interim technical report - nrc: home page · interim technical report diablo canyon unit 1...

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc

Interim Technical Report

DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAYi

SHAKE TABLE TESTING—

REVISION 0

Docket No..50-275License No. DPR-76

8207300233 820723PDR ADOCK 05000275

'. P PDR

Project Manager DateApproved P 105-4-839-004f

SHAKE TABLE TESTING REPORT

List of Figures

Program Manager's Preface

1.0 Introduction and SummaryPurpose and. ScopeSummaryBackground

2.0 Independent Design Verification Methods

2.1 Procedures2.2 Licensing Criteria

3.,0 Independent Review of Wyle Shake Table Testing

1122

45

4, ~

66

17

3.1 Examination of Wyle Testing'pproach 6

3.1.1 Grouping, of Equipment3.,1.,2 Testing Sequence

3.2 Development of RL'CA Worst Case Response Spectra 7* 'I

3.3 Comparison of Response Spectra llI

3.,3.1'LCA'orst Case-Response Spectra/Wyle llTest Response Spectra

3.,3.2 Wyle Target Test Response Spectra/Wyle 14Test Response Spectra

* *

3.4 EOI Reports Issued 16~ 4

3.5 Evaluation of Wyle Shake Table Testing

0 Conclusion of Shake Table Testing Review 18

5.0 Figures

6.0 References

19

25

AppendixAppendixAppendixAppendix

AppendixAppendixAppendix

A-BC-D

E-FG-

EOI ReportsCalculation of TorsionKey Term DefinitionsSummary — Seismic Qualification of Class IEInstrumentation. and'Electrical EquipmentGrouping of= EquipmentTypical Wyle'PlotProgram Manager's Assessment

SHAKE TABLE TESTING REPORT

'4

Typical Spectra ComparisonPlot

Comparison Plot of Group VIHorizontal Spectra

Comparison-Plot of Group VIVertical Spectra

Magnified"Comparison Plot * ~

of Typical Group VI VerticalSpectra

Wale Test Spectra SmoothedThrough Minima

20

21

22

23

24

PROGRAM MANAGER'S PREFACE

DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - UNIT IINDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM

INTERIM TECHNICAL REPORT

SNKE TABLE TESTING

This is the fourth of a series of Interim Technical Reports

prepared by the DCNPP-IDVP for the purpose of providing a conclusionof the program.

This report provides the results of an evaluation of seismicshake table testing by PGKE and service related contractors of Class

1E electrical equipment and instrumentation, as well as summarizes theIDVP recommendations and conclusions.

As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services has

approved this ITR including the conclusions and recommendations. The

methodology followed by TES in performing this review and evaluationis described by Appendix G to this report.

ITR Reviewed and Approved

IDVP Program Manager

Teledyne Engineering Services

R. Wray

Assistant Project Manager

111

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

This Interim Technical Report summarizes theindependent review of the seismic shake table testing ofthe Class IE electrical equipment and instrumentation atthe Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit I (DCNPP-1).The purpose of the review was to determine if the- seismictesting procedure conformed to the licensing criteria.

This Interim Report includes the independentreview of the tests and results for the Class IE elect-rical equipment and instrumentation that were testedby PGandE and service-related contractors.

This report is one of many Interim TechnicalReports. Interim Technical Reports include analytical *

references, results:, sample definitions and. descriptions,methodology,. a listing of Error and Open Items, anexamination of trends and concerns, and a conclusion, asdiscussed at the June 10, 1982, Nuclear RegulatoryCommission (NRC) meeting in Waltham, Massachusetts.This report presents a conclusion on the seismic.shake table testing of-- Class IE electrical equipmentand instrumentation and'erves- as a vehicle for NRCreview. It will also be referenced in the Phase IFinal Report.

fF

This report does not include the review of theequipment mounting for shake table testing, which. willbe the subject of another report. Nor does it include thefunctional requirements of the electrical equipment,which will be evaluated in Phase II.

According to. the Hosgri Report, shake table testingat DCNPP-1 was limited to items of electrical equipmentand instrumentation. Robert L. Cloud.and Associates (RLCA)selected a sample of the items previously tested by PGandEand service-related contractors. This sample comprisedseven groups of items tested by Wyle Labs.

RLCA reviewed the Wyle grouping and testing sequencefor electrical equipment and instrumentation. The reviewincluded both a field verification and a comparison oftest results to the licensing criteria. As a result ofthe review, RLCA identified a concern and recommendedadditional reviews to address this concern.

On September 28,=- 1981 PGandE -reported that a diagramerror had been found in a portion of the-seismicqualification of the Diablo Canyon"Nuclear Power Plant.=(DCNPP). This error- resulted in an incorrect applicationof'he seismic floor response spectra= for- sections of- theannulus of the. Unit 1 containment building. The= errororiginated when PGandE transmitted a sketch of Unit 2 toa consultant. This sketch was incorrectly identified asUnit 1 geometry.

'

~ -- ~ As a result of- this -error,' seismic reverificationprogram--was established to determine if- the seismicqualification- of. the plant was adequate for the.postulated -Hosgri-7..5M<-earthquake. -"This program"waspresented orally- to the NRC in a meeting in Bethesda/Maryland on October =9, 1981.

-Robert L." Cloud and Associates (RLCA) presented a .

preliminary report"for the Seismic Reverification Programto the NRC on= November 12," 1981., The NRC Commissionersmet"during the"week of November" 16;" 1981, to review thepreliminary report and the overall situation. OnNovember .19, 1981 an-Ord'er Suspending"License CLI-81-30was issued which. suspended PGandE's license to load fueland conduct low- power tests up to 5% of rated power atDCNPP-l.=- This suspending order. also specified that anIndependent Design Verification Program (IDVP) beconducted to assure that the plant met the licensingcriteria.,

PGandE retained RLCA as program manager to developand implement a program that would address the concernscited in the Order Suspending License CLI-81-30. PhaseI plan for this program was transmitted to the NRC onDecember 4, 1981 and discussed with the NRC staff onFebruary 3, 1981. Phase I deals with seismic service-related contracts prior to June 1978.

On March 19, 1982 the NRC approved TeledyneEngineering Services (TES) as program manager to replaceR.. L. Cloud Associates. However, RLCA continued toperform the independent review of seismic, structural andmechanical aspects of Phase I.

