Number 740 DCP/NRC1774M. Ahmed 1 t ~ e . REVIEWERS SIGNATURE/DATE 1612, VERIFIER SI ATUE/ DTE / IVERIFICATION METHOD Paul Sowatskey 9L9-1/o11 6 ew 0 1ra466 946V(rAI K. AP1000 RESPONSIBLE

Westinghouse Westinghouse Electric CompanyNuclear Power PlantsP.O. Box 355Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-0355USA

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionATTENTION: Document Control DeskWashington, D.C. 20555

Direct tel:Direct fax:

e-mail:

[email protected]

Your ref: Project Number 740Our ref: DCP/NRC1774

September 8, 2006

Subject: AP1000 COL Standard Technical Report Submittal

In support of Combined License application pre-application activities, Westinghouse is submittingRevision 1 of AP1000 Standard Combined License Technical Report Number 16. This report completesand documents, on a generic basis, activities required for COL Information Item 3.10-1 in the AP1000Design Control Document. Changes to the Design Control Document identified in Technical ReportNumber 16 are intended to be incorporated into FSARs referencing the AP 1000 design certification orincorporated into the design certification using supplemental rulemaking if Part 52 is revised to permitrevision of the design certification. This report is submitted as part of the NuStart Bellefonte COL Project(NRC Project Number 740). The information included in this report is generic and is expected to apply toall COL applications referencing the AP1000 Design Certification.

The purpose for submittal of this report was explained in a March 8, 2006 letter from NuStart to theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.30(b), APP-GW-GLR-03 1, Revision 1, "Seismic Qualification Using TestExperience - Based Method for AP 1000 Safety Related Equipment," Technical Report Number 16, issubmitted as Enclosure I under the attached Oath of Affirmation.

Please note that we did not transmit Revision 0 of this report.

It is expected that when the NRC review of Technical Report Number 16 is complete, COL InformationItem 3.10-1 will be considered complete for COL applicants referencing the AP 1000 Design Certification.

0028-1dk.docA BNFL Group company

DCP/NRC1774September 8, 2006

Page 2 of 2

Questions or requests for additional information related to the content and preparation of this reportshould be directed to Westinghouse. Please send copies of such questions or requests to the prospectiveapplicants for combined licenses referencing the AP 1000 Design Certification. A representative for eachapplicant is included on the cc: list of this letter.

Very truly yours,

A. Sterdis, ManagerLicensing and Customer InterfaceRegulatory Affairs and Standardization

/Attachment

1. "Oath of Affirmation," dated September 8, 2006

/Enclosure

1. APP-GW-GLR-03 1, Revision 1, "Seismic Qualification Using Test Experience - Based Method forAP1000 Safety Related Equipment," Technical Report Number 16, dated September 2006.

cc: S. BloomS. CoffinG. CurtisP. GrendysP. HastingsC. IonescuD. LindgrenA. MonroeM. MoranC. PierceE. SchmiechG. Zinke

U.S. NRCU.S. NRCTVAWestinghouseDuke PowerProgress EnergyWestinghouseSCANAFlorida Power & LightSouthern CompanyWestinghouseNuStart/Entergy

1EIE1E1EIE1E1E1E1E1E1E1E

IAIAIAIAIAIA1AIAIAIAIAIA



ATTACHMENT 1

"Oath of Affirmation"

0028-ldk.doc*A BNFL Group company


ATTACHMENT 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

In the Matter of: )

NuStart Bellefonte COL Project )

NRC Project Number 740 )

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF"AP1000 GENERAL COMBINED LICENSE INFORMATION"

FOR COL APPLICATION PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW

W. E. Cummins, being duly sworn, states that he is Vice President, Regulatory Affairs & Standardization,for Westinghouse Electric Company; that he is authorized on the part of said company to sign and filewith the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this document; that all statements made and matters set forththerein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.

W. E. CumminsVice PresidentRegulatory Affairs & Standardization

Subscribed and sworn tobefore me this dayof September 2006.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIANotaral Seal-

Debra McCarthy, Notary PublicMonroevilte Boro, Allegheny County

My Commission Expires Aug. 31,2009Member, Pennsylvania Association of Notaries

Notary Public



ENCLOSURE I

APP-GW-GLR-031, Revision 1

Seismic Qualification Using Test Experience - Based Method for API 000 Safety Related Equipment

Technical Report Number 16

0028-Idk.docA BNFL Group company

AP1 000 DOCUMENT COVER SHEET

TDC: Permanent File: APY:

RFS#: RFS ITEM #:

AP1 000 DOCUMENT NO. REVISION NO. JASSIGNED TOAPP-GW-GLR-031 1 Page 1 of 125 W-A. Sterdis

ALTERNATE DOCUMENT NUMBER: WORK BREAKDOWN #:

ORIGINATING ORGANIZATION: Westinghouse Electric Company

TITLE: Seismic Qualification Using Test Experience-Based Method for AP1000 Safety Related Equipment

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Investigation of Seismic Qualification of 125 VDCMCC Using Test Experience-Based Qualification MethodAttachment B: Investigation of Seismic Qualification of Transformers Using TestExperience-Based Qualification MethodCALCULATION/ANALYSIS REFERENCE:

WEC Calc Note No. CN-EQT-06-46 - Rev.1

ELECTRONIC FILENAME ELECTRONIC FILE FORMAT ELECTRONIC FILE DESCRIPTIONAPP-GW-GLR-031 Microsoft Word

(C) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC - 2006

[] WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 (NON PROPRIETARY)Class 3 Documents being transmitted to the NRC require the following two review signatures in lieu of a Form 36.

LEGAL REVIEW SIGNATURE/DATE

PATENT REVIEW SG:ý

El WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2This document is the property of and contains Proprietary Information owned by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and/or itssubcontractors and suppliers. It is transmitted to you in confidence and trust, and you agree to treat this document in strict accordancewith the terms and conditions of the agreement under which it was provided to you.

ORIGINATOR SIGNATURE/DATEM. Ahmed 1 t ~ e .REVIEWERS SIGNATURE/DATE 1612,

VERIFIER SI ATUE/ DTE / IVERIFICATION METHODPaul Sowatskey 9L9-1/o11 6 ew 0 1ra466 946V(rAI K.AP1000 RESPONSIBLE MANAGER SIG) ATUE IAPPRO AL DATE

D.Adomaitis _____________* Approval of the responsible manager signifies that document is complete, all required reviews re codinplete, electronic file is attached

and document is released for use.

33

AP1000 DOCUMENT COVER SHEET

TDC:

RFS#:

Permanent File: APY:

RFS ITEM #:

I

AP1 000 DOCUMENT NO. REVISION NO. JASSIGNED TO

APP-GW-GLR-031 1 Page 1 of 125 W-A. Sterdis

ALTERNATE DOCUMENT NUMBER: WORK BREAKDOWN #:

ORIGINATING ORGANIZATION: Westinghouse Electric Company

TITLE: Seismic Qualification Using Test Experience-Based Method for AP1000 Safety Related Equipment

ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Investigation of Seismic Qualification of 125 VDCMCC Using Test Experience-Based Qualification MethodAttachment B: Investigation of Seismic Qualification of Transformers Using TestExperience-Based Qualification MethodCALCULATION/ANALYSIS REFERENCE:WEC Calc Note No. CN-EQT-06-46 - Rev.1

ELECTRONIC FILENAME ELECTRONIC FILE FORMAT ELECTRONIC FILE DESCRIPTIONAPP-GW-GLR-031 Microsoft Word

(C) WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC - 2006

[] WESTINGHOUSE CLASS 3 (NON PROPRIETARY)Class 3 Documents being transmitted to the NRC require the following two review signatures in lieu of a Form 36.

I

El WESTINGHOUSE PROPRIETARY CLASS 2This document is the property of and contains Proprietary Information owned by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC and/or itssubcontractors and suppliers. It is transmitted to you in confidence and trust, and you agree to treat this document in strict accordancewith the terms and conditions of the agreement under which it was provided to you.

ORIGINATOR SIGNATURE/DATEM. Ahmed

REVIEWERS SIGNATURE/DATE

VERIFIER SIGNATURE/DATE VERIFICATION METHODPaul SowatskeyAP1000 RESPONSIBLE MANAGER SIGNATURE* APPROVAL DATED. Adomaitis

Approval of the responsible manager signifies that document is complete, all required reviews are complete, electronic file is attachedand document is released for use.

33

APP-GW-GLR-031 September 2006Revision I

APO00O Standard Combined License Technical Report

Seismic Qualification Using Test Experience-BasedMethod for AP1000 Safety Related Equipment

Revision 1

Westinghouse Electric Company LLCNuclear Power PlantsPost Office Box 355

Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355

©2006 Westinghouse Electric Company LLCAll Rights Reserved

AP1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 COLA Technical Report

I. INTRODUCTION

This technical report addresses AP1000 Combined License Information Item 3.10-1 (FSER Action Item 3.10-1) on experienced based equipment qualification. The information item is as follows:

[The Combined License applicant will address, as part of the Combined License application,identification of the equipment qualified based on experience and include details of themethodology and the corresponding experience data. The corresponding experience data for eachpiece of equipment will be inchlded in the equipment qualification file.]

During the detailed development of the methodology for qualification ofAP1000 safety-related equipment, itwas determined that clarification is required to the AP1000 Design Control Document (DCD) for applicationof seismic qualification methodology based on test experience and to be consistent with the current industrystandards and practices. The methodology of seismic qualification based on test experience will be performedin accordance with Section 9.0 of IEEE 344-1987 (Reference 2). The details of the methodology,qualification basis, and supporting data will be executed in accordance with the delineation and detailsprovided in the Technical Background section of this report. This Technical Report provides sufficient detailsand examples of how the method will be applied. The experience-based qualification method satisfies theAP1000 design criteria and specifications (Reference 1). Qualification based on earthquake-experience willnot be implemented in qualification of Safety related equipment in AP1000 plants because functionaloperability is not clearly established or documented during the earthquake event.

The purpose of this Technical Report is to document the Westinghouse position on using Test Experience-Based Seismic qualification method given in IEEE Std 344-1987.

II. TECHNICAL BACKGROUND

The details and examples of using experience-based qualification are being recommended to be consistentwith the practices described in section 9 of IEEE 344-1987, "IEEE Recommended Practice for SeismicQualification of Class IE Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations"

The following information documents the Westinghouse position on using Experience-Based SeismicQualification methods.

III. Position

Westinghouse may use the Test Experience-Based Seismic Qualification methods described in section 9 ofIEEE Std 344-1987 for demonstrating seismic qualification of Class 1E equipment subject to meetingWestinghouse qualification methodology, customer requirements and the clarifications and exceptionsidentified in the regulatory requirements of the US NRC. WEC will not use earthquake experience indemonstrating seismic qualification of safety related equipment because functional operability is not clearlyestablished or documented during the earthquake event.

IV. Background

In the experience-based methods, the qualification of the candidate equipment is determined based on existingqualification of a similar group of equipment which has been demonstrated to be capable of performing therequired functions under conditions equal to or more severe than that required for the candidate equipment.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page I of I I


The test equipment within the reference equipment class share common attributes defined by a set of inclusionrules and prohibited features. If the candidate equipment is not in compliance with the inclusion rules andprohibited features then the differences between the reference equipment and the candidate equipment mustbe investigated and addressed.

Experience-based qualification may not be appropriate for all applications. The use of test experience-basedqualification methods in lieu of other justifiable methods will be based on the practicality of the method,availability of experience test data and consideration of the limitations associated with the experience-basedmethods.

V. Test Experience-Based Qualification Methodolofy

A. Introduction and Purpose

Section 9.0 of IEEE 344-1987 provides guidelines for seismic qualification using experience based data. Thequalification of equipment may be accomplished by justifying their similarity with previously qualifiedequipment that has been qualified at equal or more severe seismic requirements. Similarity of equipmentcharacteristics and of the excitation environment must be established by techniques that can be technicallyjustified. Differences in designs and manufacturing techniques must be considered as part of the technicaljustification supporting similarity.

The purpose of this section is to define the methodology for seismic qualification of equipment based on testexperience-based data for a group of previously tested equipment in compliance with IEEE Std 344-1987.The sections that follow define the process to be employed to meet the experience-based requirements setforth in Section 9 of IEEE 344-1987 and provide descriptions of how the requirements will be met whenperforming test experience-based qualification.

