Ir, Ii =. W I4 liis 5 e 0 -11 !!ssia;16 Iri =ina a g g ,s ,I ,I ,E ,i E a sg ,s 6 i ,s ,s ,a ,n j t t s E t t t t t i t 4 e t e i f m r.5gjjg,,,;e.,>- Igir 8 r).!,i e de.I;;el;plini.,,5;itil;8~;:.1-1;it... m i i s lE , a, i. i s 3 -la, p i fl e*:fs':af W i

g

,7 r1 fu sc,.a.54 gule t-In .e s f_ If_ 23 .h !k !;g [ er{[ egqi er-or(5*g [.: Ieg r g w bl r-w ar ( 5N eg e ,E:k b"3 I ~ b E bbw b I Re5 a I::k f ay . off. c! I c$ ! :: i! i sga>gga55i5 g 2stiaEaEnE.gpea:gg2sigg!lA:-454g t .I Issil-I I Nlll ._n Xi a:!!

!sti li g. s I I m. 5. J fW x g) u l W I EE u e lWl BW d fw* w WE 5! s s se es ss W gg E d ie = i i gr a s _e i.i a i n. W je, a gig 8 i 5 t.asii: g; I! ,I as i ge!,I I;; Ig ll 8 l.!; ,li I l l

• g-sI E

=s . I m-Is Et E a EE E-E g l al I sI-I as I af 88 l gry I! r.! ini;IgI L I il ne g i t nei ,g. i= g g m r g e r s, e z a a

• g

! g, I..a ing I esa is lt = a!v ni !! I! gt! g! li g Ir! i, a n n; i e 5 e G 8 -i 15, g! Es g s i i g

• ! 1 n
• !Ir 5

= fsitlfsiey$ gig m s s

• 85 11$If w!.l$g=eI 4 s g,i Il jr gi*l'!l=si e

asi!!Ilar!_[ I

s i.dc sf -

• 9 ra

.sraff3ggaf.c'!sf=gga.I ,* r I5 r ! lim la! =t wwr t e I! ri; il r,e gy g ., a i Eo E E E I I I E 5 t E E I E R E i E g Eg G d i i t i i i i i G G t d i d d E i 4 4 4 4 4 iW W W W si 4 si ai ai W m f / g ,4 $;E l l H l I s 5 8 E m "E a E l gs [ B fg ! E seg s -g li I E l 1 Es 5 i Ili B v n: ,i i 8 Z E s= r IbeE g e [ .E .r et c 1I Da 55 i! *5{ Nf! >~ ill i i i i t

I h $$$$ $~$ ( t [I ti Fg )! M E. J i l M 't U ,8 i W 4 i I as ll l U 3 h W W w g w i, W I g

g G

E E G E E E E E G w-W .gg 4 T h ll;,dI f gj ! l gE, E l[ e I W ei E[g a$ I*le g, g. Ng{ rEI gigs I g f.Il j fa =I E*8 s !E =[5"El gi g E I r -Eg __-2 g i=,_!# c g=Ei[!lisl!g!! g5 g ill II: E 32 35 gy,, l}f i I g 1{4 le ! !=11,!O!l!!!>gii! c h .y gs, g Iajj'

• Bli I?I !!

13 R$5 l"h !itIIfr< 4 I lrsIolr_N.di!j!j!' Ii J i ! ij l 5 e5_l3 IB M !==irh$II.gi;! ! " i!n,! If !"5 ri! E j3! I! 5 =mi:s ni i= d. s a g l 8 5

i!

=<;nad = 1 -1 ^ y Il s *E*i 'I 15i"= 2.zE !! as.$ r'i-!: = zwrl=I-r=eg z.: = 5 25l-Fi f 1828 I t 5 Ezz 22! EzB n e Ifie! 2 F s E Et E II E E I 5 5 5 8 5 4 5 4 O u. si i it i i i s e i i i i i i 1 Of 44 W Wn W 4 4 W n 4 4 4 4 4 x 1 a i 3 g i m 1 l l l I E E m' E 5 we qty i E l r 5: E i l 3 l$*8eri" I I l E 6 H SE I I il l I'I i l E! 5 y 9 i$ I E J W [! "g K m is

• E g" t8 4

8 a z< l! !!gid l n eier:.. y f 1;i l* S g t< r i I i 8 s j ! b5 sh 5 [ I I, i i b fh i 1 J

,-~ $ill EE i I 5. Il sm M iEm ir 1*5 .VuW 4 I EE U a G W 3r i h tw l W j g g E E E iE E E W gp E h 5 l!g.,gn;y 1{ I e i I Eji glI g= g,; ; ag W i 15; Ig! 1e.n,,=[3 .!x>

r.,u g

J si E$ Is g5 'I **,agg.gg i ;< _a

== f_ a. n e i EC a !!I!E

• 5 a:t le.il"

,E su J* IE a. e e-

t

.,o i ylilI"=[j.ll8lIe ,a ut as! 'g s,,b s!s i nii fe a l . h !! ; 'l

== !s !! r!y itl g!!giaj n r 2 E

• ~ ((

5 !ga 5-s e.eII.r ll-3s.: 1 .i, n!! s s g;s d e.ss. gr p :dI. si is Igs. ;, l E g* qa Ig nga !ir m tro i p

== ii 8g=rr;a:.!li i =c AI "d-e

g,l,1.zgggg-j" la 33[= Ig

I "rG IE g e II *= *a I v. 8 S I = ri n gg[., g,g 4 .? ,gg,33 geg gg g ;vg cil: =c

gg, jy g

g3 F 3335 E E E E R I E E I E E i t E 5 9 E i O .,n. i 2 2 6 2 i t i d d d d d i l L 29 4 x 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 x 4 i i t i i Q. a ! 3 l I m t e I i W E j E 5: l H I o W W I i W !!! E 'i b' h ,h e 8 t i !2 i s r I I i l I ~ ,wa ,5,! I ^l t i

\\ \\ ~ e, liEh a9 i. 11 r .s-M .)x u W 4 I 2*5 U 'i W W M W l l WE j! f f f f f f f f f f f f f l W Ei ] su i-a.g Y l.ol 8 ,i,..!.! g$ E g!!!ll!!!p~!i! n'gi,a b5' i,. is = jii II'! s, k l -el>>!>iI!!!I!Ie*, h3 !I .ir !;I1 - 1 l in 1p: 8 gh t: gil 1 ;i ni i- ,i i . ! p= z i 3 i;11 .t e E -e Ii ins ! =< g l !i r! g 1 l = g#a 5 5 l' n!'nii i i li ,?,l 3 e-'it""ig=_;0 5 I .d rlre eei[dagE a r s-e a is li!1iii15!!ill i i II!! i ll I I! il, n,a I!!I i g g i !I ! I d I 1 8 i i m / g ~ m t l s: g b f (( I. a I._h ! 5! ...h ini;,=s[ j 1 RlI IsirI i i .g I I= I fisir!li i i;,= 2 I f la i t h h! = a 5 ! i,l lj 11. gi i 111 11 i

,m-liti if 1. 11 F u m H = .J l x i UW 4 I as U lWE B W Ew w g tl E 58 s ss s e sei s ees 8 Ei h !E=5l!g!8f E !al! III nl ' I ! I e i Ig j; = ~ .!lfg, iIl l is

• il j g., i

,!, ig e 8 i. a,gf .eg, g.. s I 1I gy l1 '# gad f a-a I g !,ijg! a; e, s, g pi Is a! !! j r s r,Il;r* E =I o. n!! [f

• 5 i

l = Igi,rgr'![g"I r It r.a l' I3 I __3 -1< -I. I-l13E=!18i Ef a 4* z 5 8 I Il l 5 e E If f Iii.II.! me I g l E

• gi E' r.f IinIg*r 8-Arl n

1 1 gg.- 15 =s II w = in sa T ,I l rr a gHg s.- s !!i!$IlIIII!i$!IliaiIl!!gE68gE.

== Eg I [I lsm !y a. m = g=!.jei cE{- =g Iy s qs l-8 g a gr - n E h - s-c a I mEgg 9 E'ig = ul " )* I r1 l[g 5

- ws a iII!!!!rI!!!!I!8i!!!

g g E ,i ,i ,i ,6 ,i ,s,u,s ,n,s,i ,e,a,i ,i ,i e a E, 4 4 4 4 4 n 4 ndW W W W W W W s i i g !a f' I@ .l l I i/ l I E im n 1 !! !! _ i ,,ill,_l,ie s 3 i !a

o i

i ,!n f luf r, lt 'l 8 sl ala[ n ls ^ f 9 g l ]i i li ! it lir i r E 2 h E El Ijre E lrre p r s

82ei Er!

h ,n rise r ~~ )

a e. EiIl Ef s. Il rm s. J gg M 'g) I UW 4 I EE U lWl BW lW H E >W e .E_E E E E E E E E E E F E E E E E E F G i, < W "i i i ', ! I pr!I 4" .r!.Id,, !=slfl W ,_ =e g rg..,I;,s 5 ,i ,i. =E II!!!se,,!li.! fr$ ii sl i 1jff i 5 I g e ,, e = [E I = !v k! .s i*.s = }

j. :

[ 1 W I Je .s a

y e E

lg' ll.I[153!!lg -5 ! -I 8 A E ".g e lir g ,1 sis s J,L, 33

i

= g s= nser = 2 rsigg!'j!=I";;l5gg"r,,.glg=,,e t r l

irl Lg'l ll en!i 1'g2 'lI 5 is*'ltv=,il.g e

a lI E = mi at 8 is. xx El =eXIII3-8 I* gi !i 3 II ti 5f g E! i* fe j,,

!!n;IIsis; b

'l 1-[,i !a, I! !! fil"g ! !g; hi );I.g,le;sEE!,sn Er I EI I!siis e e 3 la as..E al E. I. 11 sXs r ts s .s si F E E 8 I I ,E ,I ,E ,I ,I ,E ,I ,E o I E 8 I I s s g ,E j L lE i i i i i i i i i i i i G ) g s e s s I i lii ! m a gE a I a -m EE E E l "e E F Eg *I = l! 2 s = i Fi i J W E s ~* l I i 11 i liill 4 != 5 [ i U si!! " l l i-i I

Taia uu er r. I1 -m J WW'(( l w U h5 u a lWl BW E'If M Be W gg j r !!! E-I < !l 5 si l,! f.i.I i i it g i ! s' r. !;=g i.t l,,fi i 8

Is -i

= I 1 r= la> g 1 ifli!ltig!:tiyij!iils!jlli!lII! i i"! ri ritii!;o,. s i e s a g i i 6is is i ,.! I I!1l!!!I:!!!!li,llr_jii!Iiji.!l"gl z 'aII I I lng:l!;,f i g. i q r. , q g, is. 1 an glgr _jgel rjga. g s r.g =g gr y; gs s.i n. in s s! , m = i a ss ,n

i. tr ::r n

s ess r g u E o s s s s sa ,as sss ,s ,s ,s,a,s l1 t 4 e e s e e e ee 1 gE W W W W W W W WW W i i i d iiii ecm i/ ,a g E i ~ lill 8 j i im g! ls .s i i m .s 1 1 E g, $ Il lE = yp = _s J $8 l s l I I .8 i I I l -8 -El J z< I I g l [ g g l s [g g l: v s i l g) g l l[j i < i i I l bE I;; g I h) l ( 4 R* RE I II II i

1 uu it i 11 'W 5. J .v U 1 W 4 I E"E U lwE Bw g 11 = n w gg 5 b i! 'g n! ! ! j i : 1 i nil li w sl,1: ;=l:, t;, !! g li !! lilt ;g; ,!,! g"1. g I i 1 [5: g=1'1 a 'r -i!ggr,j,il;n;ilI i 1-gg, J ie i1.i i i i i = n. y i t in g i; it :5 I g. i;n ni a z li. p*.i s 1,5 p 1 e s. g! g,r!' ai e !;;4

5 ;s t.a gi

.

i.i >! r li.;r i lr is p

n m i i;; i i ,r

p. i li is,i :! I, g

li11,g l!!!lii!!I als i11liilii!!1:g :1!:j i!.gil!!!! ri i r u 1 l r h I I E 5 E I E If I ff f I I I E I E E g li !! 1 15 5 i l ! a* I / r E I I im W: R I { l gI I m es r b $5 II II I i l l l a s -8 a n; k i u t !i I !II I I i l j I

• 5 f

ei f Ir lg l t 11 is j. I e

. titi as l I:l -m 3 ill x U E h5 U i a p W W Ew H 8 Be

w-bN l

\\ illb,I':.[li.l,i 4! w g r,l;is,;ir l e a y l,!iji'l:il;g,li - i il '!" l 5 ~ m

.1 ri !! I. u' g

fi!!11!!11:s!! i!( rE I I I I I ll O ..g-t t t t t L ~E d i d i d 1 W i ! i l M l:E iH i !5 i F 3 5W i { Q

