NG-98-0068, Forwards Response to 971118 RAI Re Resolution of USI A-46 at DAEC

Forwards Response to 971118 RAI Re Resolution of USI A-46 at DAEC

ML20199B532
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	01/16/1998
From:	Franz J IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned), NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
REF-GTECI-A-46, REF-GTECI-SC, TASK-A-46, TASK-OR NG-98-0068, NG-98-68, NUDOCS 9801280309
Download: ML20199B532 (24)

Text

.

IES Utihtcs Inc o ,

200 First Street SE

,g ,

PQ boa 351 Cedar Rapicts, IA $240G 0351 Telephone 319 398 8162 Fax 319 398 8192 IJTlLITIES ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Uce Prsectent, Nuclear January 16,1998 NG 98-0068 Olrice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-37 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No: 50-331 Op. License No: DPR-49 Response to Revised Request for Additional Information for Resolution of USI A-46

References:

1) Letter, J. Franz (IES) to W. Russell (NRC), dated November 15,1995, NG-95-3072, Summary Report for Resolution of USI A-46

2) Letter, G. Kelly (NRC) to L. Liu (lES), dated November 18,1997, Revised Request for Additional Information for Resolution of USI A-46 File A-18, A-10lb in Reference 1, IES Utilities submitted the results of the Unresolved Safety issue (USI) A-46 evaluation for the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC). The Staff j has reviewed that evaluation and requested additional information (Reference 2). /

)

We have reviewed the Staft's questions and provided our respenses in the nttached document.

2 it%$jl%@E@

9901280309 99011h PDR ADOCK 05000331 P PDR An IES In tustnes Cornpany

January 16,1998 NG-98-0068 Page 2 Should you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact this office.

This letter is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

IES UT .ITIES INC By IW  %

/ john'F. Franz '

Vice President, Nuclear >

State ofIowa (County) of Linn Signed and swom to before me on this /6 dayof (o.u e ,1998,

( 4 by O d4%e 0

(

q;i DONNA M. DIRKlCHT l q k, #

L, _j hWary Fublic in and for the State ofIowa 5lPil99 Comflissiod Expires Attachment ec: C. Rushworth ,

L. Root (w/o)

D. Wilson (w/o)

G. Kelly (NRC-NRR)

P. Ray (NRC-NRR)

A. B. Beach (Region Ill)

NRC Resident Office Docu

L Attachment to .

NG 98-0068 Page 1 of 22 IES Utilities Response to NRC Request for Additional Information (RAI)-

on Resolution of USl A-46 at the Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC)

NRC Reauest_Lt On pages 46 and 47 of Addendum 7 of Reference 1 [NG-96-1817, letter from J. Franz (IES) to NRC," Response to NRC Request for Additional Information - Resolution of USI A-46," dated August 30,1996] you have provided a 'Iable showing the elevations (in safety-related structures) where the in structure response spectra (IRS) exceeds the corresponding (at the same damping value) reference spectra (1.5 times the bounding spectrum). Referring to your response to Question 6 in Reference 2 [NG-97-l l49, letter from J. Franz (IES) to NRC, " Response to NRC Request for Additional Information - Resolution of USI A-46," dated luly 2; 1997] we believe

'5 at you have evaluated the equipment and their anchorages using Ge IRS who the equipment eluencies are less than 8 liz.

(a) For the equipment (within 40 feet above the effective grade) with fundamental frequencies above 8 IIz, provide the method (s) used for their evaluation where the IRSs exceed the corresponding reference spectra at frequencies above 8 Hz.

(b)If Method A i.. Table 4-1 cf the [ Generic Implementation Procedure] GlP-2 was used, provide your techri caljustification for not following the GlP limitation on 'he use of Method A in Section 4.2.3 when the ground spectrum times 1.5 is less than the IRSs for elevations within 40 feet above the grade level.

IES Utilities Response:

(a) Of the 620 Safe Shutdown Equipment List (SSEL) items walked down and evaluated during ,

the A-46 review,336 items were evaluated for capacity versus demand using Method A of Table 4-1 of GIP 2. As noted in the RAI response dated July 2,1997, IRS were always used for quantitative evaluations (such as anchorage evaluations) regardless of which method, A or B,

. was used for the equipment capacity versus demand evaluation.

