ML19247A098
| ML19247A098 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1979 |
| From: | Trammell C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907300024 | |
| Download: ML19247A098 (14) | |
Text
.
j e ato d
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- .L
...E WASHINGTON,9. C. 20555 sA f
%, ' b' JUNE 2 0 1979
+...*
Docket No. 50-344 LICENSEE:
Portland General Electric Company (PGE)
FACILITY:
Trojan Nuclear Plant TRIP REPORT - VISIT TO TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT AND BECHTEL SAN FRANCISCO JUNE 13-15,1979 On June 13 and 14,1979, representatives of the NRC staff visited Trojan Nuclear Plant for an on-site review of the proposed seismic modifications to the Control Building.
Persons participating in this portion of the trip are identified in.ittachment 1.
The purpose of the site visit was ta provide the opportunity f' a
detailed walk-dwn of the facility.n relation to the proposed building desip changes. Specifically observed were:
1 Both sides or i.he control building west wall (column line R) between el. 45 ' and 117 '.
2.
The control building east wall (column line N) between el.
65' and el. 93'.
3.
All non-structural walls in the control / fuel / auxiliary building complex.
4.
Shear walls 6 and 8 enclosing the monitor tank.
5.
The diesel-generator rooms.
6.
The proposed location of the new diesel generator combustion air intake in the turbine building north wall.
At the conclusion of the visit the following items were discussed:
1.
More detailed information is needed concerning essential systems located below grade and the potential for do.aage to them due to handling of the steel plates.
2.
The effects and control of dust, noise, and vibration created by drilling holes through the control building walls should be considered.
The impact on fire barrier integrity should also be addressed.
PGE is considering k blj 7m O'LH JL7 7907300
-2 JUNE 2 ' UU drilling a test hole to determine these effects.
3.
PGE stated that oc changes to the security plan are needed. All construction personnel will either be badged (and scrutinized to the same degree as PGE employees) or escorted in accordance with the security plan.
~
4.
PGE plans to leave the diesel-generator day tank vent line in place while installing the steel plates.
5.
PGE estimates that it will take one shif t to install eacn plate (8 plates), including the heavy top plate.
(The top plate weighs 47,000 pounds.)
6.
PGE stated that it may be desirable to install protective covers over selected cable trays to protect cables from an accidental drop of washers, nuts, tools, etc.
7.
NRC stated that the load sharing on each chain fall should be addressed.
8.
PGE plans to use Yale NH series chain falls, each rated at 15 tons.
Four chain falls will be used for each plate -
fully redundant.
On June 15, 1970, the NRC staff met with represertatives of Bechtel Power Corporation at their headquarters in San Francisco. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss in detail the 50 NRC gestions transmitted to PGE by letter of May 18, 1979. See Attachment 2 for those attending.
See Attachment 3 for the questions, which served as the meeting agenda.
Bechtel identified two changes to the Trojan Control Building design report, which will be described in Revision 2 to P3E-1020:
1, The existing 7' x 7' equipment hatch in the control building east wall will be reduced to a 4' x 4' opening inctead of being eliminated.
2.
Due to a refinement in a recent STARDYNE run, the east wall will be thickened and increased in height to el. 93'.
PGE will submit Revision ' to PGE-1020 describing these changes in about one week. NRC cuestions will be answered starting about the first week in July - pe haps in several letters.
483 308
. JUNE 2 C 7979 The staff expressed an additional concern (not contained in the 50 questions) regarding the effect, if any, of cracking in concrete block on anchor bolt (base plate) integrity. The staff also raised questions as to the seismic restraint of the steel plates during various phases of construction. PGE stated that it has not yet been decided whether or not these plates will be used as concrete forms.
Charles M. Trammell, Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #1 Division of Operating Reactors Attac hments :
1.
List of Participants - site visit 2.
List of Participants - Bechtel 3.
