ML19242B163
| ML19242B163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1979 |
| From: | Roe L TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 530, NUDOCS 7908070595 | |
| Download: ML19242B163 (14) | |
Text
- -
TOLEDO
%m EDISCN LOWELL E. RCE vice D. es. cent Eac.ht es Ce$e+oement 8 4 M) 259-5242 Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 5 30 August 2, 1979 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Operating Reactors United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Rtid:
This is in response to your letter dated July 2, 1979 requesting additional information concerning the determination of core parameters during the rod drop test at Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
The requested information is attached.
Ver- t ruly yours,
/ , ,
' y
- _ ~
4 y,,, ( f- %~
LER:SCJ Attachment ,,
7 7 Q ,L)/
. L- #.- -
S5l THE TCLECC ECISCN CCMPANY EC:SCN PLAZA 3CC VAC'SCN A% .E TCLECC.. HC 43E52 A l *%
7 9 08 07 0 f; f5 <*)
Responses to NRC Ouestions on Davis-Besse Ur.it 1 Rod Drop Test Since some of the questions posed are interrelated and redundant in nature, an atte=pt has been made to consolidate the answers. A discussion is presented below in which the contents answer many of the questions, but not in any specific order. For clarity, each of the individual questions is listed following the discussion and the answer is referred back to the discussion unless otherwise specified.
There are two methods used to calculate Linear Heat Rates (LHR) for the dropped rod test. One is by the process computer, the other by hand.
The minimum DSBR is calculated by the computer only. The following will discuss the calculations and uncertainties used in both methods.
I. On Line Computer (OLC) LHR Calculations Maximum linear heat rate = maximum total peak x average LHR Maximum total peak = (1) maximum bundle power (measured) x (2) maximum axial peak in that bundle (measurad) x (3) local pin peaking factor (calculated) v. (4) uncertainties (constant)
(1) Maximum bundle power is calculated in the nuclear package (2) The maximum axial peak is determined by evaluating the axial flux shape polynomial at approximately every two inches up the channel.
(3) The local pin peaking factor is calculated in subroutine LCFIT.
The method of this calculation is discussed at length in the answer to Question 5.
(4) The tota; uncertainties applied to thesc measured and calculated values are as folicws:
1.05 Radial peak uncertainty 1.05 Calculation uncerta nty on pin peak
- 1.016 Densification penalty (spiking factor)*
1.02 Core pcwer uncertainty 1.024 Axial measurement uncertainty 1.026 Calculation uncertainty on axial peak 1.014 Mechanical hot channel factor
- These terms were formerly combined and labeled as an ultra conservative spike factcr.
The OLC groups these LHR uncertainties as follcws:
Maximum total peak = maximas bundle pcwer (measured x 1.05) x maximum axial peak (maximum polynomial value x 1.026 x 1.024 x 1.014) x local pin peak (calculated x 1.05) x densification penalty (1.016 spiking).
522 343
II. Hand Calculations for Linear Heat Rates The hand calculation of maximum LHR is basically the same as the compu.er calculations with the following exceptions:
- 1. Since th.. axial peak is based on the highest " segment" power, a 1.04 factor is applied to get the segment peak to average values.
The OLC evaluation of axial flux every two inch precludes the need for this uncertainty.
- 2. A 1.02 slu= ping densif'. cation penalty constant is used.
- 3. The radial local peak is a constant 1.066 instead of the OLC calcu-lated local x 1.05. (Since the OLC has a mini =um 1.01 x 1.05 =
1.061 this will be the smallest value used).
- 4. The cansification spike factor is a function of active leng and not a constant as is in the OLC.
The remaining uncertainties are identical to the OLC values. For extreme conditions (e.g. dropped rod) the hand calculations are usuol'y more conservative than the OLC calculations.
