Text

Safety Evaluation Supporting Restarting of Facility
	ML19246A603
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	05/24/1979
From:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	; YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML19246A593	List: ML19246A591; ML19246A596; ML19246A603;
References
	SER-790524, NUDOCS 7907060163
	Download: ML19246A603 (11)
	v • d • e

.

[

UNITED STATES

.Th NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION fD

[j WASHINGTCN O. C. 20555 P~W,/

s, SAFETY EVALUATIC' SY THE CFFICE CF NUCLEAR RE/CTCR REGULATION MAINE YANKEE ATCMIC PCWER CCMPANY MAINE YANKEE ATCMIC PCWER STATION CC+CKET NO. 50-309 Introduction On March 13, 1979 the Ccemission issued an Order to Shcw Cause aine Yankee Atcmic P0wer Ccmcany (licensee) requiring tna to v Maine Yankee (facility) be placed in cold shutdown and t' a licensee sncw cause:

(1) Why the licensee should not reanalyze the facility piping systems for seismic loads on all potentially affected safety systems using an appropriate piping analysis ccmputer cede whicn does not ccmbine leads algetraically; (2) Why the licensee should not make any modifications

o the facility piping systems indicated by such reanalysis to be necessary; and (3) Why facility operation shculd not be suspended ;ending such reanalysis and ccmpletien of any required modi fica tions.

The licensee's respense to the Order, dated April 2,1979, stated tnat a 11 affected safety systems have been reanalyzed using an acpropriate piping analysis method, and that no modifications are necessary as a result of these reanalyses. Therefore, the licensee requested that One Order be modified or rescinded such tnat the facility could be re. started.

In succort of this recuest the licensee provided infor ation by letters dated Acril 2, 3, 12, 13, 19, 27 and May 2, 4, 5, 15 and 18, 1979.

In the letter of Acril 13, the licensee indicated that two piping restraints needed to be mcoified as a result of the reanalyses to account for base plate flexibility. On April 19, the licensee reported that these modifications had been comcleted.

Discussion The Stone and Webster (S&W) ? STRESS /SHCCX 2 c:mouter ccde for pipe stress analyses sums earthcuake 10adings algebraically and is unaccectable for reascns set f:rth in the March 13, 1979 Crcer to Shcw Cause. This code was used in the seismic analygs of cer*ain safety anc nonsafety related systems at tne facility. The licensee has identified the seismically analy:ed (Seismic Cataccry I) systems at the facility inclucing those analyzed wi'J. ECCX 2.

t has also identified the tner metncds of seismic analysis used for other Seismic Ca egory I systems.

Further cre, tne licensee has su rarized tne results of the reanalyses Of SHCCX 2 safety systems and has cr;vided succort for the accec*acility of tne analysis methods used on the remaining Seismic Categcry I systems.

n r, 9i 7907obLW3

2 We have evaluated the facility's safety related systems, the results of seismic reanalysis, and the methods of pipe stress analysis currently in effect for the facility.

Evaluation 1.

Systems The licensee has stated that the response to Question 1.3 of the Maine Yankee Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), submitted February 9,1971, is the complete list of structures, systems and components that were designed to the Seismic Category I requirements.

Verification has also been provided by the licensee that the Seismic Category I piping systems identified in resconse to Question 1.3 of the Maine Yankee FSAR include all of the piping systems required to assure:

(a) The integrity of the reactor coolant pressure bcundary; (b) The capability to shutdown the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdcwn condition; and (c) The capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential offsite excosures comparable to the guideline exposure of 10 CFR Part 100.

Portions of the following systems were identified by the licensee as having been either analyzed with SHOCK 2 or analy:ed by static seismic methods which were verified by SHOCK 2.

High Pressure Safety Injection Residual Heat Removal Containment Scray Low Pressure Safety Injection Primary Comconent Cooling Water Steam Generator Feedwater Chemical and Volume Control Primary Vents and Drains Waste Gas Disposal Baron Recovery Fuel Pool Cooling Fire Protection Auxiliary Steam Auxiliary Condensate Return High Pressure Orains (Secondary)

A total of 39 SHOCK 2 analyses (Camcuter runs) were ;erformed. Picing associated witn these analyses and tre methcds of reanalysis are identified in Enclosure 1 to this Safety Evaluation (SE).