Request for Additional Information (50 questicas) cc: w/ attachments See next page
JUNE 2 0 1979 Docket Files William Kinsey, Esquire NRC PDR 1002 N.E. Holladay Local PDR Portland, Oregon 97232 ORBI Reading NRR Reading Columbia Environmental Council H. Denton 203 First Street E. Case St. Helens, Oregon 97051
- v. Stello D. Eisenhut Ronald H. Johnson, Esquire B. Grimes Corporate Attorney R. Volimer Portland General Electric Company A. Schwenctr 121 S.W. Salmon Street D. Ziemann Portland, Oregon 97204 P. Check G. Lainas Marshall E. Miller, Esquire, Chairman D. Davis Atomic Safety ana Licensing Board B. Grines U. S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission T.
Ippolito Washington, D. C.
2055S R. Reia V. Noonan Atomic Safety and Licensinq Board Panel (5)
G. Knighton U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission D. Brinkman Washington, D. C.
20555 Project Manager DELD Docketing and Service Section (4)
OI&E (3) 6ffice of the Secretary C. Parrph V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P t cipants asM ngton, D. C.
2M J. Buchanan TERA Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board cens e 9pt Service List U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Coard U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. D. C.
20555
.b $ 0
JUNE 2 0 W9 Mr. H. H. Phillips Mr. John A. Kullberg Portland General Electric Company Route One 121 S.W. Salmon Street Box 2500 Portland, Oregon 97204 Sauvie Island, Oregon 97231 Warren Hastings, Esquire Ms. Nina Bell Counsel for Portland General 728 S.E. 26th Street Electric Company Portland, Oregon 97214 121 S.W. Salmon Street Portlano, Oregon 97204 Mr. Stephen M. Willingham 555 N. Tomahawk Drive Mr. J. L. Frewing, Manager Portland, Oregon 97217 Generation Licensing and Analysis Portland General Electric Company Mr. Eugene Rosolie 121 S.W. Salmon Street Coalition for Safe Power Portland, Oregon 97204 215 S.E. 9th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97214 Columbia County Courthouse Law Library, Circuit Court Room Richard M. Sandvik, Esquire St. Helens, Oregon 97501 Frank W. Ostrander, Jr.
Counsel for Oregon Dept. of Director, Oregon Department of Energy Energy Labor and Industries Building, Rooin 111 500 Pacific Building Salem, Oregon 97310 520 S.W. Yamhill Portland, Oregon 97204 Dr. Hugh D. Paxton 1220 41st Street Maurice Axelrad, Esquire Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 Lowenstein, Newman, Reis, Axelrad and Toll Michael Malmrose Suite 1214 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1025 Connectic;t Avenue, N.W.
Trojan Nuclear Plant Washington, D. C.
20036 P. O. Box 0 Rainier, Oregon 97048 Mr. David B. McCoy 348 Hussey Lane Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Grants Pass, Oregon 97526 Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology Ms. C. Gail Parson Oklahoma State University 800 S.W. Green f6 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Portland, Cregon 97526 48R x-vt
A_TTACHMENT 1 TROJAN SITE VISIT JUNE 13-14,1979 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Coalition for Safe Power J. E. Knigh+~
E. Rosolie J. Gray emensen Bechtel Power Corporatinn C. Trammell W. Edwards K. Herring J. Webber K. Paulson PGE J. O' Leary G. Lanthrum R. Johnson State of Orer;on Ho H. Laursen, consultant to Dept. of Energy Ald r ebaes F. Ostrander, Dept. of Justice S. Christiansen A. Starmer T. Bushnell D. Mitchem G. Zimmerman 48 312 e
ATTACHMENT 2 JUNE 15, 1979 CONFERENCE WITH N.R.C.
Name Organization Bruce Churchill Shaw-Pittman-Potts-Trowbridge Boris Bre.cler Wiss-Jenney-Elstner Maurice Axelrad Lowenstein-Newman-Ries-Axelrad & Toll Harold Laursen Oregon Dept. of Energy Joseph Gray NRC Ken Herring NRC Charles Trammel NRC Joe Mattore NRC Ron Johnson PGE Don Broehl PGE Ted Bushnell PGE Gary Lantham PGE Ken Buchert Bechtel Dick Anderson Bechtel Jack O' Leary Bechtel Bill White Bechtel Karl Gross Bechtel Larry Damon Bechtel Enrique Goldanberg Bechtel Steve Kadysiewski Bechtel Vel Shunmugavel Bechtel Bimal Sarkar Bechtel Fred Meyer Bechtel
/fgg BB-10 7a13
ATTACHMENT 3
- ~~
fP REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INF0FJtATION
+
ii TROJAN NUCLEAR PLANT PROPOSED CONTROL BUILDING DESIGN MODIFICATIO:!S
=-
ENGINEERING GRANCH 5"
DIVISION OF OPERATING REACTORS s~
-K
="
h 1.