Of the 336 items,237 are located at elevations at which the IRS are enveloped by the corresponding reference spectra (1.5 times the bounding spectrum),56 are located at elevations where the IRS exceed the reference spectra, but not above 8 Hz, and 43 items are located where

the IRS exceed the reference spectra above 81;Iz. These items are listed by building and

. elevation in Table 1. The frequency range where the IRS exceeds the reference spectrum is shown in the table along with comments regarding the lowest natural frequency of the equipment. It can be seen that the frequency of the equipment is above the frequency range where the IRS exceed the reference spectra; thus, either method, A or B, could have been used for the capacity versus demand comparison.

Table 1 .

Equipment List

~'

_ SSEL 8 8512A Equip. 8 (. Equip. U ^ o DO7712A 4.VACf50PPLY FAN 1VSF50 RETURN AIR INLET DAMPER side.

IS EW.

766 Range C mments 8-25 Hz Rigit9y mounted in structure, f. in rigN1 range 85128 DO77128 HVACISUPPLY FAN TVSF51 RETURN AIR INLET DAMPER IS 766 8507 1VSF50 HVACSNTAKE STRUPTURE VENT FAN A IS 767 8508 1VSF51 HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE VENT FAN B IS 767 _

8694 1C156 SUPPLY FAN 1V-SF-50 CONTROL PANEL IS 767 Smas wsAnounted penet, f, in rigid range 8695 1C157 SUPPLY FAN 1V-SF-51 CONTROL PANEL IS 767 8501 DO7709A HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE VENT FAN A INTAKE DAMPER IS 770 8-25 Hz ReguSy rM,unted in structure, f. In rigid range 8502 DO7710A HVACnNTAKE STRUCTURE VENT FAN A INTAKE DAMPER IS 770~ ~

8503 DON 11A ~ HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE VENT FAN A INTAKE DAMPER IS tiO ~

8504 DO77098 HVACal(TAKE STRUCTURE VENT FAN B NTAKE DAMPER IS 770 8505 DO7710B HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE VENT FAN B INTAKE DAMPER IS 770 ,

8506 DO7711B HVAC/NTAKE STRUCVJRE VENT FAN B INTAKE DAMPER IS 770 8509 DO7713A HVACnNTAKE STRUCTURE PENTHOUSE EXHAUST DAMPER IS 778 8-25 Hz RigkSy mounted in structure, f, in rigid range 8510 DO7716A HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE PENTHOUSE EXHAUST DAMPER IS 778 85i1 DO7713B HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE PENTHOUSE EXHAUST DAMPER IS 778 8512 DO77i68 HVACANTAKE STRUCTURE PENTHOUSE EXHAUST DAMPER IS 778 8003 CV2000 ESWA.OOP A DIESEL COOLER ISOLATION VALVE TB 757 3-9 Hz Pipe rtgitNy supported, t ;via < GF lemd 8004 CV2081 ESW! LOOP B DIESEL COOLER ISOLATION VALVE TB 757 8302 1PO448 DGS/ DIESEL Ott TRANSFER PUMP TB 757 Capacdy based on existing qualdication report 8303 TPO44A DGS/ DIESEL OIL TRANSFER PUMP TB 757 8306 LIS3210 DGS/ DIESEL OIL DAY TANK LEVEL SWITCH TB 757 SmaE. rigidly mounted, f, in rigid range

~8307~ LIS32 8 DGSIDIESEL OIL DAY TANK LEVd SWITCH TB 757  ;

8308 LIS3209 DGS/ DIESEL Oil CAY TANK LOW-LOW LEVEL ALARM TB 757 LIS3207 DGS/ DIESEL OIL DAY TANK LOW-LOW LEVEL ALARM _ _ TB 757 -

8309 _

• 8551 1VSF020 HVAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT FAN TB 757 PkjicSy mounted in structure, f. In rigid range ,

8552 1VSF021 HVACIEMER DIESEL ROOM VENT FAN TB 75 '

8553 DO7002A1 HVAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT EXHAUST DAMPER TB  ?? ' *

• 8554 DO7002B1 HVAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT EXHAUST DAMPER TB 757 _