7,, ~

/

Nineteen of nese 39 analyses have been identified by the licensee as pertaining to safety related pioing. We have reviewed tne infor::ation submitted and agree with ne licensee's identification of pipi.g whicn is safety related. The licensee has completed the reanalysis of all 39 SHOCK 2 analyses.

2.

Verification of Analysis Methods We have reviewed P a acceptability of the anal tic methods which are currently a casis for the facility piping.fesign. The licensee has identified the following computer codes / analysis methods as applicaole:

PSTRESS/SHCCK 1 (4 Versions - In'tial 3 Versions sometimes referred to as SHOCK 0)

STRLDL

- SHAKE (Ccmbustian Ergineering)

Static Analysis Methods PSTRESS/SHCCK 3 NUPIPE - SW PSTRE55/ SHOCK 1 The licensee has identified four (1) versions of the ?' 'RESS/SHCCK 1 ccmcuter code. Cocumentation on only the last version...nis code was availacle for our review.

The licensee has stated that this versien of SHCCK 1 c;mbines One inter cdal res::cnses by the so-called " Navy Method". This consists in taking the largest absolute mcdal res::cnse and adding the root-mean-square value of all other modal responses.

Intramedal responses due to culti-directional earthquake excitation were not calculated since the cade only produced respcnses para!lel to a given ear *hquake ccmconent excitation (i.e., the resconses were considered uncoupled).

A review of the code listing has confir ed these statements.

Scme safety systems of the facility aere analyzed with eacn of the four versions of the SHC<CK 1 Code. Secause this :cm::ute.r cace only considers one direction earthquake excitaticn, it is not consitered ecuivalent to current analysis technicues. A c moarisan of the results of eacn of tne f0ur (1) versions cf ? STRESS /SHCCK l and -he 'IU?!?E Code was conducted by the licensee using " typical" piping problems.

Tne :r:ble s consist of different size ?iping, elbews, tees and reducers.

The licer.see re::crted that the general stress distributicn of both coces aas similar and ? STRESS /SHCCK 1 gave comparable results. The licansee :::ncluded '. hat althcugh the : STRESS /SHCCK 1 is not ecuivaient to cur ent practice, it is suitably ct,nservative te insure -hat the cioing systems mee*. the alicwable stress levels.

? O

q,,

/, ' )

_4_

Sy letter dated May 10, 1979, the licensee informed us that a listing of an early versior, of the Sheck i program had been found. This listing indicated that the method of computing natural frequencies may be incorrect.

Subsequently, it was determined that the listing found was a nonproduction developmental predecessor to Shock 1 which was not used at Maine Yankee. A review of the latest version of Shock 1, for which there is a listing, has shown that frequencies are computed correctly. Nevertheless, methods of com0uting natural frequencies in the first three Shock i versions (new known as Sheck 0) used at Maine Yankee may have been similar to the methods in the develo mental listing.

(Shock 0 was used to analyze approxinately 76 piping pr7blems and Sheck I was used to analyze approximately 10 piping problems.)

The licensee has reviewed the effects of the incorrect frequency methods.

The licensee has detemined that although random shifts in natural frequencies and mode shapes are noted, the previous comparative analyses, Shock 0 to Shock 1 and Shock 0 to NUPIPE-SW, inclufe these effects and are the most valid indication of Shock 'O code acceptability. h ase ccccarative analyses shcw that Shock 0 produces stress results censistent w1i.h ?ccepted programs and provides assurance that the FSAR criteria are met. Based on its review the licensee concludes that the studies and reanalyses perfor ed to date demonstrate that the Seismic Category 1 piping is conservatively designed to withstand the effects of the design basis earthquake.

We have reviewed the piping configuration and results of the ccmcarative analyses of NUPIPE and each version of the SHCCK 0 code and the SHOCX 1 code. We have determined that the problems analyzed produce representa-tive compariscns. We have also determined that although SHCCK 1 and SHCCX 0 are not equivalent to current practice, the resulting stresses are at least censistent with the results as obtained frca NUP!pE and in many cases are conservative.

