ML20080D299

Motion to Suppl Record Re Walsh/Doyle Allegations.Documents Will Be Used During cross-examination.Documents Pertinent & Necessary to Provide Complete Record.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080D299
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	08/23/1983
From:	Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8308300322
Download: ML20080D299 (45)

Text

.

l

~

8/23/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86CKETED USNRC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY Atl0 LICENSING BOAR _D o3 AUG 29 All:17 in the Matter of EFl^

Doc ke t Nos.4.E.C? SEcss.w v APPLICATION OF TEXA5 UTILITIES I

0944 5M.f.'

I GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR 9

AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I

and S0 44'6 COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I

STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 I

(CPSES)

CASE'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD (IN REGARD TO WALSH/D0YLE ALLEGATIONS)

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),

Intervenor herein, hereby files this, its Motion to Supplement the Record (in Regard to Walsh/Doyle Allegations). When it became apparent that subject motion might delay the filing of CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Walsh/Doyle Allegations), CASE attempted to contact the Board Chairman to seek leave to file this motion on the date following the filing of our Proposed Findings (8/22/83); since the Board Chairman is out of the office until 8/29/td, CASE contacted Judge McCollom and was granted such leave by him.

Attached to our Proposed Findings which were mailed yesterday were several I

documents referenced in our Findings.. CASE moves that they be admitted into the record for the following good reasons.

1 In reviewing those attachments in preparing this motion, we found that apparently '

there were a few documents which we stated were being included which were left out. We are attaching them to this pleading, G

There were some documents which CASE had planned to use during cross-exami-

• ation and get into the record at that time so that we could use them in our Findings of Fact. We had very carefully prepared our cross-examination questions, mindful of the Board Chainnan's directive to focus our questions and be prepared at any time to tell him what we wanted to prove and where we were headed with our questions. We did precisely that, and had our questions typed (with few exceptions), with documents to be introduced at the proper time during cross-2 examination; see attached sample pages from our cross-examination questions,

However, the Board decided in the hearings (without any prior notification) to completely change the format usually used for cross-examination and had Mr. Walsh instead address his concerns to the Board Chairman. Although CASE tried valiantly to comply with the Board's directives in this regard, it was 2 The example attached consists of pages 3 and 4 (of 6); the purpose of this particular set of questions (as indicated at the top of each page, so that we could readily answer should the Board ask where we were headed) was to show that the factor of safety that the Applicants used is less than what is commonly recommended by manufacturers, and should be higher than Applicants are using.

In this particular instance, NUREG/CR-2137 was one of several documents which we planned to introduce to help prove this point.

(The Board will recall that it was thought for a while that it might be necessary for Mrs. Ellis to cross-examine if a hearing date was set when Mr. Walsh would be unable to attend. This was the reason we went into such careful detail in preparing our cross-examination questions, even including what each answer was expected to be and what to follow-up with if the answer was different than expected.

Thus, all of our questions (with very few exceptions) were in typed format such as shown on the attached example and in the same amount of detail.

(Obviously, when the hearing date was set such that Mr. Walsh was able to be there to cross-examine, it would not haye been necessary for him to follow the fonnat as closely as Mrs. Ellis would have had to; however, he did still plan to follow the same general format in getting documents into the record, but for the Board's change of procedure.)

r

. nonetheless disruptive and confusing to our carefully prepared, carefully thought-

'out approach.

In many instances, since we were not in control of the cross-examination, it was necessary to pull documents out of sections which had been prepared and organized to come later.

The result of this was that many of the documents we had planned to use never were presented and/or accepted into evidence. We do not wish to attempt to retry those instances; however, we believe that the five documents listed below (which fall into the category discussed above) should be admitted into the record at this time. They are pertinent (as discussed in our Proposed Findings), they were supplied to all parties prior to the May 1983 hearings (thus eliminating any possibility of surprise), and they are necessary both for CASE's Findings and to help provide a complete record in these proceedings.

We move that they be admitted into the record.

1.

CASE Exhibit 742, NUREG/CR-2137 (0RNL/Sub-2913/ll), " Realistic Seismic Design Margins of Pumps, Valves, and Piping," Published June 1981.

See page I-6 of CASE's Proposed Findinas. As discussed therein, this NUREG (although it does not represent the NRC Staff's official regulatory guidance) is a study which was commissioned by the NRC Staff, and is an authority in the sense that any other book is authori ty. The people who prepared the NUREG are experts and should be accorded the same weight as other such authority.

(Seediscussion at Tr. 6439/2-6441/9.)

2.

CASE Exhibit 787, " Finite Element Analysis of RHS T-Joints," by Robert M. Korol and Farooque A. Mirza, JOURNAL OF THE STRUCTURAL DIVISION, Proceedings of the American Society of. Civil Engineers, Vol.108, No.

ST9, Septenber 1982.

See page V-5 of CASE's Proposed Findings. This was a document reviewed by the SIT and discussed in the SIT Report (page 50).

. 3.

CASE Exhibit 825, Instruction CP-EI-4.6-9, Revision 0, 9/5/80, "Per-formance Instruction for SS'AG."

See page XXIV ~-7 of CASE's Proposed Findings.

(See companion docu-ment CASE Exhibit 826, discussed be10w.)

~

4.

CASE Exhibit 826. Instruction CP-EI-4.6-9, Revision 1, 8/3/81, "Perfor-mance Instruction for Piping Analysis by SSAG."

See page XXIV-8 of CASE's Proposed Findings.

5.

CASE Exhibit 733, NUREG/CR-143 (UCRL-15103), " Detection of Damage in Structures from Changes in Their Dynamic (Modal) Properties -- A Survey,"

Published April 1980.

See page XXVII-24 of CASE's Proposed Findings. The same statements hold true for this NUREG as are stated for CASE Exhibit 742 above.

Some of the documents referenced in CASE's Proposed Findings and included as attachments thereto constitute information which is both new and significant.

In addition, they are relevant (as discussed in our Proposed Findings) and they are necessary both for CASE's Findings and to help provide a complete record in these proceedings. We move that they be admitted into the record:

6.

Letter of June 10, 1983 from TUSI to Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, Washington, to which is attached " ATTACHMENT (5) TO TXX-3678, Generic Item (5) - Damping Values" which confirms that Applicants are committed to Regulatory Guide 1.61 and WCAP-7921 AR.

and 7.

WCAP-7921-AR, " Damping Values of Nuclear Power Plant Components," May 1974, by Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

The letter from TUSI was written on the Friday before the Monday (June 13,1983) when the last hearings began. As indicated on the list of copies attached to the letter (all blind copies), CASE was not on the mailing list to receive it nor did we receive a copy from the utility or the NRC Staff; we were not aware of its existence until much later (and

'did not obtain a copy until July 25). We then requested a copy of WCAP-7921-AR after reading the TUSI letter.

See page XXI-l of CASE's Proposed Findings.

_U

I

. 8.

1&E Report 83-23 (Inspection Report 50-445/83-23), for period May 23 through June 10,1983, under cover letter from NRC to TUGC0 dated July 27, 1983.

See pages XXVII-9 through -15 (especially pages -14 and -15) of CASE's Proposeft Findings.

CASE was not aware of this inspection report until well after the last hearings in June (and in fact, until after the Applicants had given a copy of it to reporters in the area and they called CASE regarding stories they were writing about it on August 10 -- although CASE is supposed to be on the mailing list of NRC Region IV to receive a copy 10 days after the date of the cover letter, which would have been August 6). We did not receive a copy until we called and specifically asked for one.

9-FSAR pages 17.1-39 (May 31,1979),17.1-39 (Amendment 41, July ll,1983),

12. 17.1-40 (May 31, 1979), and 17.1-41 (August 7, 1981).

Nonnally it would not be necessary to submit for the record portions of Applicants' Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). However, since the FSAR is constantly being changed and updated, in this particular instance the July 11, 1983 change constitutes new and signifi: ant information.

See pages XXIX-19 through -21 of CASE's Proposed Findings.

NOTE:

It should be noted that there were four pages of newspaper articles attached to CASE's Proposed Findings of Fact, which CASE is not asking be accepted into the record. As stated in our Findings (page XXVII-15) and our Errata Sheet (page 9):

"... it now appears that the NRC Staff is going to require Appli-cants to have an independent design verification which will include not only the Fuel Building but also an examination of design and performance of a residual-heat-removal system on the reactor; the system is designed to remove excess heat from the nuclear reactor Core.

"Although this is certainly a step in the right direction, CASE does not believe that the review outlined is extensive enough or that it should replace a thorough review by the NRC at the national level

-(not NRC Region IV). We do not have all the details regarding this at the present time and can only base Our assessment upon verbal reports regarding the meeting in Bethesda on 8/18/83 between the NRC and the Applicants and newspaper articles (copies of which are attached for whatever benefit they may be to the Board)."

" CASE is mindful of the fact that newspaper articles do not consti-tute evidence. We mention them here only to emphasize the point that the additional review which Applicants have been ordered to undertake by the NRC Staff is not the same thing which, CASE is asking for."

/

It should also be noted that we have just received (in yesterday after-noon's mail after we had already prepared and mailed our Proposed Findings) a copy of the NRC's August 19, 1983 letter under subject of:

" Summary of Meeting on Comanche Peak Independent Assessment Program" which discusses the August 18, 1983, meeting in this regard. This letter does not change our position as indicated in our Proposed Findings -- what the NRC and Applicants are proposing is not what CASE is asking for in our Findings.

(although it is a step in the right direction). We have not yet analyzed the letter beyond this (although we do consider it to be new and significant information).

There is yet another category of documents which were attached to CASE's Proposed Findings which, CASE believes, should be in the record. These documents are relevant (as discussee in our Pruposed Findings) and they are necessary both for CASE's Findings and to help provide a complete record in these proceedings.

The documents which fall into this category are:

13.

From page I-10 of CASE's Proposed Findings - " Synopsis of First Progress Report of Committee on Factors of Safety," Oliver G. Julian, M. ASCE, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, July,1957.

14. From pages I-20 and VII-25 -- Hilti Architects and Engineers Anchor and Fastener Design Manual; and letter, City of Los Angeles, November 20, 1981, to Hilti, Incorporated, seventh page from back of attached packet on "HILTI, Architects and Engineers Anchor and Fastener Design Manual."

15.

From page V-8 -- Welding Handbook, Section 2, 5th Edition, published 1963 by AWS.

16. From page VI-8 -- AISC'(American Institute of Steel Construction, Inc.),

Seventh Edition.

17.

From page XI-3 -- Hool and Kinne, " Stresses in Framed Structures," Second Edition, 5th Impression, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., N. Y., N.Y.

18.

From page XI-8 -- Regulatory Guide 1.122, " Development of Floor Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Floor-Supported Equipment or Components," February 1978, Rev.1.

I

• 19. From page XIX " Headed Steel Anchor under Cembined Loading," by Ecfiackin, Slutter, and Fisher, Engineering Journal /American Institute of Steel Construction, Second Quarter 1973.

20. From pages XXII-l and -

Regulatory Guide 1.61, " Damping Values for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants.," October 1973; and Regulatory Guide 1.48, " Design Limits and Loading Combinations for Seismic Category 1 Fluid System Components," May 1973.

From discussions with Mr. Doyle regarding these items, it appears that he was aware of them (in most cases) and simply did not understand that if they were not admitted into the record during the hearings, we might have a problem getting them into the record later. He knew that they were relevant and believed that we could just refer to them in our Findings and provide a copy.

Not being used to operating within the confines of the NRC's complicated procedural requirements, he simply believed that we could get the documents accepted into the record just because they were relevant and necessary for the Board to make its final decision in this case based on all the relevant facts.

It should also be noted that Mr. Doyle had hoped to be able to discuss the matters involved with the Walsh/Doyle allegations with the NRC Staff (and had expressed an interest in talking with Dr. Chen in particular, although he did not limit it to that) before we filed our Proposed Findings. However, this has not materialized, although Mrs. Ellis has personally inquired regarding this. matter and Mr. Doyle is still awaiting the NRC's call.

1

• CASE submits that the Board 'should make its determination as to whei.her or not to admit these documents into the record based on the following criteria:

1.

Is the information relevant to the issues at hand? (CASEbelieves that the answer, in all cases, is "yes," based on the discussions contained in our Proposed Findings.)

2.

Is the information necessary to help provide the Board with a complete record on which to base its final decision in this case? (Again, CASE submits that the answer must be "yes.")

We move that they be admitted into the record.

i Similarly, there are some statements in CASE's Findings which, to Mr.

Doyle, are very simple and logical deductions made from information already in the record. However, it may be that some of these deductions may not appear quite so obvious to those with less detailed knowledge of the matters at hand than Mr. Doyle has.

In those instances, CASE moves that the Board take whatever steps it deems necessary (including further evidentiary hearings, affidavits, etc.) to provide the Board with a complete record regarding these very important matters.

