ML20128C809
| ML20128C809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | Williams N CYGNA ENERGY SERVICES |
| To: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| References | |
| 84042.38, NUDOCS 8505280426 | |
| Download: ML20128C809 (51) | |
Text
3
.e see as 101 California Street, Swte 1000, San Francisco, CA 941115894 415 397-5600 May 2, 1985 i
84042.38 Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224
Subject:
Comunications Report Transmittal #16 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 Texas Utilities Generating Company Job. No. 84042
Dear Mrs. Ellis:
Enclosed for your information are additional Phase 3 communications reports. We have just finished reviewing our word processing file directory to ensure that all communications reports entered into the system have been issued.
As a
- result, there are some relatively old comunications reports in this transmittal.
If you have any questions or desire to discuss any of these documents, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours, t
N.H. Williams Project Manager L
Attachments cc: Mr. J. Redding (TUGCO) w/ attachments Mr. S. Treby (USNRC) w/ attachments Ms.J.vanAmerongen(TUGC0/EBASCO)w/ attachments
- Mr. S. Burwell'(USNRC).w/ attachments Mr. W. Horin (Bishop, Liberman, et al.) w/ attachments Mr. D. Pigott (Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe) w/o attachments Mr. V. Noonan (USNRC) w/o attachments Mr. J. Beck (TUGCO) w/o attachments 8505280426 850502 2.3 PDR ADOCK 05000445 s[j A
PDR San Francisco Boston Chicago Richland
(
Communications til ci Report 111111111111111111111lll1lllll Texas Utilities
% Telec n Conference Reprt Project:
Job No.
84042/83090 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 2/7/85
Subject:
Time:
2:00 p.m.
Open Items Place:
SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Amerongen TUGC0 (EBASCO)
L. Weingart Cygna l
Required item Comments Action By l
Cygna committed to supplying the following:
1.
Mass participation letter by 2/8/85.
2.
Stability letter by 2/15/85.
J. van Amerongen contacted I. Vogelsang regarding the grounding of the spent fuel pool cooling pump (reference Cygna Report TR-83090-01, Observation WD-07-01). This is being verified in the field and Cygna will be supplied with any available paperwork
- documenting the fix.
l l
l l
page of l
signed.
(/li c
r N lh EM
/ajb 1
1 D"b"b N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
,om o,.
ciiis, a.
ouiweii, rroject, rise
I Communications Report AL ii llulinilNiilillNNilHilli Tovac titilitiac S
Project Job No.
R m 0/R40d?
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,y Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 ifafas
Subject:
Time:
NRC Questions for Phases 1 & 2 and p,,
Revisions to the Phase 3 Report Rron
Participants:
of
.1 van Ampenngen Titr,00 (FRARrn)
D. 01dag cynna Required item Comments Action By Ms. van Amerongen called to find out the status of the NRC Questions from Phases 1 and 2 and when the outstanding revisions to the Phase 3 report would be issued. Ms. Oldag told Jean that it was her understanding that Cygna letter 84042.022, dated January 18, 1985 addressed these questions. Ms. van Amerongen also said that after conferring with Ms. Williams, Ms. Oldag had said that the revisions to the Phase 3 report would be issued on January 18, 1985. Ms. Oldag told Ms. van Amerongen that they had not been issued on January 18, 1985 and that I would check on the status.
HWLLL
,m N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, R. Hess, J.
Communications L41 Report i i lillllllllNililllllllllHilll To rm e.
titilitiet b ** "
Project Job No.
83090/84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 jf37fas Subject Time:
Phase 1 & 2 Open Items Place:
RFR0
Participants:
of
.1. van Amernngen Tilfsr0 (FRA9r0)
D. 01dag cygna Required item Comments Action By Ms. van Amerongen called and wanted to know when the open items from the Phase 1 and 2 reviews would be resolved. After con-ferring with Ms. Williams, Ms. Oldag returned her call and told Ms. van Amerongen that Cygna was preparing a letter that would answer her question and that this letter was to be issued by Friday, January 18, 1985.
l i
[1 I
M
/aih 1
1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, R. Hess, J. Russ, W.
t w e's Horstman S. _ Treby/n J. Ellis S. BurwellMcxR [fna n
n
Communications Report A(
t i 1111111111111111111111111lll11 Teras titilities g Telec n Conference Repd Job No.
Project:
83090/84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 1/16/85
Subject:
Time:
Mass Participation - Open Items Place:
SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen TUGC0 (EBASCO)
D. Oldaa Cyana Required item Comments Action By Ms. van Amerongen called to find out when the mass participation issue would be resolved. After conferring with N. Williams, Ms.
Oldag advised Ms. van Amerongen that Cygna was waiting for an answer from Gibbs & Hill so that the letter would not contain any open items.
l k))) f)) p k p lajh 1
1 j
N.' Williams D Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
U""""
i Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
. 2". '.".
Communications Report 4L t i 111111111111111111111111111111 Teras Utilities g Telee n conference Reprt Project:
Job No.
84042/84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phases 3 & 4 ipfp7fg4
Subject:
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Data Request p,,
SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen EBASCO (TUGCO)
L. Weingart Cvgna Required item Comments Action By I requested the following data /information:
1.
What are the four NCR categories defined in NPSI W.P.
15.017 (84042) 2.
What procedure specifies that orifices will be sized in the field and checked during pre-op testing?
(84056) 3.
Mass participation, post processor output for the rerun with localized spectra of problem AB-1-66B.
j (84042) l 4.
GTN-47391 dated 7/1/80 with attachments.
(84042) t l
/aib 1
1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
l
_"L_.- -._._,.E l l i s, S. Bu rwel l, Proj ect Fi l e __, _
Communications 4L Report t i maammmma i
b Tavac lit i l i t i ac Project:
Job No.
84042/84056 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 1/18/85 Subject Time:
Outstanding Phase 3 Report Issues p,
SFR0
Participants:
of J. van Ameronaen TUGC0 (EBASCO)
- n. 01dag Cyana item Comments Ac y
Ms. van Amerongen called to find out what the tentative com-pletion dates were for some outstanding issues, specifically the revisions to the Phase 3 report, the original issue of the Phase 4 report and the resolution of the mass participation issue.
After conferring with Ms. Williams, Ms. Oldag advised Ms. van Amerongen that because of the work associated with the NRC meet-ing scheduled for January 10th, we had no basis to even estimate a completion aate for these issues. Ms. van Amerongen stated that she needed completion dates for her status report to D. Wado so she was going to choose scheduled completion dates for these open issues.
Ms. Oldag told her that she should be sure to state that these scheduled dates were chosen by her and that they were not based on any information Cygna had provided.
/)/l [ O
/aib 1
1 Distnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, R. Hess, J.
== o '.
Russn W. Horstmann S. Trebr/n J. Ellis, S. Burwelin Project Filo
1 Communications Repod
(
t i t
mamanuma Telec n Conference Report Texas Utilities X
Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 1/25/85 Subject-Time-.
a.m.
Mass Participation Study p
SFR0
Participants:
of H. Mentel Gibbs & Hill L. Weingart Cygna Required item Comments Action By L. Weingart called H. Mentel to request the following additional information related to the mass participation study:
1.
Clarification of the different nozzle loads at node 743 presented in problem AB-1-79F. There are three sets presented without any description of significance of each.
2.
Calculation for the axial and shear loads at node 1 for problem AB-1-86A.
L. Weingart also asked H. Mentel if there was any specific pro-cedure or checklist which referenced the Bonney Forge publica-tions for calculation of SIFs at weldolets and sweepolets.
l l
l t
Signed.
Page of
(
N.' Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, L. Weingart, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J.
D' " b " "
iomo oi.
