ML20204E912
| ML20204E912 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 11/26/1981 |
| From: | ROBERT L. CLOUD ASSOCIATES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204E909 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-99 P-105-4-DRAFT, NUDOCS 8111300110 | |
| Download: ML20204E912 (26) | |
Text
s
~-
cWest REVISED, October 30,1981
\\
SEISHIC REVERIFICATION PROGRAM October 26, 1981 P 105-4 Preparad for Pacific Gas and Electric Company by r
Robert L. Cloud Associates, Inc.
2972 Adeline Street:
P. O. Box 687 Berkeley, CA 94703 West ralmouth, MA 02574 (415) 841-9296 (617) 540-5381 kANd o'$$$ Isf s
d
/
5
O O
e o "
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 Introduction.........................................I 2.0 Scope...............................................
2 2.1 Sct..du1e.......................................
2 3.0 Program Logic.......................................
3 3.1 Review for Applicability.......................
4 3.2 Independent Calculation........................
4 3.3 Field Verification.............................
5 3.4 URS/Blume Interface Review and Interim Report.............................
5 3.5 Program Logic Summary..........................
6 4.0 Review of Seismic Design Chain for Applicability...................................
8 4.1 The Seismic Design Chain.......................
8 4.2 Sampling Procedure.............................
9 4.3 Review.........................................
9 5.0 Independent Requalification........................
10 5.1 Building Requalification......................
10 5.2 Piping Requalification........................
11 5.3 Pipe Supports.................................
11 5.4 Conduit Supports..............................
12 5.5 E q u i p me n t..................................... 1 2 5.6 Independent Requalificat ion Summary........... 13 6.0 F i e ld Ve r i fic a t ion................................. 14-7.0 I.iteria Report on the PCandE -
U R S / B l ume I n t e r f a c e................................ 15 7.1 Objective and Scope...........................
15 7.2 Ceneral Approach..............................
16 8.0 conclusion.........................................
17 Tables Figures
1 REVERIFICATION PROGRAM Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Seismic Qualification for Hosgri H 7.5 Earthquake
1.0 INTRODUCTION
on September 28, 1981 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. re-ported that a diagram error had been found in a portion of the seismic qualification of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant (DCPP-1).
This error resulted in af 'n-correc.t application of the seismic floor response spectra in the crane wall-containment shall annulus of the Unit 1 Con-tainment Building.
The response spectra were computed correctly, but as a result of the diagram error were applied to the opposite, hand geometry of the Unit 1 building.
The origin of the er-ror was in the transmittal to a subcontractor of a sketch of the Unit 2 opposite hand geometry in place of the Unit 1 geometry.
Although seismic failures would not be expected as a result of this misapplication of spectra, nevertheless some tsw pipe and conduit supports may have had to be strength-ened to restore required design margins or safety factors.
In the course of the investigation that was initiated as a result of the error discovery, other inapplicable data were found.
For this reason, an independent design reverification program has been developed to assure there are no other errors in the design of the plant.
The purpose of this report is to
)
describe the reverification program plan.
1 4
2 2.0 SCOPE i
The scope of the reverification program includes the safety related Design Class I buildings and equipment that were re-evaluated to withstand the Hosgri 7.5 M earthquake.
The design and analysis work that was done for the Hosgri earthquake evaluation on chase buildings and equipment is the basic scoes of the current reverification effort.
Other Gork will be reviewed only as it relates to the basic scope.
2.1 Schedule The program will be conducted in two phases.
Phase 1 considers the design interface between PCandE and URS/Blume.
This phase vill be. submitted prior to fuel load.
Phase 2 includes the remainder of the work scope and will be completed prior to power ascension.
e.
8
a e
i
- 3. 0 PROGRAM LOClw The reverification program was initially designed and pre-l sented as a program to review the applicability of seismic de-sign information used in qualification of structures and equip-l ment required for cold safe shutdown.
The review was to cover design information based or. use of symmetry, the transmission of seismic data through the seismic dnsign chain, and the seismic i
design interfaces between PCandE atid outside subcontractors.
Since initial formulation, the program has been broadened and the initisi logic revised accordingly.
I In present form, the program is addressed to four major areas Review of the applicability of seismic design informa-tion through the seismic design chain, including external PGandt interfaces Independent calculation of selected seismic design data and independent seismic qualification of selected equipment Independent calculation of seismic design data and independent seismic qualification of equipment Field verification that seismically qualified j
systems and equipment are built and installed accord-ing to design Review of applicability of seismin design informa-j cion associated with tha URS/Blumo interface.