The NRC approved the Independent Design VerificationProgram Phase I Engineering Program Plan on April 27,1982. This plan dictates that a sample of piping,equipment, structures and components be selected forindependent analysis. The results of these analyses areto be compared to the design analyses results. If theacceptance criteria is exceeded, an: Open Item Report isto be filed. The progress of different segments of thetechnical work is to be explained in Interim TechnicalReports.

2.0 INDEPENDENT DESIGN VERIFICATION METHODS

2.1

RLCA used the following procedure to verifythat the seismic shake table testing of the Class IEIE electrical equipment and instrumentation met thelicensing criteria.

To obtain a representative sample, RLCAreviewed the list of Class IE electrical equipmentand instrumentation qualified by shake table testing(Appendix D). This list was narrowed down because the

NRC Order Suspending License, CLI-81-30, required thatthe IDVP examine only PGandE internal activities andthose of seismic service-related contractors.

Seven, groups of items tested at Wyle Labs werechosen as the sample as shown in Appendix E. First,RLCA reviewed the test procedure Wyle used to testthe seven groups of- Class IE electrical equipmentand instrumentation., Each group contained. items froma common plant location. Second, RLCA .verified the-location of the electrical equipment and instrument-ation included in all seven groups.

I

Third'« RLCA developed "worst case" responsespectra for each group. These spectra provide thehighest seismic accelerations associated- with- thelocation of the group. Last, RLCA made two responsespectra comparisons. The RLCA worst=case responsespectra, (worst case spectra) was compared to theWyle -test response spectra- (test spectra). The Wylet:arget. test response spectra (target spectra) wascompared to the test spectra.

All negative results obtained in any of thethree tasks were reported by RLCA as Open Items(See section 3.4) .

2.2

RLCA verified the seismic shake table testing ofClass IE electrical equipment and instrumentation usingthe Diablo Canyon Nulear Power Plant licensing criteria.This licensing criteria is specified in the FSAR andHosgri Report (References 14 and 18).

The Hosgri Report stipulates that the electricalequipment shall be evaluated according to the seismicguidelines in the IEEE Standard for Qualifying Class lEEquipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, (IEEE344-1975). RLCA reviewed only those requirements includedin the IEEE-344 that are related to seismic qualifications.

The Hosgri Report also specifies that the shake tabletesting be. done according to the seismic methods specifiedin- the Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.,100 (Reference 14). Thisregulatory guide also cites Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.89which cites IEEE Standard 323-1974. (References 2 and 4)

3.0 INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF WYLE SHAKE TABLE TESTING

3.1

The following sections discuss the testing approachapplied by Wyle for the shake table testing of the sevengroups.

3.1.1

The seven groups of items tested by Wyle Labs wereclassified by location as shown in Appendix E. All ofthese items are located in the turbine and auxiliarybuildings. In cases where items appeared in more than onelocation (i.e, snap lock limit switch), Wyle placed themin the group with the highest Hosgri seismic spectra.Because the equipment was grouped by location, a singletarget spectra could be developed for each group. Thistarget spectra was= intended- to represent the highestHosgri seismic spectra associated with that location.

3.1.2

A Wyle target spectra was developed for each- groupthat corresponded to the highest Hosgri seismic spectraassociated with that. location. The items within eachgroup were tested together to this target spectra.

The actual testing of these groups was done bymounting the items on -the test machine table. A controlaccelerometer was mounted to the table to monitor-themachine inputs. The equipment items'were tested withsimultaneous random biaxial vibration. Tests wereconducted in two orientations: side to side and vertical,and front to back and vertical.

The Wyle testing sequence included a minimum offive simulated operating basis earthquakes (OBEs) and twosimulated safe shutdown earthquakes (SSEs). The OBElevels were set at- 60$ of the SSE levels. The durationfor each of the test was 30 seconds. Wyle then plottedthe control accelerometer-records (test spectra) againstthe target spectra. An example of the Wyle comparisonplot is shown in Appendix F.

3.2

RLCA developed the worst case response spectra foreach of= the seven groups by enveloping the applicableHosgri response spectra (Reference 14). Spectra presen-ted in- the Hosgri Report were generated for two time-histories according to building, floor location, elevation,type and damping.

o Building *.Each item in the group was field verified byRLCA.

o Floor locationEach item in the group was field verified byRLCA.

o Elevation .

Each item in the group was field, verified byRL'CA.

o Type r ~ ~ ~

The types of- spectra comprise both verticaland horizontal. The horizontal consists ofEast-West translation, North-South translation,East-West- torsion and North-South torsion.To develop worstcase vertical spectra, RLCAused spectra directly from the Hosgri. Report.Torsion effects are not considered for verticalspectra (Reference -14)." The RLCA worst case-horizontal response spectra were developed byadding torsion effects to the translationspectra (See Appendix B).

o DampingThe Hosgri Report specifies a damping ratioof 4% for welded equipment- (Reference 14).Wyle chose to test the items for 3% damping(Reference 8). The- RLCA worst case spectrawere based on 3% damping in order to facil-itate the comparison to Wyle"test spectra..=The damping value is inconsequential in testingas long as the same value is used throughout(Reference 19).

The RLCA worst case response spectra in both thehorizontal and vertical directions were developed foreach group as shown below.

All items in group I are located in the switchgeararea of the turbine building, at elevation 119 ft.In the turbine building, PGandE increased the trans-lation spectra by 10$ to account for torsion effects(Reference 14).

All items in group II are located in the dieselgenerator area of the turbine building at elevation85 ft.. In the. turbine building, PGandE increased thetranslation spectra by 10% to account for torsioneffects (Reference 14).

All items. in group III are located in the cablespreading and control room areas of the auxiliarybuilding at elevations 128 and 140 ft..

~ - The Hosgri--Report gives .spectra for elevation 115and 140 ft , not 128 -ft.. Elevation 128 ft. -spectrais generally interpolated. from 115 and 140 ft. spectra(Reference 14)'. RLCA developed the worst. case spectrafrom Hosgri elevation .140 ft. spectra. This is aconservative simplification because the 140 ft."spectraenvelop the 115 ft. spectra. For. the horizontal East-West spectra, the largest torsion arm was determined tobe 23 ft. (Reference 16). For the horizontal North-South spectra, the largest torsion arm was determinedto be ill ft,. (Reference 16).

At elevation 140 ft., PGandE used two separatemodels to generate vertical Hosgri response spectra.

l. A lumped-mass model of the entirebuilding was analyzed for the ver-tical input.

