ML13317A212
| ML13317A212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1982 |
| From: | Baskin K Southern California Edison Co |
| To: | Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13317A213 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8207130512 | |
| Download: ML13317A212 (25) | |
Text
Southern California Edison Company P. 0. BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD. CALIFORNIA 91770 K. P. BASKIN TELEPHONE MANAGER OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, J
9 1982 (213) 572-1401 SAFETY, AND LICENSING "J
9, 1982 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention:
D. M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 5 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Subject:
Docket No. 50-206 Masonry Wall Evaluations SEP Topic 111-6 Seismic Design Considerations San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 During the week of May 10, 1982 we met with the NRC staff to discuss technical comments made by the staff regarding the methodology used to evaluate the masonry walls at San Onofre Unit 1.
At that meeting several additional comments were made by the staff. The responses to these additional comments are provided as an enclosure to this letter.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please let us know.
Very truly yours, 8207130512 820709 PDR ADOCK 05000206 P
.PDR
SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 MASONRY WALL EVALUATION RESPONSE TO ITEMS RAISED AT MEETING OF MAY 11-13, 1982
- 1.
Item Provide a summary of the past performance of reinforced masonry block walls during major earthquakes.
Response
Masonry construction at SONGS-1 consists of hollow concrete block units of reinforced running bond construction. Walls vary in height from 10 feet to 22 feet.
The performance of this type of construction in past earthquakes has been reviewed. Personal communications have been held with the following masonry experts:
Mr. Karl V. Steinbrugge, Mr. James E. Amhrein, Professor Robert Schneider and Dr. Samy Adham (References 1.1 through 1.4).
Reports on all major U.S. earthquakes were reviewed.
Only the reports on the earthquakes listed below give detailed information relevant to the performance of masonry walls similar to those at SONGS 1.
- a.
Taft Earthquake of July 21, 1952--Reference 1.5.
- b.
San Fernando Earthquake of February 9, 1971--Reference 1.6.
The performance of well constructed reinforced, running bond, hollow concrete block construction was found to be very satisfactory.
There were a significant number of industrial type buildings of similar construction with wall heights varying from 14 feet to 22 feet near the epicenter region of the San Fernando earthquake. Buildings with good detailing requirements between the roof diaphragm and masonry walls (pp. 87-88, Reference 1.6) suffered little or no earthquake damage.
There were several buildings that were damaged (Reference 1.6), but the damage was not initiated by the failure of the masonry walls. The primary cause of damage was poor connection details between the roof diaphragm and masonry walls which resulted in progressive failures. The personal communications revealed that there were a significant number of reinforced concrete block buildings that were undamaged in the San Fernando earthquake and not included in Reference 1.6.
There were only two reinforced concrete block masonry buildings reported in Reference 1.5 and neither suffered any damage. The conclusion stated in Reference 1.5 is as follows:
"Unit masonry construction such as reinforced brick and reinforced hollow concrete block can be earthquake resistant, but requires good design as well as competent engineering supervision during construction."
-2 It is therefore concluded that the past earthquake performance of well constructed reinforced masonry, similar to that used at SONGS-1, is very satisfactory.
REFERENCES 1.1 Steinbrugge, K. V., consultant, personal communication.
1.2 Amhrein, J. E., Director of Engineering, Masonry Institute of America, personal communication.
1.3 Schneider, R., California Polytechnic State University, Pomona.
1.4 Adham, S., Agbabian and Associates, personal communication.
1.5 Steinbrugge, K. V. and Moran, D. F., "An Engineering Study of the Southern California Earthquake of July 21, 1952 and its Aftershocks," Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 44, No. 2B, April 1954.
1.6 Murphy, L. M., "San Fernando, California Earthquake of February 9, 1971," National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1973.
-3
- 2.
Item Explain the basis and applicability of the ACI-349 compressive strain limits.
Response
The strain limits given in Appendix C of ACI-349 are based on data presented in Reference 2.1. This data is the result of a test series carried out by the Portland Cement Association and reported in Reference 2.2. The series of tests in this latter reference included a total of 37 simply supported beams. The formulation for maximum compressive strain, u, was derived from these tests and is presented in Appendix C of ACI-349 as follows:
u = 0.003 + 0.5/z <.012 where z = distance from point of maximum moment to point of zero moment in inches This test series was later extended by a further series of 40 beams which examined other variables (Reference 2.3). From this investigation a modified expression for the ultimate strain was obtained with the additional variables of the beam width and the confining pressure. This more complex formulation was not included in ACI-349 Appendix C, but for the SONGS-1 walls would produce similar strain limits to the equation above.
