ML20209B144
| ML20209B144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340C148 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-151 P-105-4, NUDOCS 8112100014 | |
| Download: ML20209B144 (42) | |
Text
_
tRMW REVISED, Octob r 30,1981 SEISMIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM
~
~
~
October 26, 1981 P-105-4 Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company
-by Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
')972 Adeline Street P. O. Box 687 Berkeley, CA 94703 West Falmouth, MA 02574 540-5381 p t 6 6 M g (617)
-(LIS) 841-9296
TABLE OF CONTENTS
~
I' Page 1.0 Introduction........................................
1 2.0 Scope...............................................
2 2.1 Schedule.......................................
2
~~
- 3. 0.
Program Logic.......................................
3 3.1 Review for Applicability.......................
4
~
3.2 Independent Calculation....................... 4 3.3 Field Verification.............................
5 3.4 URS/Blume Interface Review and Interim Report.............................
5 3.5 Program Logic Summary..........................
6 4.0 Review of Seismic Design Chain for Applicability...................................
8
- 4.1 The Seismic Design Chain.......................
8
~
4.2 Sampling Procedure.............................
9
~
4.3 Review.........................................
9 5.0 Independent Requalification........................ 10 5.1. Building Requalification......................
10 5.2 Piping Requalification........................
11 5.3 Pipe Supports.................................
11 5.4 Conduit Supports..............................
12 5.5 Equipment.....................................
12 5.6 Independent Requalification Summary...........
13 6.0 Field Verification.................................
14 7.0 Interim Report on the PGandE -
URS/Blume Interface................................
15 7.1 Obj ective and Scop e........................... 15 7.2 General Approach..............................
16 8.0 Conclusion.........................................
17 Tables Figures n
y s-n n--
u
.I REVERIFICATION PROGRAM Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Seismi'c' Qualification for Hosgri M 7.5 Earthquake
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On September 28, 1981 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. re-ported that a diagram error had been found in a portion o'f
~
the seismic qualifiestion of the Diablo Canyon Unit I l
Nuclear Power-Plant ~(-DCPP-1). ' This -error resulted in Jah in-application of'the seismic floor response spectra in correct the crane wall-containment shell annulus of the Unit 1 Con-tainment Building.
~
i The response spectra were computed correctly,.but as a result of the diagram error were applied to the opposite 8
hand, geometry of the Unit 1 building.
The origin of the er-ror was in the transmittal to a subcontractor of a sketch 1
I of the Unit 2 opposite hand gecmetry in place of the Uni-i geometry.
Although seismic failures would not be expected as a result of this misapplication of spectra, nevertheless scme few pipe and conduit supports may have had to be strength-ened to restore required design margins or safety rectors.
In the course of the investigation that was initiated ce a result of the error discovery, other inapplicable data were found.
For this reason, an independent design reverification program has been developed to assure there are no other errors
{
in the design of the plant.
The purpose of this report is to i
describe the reverification program plan.
i i
2 2.0 SCOPE Thie scope of the reverification program includes the safety related Design Class E buildings and equipment that were re-evalusted to wichstand the Hosgri 7.5 M earthquake..-.
l The design and analysis work that was done for the Hosgri earthquake evaluation on these bbildings and equipment is i
the basic scope of the current reverification effort.
Other Lork vill be reviewed only as it relates to the basic scope.
2.1 Schedule The progran will be conducted in two phases.
Phase 1
' considers the design interface ~b. atween PGandE and URS/Bluma.
This phase will be. submitted prior to fuel load.
Phase 2 includes the remainder of the work scope.and will' be completed prior to power a:scensien.
4 e
P p
4 1
T--
~ '--"
- n-
+%
- - +
3 3.0 'PROGRfM LOGIC The reverification program was ' initially designed and pre-cented as a program to review the applicabili~ty of seismic de-sign inforr.ation used in qualification of structures and equip-ment required for cold safe shutdown.
The review was to cover-design information based on use of symmetry, the transmission of sei'smic data through the seismic design chain, and the seismic design interfaces between PGandE and outside subcontractors.
Since initial formulation, the program has been breadened and the initial' logic revised accordingly.
~
In present ferm, the program is addresscd to four cajor areas:
. Review 'of the ap'plicability of seismic design informa-
~
~
~
tion through the seismic design chain, including external PGandE interfaces Indenendent calculation of selected seismic design data and independent seisnic qualification of selected equipment Independent calculation of seismic design data and independent seismic qualification of equipment Field verificati:n that seismicall,. qualifi(d systems and equipment are built and installed accord-ing to design Review of applicability of seismic design informa-tion associated with the URS/Elume interface.
This review is to be done on a priority basis and submitted early in the reverification effort as a separate report.
I The specific zark to be dona is given in subsequent sections.
The basis for incorporating each of the.above four parts of the program is discussed in the following paragraphs.
4 1,1 t
~
3.1 ~ Review fcr Applicability
~
This review consists of. studying the information that has gone into the seismic qualificaticn esiculations to ensure it is applicable to that particular calculation.
An example would be the.use of seismic spectra for one location of a building in the qualification of equipment placed at a dif-farent location.
In the seismic qualification of the large amounts of equipment and piping that go into a nuclear power plant, it is then necessary to divide the work into manageable subdivisions, assign work packages to'different groups both within and without
~
the primary organization.
In such an arrangement, it is common for the work product frem one group to be based upon that com-pleted by another group.
It is possible for this relationship chain to extend through several groups.
)
The objective of the teview for applicability is to search for instances in which incorrect information was used in qualification calculations, whether generated internally or passed from one group to another. As an example, when in the interest of expediency preliminary work is performed eith the final work done at a later time, it is possible that design mistakes could go into the field based upon preliminary information which was no longer applicable.
This is an ir.portant objective since so much of che seismic qualification work does involve several organizational uni:s, se that any miscommunication or lack of communication could lead to error.
3.2 Independent Calculation
)
Independent calculation consists of performing a given qualification from the beginning in a completely independent I,
This is one of the most common and effective means' f
manner.
I fot obtaining a sound objective review of a unit of engineering i
i i
e e
5
+
i work.
The objective of review by means of independent calcula-tion is to ensure that the assumptions made and'the calcula-tions performed are satisfactory for the particular work pro-duct under consideration.
This objective is achieved by hav-ing a different engineer from a different organization indep5E-dently perform the work.