2. A finite element model of the controlroom slab was analyzed for verticalinput by applying the time historydeveloped in the lumped-mass modelto the wall and column support.

The lumped-mass model response spectra isapplicable to the cable spreading room and thecontrol room columns and wall. Since all itemsin group III are located in these locations,RLCA used Hosgri vertical response spectra atelevation 140 ft. generated from the lumped-massmodel to develope the worst case spectra.

Qz.mui~l

All items in group IV are located in the batteryarea of the auxiliary building- at elevation 115 ft..For the horizontal East-West spectra-, the largest torsionarm was determined to be-50 ft. (Reference 16). For thehorizontal North-South spectra, the.— largest torsionarm was determined to be 130 ft. (Reference 16).

I < - - ~

All=items'n group V are located in the switchgeararea of the auxiliary building at elevation 100 ft..For =the horizontal East-West spectra,- the largesttorsion arm was determined- to be 51 ft. (Reference 16).For the horizontal North-South-spectra, the largesttorsion arm was determined to be 150 ft. (Reference 16).

All items in group VI are located adjacent to theswitchgear area of the turbine building at elevation 119ft. In the turbine building, PGandE increased thetranslation spectra by 10% to account for torsion effects(Reference 14).

''ll items in group VII are located in the controlroom of the auxiliary building at elevation 140 ft.For the horizontal East-West spectra, the largest torsionarm was determined to be 37 ft. (Reference 16). For thehorizontal North-South spectra, the largest torsion armwas determined to be 123 ft. (Reference 16) .

PGandE generated vertical Hosgri- response spectrafor the control room by using a finite element model.In the model, node- points are associated with floorlocations. RLCA developed its worst case verticalspectra by enveloping all of'he vertical control roomspectra included in the Hosgri Report (Reference 14).

10

3.3

This section presents the comparison of spectra thatRLCA made between the RLCA worst case and the Wyle test,and the Wyle target and the Wyle test. The criteriadiscussed in section 2.2 specifies that the test responsespectra must envelop the required response spectra by atleast 10%. Both the RLCA worst case spectra and Wyletarget spectra were developed to represent the requiredresponse spectra.

RLCA did not consider an envelope of the requiredresponse spectra in the 0 to 2 Hertz frequency region.The mechanical limitations of the vibration test machinesprevent high seismic accelerations in this frequency region.

3.3.1

RLCA compared the worst cases response spectra foreach group with the Wyle test response spectra.

For-each -of the seven groups of items, RLCA plottedthe horizontal (East-West and North-South) and verticaltest spectra against the worst case spectra. This wasdone by smoothing the Wyle test spectra through theminima as shown in Figure 5.

~ An alternate smoothing method was used -in- caseswhere the test spectra=- that had been smoothed throughthe minima. did not envelop the worst case by 10%-. Thismethod consisted of visually examining the Wyle controlaccelerometer plots to determine if the curve representingan average of the minima and maxima would envelop theworst case response spectra by 10%.

The results of the comparison are given below:

The Wyle test spectra for both vertical andhorizontal directions that RLCA smoothed through theminima did not completely envelop the worst casespectra by 10% in the 7 to 9.9 Hertz frequencyregion., The Wyle test spectra included sine beatsin the vertical direction through this frequencyregion (Reference 10). When- the sine beats wereincluded, the vertical test spectra enveloped theworst case spectra by 10%.

For the horizontal directions, RLCA visuallyexamined the Wyle control accelerometer plots anddetermined that a curve representing an average ofthe minima and. maxima would envelop the worst casespectra by 10%.

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal andvertical directions that RLCA smoothed through theminima enveloped the worst case spectra by 10%.

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal and =

vertical directions that RLCA smoothed through- theminima did not completely envelop the worst casespectra by 10%.

RLCA visually examined the Wyle -control acceler-ometer. plots"and determined that a curve represent-ing an average of the minima and maxima wouldenvelop the worst case spectra by 10%.,

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal and-vertical directions that RLCA smoothed through thethe minima did not completely envelop the worstcase spectra by 10%.

RLCA visually examined the Wyle control acceler--ometer plots and determined that a curve represent-ing an" average of the minima. and maxima wouldenvelop the worst case spectra by 10%.

12

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal and-the vertical directions that RLCA smoothed throughthe minima enveloped, the worst case spectra by 10%.

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal andvertical directions that RLCA smoothed through theminima did not completely envelop the worst casespectra by 10%.

When RLCA visually examined the Wyle control. accel-erometer plots, it was found that a curve represent-ing. an average of the minima and maxima did notcompletely envelop the worst case response spectraby 10%.

The horizontal test spectra does not envelop theworst case spectra for the 12.0 to 14'.1 Hertzfrequency range as shown in Figure 2., The verticaltest spectra does not envelop the worst case spectrafor the 7 to 10 Hertz frequency range as shown inFigures 3 and 4.

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal andvertical directions .that- RLCA smoothed throughthe minimas enveloped the worst case spectra by 10%.

13

3.3.2

RLCA compared the Wyle test response spectrafor each group with the Wyle target responsespectra. This comparison was made using the samemethod described in section 3.3.1..

For each of the. seven groups of items, RLCAplotted the horizontal (East-West and North-South)and vertical test spectra against the target spectraThis was done by smoothing the Wyle test spectrathrough the minima as shown in Figure 5.

An alternate method was used in cases where thetest spectra that had been smoothed through theminima did not envelop the target spectra. by 10%.This method consisted of visually examining the Wylecontrol accelerometer plots to determine if thecurve representing an average- of the minima andmaxima would envelop the target spectra by 10%.The results of the comparison are given below.

The Wyle test spectra for both the veritcal- and andhorizontal directions that RLCA smoothed throughthe minimas did. not completely envelop the targetspectra by 10%- in the 7 to 9.9 Hertz frequencyregion. The Wyle test spectra included sine beatsin the vertical. direction through this frequencyregion (Reference 10). When the sine beats wereincluded, the vertical test spectra envelopedthe target spectra.

't

For the horizontal directions,, RLCA visuallyexamined the Wyle control accelerometer plotsand determined that a curve representing anaverage of the minima and maxima would envelopthe target spectra by 10%.

The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontaland vertical directions that RLCA smoothedthrough the minima enveloped the target spectraby 10%.

14


The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontal *

and vertical directions that RLCA smoothedthrough the minima envloped the target spectraby 10%.