Each of the test series produced ultimate compressive strains ranging from 0.0029 to 0.062. Of the total 77 test 'specimens only 4 provided ultimate strains less than 0.004. The formulation given above provides a generally lower bound on these results. Reference 2.2 notes:
"They are not true strains in the generally accepted sense of the word since the concrete at the face is almost invariably extensively cracked and damaged at ultimate strength."
The field observations from the tests noted that although the first visible sign of distress in the compression zone occurred at a maximum concrete compressive strain in the range 0.0025 to 0.0035, the response of the beam to load was not affected.
Based on these results it is considered that the limiting strain of 0.004 employed for the SONGS-1 masonry analyses ts a c-enservative value in-that practically all of the tests discussed above -showed that load carrying capacity was maintained at strain levels much higher than this value.
REFERENCES 2.1 Mattock, Alan H. "Rotational Capacity of Hinging Region in Reinforced Concrete Beams," Flexural Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete. SP-12 American Concrete Institute/American Society of Civil Engineers, Detroit, 1965, pp. 143-181.
-4 2.2 Mattock, Alan H. "Rotational Capacity of Hinging Regions in Reinforced Concrete Beams,"
Portland Cement Association, Bulletin D101.
2.3 Corley, W. Gene, "Rotational Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Beams,"
Portland Cement Association, Bulletin D108.
-5
- 3.
Item Document how soil structure interaction was accounted for in the masonry wall evaluation.
Response
Possible soil-structure interaction effects were investigated for the masonry walls subjected to nonlinear analysis. The frequencies associated with the cracked section stiffness of the subject masonry walls are relatively low, typically 1 to 2 Hertz. Once the walls enter the inelastic range this frequency is reduced further. In this low frequency range the displacement controlled region of the strong ground motion is the significant factor. However, over this frequency range the instructure response spectra essentially follows the spectral characteristics of the ground motion and is not affected by SSI or the filtering effects due to the buildings. In addition, as the soil stiffness is relatively high, compared to the masonry walls, the overall frequency of the walls would not be affected. Furthermore, for the San Onofre Unit 1 site, the soil hysteretic damping is approximately 13%.
This value is further increased by radiation damping, resulting in some cases with up to 50% of critical damping which, if considered, would decrease the effective input to the walls.
The need for the inclusion of SSI parameters into the masonry wall nonlinear analysis was assessed on a building by building basis with respect to the above general considerations and additional specific considerations as appropriate. A summary of these assessments is as follows:
- a. The Reactor Auxiliary Building is a fully embedded reinforced concrete structure. SSI does not need to be considered since the masonry walls are located on top of and are attached solely to this fully embedded rigid structure.
- b. The Fuel Storage Building analysis utilized a three dimensional finite element model.
The masonry walls were fully coupled with this model in which full account of SSI was taken. Section 4.4 of Reference 3.1 provides information on the methods by which SSI was included into this model.
- c. The Turbine Building is a single story steel. framed building with a prestressed concrete roof slab. The masonry walls form the-exterior.
enclosure wall for this building. The top of these walls are connected to the building's steel framing and the bottom of the walls are supported by a reinforced concrete foundation at grade. A single degree of freedom oscillator was utilized to represent the response of Turbine Building at the top of the masonry walls.
This oscillator included the effect of SSI on the Turbine Building. At
-6 the base of the masonry walls SSI effects were not necessary because the horizontal out-of-plane translational soil spring is typically very stiff with relation to the wall and damping values of 26% or more could reduce the input to the base of the wall.
D.
The Ventilation Equipment Building is a single story rectangular masonry structure. Due to the considerations outlined above no account of SSI was deemed necessary for the nonlinear analysis of the masonry walls in this building.
In conclusion, SSI effects were assessed for each building with respect to the masonry walls.
On the basis of this assessment, SSI effects were included in those analyses in which SSI could have an effect on the masonry wall analysis results.
REFERENCE 3.1 Computech Engineering Services, Inc., "San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1, Seismic Reevaluation of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Walls," Volume 4:
Fuel Storage Building, Report No. R543-02, April 1982.