In this way, patterns of thought, basic assumptions etc. as well as computer programs, and use
~
of formulas and their application are all ~challengedi - 1 3v3 Field Verification Field verification consists of verifying by. field inspec-tion that the particular item under study, whether building, piping, or equipment...is built, installed,' and constructed as represented by the engineering' drawings' used as a basis for the seismic qualifications.
The-objective of such verifica-tion is to complete the chain of verification from design to construction.
If the installation of an item of equipment is different than that which was analysed, then the qualificaticn is invalidated.
3.4 URS/Blume Interface Review and Interim Report The objective of this task is to review seismic design information involved with the interface between PGandE and URS/Blume as regards applicability of the design information.
Information in the following categories will be reviewed:
Developed within PGandE and transmitted to URS/Blume Developed within URS/Blume and transmitted to PGandE Equipment qualification requirements transmitted to organizations qualifying equipment both within and external to PGandE
6 The objectives of this work are twofold; first, to thoroughly review the applicabil'ity of the work passing between the primary PGandE interface involved in the Hosgri requalifica-tion, and, second to develop on the part of the reviewers, a
sound knowledge of the totality of:the work involved and an understanding of strengths and weaknesses in the documentation.
The latter knowledge will serve to guide the overall reverific-ation effort, especially regarding choices of additional inter-faces to review and determination of which work requires
~
. independent calculation and field verification.
This task will be completed early.in the program and.a separate report issued.
3.5 Program _ Logic Summary In summary, the. reverification program aims to cover the entire Hosgri requalification by the steps described.
The review for applicability covers work passing between interfaces of various groups.
The independent calculation effort covers the werk done within various groups.
The field verification will cnsure the plant ic Ocn-structed to the same configuration for which it was
~
qualified.
To a certain extent these efforts are interrelated.
An independent calculation may involve the work of multiple groups, for example.
)
An important aspect of the overall program is.that it will be conducted on a sampling basis.
1 i
7 The sampling philosophy or sampling plan is technically described in inspection theory as " Multiple Sampling"*.
In a general way when applied to inspection of arbitrary lots of some product, multiple sampling is oescribed as follows.
A certain sample of the general population is chosen and inspected.
If there are no rejects or the rejects are fewer than a predetermined acceptance criteria, the lot is said to be acceptable.
If rejects exceed the acceptance criteria then a secon'd sample is chosen and inspected.
The acceptance
. criteria for the seco_nd sample is more stringent such that the original criteria is met for the combined first and second sample.
If th,e second sample is unsatisfactory a third sample is chosen,'and so on.
Since the product at hand consists of seismic qualifica-
, tion of complex equipment, t-he. formal procedure described above_
requires modification and. interpretation.
Nevertheless, the general philosophy behind the formal procedure can be followed.
To illustrate what is envisioned, suppose the seismic cualification of ten vertical cylindrical tanks containing fluid is under study.
As a sample, 2 tanks are requalified independently and one fails to qualify, because the center of gravity was chosen'too low.
The first nonqualification would be reported, and then a second sample of two would be selected at random and independently requalified.
Suppose the result were the same, and for the same reason.
At th.is stage i:
would be reasonable to stop.taking samples and instead go b'ack and check all calculations for center of gravity location.
In other words, the formal sampling procedure will be inter-preted and modified by the engineering facts within the frame-work of the multiple sampling plan.
- Guide for Sampling Inspection, Quality and Reliability As-surance Handbook H53, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C.,
June 30, 1965.
w
g o
4.0 REVIEW OF SEISMIC DESIGN CHAIN FOR APPLICABILITY In the initial draft of the program three applicability review $ were envisioned.
These were:
~~
The review of design information based on symmetry Review of the seismic design chain Review of Design Interfaces In the effort devoted to completion of the Interim Report, described in Paragraph ~.7.0, it was learned by experience gained in review of the URS/Blume interface that these steps could be The combined into a single : phase, as has now been done.
i review work on the seismic design chain encompasses'the above three considerations.
4.1 The Seismic Design Chain The term seismic d'esign chain designates the separate linked process of providing seismic qualification for a but Each step in the process is usually linked nuclear plant.
via flow of information to another step.
For example, building qualification produces floor spectra which in turn are used as input to piping analysis.
Piping analysis in turn provides loads which in turn are used for qualification piping support Figure 1 illustrates a portion of a hype-of piping supports.
othetical seismic design chain.
The first step.in this review will be to define the actual seismic design chain applicable to the Diablo Canyon Plant.
The entire flow of seismic design information for the Hosgri re-qualification will be diagrammed.
This diagram will illustrate all interfaces, describe the information passing between inter-faces, and list responsible organizations for the seismic each step of the way. When the entire chain design-work at
-w e
.n.
,9
,i t
.4
.T has &een diagrammed,'it will be straight forward to organize..
a sampling review procedure for applicability of design inform-ation acr'ss each interface.
o 4.2 ; Sampling Procedure Each link in_the seismic chain will represent the flow of a distinct type of design information from one organization to another'.
An organization may be a separate company or a sub-division of a company.
The test for determination of an organ-iration is whether.the design information of inte. rest.is used or modified therein.
^
For this task the sample will consist of 10% of the l' inks in the seismic design chain.
That'is, on the diagrammed flow chart, the seismic design information passing between.10% of the pa' irs of organizations forming an interface will be review-ed.
This 10% sample will not include any interface that was completely reviewed in the interim report.
The.10%. sample will be chosen on a modified random basis, that is consideration-will be given to the importance of the interface. Otherwise the sample will be random.
s 4.3 Reviewx The information passing the interface will be reviewed to ensure it is the applicable information for that interface.
For example, if the interface were PGandE to Westinghouse, and L
the interface information was Hydrogen Recombiner seismic 1
requirements in the form of floor response spectra, the spectra would be reviewed as to whether they were the correct final spectra rather than a preliminary issue, and whether they were the correct spectra for that location in the building.
If the interface information consists of drawings, the revision number and other applicability requirements will be reviewed. The seismic l
chain encompasses several subcontractors.
Specific subcontractor interfaces will be reviewed from the list of subcontractors l
l given in Attachment 1.
l
~
p
_._ a m 10 INDEPENDENT REQUALIFICATION 5.0 f
f In this phase of the program the seismic qualification.o d
dent basis.
equipment will be performed on a completely in epen i
draw-In each case,.the starting point will be the engineer ng All data (which have been checked for applicability).-
~
l lated required for the qualification will be obtained or-ca cu ings independently to guard against ingrained errors in common
~
The requalification of buildings represents'a special case sburces of data.
as described below.