E i

i 2 i = S 4 411 5 [ [ il* I t r

TITLE PREPARATION APO REVIEW OF CRITERIA LISTS NUMBER DAP-l Revision Prepared Date Reviewed Date Approved Date mg ll?sf'd Q Tl230f &Q 9/9l( o +hrJRLJ +/w Sf %gu vw Mi*/*/85 MQ @r/fifb a#/er " l' %Lv %/g ga sjnja (: Col: TROLLED COPY I5' N. TN-85-6262/1

l ~i 1 Ir, 4 i l TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page C o v e r S he e t...................................................... i Tob l e o f Con t e n t s................................................. 11 1.0 P UR P O S E................................................... I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES......................... I 4.0 I NS T R UCT I O N.............................................. 3 5.0 DO CU ME NT AT I O N.......................................... 7 ATTACHMENTS A CRITERI A LIST FORMAT..................................... A-l -(- ~ MEC ANICA 'VIEV' OP' B-l C ELE C TR I C AL r.:. VIE W T OPI C3................................ C-l D CIVIL REV IEW TOP ICS....................................... D-1 1 E DESI GN CR ITERI A LIST...................................... E-l F DISCIPLINE / SUBJECT CODES F-1 i TN.45-6262/1 li l

l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-l

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERI A LISTS l.0 PURPOSE This procedure establishes the methods for preparation, review, opproval, and control of criterio lists used in the Design Adequacy Program. It defines the methods by which design criteria and commitments are identified and verified prior to use in subsequent phases of the Design Adequacy Program. 2.0 SCOPE The scope of this procedure encompasses preparation, review, approval, and control of design criterio lists used in the conduct of the self-initiated ospects of ~ the Design Adequacy Progrom. The scope of the self-initiated evoluotions includes the Mechanical Systems, Electricol, I&C, and Civil / Structural disei-plines. Verification octivities in the Piping and Supports discipline and in the Cable Troy and Cor.duit Supports oreo may use this procedure or o specific h Discipline Instruction developed in occordonce with DAP-10. 3.0 DEF INITIONa AND RESPONSIBILITY 12S 3.I Definitions l 3.1.1 Criterion ) A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be copoble of performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project requirement or commitment. TN-85-6262/1 Page 1 of 8

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-l

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERIA LISTS 3.1.2 Commitment A commitment is any statement mode by the project as port of the public record which identifies o system performance, design feature, or design requirement which will be met by the project. 3.l.3 Descriptive Statement A descriptive statement specifies or describes system porometers, CPSES plant features, operator actions, or intended plant operations which do not prescribe or offect how the system ochieves its design function or complies with require-ment s. 3.1.4 Source Document 61 L A source document is any document opplicable to CPSES that identifies criterio, comrr' mer, or quire ents Principal source documents include FSAR, Regulatory Guides, Westinghouse interface documents, Code of Federal Regulo. tions, and industry standards, such as IEEE nnd ASTM publications. Source documents are those documents from which statements of criterio and commit. ments are directly extracted in the compilation of criterio lists. 3.1.5 Originating Document Originating documents are those in which statements are mode which ultimately leod to the identification of a source document and criteria or commitments. ( For example, the FSAR serves os on originating document when it states that I CPSES is in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.XX. The Regulatory Guide is then the source document for the resulting commitments. TN-85-6262/l Page 2 of 8

COMANCif PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE I Nut..oer: DAP-1

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERI A LISTS 3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Review Team Leoder The Review Team Leoder shall opprove the initial issvonce of the criterio lists and all subsequent revisions to the lists. 3.2.2 Design Adequocy Program Monoger (DAP Monoger) The Design Adequocy Program Monoger shall, review the criterio lists to ensure consistency and completeness and recommend opproval to the Review Team ~ Leader. 3.2.3 Discipline Coordinators 6% L The Discioline Coo dinators are responsible for assigning preparers and reviewers t evel the crit oI 4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 initial Preparation of Criterio List In general, project personnel are responsible for the initial preparation of the design criterio lists; however, the DAP Monoger may direct that initial lists be developed by third party personnel. The lists are to be o compilation of all criterio and commitments used in the CPSES design of the systems discussed in , Section 2.0 of this procedure. The DAP Monoger and the Discipline Coordinators shall determine the number and scope of each criteria list. TN-85-6267/l Page 3 of 8

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP.I

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERIA LISTS i The development of the criterio lists shall be accomplished by review of the list ogoinst the CPSES FSAR and Safety Evoluotion Report,10CFR50, Appe.ndix A General Design Criterio, appropriate project correspondence, and applicable Regulatory Guides and industry standards. The criterio and commitments shall be listed in the format given in Attochment A to this procedure. The following odditional requirements apply to this ottochment: o Eoch criteria list shall be assigned a document control number. o The criterio are to be sequentially numbered in each list. o The description shall be o concise statement of the criterion. Where possible, the criterion should be a verbo-tim statement from the porticular source document (e.g., f, a verbatim statement extracted from on FSAR poro-A grorh). o All ppliable sov.:e..coments for each criterion ore to be listed. Multiple tier documents (e.g., on FSAR paro-graph which, in turn, references a Regulatory Guide) should all be included. Eoch criterion shall be assigned c number corresponding o to the appropriate design review topic. Listings of the review topics for each discipline are given in Attachments B, C, and D to this procedure. Drof t criteria lists and subsequent revised lists shall be issued to the Design Adequocy Program Monoger for review. 4.2 Third Party Review of Criterio Lists Upon receipt of the lists, the DAP Monoger shall distribute the lists to the appropriate Discipline Coordinators who shall distribute them to the individual TN-85-6262/l Page 4 of 8

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-l

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERIA LISTS discipline reviewers. The DAP Monoger shall determine which Coordinator shall have primary review responsibility. When a list is developed by the third party, the criterio list shall be provided to the project for comment. l The lists shall be reviewed for completeness, consistency, and occuracy. The objectives of the review include: o A determination of whether all criterio have been identi-fied (completeness). A determination of whether the criterio are occurately o stated. l o An evoluotion of whether the stated criterio are consis-tent. l l This review shall be conducted in occordonce with Section 4.1 of DAP.4 and shall be documented in o form similar to Attochment A to that DAP procedure, l omrr,ts r a crite-lir sho se resolved among the developer of the criterio list, the reviewer, and the Discipline Coordinator. 4.3 Approval and issuonee of Criterio Lists Eoch criterio list may be issued as "Rev. 0" when the discipline coordinator believes that the criterio list contain: oil applicable basic (e.g., FSAR level) criteria and is complete enough to worront 6evelopment of detailed checklists. This approval (Rev. 0) does not require completion of the Design Criterio Review Checklist (Attochment A to DAP-4). Subsequent revisions of criterio lists shall require completion of the DAP-4 criterio review checklist before the subsequent revision is opproved. The criterio lists shall be reviewed by the Review Team Leader or his designee and shall be documented on the design criterio cover sheet (see Attochment E). TN 85-6262/l Poge 5 of 8

COMANCT PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEGUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-1

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERIA LISTS His signature signifies that the criterio have been properly identified and checked, and that the requirements of this procedure were met. Distribution of the criterio lists shall be os stoted in Section 5.0 of this procedure. The cover sheet will be used for maintaining document revision control. The cover sheet revision block signoff for Rev. O ond all subsequent revisions, shall be os follows: The ariginator or leod discipline preporer shall initial the o 'BY" block, i The appropriate Discipline Coordinator or designee shall o I initic' the reviewed "RVWD" block. l The Design Adequacy Monoger shall sign the r-commend o opproval "RE CC" block. f-The Review Team Leoder shall sign the opproved "APPD" o block. After opproval, each mechanical, electricol, and l&C criterio list shall be submitted to Westinghouse Electric Corporation for review and comment. The submittet to Westinghouse shall be accomplished by the DAP Monoger by transmittal of the criterio list to TUCCO. Westinghouse sho!! be requested to review the criterio and commitments and make one of the following determinations: \\ The criterio and commitments offect only systems that do o not interface with the Westinghouse NSSS scope of suppE The criterio and commitments offect systems that inter. o face with the Westinghouse NSSS scope of supply. The criterio and commitments are consistent with Westing-house interface requirements and Westinghouse has no comments. ) TN-85-6262 /1 Pooe 6 of B 1 l

[ COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-1

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERIA LISTS The criterio and commitments offect systems that inter.. o foce with the Westinghouse NSSS scope of supply. The criterio ond commitments. ore cor.sistent with Westing- . house interfoce requirements but Westinghouse hos com-ments or clarifications regarding the criterio and commit-ments. 4 The criterio and commitments offect systems that inter. o foce with the Westinghouse NSSS scope of supply. The criteria ond commitments are not consistent with Westinghouse interfoce requirements'.""' Where Westinghouse hos comments or where Westinghouse notes inconsistencies with interfoce requirements, Westinghouse shall be requested to describe their comments or corrections in detail. The Discipline Coordinator or his designee ~ shall resolve Westinghouse comments in a timely fashion. 4.4 Revisions to Criterio Lists Pavision to *he crite io lists may be necessary, subsequent to the initial approval l dissuonc if the

s. A revis may be for the purpose of odding or deleting criterio, revising existing criteria, or making corrections.

Revisions to the criterio lists shall be identified by documenting a description of the changes on the design criterio list cover sheet (Attocisment E). Eoch revision shall be sequentially numbered. The approved revision will be distributed as stated in Section 5.0 of this procedure. The opproval signoff process for each revision will be identical to that for the Rev. O criterio list lasuance discussed in Section 4.3 The specific revisions shall be indicated in the body of the list by a vertical line in the right-hand margin. These revision lines shall be corried only until the following revision to the list is issued. 1 TN-85-6262/1 Page 7 of B

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE ~l Number: DAP-l

Title:

PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF Revision: 3 CRITERIA LISTS 5.0 DOCUMENTATION The criterio lists shall be written, issued, and maintained in the format given in Attochment A to this procedure. Criterio list revisions shall be controlled by the use of a cover sheet in the format given in Attochment E to this procedure. Distribution for initial issvonce, and oli subsequent revisions to the criterio lists, will be the responsibility of the DAP Monoger. The distribution will include, but not be limited to: o Review Team Leoder (t - o DAP Monoger o CPRT5-3r F evi v T< 'm Leoders o Discip!!ne Coordinators Additional personnel as selected by the DAP Monoger. o After approval, eoch criteric list Aoil be assigned a control identification number by the appropriate Discipline Coordinator. The control number shall be of the following formot: DAP-CR-XX-YYY 9 o - Sequent 1o1 Number Discipline Code (See Attochment F) { TN-85-6262/l i Page 8 of 8

ATTACHMENT A CRITERIA UST FORMAT Criterion No. Description Source Applicable Review Topie 8 e e 4 e l + TN-85-6262/l A-1

ATTACHMENT B MECHAlllCAL REVIEW TOPICS TOPIC NUMBER TOPIC TITLE M00 Mechanical Scope Validation M01 System Operating Modes M02.1 Operating Limits: SPSH M02.2 Operating Limits: Maximum & Minimum Con-ditions M02.3 Operating Limits: Overpressure Conditions M02.4 Operating Limits: Steam Flow Requirements M03 Heat Removal Requirements M04 Water Sources M05.1 Component Functional Requirements: Pumps and Drivers M05.2 Component Functional Requirements: Volves and Operators M05.3 Component Functional Requirements: Tonks M05.4 Component Functional Requirements: Piping MD6 Single Follure/FMEA M07 5 m:> ort Systems ~ M08 ss S Piping ZL\\ A M09 iC System Performance M10.1 t omponent Functional Requirements: Ventilo-tion Filtration Units M10.2 Component Functiono1 Requirements: Fans M10.3 Component Functional Requirements: Control Dompers M10.4 Component Functional Requirements: Air Con-ditioners M10.5 Component Functiono! Requirements: Cooling i Coils M10.6 Component Functional Requirements: Water i Chillers M10.7 Component Functional Requirements: Ducts and Duet Accessories M1l Control Room Habitability M12 Pressure Vessels Ml3 Heat Exchangers M14 Main Steam isolation, Feedwater Isolation, Containment Purge MIS Safety Volve M16 Relief Volve M17 Screens MI8 Chemical Eductors TN-85-6262/l B-l

ATTACHMENT B MECHANICAL REVIEW TOPICS (Continued) TOPIC NUMBER TOPIC TITLE M19 Expansion Joint M20 Mechanical Penetrations M26 M27 System / Component Safety Classification High Energy Line Breaks M2B M29.1 Internal Flooding Missile Protection: Internal and Turbine Mis-sites M29.2 M30 Missile Protection: Tornado Missiles Seismic Guolification M31 M32 Rodiotion Protection and Dose Assessment M33 Post-Accident Combustible Gas Control g Containment Pressure / Temperature Analysis M34 M35 Containment Sump Design C. Welding Design M36 Postulated Hazards Rodiation Monitoring Post Accident Sump Chemistry n External Flooding M43 Bolonee of Plant Pump and Volve Operability M44 M45 Miscellaneous Thermol/ Hydraulics Mechanical Erection M46 Piping Supports M47 Containment Spray Nozzles M48 Radioactive Waste Filter Cask TN-85-4262/l B-l

ATTACHMENT C ELECTRICAL REVIEW TOPICS Topic Number Topic Description El System Operating Limits E2 System Operating Modes E3 Electrical Chorocteristics E4 Electrical Lood Capacity E5 Lood Shedding, Transfers, and Sequencing E6 Control E7 Instrumentation E8 Component Functional Requirements E9 Single Follure/FME A E10 Support Systems El1 Mul+1-Discipline Considerations El2 Eq,)mer. Installc. tion Design El3 Emergency Lighting d El4 Hydrogen Monitoring 1 i i TN 85-6262/1 C-1 1 i

l ATTACHMENT D CIVIL REVIEW TOPICS TOPIC NUMBER TOPIC DESCRIPTION Cl.0 LOAD DETERMINATION C2.0 LOAD DISTRIBUTION /ANALYSl3 C3.0 LOAD COMBINATIONS C4.0 CONCRETE DESIGN METHOD AND CRITERIA C5.0 STEEL DESIGN METHODS AND CRITERIA C6.0 FOUNDATION DESIGN METHODS AND CRITERIA C7.0 SOIL C8.0 SUPPORTSIANCHORAGE DESIGN METHODS g AND CRITERIA C9.0 OTHER STRUCTURES DESIGN METHODS AND CRITERIA C10.0 CONNECTIONS / ANCHORAGE DESIGN ~ METHODS AND CRITERIA C l l.0 M AVY LOADS DROP Cl2.0 COMPUTER CODES C I 3.0 SPECIFICATION PREPARATION Cl4.0 TESTING /SPECIAL STUDIES /SPECIAL TOPICS 1 i TN-BS-6262/l D-l

ATTACHMENT E DESIGN CRITERIA UST SYSTEM / DESIGN ACTIVITY DISCIPLINE DAP/ DOC NUMBER i i REY. DATE DESCRIPTION BY RVWD RECC APPD Tt4-85-6262/1 E-l

4 ATTACHAENT F COMANCE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM DISCIPLitE/ SUBJECT CODES Code Discipline C/S Civil / Structural P Piping and Supports M Mechanical EIC Electricol/ Instrumentation PGl Programmatic / Generic implications E Electricol* I Instrumentation

• l
• NOTE Use of T" ond "1" codes are optional alternatives to the TIC" code. EIC may be used for both Electrical and I&C.