5~i~The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontaland vertical directions that RLCA smoothedthrough the minima enveloped the target spectraby 10%.

S~~~.The Wyle test spectra for both the horizontaland vertical directions that RLCA smoothedthrough the minima enveloped the target spectraby 10%.


15

3.4

RLCA issued four EOI Reports for Class IEelectrical equipment and instrumentation. AppendixA shows the EOI file number, revision, date andstatus.

EOI 1005 reports a lack of documentationregarding formal transmittals of Hosgri spectrafrom PGandE to Wyle Labs., This Open Item was laterclosed because the Phase I plan specified thatsamples of the test response spectra were to bechecked rather than auditing the transmittalsof spectra.

EOI 1007 addresses the same lack of inter-face documentation as EOI 1005 and was subsequentlyclosed.

EOI 1013 reports test response spectra forgroup VI that do not completely envelop the worstcase response spectra- (see Figures 2,,3 and 4). Thisitem has been classified as a Class B Error. TheRLCA comparison- showed that the test response spectracompletely envelopes the worst case spectra at"allfrequencies above 15 Hertz. The Wyle sine sweep:resonance search =shows that the equipment has allresonant frequencies above.-29=Hertz (Reference 11).Since- the test spectra. envelopes the worst casespectra at- all equipment"resonant- frequencies, thistest"was -judged by the Independent Design

Verific-'tion

Program to qualify the equipment.

EOX 1049 was issued as the result"of RLCA. fieldverification;- RLCA found that the main annunciatortypewriter was located on the'control room slab abovea column. .Except for the main annunciator typewriter,-items located on the control-room slab-vere. placed ingroup VII. - The URS/Blume Auxiliary Report states. thatthe lumped-mass model .is applicable at the columns(Reference .22). The lumped-mass model- spectra isused for group III.- Therefore, -the"placement--of"themain annunciator typewriter in"group III is accept-able. This item is therefore closed.

16

3.5

RLCA evaluated Wyle shake table testing by reviewingthe Wyle test procedures, verifying field location anddeveloping a worst case spectra. RLCA compared the worstcase spectra to the test spectra, and the target spectrato the test spectra. Results given in section 3.4 formthe basis for a concern with the target test responsespectra. Specifically, the target test response spectrafor group VI were incorrectly specified.

To assure that the target test response spectra werecorrectly specified for all items shake table tested byPGandE and service-related contractors, RLCA has madethe following recommendations:

1. Confirm field locations of all equipment.*

2. Select the applicable Hosgri response spectra.

3. Develop the worst case response spectra.+ ~ % ~

4. Compare the worst" case- response- spectra"to"thetarget. test"response spectra specified in thetesting procedure.

17

4 ' CONCLUSION OF SHAKE TABLE TESTING REVIEW

RLCA verified that the Wyle shake table testingof electrical equipment and instrumentation in theseven„groups met the DCNPP Hosgri licensing criteria.

RLCA cannot yet evaluate the adequacy of allshake table testing until the recommendations notedin section 3.,5 are implemented.

Robert L. Cloud and Assoc/ates, Inc

Section 5. 0

Figures

19

3.0

2.5Test Table Response-:Spectra(Smoothed Through Minima)

~—s Target Test Response Spectra

2.0 Worst Case Response Spectra

le 5~rl

QJ

Ql0~ 1.0

0.5

0.0.12 .24 .36 .48 .60 e72 .84 s96 1.08 1.20

Period (Seconds)

Figure 1

Typical Spectra Comparison Plot

10

—Unsmoothed Curve Totally Envelopes in This Area

40

~641

00

<C

~ Il II

g

Test Table Response Spectra(smoothed through minima)Horisontal Target Test Response

SpectraN-S Horizontal Worst Case

Response SpectraE-W Horizontal Worst Case

Response Spectra

0.0 .2 e3 e4 e5 e6

Period (Seconds)e7 e8 e9 1.0

Figure 2

Comparison Plot of Group VI Horizontal Spectra

16

See Typical Magnified Plot, Figure 4

12 ~~ Test Table Response Spectra~ Vertical Target Test Response Spectra

b0

80

~8c4

6

4

~ Vertical. Worst Case Response Spectra

.2 .3 ,4 s5 .6 e7 e9 1.0

Period (Seconds)

Figure 3

Comparison Plot of Group VI Vertical Spectra

14Test Table Response Spectra (Unsmootbed)

Vertical Worst Case Response Spectra

13

b012

0

S

o~ 110

10

I0.090 .100 .110 ..120 .130

Period (Seconds)

.140 .150

Figure 4

Hagnified Comparison Plot of Typical Group VI Vertical Spectra

100.0

10. 0

0~Q

U 1.0Hyle Test Spectra

RLCA Smoothed CurveThrough Minima

0.110 20 100

Frequency (Hertz)

Figure 5

Wyle Test Spectra Smoothed Through Minima

24


Section 6.0

References

25

6.0 GENERAL REFERENCES

Regulatory Guide 1.100,"Seismic Qualification ofElectric Equipment forNuclear Power Plants",U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,August, 1977..

Regulatory Guide 1.89,"Qualification of Class IEEquipment for Nuclear PowerPlants", U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission, November, 1974.

IEEE Recommended Practices forSeismic Qualification of Class1E Equipment for Nuclear PowerGenerating Stations, Standard344-1'975, The Institute ofElectrical and ElectronicsEngineers, Inc.

IEEE Standard for QualifyingClass IE Equipment for NuclearPower Generating Stations,Standard 323-1974, TheInstitute of Electrical andElectronics Engineers, Inc.

RLCA Log Volume 13

Wyle Report No. 26286,"'Seismic Review of- SelectedClass IE Electrical Equipmentfor the"Hosgri. Requirementsat Diablo Canyon GeneratingStation", September, 1977.

Addendum to Report No. 26286<Functional Operation andMonitoring Requirements",October, 1977.

P105-4-447-001

P105-4-447-002

26

Wyle Test Procedure No. 3642,Rev. A, "'Seismic MultifrequencyRandom Test on Six Groups ofClass l Equipment for use inthe Diablo Canyon Site forPacific Gas and Electric,January, 1978.

Wyle Test Procedure No. 3642,Rev. B, "Seismic MultifrequencyRandom Test on Six Groups ofof Class I Equipment for use inthe Diablo Canyon Site forPacific Gas and Electric,April, 1978.