Building Requalification 5.1 i
One of the five. buildings will be chosen for reverificat on.
he Present plans are to. conduct-a reverification study on t auxiliary building.
i Beginning with the drawings of the building, the dynam c If it is found that the model is a codel will be reviewed.
figuration of reasonable representation of the building, the conto the model will Next, all input the model will be accepted.
be calculated independently, including masses, stiffness, e were used The complete model properties will be compared that for the Hosgri building qualification.
l i
The criteria for acceptance will be based upon the dyna d motier.
properties of the building in comparison with the grcun the If the first mode natural frequency. of the building lies o peak of the ground response spectra,If the first mode natura ill be accepted.
will be accepted.
on a pcak, then a 15% variation in properties w ill be If model-properties are not acceptable, then the model w f properties.
re-analysed to determine the effect of variation o step because Reverification of the building is an important of the models were developed nearly 10 years ago.
most i
\\
l
- yy
'5.2
' Piping Requalification For ' analysis purposes, the piping is divided into piping "p.roblems".
A piping problem is a section of piping' that is convenient to model for computer analysis.
In the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 plant, there are approximately 250 Seismic Category I piping problems.
Of these roughly 5% are in Westinghouse scope (excluding the RCS).
For reverification, a first sample of 10 problems will b_e established,.1 of which is in Westinghouse scope.,Beginning with the drawings','new models will be' developed in a completely
~
~
in' dependent' manner.. The models will be analysed with a' differ-ent computer pr6gfam sd that a' complete verification will be accomplished.
Critsria for acceptability will be pipe stress, support'1oads, and noszle loads.
A variation of l'5% will be accepted so long a's(the'Hosgri stress criteria are'also satis-fied.
If an unacceptable result is found, a report will be made and a second sample of 10 will be re-analysed as discussed under program logic.
There is a certain amount of small bore piping in the plant that is requir.ed.for cold safe shutdown.
The small bore piping is not computer analysed, but designed by a preset criteria for spacing of supports.
This piping will be verified tc have been designed correctly according to the design criteria.
It is not possible to divide the piping into problems, so in-stead a sample size of 200' of small bore piping will be chosen.
5.3 Pipe Supports A sample size of 20 pipe supports will be chosen for re-verification.
These supports will be chosen from the group of supports that support the pipe of the 10 piping problems.
In this way the piping loads can be independently verified.
IS
.The stress in the pipe support will be computed in an indepe~ndent manner and compared to the stress computed in the' Hosgri qualification.
A1 variation in computed stress of 15%
will be the acceptance criteria.
5.4 Conduit Supports A sample size of 20 conduit supports will be chosen for reverification.
These supports will be a random sampling of trapeze or cantilever type designs.
Supports that clamp the conduit to the wall will not be chosen.
Actual conduit sizes and cable loading will be determined, thus verifying the sup-port loading.
Stresses will be calculated using the quasi-static method employed during the Hosgri verification.
If the reverification philosophy were followed, a second sample would be taken, reverified, etc.
However, in this case if the calculated stresses vary by more than 15%, a different procedure will be followed since the quasi-static method of calculation is believed to be excessively conservative, and the basic interest of this program. is -to determine if the equipment is safe.
If a variation in stress of more than 15% is found then a dynamic model will be developed of a portion of the conduit support system containing the suspect supports.
A dynamic analysis will be performed that considers the dynamic response of the conduit and conduit support system.
Then if unaccep -
~
able stresses are found a report will be made and a second sample taken.
5.5 Equipment A sampling of equipment will be independently verified as follows:
m e
y
-b
,13
... 2 items of major equipment such as fan coolers 2 tanks 2 heat exchangers 2 pumps 6 valves.
These items will~be requalified to.the Hosgri acceptance criteria.
If any do not meet the criteria, a report will be made and another sampl.e..c.hosen.
The valves will'be chosen from those that form a part of the piping sample.
In this way the loads acting on the valves will be independently derived.
5.6 Independent Requalification Summary An independent requalification program has been added to the reverification studp in order to be able to detect any errors that may have developed within a single qualification.
This approach is the most efficient method of detecting this type of error.
It is more dependable than simply checking the work of others.
The independent qualification will be done on a cultip_c sampling' basis as discussed previously.
The equipment to be independently qualified and the sample size are given in Ta'ble 1.
yn.
yg
,y
--r.-
14 6.0. FIELD VERIFICATION In order to ensure that the qualified equipment is built and installed in the manner for which it was qualified an independent verification will be made.
Field verification is straightforward with the exception of the building.
The place.-
ment of rebar and the type ofl connections e.g. cannot be verified.
Field verification of the building will be limited
, to overall configuration review and a check to verify modifica-tions have not been made that do not show up on the drawing.
9 9
we e
b O
O E
T 9
e S
... _ _ ~ _,.,..
m.
..-.___m..
. 15' INTERIM REPORT ON THE PGandE - URS/BLUME INTERFACE 7.0 At the meeting held between PGandE and the 'NRC on October 9,1981 in which the containment annulus diagram error was explained, the original version of this. reverification program was presented also.
'At that meeting, the NRC asked --
that the PGandE - URS/Blume interf ace be. reviewed on a prior-
~
ity basis and a preliminary report be submitted. - This task
- forms the fourth major. part of the overall reverification-plan and is described herein.
Th'e report is presently in. preparation..
7.1 Objective and Scope The objective of this preliminary part of the verifica-tion program is to examine Seismic Design and Qua.lification~.
information of three categories:
That transmitted from PGandE to URS/Blume That transmitted from URS/Blume to PGandE received from URS/Blume by PGandE and subsequently That distributed, by PGandE, to those. qualifying equipment.
s to perform an engineering review of The requirement i It this information in a selective manner, as described below.
will be reviewed to establish that correct building and equip-that analysis ment configurations were transmitted for analysis, was performed using applicable drawings with the correct revision, etc.
Design spectra, building loads and other output of URS/
Blume as' transmitted by URS/Blume and received by PGandE are
~
scheduled for examination with the objective of checking to see that URS/Blume-generated information was properly applied.
=
-w
-y-----.------3--ww73 ---,wqem.
=
r---v--
v w-e-m,
,-r e--
w
'--ww--
-=+----m
16
.The scope of this effort is limited to the review of the-Design Interface of PGandE with URS/Blume.
The buildings and equipment to be reviewed in this effort are those required for safe cold shutdown, and were requalified in the Hosgri~ reanalysis.
