ML19340F180
| ML19340F180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1980 |
| From: | Mcdonald J TEXAS TECH UNIV., LUBBOCK, TX |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340F179 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-04-76-345, CON-NRC-4-76-345, TASK-02-02.A, TASK-2-2.A, TASK-RR NUDOCS 8101210233 | |
| Download: ML19340F180 (26) | |
Text
_.
.9 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P0OR QUAllTY PAGES TORNADO AND STRA G-T WIND - AZARD PROBAB LITY for DIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITE, MICHIGAN by James R. Mcdonald, P.E.
nstitute for Disas:er Researc7
~~EXAS ~~EC-U s VE TS ~~Y
_ubboc s,~~ exes 79409 P00R BRSIWL 8101:.
2.33
v 4
TORNADO AND STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD PROBABILITY' for BIG ROCK POINT NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR SITE, MICHIGAN 1
by Jares R. Mcdonald, P.E.
1,
[
4
)
o Prepared for i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Site Safety Research Branch 5
Division of Reactor Safety Research May, 1980 i
Institute for Disaster Research j
Texas Tech University i
Lubbock, Texas i
i i
1 FORE'ARD Hazard probability assessmer.t for tornadoes and other extreme winds at the Big Rock Point nuclear power reactor site are presented herein at the request of Robert F. Abbey, Jr., Site Safety Research Branch, Division of Reactor Safety Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The work is supported under NRC Contract NRC-04-76-345.
Principal Investigator and Project Manager for the Institute for Disaster Research is James R. Mcdonald, P.E.
I a
l l
i 1
I.
INTRODUCTION The objective of this report is to assess tornado and straight wind probability hazards at the Big Rock Point nuclear power reactor site (See Fig. 1). The hazard probability analyses are developed using storm records frem the geographical region surrounding the site.
Ninety-five percent confidence limits on the probabilities are presented to give an indication of the accuracy of the expected hazard probabilities.
The final hazard probability model is presented geographically in Figure 6.
Windspeeds correspondin, to selected probability values are summarized in Table 8.
The basic data used in the calculations are pre-sented in this report.
Derivation of the tornado hazard assessment method-ology, the rationale and assumptions are given in Mcdonald (1980).
Use of Type I extreme value distribution function for straight wind hazard assess-ment is well documented in Simiu and Scanlan (1978).
1
W.
4r
.,ypl:
$OC-j
- r
/
.; /' '
OlG ROCK 7
L3 l
DPOINT
(-
o'
. I~'h:
4-x es p ?AEn %.
J
- 5 7
_ g;;pg ggjg_ __
- W
[E it (-
li:
Di N
GRAND RAPIDS LOCAL WEATIIER REGION y
STATION g
-Lhi*ii,Wi:5 MfM.
O
(?.:
GLOOAL M
wisc(mn jj Rf'GION
- D-=
/
aums 4:iss
$"2 5" j!
(
m==
l N
42'
':D=
F"""
FIGURE 1.
LOCAL AtlD GLOBAL REGIGdS FOR BIS ROCK POINT
II. TORNAD0 HAZARD PROBABILITY ASSESSMENT A.
METHODOLOGY The tornado hazard model developed by the Institute for Disaster Research (IDR) accounts for gradations of damage across the tornado path width and along its length.
There are four basic steps involved in the methodology.
(1) Determination of an area-intensity relationship in a global region surrounding the site of interest.
(2) Determination of an occurrence-intensity relationship in a local region surrounding the site.
(3) Calculation of the probabilities of a point within the local region experiencing windspeeds in some windspeed interval.
(4) Determination of the probability of windspeeds in the local region exceeding the interval values.
R.
CALCULATIONS i.
Site Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Generating Station 2.
Coordinates Latitude 45 21' 32" N Longitude 85 11' 45" W 3.
Area-Intensity Relationship Global Region 0
Lati tude 42 to 46 N 0
0 Longitude 83 to 89 W Data DAPPLE Tornado Data Tape UT1678 (Fujita et al., 1979)
Period of Record 1971 - 1973 3
i eb See Figure 1 for definition of the global region.
The region is selected to be as large as possible and still give reasonably homog-nous conditions for tornado formation. The relatively short period of record is used because the data are more complete and accurate than that collected prior to 1971, especially with regard to tornado damage path characteristics. The area-intensity matrix is shown in Table 1.
It gives the number of tornadoes in each corresponding area-intensity classification.
From this information, the mean damage path area per F-scale can be obtained.