- t. Ills, 5. Burwell, Project File
Communications Report 4L t i maammmma X .c n
conference Repon T
Texas Utilities Protect:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 2/4/85 Subject Time:
10:30 a.m.
Mass Participation Place:
SFR0
Participants:
of H. Mentel Gibbs & Hill L. Weismart Cygna Required item Comments Action By H. Mentel supplied the following list of problems originally run with refined spectra which were not rerun as part of the mass fraction reanalysis program.
1.
1-23B 2.
1-59A 3.
1-61E 4.
1-670 5.
1-67X 6.
1-67Y 7.
1-77 8.
1-93A 9.
1-94 10.
2-61E 11.
2-63B i
l
\\
Yk)J))
M
/aib 1
1 N.' Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
D'" b " "
im o,.
- c. s i n, a. ourwe s i, rroject, n ie
Communications Repod 4L t i 11111 milli Tavac lit i 14 t im e Project:
Job No.
"#0#2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 pfs/gg
Subject:
Time:
Document Request p,,,,;
RFR0
Participants:
of Amarnngen Tl!GEO (FRAtr0)
.1.
van n_ niaan rynna Required item Comments Action By D. Oldag telephone J. van Amerongen to request a copy of CASE Exhibit 669B.
J. van Amerongen said that she would try to locate the exhibit and send it tomorrow.
)
J AM
>><s N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.
Burwell, Project File
'om o'*
.=
Communications Report 4L 6 i mamanum U Telec n O Conference Repon Tovae utili+4.e r
Project:
Job No.
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 m iaq Subject Time:
" ' " ' ^
Cygna Letter 84042.023 p,,c, Box Frames with 0" Gap won
Participants:
of
.1 - Finnoran Tilr,00
.1. Minichio11n; N.
Williame rvnna item Comments Ac r y Regarding the box frame analysis questions in Cygna letter 84042.023, TUGC0 wanted to know whether the analysis Cygna did for the ASLB hearings would answer the questions being asked on weld adequacy. Cygna explained that our analysis did not include pressure and exhibited high pipe / box frame interaction loads, although the temperatures assumed by Cygna are potentially con-servative.
In addition, Cygna did not check the welds. We felt that rather than relying on the ASLB analyses, it was more appro-priate to comment on the methods employed in the Affidavit since they are generic to TUCG0's box frame analysis which includes additional support other than Cygna's scope.
Regarding the TUGC0 analysis, Cygna noted that the pipe tempera-ture of 350*F may be quite conservative at this location in the RHR system. This support is located in a portion of the system which experiences a maximum flowing fluid temperature of ~ 250'F at any time. The 350*F appears only during RHR initiation at cooldown. For this transient, there is no flow in this portion of the line based on a review of the Gibbs & Hill and data in problem AB-1-69.
Since this support is about 40 feet (measured along the pipe) from the tee at which the 350*F flow is intro-duced, the assumption of 350*F at the support is overly conserva-tive.
A1 1
lash 1
1 Distnbution.
~'
~
~
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Finneran, J. Minichiello, G. Bjorkman, Rn Heann So Trebb J. Ellis S. Burwelln ProAect File
Communications Report alt i
1111111111146ll111111111111111 Company; O Telecon O Conference Report Tavse Ilt414+4ac Y
Job No.
Project:
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,.
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 oisfon Time:
Subject:
Hass Participation-pi,c :
CCDA Of
Participants:
(: Erichnan Ci bhe $ Mill / Site L _ ugi n g3 rt Cygna Required item Comments Action By G. Krishnan provided the postprocessor results for Node 301, problem AB-1-61A:
Maximum Minimum Upset (AB)
+1341
-1341 (New)
+3963
-1281 Emergency (AB)
+1539
-1539 (New)
+5040
-5040 I
l'.
U[] Lil A/, [l_ALQ w
Page of 0
Signed.
V 1
c
- t
!?)b i
1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart. S. Treby. J.
m c
Communications Report M
t i 11N111111N111111111111111111 Texas Utilities g Telec n Conference Repon Project Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/3n/R4 subject Time:
3:00 o.m.
Mass Participation Review p,,
New Ynck
Participants:
of H. Mentel. S. Marano Gibbs & Hill L. J. Weinaart Cvena Requred item comments Action By I informed Gibbs & Hill that of the 32 problems which were re-viewed by Cygna as a spot check of their mass participation study, two oversights were found in which an additional mass point between restraints was not included in the reanalysis. The two situations were identical in nature, i.e., a mass point missing between an anchor and the first downstream (or upstream) support. Although further review by Cygna and discussion with Gibbs & Hill indicates that there would not be any design impact, the two oversights out of 32 problems represented a statistical failure per Mil Standard 1050 sampling plans.
Signed.
Page of D'"*""
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Finneran, L. Weingart, J.
Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File mote
Communications Repod 4L t i M111NINNiilill11 b
Tavac lit 411 t i me Project:
Job No.
Ranap Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station o,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11 nn /su Subject Time:
Mass Participation Study Review Procedure p,,,,;
rptre Rita
Participants:
of n _ Donehor-Tilr,rn
.1_ Minichiolln rynna Required item Comments Action By 1.
For his scope, Mr. Rencher screened the loads and singled out those with insignificant percentage increases or insignificant loads, except Feedwater or Main Steam, which had little margin to begin with.
2.
The engineers were then given the load sheets and hanger packages and directed to use their standard criteria. The engineers would then return the sheets, if acceptable, and any calculations would be kept with the package.
If hangers were not acceptable, refined analysis would be done and the calculations filed with the package (support not revised). No supports were unacceptable af ter refinement.
3.
The effect of three-sided welds / composite sections was not specifically looked at as part of this review.
4.
The general process for handling anchors / gang hangers was to review the support package for load increase in each stress problem.
If it could take the worst percentage increase overall from the first problem it was deemed 0.K., until the remaining loads were received.
If it could not take the percentage increase from the second problem, the anchor would be reviewed for the correct total new loads (i.e., the sum of 1 and 2).
If it was unacceptable for the percen*4'4 b1 crease in the first problem, it was' held until all %# verg received. Note that 10 checking, the percentage inc a p,.e e applied to the total loads on the anchor / gang hat 3., i e,)plicable (i.e., loads from problems not being rerun wert not ind eased).
SignM Page of
)
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J.
'nichiello, S. Treby, J.
Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
Communications Report 4L t i 111111111111111111111111111111 I* "
Conference Repon Tora ( titilit ies r
Job No.
Project Rana?
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11 mn /Ra Time:
Subject 10:30 a.m.
Mass Participation Study -
p Support RH-1-005-016-C42K
- sit, of
Participants:
D. Rancher. J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By In reviewing this support for the new loads, Cygna noted that certain welds in the calculations dated 3/2/84 had a small margir to allowable. This support is a large gang hanger with three large bore supports (RH-1-005-016-C42K, - 018, and -019), six small bore supports, and three conduit supports. The large bore support loads increase as a result of the mass participation study, as do two small bore support loads. The review for the new loads provided no calculations to show the welds accept-able. At this point in time, Cygna did not find sufficient justification for:
1.
The acceptability of the welds shown in the revision dated 3/2/84.
2.
The use of a screening criteria (for the loads sheets) which does not look at each support. That is, in PSE scope, supports with less than 5% increases were not reviewed.
In the NPSI scope, supports with small percentage increases or small loads were not reviewed.
Cygna emphasized that these were preliminary points only and would be combined with our other positions in a follow-up letter.
Page of Signed.
l Distnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Finneran, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File a o'a
Communications Report 4L i i unmmmmmmu Texas Utilities g Telec n Conference Rom Job No.
Project:
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 12/14/84 Time:
Subject:
2 15 p.m.