Wyle Test Report No. 58255-1,"'Seismic Testing of Safety-Related Electrical Equipmentfor Pacific Gas and ElectricCo., April 1978.

P105-4-447-004

P105-4-447-005

P105-4-447-003

Wyle .Test Report No. 58255-1"Seismic Testing of Safety-Related- Electrical Equipmentf'r Pacific Gas and Electric,August~ 1978.

Amendment 1 to Report No.58255-1,- "Seismic Testingof Safety-Related ElectricalEquipment for Pacific Gasand Electric Co.", August,197'8.

Wyle Test Report No. 58378"Seismic Testing of Safety-Related Electrical Equipmentfor Pacific- Gas and ElectricCo., February, 1979.

PGandE Report: "SeismicEvaluation for Postulated7.5 M Hosgri Earthquake".

P105-4-447-007

P105-4-447-006

P105-4-447-013

P105-4-200-001

27

15

16

17

18

RLCA Field VerificationNotes

RLCA Calculation Volume,Revision 1: "Review ofSeismic Qualification ofClass IE ElectricalEquipment DocumentedIn Wyle Test Report Nos.58255 and 58255-1".

Preliminary Report, SeismicReverification Report,Seismic Reverification Program,Robert L. Cloud Associates,November 12, 1981.

PGandE Final Safety AnalysisReport

.P105-4-591.5-005P105-4-591.5-007P105-4-591.5-008P105-4-591.5-026P105-4-591.5-035

P105-4-570-002

P105-4-820-005

P105-4-200-005

19 IEEE Draft- P,-344/Dl, "RecommendedPractices For Seismic Qualificationof Class lE Equipment For NuclearPower Generating Stations", TheInstitute of Electrical and Elec-tronics Engineers, Inc., April 1982.

20

21

22

DCNPP Independent- Design Verifi- P105-4-810-021cation Program, Program Procedure,Preparation-.of Open Item Reports,Error. Reports, Program ResolutionReports and IDVP Completion Reports,Revision 0, March 31, 1982.

DCNPP"Independent Design Verifi- P105-4-810-021cation Program, Program ManagementPlan, Phase I, Revision 0, March29'982.URS/Blume -"DCNPP Auxiliary =- P105-4-441-007Building Dynamic Seismic Analysisfor the 7.5M Hosgri Earthquake",October 1979.

28

Robert L. Cloud and Associates, Inc.

Appendix A

EOI Report Table

(1 page)

APPENDIX AERROR AND OPEN ITEM REPORT

SHAKE TABLE TESTING

EOIFILE NO.

1005

1007

1013

1049

SUBJECT

Wyle Labs - Formal Trans-mittal of Hosgri Spectra(issued as a result"ofthe RLCA PreliminaryReport, ll/12/82)Consultants - Formal Trans-mit:tal of Hosgri spectra(issued as a result of theRLCA Preliminary Report,11/12/82)

Group VI Electrical Equip-ment Test Spectra did notdnvelop required spectra

Main Annunciator TypewriterControl Room Location

REV. DATE

2/6/823/9/82

4/17/82

2/6/823/9/82

4/21/82

2/9/825/27/826/3/82

6/10/827/23/827/23/827/23/827/23/82

3/8/824/16/825/10/825/24/826/18/827/9/82

7/23/827/23/827/23/827/23/82

BY

RLCARLCATES

RLCARLCATES

RLCARLCARLCATESTESRLCATESTES

RLCARLCATESTESRLCATESTESRLCATESTES

OIRCICR

OIRCICR

OIRPER/BPER/BER/B

OIRPPRR/CI

PRR/ClCR

OIRPPRR/OIP

PRR/OIPOIR

PPRR/OIPPRR/OIP

OIRPPRR/CI

PRR/CICR

ACTIONREQUIRED

RLCATESNONE

RLCATESNONE

RLCATESTES

PGandERLCATES

PGandENONE

RLCATES

PGandERLCATES

PGandERLCATES

PGandENONE

PHYSICALMODS.

NO

NO

NO

NO

by PGandE:A ErrorB ErrorC ErrorD Error

OIR - Open Item Report ER - Error Report APPRR - Potential Program Resolution Report CR Completion ReportPRR — Program Resolution Report CI — Closed Item CPER — Potential Error Report DEV - Deviation DOIP - Open Item with future action by PGandE

PHYSICAL MODS: Physical modifications required to resolve the issue.modification has not been determined.

- Class— Class— Class- Class

Blank entry indicates that

STATUS: Status is indicated by the type of classification of latest report received


Appendix B

Calculation of Torsion

(1 page)

East

dl + Center of 1fass

NorthUnit 1

d2Unit 2

South

Plan View of DCNPP Units 1 and 2Containment and Auxiliar Buildin s

Horizontal ResponseSpectra Translation + Torsion di

where:

d2

largest torsion arm forE-W effectslargest torsion arm forN-S effects32.2 ft/sec , accelerationof gravity

For equipment locations QA and QB, location QA

yields the largest torsion arm in both the

North-South and East-West directions.

Appendix B

Calculation of Torsion

Robert L. Cloud and Assoc/ates, Inc.

Appendix C

Key Term Definitions

(8 pages)

KEY TERM DEFINITIONS USED IN THE SHAKE TABLE REPORT

This glossary gives general definitions for terms which inno way replace the specific legal and licensing definitions.

Accelerometer— A device used to record accelerations.

Class IE— The classification of electrical equipment and systems

required for the seismic design of the plant.Closed Item

- A form of program resolution of an Open Item whichindicates that the reported aspect is neither anError nor a Deviation. No further IDVP action isrequired (from Reference 20).

Completion Report— Used to indicate that the IDVP effort related to the

Open Item- identified by the File Number is complete.It references either a Program Resolution Report.which has recategorized the item as a Closed..Itemor a PGandE document which states that no physicalmodification is to be applied in the case of a * ~ ~

Deviation or a Class C or Class D Error (Reference 20).

DCNPP

— Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant

Damping

- The measure- of energy dissipation in a system.

Envelope

— Response spectra "A" is said to envelop responsespectra "B" if all the accelerations on "A" arehigher than those on "B" for the same frequencyregion (See Figure 1).