TABLE 1 AREA-INTENSITY MATRIX Number of Tornadoes
- Area Mean Area Interval F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 (so mi) 2\\ 0 0
0 0.316E-02 0
21 17 1
7 12 7
\\ 0 0
0 0.100E-01 2
7 25 9
3N 0 0
- 0. 316 E-01 3
1 18 20 0 \\ 0 0
0.100E-00 4
1 23 8
3 2g0
- 0. 315E-0G 0\\ 3 2
2 1
\\0 0.100E 01 5
2 6
0
\\2 1
2 1
0 0.316E 01 0\\ 0 2
1 0
0.100E 02 7
0 8
0 0
\\0 1
0 0
0.316E 02 9
0 0
0\\
0 0
0 0.100E 03 i
10 0
0 0
0 0
0.316E 03 4
Total s 37 100 49 13 5
0
- Those tornadoes outside the dashed lines are considered outliers and have been eliminated from the data set.
Mean Damage Path Area Per F-Scale F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Me m Area, i
sq mi 0.0209 0.1935 0.2051 4.6894 2.9584 Median Windspeed, mph 56 92.5 135 132 233.5 239.5 4
Area-Intensity function Linear regression analysis of the above area-intensity data, based on a log-log plot, yields the following functional relationship:
Log (Area) = 3.30 Log V - 7.339 (1)
The coefficien: cf determination is 2 = 0.393 r
Area-Intensity Relationship The expected mean area is obtained from Equation (1) above.
Upcer and lower bound confidence limits are calculated at the 95 percent level.
These values are shown in Table 2.
Figure 2 shows a plot of the area-intensity relationship.
TABLE 2 AREA-INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Expected Mean area a$, sq mi 0.0265 0.1383 0.4808 1.2870 2.9257 5.9420 Lower limit a$, sq mi 0.0082 0.0433 0.1501 0.3992 0.9000 1.8112 Upper limit a$, sq mi 0.085 0.442 1.541 4.149 9.510 19.493 Median F-scale Windspeed, mph 56 92.5 135 182 233.5 239.5 4
Occurrence-Intensity Relationshio Local Region Latitude 43 to 46 N 0
0 Longitude 83 to 37 W Area = 10,912 - 14,927
= 25,935 sq mi An area of 14,927 sq mi is deducted from the local region because of the water.
There are, of course, no tornadoes recorded over water.
See Figure 1 for definition of local regicn and its rela-tionship to the site.
5
. ~.
10 0
/
/
l J
2 10 j
,7
/
6
-r 1
f.O l
4
/
/
/
/
I I
/
/
Q
/
b
/
a Q.
/
l#
O.I
/
/
LLJ
/
/
O 95% CONFIDENCE y
{
,/
INTERVAL o
Q
/
O.01 56 92.5 13 3.5 18 2 233.5 289.5 i
WINDSPEED MPH i
FIGURE 2.
AREA-INTENSITY RELATINSHIP FOR BIG ROCK POINT l
P00R BRIGINAL l
[
6
Data DAPPLE Totnado Data Tape UT1678 (Fujita, et al., 1979)
Period of Record 1950 to 1978 The records used do not necessarily include every tornado that has occurred in the local region.
For one reason or another, some tornadoes go unreported.
The population density within a 50 mile radius of the site is 16 persons per sq mi (USNRC,1979).
This relatively Icw population density, coupled with a short sight dis-tance because of the terrain, tends toward an increase in the number of unreported tornadoes.
This trend is partially offset because tne terrain is such that identifiable paths can be seen, should a tornado touch down (damage to structures, trees, fences, and utility poles).
The number of unreported tornadoes in the local region during the reporting period is likely to be less than 30 percent.
Neglecting these unreported tornadoes gives results that are slightly unconser-vative. The number of reported tornadoes in the local region is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3 NUMBER OF 9RNADOES IN THE LOCAL REGION F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Number of Tornadoes 21 72 46 8
3 0
Cumulative Number 150 129 57-11 3
0 Lower Bound F-Scale Windspeed, mph 40 73 113 158 207 261 Occurrence-Intensity Function The function used is obtained by performing a linear regression analysis using the F0 and F1 tornadoes and another linear regression analysis using the F2 to F5 tornadoes.
Linear reg 2ssion analysis of the ddta in Table 3 on a semi-log plot gives the following functional relationships:
-0.00198x y = (180.09)l0 (x s 86 mph)
(2) y = (1795.02)l0-0.01357x (1
86 mph) where y is the cumulative number of tornadoes with windspeeds greater than or equal to x.