B. IEEE 344-1987, Section 9.2: Experience Data

Section 9.2 of IEEE 344-1987 provides three sources for experience data. They are identified as follows:

1. Analysis or test data from previous qualification programs2. Documented data from equipment in facilities that have experienced earthquakes3. Data from operating dynamic loading or other dynamic environments

Westinghouse may use existing test data or combined test and analysis qualifications as a basis for testexperience-based qualification. Earthquake experience and/or operating dynamic loads are not considered asqualification approaches for the API000 safety related equipment at this time.

B.1. IEEE 344-1987, Section 9.2.1: Previous Qualification

Section 9.2.1 of IEEE 344-1987 states that existing dynamic and seismic qualification programs of equipmentin the nuclear industry can be used to develop an experience data base. The standards also indicate that toutilize an experience data base, the input motions to which the equipment was previously qualified must havebeen clearly documented, together with pertinent qualification parameters, such as resonance frequencies,damping, and responses throughout the equipment.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page 2 of II

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page 2 of I I


1. Test programs of similar types of equipment will be used as the basis for qualification using the testexperience-based approach. Only test programs where all identified requirements have beendocumented will be used.

B.2. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.2.2: Earthquakes

This section will not be used. At this time, we are not planning to utilize earthquake experience data as asource for seismic qualification ofAP1000 safety related equipment.

B.3. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.2.3: Other Experience

This section will not be used. At this time, only documented seismic test and qualification data of similarequipment will be used in seismic qualification of APl 000 safety related equipment.

C. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.3: Similarity

Section 9.3 of IEEE 344-1987 provides guidelines for showing similarity of candidate equipment andpreviously tested and qualified equipment. The standard identifies that the qualification process forequipment is comprised of the following basic factors:

1. Excitation2. Physical system (dynamic properties and operability)3. Dynamic response

Section 9.3 of IEEE 344-1987 identifies that the equipment qualification levels, experience response spectra(ERS) can be used to qualify similar equipment when the equipment seismic requirements are equal to orenveloped by the ERS. The standard also states that when at least two or more dynamically similar itemshave been qualified to different excitations they may be both shown to be qualified to a composite ERS. Thecomposite ERS may be used for qualification of candidate equipment.

For the Westinghouse test experience-based method, a composite ERS will be generated using the frequency-by-frequency mean of Test Response Spectra (TRS) from a minimum of five independent successfulequipment test programs. The Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)composite ERS define the lower bound seismic capacity of the group of individual equipment in the front-to-back, side-to-side, and vertical directions.

The IEEE 344-1987 standard identifies the following four subsections in demonstrating similarity:

C.1. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.3.1 Excitation

Similarity of excitation is described in Section 9.3.1. The section also identifies that test input shall be of atleast 15 seconds of strong motion duration. Also, OBE test levels must be documented as part of experiencedata or lack of fatigue effects must bejustified.

To meet the above requirements and establish test experience input motions for tested equipment, thefollowing requirements shall be met.

1. The test input motion shall be multi-frequency and must meet the relevant requirements in the IEEE344-1987 standard.




2. The test input motion shall be characterized by the test response spectra in the front-to-back, side-to-side and vertical directions.

3. The test input shall be recorded at the mounting points of the equipment.

4. The test input motion should have broadband response spectra shape with an amplified region of oneoctave or more. If the test response spectra of the equipment are narrowband, the peak spectralacceleration in the narrowband region shall be reduced by a factor of 0.7.

5. The test input motion shall be biaxial or triaxial. If equipment is susceptible to cross-coupling effects,a reduction factor of 0.7 shall be considered for a biaxial test response spectra.

C.2. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.3.2: Physical Systems

Section 9.3.2 of the standard indicates that similarity can be established by comparing the pre-dominantresonant frequencies and mode shapes.

C.3. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.3.3: Dynamic Response

Section 9.3.3 of the standard provides information to evaluate and extend the equipment physical responseduring testing to other similar systems.

To meet the requirements specified above and establish similarity of candidate equipment to tested equipment(physical systems and dynamic response), the tested equipment and candidate equipment must be shown tomeet certain inclusion rules and prohibited features. This will confirm that candidate equipment and testedequipment are similar and share a narrow range of physical, functional, dynamic characteristics, and electricalperformance that has been demonstrated during testing. The inclusion rules and prohibited features are listedbelow. They must be verified during the process of developing test experience-based composite ERS andestablishing the qualification of candidate equipment based on test experience.

Inclusion Rules

The inclusion rules are as follows:

a. Physical characteristicsb. Design detailsc. Dynamic characteristicsd. Functionse. Equipment typef. Manufacturerg. WeightIh. Structural and mechanical designs detailsi. Design featuresj. Size and shapek. Vintage1. Capacity ratingm. Load pathn. Mounting

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page 4 o f I I


o. Industry practicesp. Materialsq. Dominant natural frequenciesr. Moveable sub-assembliess. Attached items or componentst. Modifications

Prohibited Features

Prohibited features are design details, materials, construction features, or installation characteristics thathave resulted in seismic weaknesses leading to the equipment being incapable of performing its intendedsafety function(s) or maintaining structural integrity. A list of related prohibited features based on testingshall be compiled and addressed. The bases for their resolution shall also be explained. Failure data fromother sources may also need to be considered and included in the prohibited features list. The list shouldalso include prohibited features that would contribute to fatigue failure from low cycle loads from acombination of a number of OBE and SSE events.

C.4. IEEE 344-1987 Section 9.3.4: Operability (Last Requirement in Section 9)

Section 9.3.4 indicates that experience data must provide documented evidence to support the demonstrationof proper operability of the equipment during and after the seismic tests. The experience data must providesound evidence that the equipment performed as required in a similar electrical system.

This last requirement in section 9 will be fulfilled by showing that all safety related components on thecandidate equipment have been seismically tested and qualified in the existing test programs. If not, thenadditional seismic testing of the components to their seismic demands will be performed.

D. Process for Qualification of Candidate Equipment Based on Test Experience Data

The Westinghouse process for qualification of candidate equipment based on test experience data involves thefollowing five steps:

1. Characterization of test motions experienced by the tested equipment2. Establishment of the composite ERS based on the actual test inputs3. Characterization of tested equipment4. Comparison of candidate equipment to tested equipment5. Documentation of the qualification process

In using test experience for seismic qualification of equipment, all of the above requirements will be shown tobe met. The qualification steps will verify that the following requirements are met.

1. The existing qualification programs and experience test data meet the requirements in IEEE 344-1987 standards.

2. The test excitation is at least 15 s of strong seismic motion, well documented in the existing testreports and the qualification seismic levels are well defined.

3. Similarity of the candidate equipment to tested and qualified equipment is demonstrated by showingthe physical systems and their dominant natural frequencies to be similar.

4. The vibration aging seismic requirements and SSE RRS of the AP1000 should be enveloped by therespective composite OBE and SSE ERS of the tested equipment over the frequency range of interest(typically 1-33 Hz). If the RRS is not enveloped it must be justified.

APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page 5 of I I

AP 1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 COLA Technical Report

5. The vibration aging seismic requirements and SSE RRS of the AP1000 used for comparison withrespective composite OBE and SSE ERS should be the in-structure response spectrum at themounting location of the candidate equipment. This RRS, as defined in the qualificationspecification, shall be derived from the SSE. If the RRS is peak-broadened to account foruncertainty or variation of location, then it should be justified that the actual response spectrum atthe mounting location is narrow banded.

6. The vibration aging seismic requirements and SSE RRS of the AP1000 used for comparison with therespective composite OBE and SSE ERS should be computed for the same damping value as thecomposite ERS. Westinghouse uses 5% critical damping in the generation of TRS in seismicqualification test programs. When the damping values of the RRS and the composite ERS aredifferent, additional guidance in 5.3.2 of IEEE 344-1987 may be used for making the comparison.

7. The candidate equipment shall be verified to be within the inclusion rules of tested equipment.8. The candidate equipment shall be verified to exclude the prohibited features of the tested equipment.9. The safety function of the candidate equipment including the enclosed or attached devices or

subassemblies, if applicable, during and/or after the earthquake shall be demonstrated by the testedequipment or additional test data.

10. The equipment mounting shall be shown similar or equivalent to the tested and qualified mountingconfigurations or shall be evaluated in accordance with the qualification specification requirements.

11. Since equipment capacity may change with vintage, candidate equipment of newer vintage than thetested equipment shall be evaluated for any significant changes in the design, materials, orfabrication that could reduce its seismic capacity compared to the tested equipment.

12. The qualification of the candidate equipment shall be documented in accordance with therequirements of IEEE 344-1987, Section 10.

E. Limitations

In addition qualification using test experience is limited by the following considerations. If these limitationsexist, then seismic qualification using other acceptable methods must be considered.

1. Some complex equipment such as microprocessor-based systems, relays and potentiometers may bedifficult to qualify using the experience based method.

2. Insufficient number of independent test items.

3. For pressure boundary components, the capability of the component to perform the specified pressureretaining functions in combination with an earthquake must be addressed separately using appropriatecriteria.

4. Applications that required equipment to be exposed to harsh environment or aging (e.g., IEEE Std323) prior to or during an earthquake require special consideration.

VI. Examples

Two examples showing seismic qualification of safety related equipment using test experience areimplemented in Appendices A and B. The examples are not intended to provide the actual qualification of theequipment since the equipment final design is being determined. Rather, the examples are provided toillustrate how the process may be applied when used.




The two examples selected are Motor Control Centers (MCC) and regulating transformers. They wereselected for several reasons:

I. The MCC is constructed of several flexible electrical cabinets which contain many components anddevices that must perform their safety related function and maintain continuity during and after theseismic event. The MCC represents both structural integrity and components electrical operabilityqualification requirements.

2. The regulating transformers are relatively simple electrical assembly with no electrical devicesmounted to it.

3. Many well documented seismic test programs have been performed on similar MCC and transformertest units.

Identification of Equipment Qualified Based On Experience

Safety-related equipment that may be qualified by IEEE 344-1987 test experience may include certain ruggedequipment such as valves, sensors and electro-mechanical equipment with limited amount of moving parts andwhich are not exposed to harsh environmental conditions.

VII. REFERENCES

1. AP1000 Design Control Document, Rev. 152. IEEE Standard 344-1987, "IEEE Recommended Practice for Seismic Qualification of Class IE

Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations," Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,Inc., 1987.

3. APP-GW-GLN-006, Rev. 1, "Methodology for Qualifying API000 Safety Related Electrical andMechanical Equipment," dated 9/06/06.

4. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Retest of Three Westinghouse Type WMotor Control Center Cabinets, Report No. EL:778, SD 3088, XAL 72155, dated May 1978. (Aphoto of the test unit is shown in Figure Al)

5. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Three Westinghouse ControlCenter Division 5 Star Motor Control Centers for the Commonwealth Edison, Byron/BraidwoodStation, EL:1025, SD 3320, XAL 72333, dated October 1979. (A photo of the test unit is shown inFigure A2)

6. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control Centers STM-2, STM-2A, EL:1873, SD 3452, XAL 80136, dated November1982. (A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure A3)

7. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control Centers STM-2, STM-2A, EL:1873, SD 3452, XAL 80136, dated November1982. (A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure A4)

8. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control Center STM-1, EL:1846, SD 3452, XAL 80136, dated December 1982. (Aphoto of the test unit is shown in Figure A5).