EOI

— Error and Open Item Report

Error Report— An Error is a form of program resolution of an

Open Item indicating an incorrect result thathas been verified as such. It may be due tomathematical mistake, use of wrong analyticalmethod, omission of data, or use of inapplicabledata.,

— Each Error shall be classified as one of thefollowing:

o Class A'.- An: Error is considered Class A.if design criteria* or.. operating limits ofsafety related equipment are exceeded as aresult, and physical modifications or .

changes- in operating procedures are required.Any PGandE corrective action is subject toverification by the IDVP.

~ j ~

o Class. B'. - An Error is considered =Class Bif design"criteria. or operating limits ofsafety related equipment. are exceeded, butare"resolvable by means or more realisticcalculations"or'etesting.- Any PGandEcorrective action is subject to verificationby the IDVP.

o Class C:- An Error- is considered Class C .if incorrect engineering or installation ofsafety related equipment is found,- but nodesign -criteria or operating limits areexceeded. No physical modifications arerequired, but ifany are applied they aresubject to verification by the IDVP.

o Class D: An Error is considered Class- D ifsafety related equipment is. not affected. Nophysical modifications are required, but= ifany are applied, they are subject to verifi--cation by the IDVP (See Reference 20).

FSAR

— PGandE's Final Safety A'nalysis Report

Finite Element Model

— A computer method used to construct a mathematicalrepresentation of a loading on a structure.

Hosgri Report— An amendment to the Diablo Canyon licensing appli-

cation that summarizes the evaluation of the plantfor the postulated Hosgri event. This amendmentis a seismic report developed by PGandE that givesallowable criteria (licensing criteria) and citesplant qualifications.

Hosgri Fault- Geological fault off the coast of California.

Hosgri Event

- Postulated earthquake along the Hosgri Fault.

IDVP

- Independent Design Verification Program undertakenby R. L-., Cloud Associates, R. F. Reedy, TeledyneEngineering and Stone 6 Webster Engineering toevaluate Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power. Plant forcompliance with the licensing criteria.

IEEE

- The Institute of Electrical and ElectronicsEngineers, Inc.

Interim Technical Report

— Interim Technical Reports are prepared when a programparticipant has completed an aspect of their assignedeffort in order to provide the completed analysis andconclusions. These may be in support of an Error, OpenItem or Program Resolution Report or in support of aportion of the work which verifies acceptability.Since such a report is a conclusion of the program, itis subject to the review and approval of the ProgramManager. The report will be transmitted simultaneouslyto PGandE and to NRC.= (From Reference 21).

Licensing Criteria— Contained in PGandE Licensing Documents, includes

allowable criteria. (See Hosgri Report definition.)NRC

— Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRC Order Suspending License CLI-81-30— The order'ated November 19., 1981 that suspended the

license to load fuel and operate DCNPP-1 at powerlevels up to 5% of full power- and specified theprograms that must be completed prior to lifting ofthe suspension.

Open Item

— A concern that has not been verified, fully under-stood nor its significance assessed. The formsof"program resolution of an Open Item are recatego-rization as an Error, as a Deviation, or as a ClosedItem. (From Reference 20).

Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)

— The earthquake which could reasonably be expectedto affect the plant site during the operating lifeof the plant.

c-4

PGandE

— Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PGandE Technical Program

— Verification program undertaken by PGandE to evaluateDCNPP for compliance with licensing criteria.

Phase I Program

— Work performed by RLCA, RFR, TES restricted toHosgri-related efforts of- PGandE and their service-related contractors prior to June 1978.

Phase II Program

— Work performed by RLCA, RFR, TES'nd Stone 6 Webster,includes non-seismic related contracts prior toJune 1, 1978, PGandE internal design activities andall service-related contracts post January 1978.

Potential Program Resolution Reportand Potential Error Report

- Forms used only for communication within the IDVP.

Program Resolution Report- Used to indicate that the. specific .item is no longer

active in the IDVP. "'It indicates whether the resol-ution is a -Closed"Item,- a Deviation, or that respons-ibility for"an Open Item has been .transferred"to. thePGandE Technical"-Program. Further IDVP action isrequired *upon completion- of the associated PGandETechnical Program Task if the IDVP transfers anOpen Item to PGandE or if physical- modifications areapplied with respect to a deviation (Reference 20).

1

Required Response Spectra— The spectra. specified by the-licensing criteria that

the test spectra must envelope.

C-5

Response Spectra— A graph of the maximum response, as a function of a

frequency that represents the response of a singledegree of freedom system.

RLCA

— Robert L. Cloud Associates

— Roger F. Reedy, Inc.Safe Shutdown Earthquake

— The earthquake which could potentially be expected toaffect the plant site.

Sample

— Initial sample (given in Phase I Program). of equipment,components, and buildings to be design verified byindependent calculations.

Sampling Approach:4 ~ ~ I

— Method used by the IDUP -to determine the intial sample(buildings< piping, equipment and components) foranalysis and to provide for sample expansion whenrequired.

Seismic

— Refers to earthquake data.

Shake Table Testing— A method for seismic qualification of components.,

These items are tested to simulated seismic activity.Sine Beats

- Sine beats are acceleration pulses at specificfrequencies.

Sine Sweep Resonance Search

— A test conducted to establish the structural fre-quencies at which accelerations will be amplified.

Single Degree of Freedom Model

— Simplified mathematical representation of astructure.

Smoothing

— The process of representing a graph with a jagged lineas a smooth line.

SSE

— Safe Shutdown Earthquake: Maximum intensity earthquakefor which the plant is designed to remain functional(Hosgri 7.5M).

SWECt ' =C

— Stone E Webster Engineering Corporation.

Target Response Spectra/Target Spectra— The required response spectra prepared by PGandE for

the Wyle test.TES

— Teledyne Engineering Services

Test Machine Table

— A testing device used to simulate seismic activity.Test Response Specra/Test Spectra

— The response spectra. measured by Wyle during the test.

C-7

Torsion Effects— Torsion effects are added to the translation spectra to

account for the twisting of the building about thevertical axis.

Verification Program

— Undertaken by the IDVP to evaluate Diablo CanyonNuclear Power Plant for compliance with the licensingcriteria.

"Worst Case" Response Spectra/Worst case spectra— The required response spectra prepared by RLCA.

Wyle Laboratories— Seismic shake table testing service related contractor

retained by PGandE.


Appendix D

Summary — Seismic Qualification of Class lE

Instrumentation and Electrical Equipment

(Reference 14)

(3 pages)

X. rV

s"'r )

TABLE 10-1

SUHIARV - SEISHIC QUALIFICATION OF CLASS IE INSTRUMENTATIONAND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT

'heets of 3

Para. 'tem

10.3.1 l.