7
Occurrence-Intens,ity Relationship The expected number of tornadoes in the 29 year pericJ is obtained from the occurence-intensity function (Equation 2).
Upper and lower bound confidence limits are also obtained at the 95 percent level.
These values are then divided by the period of record (29 years) to obtain the number of tornadoes per year for each F-scale classification A which is the needed occurrence-intensity relationship required 4f6r the hazard probability calculation.
Figure 3 shows a plot of the occurrence-intensity relationship.
TABLE 4 0CCURRENCE-INTENSITY RELATIONSHIP WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Expected number of tornadoes in inter-val, n 21.00 76.48 39.65 10.09 2.27 0.52 Lower limit 6 12.67 64.48 29.07 4.08 Upper limit 6 29.33 88.48 50.24 16.10 5.20 1.92 Expected number of tornadoes per year A 0.72 2.64 1.37 0.35 0.08 0.02 j
Lower Limit A 0.44 2.22 1.00 0.14 j
Upcer Limit A 1.01 3.05 1.73 0.56 0.18 0.07 j
5.
Tornado Hazard Probability The tornado hazard probability calcu: 1tions are performed by computer, although they can easily be done by hand. The expected hazard probabilities are obtained by using the expected area-intensity relationship (a ) and the expected occurrence-intensity relationshio usln)g. Upper and lower limits of hazard probability are obtained (A
the upper and lower limit A 's and a 's respectively.
The computer printouts for these calchlations Are contained in Appendix A.
Table 5 sumarized the tornado hazard probabilities, and includes the 95 percent confidence limits.
The tornado hazard probability model is plotted in Figure 4 Final hazard probability results are summarizeo in Section IV of this report.
8
1 l
FO F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 o000 m
Oww CL m
C E W 1000 3o i
I g
1>
~~~
53100 ' '
A
'\\,N o
s z
m8$
\\ 's %
\\
l Q
A N
z io e
s s
hO h*
5 z
N 5
\\
- u. w
%,N o w
\\A A
O l z y
.O 0
50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 3.
OCCURRENCE-INTEtiSITY RELATIONSHIP FOR BIG ROCK POIrli P00R BRIGINAL 9
TABLE 5 TORNADO HAZARD PR0' ABILITIES WITH 95 PERCENT CONF 4DENCE LIMITS Mean Hazard Tornado Windspeeds, moh Recurrence Probability Expected Lower Upper Interval Per Year Value Limit Limit 10,000 1.0 x 10-4 56
<10 120
-5 100,000 1.0 x 10 140 74 215
-6 1,000,000 1.0 x 10 21 5 150 288
-7 10,000,000 1.0 x 10 272 207 371 1
4 10
I l
C d
-2 I r to *,
g en
'%s*%
W H
l x lO' 4 N N.
Og E<
\\
\\
d >-
N\\
N O
h2
-5 N
s l x lO N
O g
\\
is
%, N N
o z N
\\
N HC
-6
\\
\\
\\,
gy 1x10
'N, N
$w@
BIG ROCK
\\
'g
\\
POINT
\\
\\
A3
-7 I\\
\\
h ixio 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 4.
TORNAD0 HAZARD PROBABILITY MODEL WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS P00R ORIGINAL l
t 11 L
III. STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD ASSESSMENT A.
METHODOLOGY A set of annual extreme fastest-mile windspeeds are used to fit a cumulative probability distribution function in order to obtain the straight wind hazard probabilities.
The Type I extreme value function generally fits the data well.
In view of the studies by Simiu and Filliben (1975),
the Type I distribution function is used in lieu of the Type II that was used previously (ANSI,1972). A detailed description of the methodology is given in Simiu and Scanlan (1978).
B.
CALCULATIONS Annual extreme fastest-mile windspeed data are not available at the power plant site. The two closest stations are Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, which is 100 miles north northeast of the site, and Grand Rapids, Mit igan, which is 165 miles south of the site.
The Type I distribution based on Sault Ste Marie data gives lower windspeeds than Grand Rapids for a given mean recurrence interval.
Because the site is 165 miles north of Grand Rapids, the Sault Ste Marie data might be more nearly representative of conditions at the c'te.
However, because of the large expanse of the open water of Lake Michigan, it was felt that the Sault Ste Marie data may give unconservative results for the site.
Therefore, the Type I distribution based on Grand Rapids data is used for the straight wind hazard probacility model for the site.
