ML20079N341
| ML20079N341 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1981 |
| From: | Holder S, Nichols M GEORGIA POWER CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, NUDOCS 9111110167 | |
| Download: ML20079N341 (23) | |
Text
.
n 3
l O
PLANT ED'a'IN 1. BATCH UNITS 1 AND 2 THERMAL PLUME MODEL VERD ICATION 4
GEORCIA P0k'ER COMPAhT ENVIRONMDiTAL ATTAIRS CENTER H. C. NICHOLS AND S. D. HOLDER HARCH, 1981 l
i r
'., O 9111110167 810331 PDR NUREO 1437.C PDR l
[
n
TABLE OF C0!TTDUS nu Conclusions iv Introduction 1
Katerials and Methods 2
Results 3
Discussion 4
Su=ary 4
Re f erente s 6
O O
O i
I lib! 0F TABLts i
Pare i
1.
Edvin I.11atch Iluelear Meat F:'d66 ".eperature Nuitoring During 1960.
7 2.
Edvin 1.11atch Nuclear Plant Toermal Plume Surveys.
9 3.
Comparison of observed Plume Lengths and Surface Areas with Those Predicted by the Carter Three-Dimensional Bouyant Plume Model.
10 O
l e-O 11
LIST OT PIGtTIS
)
Im 1.
Picat Cooling Water and Plant Service Water System.
11 2.
River Discharge Structure and Mixing Box.
12 3.
Altamsha River Thermal Plume Transects.
13 4.
Altanha River Thermal Plume Sarvey for June 19, 1980 (9:25).
14 Altainaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 7, 1980 (9:30).
15 6.
Altan ha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 7, 1980 (17:30).
16 7.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 11, 1980 (16:10).
17 8.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 12, 1980 (12:02).
18 O
4 l
l i
O 111
_. _ _.. _ _ _ _ -,,. _ ~. - - _ - -., _.. _ _ - _ _. _ _. _. _.
LIST OP FIGUPIS O
Page 1.
Plant cooling Water and Plant Service Water System.
11
~
2.
River Dischargt Structure and litxing Box.
'.2 3.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Transects.
13 4.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for June 19, 1980 (9:25).
14 5.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 7, 1980 (9:30).
15 6.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 7, 1980 (17t30).
16 7.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 11, 1980 (16:10).
17 8.
Altamaha River Thermal Plume Survey for August 12, 1980 (12:02).
18 O
,O l
l iii i
l l
l.
Conclusions O
I 1.
During 1980, water temperatures in the a,1xing zone were within the limits required by the NPDES permit (90 F maximum or 5 F rise above ambient river temperatures).
2.
Comparison of observed plumes with predictions of the Carter three-dimensional bouyant plume model demonstrates that this model is a reasonable approximation of the Edvin I. Hatch Nuclaar Plant thermal plume.
3.
The results of this investigation fulfill the requirements set forth in NPDES Permit No. CA-0004120, Part 1. B-4.
O I
I I
l l
l 4
l l
e i
O iv l '
1
.-._,_.__..u,.,.,-.-....,...__..._.-
Introduction
{}
Water temperatures were measured at Plant Hatch on a weekly basis as required by the National Pollution _ Discharge Elimination System (KPDES) Permit No. CA-0004120.
In addition, a study to_ verify the thermal plume predictive model for two-unit operation was completed.
4 Plant Batch, owned jointly by Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30.0%).
Hanicipal Electric Authority of Georgia (17.7%), City of Dalton (2.2%),
and Georgia Power Company (50.1%) is located approximately 11 miles north of Saxley in Appling County, Georgia.
The site is on the south bank of the Altamaha River, east of U.S. Highway 1.
The plant consists j
of two nuclear units.
Unit i has a generating capacity of 810 megawatts, while Unit 2 has a generating capacity of 820 megawatts.
Unit 1 and 2 went into commercial operation on December 31, 1975, and September 5, 1979, respectively.
1 A cooling water flow diagram for Plant _Eatch Unit 2 is presented in Figure 1.
The cooling water system for Unit 1 is identical to the system for Unit 2.
The mixing box for the river discharge structure (Figure 2) receives cooling tower blowdown, domineralizer vaste, cooling, tower overflow, and excess service water from both Unit 1 and Unit 2.
From the mixing box, two 42-inch lines run down to the river and extend approximately 120 feet out from shore.