This is well within the authority of the Board, and is in fact incumbent upon the Board, as stated in 10 CFR, Part 2, Appendix A, V.(g)(1):

WP

"If, at the close of the hearing, the board should have uncertainties with respect to the matters in controversy because of a need for a clearer un-derstanding of the evidence which has already been presented, it is expected that the board would normally invite further argument from the parties --

oral or written or both -- before issuing its initial decision. If the uncertainties arise from lack of sufficient information in the record, it-is expected that the board would normally require further evidence to be submitted in writing with opportunity for the other parties to reply or reopen the hearing for the taking of further evidence, as appropriate. If either of such courses is followed, it is expected that the applicants would normally be afforded the opportunity to make the final submission."

(Emphases added.)

It is now obvious that, should the Board feel it necessary to require further evidence (in whatever form), there will be no delay in Applicants' fuel load date because of the taking of such evidence.

It will take them some time to complete the reviews which the NRC Staff now believes are essential to assure that Comanche Peak has been built correctly (even absent any addi-tional reviews which the Board may deem necessary resulting from CASE's Findings).

CASE has worked very diligently to provide the Board with our Proposed Findings and to properly reference each and every point. However, if there are instances where we have not, we move that we be given the opportunity to supplement the record to make it as. complete as possible so that the Board will have the benefit of a true and complete record on which to base its decision.

4

y

. For the reasons set forth herein, CASE hereby moves that the Licensing

' Board:

1.

Admit into the record of these proceedings the twenty (20) documents referenced herein; 2.

Allow CASE the opportunity to supplement the record regarding any statements and/or documents in our Proposed Findings which are not adequately referenced or documented; and 3.

Require further evidence to be submitted in writing with opportunity for the other parties to repl9 or reopen the hearing for the taking of further evidence, as appropriate (should there be any areas in which the Board has questions or feels that the record is incomplete).

Respectfully submitted, W

s ffirs.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446

Attachment A - Page 1 RICHMOND INSERTS The factor of safety that the Applicants used is less than what is comnonly recommended by manufacturers, and should be higher than Apps. are using.

(3)

Hand out NUREG/CR-2137, " Realistic Seismic Design Margins of Pumps, Valves, and Piping," CASE Exhibit

$Z</;L, p. 30-31:

" Manufacturers commonly recommend (1) that design loads for bn'chor bolts should not exceed one-quarter of the manufacturer's tensile or shear strength, and (2) that a linear interpo-lation should be used for combinations of tension and shear."

Doesn't this mean that a factor of safety of four should be used?

((Should say yes.))

((If not:))

I&E 82-26, p.19, next-to-last par.:

" Applicant stated that the manufacturer indicated that a factor of safety of less than three has on occasion been recommended in the concrete precast tilt-up industry."

Isn't it a fact that no pre-cast concrete is used in safety-related areas at Comanche Peak? ((Yes.))

((If they don't say yes:)) Ask them where in safety-related areas it is used.

((Even if they come up with some s be able to do in the first place, we can say:))pecifics, which they should not Isn't it true that this has very limited applicability to Comanche Peak? ((Yes.))

So it really has little bearing on what we're talking about here, does it? ((No.))

s*

l Attachment A - Page 2 RICitMOND INSERTS The factor of safety that the Applicants used is less than what is commonly recommended by manufacturers, and should be higher than Apps, are using.

(4).

I&E 82-26, p. 20, 2nd par.:

"No combined shear / tension tests have been performed on Richmond inserts by the manufacturer or the Applicant."

Correct? ((Yes.))

It goes on to state:

"For calculating the effects of combined shear and tension, the Applicant has utilized a curve based on an interaction formula given in the Prestressed Concrete Institute handbook.'

Is the interaction formula in thc Prestressed Concrete Institute handbook basically the same as the formula shown in the PSE Guideline (CASE Exhibit 724)? ((Yes, basically the same.))

Is the interaction formula in the Pt'estressed Concrete Institute handbonk different from what is shown in the PSE Guideline (CASE Exhibit 777,Section V, Hilti Concrete Anchor Bolts)? ((Yes.))

Is the interaction formula in the PSE Guideline for Hilti's (CASE Ex.

?77 above) basically the same as in NUREG/CR-2137 (CASE Exhibit,7/2)?

{(Yes.))

Isn't it a fact that CASE Ex. 724, is a non-linear interaction formula?'

Isn't it a fact that CASE Ex. 724 Interaction Requirements hAve nothing to do with prestressed concrete since the concrete is not precast or prestressed but poured at the site? ((Yes.))

1,

Why is there a difference between what is shown in the PSE guidelines for Hilti's and Richmond Inserts?

((If they say it's based on experience, ask:)) What experience?

I thought there were no tests of the ineraction of tension in shear; correct?

((If they say i t's. compared to the Hil ti's, say:)') -Aren't.they using a linear formula for the Hilti's and a non-linear formula for the Richmond Inserts? ((Yes.))

Shouldn't the Applicants use a linear interaction for Richmond inserts?

((Yes.))

If not, why not?

s t

i M

i k

/

we

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of I

l

^

APPLICATION OF TEXAS UIILITIES i

GENERATING COMPANY - ET' AL. FOR l

Docket Nos. 50-445 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR I

and 50-446

. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q

STATION UNITS #1 AND #2-(CPSES) 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's'M0 TION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD (IN REGARD'T0 WALSH/D0YLE ALLEGATIONS) have been sent to'the names listed below this 23rd day of August