The set of annual extreme fastest-mile windspeeds for Grand Rapids, Michigan is given in Table 6.
The windspeeds are adjusted to a standard 10 m anemometer height. The data are taken from Simiu, Changery and Filliben (1979) and cover the 27 year period from 1951 to 1977. The 12
sample mean is 48.33 and the standard deviation is 10.11 Statistical tests show that the data fits the Type I distribution very well.
i TABLE 6 ANNUAL EXTREME FASTEST-MILE WINDSPEEDS AT GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN Windspeed Year moh Direction Date 1951 43 W
10/30 1952 59 SW 11/26 1953 42 SW 02/06 1954 52 SW 03/25 1955 40 W
11/16 1956 47 NW 03/06 1957 41 W
03/15 1958 36 NW 11/29 1959 36 SW 09/26 1960 39 SW 04/11 1961 36 SW 03/27 1962 37 W
04/30 1963 41 SW 04/03 1964 63 W
06/09 1965 57 W
06/20 1966 44 SW 03/18 1967 47 SW 01/16 1968 55 SW 04/08 1969 55 SW 10/07 1970 44 W
11/22 1971 63 SW 02/05 1972 61 SW 01/24 1973 41 S
C4/16 1974 51 SW 03/22 1975 67 5
11/10 1976 67 SW 03/20 1977 43 W
07/01 The expected windspeeds for various mean recurrence intervals along with 95 percent confidence limits are given in Table 7.
The straight wind hazard probability model is plotted in Figure 5.
13
TABLE 7 STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD PROBABILITIES WITH 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LIMITS Mean Expected Upper Lower Recurrence Hazard Fastest-Mile Limit Limit Level Probability Windsceed, moh moh moh 10 1.0 x 10~I 62 70 54
-2 20 5.0 x 10 68 78 58 I
2.0 x 10-2 76 89 63 50 100 1.0 x 10-2 82 97 67 200 5.0 x 10-3 87 104 70 500 2.0 x 10,3 95 115 75 1,000 1.0 x 10-3 100 123 78 10,000 1.0 x 10-4 119 149 90 100,000 1.0 x 10-5 138 175 102 1,000,000 1.0 x 10-6 157 201 114 i
1 14
Q t
h 1 x 10 m
s
\\
\\
E
\\
l x 10'
\\
Ei
\\
\\
QW W>
s
\\
\\
h I x !O-(1.
E
\\
\\
1 F-O 4
\\
gy I x lO
\\
@wg BIG ROCK
\\
\\
mC POINT
\\
$ siE
\\
\\
CL 3
-5 i
i,.g 50 10 0 ISO 200 250 301 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 5.
STRAIGHT WIND HAZARD MODEL WITH 95 PERCENT j
CONFIDENCE LIMITS P00R ORIGINAL 15
IV. WINDSPEED HAZARD PROBABILITY MODEL Windspeed hazard probability, which includes both tornadoes and straight winds, is the probability of a point within some defined region experiencing windspeeds greater than or equal to some threshold value in i
cne year. Tornado hazard probabilities are the same at any doint w'th-in one year.
The Type I extreme value distribution function obtained from data collected at Grand Rapids, Michigan is used for the straight wind probability hazard assessment at the Big Rock Point plant site.
Tornado windspeeds are referenced to 30 ft. above ground level (approximately 10 m) and are the maximum horizontal windspeeds. Accord-ing to Fujita (1971), F-scale windspeeds are fastest-one-quarter mile winds.
However, because of the translational speed of a tornado, winds acting or a structure may be of considerably shorter duration.
Because 3
tornado windspeeds are based on appearance of damage, they are considered to be effective velocities, which include effects o# gust, structure size and structure frequency.
For design purposes, ;he gust response factor for tornado winds may be taken as unity.
The straight winds are fastest-mile windspeeds which have a variable time duration, depending on the magnitude of the windspeeds.
Values are normalized to a 10m anemometer height.
For design purposes, gust res-ponse factors greater than unity are appropriate (See ANSI A58.1, 1972).
The tornado and straight wind models are ccT.bined in Figure 6 to obtain the final windspeed model.
For design or evaluation purposes, one needs to know the type of storm that controls the criteria.
For windspeeds less than 139 mph, the straight wind model governs.
For i
1 16
.___.y,
windspeeds greater than 139 mph, the tornado model governs.
In the case of a tornado, the atmospheric pressure change and missiles must be taken into account in addition to the wind effects.