In additicn the crie c0mparison did not take credit for the alternative application of the.:cbinson Fix" (i.e.,

adjusting the response spectra peak instead of increasing all analysis resuits) wnich would provide additional conservatism to the SHCCK 1 and SHCCK 0 stresses in this comparisen (The "Rcbinson Fix" was described in Amendment 35 to the Maine Yankee FSAR). Therefore, we conclude adequate assurance has been provided that systems analyzed with SHCCK 1 and SHCCX 0 will withstand the design basis earthquake.

All Sheck 0 analyses subjected to the comparisen (10 Shock 0 problems : mcared to Shock 1 of wnich 3 were further ccmpared with NUPI?E) show resultant seismic stresses within FSAR allowabies. This provides assurance that the frequency ccccuta:icn methed cf Sheck 0, althcugh catentially incorrect, dces not have a significant adve"se affect on the Sheck 0 stress results. As noted in tne c:cparative ar.alyses however, the naturai frecuency and mcde sha:e changes between the versions of Shock U and codes kncwn to compute natural frecuencies correctly are randem in nature. 'herefore we conclude that additional ccmcariscns, to verify that the remaining Shock 0 analyses stress results are within FSAR allcwables when reanalyzed using an acce :acle ;mgram, should be perfomed.

By letter dated May 13,1979 :ne licensce cccmitted to reanalyze all remaining Shock 0 analyses with NUpIPE-SW and provice One results to the NRC staff wi nin 50 days of facility restart. We find this furtner verification program and scnedule acceptable.

o r, -

9, L-

/_

.l

STRUCL

- SHAKE The licensee has provided the folicwing description of the analysis technique used by Combustien Engineering (STRUCL

- SHAKE Code):

"The dynamic seismic analysis of the reactor coolant system main locp and pressurizer surge line piping was perfor :ed utilizing 3 dimensional mathematical mcdels subjected to unidirectional support motion response spectra. The six ccmconents of force or moment at a particular oicing location were determined separately for each significant mcde of response for a single direction of excitation. The separate mcdal responses for each component of force or mcment were then combined on a rcot-sum-square basis to define the total force or mcment response to a single direction of excitation. The loads due to each horizontal earthquake were added, manually, to the loads due to the vertical earthquake by the absolute sum method. The larger of the two loads thus calculated was employed in the stress analysis of the piping system."

'We have revi2wed the analysis technique of Combustion Engineer-ing. The procedures are in ccmpliance with the plant FSAR and conservatively combine (absolute sum) both the spatial ccm-ponents from each of two independent earthquake directions and the contribution of each mcde (SRSS).

'We find this tecnnique acceptable.

Static Analysis Some of the safety related systems at the facility were analy:ed using static analyses tecnniques. The licensee submitted documentation (letter dated April 12,1979) detailing the basis for static analysis technique use in the design. Generally N

piping 6 incnes in diameter and smaller was designed using the static methods unless the criteria for support placement could not be met, then a more rigorous dynamic analysis was performed. Some piping larger than 6 inches in diameter was analy:ed using the static methods if the geometry and succort configurations were sufficiently simole to make the static analysis methods practical.

The major constraint on acplying static methods to larger piping was one Of ac0ncmics in ?at a dynamic analysis typically would result in fewer restraints at a more actimum spacing and succorts for larger piping were sufficiently more costly to warrant less cons &rvative but mre expensive analysis techniques.

'G~

3 7

/

The analysis technique used at the facility is outlined in Amencment No. 35 to the FSAR and the procedure was submitted in detail in the report, "Non-dynamic Seismic Analysis of Piping and Supports by Stcne L Webster at Maine Yankee" submitted April 12, 1979.

The procedure states that the piping frequencies will be designed to be c minimum of 1.5 times the ceak resonant frequency of the amplified rescanse spectra by locating seismic supports at appropriate spar. lengths. Orthogonal responses will be decaucled by including succorts at elbows, tees and concentrated masses.

The piping systems were designed considering a horizontal static icad of (1.3) X (22 X peak ground acceleration) acting concurrently with a vertical static load ecucl to two-thirds the horizontal val u. The method of equivalent analysis outlined in this procedure e

has been reviewed against the NRC's Standard Review Plan 3.7.2 and is acceotable.

