ML20101F190

Evaluation of Limerick Unit-1 Core Shroud Insps (Refuel Outage 6)

ML20101F190
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/29/1996
From:	Faynshtein K, Marisa Herrera GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20101F163	List: ML20101F160 ML20101F190
References
GE-NE-B13-01805, GE-NE-B13-01805-16, GE-NE-B13-1805, GE-NE-B13-1805-16, NUDOCS 9603250377
Download: ML20101F190 (22)

Text

.

l

.e 'a S GE Nuclear Energy l

TECHNICAL SERVICES BUSINESS GE-NE-B 13-01805-16 GENuclear Energy DRF 137 0010-8 175 Curtner Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125 C1 ass II February 1996 Evaluation of the Limerick Unit-1 Core Shroud Inspections (Refuel Outage 6)

February 1996 Prepared by: v /' ~

h(arcos L. Herrera, Principal Engineer Engineering & Licensing Consulting Services Karina Faynshtein, Engineer Engineering & Licensing Consulting Services GE Nuclear Energy I San Jose, CA 9603250377 960318 PDR ADOCK 05000352 p PDR

a

• s GE Nuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-0180316 IMPORTANTNOTICE REGARDING CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT Please Read Carefully The only undertakings of the GeneralElectric Company (GE) respecting information in this document are contained in the contract between PECO Energy Company and GE, and nothing contained in this document shall be construedas changing the contract. The use of this information by anyone other than PECO, orfor anypurpose other than thatfor which it is intended under such contract is not authori:ed; andwith respect to any unauthori:cd use, GE makes no representation or warranty, and assumes no liability as to the completeness, accuracy, or usefulness of the information containedin this document, or that its use may not infringe privately ownedrights.

'^

GE Nuclear Energy GE-NE-BI3-01803 16 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Flaw Disposition Approach 1 1.2 References 5

2. EVALUATION OF UT RESULTS 6 2.1 Consideration of Additional Crack Growth 9 2.2 References 12

3.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS 13 APPENDIX A UT EXAMINATION RECORDS 1

I

)

l l

GENuclear Energy GE-NE Bl3 0180516 l

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

UT inspection of the ID, H4, H5, and H7 core shroud welds was performed during refuel outage 6 at Limerick Unit-1. Minor indications were observed in the inspected areas of weld H3. Indications were not observed at welds H4, H5, and H7. This report presents the results of the application of the flaw evaluation calculations for the inspected welds. ,

f Structural margin is assured if the calculated safety factors, using the flaw evaluation  ;

method, exceed the required safety factors. The flaw evaluation methodology was prepared in a previous analysis.

This evaluation used a crack growth rate of 5x10 in/hr and a NDE uncertainty of 0.4 inch which were added to each flaw end. A twenty-four month operating cycle was assumed for the evaluation. Uninspected areas were assumed to be completely cracked and all indications were assumed to be through-wall. No new crack initiation was assumed. In addition, shroud dead weight, buoyancy, and vertical seismic loads were conservatively neglected. The flaw evaluation indicates safety factors greater than the required safety .

factors.' Thus, structuralintegrity of the shroud is demonstrated for a minimum of one operating cycle.

i

1 GENuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-01805-16

1. INTRODUCTION j This report presents the evaluation of the 1996 outage (Outage 6) ultrasonic test (UT) results for the Limerick Unit-1 core shroud. Figure 1-1 shows a schematic of the core shroud. Reference 1-1 presented the L. approach and flaw evaluation methodology for Limerick Unit-1. The UT detected indications (see report sheets in Appendix A) were a evaluated per the methodology and procedures presented in Reference 1-1.

The evaluation presented in this report uses the flaw evaluation methodology which is 4

used to calculate the existing safety margin at each inspected weld. Section 1.1 describes the approach to disposition the indications using the flaw evaluation method.

4 1.1 Flaw Disposition Approach 1

The approach in dispositioning the flaws in the Limerick Unit-1 core shroud is outlined in this section. This approach is consistent with the approach taken to disposition indications at several other BWR plants since core shroud cracking has been observed and is consistent with the BWR VIP methods in Reference 1-2.

The UT detected flaw lengths used in the flaw evaluation calculations included an uncertainty factor on length sizing. This uncertainty factor includes consideration for i NDE technique uncertainty. NDE length uncertainty value of 0.4 inches for NDE method was added to each flaw end in this evaluation (Reference 1-3). This is a very conservative approach, considering the basis and the latest uncertainty data available from the BWR-VIP (Reference 1-4).

There are areas which could not be inspected during the UT inspection due to obstruction by other components. In the calculations presented in this report, all uninspected areas were assumed to contain through-wall flaws along the entire length of the uninspected zone. The estimated crack growth and uncertainty were added to the assumed through-wall flaws in the uninspected zones. This is a conservative assumption based on the UT results for all welds. Allindications were found to be part-through-wall.