-7
- 4.
Item Demonstrate that the representation of the Turbine Building Extensions as single-degree-of-freedom oscillators is appropriate.
Response
Of the four Turbine Building extensions only the North Extension is not connected to the top of the masonry enclosure wall.
The East and West Heater Platforms are symmetric and their seismic response is therefore essentially the same. Therefore, examination of the responses of only the West Heater Platform and the South Extension is sufficient to assess the adequacy of the single-degree-of-freedom representation of these structures in the nonlinear masonry wall analysis.
The instructure response spectra (IRS) for the two horizontal directions in the West Heater Platform and the South Turbine Building Extension are presented in Figures 4.1 through 4.4. As can be seen by these figures, with the exception of the East-West motion in the South Extension all the IRS show only one predominant peak. Detailed evaluation revealed that the two peaks shown in Figure 4.3 are completely decoupled. In this single case the input-into the masonry walls would be due to two distinct modes. However, the masonry walls in the South Extension have frequencies based on the cracked section of approximately 1 Hertz. Of the two peaks the low frequency peak at approximately 3 Hertz is of more consequence than the peak at approximately 9 Hertz since its amplification effects are not fully disipated at the frequency associated with the masonry wall (see Figure 4.3).
Therefore, the low frequency single degree of freedom representation of the South Extension was utilized in the analysis. It should also be noted that in all cases the dominant modes associated with the peaks have at least 15% damping due to soil-structure interaction. The single degree of freedom oscillator utilized in the masonry wall analysis was in all cases assigned 7%
damping. This indicates that the idealized representation of the Turbine Building incorporated in the analysis would yield significantly more amplification than would occur with a more detailed representation.
g g
-8
- 5.
Item Provide a comparison of relevant parameters for the masonry walls at SONGS-1 and those used in the SEAOSC test program.
Response
A number of tests on masonry and concrete walls were carried out by SEAOSC. Nine tests were performed on concrete masonry walls, consisting of 6, 8 and 12 inch masonry units.
Table 5.1 provides a comparison of the dimensions and reinforcing of the three 8" thick SEAOSC concrete masonry specimens compared with the walls in the SONGS-1 structures.
The following comparisons can be noted from this table:
- a.
The SEAOSC test specimens were 24'-8" high, about 20% higher than the highest SONGS-1 walls.
Therefore the H/t ratio was correspondingly higher for the test specimens.
- b.
The reinforcing provided in the test specimens was 1.00 square inch per 4'-0" strip, 10% more than the Ventilation Building walls and twice the steel area in the Turbine Building walls.
- c. The steel rebars were 60 ksi specified minimum strength.compared with 40 ksi for the SONGS-1 walls.
This combination of higher steel areas plus higher steel strengths in the SEAOSC specimens produced considerably higher face shell forces than could occur at SONGS-1 since the face shell forces must balance the forces developed in the steel.
Due to these higher face-shell forces the SEAOSC walls would have more severe face-shell stresses and strains.
The measured masonry strength of the SEAOSC walls, as determined by ASTM tests, was 2,595 psi.
The original specified minimum value of masonry strength, f'm, for the SONGS-1 masonry walls was 1,350 psi.
Assuming an increase over fourteen years of fifty percent, the anticipated masonry strength of the walls at SONGS-1 is similar to that of the SEAOSC specimens.
Therefore, the SEAOSC specimens would represent a more critical case for face-shell stresses and strains.
-9 TABLE 5.1:
COMPARISON OF SEAOSC TEST WALL AND SONGSl WALLS WALL HEIGHT H
REINFORCING (Feet)
Per 4'-0" t
(Sq. Inches)
SEAOSC Tests (3 walls) 24'-8" 37 1.00 VB1-VB4 19'-4" 29 0.90 TB1, TB5-TB7 (1) 20'-6" 31 0.46 TB9-TB11 20'-0" 30 0.46 TB1, TB7 (1) 13'-8" 21 0.46 TB2-TB4, TB8 14'-0" 21 0.46 SB5 (2) 8'-4" 16 0.31 SB2 (2) 15'-0i 23 0.31 NOTES:
- 1. The Turbine Building walls TB1 and.TB7 have two typical sections.
- 2.