10.3.2 '.10.3.3 3.

10.3.4 4.

Equipment

Annunciator, Hain (B.O.P.la. Tested Components

Auxiliary Safeguar ds

Battery Chargers (B.O.P.)

Station BatteryBattery Racks (B.O.P.)

128'/Aux.

115'/Aux.

115'/Aux.115'/Aux.

2.00 1.33

2.0 1.3

2.5 1.13.0 0.65

ero er oAcceleratfons

Elev./Bldg. QL, (g)»H V

128'/Aux. 3. 5 1.52.50 1.2

VALIFICATION

Method Remarks and References

5. 10)8). pages 143-213

(1,3) MCAP 8021

(8), pages 201-315

4,8) pages 240-254, Group IV5,10)

HOSGR I EVALUATIONero er o

AccelerationsQL/HE

H V H V

1.35 0.58 2.6 2.61.35 - 0.58 1.85 2.1

1.47 0.58 1.36 2.29

1.12 0.56 1.96 2.3

1.14 0.56 2.2 2.0

10.3.5.1 5.10.3.5.2

OC Motor Control Center (TLOP)DC Switchgear(B.O.P.)

115'/Aux. 2.1 1.3 . (4,8), pages 215-239115'/Aux. 2.5 1.2 '8), pages.255-280

1.14 0.56 1.84 2.32 721.12 0.56 2.0 2.14

I 10.3.6 6.6a.6b.

Diesel Generators (B.O.P.)Excitation CabinetEngine Control Cabinet

85'/Turb. 0.85 .0.850.85 '0.850.85 0.85

(8), pages 87-142 0.54 0.50 1.57 1.70.54 0.50 1.57 1.70.54 0.50 1.57 1.7

10.3.7

10.3.8

10.3.9

10.3.1010.3.10

10.3. 11

10.3.12

10.3.13

10.3.14

7e

8.

9.

10.

Electrical Penetrations'B.O.P.)

Fire Puap Controller (B.O.P.)

Hot Shutdown Panel (B.O.P.)(Fisher Controller)

Static Inverter (NSSS)

11. Instrment AC Panel(Breakers) (B.O.P.)

12. Instrument PanelsPIA, BKC (B.O.P.)

13. Local Instrum.nt Panels (B.O.P.)(Includes Solenoid Valves)

14. Local Starters (B.O.P.)14a. Local Starters

10.3.15 15. Main Control Board (B.O.P.)15a. S~itches and Indfcators

115'/Aux. 1.50 1.00

115'/Aux. 2.8 1.5

128']Aux. 2.0 0.72

Various Various

Varfous 2.5 2.5Various 2.0 1.2

140'/Aux. 2.2 1.6140'/Aux. 2.6 2.6

130'/Cont. 10.5 7.0

, 115'/Aux. 2.1 1.3

100'/Aux. 3.0 2.0

(5, 10) see 10.3.7

(8), pages 214-239

5, 10) see 10.3.9.18) pages 445-469

(1,4) MCAP 7821, pages 447-479Tested at resonance

(5,6,10) 10.3.11 Myle Labs Report53744-2

(5) see 10.3.12

see 10,3.13.1

8), pages 412-4468), pages 201-315

1,5.10) see 10,3.156,8) pages 512-529

2.0 1.5 5.25 4.67

1.13 0.56

1.41 0.58

2.47 2.67

1.4 1.24

Various >1.0 >1.0

'I.O 1.51.14 0.56

1.57 1.51.57 1.5

2.5 1.671.75 2.14

1.4 1.071.66 1.73

1.02 0.56 2.05 2.32

0.97 0.54 3.09 3.7072

1.16 0.58 1.29 1.72

atlthaootas maxtsmm aces'lerattoo of test tahte or othe topot.»»'See text, page 10.22b.

(November 1978) Amn<hent 72

~ 0r

0 O., 0TABLE . (Continued)

. J

SU%ART - SEISHIC IiUALIFICATIONOF CLASS IE INSTRUHENTATION. AND ELECTRICAL EiiUIPHENT

Sheet 2 of 3

UAL IF ICATIOero er 0

AccelerationsPara. Item Equipment Elev./Bldg. I)L, (g)~ Hethod Remarks and References

~ H V

l.HOSGRI EVALUATION

ero er oAccelerations

!lL/HEH V H V

10.3.16 16. Nuclear InstrumentationSystem (NSSS)

10.3.17 17. P & aP Transmitters (NSSS)

10.3.'18 18.. P & ap Transmitters (BOP)

10.3.19 19. Process Control &Protection Equipment (NSSS)

140'/Aux. 2'00 1.33

122'/Cont. 2.0(Morst Case)Various 18

1.33

18

128'/Aux. 2.00 1.33

(1~4) MCAP 8830~ 8831Tested at resonance

(1) see 10.3.17

see 10.3.18

(1 >4) MCAP 8832~ 8833~ 8831 ~

8621Tested at resonance

1.75 0.58 1.14 2 ~ 29

0.89 0.50 2.25 2.67

Various »1.0 >1.0

1.47 0.58 1.36 2.29

10.3.20

10.3 ~ 21

10.3.22I

hJ10.3.23

20. Reactor Trip Switchgear (NSSS)

21. Safeguards Relay Bd. (B.O.P.)

22. Solid State Protection System(NSSS)

23. Ventilation Control,Logic (B.O.P.)

115'/Aux. 1.40

119'/Turb. 2.7

0.93

3.4

140'/Aux. 3.0 1.3

140'/Aux. 2.00 1.33

(1 o4) MCAP 7821Tested at resonance

(8) pages 92-138. 323-339

(1 J4) KCAP 8941 ~ 8694 ~ 8831Tested at resonance

(8,10) pages 174-201

1.16 0.58 1.21 1.60

1.47 1.5 1.83 2.27

1.75 0.58 1.14 2.2972

1.42 0.81 2.1 1.60

10.3.24 24. Ventilation Control,Relay (B.O.P.) ',

10.3.25 25. Vital Load Center (480 VAC HCC)(B.O.P.)