, 1983,

by: Express Mail where indicated by

• and First Class Mail elsewhere.

~~~

• Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Alan S. Rosenthal. Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Flcor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, D. C.

20555

• Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member Division of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Architecture and. Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.

20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member

• Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 881 U. Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.

20555

• Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1200 - 17th St., N. W.

Washington, D. C.

20555 Washington, D.

C'.

20036 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies)

• Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.

Office of the Secretary Office of Executive Legal Director, USNRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building Washington, D. C.

205b5 7735 Old Georgetown Road - Room 10105 Bethesda, Maryland

, 81 4 -

E0 Atomic Safety. and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.

_20555

Certificate of Service Page 2 David J. Preister, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Environnental Protection Division Supreme Court Building.

Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U.~ S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission

.611 Ryan Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Lanny Alan Sinkin 838 East Magnolia Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 J O&L prs.) Juanita Ellis., President

, CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 e

9 4

e e

g

/

~..

2 TARA0LElN =SI

= %'c l

8

= $o R

' f 9

E~'* g-1 E

E I

N o

PS NI G

E R1 N

0 F M =_ O S

S. R F O 8E ll,.

9T "s

l i

I V

OU u

C N

ED 3O F

0 1

LVJ O

R TS 78 7

T I

B I

HX E

E S

AC 1

.l,'

S. ;Y e

.I isi y-[

c..

l l

f!

,l 1(llllj

!l O

t

?,

edl h es

, - t e.

f )

is 2

t

. e.

g.

o6 g a n nt n

n hl a ch ih o

to t buh 4 nymdeM nc o af t 8 n

g 9

(

xe T

tt lu nF A u

f r

t o

u a

n ehg mn mni y u

o1 i

t r o r

n r

t, o a r a uei e ab l

s

eangr, r/

a a

e a ci oMd i t

e t t

t mZt of e l

H nn onibe t

m e -

l ot g l.

oo r u t

,e

,esdh

- d e p nh rsdonee pl a

ad oQ n n v.

es o e e ei i ad m ael.

ieg t

h gb e h e l oi t

S i

rhi s nar h in

r. l E b

.d t

n s c n vi s

t s

vJa a d ;p e

u l

l a

e a c T

anr e

et ad gc y e

uf

.inc lb) oh c

a ets c p l

a a i

n r.

df aoe t

hra em U U oc haae z N

, int r r

t owat a8 gr h r grhPS ng sa uss

's ev ya c vr s

x. t r

t c

.h al I

ar c n r

r.

ushahu t o uaet u pf.e nP tt a et e r

r i

b..

h oo e( dia eh te a

O i h

ye d d orh e

t a s

te s

r t

i t

r e

n r

a gs aahaeermdoga d

Kt t

t sd u n7 m

J M thn n s

oh s s d

a a

t o npo1 i

t e

nm ai l

es i

ed c o s

ie ct a s

t a

noe nd M M lc a eu5 chmr adehr&tndti nele ~r l

pm owming i

- n l

m.

T s

eic a u enis a

t i

e teht o e c

c el b dt o

ah s ipt a n,

h ai o

A o sn c

e a c cd aum da w smo w

miwnci mirhh M M t

csDN t

ern e sos a pn ae e h e c e

mteP st oI t i s S

e c v w

nh pa d

k t s t

r ne e s.

dn ol

,Rc ep. ntname gt s

u nn n

c na oes nndr) eew r

i H

rn c

i e c r8 e

u wh n i

c t

q t

ii oiel h. r o o

hhdooohmm ho o er u0 n) ih mp d

e t f io n

n xTot1 t

e t

a a

e f c t gnjmcc eo rccs t.

po d

t t

R o

e0c oe

.igf nn n

t ed Hoa h

h d

r s

n ee ia ees ae N

nt mh w nfi d t eh s

u.

of w el n ebps r r gs a

t c

c a

u t e a

e m o

e e

T eSV

c. b trho o

o t d r> a s b g r F or rd e

4nd nl m o s.

a aysn w as r l

n. t M M

. evi f

r r

e we nkes uc o wioe ui in e ot pi g

9 nr i

a c

wh d n "e qt te t

od c

uj s n

Db gah e hdec t e n g

t 3

e n e gg( o :e h m i smg hoc geh t

s c

t or ia i

ad s r el n g

3 a r E

1 t

t s

r s

a As:

n nc nc2 i t e e ai r f d o g

r 1 ao fC 0

c t

s T. tnkruoah&oain6dlrU ed t ropi0 f

e nl g

t p

hij n

oS 0

t g

s E Foiofht r

ed

.M f 9 t uc e si n

ml E E t

Rihw c 's ndf eh daA 2

si l

e!

1 g

y C (jwl ou o o he s

w a

a d pL d b r a e oh e !u et d

r yeemC.

eth

.t s

d t

S oTds g

gws d h o n

J L

e a

dl e n o c

t rht m o s. 00 eh A

h) nsat. r s

gtb nah b t t

t n

at iu a.

i t

u s

A te d r gd tin n

e t

a u

me imt sa otndn Saa d e

a oo

- aut nis r rh J r 1 oe lp g a inf e g

bti b niyel oh r

g u ee0 N

mH eh rbt a

qt e

A

'M

, i adn wb eoni a e rl c h n gd p a i

t c

e c

o a

t g

r e

g Ra n c c pn wsh n5 b

h m n

n n

g F

rj t

n( n minpd eb om E

n i d af e e e u nt t

t i/

g uf

.t ae s

g1 aooAsbe urf s

r l

g f

la n

J a

.h eToa et enrbnihef yepo e c. t :

i t

oh d

>oio

. E tnli w oE0 e

l e

n3 e

mof T o c

t uf t

h s aa nnt d yel s ar vi vi ne u

r ret go et e ucr er r i r - t f a ne nb h a at f t r 2

N o eeidnsdr t

c t

n o

C pal l

sd r aic e vsidt mte eints r e sh a wrd C

npm0 e

E K 9

e nu eee i t n e-s wihs f

eb t

t e hu ade s

s r

t e

a u c xt u

obl c t ) et o.

e s M

i wt f

p ncfnm sic 0 v

l ef ui esicemsn e

l i e e cl o o

ot

,l b b ms sh e1 h c s u 0

M t

n o e

mmid u o fl n eDh pr u s E.

t u t

n u n rf/

u a

i i s me a e wh d

.d p

t t

e p

omaxo2 a eec a oh if s

uel 1

t lome.toopa hr i o

rh r 8

eht ed.

c u e r

e e

nge

.e

. si Ma y/

e vh. n w :u eFa oh m uk aih amd D,7D7 sr.pi 1 r

e hh r ndd c t

n r n E

b Trtef te i

f t e hsTAi c

.L

.L u t

soeeum.

b.

. e l

f i qCht o. 0 e

o aeiabyt l

f ro i gi C d t

c uEs 0

s t

f l ss sb) nbh mn w( n o o4 4 s s

b l

lu.

ge E R udt 4

acd wi i t

s i8 t

nt udch-nr c n r

e nn( e sb P5 o5DeSTS T

ngol c yd n f l y

nt aladeofiuaort.

o uj cd e o

e e a al sd t

r8 r

8 e a tlat srmf s

di a yx n n e s

8 P A. a%

c e e s r a cL

.L -. e o

r r gad n

atdn I

B o c :u r se s.

n 1

eb e it n N

ace au.

n n

o rh eb ms e w o :. t aet tMre.

8 a t n9w0 s

w ehu n5 nd n t eTr c

r s

t eb sdsdt I

r s

s r a e

d e

a u

F a r pt e epaisiEelhax o

S s nmt r

e e f Bh yh s yi AnAaono1.eN a

m a

t ef AcarbtpoehuoptewFss-n sl o

wet Al f

nNuu mS anMl gt a r f ei g-i A Hnd 3

a a

a9 S

i mj C C ac1 AI onf aopa s o

a n m

Rt at o

r e

l

,l l<

8 i

g

sser ts e

n neF 2

m 3

5 C

1 n

le E

b 3

a M

wo E

!a n

T d

P t

a-n; E

m e y S

t s

m

.u mi ;

l u

u c

o a e C

iu u

c ;mpc r

d s

S a

e a o o

I f

n d c cf r

e ui m

A t

t t l ci s na y

d r

n n a e t

o b

e o

lc mu i

g d

ins f

a t

s o

c 1

mm md

f e 1n e

s e e.

r n nd e ;s y r u t

i t

f

- s m c u r* i i emC t

e ci nd t

d i p l

uSl hi aacAy$Relts At m 7. l s t loI ie ic a c a

r s o

u pc1 pd

=====.

.,. C. e E, f. I # M, M,P P,7 n

, t[.

l

,fI l'

iI

I l

il

,ll i

j:l l

lljlll

,l

(

3 e - e - -

f e g d - - y s

I r

r 3

h oh me m

a y

n int int e

I h

e ic i

c I

e s n e

t c

0 t

c t f l

t

,l 2

f s.

h s

i r

om: opn o

I ta la t

b o

p s

t b c n xi f

d s a mr

. f or a e e

s

(

s yo c i c e

e b n ed o z 3 o a ts d

l g

t. rf f(

t r

f l

s r

f d

o d

e nd e

l i

pu ly e a r e s

)

a n lmoe o

ns mh x

1 e e tnb p. d i cl opR t

9 n r

ah s c

. i e

a g u) z e :

).o 2

nTr r

i a

e n o5 i t

o m

e mh nc( la

)

. p. eh y Ac b

m ic3 oef t r

pnr r

r b

a e1 t

r d

s r s u u e e

t d pa lef a ta t

z s

oe e

's e

s o on a n plpb M

lpa a al lel toFi ef eh r

s e m

r f

u n

tin g 7

rh M[f~~~

io d

-. l pna a l

p3 Oq f

..k J. "

a f

e t

w e

t r

c l

r o

i2i o oh f o

De uh gsMh S

s ed e

n o onl t

t r

t t

s -

r h

w a e e

(

a s

I t

n n

C lc) mt 7 p gh nh md s.

S r ot 3l at e ge oed s a1 e nh

'f" eh Y

f n

,h.

• oa te n y /"

y y * ' e. T " 2* " i (o F f e

L o

J s r r

- 2 t

r n m

nt a h

s ml i

A a

r a nioo t

r o f f ei sd n pd T

s d

a le t

N a

T' t

icOe n a, x t

n g F' ni n ed S

r r u b

A c

at e o, q H

e Dh ah) n o

e mOpn h ei siKJe T

t 3 r

f R

t t

u t

uneDs m Ts xl d

s

(

N t

i e

a a

, c n x d

a l

ms a e pd(

e E

e e o m

u h

c r

M c

nsi3 F! d rl

. c gno o 3

gmn M

t t ld Ft i a t

-l*

d oo gp( s c

g[ u[,f ny Oe ac c i ms E

Q{j la e

di s

)

n mx e tab n eti ims

_ W.

L D (n s! e8 o.I' j 3i f

n Oa ed u nn tys a

E es l

p t

h ms it ef n o

(

s af a1 i ci Dc ut t

, " y t f t

r r

E n r f of d n,,

c n

oa y.

s mamu T

1 o

s

'O I

&l yi-s sd u o r e c o o e e

e d

t f c

s m,0

-i, M

t f

oh G

S.

e o m

ye nt n n o

e f

t gs w n l

r a nl e at gh s

r n s f e s r F

e a mt d oo ed f,

c 3

F s

q*

oe a e m

), lad 4; f ~ (,

o C

gr nt d, i r cCul n tef tr n e ts lp i a e ed h ic e C

y r

e t

eR y

ef v a eS ta ygs i

g guf q oe e n. nb nd g

t f o a

t f e o o c e a eh s od b e oe lp e

po e

e 2

p n

s n1 e r s

elgch i oft e emc r

t h p t,s r

e md c

a od p n e e g d

g G

r e s pn n n m i

ps d

}

I r

t r

r a

e e aOr o a o gpu ye w

F e

o i

t u s r o h

s j

oDf t

n r n a r

{

n o pl pf i

r t

s a o f

e 3hi n mn g( g g c

).

c niad w 3

s r

i i e t

n r d a e e s nt i ed n

d ch s

j t

n u9 ini ot ned h tnoe o

e 3

u gj chi e et e t

t lvf n a

r t

t n s s

r a gr n e a. ta e. SS c

2foh gieb h e o e

inwis gi S) c t

n ot s ctsb y

ini n i h t

e o f

s e ni f

=

S el a n n o

.r

.. df pci af t

r n t

a e e23l e ei a eT}

T t looa 1

r c

}

S e

e oo wt i o f

5 lpmb m

h c St sd c

(

{

t r

dh pt li !lll!

, '. i ! j!

• S r elad hl

. e tnt n r u ima u

oee - s t

e l

T e c e r or tgir i

a sb nd t

.s hd r a e

h c oei s a

n), r iwlou e o t

et

- e S h n in nUe d c

- e et rd i e e t

ab r c e s

h x ei ot h a g iged c

s ei ioh te r

pe n e o

i f i pl c

qb n

e n ts a

a lp j /, e wl t di r

o S

al s wl e c

h e uf

r. h e e ta c s

t t

a x e

r o. gv e

hf ei a ps e

i ef i n et r ts s

e c e n ep m

te rd et o md lp a ns c n d ts r t

f t

e t

ed e

mrd k t Si mt cHa pe eh e

i isl n

i h u v a c i giehh t

d oni i w a

t n

s a

r lpai n b ivh ni d

n e e we s n

a a

l n gt yr or ud n a

a e e n a iHd t

t ih a

a u a s

,h o n=

e ce r

os pd yh t

m e

t e pb r e el wws tat s t

rRoml e

pnt gn h s n i c i d

g b

t t

u( p i ml nd ig r

e m a

ot u

.e ma d

l t

s a

t e s r

a l

n x s

ri s t

x e n c edf

,l af l e

s.

t o

e r ofii h s zly i lpn a r

h ah i o yt inA n h f e a

i a s

t ei e r b l

e r pe hi ta w

e s x

o e madi e wewm l d tc e

n1 f t

e h

i l

t m

pe ai s

a ob o n.

c r

f c

n n

a lyh s e

nt mt t

t c e d

et s s int et ioio o

gr u e e e nb h t

s a

e os vb gB f

t e

t t

o u e e a

go d

g

.d el ns od s

gja eb m

i3i tt r ge e r s

a n mt o

ed e h a r

t n

u a s e m e i b i pn rbf is s

l o n u a meh o a s c nkl s r e c e

mr i s a

r r

ut r e pf s a nl r

i pe r

a t

e e

eglcd hdi nd id oa r pc ad pnn s

nl r

. s o pne ni o

el nge t

t n

d e

o e

r zi e u wd nt s

s iood dd m e5 e

a f

nl ioe md o i

t gmme s

o d

ai ut e

or2 m h lot eid gl t

e r a

s n e

r nnd a ns h e d

ai ua a t d o iiRh e e a h

t e no o f

ea a a

.r o

t s

n n c a c t

e mt ts a

c ml t

r r

s r

,di c

r ui e r p e

t ot r

pif s nr ct f n

wd mh n D

b n ah h

io e

nh r oc

)

u u r