The footnote on page 1-7 which defines " safety related" implies that 5~:
there may be a difference between this and the original definition of E
the term.
Provide a list of any equipment, components, and piping E
which were originally designated as " safety related" but are no longer g2.
being considered as such and corresponding justifications for no longer i;;
considering them as " safety related."
f l
2.
Verify that closely spaced modes resulting from the modal analysis of 1
. the building complex are being considered in accordance with the criteria Ef-I delineated in BC-TOP-4A. Additionally,. describe what the. beam elements
{
in the STARDYNE finite element mesh represent.
.s N
3.
Provide clear, detailed sketches and descriptions of the connection EE interface; of the additional walls to the existing structure. Additionally, a
de3cribe the methbds by which the effects of concrete creep and shrinkage jd]
(causing tension in the walls and/or.a reduction in assumed dead weight)
J@
have been factored into the design of these additional walls.
Describe and M
justify in detail the design and the proc *dures for the connections of
{
the new walls ' to the existing st ucture."
g Verify tk t the applicable requirements of ACI 318-77 for the modifica-
- 4. ~ tions are the same as those of ACI 349-76 as supplemented by Regulatory M
Guide 1.142.
Identify any di:fferences and justify the acceptability
==
of the ACI 318-77 requirements.in. lieu of those contained in ACI 349-76 T-and Regulatory Guide 1.142.
- P M
- e 5.
Provide khe basis for your determination in Section 3.2.3 of PGE-1020 55 that the allowance for future addition of equipment will have an insig-p.3_
nificant effect on the seismic analysis.
g si 6.
For the " Criteria for Bolts", provide the following:
1.5
~
i.t a) A clear description of the bolt assembly and hardware arrangement.
[
E b) The basis for the formula to calculate the allowable shear force for W
t.
the bolt including the contact area between the wall and the steel, the stress distributica at the wall / steel interface and the maximum if compressive stress induced in the wall at this interface along with 5
justificaticn for the value.
,i c) The basis for the assumed loss factor.
g k=
d) The effect of the conditica of the in-situ wall on the assumed shear IE capacity.
ea
. i,
=.:
II 488 314 f
[
.7 I
=..
w 6
l in
~ 2.f-
==
=
7.
For the " Criteria for Studs", provide the basis for the design value
=.3_-
i being one-half the values given in Table 15 of the Nelson Division of l
TRW, Inc. publication, " Design Data 10 -- Embedment Properties o# Headed
=
i Studs."
Include a discussion of what is indicated in this table (e.g.
- -s j
maximum or mir,imum ultimate), and the statistical viriation in the _ testing
[-
which established these values, if appropriate.
ifE:
==..
- - +
?
l 8.
Verify that all resistances and stiffnesses based upcn dead load considerations
=
considers the dead load to be reduced by the vertical earthquake component.
==
l
{
9.
Provide a discussion of the type and tSe extent of the nondestructive examinations which wiil be performed on the plate welds, along with detailed
{
,j us ti fica tions.,
j 10.
Cescribe the decoupling criteria for equipment, components, piping,
$n t
etc. whose mass was lumped into that of the structural system and g
j verify that it is met everywhere.
I j
11.
Provide the shear capacities of tTe column conne tions vs. the required
~
shear resistance under the ccmbirad loadings to suppcrt your claim re in Section 3.4.2.2 that the derived flexural capacities of-the -Trojan -
d2 walls 1 are conservative in that the building walls will not slide.--
E; j
- Additionally, for all walls discuss the causes of (e.g. sh'rinYa~geT and p
the effects of the observed separation between the bottom of the steel E..
beams and the concrete along the west wali of. the Control Building..
si and 'lir:iitations on the rotational. restraint of the in-situ wall-sn'the-5
~
l
'appiop'riateness of using the double curvature specimen t'ast resulti.