The reinforcing in the Reactor Auxiliary Building walls SB2 and SB5 varies. The area listed in the table is based on No. 5 at 48", the least reinforcement ratio for the building.
g S
-10
- 6.
Item Discuss the appropriateness. of the methods used to incorporate damping into the nonlinear analysis.
Response
The method of specifying viscous damping in the nonlinear analysis followed the normal procedure of applying damping constants to the mass and stiffness matrices to form the viscous damping matrix. Because direct integration of the equations of motion is used in the solution procedure it is not possible to explicitly extract the modal damping ratios. However it is our judgment that the method used to incorporate damping represents the best current state-of-the-art and provides damping levels that are consistent with that specified in the BOPSSR criteria.
-11
- 7.
Item What is the effect of any !impact due to the displacements of the masonry walls in the Turbine Building on adjacent structural steel members and on the walls themselves.
Response
Only two walls in the Turbine Building, TB6 and TB11, are situated such that the postulated masonry wall deflections would result in an impact between the wall and steel framing columns at mid-height.
For TB6 the clearance is 1" and for TB11 the clearance is 3".
The force of this impact has been assessed by equating the kinetic energy of the moving wall and the potential energy of deformation of the steel column under the applied impact loading. The velocity was estimated using the maximum possible displacements as limited by the clearances given above and the relevant period of the wall for the deflections of this order of magnitude, i.e., the elastic period for TB6 and the inelastic period for TB11.
The maximum postulated impact force was calculated as 27 kips for TB6 and 9.5 kips for TB11. For the former wall this force is distributed over the 14" flange width of the column which it would contact. Based on a 2" high impact zone, the stresses would not be sufficient to cause distress in the masonry.
Wall TB11 impacts steel columns about their weak axis and thus contacts the edges of the column flanges. This reduces the area of contact and could cause local crushing of the masonry. However, this crushing would be restricted to a small area near the wall mid-height and forms a small proportion of the wall relative to the length of approximately 18'-0" between columns. It is concluded that the effects of the impact would be such as not to impair the overall integrity of the wall.
In addition, these impact forces considered along with other appropriate seismic and non-seismic forces would result in stresses less than the allowable stresses of the BOPSSR criteria in either the impacted structural steel columns or the steel bracing at walls TB6 and TB11.
-12
- 8.
Item Provide copies of the available reports regarding the original construction of the masonry walls.
Response
Enclosed are copies of the following reports which were referenced in our letter from J. G. Haynes to R. H. Engelken dated November 10, 1980.
- a. Addendum No. 1 to Specification BSO-112, Concrete Block Masonry at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.
- b. Purchase Order BSO-261, Reinforcing Steel At San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.
- c.
Bill of Material BSO-253, Testing Laboratory Services at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1.
- d. Twining Laboratories Laboratory Report, entitled "Report on Hollow Load Bearing Masonry Units".
2Hat i
l 00
(
FPERIOD
- 4. 1
w I-
~
I 4-I 1-I
-I--
I 1
- 4.
.1 ____
1<
I I
z
=
3
=
0 o
a z
h~
z I
~
HI Hil U
-L I
va 1
00 SPC R
rRaE 1,H.SU H ET ~ lN
-_4
'0 oATWS HM.
4.-
~
~
~
~
F.C R
-'I
IQ~
rin
.4.
4n Nff 4,
a)
~
._T A
ITIIt 0,01
I S
- 1~--
-A-I-
N d -
z I
z
&~1 I
z 1
.8 a 0
II A
S~1i agi
£UU3~3~~g
'BILL O0F MATER IA L'
%ITEY QAKf.U$T.
.DE SC RIPTIlON
-,e Cie g.A_
ee_1 Or 70, 1 0 4
71, oqFjj j ee-1,
&I I
ee IA e fr
__/-
e_ f4S, 4"a
~
f-,4r r-2 as4 t Hrf__
de
-e '4o),-
l' 14
. 4 Tt N, J;O JOF'E N C44E REV -
MADE CHECKED APPROVEID
.;ATE GNERATINGSTATtON
~REFERENCE -DRAWINGS:
-JB No. -g4& 6 R
eSO-72s:
ACCOUNT No.
iSAHE ET 0 OF
&L0NQ SLAC.A 10 &TFR SONIA7 ~
C4... ~-A;.8
&NLOCK 5-2' rF J.CK&OK 7,116 at
-5.o odE ai~
S.-4 07
-S P5 Bechtel Corporaltion Attn: Mu*.