"E" may be used when the document is relevant only to the electrical discipline. "1" may be used when the document is relevant only to Instrumentation and Control. I TN-85-6262/l F-l Attachment F I

o 0YY$kT $ e ' sr TITLE PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS NUMBER DAP-4 Revision P_repored Date Reviewed Date 4pproved Date g,4 Gr &A SM/W /oMer o $f 4vW& 10Hf Gy?m n+< n ^ agaw+x Qk "MrJbG or C~ A% E'" Y I4 Y[' l" f 24 4 wu 2sg %.@ w 4 1 c:

i..

d TN-85-6262/4 i

s TABLE OF CONTENTS .Section Pooe Cove r Shee t...................................................... 1 Tab le of Cont ent s................................................. 11 1.0 P URP O S E................................................... I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... l 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES......................... I 4.0 I NS TR U CT I ON '..............................................2 5.0 D O CU ME NT AT I ON.......................................... 6 ATTACHMENTS A DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW CECKLIST A-1 B DESIGN REVIEW

SUMMARY

CHECKLIST B-1 C DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION............................... C-l D ADDITIONAL CHE CKLIST CONSIDERATIONS.................. D-l E QUALITY ASSURANCE CHECKLIST CONSIDERATIONS......... E-l F DISCIPLIE /SUB. LECT COrF.S................................ F-1 G CHE CKL IS T L O G............................................ G-1 H DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION REVISION COVE R SHE E T.................................... H-l TN-85-6262/4 11

COMANCtf PE AK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE

• L Numbers DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS Revision: 4 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure specifies the requirements for preparation of design document review checklists to be used in the performance of the CPSES Design Adequocy Program (DAP). 2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies whenever a design document review checklist is required by a Discipline Specific Action Plon, o DAP procedure, or through a Discipline instruction issued by the Review Team Leader, Design Adequocy Program Monoger, or Discipline Coordinator. 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES I 3.1 Definitions 3.1.1 Criterion A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be capable of performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project requirement or commitment. 3.1.2 Commitment A commitment is any statement made by the project as part of the public record i which identifies a system performance requirement, design feature, or design requirement which will be met by the project. TN-85-6262/4 Pagei of8 1

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE i Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS Revision: 4 L 3.1.3 Implementing Document q Implementing documents are design documents (such as calculations, evoluotions, and onelyses) that translate design criteria into design output documents. 3.1.4 Output Document Output documents are design documents (such as drawings and specifications) that define technical requirements of systems, structures, and components. 3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Checklist Developer Checklists shall be developed by personnel assigned by the Discipline Coordino-tor. The Discipline Coordinator may otso be o checklist developer. 3.2.2 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator shall assign personnel to develop checklists. He shall define the purpose and scope of each checklist. This definition may be in the form of verbal direction to checklist developers. 4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Evoluotion Desian Criterio and Review Topics Checklists will be prepared to ensure o consistent and complete review of design criterio for the various review topic areas. Design Criterio Review Checklists lk shall be prepared using the format of Attochment A for each design discipline TN-85-6262/4 Page 2 of 8

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 review topic creo to verify that the review topic criterio are complete, consistent, and adequately defined. Design Review Summary Checklists shall ld also be pfhpored using the format of Attochment B to summarize the verifica-tion of the implementation of the review topic criterio. Where appropriate, the Discipline Coordinator may allow more than one review area to be evoluoted on a single checklist (Attachment A or B). The Discipline Coordinator may authorize alternatives to the format of Attachments A and B; however, the alternative format shall contain comparable information. The Discipline Coordi-notor shall molntoln a log of checklists used in the format of Attochment G to this procedure. This log meets the requirements of DAP ll ond shall be filed in occordance with DAP 14. 4.2 Preparation of Checklists Unless otherwise directed by the Discipline Coordinator, Design Criterio and p Design Review Summary Checklists shall be prepared in occordance with the lk format of Attachments A and B for the various review toples. The Discipline Coordinator shall assign one or more individuals to the preparation and comple-tion of the checklists. The Discipline Coordinator may develop checklists. Design Review Evaluation Checklist forms are prepared as appropriate using the format of Attachments C-I and C-2. Attachment C-2 is the format for continuation pages. As used herein, Attochment C refers to both C-1 and C-2. Alternate formats may be used provided they contain comparable information. The criterio/ commitments (from the list developed in occordance with DAP-1) opplicable to the scope of the checklist form are reviewed and selected for g inclusion on the checklist. The checklist preparer may select fewer than 100 percent of the opplicable criterio for inclusion in the Design Review Evoluotion form (s) provided that the bases for such selection are documented in the Design Review Summary Checklist (Attochment B) form or in another appropriately referenced document. Where o criterion / commitment listed in the criterio/ commitments list is itself a source of detailed criterio that is not TN-85-6262/4 Page 3 of 8

} COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CtECKLISTS Revision: 4 expanded upon in the Criterio List (DAP-l), the checklist should use the detailed-criterio extracted from that source. The selected criterio/ commitments (inclu ing more detailed criterio obtained from the source document) are entered in the b " Attributes Reviewed" column of Attachment C. The " Description of Verification" column of Attochment C shall be completed to describe the method by which implementation of the criterion will be verified (e.g., line-by-line check of a calculation, comporison of selected calculation pages against selected drawings, etc.). If necessary, this column may be cross-referenced to on ottochment that contains more information on the verificatio 'methodolgy. If the criterion entered in the " Attributes Reviewed" column does ~ not represent odequate occeptance criteria for the review then the " Description of Verification" column should ciso be used to provide necessary occeptance crit,ero detail. Specific documents to be reviewed are selected in occordonce with DAP-21. i Where appropriate, development of the Design Review Evoluotion form and the selection of specific documents may proceed in parallel if necessory to ensure the odequoey of the checklist form. In oddition, the person preporing the Design Review Evoluotion form should also give consideration to the following factors: Whether similar document types exist such that a combi-o notion of document types is needed to reoch a conclusion about the odequocy of a portion of the design process (e.g., there may be eight types of mechonical calculations and selecting one of each type, os required above may provide on odequate test of the calculation process, such that no significant benefit is gained from testing multiple examples within each type) Whether the criterio that could be verified by additional o examples of the document type con also be verified by other document types or through other means (e.g., by comparison with pre-operational test results). TN-BS-6262/4 Page 4 of B L

COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 4.3 Additional Checklist items in addition to the specific checklist attributes extracted from the criterio/ lk commitments list, the checklist developer shall consider the items in Attach-ments D and E ond shall incorporate them into the checklist as determined to be o appropriate by the checklist developer and the Discipline Coordinator, in considering these items (which are defined in ANSI N45.2.11-1974, Section 6.3.1), 1 the developer and Discipline Coordinator shall take into consideration that not i all items are applicable to each document type, that other ospects of the review may odequately oddress these topics, and that the wording of the item may need { to be clorified for use in the checklist. 4.4 Approval of Checklists Formats Each Discipline Coordinator shall opprove o!! checklist forms developed for his discipline. This opproval requirement opplies to Design Review Evoluotion forms ld (whether in the format of Attochment C or in on alternative format), to checklist forms that are used as alternatives to Attachments A and B (Discipline Coordinator opproval of Attachments A and B is not required), and to any other checklists developed for his discipline. The opproval of the Discipline Coordino-for to use o checklist form shall be in the form of a memo to appropriate personnel authorizing them to use the forms noted in the memo. Supplemental attributes added to o checklist form in occordonce with Section 4.5 below shall not require Discipline Coordinator opproval prior to completion of the checklist. 4.5 Use of Checklist -Other DAP procedures and discipline instructions govern the use of checklist forms developed in occordonce with this procedure. Prior to using any check!!st form to conduct a review in occordance with a procedure governing its use, the person intending to use the checklist form shall ossure himself or herself that the TN-85-6262/4 Poge 5 of 8

\\ COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CECKLISTS Revision: 4 checklist form is odequate for its intended purpose. In porticular, the user shall 4 consider whether any item on Attachments D and E should be odded to the checklist form. Furthermore, the reviewer may odd any odditional attributes that he or she feels is necessary to ensure the odequacy of a design review evoluotion form (Attochment C or equivalent). Such odditional attributes or other checklist form supplements may be odded without prior Discipline Coordinator opproval. Discipline Coordinator opproval is achieved when the completed checklist is approved. j 5.0 DOCUMENTATION S.I Identifie; tion Of Checklist Forms Design review evoluotion checklist forms (i.e., checklist forms similar to the I format of Attochment C that contain the review attributes, but which have not 7 been used for o review) shall be given a checklist form number, revision number, and date. The checklist form number shall be placed in the lower right hand corner of each page of the form if Attachment C is used; otherwise the checklist form number may be placed where it is deemed appropriate by the Discipline Coordinator. The initial version of each form is designated "Rev. 0". The format of the checklist identification shall be: DAP Form No. XX-YYY, Rev. N, ZZ/ZZ/ZZ o o o o Date Revision Number Sequentiol Number Discipline / Subject Code (See Attochment F) TN-BS-6262/4 Page 6 of 8

1 l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 This numbering requirement for checklist forms is retroactive and shall be opplied to all checklist forms. The Discipline Coordinator sholl maintain a log of { checklist forms (See Attochment G). 5.2 Revision of Checklist Forms ld j l The Discipline Coordinator may direct that checklist forms be revised of onytime. Unless specifically directed by the Discipline Coordinator, the revision of a checklist form shall not invalidate any checklist completed using a previous revision of a checklist form. The appropriate revision number and date shall be entered onto the forms. The sections of the form offected by the revision shall be marked with o vertical line and revision number in either the left or right hand margin of the form. Supplemental attributes entered into o checklist by a reviewer in occordonee Mth Section 4.5 of this procedure shall not be considered revisions to the checklist form. ( 5.3 Checklist identification After opproval of a completed checklist hos been obtained in accordance with the DAP governing its use, the checklist shall be assigned a control identification number by the Discipline Coordinator. The identification number shall be of the following format: DAP-CLZ-XX-YYY (Supplement No. ), Rev. See Section 5.4 o o a - Sequential Number -Discipline / Subject Code A (See Attochment F) /4 Checklist Type Code A = Design Criterio Review Checklist (Attochment A) B = Design Review Summary Checklist (Attochment B) C = Design Review Evoluotion (Attachment C) TN-85-6262/4 Pan,7 of R l

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-4

Title:

PREPARATION OF CHECKLISTS Revision: 4 The Discipline Coordinator shall enter all checklists used in the discipline for which he is responsible in a Checklist Log (Attachment G). 5.4 Revisions and Supplements to Completed Checklists Supplements to completed checklists shall be used to document any changes in findings based on the review of odditional Information including the review of later revisions to the documents being evoluoted. Supplements shall use the some checklist forms originally used. They shall be comptefed in the some manner os the originoi checklists. However, only those attributes required to achieve the objectives of the supplementary review shall be completed and o!! others will be marked "NC". Upon approval, the checklist number assigned will be the some os the original checklist number with the odditional indication of a supplement number. Supplement numbers will be assigned in sequentlot order beginning with I. Supplements shall be entered in the Checklist Log as a separate line entry by the Discipline Coordinator. Approved completed checklists and/or supplements may be changed by means of b o Revision to correct errors associated with DAP implementation of the checklists or to provide odditional information required by DAP procedures. Examples include the correction or addition of criterio numbers, HDA numbers, DIR numbers, misspellings and/or omissions. Revisions shall not be used to change ony findings of the original review or to modify the context of the original review to reflect the review of later revisions to the documents being evoluoted. A revision package shall include all of the some material contained in the original checklist package or supplement and shall be approved using the Design Review Evolvation Revision Cover Sheet (Attachment H). Revisions shall be rnitiated and checked by reviewers and opproved by the Discipline Coordinator. The Discipline Coordinator may also sign as either the initiator or the checker. For checklists completed prior to 9/15/86, cover sheets shall be applied to the checklists if a revision or supplement becomes applicable. Previous "Rev. 0" checklists do not require a backfit. The original issue of completed checklists ond/or supplements shall be noted as Rev. O with sub-sequent revisions assigned in sequentlot order beginning with I. TN-85-6267/4 Pooe 8 of 8

ATTACHMENT A COMANCE PEAK DESIGN CRITERIA REVIEW CECKLIST DSAP CHECKLIST NUMBER CRITERIA LIST NUMBER /REV Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) List the Design Criterio Sources: General Design Criterio FS AR Section(s) Regulatory Guide (s) List Criterio Which Are Being Reviewed: Criterio No. I \\ TN-85-6262/4 A-1 Attochment A 1

J Are the Design Criteria for this Design Topic Complete? I If "no," describe the missing design inputs. i Are the identified Design Criterlo for this Design Topic Consistent? 1 If "no," describe the inconsistencies. l Are the Design Criteria Adequately Defined to the Level of Detail Necessary to: 1. Allow the design activity to be carried out in a correct manner? Yes No 2. Provide a basis for making design decisions and evaluating design changes? Yes No 3. Provide o basis for accomplishing design verification? Yes No If any of the above are answered "no" describe the lock of detail g TN-85-6262/4 A-2 Attachment A