n e m2.ms ni r g h 7 c t

r t

et a k

c a e

ls o e et b

s o pe u u pd s ad o

a t

l r

dfont

(

c a n dDkl i e nb os n Tn ri a c me h

s etl t t

mr

.o t o d u e

id a o cei gp o. aa ts r

r a t

mi aw di s u

s r

a j

r gf oh r

r 2

, s ns nt nl owt al e ei s e ct l

9 6 atic t

e g

ns pa n o. w o a tri s

5 oi e e nws r

d ei i wt hi h t 0

)l mhF l

cr ci ed e e od e nbdd ind laej c i sdd u e n

r ah r

wn e 11 o

r f s s

o f

b obf mand a od T niwt Dy n

s e

n e

t 1

(

a o

h o s

o

)

r r g mh h

cd o

1 d

s 1

v r

b d chl r

t s

t n

oi ihj ait a mie R

5 lcf ie poi n

oA -

nh ct i

r.i r

ojhi io a

c ei a l.u ph t

m eo fCe s

a l

s r

e r

E a(

oh t

d ot t

a ot n a r o inel e) ic s

h edh =

t h engwpa oyos n

.t Tf el f lai p lgc ge e h

r r

B t r e

r r n t

e u ot T pB in an c

t b p e

oh a a

c c y m /,T y

h e t nd ct mi ish ct b

eh t

n d ta rt ad o e e e c

r a

.o e. s kl b r l

u h'm r r

t r

e e gmt o

n

.d ol h e b os o

E s gf dlaO od ed : e r

c r

t ac t

nf n o e ef l

d oc a ei a e s e a eb t

pyi n l

e h di oe r h T

onnf e r ai e c n wleh e e v o

o nz nig s

t a

KMe lyt a iyh i pd d.

ed si o yi x d

r n

t zi r ob tai e

=

e oc l ma luic gin o's ts f

l f P

f sd s l

p h

t T

o s

t t tpil e

m m d n ge e ta o( i t

o j

E e

r t

u e a r a r e

sit e

.l eh ya d

rh a S

r c oe af cl isd e e n ei shi f e nd e n h

).

c c nh rj d

t i ot ia n

t t

f d n v lni !pb t

c e ol c lp cd xi a c e aA og e n ut )

u d at e ws oo izk f b e

t neh r e ts r

et a o nt n e

s e

v f

nl r

a r

s aa ueh te ot s e ei nb mos opt ivt d la l

ol at lai e o(

a i

c r y

a niutcl c pt e s r u m i e oat r t

r t

el imr lod od e) c i f s a ch ps.

o c

c 2

a t

lpo e a

o r e r e,ph 8 a e a t

nl e

h l e e a r t

e n r gnsf oh e pe v

t is g e

rTpwh mh r

e eo c

r a a v o pl n r a p g o - s f s t

peic T 6.h wp

.ef h r e : w gn a 1 f t

h o n el d tnl F moh e

a e

e a g get t

s s

h i h e ys u wt nme i y a a 7. i pn gh

.ot h h t

s a

h t rf t

t t d e tn o a d (-

g b epat me a(

s e

s iKt ot w ac r3 e vs ih ef t r

r e n e na n r

n o

nt ed b i c el e e

n s inal h e r t

s l

r a ic n c si s

n eHs iod e

e p. gt t i t

e( mt ae a s a s c r s i f l o eia m u u j. nanawn1.d ni) s ts n v t

x s nio8 e

e l u

owirh R.d d

at d s't u cd T b h hi g s

eh ishf t

c e ed j

n a ue lyd u t f s o t

e c. mgr ts gh s s r s s

a r k

e ge6 ol e

d esed np( cc owy a rf a 'd ceb e e uTl i s s

g e sd dl lpu oooe e s

mooh eoh n

e s e

ef c

t n or o a n s

r e t

l

.hi s

oe t

i h r. e o rh u ot cn e t

ht nsk y ts ge aHlph ne ol a

.f i i l

a F ad eh sd ct tg ee poi h e f r oor s

s nh gml d l

s s t

f nat nh sf f mchD i s i f t

c l

c o oi c nt a rl e e n

c a h t eI s

e e

e. d a

i b a

nf ot h lu n t d.

u ma cpr r ni g

e e n t

t i

oeTd d

y dd e s i

t t

n n e s i ts pmte eot oi yl h. te t

e e s cd c s r

t g

l df.b o

r l

unoopn dI i

r ol ab n a n s

or.

.h nl t

el l

t t

r n

a us me i

c yn e t

r c n

a rf a e

s n

s dios al l t

minph pt d ea s a e e oa s o nia u ya f

wn

.S d c i ye t

s t

n e c e n me oa e inl r l t

ysh a noIn oe p t

s a u nc oh t

etl uhi ma r

a ne s t io t

t r

r j e a w e o

e oAe tsb e o

tn n i s m 't.a t

a d e r hh v s pi u e s t 2

t e

tno

- b eh r

t e r d e i et is n r f med g S

s al at a gd eid A T on s

n o tn s

s r t

s s n mTc n es e~t pTd n ohd eAnc m mlyi s

a s e si e

u o pt E wrond n o e pe t

e ocDed f ah o

,c oh e v of i o e n r a

u a e a ms n ohTs act ce r o wc mb r qc t

a ni aa r oe nih ioel n impt r uaJ n

e ai ul o im3 t f si gsjpua d s ppa 9

i illllllllll Il!

c ilJl l{Il e4 e

e

)

t e

)

)

)

d 5

dl e el ;

mh ed 6

mnh 7

3 9

e e a

a s 8

ei hh t

e b m 0

s t dl t

t e t

(

(

(

2 umt ou s

ne o or f i e mn ir u ot o ns ol cl e n f

e r

s el s o e lyd e r d

i e e e v g

e gh

2 b

r iod wot mt i t

a a i t

et pl r n s te m pe a

o h

c lvf F

t n s e

oa n

hi ed h

Oi r

o u

e n f

t e

t d

Db s s s ur mq i

yh tu

= a co e r e

gc e n

2 c tefe r et g p c

r a 1

e t

e g h n e ed m qa t

n t

n e

~

man t

u r

o e

ge a

i t f e

w a

onc x a r

nl ipr

.i l f a

o e

a e

n v na) h o d ol inp it s

pynl a

eh b t

e a r a

i o g

n t

c S

cd/t f h

cin mf s

ns ei a

wa I

t a e n a t

t e

o oa

,c yu r amh a

S n

z si pu Y.

t e el h s qt i s ms ad i t

x t

nt c

e ue nol i i me em ie.

i =

r A

w )n. i m uej s

t l

t n a r a u mmo l V s

N e

pi a

A ne;pm a()

imb l

s ge g x a n(

ne e c

io N. 'a l

m d

o inm2 T

h sd

/ l n

{

N dl wi ly mh et a

s n e1 a

r

}

s r

i t

e a a g S

E n e t

.mo n

.o f ul n d

s w

ed r

M e s r op e4 t

wn e im.c o q pil q

f j

b ed t

sS bi a

{

e l

y E

te H. e e

e ae a

o g

e. opot md ig L

e v

r yh l

d d '

, x g

n lp; n

E Ft "2 y ip n

a

.l t

ef a

b c z o o s

ir e

n a

E lpteh on n nie ni m

a ig e n t

T t

s t

I r a.i R

lal e i we y

n m

ne gr t

m, N

ps h

n r

U, e

pcr o y

h e u

u et g r wc "2 x s

t s ef w

g ehd a

,"d _'S n "

m J i 2

g n

O ei n nToni oa y

3 1

s m

,d' Dd

= c o

n 0

s tu yhlp e g

]

6 a. nit n

a f

u h

s ol n V

e t lpmc w

d si iai s

]

e cf sh

. _ ~

l

[

ri r

d o

2_

De t

nad tn s

,i r

t u

e e

t x

(at x

• e p

c r

at s

[ t m

. o e e eb

}

r r s e

a

%y o

e t

e r r

'}

y xl

}

ni u

m gt t ms a

eT m.d ainpa D

m {N I N

,y N

B i

iat y iJ h

y t

)

l a

p t

e or e

aa n

B s

t

{

x r

h 'y F

int 2 e a s

{

t

=

d a

rk s.

n 0

'd 3.'a mh.

1 2

a e e

d

=

[

c t

e1 h a e

nl e pa al Qx e

t n

'}

ia y

t t

o ed r e x f d nh d

1.d Bo%o b

u

}

r n o a (t ed in b

e 3

b r

re nl ri u

y"

{

ad d

{

a oe t

z n

=

rl n (

ic o. b t

s o m yF h

3 l

u v

t o u e t

t )

c h a E

d c

e q gti ogp d

s 1

n o 's O a sc e

3 -2 ih t

s n c h

np a

e 1 lp

=

w

=

=

i e r.

s ot sDeF aA r

l r

)

9 a N!

d cd p Dri g

E y2 e

u nO u

tc o

u T e

]

as El

! l 2

}

e 1

o n

B e n lp( c t

i

{

a

[

S F

( p1 gD m

oe r

n r

1 9

f 4

)

e

)

T nmg t

, s

- el y e t is e. s t

. e r a r n o 5

m 4

c c h e r o r

S

(

I n

i at 2

(

r r un n o t

n.

s s

.f r

it f of mcs ior e i e a

)i i e nt o c s

ynp cf v ywd n e yxi e

o s a esi o oi a r uht oml le c r

r as ce e4 3 h

pel e e r

.h u

t ed nigg t

v l

civ5 0 r e sh a

s c ef ob n o r

id gat 2 o

c n n n e n unb n

t a u n

t up n i s s nl c(

pi pnF f

ea i I hi npe. =

o cFma en o plod e

t

. t s

p a

n, e e. e rbib u n

t x

t a

sd i

s o

s e e si nt rhb mt oje h b P

r l

ao met e

r e

l l r5d t

r c r l l et et

, i luv n4e b

e aa 7 n a

ei bd c e a lpgt g

e nc) 3 a m

r d f

did owh nmr oedoimn l

~

l r

a n

oil o

a n n c

t n a 0 ).

a

/ iga oioeh f m mei op a

s i

]

r t

e m a

1[

mHwin Sl F

t c e u d

.a i d

vd xP ps a r n

t i

h s l

a on r e u 0M c

k e a ed tetoh et s o

gntsh o

r t

i r c b r a r ch at u hi

~

e nt n

d ai ol 1

t s

ns h

or oi isd yi o h

et g n

a pr a l

e nt ph C

s x '1

!p amv a e g5 sWiu 0

h n

s c e b

t a e pi f

e h

s t

t =

t s

2 lo t

u w o

8

=

y( 0 d e e sh n e e

. nnl

~ " "

. r t

x 9

d s ic s

1 at h et a nh g 3

g d

e ea cn

.y

r. **

in t

,/i t

s r

t v

l iot d 1

wx a0 pJIlY.,'

g k

of a. ev ci

=g l

e

/ a a

t f e o gb ei t

ts w*'

d a

E t; d ar0 ipnn h

pal ye e a

R t

r s

g o

i r

l n

- o c

rl Fs pmle ai n

2f 0 oe ed os e

B B

k s

ad 2

e ge b et cn r

nr b n

/

efehtrh ml inh o u o

/

T{

d, M

t n ed

(

h

. a s ah e t

.i w r r e a e c u s

/-lf_D.

t nh i

b t i c i

E n

t s

nd t

b sT pe n

T owt ta i -

t e

yi ma w 2 nh e

k E

gwsn

).

/f b P

c a lu mn. d e s

r e

f 5

a o7i

i....

/,

d E

cc0 ipog f

io9

~

e r y o ph ah fi oet S

gmbl 0 2

n e n mt db c

k s

i

(

inr a a0 0

=J pt n x9 0

nhh eu e

s s of r gpt r e c

n uh d mu

=.

/:

d L

a j

t p h r tsi t e s t

o dh a i

c a gah s e

o s goi2 r

t u

t u

=

i r

=

ea o nt s ig ybd, ged h

l-l~

le nt t

ynb e e s t

anirb e

r l

pom=

ah c s g a a ai r eh e

s t

r mrAu l

t c

rl e E

b mt ydh e a m

rl or e o

A t

ur E

,t g

i J

s k.n eoinl et b e e f

t i v

~ - Nr o

. r n

n 2d

]

s rh h

d u

e o h my oimmnt d n ne e

e

,r v ch[ o 1

l

. 8' dd r i

t t

c v

i a o

oel no f

v s ad e or d

n al o*

~

e h nt grf md lpu c r r u

'i ni t et t

l ehdid e

c a

o t

ae t

t* h t

nt r f

t a a r p e ef s e y 8

., s r e rh t

s o t

a e o

m*

o

~

- = is a a ki d e ad t e c u gs nb na whdl

.d l h ut 8

t e c pn cf a

e p t

6, c c

,r e s 8

.,i e 3

r e uf n ai ws r ta

=

rl m

n

.mo c

,1 ol )

s f

e uf oe rb s i ot r

t f a

1 a

m g

n e

hDf ah

=h s

G e

r s e s sl d t t

c id ci pm, n

o a ts s ai d ndh o n t

s es a e g

ed n

R g

.d r

a f

[

ic

, p y

=

ci s x ta ei at lyh e a e t

e m,b e

.ot 5 a

t 4

h A s

x es ae mn o l

cl ts r e ni r

8 e

w t

d eA9 r.

inh ef I t

t el ga n u s e

h uf n uAia f

t r

Uti h t

si e e 0

]

s 2

i n nh o

esf e ot r e gv w

a t o

x s

i Ds r si 1

F #

[

(

ct s b a a ts hl c t

rd a i

i t

a a peh fj)jll{lfi' l

s

'E'..'.1'Ak s

&q.h i

3: s y y s

t A,'

1

'e

$=,7 CASE EXHIBIT 825.

TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES INC.

IflSTPUCT10:4 REVISION PAGE M,.

I CP-El-4.6-9 0

9 5-80 1 of 7 t

l PERFORMAt4CE It4STRUCT10tl e

E.0R SSAG PREPARED BY s

APPROVED I

y

1. 0 REFEREt4CES n

a f., t 1A CP-EP-4.0 Design L

• e k v,:Nnm9.l

" Hn

. h a:. y 1 #d' a

?:

a 2.0 GE!.ERAL This procedure defines the responsibilities of the Gibbs & Hill Site Stress Analysis Group (SSAG), as well as its operating procedures.

, g n, f,*

7 L

o, u

.:, u,.,,

2.' 1

PURPOSE, l

The G&H.SSAG_will function under the general supervision of the Technical Services Supervisor.

The primary task of the Stress Analysis Group is to provide an intermediate check between all completed analysis and the final

's as-built analysis such that changes in piping systems made dur-ing the construction phase will not induce stresses and loads above the allowables in the as-built analysis.

The stress group will solve assigned construction related problems and 1

initiate necessary changes in piping systems with the above purpose in mind.

i 2.2 SCOPE t

The scope of support that this team will offer will include the f

following, as requested by the piping and hanger groups:

l A) Review field initiated routing modification, (CMC) subject to priorities in section 2.3 (except class 1 piping which' i

will be handled by the responsible vendor at time of final J

code analysis).

g

^*

B) Advise alternate routing or other stresshise acceptable

l solutions (e.g. suggest equipment reinforcement'to allevi-ate stresses).

C) Review field relocation of supports (CMC) outside the con-struction tolerance.

D) Assist site engineering performing nomograph or alternate piping analysis as follows:

~;.-

.., - :q.. ;7

,,_f p;:y,sy,.

s v

(',."

,i E

TEJAS UTILITIES SERY!CES INC.

INSTRUCTION REVISION PAGE CP-El-4.6-0 9-5-80 l 2 of 7

1) Provide ferminal movements

.I

2) ^ Assist in calculating nozzle loads at equipment

3) Perform local stress calculations at welded attachments.

4) Perform stress analysis of portions of systems as.re-quested.