D. A. Bonan.-o!
~
?.Q.Box 5b;50i, Vernon
-an c 1 Los AngeleE, Calif orni a 90050'
?RCJKZT:
SAI ONOFRE 1LYMLEA? GEMIATIN3 STATION
-n Iit I
San Onofre, Calif ornia REPORT 0"' 1iOUC?- LOAD P
!1443 YA-Rv_ UNITS F-ozks were eutte z
E -Ibee. 0rp!_ ation 4 c Twr-Tre 40.a Load. Lb, e
prC A-1 15,00W 1, 3 DM A-2 156,500 1,
31-b A-3 159,000o 1, 33 5
A-Li 160,500 1,3L7 A-5
- 163, 1,36b A&
--AGi..
1,333 P~2 NOTE:
These strength ccmply wth ASM- 0C O. Orade A]acnr.This T&NWCL3JLT3I&S0OF u~i?
TAIFzI'A Ii.
,Neale JR. Zuide.-a As setamnt ?anager, San) 0 VRZ: sib CCBechtel -M)c~ntee
-2 Bechtel orn Edison - LeaEure r
Edison - Dennis j
~i1' AL.
PECP7 A-L 1.b..r:
tfPL C iZ IS 0"
C-ttA NI.
St
'.7
.i
ER
'L~
zO23~~ ~~~~x 70-~z z
4 3~
3
~
W T~~>2.:' K 4.3.
flTF4 Y3
~
4. ~
3,
'3 Fle zf~ipez 66%4=
e ~d s ~c.
P.0.8.
$SHIP;,VIA rM Fi~nlsl i:o f~8~el-rf~fl c d n C vh ondi"'wu prinle:! an tbh faQcacnld beck l-fi *f, wis
'y azhet.Po;-Q r o c Pt~o' f~
oma..
-- ~ ~cas o~a-nw~erU-nd coeo apIimer. rub zn ippo n oi-ei, t-r opwd'3'ce, conli~rm.'
ship;1n9 'popos aad packinf flo~s in ca o., cc s shavn en aic0 firM P7;-$
nl321 u -CI's -d CKICe-wI-S: ff o-r a-s.i-sls-=t re-A -e qvolc!!,
fm~
L~pza
- il 3
3 ~~ ~
cma -c un'
'ccato i3cpra
- 1) 1: S atC a3.J R I1~a P,
T 1 0
3C D R
=
F-73,1 l WIUL3124,1141-a RRINPUMMI'%S 2 74, 3
5-1,
'I -
4.~ TO U -1ZS-UlmEI~
m~$ -A1p.'9~
313c WT Ic
.SE. Mr.
6"0
. X 1 DD "Vi Es r~UN mNSRCIN MOTA mALlT~O Mu 3 coias w~~froic::
O-TLCO~0~~oN~~
R E G ZNM : 7r 1 No.
-. ACCOUN\\T 'NO.
vtaciIus J
-O$
JJJS G $ UAF
-FO.
1 YRVC EI~
MECHIT
- i.
~>
B~TkEHE~4Si'Page
~M~> ~
-~ ~
~-~;5.
-~-
-cU0:.
Pao
-b c
co I,
lox' t "~o V 1 C) u.-.mu>z r=U M a-,
3 tM 11TH
~~ ~a~t. --.-u.-AL FIGHT I
. BE 0B
.EAD,,
~a.a-~FOWR:
SIPM4ENT0a-Th KSS T(MF '64100-MLBS UhPPED' AT'THE R,MEST 0F TUE :BECHTEL PCORfATION CtONSTRUC flON $,UPRINTTEVDENT~
THE VENDO REEVSTER T..'-,SHIP AT a
aTH AP~CALEC NCA1I-ER R ATES R a-
~
-aa~Ej PURCHASER
-ACC 0U.a DE LIV ERY:
- (A)
IN 'ACCOF 'A'C WT SCIEDULE ESTAB LISHED AND DIRECTED BY THE BEChTEL CCRPOEM O CON-STRUCTIO!P'S PEINTLENT IY
.(fl AB11,TATED BAIRS WL BE M, LIVEREP 7T IFIR 1 4,
-VY ATER RECEI!?T OF ENG>i NE*
'.4 *~~S (ThIS SCIDL is
- -ASED-614 iFAiID APROFVAL OF DETAILS).