8555 DO7002A2 HVAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT EXHAUST DAMPER TB 757 ^

8556 DO7002B2 TB 757

[h>k HVAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT EXHAUST DAMPER 8557 DO7002A3 HVAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT EXHAUST DAMPER TB 757 8558 DO700283 FvAC/EMER DOESEL ROOM VENT EXHAUST DAMPER TB 757 a ,o ::r 8667 1C093 480VACIS8DG 1G-31 CONTROL PANEL TB 757 f, = 9.4 Hz bened on exisung eye , port o 8669 1C151 HvAC/EMER DIESEL ROOM VENT CONTROL CABINET TB 757

• Smas wa5-mounted penei, f,, in rigid raPge C {8 ,

• * 'd " O 8670 1C152 HVACIEMER DIESEL ROOM VENT CONTROL CABLET TB 757

e t

b l

. Tal,ie 1 ~

Equipment List ssEL # Equip. 8 Equip. P _ - f' _. Olds. Bew. ftange e-8548A DO7001A1 WACNENTILATION FAN IV-SF-20 RETURN AIR DAAFER TB 757 3-9 Hz % mounted h stuchure, f,in Ngid range 85488 DO700181 WACNENTILATION FAN IV-8F-21 RETURN AIR DAMPER TB 757 *

• 8548C DO7001A2 WACWENTRATION FAN TV-8F-20 RETURN AIR DAAFER TB 757 *

• 8548D D0700182 WACNENTRATION FAN 1V-8F-21 RETURN AIR DAMPER TB 757 *

• 8541- DO7000A1 WAcmeER DESEL ROOM VENTINLET DAMPER TB ! 780 3-33 Hz f4gkSy mounted h structure, f. h ngld ran08 I er:eedence minrnal above 10 Hz.

8542- DO7000B1 WAcesER DESEL ROOM VENT INLET DAMPER TB 780 *

• 8545 DO7000A2 WACEMER DIESEL ROOM VENT INLET DAMPER TB 780 * -

8548 00700082 HVAC64ER DIESEL ROOM WNT INLET DAMPER TB 780 *

• l

[

l

?

s 2 >~

55 O k Lk(

Ega id - s '

q

Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 4 of 22 (b) The technicaljustification for using Method A is contained in Reference 5 of GIP-2 ("Use of Seismic Experience Data to Show Ruggedness of Equipment in Nuclear Power Plants," Senior Seismic Review and Advisory Panel (SSRAP), Revision 4.0, February 28,1991). From pages 101 and 102 of the SSRAP report:

"Often floor spectra for nuclear power plants are very conservatively computed, in such enses, an amplification greater than 1.5 may be found even at elevations below 40 feet above grade, llowever, when more median-centered analyses are performed that use reasonable damping levels for the structure and account for embedment and wave-scattering effects, these high amplifications are not observed with most earthquake ground motion records. The Seismic Safety Margin Research Program (SSMRP)(References 31 and 32)' has demonstrated the large conservatism which exists in traditionally computed floor spectra versus median floor spectra. Furthermore, floor spectra measured less than 40 feet above grade on moderately stiff portions of the Pleasant Valley " ump Station, the llumbolt Bay Nuclear Power Plant (Reference 33) and the Fukushima Naclear Power Plant do not show amplifications over ground spectra of more than 1.5 for frequencies above about 6 liz. In fact, on floors corresponding to near grade level, the floor spectra are less than or about equal to the ground spectra at frequencies above about 6 Hz. Thus, it is SSRAP's judgment that amplifications greater than a factor of 1.5 are unlikely in stiff structures at elevations less than 40 feet above grade, except possibly at the fundamental frequency of the building where higher amplifications might occur when such a frequency is less than about 6 Ilz Thus, for equipment with fundamental frequencies greater tnan about 8 IIz in their as-anchored condition, it was judged that floor spectral amplifications within 40 feet of grade would be less than 1.5 when reasonably computed using more median-centered approaches."

Limitations on the use of Method A are given in GIP-2, Section 4.2.3.

• Tir equipment should be mounted in the nuclear plant at an elevation below about 40 feet above the effective grade.

. The equipment, including its supports, should have a fundamental natural frequency gwater than about 8 Ilz.