The point of discharge is approx-imately 1,260 feet down river from the intake structure and approximately O
4 feet below the surface when the river is at its lowest level.
l 4
i 3
e-1
.. _.._. _ _ _ _. _. _.. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ ~
{
4 Msterisis and Methods In accordance with the NPDES permit, temperatures were measured on a weekly basis at the intake btructure or at a midstream point upstream of the intake, at the mixing chamber, and at the downstream edge of the mixing zone (approximately 500 feet downstream of the discharge point).
A complete listing of the temperatures is given in Table 1.
The maximus gbserved difference between intake and mixing aone temperatures was 3.2 F, which occurred during one sampling period. Alltesg6taturesmeasured i
are within the limits required by the NPDES permit (90 F maximnun or 3 F rise above ambient).
i The NPDF.S permit also requires GPC to field verify and/or fine tune the predictive thermal plume model beginning not later than six months af ter concercial operation of Unit 2.
hielve thernal plume monitoring surveys were conducted during 1980.
During each of the twelve surveys, temperature sensurements vere taken at depths of 1 ft., 3 ft.. and 5 ft.
All temperature measurements were made from a boat moving along pre-selected transects in the river (Figure 3) using a temperature probe and continuous recorder.
Monitoring equipment was calibrated in the labora-tory before each survey and rechecked in the-field before and after each survey. Other data collected, in addition te the temperature measurements, are listed in Table 2.
No data were collected during inclement weather.
O
- O 2
"""2" O
The temperature data collected for five of the twelve surveys re shown on Figures 4 through 8.
These figures show the thermal plumes existing on each of the survey dates and the corresponding computer modelprgdictions. The largest rise above ambient river temperatures was 1.5 F on the 1-foot transects taken on 6-19-80.
This plume did not extend more than 250 feet downstream of tl.e discharge.
The maxima rise aboveambientwaterge=peratureonthe1-foottransectsfortheremain-ing surveys was 0.5 F.
The maximum increases in water temperature for the 3-feet and 5-feet transects were 0.5 "F or less for all surveys.
In addition to the five surveys shown in Figures 4 through 8, seven plume surveys yielded inconclusive data (Table 2).
Three of these sur-veys were conducted with only one cooling tower discharging heated water (8-8-80,10-3-80, and 10-31-80).
No thermal plumes were detected in the river on three of the seven surveys (6-18-80, 8-6-80, and 8-13-80).
Mo-del predictions suggest the possibility of plumes which would not extend downstream enough to be detected at the transects.
The data from the remaining survey (8-12-80,16:15 EDST) shows the effects of solar heating iz:: mediately downstream of the barge slip.
During this survey, the ambient air temperature was 97 *F.
Because of tha low water elevation, 64.7 fee't, the shallow areas near the sandbar were heated by extreme solar radiation.
Solar heating resulted in a secondary thermal plume which was entrained
(
into the downstream portion of the discharge plume.
This seconda p plume was evident as a localized increase in water temperature to 90.0 F,
approximately 800 feet below the discharge 3 The ambient water tempera-ture and discharge temperatures were 88.5 F and 89.1 F, respectively.
This secondary plume biased the data colleited, and no comparison vith model predictions could be made.
The precedinE seven surveys are net presented in figures.
e.
O 3
Discussion The results shown in the 1976 annual report demonstrate that a suitable thermal plume model, the Carter three-dimensional thermal plume codel, has been field tested and verified for one-unit operation (Carter et al.,1973. Edinger et al.,1974, and Georgia Power Company, 1977).
As required by the h7 DES peruit, this model must also be veri-fied for two-unit opetation.
Comparisons of observed and predicted surface plumes for each of the 1980 surveys are presented in Figures 4 through 8.
A dimensionless constant has been adjusted in the model in order to obtain the best fit between observed and predicted plume dimensions. The constant used for the 1980 themal plume surveys ranges from 4 to 40 with an average value of 18.9.
This constant adjusts the point where dilution of excess heat begins and is affected by the AT and the discharge volume.
The largest value of the constant (C = 40) occurred with the lowest AT and the high-est discharge volume (0.9 F and 98.0 cfs, respectively). Lower dis-charge volumes or higher AT values required inte.rmediate values for the constant (ranging from 12 to 20).
The lowest value of the constant (C =
- 4) occurred with a low discharge volume and an elevated AT (34.5 cfs and 4.5 F, respectively).
If the survey with the lowest AT and tne highest discharge volume is zxcluded, the constants for the remaining surveys range from 4 to 20.