The interface is defined broadly to include the use of URS/Blume-generated information in the application to equipment qualificF-tion.
e I
7.2 General Approach The seismic design interfaces to be reviewed are shown in Figure 2.
The objective is' review design information as illustrated.
The type of information to be reviewed is Table 2,and cognizant responsibilities are listed in Table 3 It is expected that essentially all of the information between interfaces,I and II will be possible to be reviewed for applicability.
However, only samples of the information passing interface III will be able to be covered in this pre-liminary report.
The major portion of the se,ismic design chain encccpassing design information affected by URS/Blume will be reviewed for applicability which will include the effect of opposite hand design.
One of the major benefits of this preliminary review is is expected to provide beneficial experience and gui-that it dance.in the conduct of the overall verification program.
Indeed, the experience gained in the preliminary study has al-ready significantly changed the design, organization, and content of the initial conception of the reverification pro-gram.
S
- _ _, ~ -, - -,, - -. _.. -, - - -__.,-.-,,y.,.m
.r..,-
__..__..,_,r-_..,~
17
.8.0 '<0NCLUSION The reverification program presented in this report is designed to detect errors in the seismic qualification process that arise in the generation of data, in the transmission of-data, or in the use of data.
A quantitative sampling approach' will be followed which is designed to expand the scope of the program upon detection of an error.
The entire seismic de-sign process or chain of design is covered.
A final report will be prepared which will document all inc~orrect applications and. errors.
The NRC will be notified upon discovery of significant err 6rs.
e
~
t
. o e
TABLE OF ITEMS TO BE INDEPENDENTLY REQUALIFIED SAMPLE SIZE ITEM BUILDINGS 1
PIPING PROBLEMS 10 SMALL BORE PIPING -
~ ' -
200 feet PIPE SUPPORTS 20 CONDUIT SUPPORTS 20 HEAVY EQUIPMENT 2
TANKS 2
HEAT EXCHANGERS 2
PUMPS 2
VALVES 6
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (TEST f(PVIEW) %O HVAC 4
TABLE 1 Y
J e
e p,-
-g,-,
n
..~--.-
m -e
.,,,,s
. - -.-,~-,,,,
.-g-----.--m,-,
5 Interface I Interface II Interface III Building Drawings Floor Response Spectra Envelope Floor Spectra for all locations Equipment Weights throughout plant Static n Loads and C. G.
Building Loads Equipment Specifications Documentation of Verbal Discussion Dynamic Analysis Test Specifications Reports for all Definition of Buildings Purchase Orders Ground Motion
~
INFORMATION CATEGORIES OF INTERFACE TABLE 2
, g li. '
i ;" t.. 'i.
G
l FIELD INTAKE CONTAINMENT AUXILIARY TURHINE CRANES ERECTED TANKS BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING
- PGandE, "NAMIC URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/blume
, LING URS/B - 4 I,WSIS fC R URS/Blume
'URS/Blume URS/Blume N-kbMI URS/Blume PGandE PGandE URS/Blume URS/Blume URS/B - 4
~ICATIONS
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 SEISHIC ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION OF BUILDINGS - COGNIZANT RESPONSIBILITIES TABLE 3 e
i
= BulLDl% DESMH APP (AVED MATEEJAL FROP.
(
6couMD (60stistructuRE s
6PgcTRA
. EGulf. MA35 DATA g,
.cogetiTER.F'EEA LAWT#f W-ti
/
.dPESTi4 ENYl8W-j g ME N SulLDING ANALYSIS MATEtlAL rs'DF.
N10" TL4C6tNE.
,coueuTER CONTA)NMENT FWZ68A5 l
SU4 MoTiop TURBtNE EQUIPMENT ANALYSIS Mt:(A5tf fire
=
~
W i
AuxiLtARY Aunto2SEKTRA
+
2W PlPlNG Y
99 spectra IHTAMi. STr.ucTucE
+
ANALY6tS yyAc y--
FUEL HANDLIN(s P-(ABLE 4 coNpurTS OTHERS
~*~
IkC
--~~->
y NSSS p
V.
OTilER. 6QulPMENT
- Fif6 511eE5565
\\
- PlV6 P 6flN E W uf
\\
- W W LOADS TURBIME
- VALV6 AccElfrAf RK STEET
.Surtoer taps loads cyc.
i, i
MIShttC t
V Lorps Fl4ucE 1. ILLUSTRATION OF A PORTION OF A 5ElSMIC DESIGN Pc0 CESS
4
-INDIRECT INTERFACES l
~
- %,'~
sg /'-
.L 1
,s
/
's
,i i
I
}
\\
l
\\
t j
'a{
y-.f InJ\\
)
/
\\
/
\\
l
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
i
/
\\
/
\\
~
/
\\
\\
FEEDilACK FEEDBACK
\\
FEEDBACK
\\
j-
/
'/
O hx O
k v' O
_v f
..g/
..../
-v f//b/bv/$hx
,////
V////A f
O O
DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN INFO INFO INFO III 1
II FIGURE 2:
SEISMIC QUALIFICATION INTERFACES
'.g.7 i
OcAu % ineI PGiE
% A& LL%L-9 I
_ N k u s s.
AFF/L
-l
%%ch Nnc/npgl pot H. ya r&
aac./nu/ os utae-a v
?, n uw
/os i
A.T.wuevAwvews sa t.
l Mmo sasstan t PAL P BCELER Ek)
F. M;<aq ?ia N RT.
LlLB6) a Nlus dT k+
M6x pa ne-u.x To4
/.
l~-;<
Nec
- az jnch f /+rsd9 f6 6
5Aldo//th
/G$2 l
6(M l.Avaert Pcgs not Ag
~rR S/EhuG2.W/
Ft;;d E 6
Jim 3/so-fAr PC, 4 &~
cnes Ane PG,E 2.ru t u d & rs:
ft,;g.
h4Ad~ JVdA-4 P), qg Guipa A Misnarla PG ff J. 6.
Sc k vy{4V
$ME 3.A.hed 9%%E SM>
f G tE r/e$n PA 4 G O.5%lA,4f PG-45~
Vl}
- W.wua y
- p. p z'5
l O-/ k - % i
,a2 m
\\
y
,1 7
lAr4HE':
j{ M(,.