PSTRESS/SFCCK 3 The licensee nas stated that in tnis code the intramodal responses are calculated by adding the absolute value of the responses due to the vertical earthquake component to the root-mean-square of the responses due to the two horizontal earthquake ccmconents. The intermodal ccm-ponents are calculated by the rcot-mean-scuare method. A review of the code listing has confirned these statemants. A confirmatory analysis was perfor ed by or NRC consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory (SNL), of a typical ciping design croblem in the Maine Yankee plant. A problem (no. 803) has been submittad by S&W together with the corresponding solution obtained by using PSTRESS/

SHCCX 3.

This proclem has been analyzed by SNL using a different code (EPIPE), and the results have been submitted to the NRC staff A comparison of the solutions indicates that various quantities of interest sucn as frequencies, disolacements, forces, and stresses, appear

~

to differ by not more than IC%.snicn is witnin the accuracy of the analyses.

In acdition, hand calculations were performed with the PSTRESS/SECCK 3 results as a check on the mcdal ccmcination me: hods.

We find that tne S&W results have been adequately confirmed by SNL and are therefore acceptable.

NUPIPE - SW The licensee has stated that this coce calculates intramodal anc intermodai res:cnses according : the provisions in Regulatory Guide 1.g2.

A review of tne code listing by the staf# has confi rmed this to e the case. Adcitional cocumentation has also been succi::ec by ne originators of this code (Nuclear Ser/ ices Cor: oration)

roviding detailed information on :ne Tethods of modal ccmcinations.

This information has been reviewed and also rovices reasonable confirmation of tne statements made by tne licensee. A confi rma:Ory analysis has also been performed by our consultants on the ciping proclem lis ed a;ove. A cercarison of :ne solutions again indicates that the various cuantities of interest listed above again differ by not more inan 10%. Therefore, tne ;se of :nis c0de is acce tacle.

n r, -

f

. 3.

Reanalysis Methods and Results The safety related piping' systems at tne Maine Yankee nuclear plant have been reviewed to determine the method of analyses. Nineteen (19) computer stress problems of safety related piping have been identified where the analysis used an algebraic intramodal summation of responses to earthquake loadings. The problems where an algebraic intramodal response combination technique was used in tne design have been reevaluated using the criteria in the FSAR. The reevaluation included a static analysis technique, and a dynamic cceputer analysis using either the PSTRESS/ SHOCK 3 or NUPIPE crograms.

A static a.1al sis technique was employed for reanalysis of some lines l

6 inches in d bmeter and smaller. The static design procedure is outlined in a report titled "Non-dynamic Seismic Analysis of Piping and Supports by Stone & Webster at Maine Yankee" submitted April 12, 1979. The acceptability of this procedure has been discussed in Section 2 of this SE.

The dynamic analysis technicue incorporated a lumced mass response spectra modal analysis using the PSTRESS/SHCCK 3 or NUPIPE programs. The floor response data used in the reanalysis included the " Robinson Fix" criteria.

The " Robinson Fix" criteria required the peak resonant frequency acceleration values to be a minimum of (22) x (peak grcund acceleration) and the peaks to be broadened by i 10% of resonant frequency. The pioing systems were modeled as three dimensional lumced mass syst?ms whicn includei consid-erations of eccentric masses at valves and appropriate flexibility and.

stress intensification factors. The dynamic analysis procedures meet the criteria specified in the piant FSAR and are acceptable.

The piping support. designs for affected system pioing were inspected by the licensee to y erify the as built" configuration. As noted in NRC d

Inspection Report 79-05 issued April 12, 1979, differences were fcund to exist between the "as built" configuratian and the succort drawings. The differences noted resulted frca the use of drawings whicn nad not been ucdated to include installation changes. Subsequently the licensee has verified that ucdated drawings unich do reflect the sucports as installed, were used in the sucport design calculations.

The supccrt designs were reevaluated in cases wnere the original succor design leads were exceeded as a result of piping reanalysis. The succort reevaluation

includec the consideratien of local stresses at regicns of discontinuity and base plate flexibility censiderations. Mcdification E' O,

~

i i

8 of two succorts was determined to be necessary to acccunt for base plate flexibility. These modifications consist of adcing a stiffener to the base plate of eacn nanger and have been completed.

Loads on attached equi: ment nc::els were also checked and eerified to be eitner below tne initial allowaole values or verified by the equis-ment manufacturers to be acceptable.