III. DNBR Calculation All of the preceeding uncertainties that apply to pin power are incorpo-rated in the Critical Heat Flux (CHF) evaluation. All of the uncertainties are incorporated in the actual heat flux. Additional DNBR conservatisms include:
- 1. Sbximum system leakage on core flow approximately 5% of system flow
- 2. Isothermal maldistribution factor on hot assembly flow approxi=ately 5% of calculated bundle flow
- 3. Reduction f actor in hot asse=bly flow areas due to assumed bowing approximately 2% on area 4 Increased form loss coefficients in hot assembly due to bewing o
- 5. Inlet te=perature uncertainty + 2 F
- o. FA - Mechanical hot channel flow area reduction factor approximately 2% on area
- 7. FQ - Uncertainty on local quality calculation approximately 1% on effective power One final conservatism in this process lies in the f act that power 522 344 distribution is flatter at 100% power than at 40% (dropped rod power test level). This is more explicitly demenstrated in the answer to Question 1. The flatter power distribution would result in a smaller LHR and larger DNBR if a dropped rod were to occur at 100% pcVer when compared to tne extrapolated value. This has b een showti to oe on the order of 10% on LHR and approximately 20% on DN3R.
IV. Conclusion The LHR and DNB calculations in the OLC are conservative. Every input to both calculations has some degree of conservatism. The total com-bination of all the uncertainties used (regardless of the breakdown) are substantially higher than those required by Technical Specifications.
Question 1:
Provide comparisons ef calculated and meacared radial peaking factors for the " dropped cod" tests at both the 50% ind 0% withdrawn positions.
It is preferable that these be submitted in the form of core maps.
Answer:
Core maps are provided giving the requested information for the Rod Drop test of 11/27/77. Both measured and predicted (FLAME 3) radial peaking factors are shown for the appropriate incore detector locations. The predicted and measurad peak segment powers mre notad in the lower left corner of the page. Figure I shows a comparison at equilibrium conditions (42% FP) at 3:30 a.m. Figure 2 shows the core at 11:06 a m. with the control rod in core location N-8 fully inserted. Figure 3 presents a similar comparison f or the control rod at N-8 30% withdrawn which occurred at 12:18 p.m.
In addition to this data, cases were also run at 100% full power with the same control red positions as those of the cest (initial conditions and N-8 fully inserted). These calculations were done to contrast the reculting power peaks with those at the 40% FP level. Figure 4 shows the predicted radial powers for both of these cases. Predicted segment peaks are also shown in the lower left co rner , and the nodal (6.0" axial len;rn) peaks are shown in the love right corner. The value for the pear node af ter the rod drop, if c.onservatively converted to Kw/ f t as she en in Table I below, indicated a maximum linear helt rate (MLHR) of 17 5 Kw/ft, well N.lrw the fuel melt limit. This value is also well below both the hand calculation and computer calculation extrapolations of the 11/27/77 test results to 100% FP. Thus it is ccncluded that extrapolation of measured dropped rod peaks from 40% FP to 100% FP is extremely conservative due to feedback ef fects at the higher pcwer level. For method of extrapolation, refer to the answer to Question 4 r
TA3LE 1 CONVERSION OF FLAME 3 NODAL PJ.AK TO KILOWATTS / FOOT AT 1007. FP MLHR = Calculated Nodal Peak
- Total Nuclear Uncertainty
- Hot Channel Factor
- Axial Local Factor (Grid Factor)
- Radial Local Factor
- Densification Power Spike Factor
- Power Uncertainty
- Densified Linear Heat Rate (100% FP)
= 2.274
- 1.075
- 1.014
- 1.026
- 1.06o
- 1.023
- 1.02
- 6.20
= 17.5 Kw/f',
Ouestion 2:
Provide the neasured values of maximum linear heat rates and minimum DNBR for the " dropped rod" cases.
Answer:
The measured values of Maximum Linear Heat Rates (MLHR) and minimum DNBR .cc listed belaw.
Measured 'Jalues of MLHR and Minim 2m DNBR for Dropped Red (51% Withdrawn)
- l. 33 tial Conditions Control Rod Positions:
Group 3 100% v1*; drawn Group 6/7 69% withdrawn Group 8 11% withdrawn Assembly 5/7 51% withdrawn Core Power 42.7% FP Baron Concentration 1120 ppm 3
- 2. Minimum DSBR 5.95
- 3. MLHR (by level)
Level 111Ut (Kw/ft) from OLC 1 4.357 2 6.551 3 8.279 a 3.3C0 5 5.72) 6 3.237 7 t 36 522 346 bt b/3-6
Measured Values of MLHR and Minimum DNBR for Dropped Rod (0% Withdrawn)
- 1. Initial Conditions Centrol kod Posit].ons:
Group 5 100% with.rawn Group 6/7 71% witldrawn Group 8 11% wittarawn Assembly 5/7 0% wiradrawn Core Power 42.3% FP Baron Concentration 112 ) ppmB
- 2. Minimum DNBR 5.77
- 3. MLHR (by level)
Level MLHR (Kw/ft) from OLC 1 4.407 2 6.585 3 8.511 4 S.895 5 6.396 6 3.702 7 1.5b Question 3:
How did you account for the uncertainties in these measure: cents?