5) Assist in the evaluation of relief valve effects on site analyzed piping.

E)

Interface with G&H, New York b

1)

Ensure field generated changes approved by SSAG are not adverse to pipe rupture effort (maintenance of break locations) 2)

Se'nd extensive field changes and changes to high ener-gy lines that adversely affect break location to New York for evaluation and response.

Follow up to com-f pletion.

l F) Maintain stress analysis document control

-1 G) Other stress analysis as required H) Assist as required in code analysis for as-built conditions I) Assist in evaluating oiping support problems with complex configurations such as:

a) Base Plate design and local stress analysis b) Highly redundant frame problems e

It should be noted that pipe stress analysis will be the first priority of the SSAG.

Other functions will be per-formed as the pipe stress analysis schedule allows.

{

2.'3 WORK PRIORITIES In the event that the workload becomes such that the SSAG can-not process all requests on a "short term" turnaround basis, ll incoming problems will be prioritized first by system turnover priority and secondly by the following priorities.

1) Pipe Stress Problems t

a) Large diameter high energy lines (D>8")

i ia y

e

.,, }.,J.$

E ', i **'

e.1 s

E TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES II:C INSTRUCTION RE7ISION PAGE i

Cp-El-4.6-9 0

9-5-80 3 of 7 b) Small diameter high energy lines (D <8")

^

c) Large diameter nuderat'e energy lines (D > 8")

i d) Small diameter moderate energy lines (D< 8")

2) Miscellaneous Piping Analysis

3) Frame and Other Special Analysis All work coming into the SSAG will be screened by the origi-nating department supervisor and initial ed above the origina-tor's signature.

3.0 PROCEDURE Efficient processing of the above tasks will be faciliated by following.a standard problem flow path.

Understanding of the flow path will be enhanced by describing in detail its elements, which comprise SSAG's documentation records.

3.1 DOCUMENTATION RECORDS MANAGED BY SSAG a) SSAG Log Book The log book will record every problem coming into the SSAG.

It will be sequenced chronologically and serve as a compre-I hensive index of the group's effort with respect to such data as SSAG problem no., source and date received, rela-ed information needed to solve problem and scheduling and recording of the release of each task to the appropriate department.

b) SSAG Problem Book The problem book will contain a history of all information pertinent to the solution pa.th of each problem.

The book will be set up in a problem format and contain such infor -

mation as:

1) Requests for work (identical to sheet,found in log book)

2) Stress iso's and other data needed to define problem in

' detail

3) Copy of new computer problem input showing' changes from previous computer input.

l

4) All calculations acessary to impicment proposed changes 1

l k :'E N '

,,,, q a

q m

t-t TUAS UTILITIES SER'lICES It:C.

INSIRUC TIOft RDISION PAGE

~ 't CP-El-4.6-9 0

l9-5-80 4 of 7 6

i

5) Revisions of work requests if solution becomes itera-tive

6) Other data as required

7) The output or problem solution and copy of the solution memo released to the originator c) Computer Tape Library This book is generated by the SSAG and is a computer tape log book which documents tape creation, and is used in re-trieving information for input and output data for each stress problem.

This book is supplemented by a computer listing of current stress analysis input / output files on tape, and update information.

3.2 SSAG PROCEDURES AND PROBLEri SOLUTION PATH e

3.2.1 Incoming Information t-Requests for problem solutions or verification can come to the SSAG through numerous channels.

Typical examples are CMC's, DCA's, DE/CD's, CPPA's, etc.

The request should be in writing and sent to SSAG in the Technical Services Group.

If the request is for anything other than rework of a G&H pipe stress analysis, a speed letter or a three part memo is suffi-cient.

If rework of a G&H stress problem is required due to support or piping changes, the work request shall be via a CPPA from the originator's supervisor with copies to:

4 PITS Manager

~

Site Technical Services Manager

5. SAG G&H, NY Project Manager 3

This will " unfreeze" the stress problem in question and alert I

G&H NY that the problem will soon be reissued.as well as per-

-Q mitting the SSAG to alter the support scheme for the problem.

3.2.2 Log In Upon receipt, the written request should be logged in to the SSAG l'og Book, by completing pertinent information in the

(

index and filing the request sheet chronologically.

j c

m a

r,,., (

,,,,,, f j E

TEXAS UTIt.TTIES SERVICES !!!C.

IflSTRUCT 10f4 REVISI0fl PAGE l9-5-80 l 5 of 7

{

CP-EI-4.6-0 A copy of the request sheet will be included in the SSAG Prob-lem Book.

This sheet initiates the section in the problem book for the, problem.

3.2. 3 Review The nroblem is now reviewed by the SSAG, which can pursue one of three options:

3.2. 3.1 Reroute Problem to G&H, flew York If the changes are determined by SSAG to be too large to be handled at the site or if break locations change in a high energy line, the problem will be sent to G&H flew York for resolution. This information is transmitted by SSAG to the it.Y. Project Manager by CPPA letter, with the following distri-bution:

G&H, fiY Project Manager (w/ attachments)

G&H, fiY Discipline Project Engineer (letter only)

G&H, fiY SuG Coordinator (letter only)

Site Originator PITS Manager

~

A copy of the transmittal if filed in the SSAG Problem Book.

Upon completion the results are transmitted to the site in the following manner:

fl. Y. transmitts a GTf4 to the site, along with the updated and computer outpt.t.

The GTl1 will follow existing stress problem distribution.

. 3.2.3.2 Solve Problem at Site If the SSAG decides that the prob'lem can be handled at the site,'

the thanges are evaluated at the level of complexity dictated by the problem:

3)

Engineering judgement b)

Evaluation by comparison to existing analysis c) Changing of piping geometry, support type, and/or support location and rerunning the stress analysis using field terminals, or hand methods as appropriate.

m uql-

- - ^ - - - - -

. 3P.

f.

3 y,,~

l s

E TEXAS UTIt.ITIES SER'i1CES !!:C. lHSTRUCTION REY!SION PAGE

?

l9-5-80 6 of 7 lCP-El-4.6-9 0

All intermediate' calculations and correspondence are recorded

[

in the SSAG Problem Book.

3.2.3.3 Solution Unacceptable If the review shows that the proposed solution is unacceptable, the SSAG should work with the originater of the change request and propose alternate solutions.

If t.ase still cannot be veri-fied with analysis, and the originator cannot provide an accept-able alternative, the problem should be transmitted to N.Y.

following the procedures outlined in section 3. 2.3.1.

i 3.3 SSAG FILING Uhen a solution is determined eit'her by the SSAG or N.Y. the the solution will be transmitted back to the originator and filed as follows.

,/

3.3.1 Manual Filing i

Upon completior, of a problem by the SSAG, a comprehensive rec-ord of the problem's history including calculations, corre-spondence from all iterations, etc. is contained with the SSAG Problem Book.

A co;nplete copy of this package will be trans-mitted to G&H NY for their information and use.

The SSAG cover memo releasing the results of the problem is recorded in the SSAG Log Book.

A copy is then sent to the originator and to the N.Y. G&H Project Manager.

If N.Y. makes changes to stress problems,they will send the updated N.Y. Problem Calculation Books to the Site.

If the problem in question does not involve the " unfreezing" of a stress problem, results can be released back to the originator with a speed letter.

If an " unfrozen" stress problem has been reworked at the site, (see section 3.2.3.2 for problems worked by G&H, N.Y.), the results are released in the following manner.

The SSAG writes a CPPA to the Originator with distribution per existing GTN stress problem distribution.

The SSAG also " marks,

up" the SEPIA for the problem to reflect the revised computer model of the piping system.

This becomes the revised iso for the new issue of the problem.

A cop-is sent to PITS for tracking, and to G&H, N.Y.

The CPPA aill include the new issue number of the problem and the revised iso numbering.

The re-vised numbering will be as follows: Append an alpha character to the problem issue number.

For example, problem 1-14A, issue 4 becomes problem 1-14A, issue 4A after rework.

In the case of stress iso use the next alpha revision of the isometric and append a numberic to the issue.

For example, iso 2323-M1-3251-23F becomes 2323-M1-3251-G1.

The data will be recorded in the 5 -..

, -[f

U...,*.

x....f.

,.,,.,g '

t kfS{E

(

TEXAS UTILITIES SER't!CES INC.

lHSTRUCTION REVISION pggg CP-El-4.6-9l

!9-5-80 7 of 7 0

PITS program.

This revision of the stress problem does not in-clude des _ign review or a formal revision of the original stress iso. This will be done prior to the time of final code analy-sis.,It does however allow PITS to track the problem in its current status and to refreeze the problem so that hanger de-sign can proceed.

3.3.2 Computer Filing The SSAG uses a comprehensive computer filing system.

All stress analysis input and output both N.Y. generated and Site generated is stored on magnetic tape for easy access, with input tapes produced in duplicate for safe storage.

Computer records generated by the SSAG will be on file in the N.Y. G&H Tape Library.

N.Y. will access these records periodically for concurrence with their master file.

3.4 WEEKLY REPORT A weekly progress report shall be written by the SSAG.

It will show the amount of work entering and the solutions being re-leased.

It will reflect the amount of work being handled by the group and monitor the turnaround time for problem solution.

e s

W 4

9 e

1 e

l jj}l 1

)

• ..:,i

[-

,P

[

~

+,

,l I

,l,

i,.

gl t

.l, d

e 9,

1 9

'L E

r.

g t

t a,m l

y e

n p, #'

Y c

/q t

e f

l i

5,,v GN g

p k.

G gOM (Lo e

, (U y

r yA e

^

r gJJ t

Jtn e

O ro M

sr g

d tc 3

w f.

4,

/ n, f.

U 4i so m r.

a f;

Ag7A X C v.J g

v g

g,4g r Cc ge s

s W; G pc p i

y i

c (n

,g c q y c, g

A gR i

/ 9 cC o

V H 4g t

n 9 ;g i MCFygt v

7 sC g, o 3

o c 'l l.N

\\l

]

c iI la y; j; c I v A w

p-e K

)

,w l,y

)? a5 r

s O

C :s % o 0 m!

E O

M I't

=

t t

A a:

4 r

2g T

l c.

t C

uo B

u v

ig A

MI s t s

c Vo c

L mD no 1

e LW A C - W g

1 iA m

R 8

a

' $ y, I v

uG 4d

[

G 'RV C N i / n a

/ cr H.

SG tL1A/

s 0

L

\\

d, f s c

5 ot n

C s CM 1 J F t

i

'tA4g

+

t 0

ll i

eO 8

q i3

s. u M* Y, j V

t h

l 3g rL P

fWG Y A sr a 'n s

a s nC r

t o

t mc

s. )_

t G

Y P L o E T "*

p

' rg

=

'tg g

0 Cs l

G t

(u'i C' 'C p

=

c i

7N 1

l eC A

1

.l C t

rA 5

O u s S

K

,J s s.

\\

~

/

y I

C

~

C f

t,,

g X

f

• n n

g 1

• a $ r. /a l N

/

~

C y

rs g

Is 6

g f

V J.

C o;

l P (1 A

2 i O.

!t

.~

,A cf ht v&

r t

f

• t.

1 i

1 t

u.

r J

4 5, -

. iglt 1

t i

Z l'

L it t J

l il l

~

i ls G