Mass Participation Study p
SFR0 of
Participants:
J. van Ameronaen EBASCO (TUGCO)
L. Weinaart Cyana Required item Comments Action By Mr. Weingart requested the following drawings:
BRHL-CC-2-AB-004 BRHL-CC-2-AB-007 BRHL-CC-2-AB-008 BRHL-CC-1-AB-004 BRHL-CC-2-AB-017 BRHL-CC-2-AB-003 BRHL-CC-2-AB-022 BRHL-CC-2-AB-010 BRHL-CC-2-FB-004 BRHL-CC-2-AB-011 BRHL-CC-2-AB-027A
~
J SLM w tasu l
Distnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
inan cia t i l t m. 5. Burel l. Pro.iect File
Communications Report d(
i i
. m.
o = co" o **-= a -a 1....
- n. m.4..
x Job No.
Protect 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 12/13/84 Time:
Subject 10:30 a.m.
Mass Participation Study p,,,,
SFR0 of
Participants:
W. Montal Ginhs A Hill I _ Wei n ga rt Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Mentel informed Mr. Weingart that all welded attachments on lines subject to steam / water hammer loads were evaluated con-sidering the increased support loads due to the reanalyses.
These were considered to be the most highly loaded attachments due to the large number of trunnions and axial restraints re-quired for the steam / water hammer loads. Mr. Mentel will send Cygna the three page instruction for the local stress evaluationn as well as the summary checklists which were completed. Gibbs &
Hill did not evaluate the effects of increased stresses in break exclusion zones.
Mr. Mentel suggested that while he is on vacation, Mr. Y. Chang
.(x5214) be contacted for any technical information regarding the mass participation study.
/aih 1
1_
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
_ _ _ _E1lis., S. Burwe11, Project File. _ _ _
mo o'a
p Communications 4L Report i i 111111111111111111111111111111 Company:
U Telecon O Conference Report Tavac utilities r
Project Job No.
j 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 12/12/84 Subject Th 11:00 a.m.
Mass Participation Study Place:
SFR0
Participants:
of H. Montal Gibbs A Hill L. Weinaart Cygna Required item Comments Action By I called Mr. Mentel for clarification and/or additional informa-tion concerning the nozzle load summaries transmitted by Mr.
Krishnan on 11/28/84.
(1) AB-1-66B, Nodes 1671 & 1611 Analysis was rerun with localized ARS to alleviate nozzle overloads. Cygna requested BRHL drawings and a descrip-tion of which spectra were deleted in the rerun.
(2) AB-1-67V, Nodes 1105 & 4683 Load summaries do not match post processor output.
(3) AB-1-79F, Node 743 No post processor output attached.
(4) AB-1-86A, Node 1 Load sumary does not match post processor output.
(5) AB-1-BSD, Node 1430 Load sumary does not match post processor output.
4 Mr. Mentel stated that he would contact the site and send the necessary information out by the end of the week.
v[
Page of signee N. Williams, D. Wede, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, Weingart, S. Treby, J.
. Elli s S._ Burwell n Project File ____ ____
myy _,
p
Communications 4L Report t i MllNllllllll T* * "
Conference Repod Torac iltilitioc Y
Project Job No.
"#0#2 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/p7fg4
Subject:
Time:
8:30 A.M.
Mass Participation Review p,,
PPRF9 Rito
Participants:
of J. Finneran. P. Chang. J. Ryan TLIGC0 H. Ha rri t nn. M. Chamhpelain Titr,00 J. Minichiello. G. MacKenzie Cygna Required item Comments Action By Cygna explained that the purpose of the review was to determine the effect of mass participation reanalysis on supports. Mr.
Finneran stated that Cygna should work with Mr. Harrison for any needed data or supports. Mr. Finneran also explained that the support review was not fully completed.
As part of the effort, Cygna explained they would also review the supports for AB-1-23B and -23D, which had the bumper restraints.
Mr. Finneran suggested Cygna discuss this with Mr. Chamberlain.
i yk f
l2_4h
}
}
Distnbution.
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Finneran J. Minichiello, Sn Trebs Jn E11R
Communications Report 4L t i onenn Teras utili ies g Telec n Conference rem Project:
Job No.
840'#
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 p n 3 f gg Subject Time:
10:45 a.m.
Mass Participation Letter (84042.021) p,,,
Uno
Participants:
of J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Finneran called requesting clarification for recommendation nine (page 8 of the letter).
I told him that Cygna was recom-mending that any margin reviews on supports for mass participa-tion also include the effect on margin of the items listed.
For example, in reviewing a support with an incorrect composite sec-tion calculation, the designer should first determine the correct composite section weld stress. Then, the designer can apply the appropriate increase due to mass participation and determine if sufficient margin still exists.
L l
l l
1 t
$1 AM tash 1
s Distribution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Finneran, J. Minichiello, l
S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File m eia
Communications Report AL t i amma T ** "
X onference nepon c
Texas Utilities Project Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/27/84 Subject Time:
2:00 P.M.
Mass Participation Study CPSES Site
Participants:
of G. Krishnan Gibbs & Hill J. Minichiello Cyana item Comments Ac n y Cygna requested the nozzle load comparisons calculations and support load comparison output for the following problems, as part of the mass participation study:
AB-1-1 AB-1-67Z
-6
-68T
-10C
-68Y
-12A
-71B
-19A
-72
-28
-79A
-29V
-79F
-34A
-86A
-36
-88X
-42B
-95
-61A
-1350
-61B
-156
-63C/B
-167B
-64D
-171
-66B
-178B
-67V AB-2-520 Note: Support load comparisons received 11/28/84; nozzle load comparisons received 11/29/84.
hj
/aib i
1 D'"*""-
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Finneran, J. Minichiello,
- 5. Treby, J. Ellis, 5. Burwell, Project File ieso oi.
Communications 4L Report i
t i 111111111111111111111111111111 Company:
D Conference Report g Telecon Tovae lit i l i t q,,
Project Job No.
l Ranap Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 i f a f ac; Subject Time:
O n_m.
Mass Participation p,,c,.
<:ro n
Participants:
of D_ kloct hr nnk TIII,rn
.1_
Minichio11n rynna i
Required item Comments Action By D. Westbrook called with the following information for L.
Weingart:
1.
Cygna should discuss their mass point spacing question with R. Ballard/H. Mentel at Gibbs & Hill.
2.
D. Westbrook's preliminary information indicated that 49 problems of the 271 were originally run with refined spectra. Of these, 42 were included in the mass partici-pation study. These numbers should be confirmed by Gibbs a Hill, New York.
l Signed:
I c,
Page of 4
"~ "'
Distnbution-I
~
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart. J. Russ. W.
Horstman, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File mo ois
Communications Report 4L t i maneumma Tovac titilitioc b
Project:
Job No.
84042 2
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/28/84 Subject Time:
Mass Participation Study p,,,,
CPSES Site
Participants:
of J. Finneran TUGC0 J. Minichiplin Cygna i
Required item Comments Action By In our review of the mass participation study supports, Cygna noted that much of the work was unchecked. For example, in problem AB-1-1, support load increases of less than 10% were i
accepted by judgment and signed off on the Gibbs & Hill load summa ry. There was no indication this had been checked. Mr.
Finneran stated that the mass participation reanalysis was done for study only, not as a record calculation. Thus, the study work would be checked and approved at the completion of the mass participation review. Cygna was performing their review prior to full completion.
It was Mr. Finneran's understanding that the i
loads of record for support design would continue to be the original as-built loads, not those from the mass participation study.
l l
l l
l l
l l
),1 ) J A b w ta<h 1
1 N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, G. Bjorkman, J. Finneran, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File meu
Communications Report tM i i 181111111111111111111111111111 Tovac litili t i ses b
Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/pofg4 Subject Time:
12:20 P.M.