9. Farwell and Hendricks Incorporated Test Report, Volume I, "Seismic Qualification Report on an ACMotor Control center," AC-10148, dated August 1984. (A photo of the test unit is shown in FigureA6)

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916/06 Page 7 of II



10. Wyle Test Report No. 47952-1, "Seismic Simulation Test Program on a Five Star Motor ControlCenter and Enclosed AC/DC Controls," dated December 1985. (A photo of the test unit is shown inFigure A7)

11. Wyle Test Report No. 42396-2, "Seismic Simulation Test Program on a Class I E 2100 Series MotorControl Center," dated June 1992. (A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure A8)

12. Wyle Test Report No. 42686-5, "Seismic Simulation Test Report 42686-5 (750 KVA Transformer),"dated December 1974. (A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure B I)

13. Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory, "Seismic Test Report of A Westinghouse Air VentilatedTransformer," EL: 476, Dated March 1975. (A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure Example 82)

14. Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory, "Seismic Test of Two Small Dry Transformers, Type DS3and DT3, Westinghouse - Sharon," EL: 567, XAL 71841, SD 3045, dated January 1976. (A photo ofthe test unit is shown in Figure B3)

15. Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory, "Seismic Test of Two Small Dry Transformers, Type DS3and DT3, Westinghouse - Sharon," EL: 567, XAL 71841, SD 3045, dated January 1976. (A photo ofthe test unit is shown in Figure B4)

16. Wyle Test Report No. 43853-1, "Seismic Simulation Test Program on a 2000 KVA DryTransformer," dated January 1978. (A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure B5)

17. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, "Seismic Test of A Westinghouse 1000 KVADry-Type Transformer," Report No. EL:2722, XALA 80442, dated January 1986. (A photo of thetest unit is shown in Figure B6)

18. APP-1000-$2C-032, Rev. 1, "Auxiliary and Shield Building Finite Element Models," dated11/11/2002.

VIII. APPLICATIONS AND EXAMPLES

Report APP-GW-GLN-006, Methodology for Qualifying API000 Safety Related Electrical and MechanicalEquipment identified changes to the DCD associated with the use of experience based qualification.

In Subsection 3D.6.2 of the DCD, the use of analysis is clarified by deleting a contradictory paragraph. Thisproposed change brings this subsection to be consistent with IEEE 344-1987. It does not introduce newqualification methods or qualification criteria.

Examples of how test experience may be applied consistent with the identified DCD changes in performingequipment qualification of safety related equipment have been developed. The details of step-by-step processfor applying experience-based qualification for two types of equipment commonly used in AP1000 areoutlined in Attachments A and B of this report. The two equipment classes are:

a. 125 VDC Motor Control Centers

b. Air ventilated dry type regulating transformers

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page 8 of II



IX. REGULATORY IMPACT

FSER IMPACT

In FSER Subsection 3.10 the use of experience based equipment qualification is discussed. A case by caseNRC review of the use of experience based qualification is required. Generic approval of the methodologydescribed in this report will impact the FSER. The conclusions in Subsection 3.10-I of the FSER are notaltered.

The changes in the equipment qualification methodology have no effect on design function. This change hasno effect on analysis or analysis method. This change has no effect on procedures that control how DCDdescribed SSC design functions are performed or controlled. This change has no effect on Tier I information.

The changes to the equipment qualification methodology do not require changes to the evaluation of theresponse to postulated accident conditions. The changes to the equipment qualification methodology do notrequire changes to the structural or safety analysis of any safety related equipment.

The changes to the equipment qualification methodology do not require an additional test or experiment orchanges to testing.

EVALUATION OF DEPARTURE FROM TIER 2 INFORMATION

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section VIII. B.5.a. provides that an applicant for a combined licensee whoreferences the API 000 design certification may depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval,if it does not require a license amendment under paragraph B.5.b. The questions below address the criteria ofB.5.b.

1. Does the proposed activity result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of [: YES [ NOoccurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD?

Since there is no change to the equipment qualification methodology that could affect the plant design oroperations, there are no new accident initiators and no effect on the frequency of evaluated accidents.

2. Does the proposed activity result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of [: YES E NO

occurrence of a malfinction of a structure, system, or component (SSC) important tosafety and previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD?

Since there is no change to the equipment qualification methodology that could affect the plant design oroperations, there is no effect on malfinctions of structures, systems, or components. The operating conditionsfor the reactor coolant system and passive core cooling system are not altered.

3. Does the proposed activity result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of [] YES Z NOan accident previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD?

The clarifications in the qualification methodology have no effect on the operation, performance, and pressureboundary integrity of the safety related equipment. Therefore, there is no increase in the calculated release ofradioactive material during postulated accident conditions.

4. Does the proposed activity result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of a El YES 0 NOmalfinction of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in the plant-specific DCD?

The clarifications in the qualification methodology have no effect on the design functions or reliability of the

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page 9 of Il


safety related equipment or other components and operation of the passive core cooling system. Therefore,there is no increase in the calculated release of radioactive material due to a malfunction of an SSC.

5. Does the proposed activity create a possibility for an accident of a different type than any [] YES [D NOevaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD?

The clarifications in the equipment qualification methodology have no effect on the operation, performance,and pressure boundary integrity of the plant equipment. The response of the safety related equipment and thepassive core cooling system to postulated accident conditions is not altered by the changes. The changes donot introduce any additional failure modes. Therefore, there is no possibility of an accident of a different typethan any evaluated previously in the DCD.

6. Does the proposed activity create a possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to [] YES 0 NOsafety with a different result than any evaluated previously in the plant-specific DCD?

The changes have no effect on the design functions of the safety related equipment or operation of the passivecore cooling system. Therefore, there are no additional failure modes or the possibility for a malfunction ofan SSC important to safety with a different result than any evaluated previously.

7. Does the proposed activity result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier as [] YES Z NOdescribed in the plant-specific DCD being exceeded or altered?

There is no change to the design function of the safety related equipment. The criteria to provide for pressureboundary integrity are not exceeded or altered.

8. Does the proposed activity result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in [E YES [D NOthe plant-specific DCD used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses?

The changes are provided as clarification to the equipment qualification methodology of safety relatedequipment to be consistent with IEEE standards and industry practice and employed in a manner that yieldsconservative results. The changes have no impact on the evaluation methodology for the pressure boundaryintegrity and is not altered by the identified changes.

[ The answers to the evaluation questions above are "NO" and the proposed departure from Tier 2 does notrequire prior NRC review to be included in plant specific FSARs as provided in 10 CFR Part 52, AppendixD, Section VIII. B.5.b

El One or more of the answers to the evaluation questions above are "YES" and the proposed change requiresNRC review.

IMPACT ON RESOLUTION OF A SEVERE ACCIDENT ISSUE

10 CFR Part 52, Appendix D, Section VIll. B.5.a. provides that an applicant for a combined license whoreferences the API000 design certification may depart from Tier 2 information, without prior NRC approval,if it does not require a license amendment under paragraph B.5.c.

The proposed activity does not affect resolution of a severe accident issue and does not require a licenseamendment based on the criteria of VillI. B. 5.c of Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 52.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page lOofli

APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page 10 of 11I

AP 1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-03 1 COLA Technical Report

SECURITY ASSESSMENT

The subject changes will not alter barriers or alarms that control access to protected areas of the plant. Thesubject changes will not alter requirements for security personnel. Therefore, the proposed change does nothave an adverse impact on the security assessment of the AP1000.

X. DCD Mark-Up

The following DCD markups identify how COL application FSARs should be prepared to incorporatethe subject change.

Revise Subsection 3.10.6 as follows:

3.10.6 Combined License Information Item on Experienced-Based Qualification

[The Combined License applicant will address, as part of the Combined License application,identification of the equipment qualified based on experience and include details of themethodology and the corresponding experience data. The corresponding experience data for eachpiece of equipment will be inchlded in the equipment qualificationfile.]*

The methodology used for experienced based equipment qualification is discussed in APP-GW-GLR-031 (Reference 2). Earthquake experience-based qualification is not used. Identification ofthe equipment qualified based on experience is provided in APP-GW-GLR-031 (Reference 2).This portion of the COL information item is complete.

The Combined License holder will include experience data for each piece of equipment usingexperienced based equipment qualification in the equipment qualification file prior to fuel load.This portion of the COL information item is deferred.

Revise Subsection 3.10.7 as follows

3.10.7 References

I. IEEE 344-1987," Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class IE Equipmentfor Nuclear Power Generating Stations."

2. APP-GW-GLR-031, "Seismic Qualification Using Test Experience-Based Method forAPi 000 Safety Related EauiDment." Rev. 1. dated Sentember 06. 2006.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page II of II

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page I11 of I I

API000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A

Appendix A

Investigation of Seismic Qualification of 125 VDC MCC Using

Test Experience-Based Qualification Method

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page Al of A64

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A1I of A64

AP 1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A

Investigation of Seismic Qualification of 125 VDC MCC Using

Test Experience-Based Qualification Method

Seismic Qualification Process of Motor Control Center Using! Test Experience

I Equipment Identification and Assumptions:

1.1 Equipment Identification

There are four Class IE DC Motor Control Assemblies in the AP1000 design. They are as follows:

MCC ID Location in the AP1000 Elevation CommentsPlant (Room Number)

125VDC Group A 12412 Elevation 117.5' Elevation 117.5' isbetween 99' and 134'.Seismic levels for 117.5'were determined bylinear interpolations.

125VDC Group B 12304 Elevation 99'

125VDC Group C 12313 Elevation 99'

125VDC Group D 12305 Elevation 99'

1.2 Assumptions and Clarifications

Due to the fact that the final design of the MCC has not been completed, it is necessary to make the followingassumptions and clarifications. These assumptions will be verified as part of the seismic qualification effortswhen the MCC final design is completed.

1. The candidate MCC vendor is one of the vendors that supplied at least one of the test units in thereferenced test programs and resultant reference class. If the selected MCC vendor has not suppliedat least one of the tested units, then at least one additional and acceptable test program for this MCCdesign must be included as part of the reference test programs.

2. Additional test programs, additional test data to generate Experience Response Spectrum andsupplementary seismic testing of components may be needed as part of the qualification.

3. The candidate MCC structural design is represented by the reference test programs. Drawings and/orinspection of the candidate MCC design will be reviewed to confirm that the candidate MCC design isrepresented by the reference class.

4. The candidate MCC electrical parameters and electrical components are represented by the test unitsin the reference test programs. Drawings, design information and/or inspection of the bill of materialswill be reviewed to confirm that the candidate MCC design parameters and components arerepresented in the reference class MCC. Component testing may be required.

APP-GIV-GLR-03 I.doc-916106 Page A2 of A64

API000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A COLA Technical Report

5. All structural enhancements made to the MCC test units in the reference class are implemented in thefinal design of the candidate MCC. Drawings and/or inspection of the MCC design will be performedto confirm that any weak design areas have been strengthened and all modifications made to the MCCtest units have been implemented.

6. No components that experienced anomalies during testing in the reference test programs are beingused in the MCC final design. This will be confirmed prior to approving the design or issuing thequalification report.

7. Qualification of test units has been performed for mild environment applications where seismic is theonly design criteria. No thermal or radiation aging was performed on the test units prior to theseismic testing. WEC will confirm that the AP1OOO environmental parameters will not degrade theseismic capacity of the equipment during its qualified life.

8. All MCC test programs used to develop the Experience Response Spectrum were performed inaccordance with IEEE Std. 323 and 344. It is assumed that the necessary mechanical cycling to bringthe MCC components to their end of life conditions has been performed prior to the seismic testing.WEC will verify that this assumption is true prior to performing the qualification or use of the testdata. If devices that needed cycling were not cycled orjustified, supplementary seismic testing ofproperly aged devices will be performed as part of the qualification program.

9. A list of MCC components tested and qualified during the seismic test programs will be compiled andcompared with the candidate equipment components. If components on candidate equipment are notwell represented by tested and qualified components, supplementary component seismic test includingproper aging will be performed.

10. Additional MCC test programs to further define the equipment class and the Experience ResponseSpectrum may be included as part of the seismic qualification.

2 Detailed Step by Step Process:

Application of the method will follow the steps outlined in IEEE Std. 344-1987, Reference 2. References areincluded in the main body of the report, Section VII.

Tile following are the qualification steps as identified in Section 9 in IEEE Std 344-1987.

Characterization of Test Experience Input Motions

A considerable amount of MCC seismic test data was obtained. Eight test programs of MCC wereselected, reviewed and used in this investigation. The programs are identified and briefly describedbelow:

I. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Retest of Three Westinghouse Type WMotor Control Center Cabinets, Report No. EL:778, SD 3088, XAL 72155, dated May 1978. A photoof the test unit is shown in Figure AI. The MCC test unit was constructed of three vertical sectionsbolted side-by-side in one assembly. Seismic testing was conducted on a simulated bi-axial shaketable.

