Re:
Well, 1979 to 1992 is thirteen years, so 130,000 frames over that period is conveniently ten thousand frames per year. Divide 10,000 by 52(weeks in the year) and you get about 192. So, very simplistically, we're talking about 192 frames per week.
I have no idea as to whether production might have expanded or contracted over the years by any appreciable factor, or whether it was more or less 'steady state', but it seems to me that if you start out at 100 frames per week, eighteen months later you realise you've been making 128 frames per week, and thirteen years later you realise you've been making 192 frames per week... well.. that is a good business, and it sounds like a feasible scenario.
On the other hand, if you start out with the idea of making 100 frames per day, and eighteen months later you realise you've only made 18 frames per day, and thirteen years later you realise you've been making 27 frames per day... well.. that is prising a small success from the jaws of abject failure, and it doesn't sound feasible to me, but what do I know?
It does look suspiciously like somebody might've mistook 'le jour' for 'la semaine' It'd be a shame to delete the 'hundred per day' reference- It must have come from somewhere. You could instead note that the other production figures make it look possible that it's a week's production rather than a day's. That way someone might get back to you with clarification? But it's your call, of course.