Phase 3 Open Items -
Mass Participation & Mass Point Spacing Cvona-SF
Participants:
of H. Montel Gibbs A Hill N. klilliamt cyana Requred item Comments Action By N. Williams called H. Mentel to obtain a list of the stress analysis problems which were reanalyzed as part of the mass participation evaluation and a list of stress problems which required modification to correct mass point spacings. Cygna will use these lists to select a sample for a spot check review of the work performed by TUGC0 and Gibbs & Hill in response to Cygna Phase 3 findings.
H. Mentel stated that all the necessary analy-ses were available for Cygna's review but that the final QA checks were not complete in all cases.
It does not appear neces-sary to hold the Cygna review up due to paperwork format, how-ever, H. Mentel said the mass participation list could be tele-copied tomorrow and the mass point spacing list could be tele-copied tomorrow morning.
In closing, N. Williams told H. Mentel that L. Weingart would probably be at Gibbs & Hill on November 27, 1984 for the review, i
i I
J AR V lash 1
1 Distnbution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, L. Weingart, J. Minichiello, J. Ellis, S.
Burwelin S. Trebm Profect File L
m 'a
Communications AL ci Report IlllllNilli Toras uti1ities g Telec n Conference rem Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11f30/g4 Subject Time:
9:30 A.M.
Mass Participation Review Process (PSE) p,,,
CPSFS Site
Participants:
of M. Chamberlain TUGC0 (PSE)
J. Minichiello Cyana Required item Comments Action By Upon reviewing the loads sheets, the engineers reviewed the calculations to see if the loads were acceptable.
Increases < 51 were not distributed.
Anchors & Gang Hangers The clerks held each " gang support" until all the new load sheets were in, then the support was reviewed for all the load increases Three-Sided Welds If load increases showed the weld would be close to allowable, l
engineers would perform calculation for correct loads.
i signed.
U Page of
}
N. ' illiams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.
W rwell, Proje_ct,Fil,e_ _ _ ___. _,
Bu
_ " '?
Communications el Repod t i 111111111111111111111111111111 Texas Utilities p w econ contence Repon Job No.
Project 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 11/20/84 Time:
Subject 11:00 A.M.
Phase 3 Open Items -
Mass Participetion and Mass Point Spacing gmy J. Finneran TUGC0 N. Williams Cygna Required item Comments Action By J. Finneran returned N. Williams' phone call regarding the scope of the mass participation and mass point spacing reviews. As far as obtaining listings of the reanalysis scopes, J. Finneran di-rected Cygna to D. Westbrook or H. Mentel. The pipe support load increase accessments were conducted on site and a list comparing the old and new loads for each piping problem was available.
J.
Finneran had directed the engineers involved in the pipe support review to maintain a separate filing system as well. As a re-sult, Cygna's effort may be reduced due to accessibility of the necessary data.
N. Williams inquired about an average percentage of the supports r
that had a load increase in order to estimate the manpower neces-sary for the review, J. Finneran said he would call back with l
the information later in the day.
N. Williams said that the cur-rent plan was to send the reviewer (s) to CPSES on Noverter 27, 1984, if all information would be available.
b l
l 1
f of Page g g
/ajb s$ net j
'N. silliam's, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, 5. durwell, Distnbution:
S. I, w.7, J. 01.. Tis z "':
I
Communications
(., ih Report
&Lu 1 lillilllilllililillNillHill Texas Utilities N Telecon a conference Report Job No.
I
. Project 84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*'*:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 1/14/85 l
Subject Time:
11:30 a.m.
i Mass Participation Study Place:
Gibbs & Hill H. Mentel l
L. Weingart Cygna I
l Required f
item Comments Action By Mr. Mentel agreed to provide the following information which is required to complete Cygna's response to the mass participation study:
1.
The number of problems originally run (i.e., before the mass participation study) with refined response spectra.
2.
The number of above analyses which were rerun as part of the mass participation study.
3.
Specific details regarding the concentrated weight " bug" in ADLPIPE Version C.
4.
The information on nozzle loads for problems 67V, 86A and 1350 as promised in the 12/13/84 note.
t l-P l
k m
l Signed; Page of N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, L. Weingart, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J.
D" bub a:
son oi.
t ilis, d. isurwei t, rroJecT. r i se
C ' g.
Communications ALni 7'
Report 11 0 11111111111111111111111111 company:
Texas Utilities
% Telec n Conference Repon Project Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station 4
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 1/3/85
Subject:
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Mass Participation Study Place.
SFR0
Participants:
of D. Westbrook TUGC0 L. Weingart Cygna Required item Comments Action By Mr. Weingart called Mr. Westbrook to request some information re-quired for Cygna to issue a letter commenting on Gibbs & Hill 's mass participation study, the specific questions were:
1.
How many stress problems were originally run using l
refined response spectra?
f i
2.
How many of these problems were rerun as part of the mass participation study?
l 3.
What are the specific detail s of the concentrated weight problem with ADLPIPE Version C, which is briefly discussed in the Gibbs & Hill report?
Mr. Westbrook did not have the specific answers but would try to l
l track down the appropriate Gibbs & Hill people to provide the i
answers.
l
'r l
signed:
Page of D'stneution:
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, S. Treby, J.
.o..
tiiis, s. tsurweli, Proaect t11e
=
mmuniCationS lillllllllllllllllllllllllllll N
"*"**E" X '* "
[
Tavat Utilities Job No.
g Project:
84042
[
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 3pnifg4 i
Time:
Subject:
Q t
Phase 3 Final Report p,,c, Review Questions - Piping span of
Participants:
US NRC
}
D Taran EGAG E
T. Rridget
[
N. Williams. J. Minichiello Cygna j
r 4
i
_a Required Action By Comments ltem
=
L
Reference:
Telecon dated 12/10/84 between D. Terao, T. Bridges 7
and N. Williams at 9:50 a.m.
g m
In response to Cygna's open item on the above referenced telecon, y
the following information was provided.
=
Observation PI-00-07 is concerned with the qualification of the g
Fisher Valves to the loads contained in the reference 3.1 througt E
3.4 stress analyses. These are analyses of the four Main Steam lines outside containment. Rev. O to stress problem AB-1-238 (reference 3.2), had considerably higher loads for the snubbers g
attached to the valve when compared to the other three pro-blems. Cygna felt that these larger and therefore enveloping loads should be used in the valve qualification. TUGC0 respondec a
by saying that this one pipe stress problem was analyzed more conservatively than the other three problems. TUGC0 then pro-2 vided Cygna with the reanalysis of AB-1-23B (reference G. Grace r-i (TUGCO) memorandum to N. Williams (Cygna), dated July 5,1984) ir which the snubber loads were reduced to the same order of magni-tude as the other three problems.
l Observation PI-00-02 deals with the acceptability of welded i
attachments in break exclusion zones. The first example of unacceptable stress levels occurs at the welded attachment for
?
supports MS-1-240-001-S72K and MS-1-240-002-S72K. These supports may be found on stress problem AB-1-238. The reference to re-
[
5 j
duced SAM loads as a basis for accepting the welded attachment 1 g
actually the revised analysis of AB-1-238 done for the reasons g
discussed above as part of the resolution to Observation i
L PI-00-07.
/ / /// /r 2M
/aib 1
3 V"~
~
~
N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Finneran, J. Minichiello, L. Weingart, Distnbution:
C u h k T h An E l% & L Re m@ & _Pf@A@c%_F_O @
=
Communications v
4L n i Report 11114 4tlll111111111111111lllt
[cDy comments Item The table contained on page 1 of Attachment A to Observation PI-06-01 is based on revision 0 to problem AB-1-238 (i.e., the run with the higher SAM loads).