P l

s y

Cs r o

t

't vA I

fK.

l L

I

t. P

.t.

fA f

1 C

l' U

lg.

t j

>f i

l t

U t

i. C

,I' It s.

l t !s r

I,:

<l

~

a t

t l

~

~

b T t.r wa 6c'.

a 3

I

'I Tt V. ;; t s

, e e.

~

(

Cte s r.

!j b~

llJ p. u's U vq s'),'a or

ir r

u, o

v maw t

.r l

lI 1

e..,....

CASE EXHIBIT 826 TEXAS UTILITIES SERVICES Itic. IflSTRUCTI0tl REVIS!0t1 PAGE A

CP-El-4.6-9 1

8-3-81, 1 of 6

'I I h-9 N

DB y

PERFORt1AtlCE If1STRUCTI0tl FOR PIPlflG AtlALYSIS BY SSAG APPROVED

__j'/

1.0 REFEREtlCES 1-A CP-EP-4.0 Design Control

'. if

..m;i,n* j;.,5l o

s 2.0 GEtlERAL This instruction defines the responsibilities pf Gi bsk.i andHillSiteStressAnalysisGroup(SSAGpasfwell5(%

operating procedures.

g, {e 1. 5Aj 2.1 PURPOSE 4 I' >

y w

TheG&HSSAGwillfunctt eg'3 eneral supervision of the Technical Services 5 ucr.

i The primary task of the ress Analysis Grouo is to provide an intermediate check between all completed analysis and the final as-built analysis such that changes in oicing systems made during the construction chase will not include stresses and loads above the allowables in the as-built analysis. The stress group will solve assigned construction related problems and initiate necessary changes in piping systems.

2.2 SCOPE The scope of support will include the following, as requested by the piping and hanger groups:

A) Review field initiated routing modification, (CMC) of Class 2 & 3 piping.

B) Advise alternate routing or other stresswise acceptable solutions (e.g. suggest equioment reinforcement to al-leviate stresses).

C) Review field relocation of supports--identified by established design change docurtients--outside the construction tolerance.

I D) Assist PSDG by performing stress analysis of portions of systems or complete Systems as required. These requests may include:

/

g.,

i TEXAS UTII.ITIES SERVICES Inc.

INSTRUCTION RE'/ISION NE PAGE eic lCP-El-4.6-9l 1

l8-3-81 l 2 of 6 l

1) Providing terminal movements

2) Performing local ' stress calculations at welded at-tachments.

E)

Interface with G&H, New York

1) Ensure field generated changes approved by SSAG are not adverse to pipe rupture effort (maintenance of break locations)

2) Fomard extensive field changes and chanaes to l

high energy lines that adversely affect break location to New York for evaluation and response and track throughout.

F) Maintain stress analysis document control G) Assist as required in code ana,1ysis for as-built conditions H) Perform jet impingement analysis of portions of piping by obtaining jet loads and location of impingement from FDSG.

SSAG shall advise FDSG whether the piping System passed or failed the effects of the jets.

FDSG shall pursue solutions of the failed cases according to their procedures.

2.3 RESPONSIBILITY The Comanche Peak Project Mechanical Design Engineer is responsible for providing technical direction and administrative guidance to the mechanical design organization of which the Technical Services Group including the SSAG is a part.

The authority for the specific implementation of the. measures described herein has been delegated to the SSAG Supervisor who reports to the Supervisor of Technical Services.

The Comanche Peak Project Field Mechani. cal Engineer is responsible for ensuring associated input oroviced by Field Damage Study Group (FDSG) is controlled in accordance with established engineering procedures /instructio'ns, j

3.0 PROCEDURE Processing 'of tasks will be faciliated by following a ' standard problem flow path. The flow path will be enhanced by describing in detail its elements, (SSAG documentation records).

n9'

)

)

L' f.

(

T M S UTILITIES SETtVICES D:C.

INSTRUCTION RE7ISION PAGE lCPEl-4.6-9l lR-3-81 !3 of 6 1

3.1 DOCUMENTATION RECORDS MANAGED BY SSAG A) SSAG Log Book.

The log book will record every problem forwarded to SSAG.

It will be sequer.ced chronologically and serve as a com-prehensive index of the group's effort with respect to sach data as SSAG problem no., source and date received, related information needed to solve problem and scheduling and recording of the release of each task to the appropriate department.

B) SSAG Problem Book The problem book will contain all information pertinent to the sclution path of ea'ch problem.

The book will establish a problem format and contain such information as:

1) Requests for work.

t

2) Stress iso's and other data needed to define problem.

3) Copy of new computer problem input showing changes from previous computer input.

4) All calculations necessary to implement proposed changes.

5) Revisions of work requests if solution becomes iter-ative.

6) Other data as required.

7) The output 'or problem solution and copy solution memo released to -the originator.

8)

Independent checker's comments and approval.

C) Computer Tape Library This book is generated by the SSAG and is a computer tape log book which documents tape creation, and is used in retrieving information for input data for each stress problem. This book is supplemented by a computer listing of current stress analysis input files on tape, and update information.

/

e.

. z.

e TSSUr TEXAS UTILITIES SER',' ICES I!:C.

INSTRUCTI0n REVISION BATE PAGE f.

CP-El-4.6-9 1

3-3-81 4 of 6 32 SSAG PROCEDURES AND PROBLEM SOLUTION PATH 3.2.1 Incoming Information Requests for problem solutions or verification can come to the SSAG through numerous channels. Typical examples are CMC's, DCA's, CPPA's, etc. The request should be in writing in the form of a speedletter or a three-part memo, and sent to SSAG in the Technical Services Group.

3.2.2 Log In Upon receipt, the written request shall be logged in the SSAG Log Book, by completing pertinent information in the index and filing the request sheet chronologically.

A copy of the request sheet will be included in the SSAG Problem Book. This sheet initiates the section in the problem book for the problem.

3.2.3 Review The problem shall be reviewed by the SSAG resulting in the im-plementing of the following options.

rr;-

i 3.2.3.1 Reroute Problem to G&H, New York

. 'ij If the changes are determined by SSAG to be'too large to be handled at the site or if break locations change in a high energy line, the problem will be sent to G&H New York for re-solution. This information is transmitted by SSAG to the N.Y. Project Manager by CPPA letter, with the following dis-tribution:

G&H, NY Project Manager (w/ attachments)

G&H, NY Discipline Project Engineer (letter only)

Site Originator PITS Manager A-copy of the transmittal is filed in the SSAG Problem Book.

Upon completion the results are transmitted to the site in the following manner:

e

e, g k e E I3fE TEXAS UTILTTIES SERVICES INC.

INSTRUCTION REVISION PAGE CP-EI-4.6-9 1

8-3-81 5 of 6 4

N.Y. transmits.a GTN' to the site, along with the updated isometr.ics and computer output.

The GTN will follow existing stress problem

, distribution.

3.2.3.2 Solve Problem at Site If the SSAG decides that the problem can be addressed at the site, the changes are evaluated at the level of complexity dictated by the problem:

a) Engineering judgement b) Evaluation by comparison to existing analysis c) Changing of piping geometry, support type, and/or support location and rerunning the stress analysis using field terminals, or hand methods as appropriate.

All intermediate calculations and correspondence are recorded in the SSAG Problem Book. Upon completion of the analysis, the independent checker assigned by the SSAG Supervisor, checks the problem.

3.2.3.3 Solution Unacceptable If the review shows that the proposed solution is unacceptable, the SSAG should work with the originator of the change request and pursue alternate solutions p*'t[wij.C i '. : -

t 3.3 SSAG FILING When a solution is determined either by the SSAG or N.Y. the

~

solution will be transmitted back to the originator and filed as follows.

3.3.1 Manual Filing Upon completion of a problem by the SSAG, a comprehensive re-cord of the problem's history including calculations, corre-spendence from all iterations, etc. is contained with the SSAG Problem Book.

Results can be released back to the originator with a speed letter. The SSAG shall " mark up" the isometrics for the prob-lem to reflect the revised computer model of the piping system.

This becomes the' revised iso for the new issue of the problem.

A copy is sent to PITS for tracking. The revised issue number will be as follows: Append an alpha character to the problem 9

• /.. ; -

E TEXAS UT!!.TTIES SERV!CES IllC.

IflSTRUCT10fl REVISI0fl PAGE CP-El-4.6-9 1

3-3-81 5 of 6 issue number.

For example, problem 1-14A, issue 4 becomes

-problem 1-14A, issue 4A af ter rework.

The data will be record-ed in the PITS program.

This revision of the stress problem does r]ot include design review or a formal revision of the original stress iso.

It does however allow PITS to track the problem in its current status.

3.3.2 Computer Filing The SSAG uses a comprehensive computer filing system. All stress analysis input both fl.Y. generated and Site generated is stored on magnetic tape for easy access, with inout tapes produced in duplicate for safe storage.

Computer records generated by the SSAG willbe on file in the fl.Y. G&H Tape L i bra ry, fl.Y. will access these records periodically for concurrent,e with their master file.

U$)){jf*t..

"*N$Ufl[jt e

Q,..Q.,. N U..._.C.t3 M 8....1.

n xy a

.h,'n,)'.

CASE EXHIBIT 733 p.;. u,1 Y

NUREG/CR-143' s.

- p4.w. 4~:.

UCRL-15103

![r(. /{ i

-'I g

,I.

d 6

,4 a

t'

& v'

.w! it&gt j r,h.,-.,c,.,... m. :

6 d

14

• Sri W4Y t 8"1980

' M

)w%< %it%UMT 4 5 t,4c'.e Wh_,.m_.

m N

,4'gjjt; c yh,a e.4 h '

A R,e t e c 't=m%r..e. rn idrof Damage in S^ruc':ures.

$j n!r( M y,C.h m 6tfsl3,a...ges in T.he. Dynam.ic i

n ir Ffoperties A Survey O' NNhNid,'3 min $f.,

$$"9, gn;':O:

L W] H f 91 e i 4. NN :.,

N. J W 1 '.

t a,7 #4u. n..{w.e:,.. q3.

,.e c,u e u s.-

a)q#0biw 'ytd g 4.u c p,; g1. ;,1h.

o p:

Q.3/ 4 -A w' p' i. 3,r 2 4 3 c' t, c./... s, 3 ; t

,w t tij4.

r ; +,-

4, i

m

...,a

.Qd in,;

c A ',

. % %, c

.%r..

,o

%.3 -

l O@iP; f! 4 < @(. ; ; pp.., N

/

$Fu 4s M

.M,,

I-(

tQ > +, j '.,, 9,,* hi.,$

l l; g.W -1

.1 : MPj M ET ':

.o u.m...

M e [ri' rgord by M.iH. Rich,ardsort worrr w -

._ m amersumer.. _

.w,

..a.

M!

Pre A o w.p,are a

, rm d e ;pfd M Q 'U+ aLawrorlee Livermore! %,7 eMQ Laboratory M li S 4. 0 #

. C p

' n,-

nu!Oid u-3M J.

a Jr y f) Structural Me; asure.

1:

ment S t I

~ n. t Wl}pitW M7. j Wij i;n.s# ys ems, nc.

~

.c Ar

.h i,.

,i n m...9y QiplQm c. *e e.n s W@n.:.

.i.

+

Fg E,.

%, JgPrep[ared fo)r).y ~ t@ ifs. ff,ucle'ar';R6gulatok....

j Jp o.

1 4

o j U4@,Com. mission 9p. v.

.o4.

[

1:

p a m

lhDQw"Idpc[}h j yl' ]

a,.

1'.!h

@ $ 6:U n.w' N)-1i!'

l-.;

s 8 h.M, hl.o.e.;

wqi A..; 1;n p: *in -

Wyk Wy s s J,hg'd r <

.h % 'lj'lJU:MTM Q

g

y 4. @p r d ;; ma ?,; N'..; m h M r. #

pit J (h ti

h..%.g y ;, <,. ;i A. %a y r

i.

.bh

.N 5 k

• f '

.,a{:{k

.. M &y' p

'O

Q

(

>:t.

,. v Q, tu n %, ;y%' V j i vt,

hp Aw-

. ltH k*G;+ $';.gyph z f.

t s

jP/

I a.t.,'.h(te,i r #

I

q..

, it 44 #f o

?.*

C 44

.) {;p

e. d,#h ti:4.:..4 4,-,