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6106 Page A3 of A64

APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page A3 of A64

AP 1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A COLA Technical Report

2. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Three Westinghouse ControlCenter Division 5 Star Motor Control Centers for the Commonwealth Edison, Byron/BraidwoodStation, EL: 1025, SD 3320, XAL 72333, dated October 1979. A photo of the test unit is shown inFigure A2. The MCC test unit was constructed of four vertical sections bolted side-by-side in oneassembly. Seismic testing was conducted on a simulated tri-axial shake table.

3. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control Centers STM-2, STM-2A, EL:1873, SD 3452, XAL 80136, dated November1982. A photo of the STM-2 test unit is shown in Figure A3. The MCC test unit was constructed offour vertical sections bolted side-by-side in one assembly. Seismic testing was conducted on asimulated tri-axial shake table.

4. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control Centers STM-2, STM-2A, EL:1873, SD 3452, XAL 80136, dated November1982. A photo of the STM-2A test unit is shown in Figure A4. The MCC test unit was constructed oftwo vertical sections bolted side-by-side in one assembly. Seismic testing was conducted on asimulated tri-axial shake table.

5. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, Seismic Test of Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control Center STM-1, EL:1846, SD 3452, XAL 80136, dated December 1982. Aphoto of the test unit is shown in Figure A5. The MCC test unit was constructed of six verticalsections bolted side-by-side in one assembly. Seismic testing was conducted on a simulated tri-axialshake table.

6. Farwell and Hendricks Incorporated Test Report, Volume I, "Seismic Qualification Report on an ACMotor Control Center," AC-10 148, dated August 1984. A photo of the test unit is shown in FigureA6. The MCC test unit was constructed of four vertical sections bolted side-by-side in one assembly.Seismic testing was conducted on a simulated tri-axial shake table.

7. Wyle Test Report No. 47952-1, "Seismic Simulation Test Program on a Five Star Motor ControlCenter and Enclosed AC/DC Controls," dated December 1985. A photo of the test unit is shown inFigure A7. The MCC test unit was constructed of three vertical sections bolted side-by-side in oneassembly. Seismic testing was conducted on a tri-axial shake table.

8. Wyle Test Report No. 42396-2, "Seismic Simulation Test Program on a Class 1E 2100 Series MotorControl Center," dated June 1992. A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure A8. The MCC test unitwas constructed of five vertical sections bolted side-by-side in one assembly. Seismic testing wasconducted on a tri-axial shake table.

Experience Response Spectrum (ERS)

The test data of each test program was evaluated. The lower bound Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) seismic Test Response Spectra (TRS) were determined and plotted.After plotting the OBE and SSE TRSs, the ERS was determined by taking the mean of all TRSs. TheOBE and SSE ERS for each test program are in the figures listed below:

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page A4 of' A64

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A4 of A64


Test Program OBE Lower SSE Lower Bound CommentsBound TRS TRS

(Levels in all three (Levels in all threeprincipal directions, principal directions,5% damping) 5% damping)

I. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Figure A9 Figure A 10 Horizontal seismic levelsSystems Division Test Report were adjusted to 70% toEL:778 account for cross-coupling

effects which were notsimulated in test program.

2. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Figure Al 1 Figure A]2Systems Division Test Report:EL: 1025

3. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Figure A13 Figure A14Systems Division Test ReportEL: 1873

4. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Figure AI5 Figure A16Systems Division Test ReportEL:1873

5. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Figure Al 7 Figure A 18Systems Division Test ReportEL: 1846

6. Farwell and Hendricks Figure A 19 Figure A20Incorporated Test Report AC-1 0148

7. Wyle Test Report No. 47952-1 Figure A21 Figure A22

8. Wyle Test Report No. 42396-2 Figure A23 Figure A24

The above data was evaluated and the ERS for both OBE and SSE for the entire class of MCC assemblieswere determined using the mean of all test data (lower bound RRS). The results are listed below:

Seismic Levels Front-to-Back Side-to-Side Vertical

(Levels includes all test (Levels includes all test (Levels includes all testprograms and the final mean programs and the final mean programs and the final meanERS, 5% damping) ERS, 5% damping) ERS, 5% damping)

OBE ERS Figure A25 Figure A26 Figure A27

SSE ERS Figure A28 Figure A29 Figure A30

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page A5 of A64



Characterization of Tested and Qualified Equipment

The tested equipment group will be characterized through the following two sets of rules:

A. Inclusion Rules:

B. Prohibited Features:

They are listed and investigated below. The inclusion rules are required to be verified to establishdynamic similarity. The prohibited features are required to be verified to prevent qualification tooutlier and seismically sensitive equipment.

A. Inclusion Rules:

Inclusion Rule Meets? Comments

Physical Characteristics Yes All test units are constructed of 20" wide x 2 1" deep by90" high vertical structures. Structures are bolted side byside in a test assembly. All test units acted as a freecantilevered structure supported at base and free at top (inthe front-to-back direction).

Design Details Yes The MCC structure and design details are almost identical.They are built of similar vertical steel frames welded tobase members. The base members are supported to basesills. The base sills are bolted or welded to the shake tableduring seismic testing. Confirmation with candidate MCCwill be established in the qualification report.

Dynamic Characteristics Yes All test units exhibited similar dynamic characteristics.They have dominant natural frequencies in the one to 33Hz range in the front-to-back and side-to-side directions.In the vertical direction, no major structural resonanceusually exist in this frequency range. This is fuirtherdiscussed and demonstrated below in "NaturalFrequencies".

Functions Yes All test units provide the same electrical functionsassociated with MCC assemblies.

Equipment Type Yes All test units are 125V MCC, 600 Volt MCC assemblies

Manufacturer Yes All test units are manufactured by the former WEC Powerand Distribution business unit or by Eaton Cutler-Hammerwhich at a later date bought WEC products. Most testunits are of the same manufacturer, of very similarconstruction and considered to be of a narrow range ofdesign and dynamic characteristics. This is fuirtherdiscussed and demonstrated below in "NaturalFrequencies".

Weight Yes All test units were fabricated from the basic verticalstructure. Weight distribution was also the same. Somevertical sections included transformers which were heavier

I than the typical vertical section. However the overall

APP-GW-GLR-03 Ldoc-9/6/06 Page A6 of A64

AP1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A

weights and weight distribution are of similar nature as thenatural frequencies of the test units are mostly within 1/3octave.

Structural and Mechanical DesignDetails

Yes The structural and mechanical designs of the test unitswere evaluated. It is concluded that all test units areconstructed of 20" wide x 21" deep by 90" high verticalstructures. All test units acted as free cantileveredstructures supported at base and free at top (in the front-to-back direction). Structures are bolted side-by-side in a testassembly.

Side-to-side bolting between vertical sections is veryimportant for both structural integrity of MCC andsuccessful electrical operability of components. The tiebolts hold the MCC vertical sections together in oneassembly and prevent impact. In particular, side-to-sidebolting, clips, and top tie plates are critical at the shippingjoints where MCC sub-assemblies are connected togetherat site.

Structural and mechanical design details of candidate MCCwill be verified to be represented by the structural andmechanical design details of the equipment class.

Design Features Yes Same design features are used within all test units.

Size and Shape Yes Same size and shape are common in all test units

Vintage Yes The dates for the seismic testing are indicative of thedesign vintage of the equipment. The dates are as follows:

Test No. 1: May 1978

Test No. 2: October 1979

Test No. 3: November 1982

Test No. 4: November 1982

Test No. 5: December 1982

Test No. 6: August 1984


Test No. 8: June 1992

Although, the years are different, it must be stated that thebasic design and basic fabrication concepts are the same.

Capacity Rating Yes The MCC are of the same electrical capacity

Load Path Yes The load path is identical for all test units. The structuresare basically the same in all eight test units.

Mountings Yes All MCC are mounted to base sills in same manner.Candidate MCC will be mounted to the floor as test units

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page A7 of A64



were mounted during the tests.

Industry Practices Yes All eight MCC test units were designed to ANSI/NEMAStandards.

Materials Yes All eight test units are fabricated from the same basic steelgage. Differences may be minor. Structural andmechanical design details and material properties of thecandidate MCC will be verified to be represented by thestructural and mechanical design details of the equipmentclass.

Dominant Natural Frequencies Yes The dominant natural frequencies are listed below in Hz.They are within 1/3 octave of the average frequency exceptfor test No. 6. in the front to back direction. Additionaldiscussion is provided below the table.

Test No. Front-to-Back Side-to-Side

Test No. I No Resonance No Resonancesearch was search wasconducted conducted

Test No. 2 5.6 Hz 5.2 Hz



Test No. 5 4.2 Hz* 4.0 Hz*

Test No. 6 10.8 Hz** 5.0 Hz**



* Local response. No accelerometers weremounted on the MCC structure. It is judged thatthe front-to-back resonance frequency of the MCCwill be in the range 5 to 6 Hz and the side-to-sideresonance frequency in the range of 4.5 to 5.0 Hz.

** The front-to-back natural frequency of thisMCC test are not within 1/3 octave. However, forthe purpose of demonstrating how the ERSs aredeveloped, and based on our engineering judgmentthat this test unit also represents the equipment, weincluded the test data in the evaluation. Differentand/or additional test data may be provided in thequalification report of the final MCC design ifdeemed necessary.

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916106 Page A8 of A64



Moveable Subassemblies Yes Unlike switchgear assemblies, MCC contain no movableassemblies to be concerned with. Components aremounted directly to buckets and to the MCC structure.

Attached Items or Components Yes Every MCC test assembly included a host of contactors,switches, molded case circuit breakers, etc. All items aresimilar in nature for all the test units and also the candidateMCC.

Modifications Yes There were several modifications made to the test unitsduring the seismic qualification testing to improve the unitsseismic performance. The modifications are listed below:

1. Stronger base-sill

2. Seismically designed door latches

3. Better attachment of the vertical structuralmembers to base members and base-sill

4. Use of corner base brackets at specimen fourexternal bottom corners

5. Installation of side-supports to the MCC structureto the floor

6. Installation of hockey pucks for starter size 3 andlarger starters

7. Installation of tie bolts, tie clips, and tie plates

8. Contactors with heavier springs

9. Chatter on Channel 17, test program No. 8 mayrequire different components or additionalcomponent testing

All hardware modifications will be implemented in thecandidate MCC assemblies. Photos and sketches of theenhancements are included in WEC Calc Note No. ON-EQT-06-46.

B. Prohibited Features

Prohibited Features that may Does It Exist in the Candidate Commentshave caused seismic Failures MCC

Design details: No. This was resolved by one of thefollowing two methods:

a. Weak vertical post-to-base There were some design details 1. Added four brackets at the

connection/welds that required repairs during the four external corners of

b. Weak base sill seismic testing. The locations are the MCC assembly. Theseawhere the MCC vertical members corner brackets were

c. Weak shipping joints are welded to the base members. bolted to the uprights and



d. Marginal door latches

e. Need for side-to-siderestraints in size 3 andlarger buckets.

f. Transformer mountingsmay need to be improvedat high seismic levels.

g. Contactor spring should beof heavy kind (additionalinfo will be provided inthe final qualificationreport if this contactor tobe used).

This connection proved to be ofless seismic ruggedness thandesired. As testing progressed itbecame clear that the weld doesnot have sufficient seismicstrength.

to the base members safelytransferring the loads fromthe vertical structure to thebase members to themounting blots.

2. In certain cases, added asteel plate to outside platesthat are bolted to the sidesheets and either weldedor bolted to the floor orshake table during theseismic testing.

3. Door Latches on thecandidate MCC sectionswill be evaluated forstructural integrity, abilityto remain latched duringthe postulated seismicevent.

Materials: No. Equivalent or better material is

used in the construction of thecandidate MCC.

No weakness in materials were There were no specific materialsobserved in addition to weak that caused malfunction or failuredesign features which were to the MCC test unitsidentified above.

Construction No. The base sill was modified byadding steel blocks inside tosupport the cyclic vertical loads at

There were several construction this location transferring themareas that required repairs during directly to the supporting floor.the very high generic seismic This modification wastesting. The construction areas implemented and MCC wasare: retested with no failures. This

modification will also be

a. The Base sill was too weak to implemented in the Candidate

support the cyclic vertical load MCC.

during the seismic testing. The sillwas deformed and allowed forexcessive deformation at thecorners of the MCC at the weldlocation between the verticalsupports and the horizontalmembers.