Cygna will revise the resolution to Observation PI-00-02 to read:
"The first attachment, at MS-1-240-001-S72K and MS-1-240-002-S72K, can be qualified when the lower SAM loads provided in revision 1 to stress problem AB-1-238 are considered."
l Mr. Terao asked what were the differences between revision 0 and revision 1.
Cygna explained that.
(1) the refined spectra were used; (2) SAM movements based on actual support locations were used; and (3) a more detailed model of the relief valve was input.
Cygna explained that the changes brought AB-1-23B into agreement with the other three Main Steam analyses. Cygna also explained that the effects were not major ( 33% locally).
Mr. Bridges commented that the stresses in PI-06-01 did not include the break exclusion check. Ms. Williams explained that the check was done as part of PI-00-02 and did include the summation of the welded attachment effects. Cygna will further revise Attachment A to PI-00-02 and PI-06-01 to show the welded attachment / break exclusion zone stress check for this support (MS-1-240-001-S72K and -002-S72K). Cygna will also revise Attachment A to PI-00-02 to explain that Gibbs & Hill had reviewed all welded attachments in breaks exclusion zones and Cygna evaluated Gibbs & Hill's review.
Mr. Bridges then asked about the second support in PI-00-02, support number MS-1-003-006-S72R (checklist PS-102).
He was concerned first that the pad was outside the "CYLN0Z" program Mr. Minichiello replied t1at Gibbs & Hill had pa rameters.
L reduced the size of the pad in the "CYLN0Z" analysis to fit This within the program limits, as explained in PI-00-02.
modification of the geometry to fit within WRC107 parameters (the paper on which CYLN0Z is based) is common within the industry.
Different organizations used different modification techniques, each designed to give a conservative estimate of the stress.
Mr. Bridges was also concerned that the line contact stresses in the pipe at its interface with item 30 would be high. Cygna explained that this had been one of the concerns Cygna had raise d
in their April 23 telecon with TUGCO. Further review by Dr. Bust of Cygna's Senior Review Team indicated, however, that not only l
were the requirements unclear in this case, experience with Page of 2
3 m
Communications Report e
AL i i 111111llll11111111111111111llI Item Comments Ac y
similar geometries in fossil plants showed no detrimental ef-fects. Thus, Cygna had concluded that this item was acceptable.
Mr. Terao noted that such a history trail would be of interest to the NRC on a number of issues. He suggested that it might be useful in the proposed Cygna/TUGC0/NRC meeting to approach each of the Walsh/Doyle concerns in this manner.
Page of 3
3 N th
Communications t-4L Report t i 111111111111111111111111 9 1111 Telec n Conference Repon Tovac titiliti e r
Job No.
Project Rana?
Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,;
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 ifgfas Time:
Subject M 0 a.m.
Scope of NRC Meeting - 1/10/85 p,,c,;
mn of
Participants:
Titrer0 D_ Wado N. Williams Cynna Required Actron By Comments item N. Williams relayed the scope of the upcoming NRC meeting to D.
i Wade as follows:
1.
Discussion of Cygna Open Items:
i PI-00-05:
Mass Participation Observation PI-00-01:
Stress Intensification Factors Observation PI-00-07:
Fisher Main Steam Relief Valve Observation PI-09-01:
Missing Mass Point Observation PS-03:
Cinched U-Bolts / Double Trunnion Observation PS-01:
Strudl Input Errors Observation l
2.
Discussion of Staff Questions Related to:
Observation PI-00-01: Mass Participation Observation PI-00-02:
Local Stress Consideration in Break Exclusion Zones Observation PI-00-06: Support Design Loads Not Matching Stress Output Observation PI-09-01: Missing Mass Point Observation PS-01:
Strudl Input Errors Observation PS-04: Undersized Fillet Welds i
Observation DC-02-04: Evaluations of Gibbs & Hill Design Reviewers Were Not Performed on an Annual Basis, Checklist Items PS-102 (for example)
) j)hgA
?
in n N. Williams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, J. Russ, W. Horstman. S.
Treby, J. Ellis, S. Burwell, Project File
-1 Communications Report AL i i 111181111661116111111111111111 Requred item Comments Action By 3.
Discussion of Cygna
Conclusions:
D. Wade inquired about the status of Cygna's letter commenting on the Gibbs & H111/TUGC0 mass participation study.
N. Williams informed him that Cygna is still awaiting clarification of some data which was transmitted by D. Westbrook/TUGC0 to L. Weingart/Cygna which conflicts with information gathered during Cygna's review in the Gibbs & Hill offices in New York. Cygna is awaiting H.
Mentel's return to obtain the required clarification.
I I
l l
l k
l l
1 Page of l
2 2
.,..,..__.-,_,,._,-,-,_..----..___-._.-__,__.,,...mv.--..
~ _...
CommunicStions Report 4L t
i mammmmmm k
Tavae litilitiac Job No.
Project:
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station g,,,
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 1pfinfg4 Time:
~
Subject:
9:50 a.m.
Phase 3 Final Report p,,
Review Questions - Piping span of
Participants:
If9 NRr n Taran FGAG T-Rridnes N. Williamt Cygna Required Comments Action By item As part of EG8G's review of the Cygna Phase 3 report, the follow-ing questions were discussed.
1.
Question 1 Observation PI-00-02 has a reference to Observation PI-00-Oi for justification of lower SAM loads. Upon review of PI 07, Mr. Bridges could not find any discussions on reduced SAM loads. He suggested that perhaps the correct reference may be PI-06-01. And then, the margins referred to in PI-06-01 are only 1%.
1 Cygna Response Ms. Williams agreed to check the references and call back Mr. Terao as soon as possible.
h Status: Cygna to check observation references, f
2.
Question 2 l
Document reference 3.3 on Observation PI-06-01 is for drawing number MS-1-240-002-S72K. Mr. Bridges could not find a checklist for this support.
l
/
II/
g'A
/ajh 1
9
'{yj111ams, D. Wade, J. van Amerongen, J. Minichiello, S. Treby, J. Ellis, S.
o,webut,on:
Burwell, Project Fili im oi.
Communications Repod L
ii t
111111111111111111111111111111 ace 5Yy item comments Cygna Response Ms. Williams explained that this support was not part of the original Phase 3 review scope. This support is located on the branch line while the pipe support review scope included supports on the main flow path and anchors on the branch lines for the stress problems chosen. The only reason this support was mentioned was because Cygna performed an ex-sanded review of the welded attachments and this support lappened to share a trunnion with one of the supports in our review scope.
Page of 7
7 1020.03 b i
Communic:tions Report 4L t i
- I
- coa R conference neport Texas Utilities Project:
Job No.
84042 Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station D*:
Independent Assessment Program - Phase 3 9/28/84 Subject Time:
9:00 a.m.
Mass Participation Study EH/New York
Participants:
of Hy Chang EH C. Mortgat Tenera J. Minichiello Cygna Required item Comments Action By The purpose of this discussion was for Cygna to review the status of the EH study on Mass Participation. At this time, EH had completed the following:
(1) Rerun 35 problems representing a wide range of mass frac-tions (attachment pages 1 and 2).
(2) Used ADLPIPE version D with a cutoff of 50 Hz and refined response spectra.
(3) Sumarized the number of supports and number of individual support directions (since 1 support may have loads in X, Y, and Z), for each pipe size in the sample, as shown on attachment, page 3.
(4) Established a minimum reasonable support design load (for a sample, see insert on attachment, page 9). New support loads which were still below this minimum load would not be considered in the remainder of the study.
The same minimum load was used for both upset and emergency.
(5) Determinedthepercentincrease(ordecrease)foreachsup-port with loads above the minimum.
This data is shown in the attachment on the bottom of page 3 (upset) and on page 6 (emergency).