• i :. i 1. '.Q, j e; '

K.

- d;

,3

., ", v. n ', '. ;, -

4 t.

(

• f

,.,) e.h 4 w*w>.p, N'

%, M-hiYUhg' h. 4d@.j;'hfhd 1

J-

-, r..

9

f NUREG/CRi1431:

e R'J, RM, RNj%i;-

UCRL-15103 RO.

a 1 - __z_1__

_ z_rn _

\\

. p 4

N Detection o" Damage in Structures'

.t in ' he.

Dynam.ic 1

from Changes.

ir (Vlodal? Properties A Survey L.

i:

if M I1 Manuscript Completed: September 1979 Date Published: April 1980

(:

t Prepared by i.

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory

., ; j f. s' a?

Livermore. CA 94550

• ' [ -]'

M. H. Richardson Structural Measurement Systems, Inc.

3350 Scott Blvd., Bldg. 28

' K,

. 'i

,, ' ![/ '

- lP.

Santa Clara. CA 95051 Prepared for f

y-Division of Reactor Safety Research

~

Mi -

$h Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research ll-)M;:,

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

d s ~

f Washington, D.C. 20555

~

r ----

gej.cwi:uNrvc NRC FIN No. A0128 t

mu m,

.,t a b

.n

.I 1

w e

.,,f [ {\\ ;,p

%.b C8 [\\9 M W' k

4

.a,;. L a

1 x{g l,'.j

.1'

' s y C) [p:pi

';r m.

M l' U h.th.f;i f k$

p nlq..l'Edhh,k 0 1

~

i ih."'!fl((lhi a

.L, j.t

> b;( )j _

' ! Hit

.. <:; U ::;.;

ild j h

'i

.. : W, M:r U '

IN

. - o p,3,;f, 61Q 71; ' p{.

, 4

'"i

f. t }

~~

Q,

{

a, m m m. h w * -

t h e.

d N

5h

.m.

l.1y { l+, -

q1..y ABSTRACT f,' '

-<d.n:

n i-

v.., t N'

.-fj;*l %.h -

h S The stated object of this study was to survey the technical literature U

N oir

. _. m h

.f.'

/

and interview selected experts in the fields of dynamic testing and anal'-

, u t 1, * ;..

ysistodeterminethestate-of-the-artoftherelationshipbetwe F

t-j.: g.

cal damage to a structure and changes in its dynamic'(modal) properties.?

j,i.%js.

....(

,r -

',, '

:. 'S $, :i! -

,a j

- '*e 6.

'*ii),

Il }l i t;

+

.. i i.- t

tL e

6

- ll

.l'

• ( (* zYt i

y

't;*

!)(1 i'

t-

=

• 5. Q' 1 '

4

i p ;i-m.,.1;r[

I' m

- bmt

.i-

.a t t

c a

} 1,l'j I

! L isct;

=g;

+.'1,.,

w*,

3 1;

4 3. ' l -

s 3s p.

t. yd,.s f

,/ o 3. ~9 J.. I *

. =

• <r 5

j,,, s '; +

1if e E

4

{$ '

'4 g

,, 4 4

l

p., y r

,~;

' t c' 3

}

di!jd -

si l

. h f,'

E ICI!!*

2 p ;; m

Is* ;&

e t $c

' : : t ; /,4 4 -

l L' ' * ^ 1 ;.p t

- )f i c: j '

.;!B.[.ii.4 :

A.,,, p n 3$y e

,el n"3 t'

,f - i. :!.1 &.i b. '

h

.;. i y.

1 e.i i s

i

.i

['

d I'd E,;..h

> c lr

. dis

% 1 :c

- h

,,U.

)

't-I..,,? I f,T M

.,g" h..

,. p t ke...F.

4 i

\\$

k. { ~ ', m g-

.i,-

M f;la hig.&+y y.

0

-/.

d w

b.

4:

hii

i.

i

, - }e vj-t

s

,cp br <

u m, q. q.c c &a W.

,.a g

!4

-p (i

.-l g

N f. i ' ',' s ih;.

9 4 U

h k.

r 9 t gg

.s fI r

n i+t-

.1-h;

( + i.$3;m,p? k.

^

?-

4-

?

?

- av u s v e$ 9 $4 a

g-','yi:F J' -

.h;r b lp.

i '

'.S, 1 u

~. mpg o

iii

' !!;t:

b.

,.;. l'-

>. = a' w._

4 #

5

, p ' c b,s i':r.

i I

' -ik a, t A].,. ;, { 9,[ b i

l

,(

+

c +

m

• 1

-7 y{

(I';

• IN !'

!f ?

E-l.4 '

- k*.

^1 iff

P

[:

,3 -

e W,

,;y y;"

b,i i.

1 f(-

g.:

y..

Offshore platforms are continucily subjected to a very active dynamic

?0, I

J. -, '1.t environment where the threat of excessive external excitation, i.e. storms, is ever present. As a result a majority of the literature we found on

! }

if, gt" offshore platforins was directly concerned with detecting structural

.s T? ;

damage via changes in modal properties.

/

' Following are key excerpts from many of the papers we reviewed.

di

[',;i '

i>

O

^'

4.1 NUCLEAR" POWER PLANTS qh b.

4 j

~

~3 %. [

In our search of the literature on integrity monitoring of nuclear plants.

.:e Nk. 'wi found several references specifically on the subject along with a larg 4

f 4

j ?-

d{... Q,m,,

number of papers on dynamic testing and seismic qualification of nuclear

. i[.

E '

j' ' plants.

r I

i a

u,

!p:...

4 u};]T. '

In.a recent paper Gopal and Ciartnitaro (Ref. E.3) detail several different d.

'i types of diagnostic systems for nuclear plants which they have evaluated.

4 4-f Hr,'

They are:

'I 3

u 1

2 j'.

Qi

'j

>I @QI

"(1) Vibration Monitoring System for detection of changes

,it in vibrational characteristics of the major components 3 y, of Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) and Balance of f

i, Plant (BOP);(2) Acoustic Monitoring System for detection i!

and location of leaks in the primary s and other piping systems in PWRs; (3) ystem pressure boundary i

4;.

Metal Impact Moni-3 dl, toring-for detection of loose debris in the reactor vessel s.

f[di and steam generators; (4)

Nuclear Noise Monitoring System for monitoring core barrel vibration; (5) Sensor Response d

hpp,.g;

. Time Measurement System for detecting any degradtion of 95 process. sensors; and (6) Transit Time Flow Meter for pt> - M ',

- detensining primary coolant flow rate."

k ? [N N h I '.

4 8

\\i 4-11g w wwy) : 3.

y is4 ht! : I !9U l l; I '

[g '(h g

'{ *

• a y : R

n. 7 A 4

,' t

. W,; y y

The author's comments about the benefits of plant monitoring are quite a

f

.w.m; appropriate;

.1, c.

M

]

em.M :$

1

..gjf h c

" Substantial economic benefits are relizable in nuclear" '

'M

' b,,:

$h' - @[

power plants by increasing availability of these plants.

F A significant part of non-availability of plants is due:. s' 4

b,d 4&

,;,yJ,d to equipment failure causing forced outages. Benefitsind-p' j

Q improved availability are realizable through on-line

- t surveillance systems by two ways. The first one is to a

- 'p:

[#

reduce unscheduled downtime through the early detection n

u j '

f

, +*

of abnormalities and the subsequent prevention of major.

.!!N

'E mal functions. The second one is through improved maint ;

L Mdy !

lt

-enance scheduling.

Prior knowledge of equipment condition,

l ~ MT y

will enable planned maintenance during a scheduled. shutdown,

.. <jp{

!i rather than be forced into an unscheduled outage,or; perform

!, : L Y,jFgQ lJ,y unnecessary maintenance before it is actually needed;".

U,

f. ; ', gg i

l

}[E I'

Mp >

The authors have developed and tested a " Vibration Surveillance System"...[

yg which monitors the following components of a plant.

T,...

M., ' ';

-1 d.y;.r i

,[

g {

-rgi'D rf:

s Jt, sl e

n

..:qn "1.

Reactor System: Vibration monitoring establishes m+ ' L W * *h h,f

+9*

the data base or vibration signature for the reactor-

,,e yM coolant system and supports to permit trend analysis:

for changes in the amplitude of the frequency spectra.,,..

, g![.;g;; 1 '.11 43 3 4 si 7

n 1.P " 4;[d Pipiny l.

Nd Y

2.

Rotating Equipment: Vibration monitoring of.

d',

critical pumps and motors to provide an early warning!-

.q

';. F L

1

,[ g of malfunctions.

r g

3.

Valves: Vibration monitoring of valves provide [

]W.

early detection of abnormal behavior of the valves.

l The Vibration Monitoring System is designed to:,_

'[

{d./.h.fi,i[jj

' N. 7 b

1.

Chara:terize and quantify vibration levels from :

m 7

' L i; external sensors on major components.

i.

W'

,!4 U"

'I Q.

2.

To determine significance of vibration level sto;;. :

.' W an operator by indicators such as normal (green),W

' U '

caution (yellow), and alarm (red) and aud

'l _

i d

wv j 3 @'. t L

N h 3.

To determine trends at various frequencies.".f M 1

b*;

+,

. % jp '

D

. f.

J,

.g :'M M r

Jh'. +3

}* VI D

+

165

,lf em3 q >iu. 3 4.

e k--

y--

ywy

t>.

v h;k,;;MC $ ' y!

4*

q %ff! b li 1 '

l1

}jrL 1 g!if',j"{.]'

y 1.

af

.^

f g;),

dl One of.the problems they discuss in detail is the monitoring of d,,1 ;

r u.

flow-induced vibration of secondary system piping. Some of their (p J, J i jT:k.d }M conclusions are:

i g;,

eg.

a; a

i a-4h?h,i (.1 [

'h kgp$p y

p.%I b,[l fit "The results of the combined experimental and analyses

Y n q:

program indicated:

.a 9:

i L

N. ; l In situ, dynamic structural monitoring of high pressure y @p.E'.

steam and feedwater piping can be used to obtain piping i

L; frequencies and modal displacements using a limited

'4 Of i.

' number of dynamic transducers.

For the piping runs

't

. { j. -

' monitored, the approach taken provides frequencies 2,gy Of ib and modal displacements for the first five to eight gj up' modes..

Typically, the frequency range for these h

modes ranges from two to ten Hz."

47 s i e,

e

'y v.;,,

,8 d k l af ;

I 1

I 8/vi

~; The authors also discuss their so called " Nuclear Noise Monitor" system s ur y g j g, ;11 1

which monitors vibrations of the react'or core barrel.

Their decrip-i k,_,

j4 tion of the system is as follows:

Ir th "The system detects changes in. lateral core barrel ME, vibration through analysis of signals from the M'[$

R '~

excore power range neutron detectors of the Nuclear

"" ' Instrumentation System (NIS). Lateral core oscil-3 jy lation causes a change of the neutron attenuation

,.. g',

.between'the core and the excore neutron detectors C

and,thus a fluctuation of the detector signal

' l occurs. By appropriate signal conditioning pro-a :'

Wt 3:

y,E cedures, lateral core barrel movement can be y

discriminated from noise sources and displayed E

l' -

on meters.and/or recording devices."

3 3

Mp S TMy, j i They claim to' have gotten excellent agreement between frequency if7 j ip

,, h e

M C U.. I; d l spectra obtained with the NNM system and those measured with strain i

q% 6t o

i k,'< y,' gauges mounted"dir'ectly on the core barrel.

A clear benefit of this I1 %;/ ' 3

,i

%,[ -ht i,

4

- a h m, i

• i, l

5 Is a

4

.s, 1

' b w ;m$

- (,

1bb L

r n m.. n. n.

f\\',@g.3 k

n

+

7 L /1 :.'%( y is that nuclear noise monitoring may be able to replace more, expensive

, 1.j hQlj p

instrumentation as a means of monitoring core barrel behavior.

' ]j p k 4

• Ha ly ppg @ s.'.J 4

' ' 1;M.

Two papers by Fry, Kryter and.co-workers at Oak Ridge National: 1.aboratory m,

t.

< '., Wi <

1 also contain detailed discussions on nuclear noise monitoring.' (Refs.

1%

is E.4 and E.5) y!.,

, w.

qm J h h n t.4t L;

.M

1.,

@i!M In one reference (Ref. E.1), Ibanez and co-workers tested some electrical y ' ;,g

'c :~,tp p

distribution equipment in order to collect modal data for mod'elling gross f' WhCl- [;

fp

'p

)

C 1:,

"F....Mhh1, seismic responses.

In their words:

i

1?p/ Q

}.

l pfP;t.c k'

E.

0 ' L:

4 r

I ',M (h

" Forced vibration testing was carried out by mounting a sinusoidal steady-state eccentric mass vibration j

y')' % g exciter (shaker) on the structure to be tested. The O $34 response of various points on the structure was meaa

' 1[ '; g % ({!

sured by accelerometers as the frequency of excita

~ g i,4 t

. f; tion slowly changed in incremental steps. The _

L 7

[' i i@W],

y.,

I.

6-object of the forced vibration testing and subsequent analysis was to identify the seismically important;

' ! LS

'Qc modes of vibration; their mode shapes, eigenfrequen$,,

" 4' PM 1 of t:

cies, and dampings. Once identified, these ' parameters

. "%?

iC-y/:M [

L can be used to predict the response of the tested systein to a variety of earthquake inputs."

g(

"The equipment tested included:

lb, M, Q N.h.

i a.

p.

y

.t n o,.gqq.

1) a high voltage d.c. current divider y