Installation Characteristics No. The improvement (corner brackets,

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page MO of A64

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A]I0 of A64


external supporting plates, sillinternal stiffening, etc.) to the

During the test no failures in the bott rn ers of th te

mounting configurations were cbottom comers of the externaldetected. comers of the MCC assembly will

provide an improvement to the

mounting configuration of thestructure.

Number of Test Items

The reference equipment class includes eight independent MCC test items that performed satisfactorily duringthe seismic testing. The MCC test items included structures, equipment and components that were notidentical and were also subjected to different seismic simulation on different shake tables using tri-axial andbi-axial testing. These eight test programs are more than sufficient to demonstrate that the full range ofdynamic response parameters possessed by the defined equipment class have been excited in the testing.

Equipment Functionality

The following table summarizes the functional performances that were monitored and verified during testingthe reference equipment.

Test Program Component Operability Requirements Test ResultsTest No. 1 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had no

were monitored electrical function as required electrical ormechanical failure.

Test No. 2 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had nowere monitored electrical finction as required electrical or

mechanical failure.

Test No. 3 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had nowere monitored electrical function as required electrical or

mechanical failure.

Test No. 4 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had nowere monitored electrical finction as required electrical or

mechanical failure.Test No. 5 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had no


Test No. 6 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had nowere monitored electrical function as required electrical or

mechanical failure.Test No. 7 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had no


Test No. 8 All components Maintain continuity and performed Test article had nowere monitored electrical finction as required except for a electrical or

chatter on Channel 17. This type mechanical failure

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A II of A64

AP 1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A COLA Technical Report

component will not be used in candidate except for a chatter onMCC. Channel 17. This type

component will not beused in candidateMCC.

Qualification of Candidate Equipment

a. Assumptions and Clarifications:

Due to the fact that the final design of the candidate MCC has not been completed, it is necessary to make thefollowing assumptions. These assumptions will be verified when the MCC design is completed.

1. The candidate MCC vendor is one of the vendors that supplied at least one of the test units in thereferenced test programs and resultant reference class. If the selected MCC vendor has not suppliedat least one of the test units, then at least one additional and acceptable test program for this MCCdesign must be included as part of the reference test programs.

2. Additional test programs, additional test data to generate Experience Response Spectra andsupplementary seismic testing of components may be needed as part of the qualification.

3. The candidate MCC structural design is represented by the reference test programs. Drawings and/orinspection of the candidate MCC design will be reviewed to confirm that the candidate MCC design isrepresented by the reference class.

4. The candidate MCC electrical parameters and electrical components are represented by the test unitsin the reference test programs. Drawings, design information and/or inspection of the bill of materialswill be reviewed to confirm that the candidate MCC design parameters and components arerepresented in the reference class MCC. Component testing may be required.

5. All structural enhancements made to the MCC test units in the reference class are implemented in thefinal design of the candidate MCC. Drawings and/or inspection of the MCC design will be performedto confirm that any weak design areas have been strengthened and all modifications made to the MCCtest units have been implemented.

6. No components that experienced anomalies during testing in the reference test programs are beingused in the MCC final design. This will be confirmed prior to approving the design or issuing thequalification report.

7. Qualification of test units has been performed for mild environment applications where seismic is theonly design criteria. No thermal or radiation aging was performed on the test units prior to theseismic testing. WEC will confirm that the API000 environmental parameters will not degrade theseismic capacity of the equipment during its qualified life.

8. All MCC test programs used to develop the Experience Response Spectra were performed inaccordance with IEEE Std. 323 and 344. It is assumed that the necessary mechanical cycling to bringthe MCC components to their end of life conditions has been performed prior to the seismic testing.WEC will verify that this assumption is true prior to performing the qualification or use of the testdata. If devices that needed cycling were not cycled orjustified, supplementary seismic testing ofproperly aged devices will be performed as part of the qualification program.


APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page Al 2 of A64


I

9. A list of MCC components tested and qualified during the seismic test programs will be compiled andcompared with the candidate equipment components. If components on candidate equipment are notwell represented by tested and qualified components, supplementary component seismic test includingproper aging will be performed.

10. Additional transformer test programs to further define the equipment class and the equipment classExperience Response Spectra will be included as part of the seismic qualification as the final designof the candidate equipment is completed.

b. Conclusion (ERS versus RRS):

The MCC assemblies are located at elevations 99' and 117.5' (Reference 1). The SSE RRS seismicrequirements of the AP1000 plant at these elevations are provided in the following Figures. The RRS atelevations 99' and 134' were determined from Reference 18. The RRS at elevation 117.5' was determined bylinear interpolation between elevations 99' and 134'.

Elevation Front-to-Back Side-to-Side Vertical

99' Figure A31 (N-S) Figure A32 (E-W) Figure A33 (Vertical)

117.5' Figure A34 (N-S) Figure A35 (E-W) Figure A36 (Vertical)

The OBE RRSs are taken equal to 50% of SSE RRS.

The Motor Control Center OBE ERS versus RRS are plotted in the following figures:


99' Figure A37 (N-S) Figure A38 (E-W) Figure A39 (Vertical)

117.5' Figure A40 (N-S) Figure A41 (E-W) Figure A42 (Vertical)

The Motor Control Center SSE ERS versus RRS are plotted in the following figures:

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A 13 of A64


The following table addresses requirements identified in Item D of section V. for potential qualification of thecandidate MCC using test experience:

Item No. Results Comments

1,2,4 Met The OBE ERS and SSE ERS and the seismic requirements of the candidateequipment are plotted in Figures A37 through A48. The ERS envelop theRRS over the entire frequency range including the 10% margin as requiredby IEEE 323 Std.

5 Met The tests were conducted on complete assemblies. The floor ERS werecompared with the floor RRS to establish the seismic qualification.

6 Met Same damping was used, 5%.

3,7 Met Candidate equipment was shown to meet all inclusion rules as derived intable above.

8 Met The candidate equipment was verified to exclude the prohibited features ofthe reference equipment class.

9 Met The safety function of the candidate equipment including the enclosed andattached devices has been verified by the test as shown in table above.

10 Met The same test mounting (or an improved configuration) is used with thecandidate equipment.

II Met There are no significant differences between test units, referenceequipment and candidate equipment including vintage related differences.

12 Met Requirements for documentations are met.

Limitations

The following table addresses all limitations listed in Item E of section V. Also, earthquake experience data isnot used. Only test experience where equipment functionality was verified is being used.

Limitation Does this limitation CommentsNo. apply?

I No The MCC assemblies are relatively simple electrical equipment andare not microprocessor-based system. The MCC assemblies arebasically built of a steel structure housing electrical componentssuch as contactors, starters and molded case circuit breakers.

2 No Eight MCC assemblies provide a sufficient number of independenttest items.

3 No MCC assemblies do not serve as pressure boundary components.

4 No MCC are located in mild environment.


APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page A]14 of A64


Section 10 of IEEE 344-1987 requires that when experience is used, then documentation for the reference dataand candidate equipment must be included. The following provides explanation of the requireddocumentation and references of where the testing was documented.

Item Documented? Reference

a: Characterization of experience motions Yes Eight test programs were used to generatethe experience motions. The test programsare documented in the following eight sets ofreferences:

1. Westinghouse Advanced EnergySystems Division, Seismic Retest ofThree Westinghouse Type W MotorControl Center Cabinets, Report No.EL:778, SD 3088, XAL 72155,dated May 1978. (A photo of the testunit is shown in Figure Al)

2. Westinghouse Advanced EnergySystems Division, Seismic Test ofThree Westinghouse Control CenterDivision 5 Star Motor ControlCenters for the CommonwealthEdison, Byron/Braidwood Station,EL:1025, SD 3320, XAL 72333,dated October 1979. (A photo of thetest unit is shown in Figure A2)

3. Westinghouse Advanced EnergySystems Division, Seismic Test ofWestinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control CentersSTM-2, STM-2A, EL: 1873, SD3452, XAL 80136, dated November1982. (A photo of the STM-2 testunit is shown in Figure A3)

4. Westinghouse Advanced EnergySystems Division, Seismic Test ofWestinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control CentersSTM-2, STM-2A, EL:1873, SD3452, XAL 80136, dated November1982. (A photo of the STM-2A testunit is shown in Figure A4)

5. Westinghouse Advanced EnergySystems Division. Seismic Test of


APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page Al15 of A64


Westinghouse Control CenterDivision Motor Control CenterSTM-1, EL:1846, SD 3452, XAL80136, dated December 1982. (Aphoto of the test unit is shown inFigure A5).

6. Farwell and Hendricks IncorporatedTest Report, Volume 1, "SeismicQualification Report on an ACMotor Control Center," AC-10148,dated August 1984. (A photo of thetest unit is shown in Figure A6)

7. Wyle Test Report No. 47952-1,"Seismic Simulation Test Programon a Five Star Motor Control Centerand Enclosed AC/DC Controls,"dated December 1985. (A photo ofthe test unit is shown in Figure A7)

8. Wyle Test Report No. 42396-2,"Seismic Simulation Test Programon a Class IE 2100 Series MotorControl Center," dated June 1992.(A photo of the test unit is shown inFigure A8)

b: Development of ERS Yes Development of the ERS is documented inCalc Note CN-EQT-06-46.

c: Characterization of tested equipment Yes Documented in References 4 through 11.

d. Reference data Yes

e. Qualification of candidate equipment To be The MCC design is being finalized. Thiscompleted section will be provided complete in the final

qualification report of MCC assemblies.


APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page AI16 of A64


____ *..li7

Figure Al

Photo of MCC Test Unit on Shake TableTest Program No. I

WEC EL: 778

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page A17 of A64

APP-GV-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page A] 7 of A64

APP-GW-GLR-031AP 1000 Standard

Appendix ACOLA Technical Re ortF

~te

Figure A2

Photo of MCC Test Unit on Shake TableTest Program No. 2

WEC EL: 1025

AP'P-LW-GLI(-U3 I .doc-9f6/06 Page A18 of A64


*

-p.

I ISTM-2 STM-2A

Figure A3


WEC EL: 1873


APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A 19 of A64


I ISTM-2 STM-2A

Figure A4


WEC EL:1873




Figure A5


WEC EL:1846

APP-GW-GLR.03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page A21 of A64



Figure A6


Farwell and Hendricks: AC-10148

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page A22 ofA64

APP-GW-GLR-03 Ldoe-9/6/06 Page A22 of A64


Figure A7


WYLE: 47952-1


APP-GW-GLR-03 Ldoe-9/6/06 Page A23 of A64


Figure A8


WYLE: 42396-2




10.00 _ __ _ _

Frot-ac --- Side-Sid -Vria

lO.OO __________ ii_________I_______r___

1.00 10.00 1000

Frequency (Hz)

-- -- Front-Back - Side-Side Vertical

Figure A9

OBE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical DirectionsTest Program No. 1

WEC EL: 7785% Damping




Figure A10

SSE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical DirectionsTest Program No. I





10.00

, m *1.000

- __ _____ I _ _J _

0.101.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

- - Front-Back - Side-Side - Vertical

Figure All





AP 1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031I Appendix A

100.00

10.00

0 ____ __

1.00

_ . 1__ ___.. _ -__________ _____

0.101.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)


Figure A12

SSE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical DirectionsTest Program No. 2





Figure A13





APIO00 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A

10.00

1.00

0)

C

0

a,C)I.)