The design and analysis of the sucports and attached ecui: ment are in accordance witn the criteria specirled in the plant rar.R.

Ine pipe break criteria for Maine Yankee were reviewed and determined no: :o be altered by tnis reanalysis. Pice break considara:icns were recuired f:r Mign Energy Lines outside of -he : ntainment structure anc areak 1:ca icns aere determined oy inscection and tneir croximi y to safety related sys tems, The pipe break considera-ions arz cutlined in a recort titled 'Succlementary Report on Effects of a Pos:uiated Break in a High Energy Piping System Outside tne Containment' dated Septemcer 1973.

The picing systems and succorts were designed Oc the allowable limits of ANSI 331.1 for tne gross procerties and to the limits of ANSI 331.7 Appendix F for local stress considerations per the FSAR criteria.

The safety eeiated piping systems, supports and attacned equi; ment, wnere One original analysis used an algecraic intramodal response summation technique, have been reanalyzed with acceptable methods wnicn 00 not use an algebraic intramodal res;cnse technique. The pro-

edures used in the reanalyses and their results nave been reviewed agai s:

ne cri eria ia :ne plant FSAP and found acceptacle.

As a se: ara a :ut related at;er, One staf# has also reviewec ne inneren seismic const. 1-isms in the facility cesign. Ye:nces of analysis, a eriai crecerties, act al earthcuake characteristics, c:nstruction ractices and actual seismic cerience were considerec.

The NRC staf' nas conci;ded tha:

One facility c0e i witnstand ear:ncurke ?<cunc motion in excess of tra: to wnicn :ne facility was originally designed.

The NRC ai'l :e furthe :cn-sidering the issue of seismic design capacility of all :cerating reactors witnin the next few cn:Ns.

That effort will further s tarine :ne seismic design ca: ability of Maine Yankee. That effort will also assist :ne s a

in determining whe:ner additional seismic reevaluaticn is neecec at any

e-ating #acility

~

nc'ss'--

The licensee nas demcnstrated that PSTRESS/SFCCX 2 is :ne onl / etnod of aralysis usec #ar ne f acility's safe y rela:ac systems wnicn 0:mCines seismi. I aCs 3']ecraically. Safe *j rela *.ed systems analy:ed witn Shoc< _ nave been reanaly:ed witn an accectacie :ynamic cece or ui t, 3 atic ana'ysis tecnniques as per,i tted by ne FSAR criteria.

.e r 9 s u l ".3 0

.nese reanaIj$d3 nave sncwn.ha' :ne suOject sysiers wi wi:ns ard One :es:;n Casis ear:Ncuake.

Q '-

, '/

t e

. The reevaluation of supports performed by the licensee for the subject piping considered base plate flexibility. As a result stiffeners were added on two supports in the containment spray system.

We reviewed the acceptability of the analysis techniques which are currently a basis for the facility's piping design. We have determined that the application of these techniques, at Maine Yankee, assures that safety related systems can withstand the design basis earthquake and that there is reasonable assurance that the facility can operate without endangering the health and safety of the public.

Based on the above, we conclude that the requirements of the Order have been met for Maine Yankee and therefore the Order and its. restriction on facility operation should be terminated.

Dated: May 24, 1979 d

O.

I

~

I

-ti.

t H

5 L

O.

Cl i

l L

C l

(

I f

R I

1 1 A I

1 1 P l

l

_ 1 I

1 1

l l

. O S

E E

E C

C 4

A I

i C

C C

C P

P C

C P

P C

C P

. l H

st t

H;

(

t C

C u

KI C

C I

i L

L L

1 I

L L

I I

L t

l O

b u

0 O

t.

A A

A

M P

A A

P P

A A

P u

Hl L

'4 I

C C

u

(

u u

. 5 ll

. O o 0l 0

t fl C

L U

t C

P l

u I

. t le il.

u

- 0 L

S OA L

L f

i o i

f a

l o

t u

O s

J

. C

- i l

A lA t

l l

l

/ i

_ R l

ki t

i I l

l A

l t

A i r ti H

l l

Ai i u G

I t

l A

A t

t n

r l

H H

l I

u l

u U

4 l

i t

i R U

u l

l l

r u

t i

il H

l 0

l t

i L

t I

t t 4 t

t

. 0 i in i

H R

tt t

C i

I i

L h

R k

s 0 W

R 1

l lt E

H t

I E

H 1

lI H

i i t

8 t

l i

R i

l I

R i

k fa h

t 1

l t

t

_ a 7

4 4

1'4 1

6 1

. P es 84 e

1 0

1 d

4 4

1 1

1 0

0 0

_ I l

1 l

6 2

3 3

9 0

2 2

2 1

1 1

e.