Because of this, the union of the two events (tornado and straight winds) is not of particular interest.
Table 8 summarizes the final windspeed hazard probabilities.
(
1 1
17
i x 10-3
\\
\\
\\
k
\\
STRAIGHT
'mN S o
a
\\
v
,,,g o
\\
\\
5
\\
\\
_E
\\
\\
i,io-3 s
\\
\\
@z
\\
\\
56
\\
\\
d>
'\\
s
_4 Ww
\\
\\
b
\\
Ez__
-5
\\
\\
i x 1o bo
\\
i x ic e
\\
\\
03 95 PERCENT TORNADOES'
\\
\\
CONFIDENCE N
\\
LIMITS 7
l x 16 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 WINDSPEED MPH FIGURE 6.
WINDSPEED HAZARD PROSABILITY MODEL FOR SIG ROCK POINT P00R ORIGINAL 18
TABLE 8
SUMMARY
OF WINDSPEED HAZARD PROBABILITIES FOR BIG ROCK POINT Mean Expected Recurrence Hazard Windspeed Interval Probability moh Tvoe of Stom 10 1.0 x 10-1 62 Straight Wind 100 1.0 x 10-2 82 Straight Wind 1,000 1.0 x 10-3 100 Straight Wind 10,000 1.0 x 10-4 119 Straight Wind 100,000 1.0 x 10-5 140 Tornado 1,000,000 1.0 x 10-6 215 Tornado 10,000,000 1.0 x 10-7 272 Tornado 19
REFERE'1CES 1.
ANSI, 1972:
" Building Code Requirements for Minimum Design Loads in Buildings and Other Structures," A53.1, American National Standards Institute, Inc., New York, New York.
2.
Fujita, T.
T., 1971:
" Proposed Characterization of Tornadoes and Hurricanes by Area and Intensity," SMRP No. 91, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
3.
Fujita, T.
T., Tecson, J. J, and Abbey, R.
F., 1979:
" Statistics of U. S. Tornadoes Based on the CAPPLE Tornado Tape," lith Conference on Severe Local Storms, Kansas City, Misscuri, October 2-5, 1979, published by American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts.
4.
Mcdonald, J. R.,1980:
"A Methodology for Tornado Hazard Assessment,"
Institute for Disaster Research, Texas Tech Universit/. Lubbock, Texas.
5.
Simiu, E., Changery, M. J. and Filliben, J. J.,1979:
" Extreme Wind-soeeds at 129 Stations in the Contiguous United States," NSS Building Science Service 113, National Bureau of' Standards, Washington, D.C.
6.
Simiu, E. and Scanlan, R. H.,1978: Wind Effects on Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
7.
Simiu, E. and Filliben, J. J.,1975:
" Statistical Analysis of Extreme Winds," Technical Note No. 853, National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D. C.
3.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,1979:
Demograohic Statistics Pertaining to Nuclear Power Reactor Sites, NUREG-0348, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Washington, D. C.
20
1 i
i es,.. =. =
? *:
.=. - ~.
. s,. =. %.-
c........
~
. w.
- n..-.~
. ~.
6
+
~..
s..
s.~..
...... ~
C ~. r. : > >
-. ~,.s
. c
.. n-s -
LA.
k.
.m.d C
.s
~...
.~
., e w
n.
~
-a
>=
"."3 a.
w
=c-
. s m.
s.
o L,,)
w
.x
. w v
...~
. w... ss 4
n.
.,,..s..
w
~ nn n.
. w
. w w
. v.,.
.=
g y
s.
.,., w a.
w.
y w
A x.
4 C.
~.
u..
a
+
2 s.
...,.s.
e.
. i W A O.
E.
y q y W
.gi.
1 9
e,-
b e.,
p
=,.
w
.a
.e6 m.
A
-e P00R ORIGINAi.
l l
l A
e.'
t
a A
e a.
~
l
. =.
4 t1 s
=. - -
- 3.. g...
~
.. ~
-W - -.
..: 2 s
m
.e W
O-G
"~.
, 2.=. =. c.. :,
'..2
,W......
=.i.
E'.
g r
e e
84e o..
e
.e m
6 M*
.6 6
W W
a M
6 6
a 6
6'e. e#."
e.
66 M
.9 W
9.e w
4 g
.e.
e
-+ A6 eW.
W 4
.e.
4
.s' e.
W #
g.
6 4
s p
g
.e r.
w
.e e
O A.
w.
6.
W
... =,
a A. o.