{ Summarize Results of the Review. 1 0 1 i -i l l I l Reviewer Date Discipline Coordinator Date e TN-85-6262/4 A-3 Attochment A

ATTACHMENT B COMANCE PEAK DESIGN REVIEW

SUMMARY

CECKLIST ^ CHECKLIST NUMBER DSAP Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) Documents Reviewed: Document Nome Number Rev Date Sofety-Related Yes No Description of Review Scope and Purpose. i k TN-85-6262/4 B-1 Attachment B

4 List Design Criterio for this Review l Aswmptions Listed for Eoch Document? Yes No ' Are the Assumptions Reasonable and Valid? Yes No Are the Assumptions Consistent with Design Criterio/ implementing Documents? Yes No Have oil Assumptions which Require Verification Been Verified? Yes No Comments on Assumptions (Discuss Eoch "No" Answer Above) TN-85-6262/4 B-2 Attochment B

Are the References including Data Sources (for the Documents Reviewed) Listed? Yes No Are References Sufficiently identified with Revision or Date? Yes No Comments on

References:

(Discuss Eoch "No" Answer Above) l l Were Changes from Specified Design Criterio Identified, os well as the Reasons for the Change? Was on Appropriate Design Method Used? Explain: m .= '~~ TN-85-6262/4 B-3 Attochment B _O

List Computer Programs Used. Verified Prooram Reference - Yes/No I fx i Are the Computer Outputs Reasonable Compared to inputs? Explain TN-85-6262/4 B-4 Attochment B i

Summarize Results of the Review. h Discreponcles identified (if applicable) (Reference DAPTS DIR Number) List Attachments: ) Reviewer Date Discipline Coordinator Date TN-85-6262/4 B-5 Attochment B

\\!l!! l1 l s tne m m / oC e / v t e t eA a s R D nN U/ /C tN a S .ve R ) fon nio l o a ot N v ia t o pic t r i f n p _i N e p

- er O

m A no V D I e i T l t 1A p p p I U u OL S $( C, f l o a

• MW r

i e I HE t n )e C I C V e e AE e G ga h e TR S cP T n, m AN et r G r s. o ee e m IS t t f F E aa e P D DD R h AD REB NUN TS ILKC E C de we iveR se s t e w s c t r n i e e r t b r t mfe A 4 u e / r N R 26 er a y 2 we i r 6 ek r a ic e m 5 ve t 8 i eh r r i RC C P N T

A 1{i s tn e m mo / C l t v aA e snN R U/ /C eN t S .ve l R ) fon nio ot o ia N tpic t i f i n i hV N e re O m I e T l 2A pp - U u CL S( " A fo PHE )e 2-I C V g C t AE e a e e TR h cP T S n, AN et m rn r G ee o I f m F S e E u D Rc P c A O D R EBWUN TS ILKC EH d C e we iveRse tu b ir t t A 4 f /2 626 58-N T f! ll

ATTACHMENT D ADDITIONAL CFECKLfST CONSIDERATIONS l. Were the inputs correctly selected and incorporated into design? 2. Are assumptions necessary to perform the design activity adequately described and reasonable? Where necessary, are the assumptions identified for subsequent re-verifications when the detailed design activities are completed? 3. Are the appropriate quality and quality assurance requirements specified? 4. Are the opplicable codes, standards, and regulatory requirements, including issue and oddendo, properly identified and are their requirements for design met? 5. Have opplicable construction and operating experience been considered? 6. Have the design interface requirements been satisfied? 7. Was on appropriate design method used? 8. Is the output reasonable compared to inputs? 9. Are the specified ports, equipment, and processes suitable for the required application? 10. Are the specified materials compatible with eoch other and the design environmental conditions to which the mof erial will be exposed? I 1. Have adequate maintenance features and requirements been specified? 12. Are accessibility and other design provisions odequate for performance of needed maintenance and repair? 13. Hos odequate accessibility been provided to perform the in-service inspection expected to be required during the plant life? 14. Hos the design properly considered radiction exposure to the public and plant personnel? 15. Are the occeptance criteria incorporated in the design documents sufficient to allow verification that design requirements have been satisfoetority accomplished. 16. Have odequate pre-operational and subsequent periodic test requirements been appropriately specified? TN-85-6262/4 D-1 Attochment D

\\ ATTACHMENT D (continued) 17. Are odequate handling, storage, cleaning, and shipping requirements specified? 18. Are adequate identification requirements specified? 19. Are requirements for record preparation review, opproval, retention, etc., odequately specified? e TN-85 6262/4 D-2 Attochment D

1 ATTACHMENT E QUALITY ASSURANCE CECKLIST CONSIDERATIONS 1 - Are design analyses sufficiently detoiled as to purpose method, o assumptions, design input, references and units such that a person technically qualified in the subject con review and understond the onolyses and verify the odequocy of the results without recourse to the originator? o Was a design review performed and documented? Was the extent of design verification or review commensurate with o the importance of the design to safety, its complexity, degree of stondordization, relation to the state-of-the-ort, and similcrity with the previously proven designs? o Do appropriate design documents have review and approval signatures? Were changes in designs (including field changes) Justified? Were o they subjected to design control measures (such as review ond opprovol) commensurate with these applied to the original design? f( Are the Design Criterio defined to the level of detail necessory: o 1. To allow the design activity to be corried out in a correct manner? 2. To provide o basis for making design decisions and evoluoting design changes? 3. To provide a basis for accomplishing design verification? Are assumptions listed? o o Are assumptions reasonable and vc!!d? I ) l o Are there assumptions which conflict with Design Criteria implementing Documents? o Hove assumptions which require verification been verified? TN-85-6262/4 E-l Attochment E

l ] I 1 ATTACHMENT F COMANCE PEAK DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM DISCIPLIE/SUBKCT CODES Code Discipline I C/S Civil / Structural P Piping and Supports 'M Mechonical EIC Electrical / Instrumentation PG1 Programmatic / Generic implications E Electricol* 1 - Instrumentation *

• NOTE: Use of T" and "1" codes are optional alternatives to the TIC" code.

EIC may be used for both Electrical and l&C. 'E" may be used when the document is relevant only to the electrical discipline. "1" may be used when the document is relevant only to Instrumentation and Control. TN-85-6262/4 F-l Attochment F

---

P-'

e i Oo y 8 5 m -m e ~ 5 b ( 8 8 ga 8 J i5 5 0 0 8 w >- em w d 8 E 5U

ATTACHMENT H DESIGN REVIEW EVALUATION REVISION COVER SFEET Checklist Number. Supplement No. R e v.__ Description of Revision: 4 Initiated by: Date: Checked by: Approved by: TN-85-6262/4 . -. _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ ~

TERA MEMORANDUM l TO: Discipline CDerdinators DATE. February 9, 1987 FROM. COPIES TO: Q. DuBois B. Stahl

SUBJECT:

Type "B" Oncklists T. @ J. Miller File 7.7 Recent DhP audits have pointed cut the need for ecos additional guidance in the preparation of Type "B" checklists. Accceding to the information presented in the most recent audit exit meeting no aboarvations or cnRs are W for these items, but I omunitted to acomunicating to you acuna suggestions ao that we avoid potential problems. naferenom to critaria TAmts Althou$1 not specifically required by procedure, reference to the criteria lists (not just critaria numbers) associated with the "B" ducklist will help to provida a linkage among our documentation. 'Ib the extant possible please include an indication in your "B" &acklists g. of the critaria list (s) that are applicable. B eeopics Sczma "B" &acklists are being prepared at a subtopic level. DAP 4 requires a topic level "B" civeklist. 'Dris memo is a reminder that there must be a "B" checklist for each tcpic listed in DhP 1. Esvisions "B" &acklists, like "A" checklists and the original intent for "c' checklists, are not to be revised. status of your review at the tian. '!he checklists should represent the new "B" checklist should be prepared.If new information is obtained, a Such a later checklist should indicate how it differs fmn the earlier one (e.g. additicmal "C" checklists were prtyared). If you find an E2gr in a cxupleted, approved "B" checklist, you should issue a new checklist and instruct Kate to void the cid ens. h1sta Ochs of Critaria DAP 4, Pa m, @ 4.2, requires justification to be provided en the appropriate "B" checklist if fewer than 100% of applicable critaria are included on a "C" cMH=t form. reference the basis for any such cases.'Du "B" checklist should include or If the "mastar matrix" is going to be used as a basis for fewer criteria, an appropriate reference (e.g. to a special engineering evaluation) should be provided. For

example, one may state, " Fewer than 100% of the applicable critaria for this tcpic were selected for inclusion en irdividual checklist fonos because alltiple checklist forms are applicable to this topice omplete cxworage of the critaria applicable to this topic will be ?--- -Lrated in engineering evaluatico " Although not required by the WMare, it would be a good idea to state "all applicable critaria were selectad" when this is true. FAD:seg 38FIE07 O

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE ADDENDUM Procedure: DAP-4 Revision: .4 Addendum: 1

Title:

COMPLETION OF TYPE "C" CHECKLIST SUPPLEMENTS PURPOSE This addendum allows Type "C" checklist supplements to include only those pages of a Type "C" checklist containing attributes affected during the supplement process. SCOPE Add to Section 5.4, paragraph 1, after sentence 4 (p. 8), the following: i Alternatively, the supplement may consist of only those pages which contain attributes whose status is affected by the supplement preparation process. In such cases, attributes on the affected checklist pages that are not changed by the supplement shall be marked "NC." The checklist supplement shall be clearly identified on the checklist cover-sheet including a listing of the affected pages. g INSTRUCTION This addendum is retroactive to September 12, 1986, and shall remain in effect until approval of the next revision of DAP-4_. This addendum shall be securely attached to each controlled copy .of DAP-4. Prepared By: Yt Date: 7h Reviewed By: .k J Date: 2 f/E7 ~ iv% Approved By: Date: 1, ,f ( 7 .~ r*.r,

jgg=

TN-85-6262/14/DAPA il-1

AWAcHMIENT.3T / TITLE REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, EVALUATIONS Ato OTWR IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS NUMBER DAP-5 I Revision Prepored Date Reviewed Date Approved Date 0 Y f I } ( w p.m i $N I +~ um % % s y u 4 w g+ e-/a 5 TN-85-6262/5 i

\\ 4 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Seetion Page C o ve r S he e t...................................................... i Tab le o f Con t e n t s................................................. 11 1.0 P UR P OS E................................................... I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESP ONSIBILITIES......................... I 4.0 ' l NS T R U CT I ON.............................................. 3 b' 5.0 D O C U ME NT A T I O N..........................................7 ( u j TN-85-6262/5 11

l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEGUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP 5

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS l.0 PURPOSE This procedure defines the methods for the review of calculations, evoluotions, and other implementing documents. 2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies to Review of implementing Design Documents such as calculations and evoluotions used in the design of the systems addressed by the Design Adequocy Program Implementing documents will be reviewed against the appropriate design criteria. Calculations and evoluotions will be reviewed for the odequacy of the opplied methodology as well as occuracy of the implementation of the ( methodology. This procedure does not address the review of output documents (drawings and specifications). The review of output documents is addressed in DAP-6. 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 Definitions ~ 3.1.1 Implementing Documents The documents which provide for implementation of the design criteria such as Flow Diagrams and Instrument Control Diagrams. 3.1.2 Criterion A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design requirement which a system, structure, or component must m =et in order to be TN-85-6262/5 Po9e1 of7

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - _ _ - _ _ _ COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS capable o,f performing its design function or to be in compliance with a project i requirement or commitment. 3.2 Responsibilities A 3.2.1 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for selecting the type and number of i Implementing docurnents, calculations, and evoluotions in each area to be reviewed. The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for assigning Reviewers. 3.2.2 Reviewer s The Reviewer is responsible for completing reviews of assigned review topics in occordance with this procedure, using appropriate checklists, ensuring that the check is occurate, and and checking that work done under his (or her) direction is Correct. 3.2.3 Assigned Personnel ' Assigned personnel perform verification activities under the direction of the ^ Reviewer. 3.2.4 Checker Checkers are responsible for verifying the occorcey of the Reviewers or Assigned Personnel's work. ( TN-85-6262/5 Page 2 of 7 \\

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE j j Number: DAP-5

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCUL ATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS i I l 4.0 INSTRUCTION 4 4.1 Identification of Reviewer For each review topic listed in the description of tt.e DAP self-initiated evoluotion contoined in the CPRT Program Plon, the appropriate Discipline Coordinator shall select on individual who shall function as the Reviewer for that topic and shall be responsible for the completion of the checklists associated with that topic (i.e., the Design Review Summary and Design Review Evoluotion described in DAP 4 er Attachments B ond C respectively or otternative checklists developed in occordonce with DAP 4). The identified Reviewer shall meet the qualification requirements of DAP-15. The Discipline Coordinator may oct as the Reviewer, provided that he meets the qualification requirements of D AP-I S. As, signed personnel working under the direction of a Reviewer shall have been trained in this procedure and shall have received any technical training deemed appropriate by the Reviewer, but need not meet the qualifico-tion requirements opplicable to the Reviewer. If the Reviewer determines that such technical training is necessary, the requirement of the training, its scope, and its completion shall be documented. 4.2 Customization of Checklist Forms and identification of Specific DJeuments For Review The Reviewer shall review the Design Review Evoluotion checklist forms opplicable to the review topic that have been released for use by the Discipline 1 Coordinator. The Reviewer shall determine whether the forms require supple-mentation or other modification as provided for in DAP 4 (including the supplementary review items contained in Attachments D and E of DAP-4). He may make whatever changes he deems appropriate to customize the checklist form for o particular review topic. TN-85-6262/5 Page 3 of 7 i l I l A