I
-Significant separation of the concrete away from' the beams' or Xension..
=-
l induced in the walls where there is no separation could impact--the
~
consideration of the " box affect" or confinement as suggested by PGE
=3 i
thereby reducing the shear capacity assumed for the vall..
Quan.tify M
the extent of and effects of this unbonded condition for all walls.- Also, M:
in addition to considering the concrete strength' of 5000 psi, discuss the
' ~ "
effects of the interfaces with 3000 psi design strength concrete.
f
- 12. Justify the' ductility limit of 4 for the outer rebar in the flexural calculations. Also, considering displacement compatibility for the entire
=
[
structure using the stiffnesse; indicated by the test results, what are
.4 p
the strains predicted in the outer rebar?
Justify their acceptability EE in light of your assumptions. Additionally, for the flexural analysis i
equations justify the use of a compression zone langth of 10% of the total p.
}
effective length, and supply the maximum values of E, and justify the use 5-
[
of a linear stress-strain relationship for the concretein compression.
gj
.=
s
- 13. Discuss in detail how the effects of creep and shrinkage (e.g. wehht I
E i
reductions, tension fields, etc.) have been factored into your confideration l
of the walls shear strencths and stiffnesses.
T m
4 488 315 G
A..
[
- l,f
.j(. '
^
a
,[ g
'l A
O' n.
g..s M.
g
. m;;
4 7
c.
- l?
14.
Discuss in detail why the dead load acting for the SSE is greater than EEi that acting for the OBE, thereby resulting in greater shear capacities M.;
P fer the SSE than considered for the OBE.
EG
+
15.
Provide the basis for the 30% amplification factor assumed in the vertical Z
direction.
Hi_.
16.
Provide the basis for your calculation from the block and the beam to z
column connection capacities.
Include a discussion of the strain ompatibility Fe of the two, and the basis for the 100 psi allowable vertical shear on the
' s.'
block at corners wnich seems to include a 1/3 increase in USC allowable
' ~
stresses which would not be appropricte nor in line with current prrctice.
.pI, 4.b t
17.'
Discuss in detail the effects on the in-plane wall shear cap = city of any
~~
j.
tension induced in the walls by the gross ov2rturning ecments and the "piate be' ding" of the walls generated by the earthquake component perpendicular qL.
to these walls, g.
i=-
[
18.
In Table 3.3-1 the su.n of the effective weights in the N-S direction does E
not add up to your indicated total. Please clarify.
g p
Jj
'E.
19.
Provide the basis for yourclaim that, in lieu of the test program results, p=
'there are no UBC requirements addressing the type of walls.in the Trojan M
f.
ccmplex 'since Sec. 2417 of UBC-1963 specifies that for combinations of units, M
j.
yaterials, or mortars, the maximum stress shall not' exNed tnat p'ermitted E=
nJ for the weakest of these. Also, provide the basis for your statemenc b-
~
~
that :the USC did not envision the use of a model such as STARDYNE, therefore, E4
.e Jhigher alicwables are appropriate.
USC Section 2417 mereiy statas thrt i5 f4 J
J forces be deternined from the principles of continuity and relative l;;
f, rigidity, which is what STARDYNE does.
=
.4..
=
20.
Provide the upper limits for the relative displacement of the Turbine and
.c
.7 Control Buildings, considering the test results, in the areas where the' J.
existing shake space is being reduced by the addition of the steel plate
=
l.;
and verify that there is adequate clearance everywhere.
3.,
21.
In Section 4.2.3 you discuss the removal of part of the concrete beam along the R line between columns 41 and 46. khat was the original structural
=
J.
function of tiA beam? Verify that rem 0'al of part of the beam does not M
1 '
v compromise its structural integrity or its structural function.
Specifically, gi what impact will this have on the masonry blocks supported above the beams?
_E
'8' W
4~
22.
Provide a summary o' the load combinations and the maximum forces which M
I.;,.'
f' will be developed for the bolts and the shear studs and locally in the existing elements. Indicate where the Nelson shear studs wTil ba used.
- Also,
~
~4 discuss the shcar transfer mechanism between the steel plate and existing
',.5 walls in detail.