• Seismic Capability Engineers should be alert for unusual, plant-specific situations which could cause the amplification factor to be greater than that of a typical structure. The 1.5 amplification factor is only applicable to reinforced concrete frame and shear wall structures and to heavily-braced steel framed structures.

The above limitations ensure that the amplification factor between the free-field response spectra and the IRS will not be more than about 1.5. There is no restriction that the ground spectrur.

times 1.5 be less than the plant licensing basis IRS for elevations within 40 feet above the grade level.

L ' NRC contractor LLNL presents the results of this work in NUREG/CR-1489 in which IRS are estimated to have factors of conservatism ranging from 1.5 to 8.

4 Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 5 of 22 At the time of the DAEC Unresolved Safety issue (USI) A-46 review, the structures containing SSEL equipment a:.d the analysis methodologies used to compute the licensing basis IRS were reviewed (NG 92-3961, letter from J. Franz (lES) to T. Murley (NRC), dated September 21, 1992). The Seismic Capability Engineers determined that the stmetures were " typical," as defined in the GIP, and thus met the requirements for the 1.5 amplification factor. The analysis methodologies used to compute the licensing basis IRS aic typical of the conservative analyses discussed in the SSRAP report, which could show unrealistic amplification of over 1.5 even at l elevations below 40 feet above grade level, in 1994, IES performed a median-centered seismic analysis of the turbine building in support of a request for a Technical Specification (TS) amendment which deleted the TS requirements for the main steam isolation valve leakage control system (NG-94-2629, letter from J. Franz (lES) to W. Russell (NRC), dated August 15,1994). A description of the analysis was provided to the ,

NRC by letter dated December 21,1994 (NG-94-4632, letter from J. Franz (lES) to W. Russell )

(NRC)). The seismic reanalysis of the turbine building and generation of new IRS were  !

performed in order to provide a more realistic estimate of seismic response of the structure. The reanalysis employed current state-of-the-art methods which were not available at the time the original seismic analyses were performed. The methods used in the reanalysis were in j accordance with the methodology described in GIP-2 for median-centered IRS. The seismic l model and the soil properties used in the reanalysis were based on the original seismic analyses.

Only the analytic methods used to account for soil-structure interaction were changed.

The seismic input motion used in the reanalysis was the 84th percentile non exceedence NUREG/CR 0098 ground response spectrum for soil sites at 5% damping. The seismic input motion was applied at the foundation of the structure. The resultant IRS curves, provided to the NRC in the December 21,1994 letter, clearly show that the original analyses for the turbine building were overly conservative. For building floor elevations within 40 feet above effective grade (i.e., up to Elevation 780) the maximum peak spectral acceleration for 5% equipment damping was 0.39g. The corresponding peak spectral acceleration of the input seismic motion was 0.325g. Thus, the maximum amplification of the IRS ever the ground response spectrum was 1.2. This supports thejudgments of the Seismic Capability Engineers that Method A was justified .

Attachment to NG-98 0068 Page 6 of 22 NRC Reauest 2:

In evaluating the raceway supports, a recent audit of a GIP-2 plant indicated that some licensees -

may be misusing the " ductile support" definition of Figure 8-7 of GIP -2 to avoid the check for lateral seismic loads. In this context, pleace provide the following information:

(a) the number of supports (percentage of the total number of supports evaluated in the limited analytical review) considered as ductile, (b) the specific criteria used in determining that the supports are ductile, and (c) the extent to which ...: supports (that do not meet the vertical capacity check) and their anchorages will deform under the two horizontal components of the design basis earthquake.

IES R ,ponse:

(a) Filleen supports were included in the analytical review. Six of these were considered as ductile The typical raceway support configurations at DAEC are either braced cantilever bracket, which were considered potentially non-ductile, or wall mounted, which do not require the vertical capacity or ductility checks.

(b) Table 2 gives a summary of the supports in the analytical review, and for those considered as ductile provides the specific criteria used in the determination. Sketches of the supports are also provided for reference.

(c) There were no supports which did not meet the vertical capacity check.

Table 2 Supports Evaluated in Limited Analytcal Review .

Vertcal Lateral -

Judged Capacity Load Support Desenption Ductile? Check Check? Criterta for Considenng Support Ductile BCRS-1 Braced Cantdever Bracket No Passed Yes BCR5-2 Floor to Ceiling Support Yes Passed Yes Judged ductile, but lateral load check pe< formed anyway.