This informaton is displayed graphically on pages 4-5 (upset) and on pages 7-8 (emergency).
(6) Plotted the percent load increase versus mass fraction in that direction of load, as shown on attachment, pages 9 -
- 12. Except for a few data points, all the increases fall below a line between 0.0. 2005 and 0.8. 10%.
h
/ajb 1
2
'N'.Wiiliams,D. Wade,J.vanAnerongen,J.Minichiello,L.Weingart,G.Bjorkman, Distnbution im ei.
- d. Irecy, d. t.i ns, s. surwe s i, rroJECT F lie
\\
Communications Report
(
1 lununen
. un AcEn item comments v
(7) EH then wished to know what margin existed in supports for each pipe size. A plot was generated displaying pipe size versus support load (attachment, page 13).
This was used to determine an " average" load for each size of pipe. Using this data developed fi.* Dr. Iotti on 114 random supports, plots were developed showing allowable percent load increase versus actual / average support load for each size pipe.
That is, for 10" pipe they would take all the 10" supports in the sample of 114, determine the average load and also determine the margin for each support. A typical plot is shown on attachment, page 14.
(8) EH then planned to screen future supports by first deter-mining the percent load increase based on mass fraction (from attachment, pages 9 - 12).
Then the percent allow bie increase would be determined by entering the appropriate pipe size curve with the ratio of the old support load divided by the average load.
If the first percent was larger than the second, that support would be sent to TUGC0 for review.
Cygna reviewed the EH data as follows:
(1) Cygna spot checked the data on attachment, page 3, and found it acceptable.
(2) Cygna reviewed the minimum loads used by EH.
Based on Catalog data and minimum steel and weld sizes, the loads are reasonable expected capacities.
(3) Cygna checked the reanalysis of problems 2-638, 1-27, and 1-2 and found the runs acceptable.
(4) Cygna found that the E H sample included 16 problems with seismic anchor motion and 19 without seismic anchor motion; this representing a reasonable sample of both types.
As a preliminary comment, Cygna did state that the sample size of 114 did not seem reasonable as a basis for conclusions. Cygna will attempt to determine a more reasonable sample size, perhaps equal to the total number of supports in the study (i.e.,
approximately740). Response will be in a letter to TUGC0 by hnday, October 1.
Cygna will also comment on the remainder of the study at that time.
Page of l
2
A77Ac88 ear
/
' g g s k e a H III.I m. -
M.
W n sk.n_
h
'=+* iri Nunt+-
N a.,a a
a a
- r. _ =
C'--M^
i g
I y_o c Q
lV fREllMINARY m
hj(5 sj
(
- 1. a
}3
.1 i
.a 4
'a 3
.g353 vmTi e f ah "
~
y.g y e C.-
NL
\\
.s
\\
\\
io s
W c4 i
f A Mh ' b \\
jj ww
,%,w m es.m, sosse
V
- 4 M
.,e e
MNo.
5Nbbe B HIII Inc.
u w'
&~"'" No-
=
E
--CaWL*anNumber f
Da i
m.
om nw ca.
Y X
X s
)
~Cnecker L
Gur ik'>
0h e
PRRIMlNARY
~
4
~
4 ID
- ?h
- 1 1
.'s w
we--
M
(
ew
[
[
,4
.a
.e w, p.m..:r.s e
en e
B F-166,7-82 gm./m= =, a-~
cT CheckingMethod#
g.
77 Client M No:
Gibbs S Hill,Inc.
.S0bject SheetNo.
CalculationNumber Revision T
Date Rev.
Date Rev.
Date Rev.
Date Rev.
Date
.e.'
=
X X
X X
X M.
is Preparer enecker I
~~-
-f".c O k% 6t.m ao,== W -
E c.
I E
i
.TE 'T* li d " -
y-
-L
-Y pp6 p f k ff0114 >
ANMfotMT
--CoVPovc T
&v1(0CdT J
a gg
.M t..
1~
./k
.. i.;.
,i h $$ '.*3.a i
t i
... 4 1 '...
') ...,.I,, ..... -., Sg. I o4 .. *g 1 to 2 .00 .b l.. ). $.0 ,f /is ~ '.2./ 2 [ Up..;. . /2 5. Z 'g. .. '. /3.' 9...,. 3 ... 'R/ \\.... 7.:..'1 /..... . 84. .. L. - namesman Wm f,,,. ' a. Z, Z, - . l A /.. _.i.. .../a ... !..,3 /. m... ? -. N .S L. .r } m3 s-fl.'. 24 .4*p5 ' ; W W- '3 + g 'z /2. . S3 ..L ~~ Q~7E.).. e a i . l. u.. 6 (f 7),.. .... ).4... ..,.... 2 572). / 6.*- . ;.. l) 2...; a......- i.- l .l.. ; i....,.... 3., .'. j..i._ L.. f. ,/ L. t,,. I* .; / 1...;. 16.iD \\, :S - C 2.C. - .E. !h ...: p.. .j(s.. < 3,- @ f J. up l v^ .:2. t,c g f..,. . L a ". y~ ^ 'L ' t CD C 7h 3 z ll .L
- 2...
'6D l s q.2 / /yc o C, 'l,.'7.'. a f' [. }.f0z.- e p i . 75-m L. s.
- .....l.
.w. ge n,y y u .4-t.. 6 3 -- ~? + t \\ Y1.b v.-) tomusco Viril ';y gip,. m ,g -. $o.~ al= &" /.N1 D / o fwC t$ d*C i 7D Ic, o... g.....[ (^ ' 'j l L., J .l..y.l.,.,h.M'. I /
- 1..., s.:
.. !..l.. t.. e.,:.. i..'.j > !. ;J L I p _7.. ;.. j.. j.. i...!. J. t. 4.}L.1. )._f. g ~~ t i I%- ). t J. ...'.i. c.. ..L. ' 0J. J t. CACC *1.O!) i ~
e. CGent
- ' Job No.
.Gibbs S Hill. inc, __ Subject SheetNo. CalculationNumber Rev. Date Revision 3,'C" Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date X X X X X W Preparer '_ Checker ).... B D [ ..'....s.._.... f e s i-
- .-t--
.p
- r h
[I i l .I I 4 .8 .' t., ....'..'..,i..i.. . I'... 4 g g I e g ...9 ,4. [~ 6 [ .l...-. e l l . j...a
- a. _.i. l. 6._,....
.L i.._. D, ..a .}........ e ,s t .e ...e. . \\ as. 6 i N 8 C l l ...-.a.....7.,.4..... i .. r. 4 ....._.7
- {.
3 .3... l i s g l a j u s ~ 3 i g P l i I L... k.. L -- 0 .. _ ~ s .e l l .._...,.._ _'.......I -.....,.I g -.l I i e ( -../....l d.......,-...'...,...... t
- 4
.i. , j l I....l.. 9 e .A Il., _1. !....,, "[ i w-j. g I .j J ..i.8 .O ~ .n-.. l.
- .. y b..
.... ~... ?. .,g ..D.. i i 5. / pl P,. ..... J _ f 4.. L *i. _.L _ ...L. - _ e. G gr. . i.... l$, .g .... l. 4. . ~...! 4 .o t . ; i
- 4
.I- .g... l. .q .s.. 1. L. -
- -i
-- I , Y, L - - l-- ...i..... .7 3 f, ..;..,....._.,..l j..... h.. .4.. g .i., f a., j... . l..Q.. ')j 4 ..... $.d.d_.b p-4a . l. z %.... J...,....J.a)._i.l.. ...F L ' . '.. *q t g 1 .t I .. q. s. - i l
- r. ;. 7 ;_.4. _...;._ i. _ 7....
g ..pI . f.. .. l . '..i. .d.*._. . Cl. ) s ..J,. i. '..i! L I...i...l l _'.....;.... r '., i L I; i i _',. ? '...'...y 5 ~6 .g_ .i. . i .g
- - '..t
'...._..i- . _1_._.