0.10 4-1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)


Figure A14



APP-GW-GLR-03 i.doc-9/6/06 Page A30 of A64


Figure A15






Figure A16



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page A32 ot'A64



Figure A17OBE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical Directions

Test Program No. 5WEC EL: 18465% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916106 Page A33 oCA64



10.00

1.00

0.1

U __

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

-- Front-Back -Side-Side -Vertical

Figure A18



APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6/06 Page A34 of A64



10.00 ,

0 I II F

1.00

0.1

U -Side-Side - Vria

____ ____I__ I__ __ __ -__

I I _ _,II

- I I III I

0.10 , ____ __

1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

-- -- Front-Back - Side-Side •Vertical

Figure A19


Farwell and Hendricks: AC-101485% Damping


APP-OW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page A35 of A64


Figure A20


Farwell and Hendricks: AC-101485% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916106 Page A36 of A64



10.00 __ _ -- -. - .- - _ _ _ _ _ _

________-__- _____ it

- 1.00

0£ 1.00 100-100

0Front-B ----- - V rical_ __,_ _ _ _ _ I _ __ _ _ _ _I _ _ _ _ I

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I _ _ _ I__ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

0.101.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

-- -- Front-Back - Side-Side Vertical

Figure A21


WYLE: 47952-15% Damping




10.00

I

1.00

1.0 10.00__ 1000

Fot-Back - SieSd -Vria

ii I I

I II

0.10 I

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

-- -- Front-Back - .Side-Side Vertical

Figure A22





Figure A23



APP-GW.GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page A39 of A64



Figure A24






10.00

1.0000

0.10I I

1.00 10.00Frequency (Hz)

- Avgl-8 ----- Testl1 ---. Test2 -Test3 -- Test4

Test 5 ____ Test 6 ....... Test7 ----. Test8

100.00

Figure A25

ERS OBE RRS in Front-to-Back DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-8; With Test Programs 1-8

5% Damping




10.00

C0

1.10

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

-Avg 1-8-Test 5

----- Test 1---- Test 6

-. -- Test 2 -Test 3 - - Test 4.....Test7 ---- Test8

Figure A26

ERS OBE RRS in Side-to-Side DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-8; With Test Programs 1-8

5% Damping




10.00

1.00 _ -

0.10

1.00

- Avg 1-8 ---- Test 1- Test 5 ---- Test 6

10.00Frequency (Hz)

---. Test2 -Test3 -- Test4....... Test7 ---..Test8

100.00

Figure A27

ERS OBE RRS in Vertical DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-8; With Test Programs 1-8

5% Damping




100.00

10.00

C0

0,0IUU

1.00 -

0.101.00 10.00

Frequency (Hz)

100.00

- Avg 1-8 - Testl -- -- Test2 -.. Test3

-- Test 5 Test6------Test 7 -.. Test 8

- - -Test 4

Figure A28

SSE ERS in Front-to-Back DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-8; With Test Programs 1-8

5% Damping




100.00

10.00

0

00UU

1.00

XYIL1I~__ I

0.10 4-1.00 10.00

Frequency (Hz)

100.00

-Avg 1-8 - Test 1

-- Test 5 Test 6

- --- Test 2

---.-.. Test 7....- Test3 ---- Test4

..... Test 8

Figure A29

SSE ERS in Side-to-Side DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-8; With Test Programs 1-8

5% Damping




100.00

10.00

10.00,.- ______ _____-- _-_____ ________--___ -,___

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

- Avg 1-8 - Testi1 .. Test2 -. . Test3 - - -Test4

-- Test 5 Test6. ...... Test7 -- Test 8

Figure A30

SSE ERS in Vertical DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-8; With Test Programs 1-8

5% Damping




Figure A31

AP1000 SSE RRS in North-SouthRRS for Group ASB 99'

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 PageA47ofA64

APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doe-9/6/06 Page A47 of A64

APlO00 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031I Appendix A

10.00

10

0

"• 1.00UU

0.10 4-1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

Figure A32

AP1000 SSE RRS in East-WestRRS for Group ASB 99'

5% Damping




10.00

C0

*~1.00C)UU

0.10 -1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

Figure A33

AP1000 SSE RRS in Vertical DirectionRRS for Group ASB 99'

5% Damping




Figure A34

AP1000 SSE RRS in North-SouthRRS for Group ASB 117.5'

5% Damping




Figure A35

AP1000 SSE RRS in East-WestRRS for Group ASB 117.5'

5% Damping




10.00

.2w.2UU

1.00

0.10


100.00

Figure A36

AP1000 SSE RRS in Vertical DirectionRRS for Group ASB 117.5'

5% Damping


APIO00 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A

10.00

.2

0)

UU

1.00

0.101.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

.99' North South With 10% Margin - ERS Test 1-8 Front Back

-99' North South....... 99' East West

99' East West With 10% Margin

Figure A37

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)Versus Front-to-Back OBE ERS

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page A53 oCA64



10.00

100

0.10 ,

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

-.. 99' North South With 10% Margin - ERS Test 1-8 Side Side99' North South 99' East West With 10% Margin

...... 99' East West

Figure 'A38

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 99' pius 10% Margin)

Versus Side-to-Side OBE ERS5% Damping




10.00

S1.00- ,_ _ • _ _ _ _ _+_ _ _

0.10,

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

... *99' Vertical With 10% Margin - ERS Test 1-8 Vertical 99' Vertical

Figure A39

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the Vertical Direction(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)

Versus Vertical OBE ERS5% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR.O3 I .doc-9/6106 Page A55 of A64



1.0

•~~z l __ --... _ ---

W U- -6

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

.117.5' North South With 10% Margin

-ERS Test 1-8 Front Back117.5' North South

117.5' East West With 10% Margin........ 117.5' East West

Figure A40

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)

Versus Front-to-Back OBE ERS5% Damping




10.00 T

1,.00 1.00 --" -- -

U I.------

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

.1 17.5' North South With 10% MarginERS Test 1-8 Side Side117.5' North South

.. 117.5' East West With 10% Margin

....... 117.5' East West

Figure A41

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)




10.00

0

1.00

0.0

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

-... 117.5' Vertical With 10% Margin - ERS Test 1-8 Vertical-117.5' Vertical

Figure A42

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the Vertical Direction(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)


APP.GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page A58 of A64


AP !000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix A

10.00___ 1i4 <___ __

0•o.00oo_ _ ____ ___ _

0 ____ ___

1.00 fit ..

U

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

.99' North South With 10% Margin - Avg Test 1-8 Front Back-- 99' North South 99' East West With 10% Margin

- ...... 99' East W est

Figure A43

SSE RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)

Versus Front-to-Back SSE ERS5% Damping




10.00

1.0 0

0.10 ,1.00 10.00

Frequency (Hz)

.99' North South With 10% Margin - Avg Test 1-8 Side Side

100.00

-99' North South-...... 99' East West

99' East West With 10% Margin

Figure A44


Versus Side-to-Side SSE ERS5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page A60 of' A64



10.00

-- - .... -0

• 21.00

0.10


100.00

.99' Vertical With 10% Margin - Avg Test 1-8 Vertical - 99' Vertical

Figure A45

SSE RRS in the Vertical Direction(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)

Versus Vertical SSE ERS5% Damping




10.00 '._

1.0100 1000117. ' Not ot ith 10 Marg"in

117.5 Not Sout h

0.10 ,~

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (H-z)

... 117.5' North South With 10% Margin--Avg Test 1-8 Front Back

117.5' North South117.5' East West With 10% Margin

....... 117.5' East West

Figure A46

SSE RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)

Versus Front-to-Back SSE ERS5% Damping



10.00

1.0 0. .. ... -:10)

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

.-- 117.5' North South With 10% MarginAvg Test 1-8 Side Side117.5' North South

. 117.5' East West With 10% Margin....... 117.5' East West

Figure A47

SSE RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)





10.00

0

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

- - 117.5' Vertical With 10% Margin - Avg Test 1-8 Vertical-117.5' Vertical

Figure A48

SSE RRS in the Vertical Direction(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)




API000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix B

Appendix B

Investigation of Seismic Qualification of Transformer UsingTest Experience-Based Qualification Method

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 PageBi of B48

APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page B I of B48

AP 1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix B

Investigation of Seismic Qualification of Transformer UsingTest Experience-Based Qualification Method

Seismic Qualification Process of Dry Type Transformers Usinjg Test Experience

1 Equipment Identification and Assumptions:

1.1 Equipment Identification

There are four Class 1E regulating transformers in the API000 design. They are as follows:

Transformer ID Location in the AP1000 Elevation CommentsPlant (Room Number)

IDSA-DT-I 12201 Below 99'

IDSB-DT-1 12207 Below 99'

IDSC-DT-I 12203 Below 99'

IDSD-DT-I 12205 Below 99'

1.2 Assumptions and Clarifications

Due to the fact that the final design of the transformers has not been completed, it is necessary to make thefollowing assumptions. These assumptions will be verified as part of the seismic qualification efforts whenthe transformers final design is completed.

I. The candidate transformer's vendor is one of the vendors that supplied at least one of the test units inthe referenced test programs and resultant reference transformer class. If the candidate transformervendor has not supplied at least one of the test units, then at least one additional and acceptable testprogram for this candidate transformer design must be included as part of the reference test programs.


3. The candidate transformer's structural design is represented by the reference test programs. Drawingsand/or inspection of the candidate transformer's structural design will be reviewed to confirm that thecandidate transformer's structure is represented in the reference class.

4. The candidate transformer's electrical design parameters, elements and components are representedby the design parameters and test components in the reference test programs. Drawings, designinformation and/or inspection of the bill of materials will be reviewed to confirm that the candidatetransformers design parameters and components are represented in the reference transformers class.Components testing may be required.

5. All structural enhancements made to the transformer's test units in the reference class areimplemented in the final design of the candidate transformers. Drawings and/or inspection of the

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page B2 of B48

AP1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix B COLA Technical Report

candidate transformer design will be performed to confirm that any weak design areas have beenstrengthened and all modifications made to the transformer test units have been implemented.

6. No components that experienced anomalies during testing in the reference test programs are beingused in the transformer final design. This will be confirmed prior to approving the design or issuingthe qualification report.

7. Qualification of test units has been performed for mild environment applications where seismic is theonly design criteria. No thermal or radiation aging was performed on the test units prior to theseismic testing. WEC will confirm that the AP1000 environmental parameters will not degrade theseismic capacity of the equipment during its qualified life.

8. All transformer test programs used to develop the Experience Response Spectrum were performed inaccordance with IEEE Std. 323 and 344. It is assumed that the necessary mechanical cycling to bringthe transformer components to their end of life conditions has been performed prior to the seismictesting. WEC will verify that this assumption is true prior to performing the qualification or use ofthe test data. If devices that needed cycling were not cycled orjustified, supplementary seismictesting of properly aged devices will be performed as part of the qualification program.

9. A list of transformer components tested and qualified during the seismic test programs will becompiled and compared with the candidate equipment components. If components on candidateequipment are not well represented by tested and qualified components, supplementary componentseismic test including proper aging will be performed.

10. Additional transformer test programs to further define the equipment class and the equipment classExperience Response Spectrum will be included as part of the seismic qualification as the final designof the candidate equipment is completed.

2 Detailed Step by Step Process:

Application of the method will follow the steps outlined in IEEE Std. 344-1987, Reference 2. References areincluded in the main body of the report, Section VII.

The following are the qualification steps as identified in Section 9 in IEEE Std 344-1987.

Characterization of Test Experience Input Motions

Six test programs for dry type transformers were obtained, reviewed and used. The programs areidentified and briefly described below:

I. Wyle Test Report No. 42686-5, "Seismic Simulation Test Report 42686-5 (750 KVA Transformer),"dated December 1974. A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure B I. The transformer test unit wastested on a bi-axial shake table. It was subjected to independent and simultaneous seismic inputs inthe front-to-back and vertical directions then in the side-to-side and vertical directions.

2. Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory, "Seismic Test Report of A Westinghouse Air VentilatedTransformer," EL: 476, Dated March 1975. A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure B2. Thetransformer test unit was tested on a simulated tri-axial shake table using dependent and simultaneousinputs in all three principal directions of the test unit.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page B3 of B48



3. Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory, "Seismic Test of Two Small Dry Transformers, Type DS3and DT3, Westinghouse - Sharon," EL: 567, XAL 71841, SD 3045, dated January 1976. A photo ofthe test unit is shown in Figure B3. The transformer test unit was tested on a simulated tri-axial shaketable using dependent and simultaneous inputs in all three principal directions of the test unit.

4. Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory, "Seismic Test of Two Small Dry Transformers, Type DS3and DT3, Westinghouse - Sharon," EL: 567, XAL 71841, SD 3045, dated January 1976. A photo ofthe test unit is shown in Figure B4. The transformer test unit was tested on a simulated tri-axial shaketable using dependent and simultaneous inputs in all three principal directions of the test unit.