This review is to be done on a priority basis and submitted early in the reverification effort as a separate report.
1 l
The specific work to be done is given in subsequent sections.
The basis for incorporating each of the above four parts of the program is discussed in the following paragraphs.
4 l
l 3.1 Review for Applicability i
This review consists of studying the information that has gone into the seismic qualification calculations to ensure it is applicable to that particular calculation.
An example would be the use of seismic spectra for one location of a building in the qualification of equipment placed at a dif-1 forent location.
In the seismic qualification of the large amounts of equipment and piping that go into a nuclear power plant, it is necessary to divide the work into manageable subdivisions, then assign work packages to different groups both vichin and without the primary organization.
In such an arrangement, it is cocanon for the work product from one group to be based upon that com-placed by another group.
It is possible for this relationship chain to extend through several groups.
The objective of the restav for applicability is to search for tratances in which incorrect information was used in qualification calculations, whether generated internally or I
passed from one group to another. As an example, when in the i
interest of expediency p'reliminary work is performed with the final work done at a later time, it is possible that design mistakes could go into the field based upon preliminary information which was no longer applicable.
This is an important objective sin e so much of the seismic qualification work does involve several organizational units, so that any misconsnunication or lack of consnunication could lead to error.
3.2 Indepsadent calculation Independent calculation consists of performing a given f
qualification from the beginning in a completely independent i
ma nns t.
This is one of the most coevson and effective means for obtaining a sound objective review of a unit of engineering y
.._.-.,__.-._-.y
s
- l Work.
The objective of review by means of independent calcula-tion is to ensure that the assumptions made and the calcula-tions performed are satisfactory for the particular work pro-duct under consideration.
This objective is achieved by hav-j ing a different engineer from a dif ferent organize. tion inde;.m-dently perform the work.
In this way, patterns of thought, basic assumptions etc. as well as computer programs, and use of formulas and their application are all challenged.
4 3.3 Field Verification Tield verification consists of verifying by field inspec-tion that the particular item under study, whether building, piping, or equipment, is built, installed, and constructed as represented by the engineering drawings used as a basis for the seismic qualifitations, The objective of such verifica-tion is to complete the chain of verification from design to construction.
If the installation of an item of equipment is different than that which was analysed, then the qualification is invalidated.
i URS/Blume Interf ace Review and knteria Report 3.4 The objective of this task is to review seismic design i
information involved with the interface between PCandt and l'RS/Blume as regards applicability of the design information.
Information in the following categories will be reviewedi i.
j Developed within PCandt and transmitted to URS/Blume Developed within URS/Blume and transmitted to PCandE 1
gquipment qualification requirements transmitted to organizations qualifying equipment both within and external to PCands 1
i
6 The objectives of this work are twofolds first, to thoroughly review the applicability of the work passing betueen the primary PGandt interface involved in the Hosgri requalifica-tion, and, second to develop on the part of the reviewers, a
sound knowledge of the totality of the work involved and an understanding of strengths and weaknesses in the documentation.
The latter knowledge will serve to guide the overall reverific-ation effort, especially regarding choices of additional inter-f aces to review and determination of which work requires independent ca!.culation and field verification.
This task will be completed early in the program and a separate report issued.
3.5 Program Logic Summary In summary, thg reverification program aims to cover the entire Hosgri requalification by the steps described.
The review for applicability covers work passing betvaar interf aces of various groups.
The independent calculation effort covers the work done within various groups.
The field verification v'1.1 e.isure the plant is con-structed to the same contaguration for which it was qualified.
To a certain ex:ent these efforts are interrelated.
An independere calculation may involve the work of multiple croups, tir example.
An important aspect of the overall program is that it vill be conducted on a sampling basis.
y The sampling philosophy or sampling plan is technically described in inspection theory as "Hultiple Sampling"*.
In a general way when applied to inspection of arbitrary lots of some product, multiple sampling is described as follows.
A certain sample of the general population is chosen and inspected.
If there are no rejects or the rejects are fewer than a predetermined acceptance criteria, the lot is said to be acceptable.
If rejects exceed the acceptance criteria then a second sample is chosen and inspected.
The acceptance criteria for the decond sample is more stringent such that the original criteria is met for the combined first and second sample.