25a. Auxiliary Relay Panels25b. Fan Cooler Starter25c. 4160 - 480 VAC Transformer

128'/Aux.. 3.0 1.3

1.71.71.7

1.21.21.2

100'/Aux. 1.7 1.2

(8,10) pages 143-173

(8) pages 316-110

8).pages 417-479

$ j ~a~e~ 3)4-)86

1 ~ 47 0,58 2,0 2 24

1

0.95 0.53 1.79 2.26

72:

10.3.26 26. Vital Seitchgear (4.16KV)(B.O.I.)

10.3.27 27. Resistance Temp.'etectors(HSSS)

119'/Turb. 3.0

107'/Cont. 2.00

3,0 (1 y3gB) pages 19 ~ 25 27 30 33 1 47 1 5 2 036-92 ~ 139-322 GP.I ~ 58255-1

(1 ~4 ~ 10) MCAP 8234A Uncalculated»1.0Tested at resonance to 200g

2.0

>1.0

10.3.28 28. Safeguards TestCabinet (NSSS)

140'/Aux. 2.0 1.33 MCAP 8021Tested at resonance

1.75 0.58 1.11 2.29

10.3.29 29. Cable Trays (B.O.P.)

10.3.30 30. Limit Switches (B.OP.) Various Various

(5) see 10.3.29

Various (4,8) 10.3.30

Various

Various >1.0 >1.0

10.3.31 3i. Potential Transformers (B.O.P.) 119'/Turb. 2.7 3.4 (8) pages 28, 92-138,GP.I, 58255-1 1.47 1.5 1.83 2.27 7210.3.32 32. Emergency Light Battery Pack

(B.O.P.)Various 2.7 3.4 (8) pages 21-24, Group I

Kyle Repo'rt 58255-11.47 1.5 1.83 2.27

(Nrove&er 1978) Amendment 72

TABLE 10-1 (Continued) Sheet 3 of 3

Notes for gualification Method Column:

(1) Sine beat vibration tests.

(2) Shake table vibration test for similar. equipment.

(3) Results from testing other similar equipment were used.

(4) One unit or a typical unit was tested.

(5) Mathematical analysis to verify seismic capability of structure only.

(6) Shake table testing of -components only.

('I) Additional laboratory testing scheduled.

(8)'dditional laboratory testing completed, Hyle Laboratories Report 58255. and 58255-1.

(9) Table changed to reflect additional laboratory testing completed.

(10) Cabinet, panel or component is rigid; frequency >33 Hz.

(November l378) Amendment 72


Appendix E

Grouping of Equipment

(2 pages)1

'.APPEÃ3IX 'E

COMPOSITION OFGROUPS 1 THROUGH VII.

GROUP EQUIPMENT ELEVATION

Group I

Group II

,Group III

Group IV

4. 16KV SwitchgeazSafeguard Relay BoardEmergency Light System

Diesel Generator Excitation CubicleDiesel Generator Control Panel DoorDiesel Generator Control CabinetSub-Panel with the following itemsmounted on the panel:

1.Differential Pressure Switch (two)2.Contractor (one)3.Switching Tachometer (one)4.Time Delay Relays (two)5.Relays (four)6.Industrial Control Relays (four)

Ventilation System Relay Sub-PanelPower Transfer PanelVentilation System Printed CircuitBoard and Power SupplyPrinted Circuit Boards'four)Printed Circuit Board RackConstant Voltage TransformerPower TransformerLogic Power SupplyAuxiliary Logic Power SupplyRelays (four: two dc and two ac)DC to DC ConverterDC to AC ConverterTypewriter

DC Distribution PanelBattery ChargerTurbine Lube Oil StarterFire Pump ControllerLocal Starter'(LPF 37)Battery Cells (two)

Turbine BuildingElevation 119 feet

Turbine BuildingElevation 85 feet

Auxiliary BuildingElevation 128 feetand 140 feet

Auxiliary BuildingElevation 115 feet

APPENDIX E — Continued

GROUP EQUIPMENT .. ,ELEVATION

Group V

Group VI

Group VII

Vital Load Center (480v)Fisher ControllerLocal Starter (LPG66)100 amp Breakers (two)Starters (seven)Auxiliary Relay Panel (480v Bus 2H)Auxiliary Relay Panel (Bus G)

Local Starter (LPF 36)Snap-Lock Limit Switch (two)

Switches (six)Ammeter

Auxiliary BuildingElevation 100 feet

Turbine Bui.'ldingElevation 119 feet

Auxiliary BuildingControl RoomElevation 140 feet

E-2


Appendix F

Typical Wyle Plot

(Reference 10)

(1 page)

4WYLE LABORATOR(ES

CUSTOMER4

Report No.

Job No. 5> Page No. 378

Operator

Date

djog

Accel. No.

Specimen

)rPah w u~rr~4 d~~

Z~ dSwe~rr~~ Avaal~47Pf~Ah

0 $ 4) ~') t') ~ )10

RESPONSE SPECTRUM2 0 4 ~ 4 't ~ ~ )10 0 0 4 ~ 4 t ~ ) ~ 1

10~ )

0

t

10

I ~'0~ )

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

10

I ~

~ ) ~ I ~ I

FREOtXNCY He

~ ~ I ~

~ I~ ~ ~ I ~

~ I ~

1N XO,

I ~ ~

I ~ I ~ ~

I

~ ~

Robert L. Cloud and Assockztes, Inc

APPENDIX G

PROGRAM MANAGER'S SECTION

(1 page)

APPENDIX G

PROGRAM MANAGER'S SECTION

As IDVP Program Manager, Teledyne Engineering Services (TES) hasestablished a Review and Evaluation Team, head by a qualified team leader,as described in Section 7.4 (h) of the IDVP Phase I Program Management Plan(Rev. 1). The assigned team leader for the area, Equipment gualified byTesting, included in this Interim Technical Report, has visited the RLCAoffices and has personally discussed the procedures, approach, field trip ~

files, analyses, calculations, etc. In addition, the TES Team Leader hasreviewed the Open Item Files pertaining to this area of responsibility and,in particular, those files for which RLCA has issued a Potential ProgramResolution Report or a Potential Error Report, and on the basis of hisevaluation, 'has recommended an appropriate resolution to the IDVP ProgramManager. Further, the TES Team Leader has reviewed the appropriate reportsof other vendors, particularly those of the Seismic Testing Facility.

8ased on this review and evaluation process to date, the Team Leader,along with the TES Program Management Team, has studied and has concurredwith the Interpretation and Reconmendations outlined in Section 4.0 of thisreport.