Explain quantitatively what factors are accounted for in these uncertainties.
Annaer:
'ee I.
, (4) in the discussion.
poa 7 ,17 Ouestion 4: Jdd )9/
How was the data measured at 40% power extrapolated to 100% power?
Answer:
- 1. To extrapolate. the MLHR to 100% power, the measured values were multiplied by 100/(power level at which the test was conducted i.e.
40% pcwer).
- 2. To extrapolate the minimus DN3R, the measured DNBF, is plotted on Figure 5 (attached) and a curve parallel to the curve on Figure 5 is extended from the plotted point to the 100% power level. The resulting point gives the minimum DNBR extrapolated to 100% FP.
Question 5:
We have studied BAW-10123 Nuclear Application Software Package for 205-fuel assembly plaats and assume that the radial local peaking factors are calculated in a similar manner for 177-fuel assembly plants. Describe in detail how radial local peaking factors are calculated for the " dropped rod" situation which is very different from " fuel-cycle design rod positions" as discussed in Sem-ton 3.8.2. If a =ultiplicative correction factor was used, please provh . sta11s as to how it was calculated.
Also describe how you account for the uncertainties in the radial local peaking facto .
Answer:
The 177 FA Mark-B plant OLC calculates local peaks much differently than the methods described in BrW-10123. The basic tethod of the OLC calcula-tions is as follows:
- 1. Determine the hottest bundle.
- 2. Set up a matrix of this bundle and the surrounding eight bundles (see Figure A).
3 The center location of each bundle will have a node value of its respective radial peak.
4 Each node is weighted to give most importance ec the cer.ter bundle.
- 5. A surface fit is applied to the 9 nodes.
- 6. Any point on the surface fit inside the dashed lines on figure 1 that is greater than the hot bundle peak is taken as the radial local paak of the hot bundle.
- 7. If the local peak is less than 1.01 then the default value of 1.01 will be used.
h ) ')
- v. a 3ZA., 8
, . .V 7_
t I j -
Sure
Figure B sitows a simplistic one-dimensional typical normal operation local peak calculation and a dropped rod local peak calculation. Based on this model,the local peaking factor calculation is usually nonconserva-tive for dropped rod conditions. However, the total uncertainty is such that the final MLHR is a conservative value (refer to the discussion S ction I).
Normal Operation Dropped Rod Local Peak j\
, 8 L
/
e Local Peak /
\ \ l
-,, Q / \ l c
' \ Radial Peak f N n f
s' ;
/
W =
Radial Peak
-- J_<
o 73-d Q' 524 ri.;ure 3
Ouestion 6:
Are the values of radial local peaking factor conservative? If this is the case, justify this conclusic . If not, show how this is taken into account.
Answer:
See Section I and II of the discussion. Also see answer to Question 5.
Question 7 :
It has been stated that there are other conservatisms in the process computer calculation. Explain in detail (quantitatively) what these conservatisms are and what assurance there is that credit for these has not and cannot be taken elsewhere.
Answer:
See Sections I and II of the discussion.
Question 8:
Are there other factors or para =eters used in the process computer that may not be conservative? If so, explain how you justify the process computer calculation.
Answer None of the other factors or parameters in the process com uter are nonconservative. See Section IV (conclusions) of the discussion.
bt b/8-ll
,r s' '.'
s,-"i ? -
As lastrumented Corn incattano Frier to prer;od Bad feet j
- I cm e i s-a te- a I.