- 3..
I i __.a _., _ ll, L ., [ i...' g. e e . ; !] J. l l p. t* .p J,I ,1 I t _ 7.j...p '._'. _\\._..*'..L @. I s l l-, .q. y, 1 1 ' 73, F W. 'T-M~ iL.J._ !._ A :. ('.'.T ,~ n - N. }_ t
- - I I J I
.. u 3 i ! .'F ..,.. ! $_. 4 _ 8 I gi N _._I_ l. ! . '.L y.,.. . 8 l_. ;._.'f .i _ I 1 [ j j 4- .,3 5 { J ~g ....q.._..... j.7: {. ___..gI1_lJ......,__.._ s. I...t.t L_J g ' >, j .' _. i t. u. 1. 1.1... ~ 1_..t..L_L _1.1 t_._.t..u Lt. ......_.;............r...... L_ C.1RR 7.Ao
j ,1 Gibbs S Hill,Inc. Job No. Client Subject SheetNo. CalculationNumber Revision %Zf Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date 8,L"1 X X X X X Preparer Checker i ......... ~,... _.. .J .h-. f. .1 is 9i .4 { ..I..... cs .L a Y 4._... '... '...,..,......, D l 4 w i g g 7 p .i .;..:...,.. i... b .e t ,a g I ..) ./ g l 1 J.,1 s 1,- g , z .g v m t 0- -i i. f e 9 I O l g g Q g 4 ,..m .(
- - - - - -;..p i -- --, -- --2.;_,..;.>
r--:-- + ~ :. .._. 1 .d .c{-. L._,.. P.. 'W _.L, :. 3 . [....)._ g 4.,.,. f _'.. f,.. {.. '..;..' .,6.,.., .. _,. 1.. n .:..a 1. m 9 ..>...j..' .{. y ..j. ... _.:.._, _. p,. _ _7. p.p. . 7. _, ...?. _,... _ ;...,_ s _ j. .a...p . _. 4...,. ..! g . _...,. 7..... _ j._ %._.. 7.
- q...__7. :.
4 .g .L.-. _. f._....._.. :. j $g p L g a..'.. .L.'. ..? ;... _.* .g .q..!......3.{..
- j... p,_.. l _... ;... : J _;..
7, . D..,5.. L '...'.. q .......',.i_;.gmamamme-lj......_+_.; L.L._-' ..l.....
- 4.. -..
t.. 4 + 0 c. g .,.7._ u _.L._[_. .. _...l II - ..j.'.: __....;._._..,_t._. .,. i. J.. L q_ p !.._... L t L '.. j.. - ,.. t,...,..a. t ._.p._.... y ( ..;.....;.,._:. :... w 3.. x. y.;, _ t' ._7. a. 7. p... t ..:... 4...;._..._l.._ :. 2. _-.kL.._f.f.j__i..,..!.QJJ1.' e
- f.....
[ i...j .., ; I -. ,I...,.'...t4...._L.... _.L.;.,. r. l.g%,.g 3.. h.. j.. .,...... t,,.. .., _,,. j... ; i : i - - -- ' i ; - f- > ' - !,..,.4_ __j ji r---- p_ ...p.... !._ .. {..q._ . _..L _ _.3 _.. 7...._.t....., j!.. ;. _. 2 i.. j _. g. _. l. ..[ ;.t.,_.L. l. __p. t.. p......,... I _..,. 7 ,...i 1 .il
- ..m.
. L. ) .i 1.: 1 '.I i :... J. L 1.. m....l .c
4 Gibbs S HIII. Inc. M No. Client e . u-a M 2-4Dh Nur1M w g o.m m. om. m. o= w. o.m w. o== m, X X X X X Y i ..r. ch.cnn m ' ' I C WY
- d&
N. '. O T's4 "T**/?o 'M E M ff*- v _ r o em M. .:..4 i D'W M '* ' ' ' ' ',. ' ' ' ~ " ' . &:Ji&A 7~ : - [*'n '/WM ' i ~7&rw&. _ _. '7 4 0 .3 9/ 4f2 03Y I* U" ~ _;cewmang $/6. - - ~OC 9 _ iie r c nw 4cv!o - ;fi. -,,,, J4 or. G5 /59 G c-) 3 p,a,p lrivCA'5%C l c .Af /$ A E /7 jsafe,- ..a. e. +- -m ~. -~ S n j i ,...__ _ [ !f4 ' l~. _[.[ E g )[hh w {.._; H ._.q 7_. I \\ i -~ i... _. 7 j __,..., i t i p F-166, 7-82 j L. Checking Method # 1,2:m<et:2, - - --n.,-, 4 Corgere syn.as MM ci cor tulee m@IIrsgon$tg spuu and resuRB d W W
ww m-ry- ~~.w,. ~ M #poytg<Suppeyo "--"1llllll:? ' r.i i, r - ,,0, 1.,- _. > 28-4'991..-l i r,i..; ;._ Y.k h - [ -.,. 1.. _. 8 N -.4 . l.. -l j ...,) ) e 3.. .. A .L. 2. ( -G ~ u... . l..- n ._a. o n. i 3 .~ .i .. r .. i} r0 0. 1
- g fa n
.. w.v. g' ....8 q. Y O- - s t., i w. -: +e n ,t. n ;u g Le .. n_ q 's.... }
- 0 --...
. ; 9.. j... _.. y'.. a o g.. _ y p g g%. n-e L. . ___ a _ samare-
- u. _. _ _
q <.- g -Q. m...- 1.. ... t y 2 e .. \\J 0 ..7 C 4 ,p.. - [ .t .. y...__ am .... _. ums,. -.. F . _.. _L...- - t--u 4 _. %a.., J c. 't. _. o .. ( 9 .e .2 W, _... I1 o ejl . t,L i Q ..i.. ._ _,o __ 4__., ,0 - g g.- _.. t , g. R..-. l o K.- l g d, g = 3-m _g l n n ,s .. M.-.. ! n g._. -, .4 -3 4. _. s t ..g I. m .o .m, s p.._ .,a .I -l o i [ I. . )" i j g '}.y.- _ _.. p y% l 1 so M n u i e. t__.. i. n 7..., .f
- c.,.
-M .-e. ... -4 + =. .._ _. 9.. g ..,-4 l3 m 3W'd j Efi lj X X X X X. !i ma m ma nu ma nu ma m ao
- A womu l)
JegtunNuo!ty@c 'oNiseys MUS. ous >figg 3 sqqfe 'oN gor luego 4
Gibbs B Hill. Inc. .kh No. Client Subject SheetNo. CahJiationNumber Revision T Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date Rev. Date T.x3 X X X X X er w Checker i i p 5.. s i -l co I t 0 7 g'. ~- i - * -- 4> . ~, r ._. h i i . u_4 i
- i.,.
c. y i I _.4 4 'g l 4.-... ~ 1 v-e- g - k - y 9:7;'y} l} y -t;' 1 g l -3 I i i _. 3.- g. iy n .. y .l ,u. n .n l g. , __.l. . ({ Q _. .t y p; _ ) .___. A. _ a 4 ..c 4 -.l. l_ r 0 o ...." - ? c. p 78====. I
- T s..
._t :._. l '8W Remamm .,J T. .. '(' L: -,.._ 4 s e_ _; _._H c I i i i '
- 1..