If the second sample is unsatis f actory a third sa=ple is chosen, and so on.
Sine-the product at hand consista of seismic qualifica-tion of complax equipment, the formal procedure described above requires modification and interpretation.
Nevertheless, the general philosophy behind the formal procedure can be followed.
To illustrate what is envisioned, suppose the seismic qualification of ten vertical cylindrical tanks containing fluid is under study.
As a sample, 2 tanks are requalified independently and one fails to qualify, because th,e center of gravity was chosen too low.
The first nonqualification would be reported, and then a second sample of two votild be selected at random and independently requalified.
Suppone the result vere the sar.e. and for the same reason.
At this stage it would be reasonable to stop taking samples and instead go j
back and check all calenistions for center of gravity location.
In other words, the formal sampling procedure will be incer-
]
preted and modified by the engineering f acts within the frame-work of the multiple sampling plan.
i
- putde_ for Samp1tna inspection Quality and Reliability As-burance Handbook H53 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. Washington, D.C., June 30, 1965.
p.,
8 4.0 REVIEW OF SEISHIC DESIGN CHAIN FOR APPLICABILITY In the initial draft of the program three applicability reviews were envisioned.
These were:
The review of design information based on synnetry Review of the seismic design chain Review of Design Interfaces in the effort devoted to completion of the Interim Report, described in Paragraph 7.0, it was learned by experience gained in review of the URS/Blume interface that chase scept, could be combined into a single phase, as has now been done.
The review work on the, seismic design chain encompasses the above three considerations.
4.1 The Seismic Design Chain The term seismic design chain designates the separate but linked process of providing seismic qualification for a nuclear plant, tach step in the process is usually linked via flow of information to another step.
For example, building qualification produces floor spectra which in turn are used as 1
input to piping analysis.
Piping analysis in turn provides piping support ioads which in turn are used for qualification of piping supports.
Figure 1 illustrates a portion of a hype-othetical seismic design chain.
The first step in this review will be to define the actual seismic design chain applicable to the Diablo Canyon Plant.
The entire flow of seismic design information for the Hoegri re-qualification w1H be diagransned.
This diagram will inustrate all interfaces, describe the info-passing between inter-faces, and list responsible or-for the seismic design work at each step of th the entire chain
9 has bsen diagrammed, it will be straight forwstd to organize a sampling review procedure for applicability of design inform-arion across each interface.
4.2 Sampling Procedure Each link in the seismic chain will represent the flow of a distinct type of design information from one organization to another.
An organization may Se a separate company or a sub-division of a ccmpany.
The test for determination of an organ-ization is whether the design information of interest is us.d or modified therein.
For this task the sample will consist of 10% of the links in the seismic design chain.
That is, on the diagraened flow l
chart, the setsnic design inforestion passing between 10% of the pairs of organi;ations forming an interface will be review-ed.
This 101 sample vill not include any interface that was
{
completely reviewed in the interim report.
The 10 sample will i
be chosen on a modified random basis, that is consideration will be given to the importance of the interface. Otherwise the t.aeple will be random.
l l
4.3 Review 1
The information passing the interface vill be reviewed to ensure it is the applicable information for that interface, for example. if the interface were PCandt to k'estinghousa, and the interface information was Hydrogen Recombiner seismic requirements in the form of floor response spectra, the spectra would be reviewed as to whether they were the correct final spectra rather than a preliminary issue, and whether they were the correct spectra for that location in the building.
If the interf ace information consists of drawings, the revision number and other applicability requiracents will be reviewed. The seismic chain encompasses several subcontractors.
Specific subcontractor interf aces will be reviewed from the list of subcontractors given in Attachment 1.
1
c_-
s..
10 5.0 INDEPENDENT REQUALIFICATION In this phase of the program the seismic qualification of equipment will be performed on a completely independent basis.
In each case, the starting point will be the engineering draw-ings (which have been checked for applicability).
All data required for the qualification will be obtained or calculated inderindently to guard against ingrained errors in common sources of data.
The requalification of buildings represents a special case, as described below.
3 5.1 Building Requalification one of the five buildings will be chosen for reverification.
Present plans are to. conduct a reverification study on the auxiliary building.
Beginning with the drawings of the building, the dynamic model will be reviewed.
If it is found that the model is a reasonable representation of the building, the configuration of the model will be accept'ed.
Next, all input to the model vill be calculated independently, including masses, stiffness, etc.
The complete model properties will be compared that were used for the Hosgri building qualification.