Rc6WI~SVEPAX P & e6~
b id A/4 u dx k)sLd-w
^
U Pda &
IE~ 11. La
- i l /C,Q, [.' h/5 W: MWL-:
' e/fa5:
J y p g..:Ra. ~
- pg4, u
v Ali G. Wh h '*
PG 1 L
%, lQ- -mQ.%ts..v.;u. :. l Q gg
- david A. LAdh M. -
UIDS/hfME Sh W
~
' ~
- r}
)-
i & $ $ ? l l ' '
6 af 4 $, Mz W3f3Aink '
SktE-
' As l&
([
-%4C
~
~
h 9
g l
a
~
e g
8 I
l
' 4 s,
, \\.
e
/
j s
s l%
I e so
. =
= = = -
l ce.kg
,.l Jiwslo
, AcngTdpe4 j
,mmp r
ew i
~ k e. % w
% daral
-Timr
- N~/4
-Chmeag
-tapub l
- kbne
-quip.6 l
.%ayeis i
- Candvy 5potra um i.re&;y w 'J"4h
- Cwhatyamyse admque
\\
TescA x%es.lar%i% FJiah
- C. ikaa.,
-%.wh4 l
As1eforjuds3 oQ
- % eurchste
\\
j
- h t.6.
l
- Mod +
i Alug o} %d W
\\
- Slenilima.,abars
~
k *N f
'1/g Mh 4 l
l
\\
%dde
y EB CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS PRELIMINARY INFORMATION REQUEST MMbpdM M Nh1 PLANT:
OWNER:
fa < h% 6e 4 M c..
ARCHITECT / ENGINEER-gg me
$t.. C>m. W 01 lh M b *')
NRC CONTRACTOR:
F - e N- ^ #~ NNM DATE OF SITE VISIT:
PIPINGSYSTEM(S)TO PG6 P% b l %=3 6 il M~N BE ANALYZED:
J h ge,yp INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED: _p 1.
piping e-!y'kaFand isometric drawings sufficient to model the system 2.
support drawings W
- tt 4 pile 6te l oa.d s 3.
the piping system design specification (Le.L' '; L s A~Yt Yalhe weight _s and CG's,
- .I M heJJ'bj Ass u Ih.s 4.
bw 5.
appropriate / response, spectra at all support points th dip %*v44 km 6.
appropriate anchor movements (thermal and seismic) at all support points 7.
any design change notices not yet incorporated into the-piping or support drawings (later DCN's should be forwarded as received) 8 applicable support allgagleloads 9.
applicable equipmentAallowable loads lor piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&ID's) for the system
' 11.
themal conditions ar h*ade$
- 12. other applicable dynamic loading conditions.
- -... - -. - - ~, -. -.. - - - -., - - - - - -
1.
CowDort AND C k$LE TRAY SU P PORT h ttuiwr3 _.....(ge41. -.. _. _ At.q>?ef Aas t P c'
49
-3 hic,kt a obb %p. 1G k a ex\\4r%
akug-
% % Luig votMc3 W m.+ peLh.
hT udA st ec c
A -o W h i y e Lce.x...
1.
m e-e-nnu L s u m won y na w.y n a Bkp4 h a
[*>te.can @.we1J3, 6ib 4).
/
October 1*,
1981 s
PIPE SUPPORT REVIEW STATUS AND FINDIGNS CLASS I SUPPORTS SUPPORTS WITH SUPPORTS SUPPORTS SUPPORTS KNOWN SUPPORTS IN REQUIRING PRELIMINARY IN REVIEW WITH REVIEW TO REQUIRE PIPE SUPPORTS CONTAINMENT REVIEW REVIEW COMPLETE PROCESS COMPLETED MODIFICATION Large Diameter 1445 342 49 132 161 18 LB Small Diameter 1300 440 81 359 1
(< 2-1/2)
TOTAL 2745 782 49 213 520 19 MRTresler(4891) cg
~
's.-
B5/
,- s.
=
a Lwz klNAME C HAnsgs 4
KG t-p
_s. s_,
I ~ k2-3 88 - 32 Obey m anukker stue.
w 255t cou.fAe4 FAM C L R.
I CC.W Suf g
1 N
1 O
g j o._
i-S& - 2 5 6 - G - SPL cho 4.
sa snubba, s*Te m
- 2 %
S Av e.-rY #4.)
Loo r 2 Hav LE4 2
g m
s.
I D "
r-LL.
I-ic 2 - 5 f.5 N o.
b ra.c.e.
e.ddA. A.
a of 54 8 L couy A,,
,x,,, ca.ie, i ecw way E 8 a
"O j
m n
C G E
H Q
_2[jiiL.
7-xm-7 os o-Z -E u. sn bl sr-o y a
=
n i
03051-sys 4acu s aww DM Ouf NfS 8
d Ozg I
2 2 __
l - #,.1 6 - l o 7 c - 2. T PJtw susaisimar 533 st syn c.r u a si.e e w u c,ur 9/s m
i n.
v.mLt.c c j
y_
i-sc-Esse - M-E 3
j jg j D
su u-rasa.a ux cunneL 'rsu9 RELaE.F I
Eup n
-o 9
12.
t-Ks y-2 54 h - E-c.h
- e. s% sn wl.noa.c alice E
60*1-R.C.P 4 rHE E ihMt.E l E 2. CCM FZET I
R
- ~ -
=
. a4 b.
Q ta1
,!52[z* Oig 8!3
- 3. h h e 4
y CmZ=N>r noZmCl p[ 0 z 1
- m g
,5 3$ '
3 L
g
,4 0 kt
=
3 4l s
i ki g%
95Is" s
xN
- h
>hof.?
i
.s
. i.
h b s
)m 'fL r
v
=
s4 t
e e
C d
u f
+
r
.e E
e
- d. m I
' v.
L m
s C
i r
7 f
M f
s r
p r
7 p
e 4
p-s p
L e
a e
bb E
gr b
l L>
b.
./*g S
s 4
6 e4 a
s 4
u 6
+
pr 3 "
r.
f 5
s A
pn
> 7 p
J m
u S
3 L
5 3
d.
G t
s.
c 6 0 c
[
e.g g>
4 c6 s
s A.
S
(.
3 N
uh n
L A
a a
f k.
k i.
t f
M h
M*
D t
c f
O C
C E
C R
le te*
n H
Y
..A u0 e
t.
A os T
D si S w
6 c
u' 4, P e
s O
4 P
o' t
O j
H S
s t
H a
5 y*
g 2
2 nf 3A c
c T
r S
E.
r c.
)
s l i W
- w. s t
n R
e s.
Y.
P U
Au t
T P c s.