5. Wyle Test Report No. 43853-1, "Seismic Simulation Test Program on a 2000 KVA DryTransformer," dated January 1978. A photo of the test unit is shown in Figure B5. The transformertest unit was tested on a bi-axial shake table using independent and simultaneous inputs in the front-to-back and vertical directions then in the side-to-side and vertical directions.

6. Westinghouse Advanced Energy Systems Division, "Seismic Test of A Westinghouse 1000 KVADry-Type Transformer,", Report No. EL:2722, XALA 80442, dated January 1986. (A photo of thetest unit is shown in Figure B6)

Experience Response Spectrum (ERS)

The test data of each test program was evaluated. The lower bound Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)and Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) seismic Test Response Spectra (TRS) were determined and plotted.After plotting the OBE and SSE TRSs, the ERS was determined by taking the mean of all TRSs. The OBEand SSE ERS for each test program are in the figures listed below:

Test Program OBE Lower Bound SSE Lower Bound CommentsTRS TRS

(Levels in all three (Levels in all threeprincipal directions, principal directions, 5%5% damping) damping)

Wyle Test Report No. 42686-5, Figure B7 Figure B8 Horizontal seismic"Seismic Simulation Test Report levels were adjusted42686-5 (750 KVA to 70% to account forTransformer)," dated December cross-coupling1974. effects which were

not simulated in testprogram.

Westinghouse Astronuclear Figure B9 Figure B 10Laboratory, "Seismic TestReport of A Westinghouse AirVentilated Transformer," EL:476, Dated March 1975.

Westinghouse Astronuclear Figure B I1 Figure B 12Laboratory, "Seismic Test ofTwo Small Dry Transformers,Type DS3 and DT3,

APP-OW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page 134 of B48

AP1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix B

Westinghouse - Sharon," EL:567, XAL 71841, SD 3045,dated January 1976

Westinghouse Astronuclear Figure B 13 Figure B14Laboratory, "Seismic Test ofTwo Small Dry Transformers,Type DS3 and DT3,Westinghouse - Sharon," EL:567, XAL 71841, SD 3045,dated January 1976.

Wyle Test Report No. 43853-1, Figure B15 Figure B16 Horizontal seismic"Seismic Simulation Test levels were adjustedProgram on a 2000 KVA Dry to 70% to account forTransformer," dated January cross-coupling1978. effects which were

not simulated in testprogram.

Westinghouse Advanced Energy Figure B 17 Figure B 18Systems Division, "Seismic Testof A Westinghouse 1000 KVADry-Type Transformer,", ReportNo. EL:2722, XALA 80442,dated January 1986.

The above data was evaluated and the ERS for both OBE and SSE for the entire class of transformerassemblies were determined using the mean of all test data (ERS). The results are listed below:

Seismic Levels Front-to-Back Side-to-Side Vertical

(Levels includes all test (Levels includes all test (Levels includes all testprograms and the final mean programs and the final mean programs and the final meanERS) ERS) ERS)

OBE ERS Figure B 19 Figure B20 Figure B21

SSE ERS Figure B22 Figure B23 Figure B24

Characterization of Tested and Qualified Equipment

The tested equipment group will be characterized through the following two sets of rules:

A. Inclusion Rules:


They are listed and investigated below. The inclusion rules are required to be verified to establishdynamic similarity. The prohibited features are required to be verified to prevent qualification tooutlier and seismically sensitive equipment.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page B5 ofrB48


A. Inclusion Rules:

Inclusion Rule Meets? Comments

Physical Characteristics Yes All test units are constructed of same design concept. Abase, an external cabinet and the transformer core mountedinside to a steel base. The structure is bolted together inone unit. The size of the units in the test programs selectwere in the range of 75 KVA to 1500 KVA and all airventilated floor mounted dry transformer design.

Design Details Yes The transformers are built of similar design features; base,external shell and core and coil. They are supported to thebase and floor using similar configurations. The outsidecases are designed using same design concept.

Dynamic Characteristics Yes All test units exhibited similar dynamic characteristics.They have dominant natural frequencies in the front-to-back and side-to-side directions. The external cabinet hasits seismic response and the core/coil has its seismicresponse. Although the physical size of the transformersvary, the design characteristics and resultant dynamicbehavior continue to be similar. Additional discussions areprovided in "Natural Frequencies".

Functions Yes All test units provide same electrical functions associatedwith transformer assemblies.

Equipment Type Yes All test units are constructed of dry air ventilated typetransformers.

Manufacturer Yes Five of the six test units were manufactured by the WECPower and Distribution business unit which was purchasedby Eaton Cutler-Hammer Inc. Test units are of similardesign features and are considered to exhibit a narrowrange of basic design characteristics.

Weight Yes The weights are different between the small and largetransformers. However, the size and strength of thestructural members and structural stiffness are alsodifferent to accommodate the larger mass. In general, thereis a balance between the mass, mass distribution andstructural strength of the transformers.

Structural and Mechanical Design Yes The structural and mechanical designs of the test unitsDetails were evaluated. It is concluded that test units are

constructed of similar structures; base, external shell andinternal core and coil. The structural members are boltedor welded together in the complete assembly.

Structural and mechanical design details of candidatetransformer will be verified to be represented by thestructural and mechanical design details of the equipment

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6106 Page 136 of 1348



class.

Design Features Yes Same design features are used within all test units.

Size and Shape Yes Same size and shape are common in all test units

Vintage Yes The dates for the seismic testing are indicative of thedesign vintage of the equipment. The dates are as follow:


Test No. 2: March 1975

Test No. 3: January 1976




Although, the years are different, it must be stated that thebasic design and basic fabrication concepts are the same.

Capacity Rating Yes The transformer capacities vary. The basic electricalparameters do not.

Load Path Yes The load path is similar for the test units. The core andcoil are supported to the base. The internal base extendsthe width or length of the transformer to the external base.The external shells are usually supported to the externalbase of the transformer. The external base is used to bolt orweld the assembly to the foundations.

Mountings Yes All test transformers were base mounted to shake tables.Some stiffening to the base was required. The structuralstiffening was added and testing was completed.

Candidate transformers will be mounted to the floor in asimilar manner as the test transformers were mounted tothe shake table during the seismic testing. Any additionalstiffening that were used during testing will be included inthe final design.

Industry Practices Yes All six transformer test units were designed toANSI/NEMA Standards.

Materials Yes All six transformer test units are fabricated from similarbasic steel material and gage. As the transformer designincreases in size, the structural material continues to besteel.

Dominant Natural Frequencies Yes The dominant natural frequencies of the transformers varybetween the resonance of the outside shell, the base of thetransformers and the internal core and coil.

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916106 Page B7 of B48



Moveable Subassemblies Yes Unlike switchgear assemblies, transformers contain nomovable assemblies to be concerned with.

Attached Items or Components Yes Transformers include a very limited amount of internalelectrical devices. In some cases, only a very limitednumber of components are mounted on the external shell tomeasure voltage and hot spot indicators. These attacheditems are similar in nature.

Modifications Yes There were several modifications made to improve theseismic performance of the test units. The modificationsare listed below:

1. Stronger base

2. Seismically designed "A" bracing to the core andcoil

3. Better attachment of external shell to the base.

4. Seismically designed attachment of core/coilassembly to the cross beams (base beams).

5. Seismically designed sound insulation

6. Top brace for free cantilevered internal core andcoils

All applicable hardware modifications will beimplemented in the transformer structures beingdesigned for the AP1000 applications.


Prohibited Features that may Does It Exist in the Candidate Commentshave caused seismic Failures DT Transformers

Design Details No. This was resolved by one of thefollowing methods:

There were design details thatrequired repair during seismic a. Added large thick rectangulartesting. These design details were washers at the mountingenhancements to the method of locations to distribute thesupporting the core and coil inside seismic loads at the transformerthe transformer and also mounting locations.supporting the complete assemblyto the floor.

b. Free cantilever core/coildesigns tend to move at their toprelative to their base in the front



to back and side to sidedirections. Additional bracing isrequired to maintain properspacing between the live partsand the external shell.

c. Additional stiffeners may beadded to the transformer baseand external shell to bettersupport the assembly.

Materials No. Equivalent or better material willbe used in the construction of thecandidate transformers.

There were no specific materialsthat caused malfunction or failureto the transformer test units

Construction No.

There were several constructionareas that required repair duringthe high seismic testing. Theseareas are:

a. The base of one test transformer The base of the transformer will bemay have been too weak to modified by adding steelsupport the very high cyclic rectangular washers to support theseismic loads during the seismic cyclic loads at this location andtesting. transferring them directly the

supporting floor. Thismodification is also implementedin the candidate transformers.

b. More than desirable motion of Lateral restraints will be added tointernal core and coil. candidate transformers.

Installation Characteristics No. The improvement to the basemembers and internal bracing ofthe core/coil will also provide an

During the test no failures in the improvement to the mountingmounting configurations were configuration of the structure.detected except for localdeformation.

I

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page 139 of 1348

APP-GW-GLR-03 l.doc-9/6/06 Page B9 of B48


I

I

Number of Test Items

The reference equipment class includes six transformer independent items that all performed satisfactorily.The test items included structures, equipment and components that were not identical and were also subjectedto different seismic simulation on different shake tables using tri and bi-axial testing. These test programs aresufficient to demonstrate that the full range of dynamic response parameters possessed by the definedequipment Class have been excited in the testing.

Reference Equipment Functionality

The following table summarizes all functional performance that were monitored and verified during testingthe reference equipment.

Test Program Component Operability Requirements Test ResultsTest No. I All components Maintain continuity and performed as Test article had no

were monitored required. electrical ormechanical failure.Minor internal arcingdue to internal motionwas observed but didnot cause failure totransformer.

Test No. 2 All components Maintain continuity and performed as Test article had nowere monitored required. electrical or

mechanical failure.Base deformation wasobserved.


mechanical failure.Test No. 4 All components Maintain continuity and performed as Test article had no

were monitored required. electrical ormechanical failure.


mechanical failure.Base deformation wasobserved


mechanical failure.

Qualification of Candidate Equipment

a. Assumptions and Clarifications:

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page BI10 of B48

AP 1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix B COLA Technical Report

Due to the fact that the final design of the candidate transformers has not been completed, it is necessary tomake the following assumptions. These assumptions will be verified when the AP1000 transformer design iscompleted.

1. The candidate transformer's vendor is one of the vendors that supplied at least one of the test units inthe referenced test programs and resultant reference transformer class. If the candidate transformervendor has not supplied at least one of the test units, then at least one additional and acceptable testprogram for this candidate transformer design must be included as part of the reference test programs.


3. The candidate transformer's structural design is represented by the reference test programs. Drawingsand/or inspection of the candidate transformer's structural design will be reviewed to confirm that thecandidate transformer's structure is represented in the reference class.

4. The candidate transformer's electrical design parameters, elements and components are representedby the design parameters and test components in the reference test programs. Drawings, designinformation and/or inspection of the bill of materials will be reviewed to confirm that the candidatetransformers design parameters and components are represented in the reference transformers class.Components testing may be required.

5. All structural enhancements made to the transformer test units in the reference class are implementedin the final design of the candidate transformers. Drawings and/or inspection of the candidatetransformer design will be performed to confirm that any weak design areas have been strengthenedand all modifications made to the transformer test units have been implemented.

6. No components that experienced anomalies during testing in the reference test programs are beingused in the transformer final design. This will be confirmed prior to approving the design or issuingthe qualification report.

7. Qualification of test units has been performed for mild environment applications where seismic is theonly design criteria. No thermal or radiation aging was performed on the test units prior to theseismic testing. WEC will confirm that the AP1000 environmental parameters will not degrade theseismic capacity of the equipment during its qualified life.

8. All transformer test programs used to develop the Experience Response Spectrum were performed inaccordance with IEEE Std. 323 and 344. It is assumed that the necessary mechanical cycling to bringthe transformer components to their end of life conditions has been performed prior to the seismictesting. WEC will verify that this assumption is true prior to performing the qualification or use ofthe test data. If devices that needed cycling were not cycled orjustified, supplementary seismictesting of properly aged devices will be performed as part of the qualification program.

9. A list of transformer components tested and qualified during the seismic test programs will becompiled and compared with the candidate equipment components. If components on candidateequipment are not well represented by tested and qualified components, supplementary componentseismic test including proper aging will be performed.