The criteria for acceptance will be based upon the dynamic properties of the building in comparison with the ground motion.
If the first mode natural frequency of the building lies on the l
peak of the ground response spectra, 10 variation of properties will be accepted.
If the first mode natural frequency is not on a peak, then a 15: variation in properties will be accepted.
If model properties are not acceptable, then the model will be re analysed to detsreine the ef fect of variation of properties.
Reverification of the building is an important step because most of the models were developed nearly 10 years ago.
3
.~
-,___m
11 5.?
Piping Requalification For analysis purposes, the piping is divided into piping "problema".
A piping problem is a section of piping that is convanient to model for computer analysis.
In the Diablo Canyon Unic 1 plant, there are approximately 250
]
Seismic Category I piping problems.
Of these roughly 5% are in Wescinghouse scope (excluding the RCS).
For reverification, a first sample of 10 problems will be established,1 of which is in Westinghouse scope.
Beginning with the drawings, new models will be developed in a complacely independent manner.
The models will be analysed with a differ-ent computer program so that a comp 1ste verification will be accomplished.
Criteria for acceptability will be pipe stress, support loads, and nostle loads.
A variation of 15% will be accepted so long as.the Hosgri stress criteria are also satis-fled.
If an unacceptable result is found, a report will be made and a second sample of 10 will be re analysed as discussed under program logic.
There is a certain amount of small bore piping in ths plant that is required for cold safe shutdown.
The small bore piping is not computer analysed, but designed by a preset criteria for spacing of supports.
This piping will be verified to have been designed correctly according to the design criteria.
It is not possible to divide the piping into problems, so in-stead a sample size of 200' of small bore piping will be chosen.
5.3 Pipe Supports A sample size of 20 pipe supports will be chosen for re-verification.
These supports will be chosen from the group of i
supports that support the pipe of the 10 piping problems.
In this way the piping loads can be independently verified.
4
~
12 e
The stress in the pipe support will be computed in an independent manner and compared to the across computed in the Hosgri qualification.
A variation in computed stress of 15%
will be the acceptance criteria.
5.4 Conduit Supports A sample size of 20 conduit supports will be chosen for reverification.
These supports will be a random sampling of trapeze or cantilever type designs.
Supports that clamp the conduit to the wall will not be chosen.
Actual conduit sizes and cable loading will be determined, thus verifying the sup-port loading.
Stresses will be calculated using the quasi-static method employed during the Hosgri verification.
If the reverification philosophy were followed, a second sample would be taken, reverified, etc.
However, in this case if the calculated stresses vary by more than 151, a dif ferent procedure will be followed since the quasi-static method of calculation is believed to be excessively conservative, and the basic interest of this program is to detarmine if the equipment is safe.
If a sariation in stress of more than 151 is found then a dynamic model will be develo' ped of a portion of the conduit support system containir.g the suspect supports.
A dynamic analysis will be perforzed that considers the dynamic response of the conduit and conduit support system.
Then if unaccept-able stresses are found a report will be made and a second sample taken.
5.5 Equipment A sampling of equipment will be independently verified as follows:
h
13 2 itema of major equipment such as fan coolers 2 tanks 2 heat exchangera 2 pumps 6 valves These items will be requalified to the Hosari accepiance criteria.
If any do not meet the criteria, a report will be made and another sample chosen.
The valves will be chosen from those tha: form a part of the piping sample.
In this way the loads acting on the valves will be independently derived.
5.6 Independent Requalification Summary An independent requalification program has been added to the reverification study in order to be able to detect any errors that may have developed within a single qualification.
This approach is the me at efficient method of detecting this type of error.
It is more dependable than simply checking the work of others.
The independent qualification will be done or a multiple sampling basis as discussed previously.
The equipment to be independently qualified and the sample size are given in Table 1.
I
gg 6.0 FIELD VERIFICATI0!i In order to ensure that the qualified equipment is built l
and installed in the manner for which it was qualified an independent verification will be'made.
Field verification is straightforward with the exception of the building.
The place-ment of rebar and the type of connections e.g. cannot be verified.
Field verification of the building will be limited l
to overall configuration revieu and a check to verify modifica-tions have not been made that do not show up on the drawing.
9 l
A i
I i
I J
1 1
1 i
J i
--._._____.,.___Y.._...