O The overa11 diner.> ions of the observed and tredicted >1umes are sut=arized for each survey in Table 3.
The observed and predicted lengths are tabulated to the nearest 50 feet, which is the accuracy to which the plumes could be predicted from the data. Table 3 stows a reasonable comparison between the observed and predicted lengths, con-sidering that excess temperature isotherms no greater than 1.5 F could be identified from the field data.
Similar results are shown for the plume surface areas.
The higher surface areas of the observed plumes are attributed to increased surface spreading caused by the sandbar.
These results are within the accuracy to be expected from a simp 1e empirical model for low excess temperature isotherms.
The plume modet verification was conducted under conditions co= parable to average summer conditions.
The estimated fu11y mixed excesc temperature for average summer conditions (average river flow of 3000 cfs and AT = 4.7 F) is 0.09 F (Georgia Power Company, 1975).
During the 1980 thermal plume surveys, the period of lovest river _flov and greatest cooling tower heat rejection occurred during the survey on 8-7-80 at 17:30 EDST (Table 2).
The river discharge on 8-7-80 was 3220 cis. The fully mixed excess temperature at 17:30 pST was 0.05 F
vith a coeling water discharge of 34 cfs and AT of 4.5 F.
This demon-i strates that the cooling towers are operating as predicted.
Suenarv O
Calibration of the carter model to the 1980 field data for discharge from two units yielded constants ranging from 4 to 20 vith an average 4
,p value of 13. Mode.1 predictions for a AT value less than 1 F, and v
cooling tower discharge of 98 cis required a constant of 40 and is not considered typical of normal conditions.
Results reported for Unit 1 operation during 1976 yielded constants ranging from 5 to 16 with an average value of 10 (Georgia Power Company, 1977). These comparisons demonstrate that the Carter model is a reasonable approximation for the Batch thermal plume. Thus, a suitable thermal plume model has been verified and calibrated with field surveys as required in the NPDES per-mit.
7 9
,O 9'
O
l
(]
References Carter, H.
H., E. W. Schie=er, and R. Regier.
1973.
The bouyant surface jet discharging to an ambient flow of various depths.
Technical Report 81.
Chesapeah Bay Institute, Johns Hopkins University.
Baltinnre, Md.
64 pp.
Edinger, J. E., D. K. Brady and J. C. Geyer. 1974.
Beat exchange and transport in the environment.
Electric Power Research Institute RE-4 9 Re port No. 14.
Palo Alto, Ca.
Georgia Power Company.
1975.
Hatch Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 Environmental Report Operating 1,1 cense Stage, Volume 1, Figure 5.1-2.
Georgia Power Company Atlanta, Ca.
Georgia Power Company.
1977.
Edvin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant Annual Environmental Surveillance Report for Calendar Year 1976, Section 1.2.
Georgia Power Company, Atlanta, Ca.
1 o
D l
6
TABLE 1.
EWIN 1. RATCH NUCLEAR PIANT O
NPDES TDU'ERATURI HONITORDiG DURD;G 1980 H1xing Chamber Unit I Unit II Kizing Intake Discharge Discharge Zone Date Teep. ( F)