BCR6-1 Rod Hanger Trapeze - No Brace Yes Passed No GIP-2 Section 8.3.3 classifies rod hanger trapeze supports as ductile.

BCR6-2 Wall Mounted N.A. NA NA Only dead load check required for wall mounted supports BCR7-1 Braced Cantilever Bracket No Passed Yes BCR10-1 Strut Trapeze with Flat Bar Diagonal Yes Passed No Per GIP-2 Section 8 3.3 if a brace buckles before primary support anchor capacity is reached, the support may be considered ductile.

SCEs determined brace has very low buckling strength. Only supports nonessential conduit. Not a typical configuration.

BCR11-1 Rod Hung Trapeze with Strut to Wall Yes Passed No Brace is not diagonal and will not increase loads on pnmary anchorage under horizontal mobon. Strut attachment to wall is seen to hav3 capacity much larger than lateral load.

BCR11-2 Strut Trapeze with Intemal Brace No Passed Yes BCR13-1 Wall Mounted NA NA NA Only dead load check required for wall mounted supports BCR14-1 Wall Mounted NA NA NA Only dead load check required for wall mounted supports BCR14-2 Cantilever Bracket with Base Plate No Passed Yes BCR18-1 Wall Mounted N.A. NA NA Only dead load check required for wall mounted supports.

BCR27-1 Strut Trapeze with Intemal Bracing Yes Passed Yes Judged ductile, but lateral load check pab...ed anyway.

BCR30-1 Braced Cantilever Bracket No Passed Yes BCR30-2 Braced Cantilever Bracket Yes Passed No Support suspended from su)gle connection to overhead beam.

Capacity of support govemed by bending of clips at connection to beam. This is a ductile cc6rcCuc6. Lateral rnovement restricted by adjacent braced supports. Not a typical configuration.

cZk d$ O M a :c :s M 00 3

%bO N 50 s

Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 8 of 22 i

. ts M As.

e Y 4,y,'+e4*os<

tr so st ^!

i- Mis t gy av m mW i

ri=*

, , 7 pel  ?

' ~

n '. t. '

- ++-

+4-s 8 ' , -

Ir. .sio -l .

n, i i ,, .

I6 l s_

L_

Figure 4-1: Bounding Case BCRS-1

Attachment to NG 98-0068 Page 9 of 22

. e' ,

SMt y /

• V g ~ 7Yr.4.c e 84,

%t, ,au

+ .a, n.

8 + *= 6% 6.)

v'qr .

81e P R.4

~ -(."$ t r'- i ,

!!**l fy' A

W*e, D. l l f I

4.uf ,

M sti-. rt.Au

~

' grTs"r \

,./8- *y, 'l-- ,

l't

>~

s,

. ,9u

. 14 (Tyr)

Figure 4-2: Bounding Case BCR5-2

.--a. . . _

Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 10 of 22

- -s .

. .<*1 n' l l...

mi. .

-- -w

J_

• g% =u -

Egt A

,y*

3% s W s*d i

(D Q R..i--

M

$$$..#'w. cne)

Figure 4-3: Bounding Case. 7t ,

Anachment to ,

NG 98-0068 Page 11 of 22 6

a0

,N ,

. %t s-- > C l

. .r 1 l'

d

. . p

"~'

$ . .e

• CI _+..

l b

-n ...

E* p , wet

, s, y Ptn*

crus - o G) .

e e s.ud s

• si.e.* , * .y. ,

av,

/

is it

.+

A.A Figure 4-4: Bounding Case BCR6-2

+

. Attachment to NG 98-0068 rNge 12 of 22 l

1 l

l l

1 a- ,

,- . . i I

n i 1

V % * * *t']lW '"

m

.i Nu ' ~

n.

-.t

s. ss w3.

• b M r-*

• i

' Z'. a f-y

=

1 _,. 1 .F L M

I w%:.t i m* s*

p* -

i I . .

4 i t ,

i.

I d

i s. .

-l

"*M i i .'

l .-eso.i er.i Figure 4-5: Bounding Case BCR7-1

1 Attachment to NG 98-0068 Page 13 of 22 J

M  !

A. m I ^ .

6  :

79. f- g -

,,e (rnus .