10. Additional transformer test programs to further define the equipment class and the equipment classExperience Response Spectrum will be included as part of the seismic qualification as the final designof the candidate equipment is completed.

APP.G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916106 Page DII ofB48

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page B I I ofrB48


b. Conclusion (ERS versus RRS):

The transformer assemblies are located at elevations below 99'. The SSE seismic requirements at theseelevations are provided in the following figures:


99' Figure B25(N-S) Figure B26 (E-W) Figure B27 (Vertical)

The AP1000 OBE RRS were taken equal to 50% of SSE RRS.

The transformer OBE ERS versus OBE RRS are plotted in the following figures:


99' Figure B28 (N-S) Figure B29 (E-W) Figure B30 (Vertical)

The transformer SSE ERS versus SSE RRS are plotted in the following figures:


99' Figure 1331 (N-S) Figure B32 (E-W) Figure B33 (Vertical)

The following table addresses requirements identified in Item D of section V for potential qualification of thecandidate transformer using test experience:

Item No. Results Comments

1,2,4 Met The OBE ERS and SSE ERS and the seismic requirements of the candidateequipment are plotted in Figures B25 through B30. The ERS envelop theRRS over the entire frequency range including 10% margin as required byIEEE 323 Std.

5 Met The tests were conducted on complete assemblies. The floor ERS werecompared with the floor RRS to establish the seismic qualification.

6 Met Same damping were used, 5%.

3,7 Met Candidate equipment was shown to meet all inclusion rules as derived intable above.

8 Met The candidate equipment was verified to exclude the prohibited features ofthe reference equipment class, see table above.

9 Met The safety function of the candidate equipment including the enclosed and



attached devices has been verified by the test as shown in table above.

10 Met The same test mounting (or an improved configuration) is used with thecandidate equipment.

11 Met There are no significant differences between test units, referenceequipment and candidate equipment including vintage related differences.

12 Met Requirements for documentation are met.

Limitations

The following table addresses all limitations listed in Item E of section V. Also, earthquake experience data isnot used. Only test experience where equipment functionality was verified is being used.

Limitation Does this limitation apply? CommentsNo.

I No The dry type transformer assemblies are relatively simpleelectrical equipment and are not microprocessor-basedsystem. The dry type transformer assemblies are basicallybuilt of a steel structure which houses electrical componentssuch as core, coils, L.V. and H.V. cables, insulators, etc.

2 No Six transformer assemblies provide a sufficient number ofindependent test items.

3 No Power transformer assemblies do not serve as pressureboundary components.

4 No Dry type transformers are located in mild environment.

Documentation

Section 10 of IEEE 344-1987 requires that when experience is used, then documentation of the reference dataand candidate equipment must be included. The following provides explanation of the requireddocumentations and references of where the testing was documented.

APP-G~V-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page B13 of 848


AP 1000 StandardAPP-GW-GLR-031 Appendix B COLA Technical Report

I1 Item Documented? Referencea: Characterization of experience motions Yes Six transformer test programs were

used to generate the experiencemotions. The test programs aredocumented in the following five setsof references:

1. Wyle Test Report No. 42686-5, "Seismic Simulation TestReport 42686-5 (750 KVATransformer)," datedDecember 1974. (A photo ofthe test unit is shown in FigureB1)

2. Westinghouse AstronuclearLaboratory, "Seismic TestReport of A Westinghouse AirVentilated Transformer," EL:.476, Dated March 1975. (Aphoto of the test unit is shownin Figure B2)

3. Westinghouse AstronuclearLaboratory, "Seismic Test ofTwo Small Dry Transformers,Type DS3 and DT3,Westinghouse - Sharon," EL:567, XAL 71841, SD 3045,dated January 1976. (A photoof the test unit is shown inFigure 133)

4. Westinghouse AstronuclearLaboratory, "Seismic Test ofTwo Small Dry Transformers,Type DS3 and DT3,Westinghouse - Sharon," EL:567, XAL 71841, SD 3045,dated January 1976. (A photoof the test unit is shown inFigure B4)

5. Wyle Test Report No. 43853-1, "Seismic Simulation TestProgram on a 2000 KVA DryTransformer," dated January1978. (A photo of the test unitis shown in Figure B5)

6. Westinghouse Advanced

APP-G~V-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page 1314 of 1348

APP-GW-GLR-03 Ldoc-916/06 Page B 14 of B48


Energy Systems Division,"Seismic Test of AWestinghouse 1000 KVA Dry-Type Transformer,", ReportNo. EL:2722, XALA 80442,dated January 1986. (A photoof the test unit is shown inFigure B6)

b: Development of ERS Yes Development of the ERS isdocumented in Calc Note CN-EQT-06-46.

c: Characterization of Reference Equipment Class Yes Documented in References 12 through17.

d. Reference data Yes

e. Qualification of candidate equipment To be The transformer design is beingcompleted finalized. This section will be

provided complete in the finalqualification report of thetransformers.

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page B15 ofB48


AP 1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031I Appendix B

Figure BI

Photo of Air Ventilated Transformer on Shake TableTest Program No. I

WEC 42686-5

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page 1316 of 1348

APP-GW-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page B 16 of B48


tshinhlwulc

Figure B2

Photo of Air Ventilated Transformer on Shake TableTest Program No. 2

WEC EL:476

APP-GW-GLR-03 1 .doc-916106 Page 817 of 848



®AstronucleiEl-: .5-

Figure B3

Photo of 100 KVA Air Ventilated Transformer on Shake TableTest Program No. 3

WEC EL:567

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page B18 ofB48



SAstronuclearLaboratory

EL: 5- 77

Figure B4


WEC EL:567

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page B19 of 1348



Figure B5


WEC 43853-1

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B20 of 1348



Figure B6


WEC EL:2722

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B21 ofB48



10.00.

1000

,'_z>.000'

0.10 -1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

-- Front-Back - Side-Side -Vertical

Figure B7

OBE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical Directions750 KVA Transformer Test Program No. 1

WEC 42686-55% Damping

APP.GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page B22 of B48



10.00 _

1.00'

________ .... .....1 ____ __i

_00i

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00

Fre qu e ncy (ýz)

--- Front-Back - Side-Side -Vertical

Figure B8

SSE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical Directions750 KVA Transformer Test Program No. I

WEC 42686-55% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page 1323 of 1348



10.00- _ _ __ _ _

1.00* _ ___ __ ___ _ _ _-_ _i i i I1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (1-14

-- Front-Back - Side-Side Vertical

Figure B9





10.00 , , ,

1.00 /_____ I__'_

0.101.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

_ - Front-Back - Side-Side -Vertical

Figure B10

SSE TRS in Front-Back, Side-Side and Vertical Directions1500 KVA Transformer Test Program No. 2


APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page B25 of 1348



10.00 - _ _ _ _

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

- - Front-Back - Side-Side -Vertical

Figure B11



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page B26 ofB48



Figure B12



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page B27 of 1348



10.00

1. 0.Ir

0.10-1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)


Figure B13



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page B28 of 1348



10.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _

OI t

0.1

*s 1.00 10.00 100. 0

, I

0.101.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)


Figure B14



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B29 of B48



10.00

0.1 Frn-Bc - SideSd 1Verica

,_ _ _ _ _ I I '

U ______ ____ ___ Fron-Bac __id -Sdertca

Figure B15


WYLE 43853-15% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B30 of B48


AP 1000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031I Appendix B

10.00

1.00U

0.10 4-1.00 10.00 100.00

Frequency (Hz)

-- Front-Back - Side-Side -Vertical

Figure B16


WYLE 43853-15% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page B31 ofB48



10.00

0• 1.00o

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

Front Back - Side Side - Vertical

Figure B17



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page 832 of B48



10.00 _ __--___

I X

1.00i

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

---- Front Back - Side Side Vertical

Figure B18



APP-G~V-GLR-03 I .doc-916/06 Page B33 ofB48


API000 StandardCOLA Technical ReportAPP-GW-GLR-031I Appendix B

10.00

C0

1.00U

0.10


100.00

- Avg 1-6 Front Back ....... Test 1-- Test 3 -... Test 4

-Test 6

.... Test 2---- Test 5

Figure B19

OBE ERS in Front-to-Back DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-6; With Test Programs 1-6

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page B34 of B48



Figure B20

OBE ERS in Side-to-Side DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-6; With Test Programs 1-6

5% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B35 of B48



10.00

0-

0

1.0000

0.10


100.00

-Avg 1-6 Vertical- -Test 3

-Test 6

....... Test 1- --- Test 4

.... Test 2---- Test 5

Figure B21

OBE ERS in Vertical DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-6; With Test Programs 1-6

5% Damping

APP-G~V.GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6106 Page 1336 of 1348



10.00

0

0

0

1.00

0.101.00 10.00

Frequency (Hz)

100.00

- Avg 1-6 Front Back ------- Test 1-- Test 3 ... Test 4

Test 6

- ---- Test 2---- Test 5

Figure B22

SSE ERS in Front-to-Back DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-6; With Test Programs 1-6

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page 1337 of 1348



10.00

t-0)

U,,U

1.00

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

- Avg 1-6 Side Side ....... Test 1-- Test 3 -.. Test4

Test 6

..... Test 2---- Test 5

Figure B23

SSE ERS in Side-to-Side DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-6; With Test Programs 1-6

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-916106 Page 1338 of B48



10.00

0•

1.00

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00

- Avg 1-6 Vertical

- - Test 3

Frequency (Hz)

....... Test 1

- - - .Test4..... Test 2

---- Test 5

-Test 6

Figure B24

SSE ERS in Vertical DirectionAvg. Test Program No.1-6; With Test Programs 1-6

5% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-916106 Page 1339 of B48



Figure B25

AP1000 SSE RRS in North-SouthRRS for Group ASB 99'

5% Damping

APP-G~V-GLR.O3 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B40 of 848



10.00

0.10

o-__ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

Figure B26

AP1000 SSE RRS in East-WestRRS for Group ASB 99'

5% Damping


APP-GNV-GLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page B41 of B48


Figure B27

APIOOO SSE RRS in Vertical DirectionRRS for Group ASB 99'

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page B42 of B48



10.00 ,_, _,

0.1

, I I

1.00 10.00 100.00

99' North South Frequency"(Hz)

-ERS Test 1-6 Front Back- -99' North South; Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323

99' East West Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323....... 99' East West

Figure B28

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)Versus Front-to-Back OBE ERS

5% Damping

APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6/06 Page 1343 of B48



10.00

0

_ 1.00

0.10


100.00

-99' North South-ERS Test 1-6 Side Side

- -99' North South; Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 32399' East West Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323

.. 99' East West

Figure B29

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)





10.00 _ _ _ _ _

C 1.00

0.10

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

-99' Vertical-ERS Test 1-6 Vertical- - 99' Vertical; Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323

Figure B30

Vibration Aging Seismic RRS in the Vertical Direction(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)


APP-G~V-GLR-O3 I .doc-9/6/06 Page B45 ofB48



10.00

_o __ .,-_ • . • --•-_:...... . .,__. _ H..._2 1 .00 -•• •,, -

0.10 : ,

1.00 10.00 100.00Frequency (Hz)

99' North South

-Avg. Test 1-6 Front Back- - 99' North South; Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323..... 99' East West Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323....... 99' East West

Figure B31

SSE RRS in the North-South and East-West Directions(Group ASB 99' plus 10% Margin)Versus Front-to-Back SSE ERS

5% Damping




10.00

v _0 4 i-

1.00 10.00 100.00

-99' North South Frequency (Hz)-Avg. Test 1-6 Side Side

99'North South; Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 32399' East West Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323

....... 99' East West

Figure B32



APP-GW-GLR-03 I .doc-9/6106 Page 1347 ofB48

APP-GW-OLR-03 I.doc-9/6/06 Page B47 of B48


10.00

1.00 ______ ' __ ~ _________0__ -__,__ •

0.10 I

1.00 10.00 100.00Freauencv (Hz)

99' Vertical-Avg. Test 1-6 Vertical- - 99' Vertical; Including 10% Margin Per IEEE 323

Figure B33

SSE RRS in the Vertical Direction(Group ASB 117.5' plus 10% Margin)