Temp. ( F) Ty,cp. ( F)
Temp. ( F)
JT, 01/02/80 52.0 52.0 79.0 52.0 0.0 01/10/80 48.0 71.0 75.0 48.0 0.0 01/16/80 51.0 71.0 79.0 51.0 0.0 01/23/80
$2.0 71.0 75.0 52.0 0.0 01/30/80 50.0 67.0 52.0 50.0 0.0 02/07/80 44.0 63.5 64.0 44.0 0.0 02/19/80 46.5 68.0 72.0 46.5 0.0 02/20/80 48.0 66.0 58.0 48.0 0.0 02/28/80 51.5 74.0 76.0
$1.5 0.0 03/05/80 48.0 76.8 53.4 48.0 0.0 03/12/80 54.0 75.0 58.0 54.0 0.0 03/19/80 55.0 63.0 60.0 55.0 0.0 03/26/80 59.0 69.0 63.0 59.0 00 04/02/80 62.0 70.0 65.0 62.0 0.0 04/09/80 62.0 73.0 66.0 62.0 0.0 04/16/80 64.0 67.0 64.0 64.0 0.0 04/25/80 66.0 80.0 70.0 66.0 0.0
,t 04/30/80 67.0 84.0 84.0 67.0 0.0 05/07/80 69.0 88.0 72.0 69.0 0.0 05/14/80 75.0 70.0 78.0 75.0 0.0 05/22/80 77.0 91.0 78.0 77.0 0.0 05/28/80 78.0 87.0 3
06/05/80 76.0 79.0 78.0 76.0 0.0 06/13/80 79.3 79.0 78.0 79.3 0.0 06/18/80 79.2 74.0 88.0 0.2 0.0 06/25/80 81.0 90.0 90.0 81.0 0.0 07/02/80 79.0 80.0 79.0 0.0 07/09/80 84.0 83.0 89.0 84.0 0.0 07/16/80 86.0 90.0 90.0 88.0 2.0 07/23/80 84.0 79.0 94.0 84.0 0.0 07/31/80 85.0 90.0 86.0 1.0 08/06/80 86.0 86.0 82.0 86.0 0.0 08/13/80 85.0 78.0 88.0 85.0 0.0 08/20/80 85.0 95.0 90.0 85.0 0.0 08/28/80 90.0 86.0 09/03/80 84.2 93.2 92.3 s4.2 0.0 09/10/80 81.0 89.0 76.0 82.0 1.0 09/17/80 83.0 86.0 85.0 84.0 1.0 09/24/80 82.0 92.0 92.0 83.0 1.0 10/01/80 70.2 82.9 79.5 73.4 3.2 10/08/80 67.8 82.6 74.8 68.4 0.6 10/15/80 66.0 67.0 79.0 66.0 0.0
(_s) 10/22/80 67.8 82.6 80.2 68.2 0.4 l
7
TABLE 1 (Con' t.)
Mixing Chamber Unit 1 Unit II Mixing intake Discharge Discharge Zone Date Temp. (OT)
Teep. ( T)
Teep. ( T)
Temp. ("T) fj[
10/29/80 62.8 82.6 84.4 64.9 2.1 11/05/80 62.4 73.8 67.1 63.5 1.1 11/12/80 58.5 73.0 63.3 59.7 1.2 11/19/80 57.0 71.1 59.5 57.0 0.0 11/26/80 54.5 70.0 58.5 56.8 2.3 12/03/80 53.6
$8.6 56.3 53.6 0.0 12/10/80 55.4 76.8 59.9 55.6 0.2 12/17/80 51.3 69.4 54.1 50.5
-0.8 12/23/80 48.4 60.0 52.0 47.1
-1.3
- Monitor out of service for repairs.
<C~)
O O
4 8
~
5 O
O O
TABLE 2.
EDVIN I. IIATCH NUCLEAR PIANT THERMAL PLIIME SURVETS Megawatts River River River Discharge Discharge Discharge River Thermal Elevation Discharge Velocity Volume Velocity Temperature Temperature Date Unit 1 Unit 2 (ft)
(cfs)
(ft/s)
(cfs)
(ft/a)
("F)
( F) 1 06-18-80 70 2421 66.2 4970 1.40 71.3 3.71 87.1 83.0 (14:30) 06-19-80 2010 2399 66.0 4720 1.25 75.7 3.98 88.3 81.3 (9:25) 2 08-06-80 1731 2397 65.0 3220 1.64 64.6 3.36 86.0 89.2 (15:10) 08-07-80 2061 2389 65.0 3220 1.31 98.0 5.09 88.0 87.1 (9:30) 08-07-80 2247 2383 65.0 3220 1.04 34.5 1.79 93.9 89.4 (17:30)3 08-08-80 2348 2320 65.0 3220 1.64 35.6 3.71 93.9 86.9 (10:15) 08-11-80 2403 2400 64.7 2890 1.31 33.4 1.74 88.0 86.4 (16:10) 08-12-80 2415 2419 64.7 2890 1.43 32.3 1.68 89.1 87.4 (12:02)3 08-12-80 2405 2392 64.7 2890 1.31 36.8 1.91 89.1 88.5 (16:15)g 08-13-80 150 2409 64.7 2890 1.31 70.8 3.68 88.0 87.1 (10:45)3 10-30-80 1951 2380 64.6 2840 0.98 40.1 2.08 81.0 65.5 (14:00)3 10-31-80 1903 2400 64.6 2840 0.98 39.0 2.03 74.5 63.5 (10:10)
No plume detected.
Dischstge temperature less than river temperature.
3Discharge from Unit I cooling towers only.
4Thermal plume af fected by solar heating.