W" p
F u
n t
c o
o.
r 4
E to
.u s
t M'
/
f o
or r
c
- o S
c Tw e
I i
e S'
N p.
e P
r c c c.
m 4 A f
1w S
)
I f
E o
aet G E 5T5 Gw u
R F te A
T r
t lL ^
e e
m 2
6 s
t % w Y 'l 7
C
~
c a
s S 4 M
~
2 A
G r.
O 5
- ~ 5 Q
M 3 B 2
4 d
f 2 % 3 c a 8e o
44 3 6
M I
/
s 3 'r E
5 4} s 00 5
t 1
- S 1 8 a
t 2
i M<
5-7 P m
wG
(-
e K P i
i
- t. c Km t
gVs4t M
l c
r s
K4 T Q>
n b
e T
I s
a t
4 f.
F S
I 8
i I I I I
3 g
R.
8 g
L 5
T Z
t l
.E
_E l-C 5
I 5'
L 1
M 2
D C
- 2. A A
B 2'l 4
2
/
5 H
4 3
1 4
5 l
2 1
W PAC 4FIC GAS AN) ELECTR6C COMPANY 7J 1496(12(An
'13 GENERAL COMP UT ATION SHEET
.oxer ZE */
Am l
uArs_/b /d b Y
J cMrcuso av
_ apegoveo av M?.DE s f s
J i
~L N
g h
i e
4
.f W
l N
a t
3
$y h
.2 d
Y O
O 6
e b
a 3
'o s
=
4 4
N 2
2 3
P a.
y o
j i
g
~"
M) 21 5
,5 mi m,
o m
i a
N g N I Q 1 2
W <
8 a e
}g g
2 4 ;
g y
o
,l, n
i e3 og
.i N
A, u
Q Q
"" W 4
$4 D
d' h
M N
~
d I
fD D
a e
se
- u. x 1 g d
J I
d I
3 J
+
1 o w r
x
.c 9 ;
9
._ m m
5J i
f
% W '.1 d i
e.MNT I
V. ' 3~,w/
.M 0
APYDCi 4
as41.s d W
4k c. GuA al ' 4 h avIc,Js.w,pUv(4fv bd;hL Nivn u q
.j Yuwn%.
5 wd3 q...w b o, T. A Lv...
Ji.
UhsI 3 A N.w.'.
lwe,mh4, %:b. -L }
c.
t t
/ i t
g i,41cy n w n.'.
- c.,
y,r.tt -r. 1 1/
4)
J h ' 5'M' c e5 mmh
d'v p/ m d r-
/sr i
b..
4-VR5 3 4. e V W.L.
Mw Y.;.s ^;,,!
t r: v... t J em +3 he i.t)Q. d vl A.) v 6 \\ J 3.. 4.., s 4. .,,, ). d.!,ec4 m '. c.vrN:kL. sLr.w:nk.; y;p'..n !; \\ i o(t .nowl p a h
- .. 6 e
& L\\ ac < % uu.. .,......,.. y r.-:- 4 s t. 98.c..8.3 n.-,,.,.: .oss kv-v a... a.. ; .y Z. .w h,y, \\ ., \\.. (t,%m., ~ e., e. s w n,. n
- v... -
,, h Ii h k (p [ g WSMD fm j { t k.m ', d.Q Y tya tr. { .%(('.Pvu .v,
- O 1
,,4 i. %. e sk.. :< t I.A i n ns. A.. d i van d ihevi 'h 4,6 d .c d 1 < -,c h ci im .m
- o o
u1 . l'.*,I.*. % t O' Qh 0* ( s( o wn 5 4'r. L'h i n!, ',( ),s P'" ~ M orm.cr b ' ' '. w] i > :. '.V r\\ ( s
4/4 5% % C . Ta (.AN S d M CL k ' d. I r D O'- pkkro y 5 'N 4I W6 Y19'.cbc ww'C L I"I QL8 $ hGt C CJ, l OW COV y 4< 64 6 3..C hi o m m e q s icA iv 1 { s i I I 1 w '.5:{ Y". MA C C L U ~ ~.* u' 5.* ', ' $a \\ o OTon,(yyh.twyl'/tlt+@l4 m y,-.f Qs my gd',..hfG V,u ~.., ~ U..,.. i ) n;i op L W.. 4 y 4f s.2 ,H,,,'.r.v.* L f V's 'T' % '.' 3 3
- n'.* *.l tn\\ y *p :*
\\ 8 f b. o....
- n 11c,'
,h.' i4m e a: : s l
9 0 aMD M
- 6 p
AT-C r>A d e? Od- (e %.y, 2\\: 4 o.. ef c.e1J_s%4 ,.r. ' L,(. (- %. k le6 3-9^ > Cd n V d.e v,1 & da l > 1c-u.::;.. 4._, / c li-ch-Jcp
- cleey,
==> g a y a.,
- t. ut a w w: y e au m v.s.:
L.jfA 'fm n ' @ie.em (.W % bA <',,. ( I I + l
PIPE SUPPORT REVIEW STATitS AND FINDIGNS CLASS I SUPPORTS SUPPORTS WITH SUPPORTS SUPPORTS SUPPORTS KNOWN SUPPORTS IN REQUIRING PRELIMINARY IN REVIEW WITH REVIEW 10 REQUIRE PIPE SUPPORTS CONTAINMEWf REVIEW REVIEW COMPI.ETE PROCESS COMPLETED NODIFICATION Large Diameter 1445 342 49 132 161 18 LB 81 359 1 SB Small Diameter 1300 440 (< 2-1/2) TUTAL 2745 782 49 213 520 19 MRTresler(4891):cq
\\ /6 lp/--- :' , : ? U u w CHANGC$ S 1 - L j 04G t. LeMK6lNAME l {l ~ sn 1 - #<2-3 8 8 - 3 2 C b% 3=. in snubber stue-w g l i 25SL cowy4:s FA J ctet. I cc.w Sue g N O jo_ i - sc - z s t - s - svt. c.w s. s.,- 46., si u. E 22 sLse.TY sua Leo e 2 hat LEG g. m s. N.E I Q 7 r-1L I-k 2-S ES- #2 - N b re.c.e. adda.d. o : O N ' CouT Ain V Aw ca.Ilt I ccw RET E a I N l i C " a j _2.2 I-MS-I of o-Z -Z u s. w snu.clee.r-y >4[s j j 035 SL. 5 7>< dEp 5 St.ow nu our O I Z t en I 1 22 I-K.L-Iozo-2 T No.a snaisione x 1 536s-syn acu 3 Etew w u our 9/s 4 4 H wLhe.c f n - ss-2:58 - % 'E l l Ev l au s - eer-cu wx cuAnnat Tsue REs-se.F Ii snwl.le e.r site s 2. t-w. y. 234 5 - E-cA $ s% 5o3-Rt.P 4 rHEt f%tEne R. Ccw IZET i
E* 5: S H fe 4. LIME *[ NAM 8 C44463GofS 5 0 j 12_. I - Ks t- # 3 5 7-G c.h. a.