, rnd ero i >. 4 6 N' s 1

. s' '

f f

- Figure 4-6: Bounding Casa BCR10-1

, Attachment to

. NG-98-006S Page 14 of 22 - ,

6 4

abL 5h mgA 4.J.'At i g/ pgb s

s. i'* ) 7 %** " '" p.*.8 $

- 4 4 4*e 3 .

r

y. *e 9 t%. -

to Ih*# ,

, z. . t*4 < g, . ..

a - s*# -

i Figure 4 7: Bounding Case BCR11-1 n ,v...

- _ . _ ~ . . _ . . . . . _. . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ , . _ . . _ .

Attachment to NG 98-0068 t Page 15 of 22 3

6

+

-t 1

L D

. n' .

~

as' . n' ,', . .

- % f tw u 4. e. w m a ,',

% f+ g ^~ * ' ' '

r s 7

.QN' s

.- a ,

a t [Y0 $s' O%% i

,. w . .

l d

. i k, ,. , .

I i l m.I I, (gs s fYmsmo 7.

48' L

1. 'I Figure 4-8: Bounding Case BCR11-2 l - - - - . . . - . ..- -- F M -w- - y . , , ,

4

• Attachment to -

NG-98-0068 Page 16 of 22 4

i 1

)

i l

die i I

- l p -

2

) [# *

== 1. lo w basA*f l O ^#p # saa$yra.bea sd3 l

lnne W nno 5 e sj / ,'l r a "I,' # 4 14 '

I T t, m..t s - .

b Ax es

_%N 8 4 As.va */

k s .<,

a 4 Figure 4-9: Bounding Case BCR13-I

4

, Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 17 of 22 b

.K r n. . . %=4.

lu A N,

%.e, .

7 J 1 1 j n. l fw 1

+ - - -

@sV W-

, ~34 9

na Figure 4-10: Bounding Case BCR14-1

Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 18 of 22 t /_

10 EO V . sit mit 3f NN .%

N IA '

moime i s',

re.v. L w (- .

1. ~

J' A / A.4A J 4-s b-

• wr

1. ~#

I i ,

i i I l ,

i i u.

I  ! .

I I l l l 1 r-- ,

1 i 4.

1 I

/i I y i I I M (nu

%wu n.

l Figure 4-11: Bounding Case BCR14-2

Attachment to NG-98-0068 Page 19 of 22 i

. w 2-1 (

u

(- y ( YF,,W^* W A t,,,,,,,, , fA

, s. s ms a/.

as * '

A* f n.4 b k w

Figure 4-12: Bounding Case BCR18-1 ewa t- w --w e fved' ---d

Attachment te -

NG-98-006S Page 20 of 22 5

1 e

sa' name.

. *H , u n* nas psae

[ e-%"+ satr-easu. sus mem tr.se I nnnnt 11 11 innnt1r n.m' 8f t -

e-%.es insAsse esos

{- _

N 7 C,gga N - P i

e

• ma (casw.

T in l

d '

J a -- mm ,  ::

Plett

• (Tvm - , ,

l 7

{

m. M o

= y,g m 3

., m ,, ,

q

.. ,4 88* 4

• • • • • • 1 -- ressistivm. ,

%rsess a I as+eein

.a r

l E

m

. s' i- . am  %

W5#..

(

I I

i

j. i l

Figure 4-13: Boundmo Case BCR27-1 V  ;

I

> l l

)

. _ . . _ ~ . . __ _ __ ._.. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ __ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

, I

• A*tachment to NG-98-0068 Page 21 of 22 l l

l i

D' jm v t 'e d" ~

~ .-

l N ". p7 n_

i-l i

rs==5 l

l- - /s.'

l l

+; O O(')O ~ v4s% d.

- n..i

.T i

T O

~ ~ t. . . . , s.

L ,, f Figure 4-14: Bounding Oase BCR30-1 l-l.-

Attacilment to

+

NG-98-0068 i Page 22 of 22 4

j N1%

'L bL f 'M

+ . . . m i 'i ense

_ sv' IS' i

l l l . _:

1 I< .

l  :

l-I i

I i 1 l ~ /8 " t t

1 t

Figure 4-15: Bounding Case BCR30-2 l

l

. _