".(C)
STOCK MATERIAL:
D11ELIVERY WITRINa 5 DAYS M-'AXIMi~
YIfAUJIMt'S Ct_.cc)pp1TPP;E THE :'FupFA ~S Er, vILL' PRE PtRE Ek-IMIN G
SUFFICIENT TIME -ALLUVIED -FOR DETAILING AND. FABRICATION,PRO TO THE RUED D LI B Y.&
THE VENDO WILL PREPAR-72 PIACIN AND/OR FABPRICATION L AWING-S.
-THESE WILL -E S UBMTED To' FMFkL FOR'UIE WILL BE OFJ17 A-GEM IAL VIATO.RE O LY -AND O'RESPONSI.
-a-Aa.
-,'a
~
,~-'~sBII, -f FR "THE -'CCURACY FTEITAS
~aa~a~'L-TA IL-,DIPWINGS ;SHALISE,_. PREPARED 11
'~~~~'~
a!L..~Z'4~aSFFICIEN!,
-DETAIL -. 40ALLOWACEAT
- ~irr~ :~~a~~
GaSTEL ND -aWLL E T'STNIN "a-"
'A"~-
a a..,
a-~a
~-.. -~aA
-1c
~
,~4
~AU.~ODANE 'WTH WST~CL~hST SANDAD I
a a
~
Jm
'FiA~~~
STEEL CC)
A' EQUIP. NO Ml CE~
't ~
~
LO PROJECT"..,
?hB
~'
@"~
~
M F FAT ~ALL BE FORWARDEf D1LCT S'-aN ADDRESS3O TUE
,BCH MUM PORATo
~"-iOS~.N5LE'.'!i[
"CALI O11RI, Ns.A T
46LIOND -A.B~,
EMC H SHI?1:INT SHUI BEArCCo~?AUD.B L COPIES (A' A.SHIPPINGi N~OTICE OR. BAR IST.
ALL BUiNDlEs SE15AL MA-VE LEGTBTL AND TI.ME s ThC TB? TAs AMCZMZ -. ALL MxITI~'CAkTjulq SALBE IN AlCCCGRD.A!&-CL WITH TEE STANiDARD IWCTC (ARc ui" Tm AlERICAF CU.RCUT
~ISTITUh.
TE S T REltRTiS.
Tu1 vaea.C SWXLL FC-RWARD TO 'THIE PUCHSER,
~1SETS OF CETIFIED fILL TE ST RE O?.S FCIR EACHSHI~NT OF REUFORCINC STELL. '
- iiV z-I, RTURfi'-F0R'CREDlT'
CETLI A
'ti VNDOR flAYi-BE VETfED FliR CREDIT AT 65'0YR TON' ET-FOBTRUC( XG SANEE
_-CALF CRLDIT
.FOR "NON -S~uck IESI G
SFfRG' AND%~-S~CKLENGTH UM~R 7BE'
'-f AD~,
fL-VR ADTCA LATi S
ANDJM 3QVIIARET
-,Yl WOAL fhSPIPCHksE P-0 o
NOO~ _70 PC,
~~~
EQUIP:NO K ~
flC ION
-- "b-'
s I
TS 1
9?
1.-,.
r t:
VI kf*
V,
~~j;2'x 16 A' WT~
CANCEUATION CHOWS T~ H~TRIL "iMEP MEEN HLL BE EX M.IT-ED BY-T HTE BECHMEL 'CURPHAfO
~I.W~:SURICHA E iORDER "CONDfIONS:'
~~~ TU ~iAf~CKED "PURMHSE ARECiNTIS
.,p, A
ME'V-~lN 4-w5 f7-5 W1,,
.~~5'~
~ 5~~.~
-A~55~
~ -~
~~
5-
- N o.-
BIL L O0F: _MAT ERI AL I TE MIUAN UNIT1
-DESCRIPT.ION c
1 l.e 4c 0_
F ACCO 7-7 ce I ti
___x 4-enijr4-g ro dc/
t6#
s e
_o_
- 4.
A o'e~,c~r~~S L~4-~ ~b 4I TITL La;
~7
__~~~~~~-v es/
1 1Se2y -rJAdC e
"A NUCLEA I~OB No.- --.
.246 SAN ONoR RUCEA ACCOUNT No.