- s saiull e.
saw.e. 46SL T.c PPS Bas.t: ER. ecu stet HOdt. o a .LE I-K so-lo'2o T C k $< i% s a 4.4.e r 5 s a t. I m l 2 W 3 "'- sys amu 5 ma ON out w/s m 33 { l' uppe gbp [,.d e l.. 42_ l- % - 3845 5 PL Ch % e. l B** RH & PPl-1 # N 4 Cat D L8(a 2 hs afrul-4. prem4 bas'en O z 'W E C V s1 3. x. ig,-, a 4 s. 2 - T e g +,.d -8 84SL sys seg s-4 ' muwow rnet Hon. l O z I-St' 2. peAcron rp t Sa;s t n,o,,, 4Mvh [
- 'f'A" S *' 3" Y9 L w
l IO4- % teMrat coseky re sent m ru*ws wrea nm, n on. so was \\ m -4 l l-ytt -1042 -21t. % S* G&U I 1 8%M TA W HCAbet-l g l-A n g m. m 45 t*h y u ~ '57N - % AL - u gg - 4 gp gene pga, (qu g u-et s e s -e ' O ' r k "- ~ usc' "!"MT swBosk SM 13-zc sc CC W P.E tup ss
i l \\ i l!lll l I, U o m 2 m : >,- nOEic[4
- z mm4 3 eW D
soyduI N N iH3 ,O. sk,' EE >I o:oe
- 8S
=$ .e d lp s o r A l 4 o. 4 t c, h. + s t e t u e-j a a s g a t, t. t A 4 c o D h F S u g e T l Gt T E b R s. G T H m u G s m e w. c t H m e A a m e H c i T' t e a C p a i. I t a D m m t T u m a E Ya u 5 B 3 g 5-m a 6c I 5 ~ 2 S 2 H. 2 H op u u eA n 2 5 t 4 t_ o F l u 4 r p c 5 u 3 3 4 a I a 5 g T S v ou 2 r 5 2 u I E 3 / 7 3 2 A s G s W - T 7 i e (( r k e. 6 e K h x ,c. u f c c s n a R. (r. c g i. g i g n 8 l R. A 8 a. M 4 5 0_ L S . 3 w 6' I s 2 2 2 2 (i f 3 l 6 / 5 1 1 a 1 I ll
1 = Qasl..-s G-P4 1 &~ Ra.pr.h d c../,.~. f r-cr.n se. si...J,, 1. AdJeess c.I,. n e. <n
- 6. /w me~
,., s / .., J ,3 .,,d om,,,J p oc. c& re .,~l z,s e y use/ So.- a s } e.e / J,,~ de.say ]n. eel <s te. 4..-s., p..5,.c. (. Z.. Address e 1, 4-een .+ ~,,. n e. sp . < ia.c 4 6 {wa eie an l,e as u e c l.g. /~ ...s. add,,.s s wL.L sp ee {c~ -Ve.- used -Co< e-I re sp/ .n s e. w a.s proble,s .W~ L~ qA - w a<da h / 3. c Ie.cl , sA, c ~ L.- A; a.L &~p c.Llw s wn A rr.. mas or,,J J., nr
- c..,.
a o it.,_ p ee> Llem. Als<., addru s A. fir ped /e.~ ~ s a.s a e n { /- c. ), w <.s L,J c ~.c. s -,,4 a v.-,4, s u. ~. ~ & 9. o, -.s us J 4.- m u., s in ae /n of Ik n es.,. lu /,.. effa,lpc w.., n sp.., s e. s p.e ,n
PROGRESS REPORT + OF SEISMIC RE-VERIFICATION PROGRAM DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT e Proj ect 105-4 Progress Report No. 1 Work Period from 11/2 to 11/10/81 Report of work performed for Pacific Gas & Electric Co. by.R. L. Cloud Associates, Inc. Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc. 125 University Ave. P.O. Box 687 Berkeley, CA' 94710 West Falmouth, MA 02574 (415) 841-9296 (617) 540-5381 m l l 1
1 ? ?ROGRESS REPORT of SEISMIC RE-VERIFICATION PROGRAM DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Work Period from 11/2 to 11/10/81. Progress Report No. 1 l 1. Summary: The scope, objective, and approach of the Seismic Re-verification Program
- were delineated in the pro-posal dated October 30, 1981.
The work on this pro-gram began on November 2, 1981. The emphasis of this work period was on gathering design information so that a judgment sample of buildings and equipment can he selected for independent requalification. For some items of the sample, the selection has been made and its independent requalification has begun. A detailed description of the work performed is given in Section 2 i' Work Accomplished", of this report. The QA/QC procedures specifically preoared for this program are complete and are being implemented. All RLCA engineers who work on the program have been briefed before the implementation of the QA/QC-procedures. I 2. Work Accomplished: There are four tasks of the subj ect re-verifica-l tion program. The work accomplished for each task in the reported work period is described below:
- " Seismic Re-verification Program", prepared for PGandE by Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc., October 30, 1981 i
I
7' 2.1 Task 1 - Review of Sesismic Design Chain for Applicability f The entire flow of seismic design information for the Hosgri requalification is being diagrammed before a judgement sample of ince'rfaces of different groups " can be made for. the subj ect review." A list of PGandE ' subcontractors who were involved _th the Hosgri re-qualfication has been identifiec and some of their inter-faces defined. The interface between~PGandE and URS/ Blume_will not be included as it was already reviewed in the interim report. 2.2 Task 2 - Independent Re-qualification The items which will be-independently re-qualified are given in the attached table. The work accomplished for each item is given below: 2.2.1 Auxiliary Building The Auxiliary Building was selected to be inde-pendently requalified. The reasons for this selection are:
- 1) The Auxiliary Building has the most safety-related components except for the Containment Building which has already been scrutinized.