1

r

GENuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-0180516 1.1.1 Flaw Evaluation The flaw evaluation method takes into account the indication characterization information i provided by the UT inspection. Specifically, the azimuthal location of the indications is j taken into account when determining the structural safety factor. For purposes of this i evaluation, the following conservative assumptions were used:

)

l

• All flaws were assumed to be through-wall l

• All uninspected areas were assumed to be fully cracked J

• A conservative crack growth rate of 5x104in/hr was assumed l

• NDE uncertainty of 0.4 inch was added to each flaw end

• Crack growth for the analyzed number of cycles was added to each flaw end

• No account was made for new crack initiation

The LEFM calculations were performed using a solution which best approximated the j actual distribution of uninspected regions. LEFM calculations were performed only for Welds H3 and H4. These locations are the only welds where the fluence will exceed the l 2

threshold value of 3x10'* n/cm when LEFM must be considered.

i j The LEFM solution used to evaluate a given pair ofindications (with lengths of 2a and l 2b) corresponded to that for three colinear flaws (See Rooke & Canwright,

" Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors", page 136). In this solution, the middle flaw of

{ length 2a was separated from two neighboring flaws, both oflength 2b, by a ligament, c.

l The ligament c corresponds to the actual distance between two uninspected zones for l Weld H4, or uninspected zones or flaws for Weld H3. Thus, this solution includes the impact of neighboring flaws of different lengths.

However, in order to better simulate the actual distribution of uninspected zones (or flaws and uninspected zones for H3), a factor was applied which incorporates the affect of more l

than three colinear flaws. For example, for Weld H4, there are four assumed flaws which l correspond to the four uninspected zones. The correction for multiple flaws is taken from i Rooke & Canwright, " Compendium of Stress Intensity Factors", page 140. This i corresponds to equi-distant , equi-length flaws. The length used for this evaluation was j the longest of the flaw pair being considered. The distance between the two flaws being j considered is used as the distance between the equi-length flaws.

2 i

1 l

GENucl:ar Enrrgy GE-NE-B13 0180516 l

It should be noted that this LEFM method is considered conservative given that the inspection of H4 showed no indications in the areas inspected, and only a few minor indications in Weld H3. Thus, the assumption of through-wall cracking is considered to be conservative. It is likely that significantly less than the assumed through-wall indications exist in these uninspected zones given that significant inspection of Welds H4, H5, and H7 showed no indications.

In summary, the LEFM solution was calculated by first determining the stress intensity factor from the three flaw solution for a given pair of uninspected zones or flaws. This solution was modified to include the effect of more than three assumed flaws separated by the actual distance between the flaws and a shell correction factor, 3

. - l I

l GENuclear Ency GE NE-B13 0jgo3.,g ,

i I

l I

Shroud ne*d Suppon Ring l

3 g g/

e;

i nJ

+

Top Guide Suppon Ring s

.w.

/  ;'i m

i j

H4 i 4 l

H5 C re Plate Suppon Ring H6 ves3cl H7 H8 H9 Figure 1-1 Schematic cf Core Shroud Welds 4

GENuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-0180516 l

1.2 References l l-1 " Determination ofInspection Lengths for the Limerick Unit-1 Shroud," ,

GENE-523-A037-0495, DRF 137-0010-8, July,1995. l l-2 BWR Core Shroud Inspection and Flaw Evaluation Guidelines, GENE-113-0894, DRF 137-0010-07, Rev.1, March 1995, Prepared for the BWR Vessel and Internals Project Assessment Subcommittee.

1 1-3 BWR-VIP Core Shroud NDE Uncertainty & Procedure Standard, November I

1994.

l-4 Reactor Pressure Vessel and Intemals Examination Guidelines, BWR VIP (BWRVIP-03) Proprietary Report, October 1995.

1 1

I I

l l

l r

a

.}

5 i.

GENuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-0180316

2. EVALUATION OF UT RESULTS This section provides the results of the application of the flaw evaluation methodology for

the Limerick Unit-1 core shroud circumferential welds. The evaluation was performed j using a conservative approach All uninspected areas were treated as through-wall flaws.

4 Crack growth for one cycle and NDE technique uncertainty were added to the end of each indication. In addition, all indications were treated as being through-wall and deadweight,

{ buoyancy, and vertical seismic loads were conservatively neglected in calculating the j primary stresses. UT inspection results indicate that all indications are part through-wall.

Appendix A contains the UT examination reports for welds H3, H4, H5, and H7. All indication lengths, including the uninspected area lengths, were increased by the assumed

length uncertainty (0.4 inches on length at each flaw end) plus crack growth for one 24 i

month operating cycle at each flaw end.

$ The stresses used for the flaw evaluation are shown in Table 2-1. These stresses were i- calculated by conservatively neglecting shroud deadweight, buoyancy, and venical seismic loads. Limit load safety factors were calculated using the Distributed Ligament Length

(DLL) computer program (Reference 2-1).

For the flaw evaluation calculations, the flaw lengths (after proximity criteria application)

are input into the DLL computer program which accounts for the azimuthal location of the j indications (assumed to be through-wall).

' The calculated safety factors for both normal / upset and emergency / faulted conditions are shown in Table 2-2. It can be seen from Table 2-2 that there is sufficient safety margin between the calculated and the required safety factors.