A I
g 1.160 1. M2 1.096 1.327 C 1.133 1.072 .i.122 .533
!.047 1.133 1.042 .59 5 g * .f93 .3M .1*3
.H9 .933 .13S E 1.0436 1.096 1.106 .942
.9491 1.142 1.162 .935 g 1.124 1.183 1.016 .331 1.103 1.C4 1.134 1.0H .9 D 1.042 g 1.150 1.131 1.t&& t.133 1.121 1.012 1.094 1.142 1.136 1.193 1.141 8.1 13 g .9 79 1.210 1.313 1.316 t.213 -
.HT 1.1&& t.339 1.195 1.191 E I*I0I I*II' I'.OII t 112 . 1.142 1.1C3 L ,
1.0 84 1.tc2 1.099 3.315 1.097 i 1.12',J.ca2 1 130 1.067 L.c42 q .704 1.102 1.C*0 1.026 .5:9
. .333 1.142 1.142 1.C67 .t:2 E . .257 1.079 1.161
.9 13 1.164 1.105 I
e * . 336 1.102 1.127 .363 0 *. 913 1.042 1.c42 . 324 l -
1 4 -
. P 1.119 '
)
1.12 4 1
i
. .901 .653 i ,. E .tp .612 I
I z I
3 3 4 S 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 II 1
J
! Maas. 11127177 'It3e Cnts. ftNC i -
L '[ [
)3V \
~1 1 . ..
, e -
i thas. 9=q===* Peak = 2.37&9 *
-t
' a-4, taval 3 " b, i
I ' 1 'I ^
I cata. W rest = 2.3140 J j 'H. W 3 ,
e, r_ q 0l G R .-
l
e.
Reesvred v.. Calentated I?D R Instrumented Cars Locatisse tortas the peerped nad feet I
i G 9 I 5-4 8.850 t
A I
t 1.271 1.3 33 I 1.244 4.315 l
- .216 1.223 1.233 .600 C g,gst g. 4 ,g,33
- .542 s I 0'. 1.141 .$42 .6C 3 t.o8s 1.o41 .616 e
g 1.177 1.423 1.236 1.064 1.076 7.238 1.259 1.073 1.230 1.2ta 1.103 .964 1.223 I
1.164 1.0 13 1.t&&
, _ 1.224 l 1.188 l.2 71 1.233 1.317 1.203 t.212 1.171 I*
1.193 1.216 1.199 1.233 1.216 1.231 1.071 1.277 1.3*3 N 1.044 1.137 1.377 1.355 1.212 1.344 .
1.2 3 1.123 1.130 1.232 I I 1
1.164 1.144 1 113 i
g 1.1&4 . tis .436 1.096 1.1M j t.179 1.069 1.037 1.026 1.c43 e -
l
- g .922 .333 .443 .9M .2:1
) , .943 .876 .875 .507 , . 29 6
}
E .316 .416
- I .su
.c3 .7f,3
.it 4 i g .722 .875 . *03 .7&4
, .712 .303 .004 .724 s
p .31 2 I
.sm
' g .705 .321 8 j .447 .M1 A
i I
' I a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8- 9 M 11 12 13 14 15 k i l a .
- Maas. !!/27/77 1106
) _ cale. Fuaes I ^
~ &Q , ~' 1, Q )
- . , e[
/, e. g w/ ss-D
~~m,
. m.1 t-m .m..
etamala tree erse,*4 red 1.catte. s-a.
i ca w . 2.c.
n1 as DCF
- r. i i
rs. +
n5 1
UN' *}l IIj fMjjg f p 4.f.f .
3
~ . .. .
At last;_uted Core Locatione After Dstgred led Test I .
C1 8 I 5-4 312 us A
I 1.231 1.483 t.182 8.431 1.249 1.160 .311 1.120 '
!.213 1.234 1.120 l .6M I 1.01 8 1.033
.9 13 .3*l
.591 .3t1 3 1.1 31 1.123 1.196 1.021 1.027 1.213 1.213
- 1.017 1 203 1.237 1.074 I .926 1.183
- 1. 11 3 8.Its t.149 l
.s t'. 1.e13 1.231 m
E 1.234 1.267 1.178 .178 1.143 1.1 71
- 1. !L3 1.l?3 1.2 32 t.183 1.187 1.0 33 1.241 l 1.311 1.336 1.54 1.003 1.158 1 274
!.208 1.231 l
n I 3.107 E
t.tti 1.Its 1.233 l ===-== 1.141 1.116 1.186 .941 .742 L 1.143 1.047 1.012 1.120 1.0i7 1.0 38 m 1.047 h
g .