1._..1.... _ "'8uum .-l. .l (il 5 6 I J _.. .. _ l - M d 4 ._g i..., n~.,s>.. -.. -4 f* i l t i .. _. j . J s _ ___.c fl ._,. I _ .o_. y q..% g g ..... _ __. Ml. :_ -.._ l ! _ _ g 4 0 o o 9 .s [, N ow g 0- .s b y
- _...._!... A _
i ... a +r L, s.,. i n. y, 6 ie i 6 .i F-166,7-82 CheckingMethod# i.t::nmutv ,s. ~
- 4. Cortpare mpuls sulesenasof tornpwier ese corresponien089tAs eruirseiAls of amter cocos.
Ng 0A U-O 0 0 0 0 O L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 3 5 8 0 8 5 0 0 5 0 Ww 1 2 2 3 5 6 7 9 1 1 1 1 N I M / y c
- b g.
3 J "f 0 0 0 0 O. O. T u E 0 0 O. O. 0 WS Z 0 2 6 8 4 2 2 3 d 23 4 6 8 1 1 1 1 I g-S 7 g LO B M eA+Xo+XZYXE Y S 00 1 - ) SRE = B B U ~ 0 N .%._} 8 S '[_. ,s ,0 4 H T N I s W O I. CM s U T PM 0 T 6 C UI ON ip1 !I. li1:. } ,.A
- 4} j3 0 R RI GM
- =
F ( T SE DS AP Y _._ .f = T OU ' O. yY 0 R L ,.A 4 D T N R I.4. j .!I7 ij; { RAS O T 0P t_ P R \\ P O S + . t. = S UMP + N SUP y A = M U FI S ~ 0 = 2. M OX i x i=,O 1 AL Y MA OMSR \\y_! iI E
- ,g_
. x R C -la. l + R AT I U MET g 'A. ^ UPE I _. X + [ _g - +
- ^ -
FSUV N., 8 g X. 0 ~ N . + xg + ._2 N_ x_E. fx. 0 e 0 N oO-8 o-5~ WWqWOUZ OGcg c 1 )_Y.'_, %fJ c'. d a 1 l l
D A O 0 0 0 0 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 5 0 0 5 0 3 5 8 1 2 2 3 5 6 7 9 1 1 1 1 N I C H O 00 0 0. O. 0 E 0 0 00 0 0 2 6 8 4 2 Z 2 3 4 68 23 I 1 1 1 1 S L d B I-M OA+Xo+XZYXE YS 0 0 ~ 1 1 SR E BBUN 0 S ,[ t8 H T 0 I N W s O ~ CN x I I K 0 T PM ~ +[l.;4I, 7i! !1 8T C U
- 6. A OY
._ ~. i~ ._ I t _i RC f ~
- 1f1 i 0R GN
+ I ( E G F SR i DE AM OE
- Yy y
y+ h 7 T L 0 R D 4 T N i .A RAS qt O T . 1i ,0 P P R O + ++ i P S UXP SAP + + +. x_ 4 S MU x x 0 F S A 2O Y 0 C L x
- 2. M E Y NA X
REC 4 r, [l Ll R AGI ,L.I i'I ! I d X_
- : iga. Id_.,_+
+ yO x + a U MRT GMER ?. I UME N _. 8 +.+ g_. 1 a A. O _ A^ a FSEV + e+%g D o_ X e _. RX_ x+lt X_ Q _ X O 5g p j k. Y k FO. x ~ N O ooo_ oo~ o-x WmgWO'UZ OGoI .I ~ ?lb.9% s4
e rN ~ xt e s g O O O O N O _J O O O O O O O O O O O 3 mW G O Gr- .O CD WO O W O N N mW W b ma h.h Ek
- L
" f t E o o o o Io E',XA4kg< 3; Wo.9999d66644 O D' NmV W G """"N A U) ..k ~ h Ck OOy e 4 + X o + X N >- X E g m ui x O 3( 0, .M( j M( -t 3to + +I4 i Z r / + +;++84 O 3 i I ~ l / / j H or - i O Q U ,;Hmyy.!+ ;y ya@ i
- 0. r l?
4.L :-[ or --- y y / i lt tt ,/ i mO i j C Q. '/ / + t+ + +! 4 am H 0U ^ J' l l K S O' t.c 3 d - ~~~i om f *i-6 J < , - '-"9 0{: 000. y{y It j+ )oc<o O O I+ +- + ' + +:: (A E S / l' + w 3 /
- 5 I l M
4 X '! !c l [ '. / i I e + '- 4 E w-}gr i mbEd i S d Eg ihj_..l_+__:_./._L' I.--. f-W '.' /I x + i i j' Qd i !+ 0 i 5 O' () h l g 2 I C g { l[o g n O \\ +; O 'g / 00I O! .j coat (%) 396383NI 0007 , /../ % ] '. ., 3f fIF,r
~ o a o oooo tV\\ _J ooooooooooo A N oG W ooW oa mW G r N N mW W b ma a a a Z r** 4 N I ~ O O O. O O O affu. j mem s. W O O O O O J' ^- g'
- O N (D CD T N Re N
0 a cri y to co - - - - a cr> (F m h4 -) y L.s.; Q g', y e < + x o + X N >- X E~ h .8 M m mw (D i. cn O i ! i m m um -f ' l i yM*M-l 3ey m i + + + n .g- = Z I i ~ 3
- +
- NN4 N<
n O ~ Gi b(l) ~ / ..O g ki > X_ } 1....' i @E i! I C /. >'4i ~ +IlIO g; L. o >- i I 1.1. I -w / o 1 / mm e f aw o@ / + + + + q l-- KK R E .Y .-.-,i_l';, X j,q..--. = p'.- J .. c-oa 4-.. - - g,g_ g + XHO O v l l j 0 1 1 / +- -H- +, + ++ O ~ + $3;% / I (f) lOE mcm I. + + 4 X O g !l I T b >" g i >K X: i j / - y-.... g -fg* y h -Y+ .g- +- -...u..'.--- ja.-{--r 9 g -r-- M X& i!'e i l I a. I 8 [S - +,. ./ / e 00 + O. { i w O + I f) ~ r O O L2-W / O -O 00 li; i 'O t O !+ i u-o / i O ~ !; 0001 / 00t OI I (%) 3SO383NI 0607 .' - lc. d. s. [,'.
I.r (+ : L PREllMINAR,Y pg,,[ %#jf'- -. c.-8 a !A Y g Q.,A 1_d 4 e 'y 9 i I i l s 7 l l s S ^ e 3 ,1 2 l / 1 ON u Nk' [ a i I 6 T i / i 1C S / 5 i i 7 / s 5 a l 4 r '(. 1 d 3 2 1,' i ? e / n e s Ce c st I / i {}/go i /
- e e 5
i f i 2r ir l g y ... s -_A P g I = Ts a s. g - :- a., g= 4..... ;. 6. a. - -- - - - -* [I. a ......4 1 l 1, l WJ e' _=_-- - 3 l l
- s-l 1"
.1 i iM 6 \\e n 4IJ l t 8
- a j
j i79 1 2 3 a S 6 7 8 910 g 3 4 5 6 7 5 5 K,. 2 3 4 5 e t 6.- i f ee /0 e f $o ft,,ff n el'.L 2) G
66 6 E~ PRElJMlERY a;;,_ 10 s a 7 __ s 4 4 8 1 1 t C, N 's - nr: 5 II: s ss Y{k s ~ y i ; e g 8 s. x 3 m r _=4 2 = -I i gi 8 c t,l/c. s e s e i i x ,s g'.)'y k l l i 1 . i i . m,. ,.c g-s. _2 a W =C C.wp 3-dL l c r I b ] y 7 I I l '..'[ l I_ f t a a s a e s :- 2 3 4 8 6 7 8 930 6
- I
'saw 9,w '7 ,_c v/y1 b}}