W MI.P ap %
e W W 4P W
h e.
e
.e A
um
. A
'A.
4*
W Y
e 6
d S
%.g 4.5 s...~.%
a.g
- g
=.
.e.n ge*. '
g e.m g
.e a
s.
.o a.
g A.
W a
4 W
e 4
e
.. W,EbW.
mO A.
e W %Bab a
%iP w w W 8
W a.
m.* 9 p8'.
m.
O e
e e
..eW W.
e k
%.mie8
- w e..,.,
,.W ^.....
W
- m..,,.
s.
m,d
. '=..
.p 9
e.
pr A e. e@
.e e
9 mW e
tugF
%e..
w.
e w.
n w ~
w
%>~.
w w w w W 4sr e
+.
.e O
A.
s.
p.
g ph g
Aw p
o.g g
4
<E..
.P p
- .4 %.
6 g.
A, s.
p 8
g
- W e
6
- .n.,w.=..
p m
g".
W
.F w
w A.
a W
e g
W W
W
..W W"'W M.
W g
4..
e.
m A.'
6 O
.e.
e g
e.
I e
m.
=.
m I.
e,-
e..
,. 9 g. *..
, =.
e g
.s.
,.,e m.
M e..
M
@ W O." g.
F g %
O 4
~
.m.
w w
..,, _ w~.
/
gp b'
w W
w e.
6 p
o..
a.
- q
('
O b
O ee w.
- p. g *..,.
/
. m
. ae m.-- p e
e.
- we.. w D k.
e b"
g se...*
9e
.e g
e.%
8 Ehe N
g e k.
g.
g g
g
.mb d.
4.
. ~...
.. ~
~
= _ -.=..
e*
W s
m g
I L.
e
.=,.
6 N
w
\\
o.
p d
e
.e 6
'M 6
O P00R ORIGINAL l
AM 1
L4
4
-W
=.
- , - ; y t'..
W.,
_ =..
.e
_.i -.-.
~_
s
. s _-
- - - 0.,>.: -
A
.e,,..- -
<... ~-_
W r.-
.a=..,
er e
g r
A.-
- a....
G W p 4
.eW e
A."
- e
- G W
e g
de-4 4
O D
e6.9.9 ae W A.
G W
W e
.G W4 6
.e e
S ae m
.e eW w W
e4 a WP eG
.e e
4 e 6 9
e e
=
=
g a
e e
W e
e W
4 a
9 O
e
.,b d,4 %
- 4 p
%F 4.
W.
,W p gg 4
e
. =
e 8.
e g
g%
4 AF.
%A ee W
6W G
e w
e w
e
=
e e
m W
W@
e S
e g
eS W
WG pe g
p ge W
4 W
"A 4
g wep e w.
e ee e
e e
w g,9 en e
4 g
As e
e ghW MeP e. Wh % 4Aw
,4,
.O w
e.4 e.
.e wA p e4 y e
Oe A e
4 g
WD
,e G
d
%.y8 p
W.... _
,W
-W
'e-e
- d W
=
4W N.e*
.S
.M M.eW9 8 99 W4 W
,w 9
9
. w W
W 4.
W W
W
.e e
W W
ma
,ee eP A.
e Ed
~
e9 e
...=.. _ -.
... m s...
=
=.
m e
W s e*
e m *,.
q g'W d
w e
m.
G W
4 3
p 9
pm9 9
'O 9
a 9
9 9
w e
e W
.WP W...W W
"W. W.
G.
W W D
., e W
4+
.g mm.
O g
e.
9*
4 g
e sue W
6 e
W h
eAm e
.O O
O g
e Oe M %
O
,e e
e e
e aO
'O g
g g
G e
e-e e@
e 8
- m A6 e
e
%e9 M
a4 e
4 esp
- g R%
e e
M, De.a.
e
.-e m
8
-e e.
9
'aW9 W
%e.
9 p
6 e
e W
8 e
a e
h 9
O W
W Wes g 6 e
~
9
=
W
- e' e
=
e-e 4
N y
+
e e
-6 99 6
e 6
e.
Et e
eip e
W 9
9 m.
M e*
e e~
e.
e 4
ee 8
A.
A 6
- g S
~
y G=
4 em g"
,W 4.
e A.
m g
=**
w ee e
W.,.,
e
.ma e
e O
W a
W G
e 3
e e
ar e
Lw e@
6 O
6 4
.e 9$
g i
4 am.
e p*
P00R ORIGINil
,3 l
1