.944 .1 g .904
- t. - 1. 27 ..1, , 8,7 . 84,
.. 5 e
3 .423
- .m .74: .927 i .m .,00 k g' . 71 8 .941 .964
{ . 71 7
.841 t .909 .909 6
.764 a
p .tSt
., g
"" .313 360
.775 .374
? E j Z i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 1
0 nies tinim tags
)
I cat 4. rtus cq7 DLu 7 E. T Je' 4 -
3
. Ihrs. e.g- p.4 2. Afg4
.-4. - .
_. ~ ~
e g,.a lees,.dau was rocaietaa seetituee Ec. u c_
..t.
_. m . 2.m.
j 5-4. h 4 3 I - ,
i Y
i I
. uun U.M+ "i '
c -
c.tn.tw a 373 at 10C277 '
, , 5. .
>: s - g '
) ,. ;
i
, g : S, A '
t I
- 1.073 1.276 1.178 1.403
=
. g '
!.033 1.129 1.033 .611 1.137 1.233 1.137 .113 y .
.980 .hta .171 1.073 1.041
. .418 g .9:3 1.141 1.141
' .973 1.643 1.237 1.137 1.064 I 1.c33 1.133 1.130 .944 1.038 1.117 1.213 1.141 1.023 1.117 E 2.c73 L 1.141 1.138 1.193 1.149 1.121
- 1. 1 43 .
1.2:a 1.193 1.249 1.2c1 t .C3
.5A4 1.144 N 1.003 1.15?
1.334 1.191 1.173 ='
1 343 1.213 1.234 1.149 1.141 E 1.1C3 1.1$6 . 1.136 1.133 o
2.202 2.013 1.111 1.074
- 1. 1.033 1.131 1.C64 1.071 1.c49 1.054
=
.153 1.149 1.147 1.074 N .953 .C3
, .523 . 91' .944 .cf S .$44 1.164 1.1C5
} .813 ' .449 .76:
- i f ,.163 1.033 1.033 . 3 41
{t
.srs .nla .s3s .no y
~
, 1.102
.934 *
- 877 .631
,. R .717
, .344 s
' .* i s
t g 1
,1 2 3 4 8 6 7 3 3 la , 11 12 13 14 15 I ,
s.
c .-. ; a .t u -
CE at 9 4 ts ,
.922 -
W EU
- e-%- Sw Pod = 2.131 C224. EM Pe4 = 2.1*%
04 aut3 5 4. lasel 3 O-4 out) 5-4. mees C/24 '
Cda. Seemes: Pad = 2.243 cale. 3edal Pod = 2.271 O 4 an) 3-4, 1 meal 3 CD-4 ta) 8-4 e6, Ict26 s & w I *
- u. > d.)
\, k==.-
w I "
s Qs e t **a* ey- ,, -
{ v u s(i p, i
Method to Extrapolate Minimum DNBR (Minimum DNBR at the Overpower Trip Setpoint)
..p .a i- .. e i .. L : r !. .
d-
- h. . . m p. . . ; .
.r _
g . ._.p i { j ;i:. n ::r ::n _. i:- !. 5- . j . .. ci.. t :
g a 4 np 4 !_ -.+
t --. _ =; -
._- Q .- ; i, c, n n 7.-.y 4 ._;_.
_i.....~. ._ . . - .: h- . . ._._.,u-pf, _g. :. _ . . . y _ . . :.. - _ ---!
u, -- i : .. - . % . 3:
c..:- ._ .-
- .- _ ::-m. l:. , . .
.t
. ir .-E ---
L=- ::_Mu
- \. . _ : . - - - - - i . .
. z . . . _ _3. . ; .,-. . . . . . . . ..
.a.