A A

2 2

_ a 0

0 3

A A

3 A

A A

4 4

4 t

1 1

L 2

4 1

2 2

2

?

1 1

4 4

4 3'4

. f 0

0 3

3 3

. i 3

3 A

3 3

t.

3 3

1 I

3 3

3 l

l

_ a l

l G

A A

u G

E A'

A A

A J

J 1

5 5

1 0

7 4

0 0

0 2

5 7

7

(

_ 5 2

2 0

l 1

4 3

3 3

3 2

1 l

S

. 1 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

1 I

T 8

I L

1 l

l t

l I

l E.

5 4"

E A

_ S 07 4l 0

! II

. t

_ H t

1 1&

9 0

ll

. C 2 'i 4 1

2 1

7 u

5 4

1 A

t 1 1 1 s 70 5

1' 1

7 1

/

1 1 1 1

1 Y5 1

. i 9

1 3 L 1' 1 1 3

J 4

4 4

7 3

0 o

i5 l

1 2

2 1 3 1l 2

1 P

1 6

C 3

'8 3

L C

i 1 1 P

4 4

S C

L i

CC 2 -

H C

l V

. t l

tiH 2

2 P.

1 it P

C C

C P

l L l

L 01 C

5S5t t C

- L L

C.

4 1

l

. i i

0 i

P. P.

At H

CCCH C

C C

HU l

P l

5" C.

C.

S" P.

P.

P P

P

_ L l !

5 A

O" 0"

2" 0" 4" 4 4" 0" 4" 4"

2" 3"

3" 3"

3" a. ". "

,t i

. i 1

1 1 1 11 21 4' 3' 3

1 I'

1 1

1 d

l 1

[

1 f

(

0 D

1 G

i S

N L

it l

i H

P f

t A,

K I

(

t A

I C

_ i t

1 A

0 P

t i

R l

(

II S

(

V a

L G

ot u

1 E

1 l'

u L

t l

l l

u a

L ti G

L i

l l

C H i 1

E t

i A

u D,

L i

I I

u i

U l

C L

l J

Y L

l.

t U.

O!

L L

. i l

H I

E t

o a

l L

C L

HO U

V l

t l

1 u

n l

l l

0 is f

l 5

L L I A

L il i

l E

l 4

l H

A i

L l

O i

i l

Al t f

h V

A C

G V

l L

l i

l U

R 4 o.

I C

A O

l V

iU t

Y

. i I

t H

l ui0 L

C

_ i t

C E

A;l

(

L l

1 l

CI t

0i 0

P L

P t

I.

i L

l.

N

. u l

H t

Y 1

U L

ti

(

I.

2 00 A

A A

H 4

1 1

C<

N V

V e

- l t

I t

G l

u 0i 0

l

. P I

I H

TO O

P L

i H

R I

L 4

L l

L e

l I

I C

A H

l l

s 1

1 C

l f

u 5

D O

i h

n A

C e

H I

l b

l L

R I

u f.

. e 9l T

SI

a e

t t

S H

ta L t

l Ru M

l u

l

. C

. u L

L it s

l t H u

C t

. L P

l' H

t e

O l

l t

t-l R

. L ti >f C

A A

tl i O I

Pt t

t A4 H

ts d

o U.

4 O

U. n.

i 0

U 0

e i

L t

G L

t l

I L

l l

lH l

1 (

H l

1 I

1 l

. U

- i.

l A

l Y

C H

Il l

l 0Lo

/

i i u

i A

h I

t l

l U

l Y N

U n

t I

I L

l l

ti 1

t H

t i

t u

G O

Al tl R

I C

t lO H

L Pl Pn A

i s

H l

S I

t i

. i i l

t l

L.

o :u( ; n u u u al I

t.