15 7.0 INTERIH REPORT ON THE PGands - URS/BLUME INTERFACE At the meeting held between PGandE and the NRC on October 9, 1981 in which the containment annulus diagram error was explained, the original version of this reverification program was presented also.
At that meeting, the NRC asked that the PGandt - URS/Blume interface be reviewed on a prior-icy basis and a preliminary report be submitted.
This task j
forma the fourth major part of the overall reverification plan
]
and is described herein.
The report is presently in preparation, j
7.1 Objective and Scope I
The objective of this preliminary part of the verifica-
]
tion program is to. examine Seismic Design and Qualification information of three categories:
That transmitted from PGandE to URS/Blume That transmitted from URS/Blume to PGandt i
I That received from URS/Blume by PGandt and subsequently distributed, by PCandt, to those qualifying equipment.
l The requirement is to perform an engineering review of
]
this information in a selective manner, as described below. It will be tsviewed to establish that correct building and equip-j ment configurations were transmitted for analysis, that analysis was performed using 6pplicable drawings with the correct
)
revision, etc.
l Design spectra, building loads and other output of URS/
l Blume as transmitted by URS/Blume and received by PCandt are j
scheduled for examination with the objective of checking to see that URS/Blume. generated information was properly applied.
I
- --.- J -
16 The scope of this effort is limited to the review of the I
Design Interf acg of PGandt with UkS/Blume.
The buildings and equipment to be reviewed in this effort are chose required for safe cold shutdown, and were requalified in the Hosgri reanalysis.
The interf ace is defined broadly to inciv 1e the use of URS/Blume-generated information in the application to eqaipment qualifica-
- tion, i
j 7.2 Ceneral Approach The seismic design interfaces to be reviewed are shown in Figure 2.
The objective is review design information as illustrated.
The type of information to be reviewed is Table A and cognizant responsibilities are listed in Table 3 i
It is expected that essentially all of the information between interfaces,1 and II will be possible to be reviewed for applicability.
However, only samples of the information passing interf ace III will be able to be covered in this pre-Itminary report.
l The major portion of *he seismic design chain encoepassing I
design information af fected by URS/Blume vill be reviewed for applicability which will include the effect of opposite hand I
design.
One of the major benefits of this preliminary review is 1
{
that it is expected to provide beneficial experience and gui.
j dance in the conduct of the overall verification program.
j
]
Indeed, the experience gained in the preliminary study has al.
ready significantly changed the destRn, organisation, and content of the initial conception of the reverification pro.
- gram, i
I 4
g..,
1y l
I
8.0 CONCLUSION
The reverification program presented in this repore is designed to detece errors in the seismic qualification process that arise in the genetation of data, in the transmission of data, or in the use of data.
A quantitative sampling approach vill be followed which is designed to expand the scope of the program upon detection of an error.
The entire seismic de-sign process or chain of design is covered.
l A final report will be prepared which will document all incorrect applications and errors.
The NRC will be notified i
upon discovery of significant errors, i
l l
l 1
i l
l r
1 l
l l
I l
0 O
e, e
TA3LE OF ITEMS To BE INDEPENDENTLY REQUALIFIED ITEM SAMPLE $1ZE BUILDINGS 1
PIPING PROBLEMS 10 SMALL BORE PIPINC 200 feet PIPE SUPPORTS 20 CONDUlf SUPPORTS 20 HEAVY EQUIPMENT 2
TANXS 2
HEAT EXCHANGERS 2
PUMP 3 2
VALVES 6
ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT (TSST RW19#)40 HVAC 4
TABLE 1
~: r l
l Interface 1 Interface II Interface III Building Drawings Floor Response Spectra Envelope Floor Spectra for all locations Equipment Heights throughout plant Static g loads anJ C. C.
~
Building loads Equipment Specifications Documentation of Verbal Discussion Lynamic Analysis Test Specifications Reports for all
~
Definitioen of Buildings Furchase Orders Cround Motion
~
~
INFORMATION CATE";ORIES OF INIc.RFACE TABLE 2
INTAKE CONTAIMMDtI AUX 1LIARY IURBINE FIEG CRANES sUILDING BUILDI93C BUILDING BUILDING EAECTED TANKS 1
FC**dE-
> DEI.ING p_3 URS/Blume prNAMIC URS/stume URS/Blume URS/slume URS/Blume uLYSIS URS/B - 4 8
URS/slume URS/slume URS/Blume
~3
,'EI URS/slume PCsndE PCandE URS/Blume URSf;iume
[
gg,3 I
- Uestinghouse f
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 SEISNIC ANALYSIS AND QUALIFICATION OF BUILDINGS - COGNIZANT RESPONSIBILITIES I
~
TABLE 3 e
r
~
-. ~
_, _ _ = _
m ia m---
mt m.L 4hh-A A.
m.--
-A--
_ - - _.wa4 wa
-au__.
m
-E
&h
-.4--
A-4s__
i A_
A.
m9>-p A
+ -
,- - ti y '
I
/
D nLDe% M :
M 1
l senr u nst. naar.