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS For self-initiated review creas, documents shall be selected for review in occordonce with DAP 21. Those specifie items identified to be reviewed, shall be the latest revision of the opplicable documents. If the opplicable document revision hos on opproval date prior to April 1,1985, it shall be used for review.. Otherwise, the latest revision with on opproval date prior to April 1,1985 and oil b the following revisions shall be used as described in Section 4.4. For overview of corrective action programs, the documents shall be the latest revision of the opplicable document selected in occordance with DAP-20. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel under the direction of the Reviewer, shall enter the appropriate references for the selected documents in the " Reference" column of the checklist. The reference shall be sufficiently complete to allow another person to identify the specific portion of the document being reviewed. For example, the identification number and renewal pages of the calculation, os k' well as the calculation page revision number and date, should be used. The reference information may be entered into the checklist form in the course of the review. 4.3 Completion of Checklist Eoch review of implementing documents shall be conducted by using the checklists developed in occordance with DAP-4 as customized in occordance with Section 4.2. The purpose of the review shall be to determine whether individual design documents appropriately comply with the opplicable design ld criterio. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall examine all items on the . checklist and indicate whether each item was found to be satisfoetory, unsatis-factory, not checked, or not applicable. "Not Checked" or "NC" may be used when a stondord checklist form is used to perform o limited review of a given subject such that on opplicable crea was excluded from the review scope. "Not TN-85-6262/5 Page 4 of 7

- - ~. ~ _ ~ Numb 2r: DAP-5

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS Applicable" or "NA" may be used when on item on a standard checklist form is j not opplicable to the subject being reviewed. Where the appropriate use of "NA" l or "NC" would not be apparent to o qualified reviewer, the use of 'NA" or "NC" on the checklist should be accompanied by on explanation in the " Comments" h column or os on ottochment to the checklist which provides the basis for use of "N A" or *NC". Although not required, it is recommended that a reference be pro /ided to the checklist (s) where the items marked "NC" are reviewed. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall also indicate the basis for determining the verification conclusion (e.g., visvol inspection of document, field walkdown, calculation review, and independent calculation) and the acceptance criterio (e.g., agreement with alternate calculations within X%, agreement between documents X and Y, etc.)if not otherwise included in the checklist form. Fcr self-initiated review areas, completed checklists shall indicate the homo-geneous design activity (HDA) number associated with each checklist item (ot tribute). This con be accomplished by indicating the HDA number in the f " Comments" column or on on attachment that clearly establishes the correlation. This is not required for checklists used for overview of corrective action d programs. The " Comments" column may also be used for any other comments about on ottribute, its implementation, or its verification. 4.4 Current Document Psvisions Af ter March 31,1985 I ( This section only applies to self-initiated review scopes. ld As noted above, special review considerations are opplicable to documents for which the current revision of the document is dated later than March 31,1985. TN-85-6262/5 Poge 5 of 7

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS in such cases the following steps shall be completed by the Reviewer or Assigned Personnel: The lost revision prior to April 1,1985, shall be obtained. o l o All revisions between the revision obtained in the previous L step and the current revision shall be identified and obtained. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall determine the o differences among the revisions and the causes for those revisions. A review shall be conducted using the current revision of o the document and the appropriate design review evoluo-tion checklist completed. . Appropriate design review evoluotion checklists shall be o completed to document the review ogainst the review attributes of those ospects of-the revision of the docu-ments that vere changed in the fatest revision. The " Sot /Unsot/NA/NC" column shall be marked as oppro-pricte. Items that are "Unsot" in the previous revisions shall be processed in accordance with 4.5 (below) in spite of any correction that rncy have been made in the current revision. 4.5 Processino Unsatisfoetory items items found to be unsatisfactory shall be noted on the checklist and shall also be separately compiled and processed in occordance with the procedures outlined in DAP-2. The DIR number assigned to each unsatisfoetory item shall be listed in the " Comments" column, or os on ottochment to the completed checklist with suitable traceability 1o each unsatisfactory item. 4.6 Approval if. the checklist is completed by Assigned Personnel, the " Comments" column TN-85-6262/5 Page 6 of 7

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-5

Title:

REVIEW OF CALCULATIONS, Revision: 3 EVALUATIONS AND OTHER IMPLEMENTING DOCUMENTS shall be annototed with the nome or initials of the person who performed the verification. The Reviewer shall assure himself of the adequocy of the completed checklist and sign the " Reviewer" space. After o checklist is completed and signed by the Reviewer, the Discipline Coordinator shall designate o Checker. The Checker shall verify the occurocy of the checklist by reviewing at least 10 percent of the checklist items or o minimum of 5 items. After all comments or questions are resolved with the Reviewer, the Checker shall sign the checklist in the " Checker" space and return it to the Discipline Coordinator. The checklist shall be opproved by the Discipline Coordinator, who shall sign the " Approved By" line of the checklist sheet. If the Discipline Coordinator is also the Reviewer he shall sign both spaces. 5.0 DOCUMENTATION Upon opproval, checklist identification numbers are assigned in occordance with l Section 5.3 of DAP-4. Each completed checklist shall be forwarded to the DAP g Monoger for filing in occordance with DAP-14. \\ 9 TN-85-6262/5 Page 7 of 7 4

A7TACMEarlil TITLE REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS APO OTMR DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS NUMBER DAP-6 Revision hepored Date Baylewed Date 4pproved Date iika% vlekc ikQLg %ks'b7]fd i+pr og 7dh4 ' 4 37,MdA </r/s Cl /p h %A bM %>,s e:va%g-% N& </n/n C 4A. TN-85-6262/6 i

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pooe C ov e r S he e t...................................................... I T ab le o f Con t e n t s................................................. 11 1.0 P URP O S E................................................... I 1 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES......................... 1 4.0 I NST R U CT I ON.............................................. 3 5.0 DO CU ME NT ATI ON.......................................... 7 1 i l l TN SS-6262/6 11 i i I t

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROC Number: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS 1.0 PURPOSE This procedure defines the methods to be used in the Design Adequ for the review of Design Output Documents (i.e., design drawings, specif and vendor documents and drawings). i 2.0 SCOPE This procedure opplies to the review of the Output Design Documents us CPSES Design of the systems oddressed by the Design Adequacy Progr The Design Output Documents will be reviewed against the appropriate design criteria to ensure that the output documents oddress all nece criterio. Additional implementing documents are used to define attributes ogdinst which design output documents will be reviewed. \\ This procedure does not address the review of Design Implementing Doc The review of implementing documents is addressed in DAP-5. 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 1 l 3.1 Definitions k i 3.1.1 Criterion A criterion is any statement of a performance, design feature, or design requirement which a system, structure, or component must meet in order to be copoble of performing its design function or to be in complionce with a proj requirement or commitment. TN-85-6262/6 Page I of 7 I

l COMANCff PEAK RESPON5E TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS i l 3.1.2 Output Document Output documents are design documents (such as drawings and specifications) that define technical requirements of systems, structures, and components. l Vendor documentation /drowings and any design documentation that is not otherwise classified as design input or implementing documents are included in this definition. 3.2 Responsibilities 3.2.1 Discipline Coordinator The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for eting the type and number of output documents to be reviewed in each area. The Discipline Coordinator is responsible for assigning Reviewers. 3.2.2 Reviewer The Reviewer is responsible for completing reviews of.ossigned review topics in occordonce with this procedure, using appropriate checklists, ensuring that the check is occurate, and checking that work done under his (or her) direction is correct. 3.2.3 Assigned Personnel Assigned personnel perform verification activities under the direction of the Reviewer. t l TN-85-6262/6 Page 2 of 7 1

a COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS 3.2.4. Checker l Checkers are responsible for verifying the occurocy of the Reviewers or Assigned Personnel's work. 4.0 INSTRUCTION 4.1 Identification of Reviewer For each review topic listed in the description of the DAP self-initiated evoluotion contoined in the CPRT Progrom Plan, the appropriate Discipline Coordinator shall select on individual who shall function as the Reviewer for tha topic and shall be responsible for the completion of the checklists associated with that topic (i.e., the Design Review Summary and Design Review Evoluotion described in DAP 4 os Attachments B ond C, respectively, er alternative checklists developed in occordance with DAP 4). The identified Reviewer shall meet the qualification requirements of DAP-IS. The Discipline Coordinator may oct as the Reviewer, provided that he meets the qualification requirements of DAP-IS, Assigned personnel working under the direction of a Reviewer shall have been trained in this procedure and shall have received any technical trotning deemed appropriate by the Reviewer, but need not meet the qualifico-tion requirements applicable to the Reviewer. If the Reviewer determines that such technieci trotning is necessory, the requirement of the trotning, its scope, and its completion shall be documented. 4.2 Customization of Checklist Forms and Identification of Soecific Documents For Review The Reviewer shall review the Design Review Evoluotion checklist forms applicable to the review topic that have been released for use by the Discipline TN-85-6262/6 Page 3 of 7

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS Coordinator. The Reviewer shall determine whether the forms require supple-mentation or other modification as provided for in DAP-4 (including the supplementary review items contained in Attachments D and E of DAP-4). He may make whatever changes he deems appropriate to customize the checklist 4 form for o particular review topic. For self-initiated review creas, documents shall be selected for review in occordance with DAP 21. Those specific items identified to be reviewed, shall be the latest revision of the opplicable documents. If the opplicable document revision hos on opproval date prior to April I,1985, it sheli be used for review. Otherwise, the latest revision with on opproval dote prior to April I,1985, and b all the following revisions shall be used as described in Section 4.4. For overview of corrective action progroms, the documents shall be the latest revision of the opplicable document selected in accordance with DAP 20. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel under the direction of the Reviewer, shall enter the appropriate references for the selected documents in the " Reference" column of the checklist. The reference shall be sufficiently complete to allow another person to identify the speelfic portion of the document being reviewed. For example, the identification number reviewed and page of the calculation, os well as the revision number and date, should be used. The reference information may be entered inte. the checklist form in the course of the review. 4.3 Completion of Checklist j i l Eoch review of output documents shoi! be conducted by using the checklists developed in occordance with DAP-4 os customized in occordonee with Section ^ 4.2. The purpose of the reWew shall be to determine whether individual design TN.85-6262/6 Page 4 of 7 l l

[ COMANCHE PEAK RESPON5E TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTFER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS documents appropriately comply with the opplicable design criteria. The l Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall examine all items on the checklist and { indicate whether each item was found to be satisfactory, unsatisfactory, not I checked, or not opplicable. Hot Checked"or "NC" may be used when a standard checklist form is used to perform o limited review of a given subject such that i on opplicable crea was excluded from the review scope. "Not Applicable" or "NA" may be used when on item on a stonderd checklist form is not opplicable to the subject being reviewed. Where the appropriate use of "NA" or "NC" would not be opporent to o quollfied reviewer, the use of 'NA" or "NC" on the checklist should be occomponied by on explanation in the " Comments" column or by on ottochment to the checklist which provides the basis for the use of "NA" or "NC". Although not required, it is recommended that a reference be provided to the checklist ( ) where the items marked "NC" are reviewed. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall also indicate the basis for determining the verification conclusion (e.g., visual inspection of document, field wolkdown, calculation review, and independent calculation), and the occeptance criterio applicable to the attribute being evoluoted, if not otherwise included in the checklist form. For self-initiated review orcos, completed checklists shall indicate the homo-geneous design activity (HDA) number associated with each checklists item (ottribute). This con be accomplished by indicating the HDA number in the " Comments" column or on on ottochment tht clearly establishes the correlation. This is not required for checklists used for overview of corrective action progroms. The " Comments" column may otso be used for any other comments on the attribute, its implementation or its verification. TN-85-6262/6 Poge 5 of 7

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DE51CN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Humber: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS 4.4 Cuwent Document Revisions After March 31,1985 This section applies to self-initiated review scopes. As noted above, special ld review considerations are opplicoble to documents for which the current revision of the document is dated later than March 31,1985. In such cases, the following steps shall be completed by the Reviewer or Assigned Personnel: The lost revision prior to April I,1985, shall be obtained. o All revisions between the revision obtained in the previous o step and the current revision shall be identified and obtained. The Reviewer or Assigned Personnel shall determine the o differences among the revisions and the causes for those revisions, A review shall be conducted using the current revision of o the document and the appropriate design re' dew evoluo-tion checklist completed. Appropriate design review evoluotion checklists shall be o completed to document the review ogainst the review attributes of those aspects of the previous revisions of the document that were chunged in the latest revision. The " Sot /Unsat/NA/NC" column shall be marked as appro-priate. Items that are "Unsot" in the previous revisions shall be processed in occordance with 4.5 (below) in spite of any correction that may have been mode in the current revision. 4.5 Processino of Unsatisfoetory items items found to be unsatisfoetory shall be so noted on the checklist, and shall also be separately compiled and processed in accordonce with the procedures outlined in DAP-2. The DIR number assigned to each unsatisfoetory item shall be listed in the " Comments" column, or os on ottochment to the compiefed checklist with suitable traceability to each unsatisfoetory item. 3 TN-85-6262/6 Poge 6 of 7

4 COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE 4 Number: DAP-6

Title:

REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS Revision: 3 i AND OTER DESIGN OUTPUT DOCUMENTS l 4.6 Approval if the checklist is completed by Assigned Personnel, the " Comments" column shall be annotated with the nome or initials of the person who performed the verification. The Reviewer shall ossure himself of the odequocy of the. completed checklist and sign the " Reviewer" space. After o checklist is completed and signed by the Reviewer, the Discipline Coordinator shall designate o Checker. The Checke shall verify the occurocy of the checklist by reviewing of least 10 percent of the checklist items or o minimum of 5 items. After all comments or questions are resolved with the Reviewer, the Checker shall sign the checklist in the " Checker" space and return to the Discipline Coordinator. The checklist l (- shall be approved by the Discipline Coordinator, who shall sign the " Approved By" line of the checklist sheet. If the Discip!!ne Coordinator is oiso the Reviewer, he shall sign both spaces. 5.0 DOCUMENTATION Upon approval, checklist identification numbers are assigned in accordance with Section 5.3 of DAP-14. Eoch completed checkIlst shall be forwarded to the DAP 3 Monoger for filing in occordance with DAP-14. TN-85-6262/6 Page 7 of 7

b7TAcHs191r TTiiT TITLE DAP OVERVEW OF ACTNITES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROECT OR OTER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATION 5 NUMBER DAP-20 Revision P_repored Date Reviewed Date Approved Date 3[#8'/N I

1. l+IT.