O O
O TABLE 3.
COMPARISON OF OBSERVED PLtME LENGTRS AND SURFACE ARFAS WITH THOSE PREDICTED BT THE CARTER THREE-DIMENSIONAL BOUTANT PLUME MODEL Survey Contour Length (ft)
Surface Area (ft )
Date Constant
( F)
Observed Predicted Observed Predicted 06-19-80 17
- 1. 0 400 400 6.7 x 10' 1.0 x 10 (9:25) 0.5 1000+
1250 14.8 x 10 7.4 x 10 08-07-80 40 0.5 300 300 2.4 x 10 0.5 x 10 (9:30) 08-07-80 4
0.5 250 250 0.7'x 10' O.4 x 10'
}
(17:30) 4
-)
08-11-80 20 0.5 200 200 0.6 x 10' O.4 x 10'
- l 1
(16:10) i j.
l l
08-12 12 0.3' 250 250 1.0 x 10' O.2 x 10'
-} '
(12:02) i, U
t i.
i t
I 1
[f I
i i
o 5
d x
{ ". I gW i.li
, ii
-a i.
s,=
a-s a w@
g*
i.i
-s an '
i i
m m i
I m"
il N
gI I
2 il si
\\
1:
1 u
i i
11 E~
I, 11 gg s
I l
as (O
gu gi
+ - - - -
ug es
=
l is I I'T t
55 Ir I!
EU r!=
f I
l4
.g i
[8 n!
r
- 1 li r
,,1
- s. i x
-1 3
-w cljo !!!
1,;
li, I.;.
ss pl 11 g
.g u
i,
,v r
1 I
ill 3
i 1
g i
-lilill i
i
!!666 6Il oo o ob[
~~
el O
is 11
1
~
0 O
O F
^
I d>
L
'i#
(<
t.r * * *5 puf-c
,, -s,c y
- 's
.x.c em v
h ' D:Q[*"
~
\\
g w
5 et.n -ef, t
,,..,,.. wi. T N1 M,- (1., -
s 4
'D X'yI~-da 3
dl-p-
., - r 1 -
'!D N'
~
i mwf I
<- =>'
9
,e n -..
t a
1.
, P'
! [j: 4
-.t.<-,4.
..., =
U U
..<-e.(
1 3...:3.**
n t u,s.***
N tt'(-'[
1I
]
~
i N )$
,. wa
- \\
)
' '*O'E"
.?
V i
3
-J l
.,t**
g t t.,~-'"
..o..,'. s.r,
t E
c3..
o C
.et e,-'ol 1
3 g
w.,o.. v,. e i
e..*
i
$b *
'et m -.m,.
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY RIVER DISCHARGE STRUCT'.cI
'i EDWIN 1. HATCH NUCt. EAR PLAMT UNIT 2 AND MIXING BOX i
FIGURE 2 l
6 e
N
- C a,'
Nk O' $
V' E
d5 gh G
mg
- n E
k' N
j5 n
A g
- g a
2 l
~
f
<~5
~
f y
1.*' 6
?
W
..i
,!s',?**l H
- .c.w:-
Q
.Gy
.e,ih
- !.L? j..
g
~
a E
t l {N;*Y l;g
~
=
E h
g ;*.:..
- i'-
j w
c w
i
.e
.s E
t*8
+..
i O
e' m,?
a y
s
/JnidVi oE a
2.i\\;..f?!
g i$.{g.* $
"u
~
?
p:..!:,5.:-
e
- s..
'I O h
i.
+
8 g
E r
',l:
d E
f fe \\ ;
i 3
g 4
=
u
,I es j
v 13
O O
O 1.25 f/s MMasm NT.sveen T-Tt_,ec 81.3,F servese vet _ne:Tv.
e _ mat _r,=s_ve ocTv., 3,9 q f f,, _
e>e.c~e= sets c _ vsewe-
_. 88. 3 'F,
- c:
OBSERVED PLLTE urus.(:
PREDICTED PLLHE Constant-17
- c:
o.3 r
.scur:
~
c 2f:
1.O'F
,s
$ep s,
[
1.5,F 1.O'F
- ,?., -e'/
g ii l
we c:
go e
'M!