P t

i e

u t

t r i l

C i

f l

ul t

i O

(

i L

o t.

H o i t A l

t l

L

(

f H

LS P

lA H

R O

P l'

P P

P e..

_ Y

. I 1

I 1

1 1

1 2

2 2

- H

. P

. J -.

. L. A.

n 0

1 4

5 7

2 Z

2 2

5 V

3 1

6 6

6 1

6 t S.

I 1

2 2

2 1

1 1

1 I

2 3

3 3

3 C.

l 7

14 3

1 L.

E u

1 A

t 3

S 0

0 A

3 4

1 2

7 l

l s

l

_ : J.

4 t.

0

?

2 1

Z 2

5 li 1

4 l

1 i i it i i t.

1 I

C

?

1 I

1 1

t 1

iL t

t L

I L

l s

i

. t 4 1

2 3

4 5

4 7

o 1

0 1

2 4

S o

1 0

V

. i 1

1 1

1 l

1 1

I

. l

's 3

_~

"N E g., w Z T' N %,'" M*,

1

) 3]'

1) d )d d '32 g)JQ m9~yOyjC55"ywWk.mWC7 l

?

._m s

a M. #..F U k[2, p,b

. C

.Gr n

L

'. 73 U

[.

m Cg Cp[

s "l k

fr l

1 7

L H

t i

V l

u h

2' t

U

/

f E

i 1

- e l

t E

C t

g C

t E

t.

E L

E 0

. b E

E C

E

[

E P

P P

P C

P P

P 1

. I C

P P

f' C

P I

I l

l I

. I I

I l

t I

l I

I I

I F

P s.

a.

P A

P P

P 1

P A

d O

e W

D'

. U t

'I

'i v P

1d I

8 I

i e

I I

3 f

t f

f I

J l

u i 4

U U

t M

tu u n l

t C

r U

0 i

l

)

O U

C Ui e

n

(

C

. L l

l I

t i

0 t

. O H

I d"

Q

_ L 4

I C

3

. E A

At t

u u us u

u l

l l

ff

i U

l s

s t

t l

l s

t.

1 l

l t

t a

I i

t l

'e t

t l

l, U

u u U

U X

. R 4

l U

u u u 1

U t

l t

4 l

T t

H R

R u

l H

H R

H H

1'l C

lI H

H u

R R

8 k

t

(

t L

1 l

. i

[

t t

L t

t f

[

t l

f t

t

[

1 t

i i

t (l

H N

H I

H 1

I l

H H

H N

A l

il R

l K

H i

5 e

l l

A P

_. a A

1 3

. t 1

2 2

2 de 4

d 6

6 0

3 3

84 1

0 7' _

9 3

3 4

4 4

84 4

. P 1

1 1

2 2

2 4

O 1

l T

l l

A

)

R

....e.

i 3

[

l 1

_ 5 A

A A

0 D

D D

D

[

l I

f, A

A A

A L

A A

A G

t 4

9 9

A A

A l

I 2

7 7

1 Y

9 A

6

/

7 O

. fi 3

3 3

5 3

3 3

S da I

3 3

5 2

l 3

I C

l 3

3 3

3 T

3 G

_ i C

U

(

I L

l S

i

_ 3 I

C G

(

'A A

A A

P.

4 A

A A

E 1

a 7

9 6

5 0

0 0

0 9

84 0

f L

. si 3

5 3

3 3

2 2

2 3

3 2

H L

1 1

[

S l

l C

I I

t l

S t

L l

O H'

?

l l

I L

L L

l A

I l

f S

V t

. S H

Y t

[

"t.I

.. L 2

G t

h F.

t i

H l

A H

s 5

2 l

t t

'l A

1 3

3 2

1 P

l Yu YS l

7 1

4 1

P

_ u D

u 1

1 1

4 0

S Yf I

l 1

1 f S I

l G

7 2

0 G

6 O

f 1

l l l 4

! i 3

L t

L 0

ld O

2 1

R i

L t

l O

ul uC H(

. e.

4 i

U L

it R

14 7

3_

1 l

P H

R L

C b.

H f

G.

4 O.

lMat

. i l

A A

T

4 4

R P

S" V.

V O

"t 5"

l.

C_

L.

C.