3/"/h 0 ny er 3OM Nk M4 Sd JId-s>A-Nk '/4 70-4, '4n. h(d-4/~/n 2 ~

1. 44 F/'f4 $ L; %

$Lg 4/g 3 { 1 i.'. ".! D LL. f b ' IE(i TN-85-6262/20 i

a TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pooe C o v e r S he e t...................................................... i To b le e f Con t e n t s................................................. ii 1.0 P URP O S E................................................... I 2.0 SCOPE..................................................... I 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES......................... 2 4.0 I NS T R U CT I O N.............................................. 5 Q 5.0 D O CU ME NT AT I ON.......................................... 16 ~ ATTACHMENT A CORRE CTIVE ACTION EV ALUATION.......................... A.! B COMANCHE PEAK ADEQUACYPROGRAM C. CORRE CTIVE ACTION EVALUATION......................... B-l { l i TN-85-6262/20 li

~t COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 l.0 PU3 POSE This procedure defines the extent to which the Design Adequocy Program (DAP) j third-party personnel will overview implementation and corrective action octivi-ties-that are performed by the-Project (or other organizations under the direction of the Project). This procedure also specifies the methods to be used by DAP personnel in performing the overview function. 2.0 SCOPE This procedure applies to oil octivities where DAP third-party personnel have the responsibility of overviewing significant design octivities that are performed under the monogement and control of project organizations. In porticular, this C procedure applies - to the situations where DAP overview is required by Appendix H to the CPRT Program Plon. Other examples of such octivities include Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation's (SWEC) work on ASME piping and supports and Eboseo/impell work on cable troy and conduit supports. The overview octivities that are performed by DAP personnel fall into one of the ~ I following three categories: In-process review of oction plans and procedures; including ld o implementation Final product review of final procedures; implementing o calculations, and other final documents Review and follow-up of specific corrective octions re. o quired as a result of design-related deviations and defic. A i lencies identified by DAP or OOC. Lau TN-854262/20 Pope i of 17 t_

l. COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 3.0 DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 3.1 _ Definitions 3.1.1 In Process Review A "in Process Review" is defined as the review of any Project document or other design-related information that is in o draft or non-finalized state. This is any document or design-related information that has not been formally approved and luued by the Project including any interim use, droit or other documentation where restrictions speelfically applicable to the use of the document (or portions thereof) are clearly stated. Direct observation of Project work activities (e.g., engineering walkdowns) by third-porty personnel is included in this definition. ~ 3.1.2 Fino! Product Review Tinal Product Review" is defined as the review of any document or design-related information thot hos been finalized, opproved, and issued by the Project for use without restrictions, including portions of interim use, draft, or other documentation where it is clear that those portions are opproved for use without lh restrictions. 3.1.3 Corrective Action For the purpose of this procedure, " Corrective Action" is defined as on action required to correct design-related devictions, deficiencies or adverse trends (as defined in the CPRT Progrom Plon) that are within the scope of the DAP review. Corrective Actions will be prescribed by the results of the Design Adequoey Program and will take the form of documentation or hardware modifications. k Corrective Actions will be implemented by the Project ond, to the extent ( TN BS-6262/20 Page 2 of 17

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revisiom 3 i necessary, followed by the DAP to ensure that corrective actions will prevent One Corrective Action may be developed to resolve multiple DIRs g recurrence. (see DAP-2 and DAP-8). 3.l.4 Project Project" refers to TUCCO ond other organizations under the direction of the TUGCO. 3.1.5 OOC "QOC" refers to the third-party Quality of Construction Program. 3.1.6 Deviation, Deficiency, and Programmatic Deficiency Refer to DAP 2 for definition of terms such as deviation, deficiency and progrommotic deficiency. 3.2 Responsibilities i 3.2.1 Review Team Leoder The Review Team Leoder (RTL) is responsible for determining and opproving ti.e odequocy of corrective actions defined by the Project to resolve each DAP-identified or QOC-identified deviation, deficiency, or odverse trend having design significance. When permitted by this procedure, he may delegate this responsibility to the DAP Monoger or the Construction Quality interface Monoger. The RTL may recommend corrective action to the Project subject to SRT opproval when required by this procedure. He may permit the DAP Monoger l TN-85 4262/20 Poge 3 of 17

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE t Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 or the Construction Ovality interface Monoger to make such recommendations to the Project when SRT opproval is not required. O 3.2.2 DAP Monoger and Construction Quality Interfoce Monoger l The DAP Monoger and the Construction Guolity interface Monoger determine the odequocy of corrective actions and make recommendations for corrective actions when delegated this responsibility by the Review Team Leader. 3.2.3 Discipline Coordinators Discipline Coordinators are responsible for opproving the method of review for all overview activities within their discipline and ensuring that those reviews are conducted in occordonce with this procedure. For specific corrective octions, the Discipline Coordinators are responsible for obtaining descriptions of the corrective octions from the Project and ensuring that corrective action evoluo-tions are performed and de umented in occordonce with this procedure. They may delegate responsibility for performing the reviews to others. 3.2.4 Reviewers Assigned reviewers are responsible for performing reviews in occordonce with this procedure, developing the appropriate documentation, and designating the appropriate file distribution for the documentation. I TN-85-6262/20 Page 4 of 17

m 4 COMANCHE PEAK' RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE l j Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CP5ES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS i Revision: 3 { ~- 4.0 INSTRUCTION ( 4.1 Sources of Overview Reavirements Overview of Project octivities by DAP personnel results from the following sources: (PRT commitments in the CPRT progrom plan to have o third-party overview of specific project octivities Project octivities conducted to resolve external source o issues . Corrective oction resulting from deviations, deficiencies o and adverse trends having design significance that are identified by the DAP or QOC. 4.2 Review Methefs, The review methods to be employed in DAP third-porty overview octivities are described in this section. For o porticular overview activity, the appropriate Discipline Coordinator shall determine the applicability of the following subsec-tions that describe these methods. 4.2.1 in Process Review in Process Reviews are optional and relatively informal overview octivities. The in Process Review is designed to provide beneficial involvement of third-party expertise during tSe formulation or early implementation of project corrective i TN-85 4262/20 Page 5 of 17

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED RY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL l ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 oction octivities. Typical activities that are included in this review category are os follows: Review of draf t oction plans that define the scope and o general opprooch of significant work activities to be performed by the Project. Review of draft procedures and instructions that are o being formulated to define the precise methods of imple. mentation and control of significant work activities to be performed by the Project. Review of draft technical documents and supporting in o progress calculations, tests, etc., that are intended to define the resolution of specific technical issues. Review of in progress calculations or inspections during o the early implementation phases of significant work oc-tivities. In Process Reviews are initiated upon mutuoi ogreement of the responsible Discipline Coordinator and the Project or the organization that is performing the work. This review con take the form of meetings or document reviews based on the desires of the requesting organization. In Process Reviews are not performed to formolized checklists but shall assess conformance to the following basic occeptance criterio: items reviewed ore in complionee with CPSES licensing o commitments. items reviewed are occurately presented and are in com-o pliance with the criterio and intent of the DAP. Scopes are sufficiently defined to justify the desired o i conclusions. I I ( TN-85-6262/20 Page 6 of 17 l l 1

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TE AM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CP5ES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 Sompting opprooches and methods, where utilized, are o odequate to justify the desired conclusions. Methods are technically sound and conform to good engin-o eering proctsee. Procedures are sufficiently detailed to ochieve their in-o tended purpose and are comprehensive in covering their intended scope. The results of in Process Reviews will be documented in the form of written comments or summary descriptions of meeting discussions. This requirement becomes effective on the opproval date of Rev. O of this procedure. Further ' detoils on documentation are described in Section 5.0 below. 4.2.2 Final Product Review 1 i Final Product Review is the formal overview octivity of completed CPRT work products developed by the Project. This review shall be done by DAP third-party personnel using formolized checklists ond/or engineering evoluotions developed in occordance with Procedures DAP-4 and DAP.B. Implementing and output document reviews shall be performed following the DAP review procedures defined in Procedures DAP-5 and DAP-6, os appropriate. The finol products that shall be subjected to this review are as follows: All procedures that define the scope, methods and tech-o nical details of implementation. Selected implementing documents (e.g., coleulations, de-o signs) prepared in occordance with the above procedures. The bases for selection (i.e., number, type and method of selection) shall be documented by the appropriate Disci-l i pline Coordinator. As o minimum selection criterion, o sufficient number and variety of implementing documents i ( shall be selected to ossess the full breodth of the os-sociated procedures. TN-85-6262/20 Page 7 of 17 I o I

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

D.AP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY WC CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL 4'AGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 All documents related to the specific resolution of signifi. o cont technical issues that are identified from external source issues or the internal conduct of the DAP. The criterio to be opplied in developing the formalized checklists and in performing the reviews are os follows: Comptionce with CPSES licensing commitments o Resolution of all external source issues and internally o identified discrepancies Adequocy of the work performed in terms of technical o methods and occuracy, control and interfoce. Items found not to be in compliance with applicable criteria and commitments sho!! be indicated as "UNSAT" on checklists, and DIR forms shall be prepared in d occordonee with DAP 2. 4.3 Corrective Actions 4.3.1 Defining Corrective Actions The Project is responsible for defining corrective oction for deviations, deficien-cies and odverse trends having design significance. The Discipline Coordinator responsible for the DIR (see DAP-2) that identifies o deviation, deficiency or odverse trend shall obtain from the Project a proposed corrective oction for that DIR or multiple DIRs which are oddressed by the some corrective oction. The proposed corrective oction description shall be obtained in writing with details odequate to allow a determination of whether the proposed corrective action is odequate to resolve the DIR. In the event that the Discipline Coordinator or other DAP personnel wish to propose o corrective action, the Discipline Coordinator shall cause the proposed corrective action to be documented in a g comparable level of detail. In either case the proposed corrective action shall be evoluoted in occordance with Section 4.3.2 of this pro' edure. c TN-85-6262/20 Page 8 of 17

1 l COMANCT PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTivlTIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 4.3.2 Evoluotion of Corrective Actions Definition The appropriate Discipline Coordinator shall prepare or cause to be prepared a corrective action evoluotion for each formolly proposed corrective action (i.e., each written corrective action description as defined in Section 4.3.1 of this 1 procedure). Where more than one proposed corrective action exists for o DIR, e one evoluotion may be used to cover multiple proposed octions. It is also I occeptoble to perform one evoluotion for o proposed corrective action that oddresses multiple DIR's. If on adverse trend is identified, the corrective action shall include those octions required to preclude recurrence of the problem.A Corrective Action Evoluotion (CAE) cover sheet and form (Attachments A ond B, respectively) shall be completed for each evoluotion. When on issue Resolution Report (IRR) has been prepared, Section 5.0 (see DAP B, Attachment E) of the IRR shuil replace the Corrective Action Evoluotion form (Attochment B). The identification number assigned to each Corrective Action Evoluotion shall consist of "DAP.CAE" plus the specific DIR number to which the proposed corrective action opplies, or "DAP.CAE" plus the engineering evoluotion Number for the IRR. This number shall be placed on both the cover sheet and the evoluotion form. The following guidance is provided for completing the form: 1.0 Description The description of the deviation, deficiency or adverse trend shall be provided using the description contained in the DlR. The &ccription shall also include o statement as to whether the deviation or discreponey is programmatic. 2.0 Description of Corrective Action A summary of the proposed corrective oction shall be (provided. The source of the proposed corrective action i.e., DAP or Project) shall be stated. l TN-85-6262/20 Page 9 of 17

7 1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 3.0 Acceptance Criterio The minimum conditions necessary for the proposed cor-rective action to be found occeptable shall be listed. 4.0 Evoluotion A statement shall be mode on whether the proposed corrective action will correct (or has reasoncble assur-once of correcting) the noted deviations, deficiencies or adverse trends and that the occeptance criterio will be met. The bases for the statement shall be provided including on identification of the level of third-party overview required (see Section 4.3.6). 5.0 Conclusion A conclusion shall be drawn as to whether the proposed t;orrective oction is occeptable. 6.0 Attachments i Attachments shall be used as necessary if the corrective i oction evoluotion form does not provide odequate room to j meet the above requirements. ) Upon completion of the corrective action evolvation, the Discipline Coordinator shall sign and ottoch a corrective oction evoluotion cover sheet (Attochment A) which identifies the Corrective Action Evoluotion or IRR by number, end Q forward the evoluotion to the DAP Monoger (or Construction Quality Interface Monoger, where appropriate). The DAP Monoger or Construction Quality Interfoce Monoger shall review the evoluotion to determine whether he concurs in the conclusion. He shall resolve his comments with the Discipline Coordinator ond sign the cover sheet. Where required by the next section of this procedure, the evoluotion shall be sent to the RTL; otherwise, the DAP Monoger (or Construction Quality Interface Monoger) shall forward the evoluotion or IRR to the oppropriote Project personnel. ( TN-BS-6262/20 Page 10 of 17

l l I-1 COMANCE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE i Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CP5ES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS l Revision: 3 ( Note: The DAP evolvation of a corrective action definition is not required when the corrective oction is specifically defined in the CPRT Program Dion as opproved by the SRT. 4.3.3 RTL Approval of Evoluotions The RTL shall review and concur in the corrective action evoluotion wh corrective oction is due to one of the following conditions: Sofety significant deficiencies identified by the DAP o o Unclassified deviations, IRR's or programmatic deficiencies identified by the DAD lg Design deviations identified by the DAP that involve o o C failure to meet FSAR criteria or commitments, other licensing commitments, or NRC regulations Design deviations identified by the DAP that have been o determined by the Project to meet the deportability criterio set forth in 10 CFR 50.55(e). Except when SRT opproval is required as stated in Section 4.3 4 of this procedure, the RTL shall, upon resolution of any comments with the DAP Monoger (or Construction Quality interface Monoger), sign the cover sheet and forward the Corrective Action Evoluotion or IRR to appropriate Project Q personnel. 4.3.4 SRT Approval SRT opproval is required where on opproved corrective action consists of a corrective action originally proposed by the DAP that involves one of the following: Programmatic corrective actions o TN-85-6262/20 page ll of 17