- . - :-r +- :.:_.__ m_ _.
s u--u ==:
- = g j -_. t d--i
-riE:. _1.q-
- 1 : E !- - - - ,-j -- t-j 3_j - - - ._
=-
16
- ,..=.:-J:=.:_.::y..._=_=_=._..:===:-_=..=_=_=.__=...=_=-._-.-.._=._.=._.__:.__=.:..=__;.__=-.=-_m.=___-
- -'~~ 2- ~ -- ' ; :: - i-- ~_ C;l .'_ ~- i ,- ;_ -
M---- - 57;i M* .
'- '~
~= :- [-3 _
.-$b: ~_- :b.[-b _ b -- .- 3_ -
_ 5. ,
=
. -_ ==- =:
-._g.-.-
C-
== : : z==w
- -u=.
w =:= + . =..:= ==_ =___. = _. _= c = .
__.=
_ _: .--_=
.= g Z- =: = ;. _ - . _ .
T ~-" . . ; 1 ; ._ . 2- - -- ._ - - P_T_ :--
- = : - - - . . _ _ . -
- _ - . ; _- ;;- ,- . .- * : ;! _. _ 7 a . . _ .. . : J _- _- -
7y -...__._.__.___..----.__._.
L]
=_=1___. _= =. -.. _"'.._-.._.
=,-.t. _=-_ .__ _ ._.._
. . - - - _ . . . _ . __ = .__ .
._.. ._. __ _.._. .. _. _. =.. _. = .
- ... =_ _. .. __ _ _ _;_-. -.._.-
-~~
= , . l ..- : =: '.- .===:.-=-_=.-._
^--
. _ = \ : . :::: :; .-
- _. ..=.:1 : . _ . . _ _ . .-------==_____--.----:=
. _ ; . . _ .1: :1.-=. : - -- 1_ _ 7_
- - - - - _ - ~2
- T -- - - ; : ~: ._ _, - _ ; ;. _. _,, . ., ;- _ _ ; - : : ; -- - , - -
._j,'._-____ ._.- : _.- .;. __
^
2-- _ ;_ __ :
.,,,.1. ) *.: : .==__---==:=_;.;.-- _, .:_ . ' ' ' .- T - - - -_
__ .=,_.:=_.____.__.__2- _.___..._,. _ _ _ _ . _
3_.,_-..7__-_. _
m
..----'--":.;-".=.--'
-~'1,_=:=L._..._
_---.-----~-__--_.__...=.-,_-..-..~._;,;--:_.;_---
~
~ ~ L_,
. . ._ .-~~; _.._ .--- _--
~-----;___
-C; ._ - - - - ~ - ' * - '
_:.._--,__--.____-_-__-_--=_,-___--
,' .== :=_ : -~ ~-_..;.:=:~~ ;
= - - = = = . _ . ._.--.---;-------
x --. --.:.. *
~_.__._ _ ;-- _ _ . - . - - - - - - -. -;-----,-- .
2
=:-_=-.__=._:.;....__-~_=_____;=----_--
- = _ _ : . = = : = _= == _:- -
- G r=-1 1_ _ --
_-..._=-_--=-.v::_- _
___-"1:_.-_--_-----
-_ _y; :- -- , - _ _,, ; ;- ;_ ;,,,---X ~ - - -
1 _ , , _; -- ;- -
g , , , , . ,g L : -' .::.- -
g -:-----._~-'~~~-~-;---~ ._.._.=:_i..-.._'_.--:-_=::-___.,_i_- _:.=u ~
= w __:.:__ _-::-- - - ' '- :-_---------
___--,_=.2._._.-_.:;_._-~~,--.:_--_-_--._7:--~~-----~:}-
^
_-^ ~ ?'_' ~_ : --Q:-
-t ;= :"" : .' - _ ::' } =12:x_-_.__.sr___:____:_----------2-'_--__:_.-----_---- = =1==--.=-.:=- ._.--- -._---r.._--_.------_.7.---_-- -
1,_~--_____;;_---.-___ y 1
-.-..---..-___::'-"\.__;-_.:..~.-------_,___ .