5" 5"

0 i

f L

h l D R

t S

I tt D

U l

. L t.

a s

6" 0"

u r 0 A

1" 2"

2" 3"

3" 2"

t a

3" d'

3" t

I 1

/

3 1

2 1

1 2

t l

H d

1 2

u t

t '

I P

i.

r iU I

l t

t tl H

t T

H l

D L t

T f

Il l

I P

l 1

e I

r i

i i.

K C

E r

S l

H O

l a

)

3 PI C

L C

s S

A S

I t

l d

i r

t t

S O

O O

H u

b 5

(

l 1

D A

i I

0 l

1 l t 1

l o

-i i

I L

P i

Al R

l A

t t

1 S

l E

id l

4' T, 4

i l

8 it i

0 4

0 i

c L

W L

H l

V l

E F

f R

l H

(

1 0

1 P

(

l L l

2 t

D l

(

t P

l l

l t

L t

A t

l

<, t u

L o

L l

i S

A I

t l

L l A 1 a' A

A O

R I

i l.

. i

. i E

T f

V I

A l

l H

I I S H

Y i

P V

O0 u

G~.

u D

k i

. ut l

L l

t G

l Al C

d t

tt t

L U4 H

Kl V

Vil t

H

. P l

A I

U 1

l A

t < i iu l

Y IO tu G

O l

i Y

l L

l i

C I'

1 el X

t A

h

_ l dl T

l a

l 1

l t

A L

A A P D

(

. f I

l I

i 1

A i

t A

H

'e.

R I

I T

O L t S. IPv t

0 l

H S

S t

P Ot S

0 L

t 1

PP

_ P L

P l

5 l

4 D

i i

L

! 1

.. Q O

C t

G 1

i i l

S L

L lSLi O

1 X

i L

YO

!e '11 u3 l

A A

. l O

a i

A 5

i0 l

o 0

O I

h 8

I S

I il t

V PF t

P l

S P

i I

l I

H O P

t I

L L i l

H A

L i 1

l Ol i Cl u

t I

f l

R 1

T I l 1

S A

O S

I C l 0t t

t L

L C

- i t

i.

t S

b f

l t

8 Ml 11 4

C t

G L A 4

l hI

- S S

t 5

i 6

. u i u

H I

S k

L t

4 uJ U

1 O

A P

l Nl 1 l

. b D

A t

11 4

4 1

. u t

i O

1 t

P f

O G

f As 0

46 1

l C

a 1

0 uL I

L A

t b

l Dt

. A A.

P i

0 u

l i L

1 l

C l '

4 A e '.

1 t

O l

f N

t t f C

S A

44

(

1 i

it t

i I R

L D

G I.

a.

i i t

I L

1 t

Df A

X 0

H S

A i.

f0 l

id t

S le l'

t l u

1 L

Y o

L, I.

U U

4 0

O 0 A

O i

f i

t l

6 t

f O

4 V

H 8

8 U1 l

U l.

A A

i L

0 t

I I i t l 1

. Y

. H 84 84 44 4

44 4

4 8,

4 4

4 l la0:

ll l

3 3

1 3

3 1

3 3

4 A

1 a.

SS P.

1 i

. S A.

9 0

0 0

u 0

0 0

2 2

2 V

9 t

0 0

0 1

4 6

I 21 s.

1 1

1 2

2 2'

3 3

. A L 2

3 3

3 J

3 1

3

. C S

L.

A 4

0 7

O 6

0 0

L l

2 8

2 2

S 3

aa 0

2 5

0 7

3 3

S e

2 4

I I

0 1

3 3

3 2

2 2

F 1

l

. HJ I

1 2

04 a4 1

1 1

L l

(

1 1

1 I

3 l

8

?

o L.

))$

$27UAJ. Nd 34 m l

. l J.

0 1

2 1

4 5

(,

7 0

)

0 1

2 5

o 5

J 9

) t4, 4

2 2

2 7

2 2'

3 3

l N)'

/

T

"-[.73af P

. I 7

2 q q. U C. /.e.

b Lh pg i

S. ' y T

' - =

Cw. ~5. W.

\\

C E

)Oj 3- ' i "C

L' J

..a' I

x

(

"

ML19246A603

Text

Navigation menu

Search