9' 3 ;
khh 33 y
. :g. _
7 3,.
Rf J g. ;.
u.
z.-
%?
""=
4
=:: -
sf
[..
23.
Describe and justify the design criteria for the rail stop being added in 2 _..
i
=,.,.
the Turbine Building.
- 3...
24.
Explain why the finite element representation of the new wall along column E.c line does not duplicate the wall as depicted in Figures 3.1-2 and 3.2-1.
=2:r 25.
In Section 4.2.3, reference is made to the tensioning of bolts after concrete EE-has attained " adequate strength." Defina " adequate strength" and describe W
i how it will be determined.
-"+-
l 25.
Verify that the static and dynamic effects of the rigging and the steel plate en the Turbine Building above elevation 93 feet have teen considered.
i
- -E.
l 27: What strength concrete was used to modt! the new walls in the STAROYNE g.
analysis of the modified complex? In Section 3.2.5 a concrete strength P=
=
of f'
= 5000 psi at 90 days is specified for the new wats. Will the M
quali?ication of the modified complex be affected while this strength is l
being developed after concrete placement considering both in plane and out of plane wall loadings? Provide the basis for your response.
b, Desc ibe the procedures used to remove the rock during relocation of the 3
F railroad spur (e.g. blasting) and verify that there will be no impact on, t
~"i
=
=
- =
.-f
,7-plent safety resulting from the removal of the rock;
[
{
29.
Dekribe in' detail the modifications necessary to ensure:'the seismic-
==
q'Jalification of the complex as a result of the strengtheni'ng,'or stiff'eh'ing j
of the structure and the sequence in which they will be performed.
[f
.. ~
. =. =.
=
(
30.
Provide your evaluations of the effects of the proximity:or coi1 figuration of 5E-hole patterns, including 'he effects of any cracking which is present in the h
5:
wall s.
M M.
Su=arize the details of your evaluations which determined'that p'lacement of 5E the reinforcing steel, the forms and the concre' e.will not significantly 55 degrade the seismic capability of the complex.
Include a definition of-
[
~ ~ ~
significant.
32.
Sumart:e the loads and load combinations and corresponding acceptance criteria for which the diesel generator air intake will'be designed.
Include a discussion of how the effects of the Turbine Buil. ding, a non-Category I
=
structure, have been considered.
g M
33.
Provide the basis for your determinatior, that removal of the face masonry block M
I and a portion of the concrete core at column lines 41 and 45 on column line N' f
will nor significantly effect the shear capacity of these walls, fE 55
=
488 3l7 i
- I i
e
4 l
M W
34.
Provide the capacity assumed for the dowels used to perform the wall b
modifications and the basis for this assumed capacity.
jy[
35.
Provide the basis for your determination that the connection of the guide 5
columns between the Control and Turbine Suildings will not significant'.y 5_
effect the behavior of either structure during a seismic event.
-g.
== :
36.
Provide the basis for your determination that removal of portions of the
~ ~ ~
Turbine Building will nu. effect the analysis refarrd to in Section 2 nor significantly affects its seismic capability.
+
j l
37.
Provide the ccrrclatior, wall for wall between the test specime".s and
~
the actual walls, and justification for the applicability of tne test -
soecimen results to the actual wall including a discussion of the
,,=
similarities of such items as reinforcing steel ratic an'd continuity, eccasement, material strengths, joint preparation (especially where drypack L.
was used), etc.
With regard to the drypack, refer to the article by Xahn i
and Hanson entitled, "Infilled Walls for Earthquake Strengthening" in the February 1979 ASCE Journal of the Structural Division.
This article
=
Discuss the implications of this with respect to the walls in the. Trojan.
p~h describes a " brittle" failure of a test specimen with a drypack joint.
N complex with the drypack joints and the applicabil.ity of the test results from specimens without drypack joints.
G._
f 55-E 23.
Discuss th? behavior of the test walls vs. those of the actual walls ~ aa.-
E considering the large differences in the H/T and L/T ratios. Provide the basis for your response, g=
EM 29.
Define " representative" as used in defining the struts used in saecimen.
~
M E=
El, F2 and H2.