- 2) Because the L
documentation of resolution to the controversy in mass computation of this building has not been found, it is necessary to assess the significance of this controversy. The relevant drawings of this building were gathered from PGandE and examined to understand its architectural and structural configurations. Some struc-tural plan and section drawings reconstrua 2d from the PG&#. ..,=
7 Drawings were prepared for later use of independent mass and stiffness computations of the building ~ dynamic model. The seismic analysis report of the Auxiliary Building prepared by URS/Blume (dated October, 1979) d geas carefully reviewed for its analysis methodology. The ebroperties of the dynamic model use'd in the analysis are not included in this report. This information needs to be obtained in order to compare it with the dynamic model being developed by RLCA to determine the accuracy of'the dynamic model used by URS/Blume in the seismic qualifica-tion of the Auxiliary Building. 2.2.2 Piping Runs and Pipe Supports Many piping drawings have been assembled and examined. Three systems have initially been selected for possible independent.requalification. They are: The component cooling water (CCW) system The redisual heat removal (RHR). system The auxiliary feed water (AFW) system. The significance of each system with respect to safety was considered in the selection. Some consideration have been given in the selec-tion of pipe supports for independent requalification. However, the actual selection has not been completed ~ in this work period. 2.2.3 Equipment The list of safety-related equipment has been review-ed. Based on its significance with respec-,to safety, the following have been selected for independent requal-ification:
4 ? Diesel Generation Fuel Oil Priming Tank Boric Acid Tank Component Cooling Water Heat Exchanger ~ Residual Heat Removal Exchanger Residual Heat Removal Pump ~ Auxiliary Saltwater Pump n Valve.Nos. 8805A,B / Post Accident Monitoring Panels Main Annunciator Panels The drawings required to perform the independent requalification of the selected equipment have been requested. The relevant test reports prepared by the Wyle Laboratories have also been requested. 2.2.4 Conduit and HVAC Supports ~~ ~ After reviewing available conduit and HVAC sup-ports, twenty conduit reports and one HVAC support have been selected for independent requalification. A field trip to the site-was made to compare the design an.d as-built supports. A total o'f twenty conduits and one HVAC support were photographed during.the plant visit. A request for design specif,1 cations and more com-plete design drawings of these supports was made to PGandE. 2.2.5 Small Bore Piping Runs and HVAC Components The work has begun on the selection of small bore piping runs and HVAC components. However, the actual selection has not been completed in this work period.
2.3 Field Verification A field trip was made to ensure that the conduit and HVAC supports built and installed were the same as f they were qualified. The field trip did not cover the f other equipment as it was not ready for field verifi-cation. = a, 2.4 QA/QC Procedures The QA/QC procedures applicable to the subject pro-gram were developed. Engineers of RLCA were briefed on the QA/QC procedures. These procedures are currently being implemented. 3. Significant Results or Findings: As a result of the field trip to the plant to in-spect the conduit and HVAC supports, it was found that there are several instances of minor differences in the as-built and design conduit support configurations. 4. Scheduled Work for Next Work Period: 4.1 Task 1 - Review of Seismic Design Chain for Applicability will' be The exact. work scope of each subcontractor further defined to complete the diagram of the entire flow of seismic design information for the Hosgri re-qualification. A sample which consists of 10% of the entire seis-I mic design chain (except PGandE and URS/Blume interface) will be selected. The review of seismic dqsign chain for the selected sample will begin once the sample is ' chosen.
.e 4.2 Independent Requalification 4.2.1 Auxiliary Building It is' anticipated that the following will be com- ' pleted in the next work period: = Review of Blume's dynamic model for the auxiliary / building A portion of dynamic model independently de-veloped by RLCA for the auxiliary building 4.2.2 Piping Runs and Pipe Supports The following are planned for the next work period: Begin independent dynamic modeling of a portion of the CCW system Assemble more piping drawings and define piping analyses for RHR and AFW Systems Select pipe supports for independent requalifi-cation Field trip to inspect the as-built support condi-tions 4.2.3 Equipment It is expected that Independent analyses of equip- - - begin - once the relevant drawings are received
4 1,:. 72Er K.. T .. Ebre drawings need to be assembled. w.]l-Sample checks of test sp,ectra used by the Wyle Lab for equipment test will begin., . Field trip will be made to inspect ~the as-built support conditions. =. i
- 4.2.4 Conduit and HVAC Supports The following are planned for the next work period:
Begin independent requalification based on as-built support conditions Select one additional HVAC support for indepen-dent calculations 4.2.5 Small Bore Piping Runs and HVAC Components The sample selection of small bore piping runs and HVAC components will be partially compl'eted in the next work period. The independent requalification of the selected sample will begin after a field trip is made to inspect this equipment. 4.3 Field Verification A field trip to the plant to verify the as-built support conditions for the various equipment and piping runs is planned before the initiation of their indepen-dent requalification. = i
-8 0 4.4 QA/QC Procedures The established QA/QC procedures will be enforced
- to ensure the quality of engineering work.
'5. -Conclusions: = The Seismic Reverification Program has begun smooth-eIy. The emphasis of this work period was on gathering design information which serves as a basis for judgmently selecting a sample of buildings and equipment for indepen-dent requalification. Some independent requalification results will be reported in the next progress report. The value of field verification is evidenced by the fact that several instances of minor difference were dis-covered between the as-built and design conditions of - conduit supports. The discovery of this difference necessitates the field verification of some sample equipment before it is independently analyzed.
- N p
. l a TABLE OF ITEMS TO BE INDEPENDENTLY REQUALIFIED -~ ITEM SAMPLE SIZE BUILDINGS 1 PIPING PROBLEMS 10 SMALL BORE PIPING 200 feet PIPE SUPPORTS 20 CONDUIT SUPPORTS 20 2 HEAVY EQUIPMENT TANKS 2 HEAT EXCHANGERS 2 PUMPS 2 VALVES 6 HVAC COMPONENTS 2 HVAC DUCTS 2 ~ ELECTRICAL PANELS 2 M. W
- I RODERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES. INC.
' ;S Uf.IV.:.tslTY A V.NUE A anMMELEY. c ALIFCRNIA 94710 14823 841.9296 P'105-4 November 11, 1981 =Mr.', George Maneatis Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106 ATTN: Mr. James Rocca
Dear Mr. Maneatis,
Please find enclosed our progress report of the Seismic Reverification Program for the work period from November 2 to November 10, 1981. If you have any questions regarding the progress report, please feel free to call. Very truly yours, R L. C1 ud RLC: hec Enclosure 4}}