1 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEOUACY PROCEDURE 4 Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL { l ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 4 Resolution of specific safety-significant deficiencies o Resolution of deviations through a change to the FSAR or o licensing commitments. When SRT opproval is required, the RTL shall indicate that requirement on the evolvation cover sheet and submit the Corrective Action Evoluotion to the SR and provide o copy of the Corrective Action Evoluotion or IRR to appropriate d Project personnel. 4.3.5 Interaction Between DAP and Project Personnel The Project may obtair, ; glorification of a DIR from DAP personnel at any time and DAP personnel may obtcIn clarification of proposed corrective actions of C ony time. Such clarifications may be oral and need not be documented unless it Q is required by DAP 12 or is material to understanding the odequocy of the corrective oction. In ony cose, the exchange of such clarifications shall not offect whether o proposed corrective action is considered to be Project-originated or DAP-recommended. 4.3.6 Overview of Corrective Action implen$entation 'f Third-party overview of Project corrective oction implementation is intended to accomplish the following objectives: o To ensure that the corrective actions for each unclassified deviation, IRR and programmatic deficiency A LD have been ef fectively implemented. To ensure that the corrective actions for each specific o safety-significant deficiency have been ef fectively imple-

mented, To ensure that the corrective actions for eoch specific o

design deviation that involves o failure to meet FSAR ond TN-85-6262/20 Page 12 of 17 l

COMANCHE PE AK RESPONSE TE AM - DESlCN ADEGUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 licensing commitments have been effectively impie-

mented, i

To ensure that the corrective actions for each specific o l deviation i that meets the deportability criterio of 10CFR50.55(e) have been effectively implemented. The Discipline Coordinators are responsible for ensuring that the Project has demonstrated the ability to-successfully implement the defined corrective actions in the opplicable technical and programmatic oreas and to resolve all ospects of the specific deficiency or deviation for which the corrective action is required and to preclude similar deviations and deficiencies from occurring in the future. C( The level of overview required to accompl':h this will vary depending upon the 3 nature of the corrective action required. As a minimum the corrective action evoluotion described in Section 4.3.2 is required. Very prescriptive and straight-forward corrective actions-will obviously require feu overview than complex technical or programmatic corrections. General requirements for the level and method of overview to be employed are os follows: { The Discipline Coordinator shall confirm the odequacy of o the Project's implementation of corrective actions for each DAP-identified design deficiency. Such confirm-otion shall be accomplished by review of the design documentation that reflects the implementation of the corrective oction, and, if applicable, the documentation that demonstrates that the os. constructed condition of the plant is in conformance with the revised design documentation. The Discipline Coordinator shall confirm the odequacy of o the Project's implementation of corrective actions for each specific DAP-identified design deviation that in-volves a failure to meet FSAR criteria or commitments, other licensing commitments, or NRC regulations (i.e., 10CFR). The nature and extent of the confirmatory ( TN-854262/20 Page 13 of 17 l ___________-_______a

COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEGUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 4 octivities will vary depending upon the nature of the corrective oction defined for each design deviation. In this regard, the following considerations shall opply: - The extent to which the defined corrective action is specific (i.e., not subject to interpretation with respect to implementation). - The extent to which the defined corrective action is complex (i.e., involving a set of related octivities where interface considerations are of importance). - The extent to which the defined corrective action is, of itself, dispositive of the underlying design deviation ~ (i.e., not dependent upon additional onclyses or evolvo-tions). The confirmatory octivities will include, of a minimum, review of the design documentation that reflects the Implementation of the corrective action, and, if appli-cable, the documentation that demonstrates that the os-constructed condition of the plant is in conformance with the revised design documentation, if the SRT has concurred with a defined corrective action that resolves a deviation through o justifiable change to lA existing FSAR or licensing commitments and if such l 4.M { I change does not involve o redesign or reonolysis, DAP confirmatory overview shall not opply. The Diselpline Coordinator shall confirm the odequocy of o the Project's irr.plementation of corrective octions for any other design ceviation:, that meet the deportability criterio set forth in 10CFR50.55(e). For such cases, the confirmatory octivities wil: be governed by the con-siderations and criterio described above for the cose of a failure to meet FSAR criterio or commitments. The Discipline Coordinator shall confirm the odequocy of o the Project's implementation of corrective octions for each DAP-identified unclassified deviation, IRR or programmatic deficiency. Such corrective octions are b expected to be defined in the form of revisions to Project policies, programs, and implementing procedures or instructions relatei to design activities, including but not l { TN-85-6262/20 Page 14 of 17 I

4 COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE 1-Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY I THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 limited to design control. DAP confirmatory octivities will be accomplished through reviews of the revised documents that reflect such changes. The Discipline Coordinator shall determine the need for o and extent of corrective oction overviews for any other deviations using the some considerations described above for the cose of a failure to meet FSAR criterio, The above general requirements shall also be applied by o the DAP to deviations and deficiencies with design sig-nificance identified by the QOC. As a minimum, on engineering evoluotion shall be prepared to document the completion of the DAP overview octivity for the scope of each corrective action. The engineering evoluotion shall describe the scope, methods and results j of the review. Particular emphasis is to be ploced on describing the basis for the selected implementation reviews and the bases for confidence that all corrective actions will be effectively implemented. The format for the engineering evoluo-i tion shall follow the outline contained in Section 4.3.2, unless on alternative format is specified by memorandum by the Discipline Coordinator. The DAP overview octivities may be documented within related DAP topical engineering evoluotions or within specific engineering evoluotions initiated for the sole purpose of documenting the evoluotion of CPSES project corrective action implementation. The engineering evoluotion shall describe the DAP overview octivities os we!! as the corrective action summary. When electing to follow the format specified in Section 4.3.2, this description shall be provided in Section 2.0, Description of Corrective Action. ' 4.4 Applicability to TRT issues This procedure may be opplied by the Civil / Structural / Mechanical (CSM) Review Team Leoder to design deviations and deficiencies (including programmatic deficiencies) identified by CSM personnel in the course of implementing the ( TN-85-6262/20 Poge IS of 17

~ COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORCANIZATlONS Revision: 3 Action Plons associated with CSM TRT issues. The RTL election in use this procedure may be in the form of a memorandum to appropriate personnel odvising them of the opplicobility of this procedure, in such a cose the RTL shall a designate specific individuals for eoch TRT issue to perform the responsibilities described in this procedure for the DAP Monoger (or Construction Quality Interface Monoger) and Discipline Coordinator. The designated individuals may be the some individuals that would perform these functions for DAP identified deviations and deficiencies. 5.0 DOCUMENTATION 5.1 in Process Reviews in Process Reviews shall be documented in the form of written comments or summary meeting descriptions. Contact log sheets (see DAP-12) may be used to meet this requirement. This documentation shall be placed in the DAP Files in occordance with DAP-14. 5.2 Final Product Reviews Final Product Reviews shall be documented by engineering evoluotions and, where appropriate, formalized checklists. Calculations or inspection reports may also be originated to support the engineering evoluotion conclusions. Discrepancies identified in the course of final product reviews shall be docu-mented on DIR forms in occordonce with DAP.2. Documentation resulting from final product reviews shall be ploced in the DAP Files in occordonce with DAP-14. TN-85-6262/20 Page 16 of 17

l COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM - DESIGN ADE Number: DAP-20

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS Revision: 3 5.3 _Correetive Aetion Definition Evoluotions Corrective Action Evoluotions shall be documented and given iden numbers os required by this procedure. This documentation shall be cation DAP Files in accordance with DAP.14. n the 5.4 _ Corrective Action Overview Corrective oction reviews shall be documented by formal chec engineering evoluotions. or Discrepancies identified during a corrective action overview shall be documented on DlR forms in accordonce Documentation resulting from corrective action overviews shall be DAP Files in accordance with DAP-14. n the ( Results of confirming overview of corrective oction activities shall be reported by the Discipline Coord port of the Discipline-Specific Results Report or in o supplement to I TN-85 4262/20 Page 17 of 17 _-___-___________m

I ATTACHMENT A CORRECTIVE ACTIONEVALUATION i \\ NUMBER: DAP-CAE. (EnteIDi'd Number) or DAP-E-(Enter Engineering Evolvation Number for IRR) Revision b Proposed Corrective Action is: ] Accepted Not Accepted i Date Discipline Coordinator Approved: i Date i DAP Monoger/ Construction Ovality Interface Monoger RTL APPROVAL REQUIRED? Yes ]No ~ j 1 i Approved: Date Review Team Leoder SRT APPROVAL REQUIRED? ]Yes [_ No TNT-85-6262/20 A-1

ATTACHMENT B Evoluotion Numbar: D AP.C AE - COMANCtf PEAK ADEQUACY PROGRAM Rev: CORRECTIVE ACTION EVALUATION Number of Sheets: DAP Discipline: Issue /Discreponey

Title:

Description of issue /Discreponey: Structure (s), System (s), or Component (s) Affected: COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING. USE ATTACHMENTS AS ECESSARY. Description of Corrective Action: Acceptonce Criterio:

References:

Evoivation: { i

== Conclusion:== D Acceptoble D Not Acceptoble l Prepored By/Date / Checked By/Date / FORM DAP-70 2

\\ h{ht.$ { w%. COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM DESIGN ADEQUACY PROCEDURE ADDENDUM Procedura: DAP-20 Revision: 3 Addendum: 1

Title:

DAP OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE CPSES PROJECT OR OTHER EXTERNAL ORGANIZATIONS PURPOSE This addendum provides for the use of an Overview Comment Record to record comments during "in process" reviews. [ SCOPE Section 5.1, "In Process Reviews," has been revised to read as follows: i In Process Reviews shall be documented in the form of written C. comments or summary meeting descriptions. Contact log sheets (see DAP-12) or Overview Comment Records (Attachments C and D) may be used to meet this requirement. The DAP Manager or his designee shall j develop and control an appropriate numbering system for { overview Comment Records. This documentation shall be placed in the DAP Files in accordance with DAP-14. INSTRUCTION 3 This addendum (including Attachments C and D which are attached o to this Addendum) shall remain in effect until approval of the next revision of DAP-20. This addendum shall be securely ) attached to each controlled copy of DAP-20. ) Prepared By: k_ ab Date: NLI7 s kb ab Date: Ad37 Reviewed By: ~ \\ ~ l t Approved By: (

2. [3[t)

,/ t-w Date: TN-85-6262/20/DAPA I t

1 OVERVIEW COMMENT RECORD ( CPRT DESIGN ADEQUACY PROGRAM { TO: CONTROL NO. DAP.OCR. i nRCANIZATION: NO. P ACES: (INCL. ATT ACHVENTS) ADDRESS:

SUBJECT:

ATTN:

pggg, PRIMARY REFERENCEf5):

ADDRESS: DVP NO.: O INFORMATION ONLY O RESPONSE REOUESTED DISCIPLINE: COMMENTS: O NO COMMENTS REFEREN / { CfTATION I F-C ( l (Use additional sh.ets as n.ceanery.3 ItKTIALS: REVIEWERt, CROUP LEADER: DATE: ACTIONG): D NO ACTION REQUESTED RESPONSIBillW CPRT ADDRE5SEE (u. 6amon.i m,... ,y,3 OCR DISTRIBUTION: i L. E ATES R.CRUBB H. LEVIN E. WA15 F.B JRCE55 R. KL AUSE F.DOUCHERTY a D. WITT

5. Ki> RPYAK FILE COPY (BETHESDA)

J. MILLER

i. E. MACKWC LC T. T'n.ER FILE COPY (BERKELEY)

R. PEWMAN C.MCFTCAT

5. 5TAMM FILE COPY (SITE)

F. 5CHDFER C. KIMER J. CAM T Y T. $NYDER D.NY%AH R.ACKLEY D. BROSNAN _- F. LAt*)v5KI R. ICT"i ammewa w= - 4,w FORM DAP.2tL4. j i i __--_-------t---. s

OVERVIEW COMMENT RECORD COWROL NO: DAP.OCR. CONTINUATION SNET PACE OF e em t O e FORM DAP 30.3b

y ),

5n C. -p] ;

?.. gl Mcy,ggyr 1r i i e ~~um.m u di ,g. CDPMNCE PEAK DESIGN REVIEW

SUMMARY

DCD0 !ST 'N CHEO/1.!ST NUMBER DAP-CLR,,QO?,, ' _REV. O y.y DSAP Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) Oficino Analv*,f 1 i/,fuocort Deslan l Procedares ) Decoments Reviewed Doeument Nanyt Numbr?.- f,,,g,v, p.g.),g, $a fe t y-Me1g,t,gg, N y,qi

ttg, Pipe Stress / Support Requalification s

Procedure 1 [P,,,,P,JM .;L 11/28/86 X Design Criterft for l Pipe Stress A M ) Ploe Suenorts_. CPPP-7 ,1, 4,f25/86 X_ s Deserlation of Review Ecoce and Purnose. The sdoor s Q Fj h jg d ncluder the complef ti E.h.f eklist DAP-CLC_M2 Revision 0. assg&jyd_cameAq,1,s. and DIRs e which wtre revised as a resd.t R.4.' lM jmpirmt$stiett of the check 11st. - u a;a ~.---,_w"' Yhe ourngg,,gf lgh,,g,,g,y,[sy,,,Lp,,,gg,wify_ the,t tPr A6pektist vps_l_moln rntet RER2itivi.ind that.,f:Ar_.q y M,,g1Rs ere fonstste n with th W Dteklist ~ attribetev, m_g.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, \\ 3 e. 4 .u.,. u. w, 4 . 3 Whn" Mepp s p' s Warrst.uf stemenE8 9 ^ ^ e tri.bmus.s/ Jugr__ uew ss - e ME---' -"Ar' es m. _ SN.I.umsE F m ( ^^ & _k eu.mer lu.uu.P mis um e. m. M M -(M4M M em.pp _.musu.m ' w n.s.-- Page 1,of 3, f k _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. -. - - - - - - - ~ ' " - - - - ' ' " ^ ' ' ' ' - - - ^ - ~ ~ - - ~^~