Include a discussion of the similarity between the way in which tne struts were anchored into the bulkheads, thus encasing sE the wall vs. tas way the walls are encased in the frame formed by the
[M columns and beams in the actual' structure.
Expand this to include a similar discussion for specimens L1 and L2. Also,. discuss the similaritf e; hi!
between the horizontal steel anchorage at the edg, of the test specimens M
vs. that of the actual walls interrupted by openings, and those which
=
intersect cross walls (e.g. the wall intersection at the intersection of
=
column liaes R and 55.)
g 40.
Provide the relationships between stiffness and load degradation vs. the h
number of stress cycles at the stress levels to which the walls are loaded if to substantiate that the structure will withstand several OBE's followed by an SSE.
Indicate the number of full stress reversal cycles considered
=g 3
for each event and the number of CBE's considered for evaluation purposes, E
[
and the basis for each choice.
g
~
E 41.
Discuss in detail the error band associated with each of the test results E
(e.g.,stiffnesses, strengths, degradation,etc.).
Explain and justify how these were factored into your evaluation of the complex.
s
=
- E.:
!h
- =
g.,
42.
Discuss the bases for you statements regarding the strength differences cetween L1 and L2 in more detail.
Include further discussion of the effects i.h of the shear studs in L1 since they were only at the base as indicated in Figure A3-2.
For all specimens, indicate the reinforcement anchorage IL m
details in the upper and lower beams.
- 43. Describe in detail hcw the constant bending mcment applied to the test specimens via the auxiliary loading system in conjunction with the, main loading system compares to that which would exist due to end restraint in the actual Trojan walls, to justify the app 1'cability to the test specimens,esults directly to the actual wails.
44:
Provide the relative displacement profiles between the comolex and- ~
E other structures, along with the allowa5'e, at the compu.ted OBE
?-
stres: levels in the walls and the factored 05E stress levels in the walls considering the test data results.
z 45.
Considuring the :trength cf the column conr.ecticns for the actual walls,-
=
demonstrate that they are capable of resisting the axial forces indica.ed
=
by those results for the columns inspecimens L1 and L2. Justify any ~
=
~
exceedences of the beam / column connection capacity. *
.
r 46.
Provide the secant nodulus derived for each of the test specimens'vs. stress level; a comparison of the experimental initial elastic modulus for gi E
the-test specimens t. that calculated using the formula in Section-E 2.2;1.3.2 of Apper. dix G; the error bands, and their deviatien, for the curves representing stiffness reduction as a function of stress level; W
= = -
and the stresses in each of the walls resulting from incorporation of the stiffness reduction factors in the STAROYNE model along with the associsted dj stiffness reduction factors assumed in the analysis.
Since the stiftness g
reduction factors are not linear with stress level discun the effect 5;
of transverse gross overturning moments and transverse inertial wall icadings, g
=
plus the effects of creep and shrinkage on the stiffness in a given direction.
Discuss the effects of the embedded steel framing and how it was incorporated l~
into your analyses. Also, indicate why the results of the specimens with
- ~
struts were not incorporated into your stiffness considerations, g
47.
Provide the detailed bases for each of the variations assumed in Teble B-2 in the calculations of the peak broadening percentage.
5 22 48.
Provide the SSE and the CBE floor response spectra for aH cievations in the si
=
complex.
49.
Compare the slopes of the sides of the peaks in floor response spectra for the
=
complex frequency shift vs. stress (therefore, ground acceleratier ) leve.
as derived from the test data results to verify that the floc resconse spectra are e,nservative for all earthquake levels for both the OBE and the' SSE spectra.
Justify any non-conservative deviations.
v 7,10 48eo
.> I /
2-~
- .--.4
=
n-:,7.{Ff so. Verify that the original FSAR pipe break criteria are not impacted by the new b-analyses.
E
':.~.,::.~
~
(
- h..~..:
(
5' 1.N..
E u..
a..
5 -
.. u
_ = - -
i E
EE
..T.':.
=--
r--
=m r2
- ZU
"*1 W:.
L;;.
i.E.
=---.
==
5
=.T
-5E 5
E
.i...
n-K..
488
~n
=
E 55 L
.