2'~ 5 b_._ T' 2!N.I'~ -b '-N - - .M~- ~-' ' -- E= = 6 ~ ~ ~- 2-.5" -- -- - - . .l -_ .. 'm_ TM._ _ _ _ _~ .~_'_ _. PC ;=- b
,.; E_= *3. __...!__I
-3'
~'-~ 5 J 2 ' ~ ; = E ~ ~~ ~'~' ~~C '~
- \-k~2. - _ _ - _ - . - . - - - - ----.=.---=----.-.--C.=--___--. ~Z"--
-Lr-
- =' - - = - - - - ']~~.." ]
C:
.- .'-~ ;C:.- J - N. ;r - 5 T _: . _ ,- - - -_ -.-35-7." - - ~ ~ ~ ~I,,';3 ~"'"'--- -- ~-[-- h'"- -
j Q~*:-~' C-'Z .: _b ; J.;. ; _ ~; __ .;. ; -- _ ---_-_~~3"""~,_~,_y-;-----__-C- ;--_
*;; 3,--., 2. 2 :.: .T - r- - ~': = - 2. - :2L J.
---==.:_----.x_=--.__--.----_..-_--_----._---.---.--_ - - ------------'~--~~~
~ ^ : .:, _. . . : ~, ; - _ ; . . ;
.._;,--~__.,_.._;;-_---,.2.=.=_= . = . . = . = . _ = . . . . = . . _ _ _ _ .
- =_ ==-_..:--._-::___=_= .v =: = . _ _ . -
. ~ : 7 ~
-" . C . -- . :.:7 : . :L - -_ _. : r _ : N _ ::- ;. . ;
7 - - - - - - -- -- -. -~--':.=.,
. : ,- . -- 2. : : n. = = R a .-_-: -v- - : . _ _._ : -: =_=__
3.~~- -
. - . T s.: ; - - _ = = = : : - - : :; - ---N- _ . . __
.r__ =:
--,,~--- 7'~
' . - - - - *;: - ' ' { ~-. ..~ _*. J. - -
. _ . ;} - ;
*. - . " - - - ;.C T_. ;:n. __ ; . :T r_ . . ;- -. _ . _. ;u r : - 1 ; N - - - * -
.~~ .' : "_ : -- Z - ~ ;- , . _ r- ' _ 1 C *! . :- . _; ; . - : ; ;;ygy;. . , _ ,
~i'"'L~~
{ _ _
- - - - - - -- ---C_,.<-~!~~n- -. ,,, , y,7 ; - . - ~-~"~~~'"-".7-
, , ,;7
- - l .. < :- ;~ p , , , , _-
- _-T_=. . _1- . .;; ; ' .*- . ; ,_ -. q ; - _=. . .-_; .. : _ ;' = ; .; ;ps:..
-,-_gy ; p -
i? ._. m _ _ g. - : .L. l 7 _ : i : . o. : . - 'E
-:'" Li ~7.;;- . - - - - ._. L.::.-i=u ::=- c-h --- p- ---:-
1:=$ =_ '.- d . ._.j .. - - , - -- . . - . - . =-
- t.
;h-
;.g . r :::- - -- .; p - - g .- -
u . __ . _-.- .
.1--l' . It : -. ~nh . , - - : . i : - : . . ;- - -- ~-- 4: - i, -r c g- .,9 g---j
{r- E __:, .o: p -
. - r , - r . _-y : c h -E -. --m
-n
.j . , - : : . .-
t . g
-}- ;[;f - } '
e
,f'; ,, ., - : .; ~4_j[ al',.- .. .
.j.. ~. .. . _ .]
+ [. - ; * * {. --} !.f t . : . . ;; f-.. -- --:,' _-
j a _ _- .
- - ~
r-- '- ' _,{ .. :0*
} 4.
{ j U { i '.: I'. * ' . ' ' ' ' , , [ g r 3 .g I e . (.. (.
=*e ..l... ;*, 9
) l.
y--h, . l i ,
'.{...[.,..',' *[
Q ,i:.j10(: . . O~'--fi--';.-MO f '
, f-$,0- - .
bO-- , f- , .-- g i 3 , . O i 24co ! 2eco; m FO b i 400i *
. 300 l __,,12 Eo_ __J __1 q ,,,_[ _. 2cc o j qn -
7GR Power , 'G (The:-:al) 9g. m k-Wg Ch.f t: g?Y%hd b '4 d mm3 y,tv d z ; @2}}