4 t.ist Deston Criteria for this Review. The desion criteria eDDlicable to this review are identified in the Desion Criteria List. DAP-CR-P-001. Revision 2. l i i Assumptions t.lsted for Each Document? Yes X No Are ';4e Assumptions Reasonable and Valid? Yes X No Are the Assumptions Consistent with Design Criteria /Japlementing Documents? Yes X No / Have all Assumptions which Require Verification Seen Verified? Yes No I Coseents on Assumptions (Discuss Each "No" Answer Above) M,,gL t he a t t r i bu t es on the c hee' i l s t (ma r ke d *Nff *_p,g_fg"),_h@en w idte:Of,Jgg reovirino verif tpsilp9 -Jurino imoigfr;ggle,tig_r_gylew, ffgiQgnjlly, some of the queets_of verlous comments for attelt@_identifieJ as (MAT are identified as resuirino verification durino the teolyagig,,t,jyn ggggg Thvu itces wi11 be Iis_tgf in the F1nel Sgrvei))ance Audit Revy6 0q,,pg st gjjjfd by DA9 to TU Elegtric f n accordance_wLib,,Jil.E.Lh*_9fran.fd4T 9. 1 _._ i f,pte6 Aeri1 10. 1997. .1 6 't T Page E of 2, i 6

4 Are the References Including Data Sources (for the Documents Reviewed) Listed? Yes I No. Are References Sufficiently identified with Revision er Date? Yes I No _. Comments en Referencess (Discuss Each "No" Anseser Alpove) Here Changes free Specified Design Criteria Identified, as esell as the Reasons for the Chan0e? N/A Mas an Appropriate Design Method Used? No. Esplain: These items. for which the desinn nethod was incorrect, are _ _, identified as tMSAT on the checklist. pjRe reeardi,gt,,,Qttse (UNSAT) conditions . have been revised to refleet Jhe cerd for the fyhg'dm_hlf tv Assurance Audit Pronram (TAP) to assure their resoluQgn, _M , M MnW M. > ' M5WLW a.o Page } of 1

List Computer Progrees Used. Prooram NUPIPE-SW Wrrified PITRUST _ Neference _ Ves/No PILUG _ CPPP-7 ~ CPPP-7 ~ _ No STE "* _ CPPP-7 No PITRIFE ~ No WAT := CPPP-7 L'*MEL UG _ CPPP-7 No JL ELBDW CPPP-7 __ CPPP-7 No inECTRA __ CPPP-7 No STRUDL-SW _ CPPP-7 No STRuDAT _ CPPP-7 No SANDUL No CPPP-7 No BASE-FLATE-II CPPP-7 No SIP No APE __ CPPP-7 CPPP-7 No _ _D PLOT CPPP-7 No ADL PIPE BAP _ CPPP-7 CPPP-7 No No RSPLT CPPP-7 No P-DELTA STRUDL CPPP-7 CPPP-7 No NLW_ CPPP-7 No No __^ -= Are the Computer Outputs Reasonable Cer@ArJa to inputs?-- N/A . (ILE,l3[n_ The ChggdigLy33 used to documer t a review of the method l gloiru an,alvs,1, lam sunosrt desion_ as described in the moorooriat o oav fer Boecific analvi k,y,gg,dtg auch as com_n_ uter og ggt retain to be vertf e crocedures. 1AP. e y the_., t O e Page 3,of 1

i o e Summaris.t Results of the Review. The review indicated that SWEC orocedures CPPP-6 & 7 were adeouatelv reviewed aaminst the established desion criteria and that items found unsatisfactory were gg usented in amoropriate DIRs. Additionally. those items which could not be reviewed will be identified in the Final Surveillance Audit Resort referred to above. 3 Discrepancies Identified (if applicable) (Reference DAPTS DIR Numbert No dinerocaneles were found anainst the checklist. Numerous DIRs were revised and closed based on the crocedure review. DIRs C-0024. C-0029. C-0060 and C-0072 conclude unsatisfactory conditions remain to be resolved. Reoulred resolution of these cond!tions will At assured by the TAP in iceerdage with TU Memorandum CPRT-876. List Rafterenres Checklist DAP-CLC-P-002. Revision 0. Desinn Cri~teria List DAP4R-P-00!dy,,i,;gjan # W_12 & b Reviewer 19-s7 Date f M 7- /~ 77 Discipiine Coordinator Date 1 Page } of Q

C A P IX. 7. c_-m 2cco f \\ TACH 4Eivr ~[ \\ ( \\,. 4 COMANCHE PEA > i DESIGN REVIEW

SUMMARY

CHECKLIST CHECKLIST NUMBER LAP-CL P-061. Geg.,1 4 DSAP Review Topic Number (s)/ Title (s) Ficino Anelvtis,'Seeport besten } f_r_r;e.ipur e s Documents Reviewed: Document Name Number Rev Date $_efety-Related 1231_ .No P:pe Stress /Suppo.t Fequalification Procedure CFFF-6 1 16/31/65 y Design Craterna for hpe Strees and Pipe Suceorts CFFF *7 _1 11/u4/05 x Description of Review FI,ggs, and PyIp_eje. The scoce c f tjn e revic. s oelen;, ' the comple* cd eby_;l'lif LJfMC-001. Revjijins ! end 2, ess:.ciete ec weats. and DIRs each_wgre orne_reted or. e re sul t of_ the teelen entet s on c{pe checilist. -$ 'Wm. 83 The sorreu of thi s revi,s.u terw ev tou_ tic _.E1.s.W u w_er M-I egl.,,t.s;LP_c orer i v t h a t t h.t er.nerf tges 01Ef ere e;.ns iv +en wi+h the che; w e I f,.7,t r l JtL e s, e r.d t h & t t hLchpoqer 3rqrgporete,ci ir. R geg 3 e.n 2 cc.nic..*m to DAC t re..,,-en.s. i j m i Feer ; (d l l l

h List Design Criteria for this Review. The desian eriteria acolicable to this j review are identified in the Desion Criterie List. DAP-CR-P-001. Revisten 1. Assumptions Listed for Each Document? Yes X No Are the Assumptions Reasonable and Valid? Yes X No Are the Assumptions Consistent with Design Criteria / Implementing Documents? Yes X No Have all Assumptions which Require Verification Been Verified? Yes No X Commer;ts on Assumptions (Discuss Each "No" Mtwr Abwe) $snv of,1he att rity,,tudm the ehrf t:lis,1,(m(rked "N/C",!)ove been ideAtified f gl'g;;oirino verification tjurino gp,,lementction review. Additionally, some _ f g{,,,the aserets of ver,,leus commepnts fo_r et'tribuj,ty_ identified es LPGAT ere_,,,,_ .identif13g as reJuirly;mLfga,tht,,,,dur ino,the_ isolementatipn renew. ) l T,_h ;e i tems a,r,2,,,hgine incorcy,r13,ey,21_fitIgg,typ on the imolementatign ht I2yle checi: list. i Page E of L ________a

l; e Are the References Including Data Sources (for the Documents Reviewed) Listed? Yes X No _ 1 Are References Sufficiently Identified with Revision or Date? l Yes X No I l-Comments on References (Discuss Each "No" Answer Above) l i Were Changes from Specified Design Criteria Identified, as we!! as the Reasons for the Charge? N/A Was an Appropriate Design Method Used? _NO Explain: Ihrse itemi,_f,py which the desion method an incorrectnf re ig.rytti_fted at t.NSAT en the chetHist and on thi g p3 criste DIR U Sturd. nea.e M J W N's _454dWEW3 i i

== j \\ Pege }. of 1 i

List Computer Programs Used. 1 Procram Verified NUPIPE-SW PITRUST _ Reference __ _Yes/No CPPP-7 P1 LUG __ CPPP-7 _ NO PITRIFE CPPP-7 JO_. STE HAM __ CPPP-7 __ too WA4 HAM CPPP-7 ___ NO WAR 5 LUG CPPP-7 _ NO ELF 0W ,__ CPPP-7 __ NO PSPECTRA CFPP-7 _ NO STRUDL-SW _. CPPP-7 NO STRUDAT CPPP-7 _ NO 1 SANDUL CPPP-7 __ NO BASE-PLATE-II CPPP-7 _. NO BIP CPPP-7 _ NO NO APE CPPP-7 NO CHPLOT CPPP-7 ADL PIPE CPPP-7 _ NO BAP CPPP-7 ND _ { BSPLT CPPP-7 _ NO P-DELTA STRUDL CPPP-7 _ NO NO NUDL CPPP-7 NO CPPP-7 _ NO m__ Are the Computer Dutputs Reasor,able Coroared to Inputs? N/A Explains,7tht Checklirt_was_ used to document a review of the eetn gjp,L,g pn} gly 11s and succort desion as descr.,Qg,jLLn thy 3yrgrg o o oov f r 2 gedures. Seceifte analysis results such as gpmourer octeut wal) ty p-gffj,ng _the isolamentetion r9yjgw, __ _ynjfa rd_ i ~ 1 'W-- e-M 4 k -- Page $ of E

4 Summarire Results of the Review. The review indicated that the SWEC orocedure. CPFP-6 t, 7. were adeoustely 1F reviewed eceinst the established desion criteria and that items found unsetisfectory were documented in apocooriete DIRs. Additionally, those items which could not be reviewed were identified es ettributes to be included in the implementation review checklist. Revision 1 of the checklist was the initial review of the crocedures. There is no Revision O. Revision 2 of the checklist was issued to acceeolish the followinor o Correct "! TEN /fSSUE DESCRIPTION" and " ATTRIBUTE" titles o Correct acoreoriete Desion Criteria numbers in accordence with revt-sion I to the Desten Criteria List o Aeoend appreoriete DIR numbers for DIRs.which had been issued aapinst the crocedures Discrepancies Identified (if applicable) (Reference DAPTS DIR humber) No discrecencies were found easinst revision 2 of the checklist. The followino DIRs were isynff socinst the SWEC arecedures: Q-0016 throvah C-0045 _Revssien 0 _ C-0047 throuch C-007'4 R,eyjpi3r 0 List Referencess Checklist DAP-CLC-P-0,01, Revisgn 1 f, Revisjpn 2 Deston Qriteria List DAP-CR-P-001, Revision 1 4 - /G -6"7 Sv/ ewer i c) Date f W S l7 7 Disfa'pline Coordinator Date Page i of [ L ____

i Lt UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-445-OL ) 50-446-OL TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) COMPANY et al. ) ) (Application for an (Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) Operating License) Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas A. Schmutz, hereby certify that the foregoing Attachments to Applicants' Answers to Board's 14 Questions was served this 31th day of December 1987, by mailing copies thereof (unless otherwise indicated), first class mail, postage prepaid, to

• Peter B. Bloch, Esq.

Assistant Director for Chairman Inspection Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coraanche Peak Project Division Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission P.O. Box 1029

• Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.

Granbury, Texas 76048 Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing

• Juanita Ellis Appeal Panel President, Case U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1426 South Polk Street Commission Dallas, Texas 74224 Washington, D.C.

20555 William H. Burchette, Esq.

• B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Esq.

Herron, BUrchette, Ruckert, & Chairman Rothwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 700 Board Panel 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20007 Washington, D.C. 20555 Asterisk indicates service by hand or overnight courier

f i

• Mr. William L. Clements Joseph Gallo, Esq.

Docketing & Service Branch Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1150 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Commission Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20036

• Billie Pirner Garde
• Janice E. Moore, Esq.

Government Accountability Office of the General Project Counsel Midwest Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 104 E. Wisconsin Avenue - B Commission Appleton, Wisconsin S4911-4897 Washington, D.C. 20555 Renea dicks, Esq.

• Anthony Roisman, Esq.

1401 New York Avenue, N.W. Assistant Attorney General Suite 600 Environment Project Division Capitol Station Washington, D.C. 20005 P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78701 Lanny A. Sinkin Christic Institute Robert A. Jablon, Esq. 1324 North Capitol Street Spiegel & McDiarmid Washington, D.C. 20002 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Nancy Williams CYGNA Energy Services, Inc.

• Elizabeth B. Johnson 2121 N. California Boulevard Oak Ridge National Suite 390 Laboratory Walnut Creek, California 94596 P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 David R. Pigott, Esq.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe

• Dr. Walter E. Jordan 600 Montgomery Street r/c Carib Terrace Motel San Francisco, California 94111 522 N. Ocean Boulevard Pompano Eeach, Florida 33062
• Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.

Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels & Robert D. Martin Wooldridge Regional Administrator, 2001 Bryan Tower Regional IV Suite 3200 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dallas, Texas 75201 Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive

• W.G. Counsil Suite 1000 Executive Vice President Arlington, Texas 76011 Texas Utilities Electric -

General Division

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 400 N. Olive, L.B.

81 Administrative Judge Dallas, Texas 75201 1107 West Knapp Stillwater, Oklahoma 74075 / /Igntt ' {4k[ Thomas A. Schmutz / Dated: December 31, 1987 l}}