. _ M- #
a
,g;
...;;..'...~,..........,~.-,-7...
rT ::
Pt_ rent HPITCH P t_tJ M ec eB T tJE> v Cfet_TFDMr*HPe servEM3
/F"7 M.. +++/
~
l GEOAGIA PO_WER COMPANY EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT ALTAMAHA RIVER THERMAL PLLME SURVET FOR JUNE 19,1980 (9:25)
FIGURE 4
O O
O l
i potve,e vect uctTy. 1.31 f/s
,=MasiewT m ven Ten,-etwerunc 87.I'F
[
((::
._acv. surymt_.v et_a ctr y._ 5.09 f/8.
. omcues,=we_ vrMe=
. 88.0'F.
((
OBSERVED PLINE PREDICTED FLUME
-* j c0NSTAxT-So j
-,,a:
e:
w:
9 0.5'F u
~
i 0.5'F 0.25,F i
i u :
++: ;
ta mar ses Her we ner re me maan a seus a s a sees s was s we a we a som rm e em s mes
-r ::
m_-
-rco i_u,,=
-- e,si_v -- ---
-x t
GIO_RGJA PO_W_ER COMPANY EDwtN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT
[
)
ALTAMAHA RTVER THERMAL FLUME SURVET FOR AUGUST 7, 1980 (9:30) l FIGURE 5
O i
t I
,f E
m I "
l l
"! )
E B*
l Ra e
@ u.
J:
o aw m
v y6 2
m b
k u
M Mh
' 'E
=
e g
l a eg
-.l,
a.
o R
e-4
$ g le c
fw,-
I\\
a, g
E 1 t
l 3
6<.
<4 he
.][
r 3
h' t..
..:)
e l *..
.l[
l o
I, ii
-+
.)
N,.
}-
.s e
4 p g E)
A f
lV k
g ad ti
>,r n
F >w e
Q
.Ef 0
J N,
\\,,o
.X
>)
e u
5 II.
'O g[
a af
- 1. I i 1 2 1 i t i I i 1 A iit 1 i i 1 A I i liiief i ii 1 aiif f1 At i j i id iit it1 i i t B iA 19 ii i i I t3i3 T1T U I T U E I E E V T 1 1 W i 4 V U V T I E I T 5 1 1 I W I 4 1 iW V 1 T I g y y 3 o
16
1
,U Y
y N
g R
ag A
7 3
T F
I P
E 3
t 3
4 E?
1 Ht 3 -
M r.
7 T
v)
L 0 3
6 t, P N
a0 8
I 2
e O_L A
v1 E
P D
5 :
R y
C P
6 U
E T
wT E1 r
T F
vC A'
eo P.
M(
T 0
RI T
A t
T e.
ED S
wt RE L0 IL P8 8
SE N
s t
C 9
s 8 BR O
u.
OP C m x WN L 1, U
A t
E M1 a
e.
5 RH n
t R1 C
E T
H i
P A
T cw 4
wc H
u 3
ns wv 5
eU A1 E
vA c
3 I
Te I N R
f w
m GV I
t f
A r
v n
12t RE D
H s
ve Q
e A
t i
'L M-
/
re c E
TL s s t
G A
=t i
vp n
M-r E -
nb e
t W
T_
M M
s W m ta s
/
TW v f
=
^
T M o 7
5 u
1 2
F s 1, T.
r
/
0
~7 f
a.. N 3 v e,
1W r
1 -
T
. <2
_s t
W
,F u
T t_
5 F
2 c-vt Te T
m c v_
t T
E c
e T 5 4
o_t T
' 0 re 5 / '.
M-n t
v
=- __
v 3
ve 0
N w'
f u
e c v 3
v e t
t.
f n.
er I
n
- 5 ~
b -
e E
E
- : :. : :. : :. : : h. : $ :y) _ : C :: :e b
]
%:r a : :: r:
r r
+
m e
r
+
A
=r s
e t
c s
s m)C 1l l
O
-l g,
i
$ "f a
)
=
8l E!
H
'c
!8e i*
5 tz 8
e d
8..
=
=B
~
sW.
e
.I W, g o
w
,x t
l
.I i o' E
~
a.I E t, 5F x8 F
k gO lE w
5 o-t 16 Ii (O
9,
[ec E
,g>h g
.t ee e>
w w
J :'
hh lb W
'd.
d Ii
>(
f>
.5
.7 s,s V
,5 k I
y 1
4 y
i
,5 N
1 E
'J
.ai em m
- i:::'1::;' :;;' :::'i::;l::: ;;; :::"1 ::,:> :: ':::
1,g 1i 11 11 1B
- _ _ - _ _ _