\\
C3o4LfN N
tme amm.wn GuswRL
, pin.as,es e p,
{
Lh10UT,hnG,KC.
8"E "
- detomaQtwnspl.
staDesG ANat s
"*8"
- marra w.t w.
1 w
- CoedestrEC CowrApsearstr i
StD4 uanons rtoceses 3
TIMSeedE
-p
- S M h/LYS$
ArrudWat tws
)
"NY h
N pgp PIPING l
stTME.STCucTurf
+
ANALYSIS
~ ~~
HvAc RAEL map @L>eG
+
OTHeuts
+
l J(C t
w 1
H535 1
r 1r 075EC fiQusPMis47 I
-FWE SfCESSES
- Plff Pt5fucaterf yg
-setztg m
%M
- - n u.c frmos
-BuRDetloses i
etc.
.%t3MIC 1(
LOUTS l
FIGucE 1.1110STCATI(>J CF A PORTION Of'.A SEl5MIC PE5164 nocE55
3,
INDIRECT INTERFACES
/%
sg ' /',
,/
N L.
'm
~
~T f
s e
y 1
I I
\\
I
\\
j
\\
j b,
/\\
j~._/
y~ f
~
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
~
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
/
\\
\\
/
\\
/
/
rEtonact
\\
rEEn uct i
/
g rr.Ensact
\\
i
/
N >c V
kd V
h
\\
ffh YY/]
PCandE/
hb EQUIPMElff/
l URS/Blume E
Yb
/I
/f/ll l
DESIGN DESIGN DESIGN INFO INFO INFO I
II III FIGURE 2:
SEISMIC QUALIFICATION 1LNTERFACES u
-v
-v--
r
-w
-=w------e-+
---w-m
+ - -
-. ~-
{*
i ATTACHMENT 1 I
LIST OF SUS.CONTAAC10t$
L H. Solton Seed. Inc.
y l
Wyle Laboratories j
UA$. John Slume I
Dr. Alchard Jatas 1
Appifed Nucleonics, Inc.
(0$ Nvc1 ear i
Westinghouse Electric Company Earthquake Engineering l
1 l
tarth Selences 1
Harding Lewson l
r f
,i
+
1 I
l 1
I i
t i
l I
l l
l 0001A l
t
+
1
)
J 4
e
=
0!$TP.48tJT!0N 0F B0ARD NOTIFICATION Potential Deficiency in the 5eisste Analysis of Certain Piping Systems (Report on Seismic ReverificationProgram)
ACR$ Members Diablo Canyott
- Atoalc Safety'and Licensing Mr. Myer Bender Appeal Board Dr. Max W. Carbon
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Board Panel Mr. Harold Etherington
' Docketing and Service Section Dr. William Kerr Dr. Harcid W. Lewis Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Dr. J. Carson Mark Richard E. Blankenburg Mr. William M. Mathis Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Dade W. Moeller
'He rbe rt H. B rown Esq.
Dr. David 0trent Dr. John H. Buck Dr. Milton 5. Plesset Philip A. Crane Jr., Esq.
Mr. Jerentah J. Ray Mr. Frederick Eissler Dr. Paul G. Shewson
- 0 avid 5. Fleischaker, Esq.
Dr. Chester P. Siess Mr1. Raye Fleatng Mr. Davis A. Ward Arthur C. Gehr. (sq.
Bryon 5. Georgtou mart Gottlieb Mr. Richard 8. Hubbard Dr. W. Reed ' Johnson Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Dr. Jerry Kline
'Mr. John Marrs Thones 5. Moore
' Bruce Norton. Esq.
John R. Phillips. Esq.
Mr. Jams 0. Schuyler Mr. Gordon $11ver Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Paul C. Valentine Esq.
Harry M. Willis John F. Wolf Esq.
'Joel P.synolds, Esq.
e (Vith enclorure.
e
-