'fpp o

2) a 500 kV reactor disconnect e*

3) 'a 230 kV air circuit breaker

. o @. 0

?@M L34ey t

i' i J

a free-standing 500 kV lightning arrester.M' ' ! d Dy M,f : '

4) e

5) a 500 kV lightning arrester connected to V WfhU lp h.

Q![.M" ?.fp/b!j a transformer

.O j"'

6) a 500 kV transformer and bushing M'

ll:'" M

7) a 230 kV SF-6 circuit breaker

l n

'iji 9,B!!

wk.c a s-

.g!p :

using forced vibration methods (the two 5 Four of these components were tested in deha~ iib

' lii d f

~~

[

lightning arresters, the 500 kV transformer and'

' 4I [b %Q the 230 kV SF-6 circuit breaker)."

t

.t l

m a +a kh!%

Ik d y',

167 Wygi

&Y

_ - - ~ ~ =. = - = -u

wrn r hthe ta:

1' J

9@' J, p' M y.

1; 1

~: g-

'i b

+

r

+1

.W.,

u 1%,

j. r d 4 % ~ ! {iDuring ;the cour,se of their test they discovered several conditions Jip

3

involving variations in structural physical characteristics -which were j

a j....,

,,.i-

$m:

. detected through measurement of vibrations:

y

,s

%<..a m.

J$o

.F:

i a

,t.

t.

, $j,d T, h m d

,, t ! '

'2' t

"These tests and other tests which the authors have h'NI( '

' recently conducted point out the important effect on 4.MH dynamic response caused by structural details.

M.

Three i examples will be cited:

the effect of lightning M'

g*

' f

- arrester conductors, the effect of mounting bolt tension, and the effect of variations in soils and

' foundation designs, w44 G..

_,j [ i],'

1 The lightning arrester conductors were found to h

i significantly modify its response, compared to a pg

, similar unit not having conductors.

q%p) a 7W.

'In'another test, a slight reductio.n in mounting 4

bolt tens

' respo,nse, ion caused dramatic changes in dynamic hip.T '

including changes in modal frequencies y)C 4;,

modal dampings, and even mode shapes.

Soil ui conditions and foundation designs have been ob-6y served'to' vary from site to site.

.4 yS',;7 e

Mri The implication of these observations is that

, f.h ','.

,' dynamic modeling, whether based on tests or analysis,

must give adequate consideration to the actual ae

'-conditions to.be encountered in the field.

d@;d j concer'n here is that laboratory tests or a dynamic Our analysis may demonstrate the adequacy of a given

-design, c'nly to have it fail in the field because p :';,,

i as installed it magically becomes another structure."

m;U W.,<

q

@M Q h on.

y.

-M k:; m? I e of their more' graphic results showed the effect of mounting bolt

[MtYN' 'ditightness on one.of the modal frequencies.

j {.; d ',. I '

en

]d "The dynhmic! response of the capacitor bank was highly s

+:lig h l -! ! ! '

' QY[ p. :

j dependent.on the tightness (-

the bolts holding the ~

QM a:

lower insulators to the founc ion. A slight loosening Mh M y{[ j! Q.l M '

)% from 4.00 to'3 3 Hz! 'of these bolts caused the EW rs.,onant frequency to dr qq h

about 3.5%.

, and damping to increase from 1.5 to id @$h.

+

the mounting -bolts." Figure 4.1 shows the effect of loosening

.QM$MN :' : i

? $q,k M

Q

i/.4 0

'h'ik

$kl 168 J g$ $ lJ W m - 3,. i ? ' ;

I). h5Ih

- Ont 9 (.y

-' 4[

e 44 iF' t

b ;

w e

. te i%; a,

}0

.s.

1 1A" 1i

, O M I f {;n, n.% f%,

, *, s %

1. 4 J

i

,W F p @9 ht a{

i,,<<

h s

a*

f8

'8' l'

,AP F

f y I ?L L' ~ '?,a U.s L-i

$;?Y1$i'$

c v,.pq, 5%d.-t%,h4

+

r JU $.1

/I Ni*t ii 6

e J,ti D.; 9. :.:N dhfl

-W'-

..! W at@ y p

.t;,

f-4

.c.f.il;e.4*D.g:.: hep;p'l'N W

H t-m,j to

+

., 3, c.r I t j b t e; i; p hW]glN,.g Q'!

7.p h p.n P

>. F.b

. p r,ph; M!9'i 1 in

-.,A g. {

4

.. p,, s wg Igt b-

.t! # i;., oif b

y-c ' r h W. g$. &: p$

, 41. -

h',

+:

t, N.

.., < /n

' ] i5 4

Pi H t ; j H.5 :

• f,,, h m j t.

d t

~ '

r, i! ' j (

a-

i; s ea ATTEN(mO) SYME te)-SO4.YS t.COSENED d

O d/f,h.?1;f[p',

ATTaN(m8) SYMSGS -=- BOL.TS TIGHT ENED

1. ~

+

ill,i.

4

- i g

I[i ga

+

L.t ao-i q,

+p ;;

,F a

f W

1,

- j'kWint:

~

O tr.

h

.f q'1-1 W

p*;..,:51 b

~

.j ;

T 3 IB

• 4

+

- Ft;!'.j$ 9 AMl.I s

(I i

I4'

P.*'i l

b 3

f h,

1 hpg 4.d (i t

8

f. ;

j I so a

g q

glypa

.e g, o gygdip dP

. ev

).

i t h.f ; l vip 'e i t a j j' W

, g ; L, g.,ow e 5

e' l

. ;' 1 :,,-

e o bt '

d h b, a

e 8-g a.

g - s...... 3 e, 11 W

'c*y,g.1L 0

n, !,.+igpg i

i i

r w

e p!q p,Lpjat qn.

a as 4

4e s

A i

FREQUENCY (Ma)

(,

h,,d jdh {

Emet orloose bola.

x i? o

'O'.'

" i hf k.6

• Of*.{', 5l;3 11.,$ I hsf

. +

7 +6 i.W((

3 yu..h

.,~v e

~

FIGURE 4.1 m$.j.y ;.

d h hI 3 %,

A s i, :h> I M

, f MM LIN,:

'$ L i t i [', ;h ?-

Wjkm!y--

. m ;n A "I n. q%,9 %

g._. r

j.,.m y at9 gp1 iv

t.,m,

a 9

, r.

h

.M hFl t; :.t *@*7 *;;/, }i m t,,tJflQgp 1

hb L. d, W j.hjj!j f

4N.f;;

[.4,s.,bM ;j: 4p

.s11

.:i..':['.3. iUJp*, W f

. g -

',\\*'.'.*,

il01 II.'.Ib ' N {p! I gj i 4 a

.v fMN [

Il M [9!}.

yl_ i:M '.j th.i(

y,:. d

.ma

. j'

'$ [

', I, e.'. ! } '

d kN d.it II, fk..I

"..),,

s m; D d :ld w$

0 3, e..r. b u L

>o 4

gM pd

~

'. $ d '. kf.Ri@ d Y

'I t.

k h

/

l 4

. i. w

',Q

..ii I;;

,N'.

E d, I' % ")I ! V4.10a.l;'T

-. ['.y 3 ;

d

U 4

. p g,,, ;.

I *f

-,se e i. a 4

< a ti b5. h N. *b

.re W

i + b.s.

t

.m h

--di s hN.k,d 1

' 3 j tP6 k a-

,.,1 b,it/i),Nlf 'Ik

.Tj!

<y

'I wf. 9 f

gigi %apg $L,.

+.

..m, w

,R Wq {eA 1,

g~ h.s 4

6' J

p 't. t y p.ipd - (

y 169

'I,DDMT T l q L: d:,7 1ijfh 4nta v*

r..

I, p g ts

i d. g

@g.!! N:m 4M c r 3))'.L'

.m i

c".

c'

- - - - - - - - ~

Ifj L_-_

- - - - ~ - ~ - ~ -

,[.

[$!

i

,?.

[D.

lI"

E. _ NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS l

W

\\

'L

. '>'b'{

E.1-Ibanez, P., Spencer, R.B. & Smith, C.B.

" Forced Vibration Tests s

on Electrical Distribution Equipment" Nuclear Engring & Design,

,pk

,1 h,j4 N. d

' E '

Vo' 25', 1973, p 94-111.

l (g' Mf 8'j

- { '.i ;

W i '

ye;s a,q; :.j.g

.y g.

i

)n

.. m q

l

/

I @ h i! 'i 41,

7,,3 j ?,l

E.2;',

Kryter, R.C., Ricker, C.W. & Jones, J.E.

" Loose-Parts Monitoring:

s l

k I$0g gi.

s M$ / Q:@M 1.

.Presen,t Status of the Technology, Its Implementation in U.S.

c :

- v]-?. Reactors', and Some Reconnendations for Achieving Impr

,, n,;

1 y'! d a :,;, '

.JM jy[;Q.} :

Progress in Huc. Energy, Vol 1, 1977, p 667-672.

nd i a

. a

-a Ilj it t'

q.

- i i

~

E.3 Go' pal, R. & Ciaranitaro, W.

c ii

" Experience with Diagnostic Instrument-

.l.f g

h ation in Nuclear Power Plants" Progress in Nuc. Energy, Vol 1, 3

'1-1977, p 759-779.

p%y.%'

E.4 Fry, 0.N. et. al.

" Core Component Vibration Mo itoring in BWRS q

n n

A ]

Using Neutron Noise" Dak Ridge Nat. Lab., Tenn., 1975.

i l {p j n ',

[

['

E.5 Fry, D.H., Kryter, R.C. & Robinson, J.C.

"On-Site Noise Diagnostics 4

. y at Palisades Nuclear Power Station" Oak Ridge Nat. Lab., Tenn.

,1 5

I!

ly' E.6' Pekrul, P.J, "An On-line Computerizad' Reactor Noise, Vibration and

p j Loose Parts Monitoring System" Progress in Nuc. Energy, Vol 1, y

1977, p 665-666.

a..

j

,j i e

p.p, e

L f

' h, x :;

ja,.

g,[Q[,' J l'

,N l

24g -

.).,,.

-~

^

~

~'

4

- g i.,. 4, j,(.N k

• ~ ~

... t y1

.h.p- @jN{

g L.

f

)

E.7 Ibanez,P., Smith,C.B.&Vasudevan,R..." Dynamic.Testingandj Seismic Response Analysis of Pole - Mounted Electrical: Equipment" [ 1 h 7,b W-Proc. of U.S. Nat. Conf. on Earthquake Engring, U.,of Mich.,

I ;,

,p,.+

Ann Arbor, Mich., June 1975.

6'

.f E.8 Muto, K. et. al.

" Comparative Forced Vibration Test of Two BWR-U

, !il,i,

Type Reactor Buildings" Nuc. Engring & Design, Vol 27, 1974,

!i!! F j [j.$

.I p 220-227.

d[-

,;o l L c.

rn i)

'ifhfI'ii, E.9 Bleiweis, P.B., Hart, G.C. & Smith, C.B.

"Enrico Ferni Nuclear '

t6 its Power Plant Dynamic Response During Blasting" Trans. Amer. Nuc.

y Soc., Vol 13, No 1, June 1970, p 231-232.

~:.

ge

,o i.!cs pp l.

6 1; 4

E.10 Ibanez, P. et. al.

" Experimental Vibration Test at Nuclear Power N'

+

Plants" ISA Trans., Vol 11, No 3,1972.

- [' '

0; v A,,

. o pn

' ' ~,.

,',.,. ' i s d

*. i i

t c

O c.i!.h;F E.11 Gundy, W.E. et. al.

"A Comparison of Vibration Tests a'nd~ Analysis I

f on Nuclear Power Plant Structures and Piping" Trans. of 4th 'l i

,J.$

%.f.,D'fp -

Int. Conf, on,Struct. Mech. in Reactor Tech., San Francisco.: cal.,

Vol K(b), Aug 1977.

t %.

c.[ !

'~

d, I !!:lw$'%[

'.f-t

, s. v a:

~

j$j !h

[t.

, Response of Nuclear Reactors" Nuclear Applications, Vol 7,

+

f 'N l.' h No k ;'.,1969, p 6-34.

kw.y utq.!.

.+

go i

sc..c%-

,a.,

.: e t : j..i o 3

j j (. [].

[E.15

"!EEE Recommended Practices for Seismic Qualification of Class A. p. w 4

ql jig

..;lE: Equipment for Nuclear Power Generating Stations" IEEE Standard

"~

u au o.,,

j 344-1975.

wo,i i

y

>6.,

't t.

j.gf,,

E.16 Howard, G.E. et. al.

" Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, An e

3, T'

t

[

.:j -

. Assessment" Final Report Project No. 273-1087-2A, prepared for Elect.

r j

Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, Cal, by Applied Nucleonics Co.,

Santa,Monica, Cal.

L c

i,

L, ',

.t y

,F E.17 Howard, G.E. et. al.

" Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants - An a

~

Ii d '

Assessment" Nuc. Engring & Design, Vol 38, No 3, 1976, p 385-461.

2 ;,1 r

,! /!

D j n :,

[j E.18 Olma, B.J.

" Structural Analysis and Incipient Failure Detection 4

i L),1 of Primary Circuit Components Based on Correlation - Analysis and

.c jd",

d

c,

Finite

. Element Models" Trans. of Int. Conf. on Struct. Mech.

? dl

'OJt d [G,,s;. >,

in Reactor Tech., Vol F, San Francisco, Calif., 1977.

tc jj g' jp p. p.i L.n a

r f:

-,r-4b, :

i (

pg 250 lttN S j;i/

.:($;bbl ys s.

L

=4-

~

r

-.m n ln e re-f

~; -

.>r m

f. 4 k m

Q lI $

4Gg

. f.'. 7 E fib

" Seismic Instrumentation Systems Ntbin a Nkility" k h k b h. w E.19 Ostrom, 0,K, v. 4. p y? s n.

b

.u

~s

' j g Q. 3ff,j m SAE paper no. 781035, Nov 1978.

~

w p,4,

Q

.?~'

W p-li: h,w:tj ) f,p ' ? [

I t

4 g

E.20 McGavin, G L.

" Seismic Qualification of Equipment in Essential '. >, b T, W.

r. g.

"t

c, r T'.,,;y t.M.,

p' Facilities" SAE 781034, Nov 1978.

'~

r.

e

^

9

.'. ' Yl

i l k,e.!

i a,

a E.21 Yang, R.T.M.

" Seismic Qualification of Diesel Generator Sys' tem" '

..s.. "-

(:

M' j

W g s...O.ofi il-SAE paper no. 781037 Nov 1978.

'([i.g,0 %b,y$u i

l' ',' l ' j I. f jTp i W

.,l h ;.

i rc i e., a a

I h.

'.* 'fI f

E l l'i o

i

,p n r.Q' a

,, ] t Q,. f

+

..,c q,

e l.

y,.. tg

.. u %r.,g.

La 1

I.

p. e ! ; h.* '

s-y;,. 6;, k.b k a;. Y '.

4 co r

..., n.

, i p,.v m._,;r

^7

/

..Ig1 h..I

. t '.

{1 F,

.o

. k;t.

t.

4

.{

' ! Ilf f

' I.' It hj d, im tr a

E,.W. J D.h,t d /

.a3

. !,i c G;pi-h';-N M.1

~.

<4

+{ 'pWh' 8,i,

e g

d I.

8

.a,. t p: Jaf; ?

x ; 4[. ! < !g/

h i l

, q, ' g +,.

H

. {

,.Lp.p4V ny j t

i!i 7, i

b >

a s

c

~

( "a.p

, '.El j ;

• i,

.4.di': i t u,;p,f' f il I

? jph

.w a

t'l.

> r.

• Lt id p4 ; ty ty y '. ; ;

'. ' fi

+

t(+, h.wa hth.n;-

143 i

,., i M,, t.,

f

..o -

- t.

.~

a4., e.I i.

(,O

(

', i ; ; d.

LL p

t,:s

?.f x

h y:

if y

a,, :n g,',,# ' "

i i

i

.' 'e. :,. f. q;'4: ht, "W

.) M@Qg g(h 4y r.

'b:

P dr :

w

1 t-r h

L. $e tm&g

(

251 i, r' " 1 w[ i n ! & p e Qt oJ is uy r s,.,

N

.k.

$ b b b $ \\W[

aM