I I

l 6 ,

1

GENuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-01805-16 Table 2-1. Primary Membrane and Bending Stresses at the Shroud Welds Weld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Designation P. (ksi) P6 (ksi) P. (ksi) P6 (ksi)

ID 0.300 0.935 0.724 1.583 H4 0.300 1,471 0.724 2.411 H5 0.300 2.740 0.724 4.468 H7"' O.517 3.746 0.937 6.140

(" The stresses reported in Reference 1-1 have been changed due to a correction in the inside radius used in the calculation.

The following assumptions were used in calculating the safety factors in Table 2-2:

. All flaws were assumed to be through-wall e All uninspected areas were assumed to be fully cracked e A conservative crack growth rate of 5x10 in/hr was assumed

. NDE uncertainty of 0.4 inch was added to each flaw end e

]

Crack growth for one cycle was added to each flaw end

. No account was made for new crack initiation 7

GE Nuclear EnerD' GE-NE-BI3-01805-16 Table 2-2.

Flaw Evaluation Calculated Safety Factors for One Cycle of Crack Growth (Required SF: 2.77 for Normal and Upset,1.39 for Emergency and Faulted) l i

Limit Load LEFM(23 Flaw Evaluation Safety Factor Flaw Evaluation Safety Factor Weld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted H3'" 16.7 9.1 - ---

H4 12.7 7.3 - --

HS 7.4 4.4 - ---

H7 5.1 3.1 - --

"3 Uninspected area from 35.50 to 54.50 and Indication #1 combined due to the proximity criteria. Uninspected areas from 304.50' to 360.00 and 0.00 to 6.10 also combined. l

• LEFM not performed for one-cycle. See Tables 2-3 and 2-4 for the two cycle and five cycle results, respectively.

l

)

1 I

i 8

l GENuclear Energy GE-NE-BI3-0180316 l l

)

2.1 Consideration of Additional Crack Growth Additional calculations were performed using two and five cycles of crack growth to demonstrate the margin available in the core shroud welds and for the purpose of demonstrating that the reinspection criteria is met.

2.1.1 Two Cycles of Crack Growth Calculations for two cycles of crack growth (total of two cycles beyond outage 6 UT results) were performed to demonstrate the margin available in the core shroud welds and to demonstrate that L, criteria has been satisfied. Calculations were performed by adding [2(2Aa) + U], where Aa is crack growth at each flaw end for one cycle and U is the length uncertainty. Note that this calculation is for the intent of demonstrating the margin available in the core shroud welds for operation over the next operating cycle. In addition, this calculation demonstrates that the L,.;. criteria of Reference 1-2 has been satisfied.

This calculation does not account for any new crack initiation. Table 2-3 provides the results for these calculations. These results also indicate that the minimum required flaw evaluation safety factors are met with the additional operating cycle of crack growth. The following assumptions were used in calculating the safety factors in Table 2-3:

. All flaws were assumed to be through-wall

• All uninspected areas were assumed to be fully cracked

• A conservative crack growth rate of 5x10 5 in/hr was assumed

. NDE uncertainty of 0.4 inch was added to each flaw end e Crack growth for two cycles was added to each flaw end

• No account was made for new crack initiation 9

i

_ . .. _ _ - ~ . . . __ __ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . ._._. . _

GE Nuclear Energ GE-NE-313-01805-16 1

f i

4 Table 2-3. Flaw Evaluation Calculated Safety Factors With Crack Growth Corresponding to Two Operating Cycles

(Required SF

2.77 for Normal and Upset,1.39 for Emergency and Faulted) i Limit Load LEFM Flaw Evaluation Safety Factor Flaw Evaluation Safety Factor j W eld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted ,

H3"' 16.0 8.73 3.71* 1.99"'

l H4 12.3 7.0 2.99* 1.69*

H5 7.1 4.2 - ---

H7 4.9 3.0 - ---

I

• Uninspected area from 35.50* to 54.50* and Indication #1 combined due to the l

i proximity criteria. Uninspected areas from 304.50 to 360.00* and 0.00 to 6.10 also combined.

~

• Limiting condition given by combination ofIndication #5 and uninspected area from 304.5* to 6.l*.

!

• Limiting condition given by combination of uninspected zones between 124.12* to

! l86.1 and 215.55* to 235.6*.

j f 2.1.2 Five cycles of Crack Growth i

Additional calculations were also performed to demonstrate the margin available to meet reinspection criteria. Calculations were performed for a total of five cycles of operation

! by adding [5(2Aa) + U]. Note that this calculation is for the intent of demonstrating the margin available in the core shroud welds for reinspection criteria. This calculation does

! not account for any new crack initiation. Table 2-4 provides the results for these calculations. These results also indicate that the minimum required flaw evaluation safety factors are met with five operating cycles of crack growth. The following assumptions

were used in calculating the safety factors in Table 2-4

s

• All flaws were assumed to be through-wall j

e All uninspected areas were assumed to be fully cracked 4

i e A conservative crack growth rate of 5x10 in/hr was assumed

• NDE uncertainty of 0.4 inch was added to each flaw end l

• Crack growth for five cycles was added to each flaw end

!

• No account was made for new crack initiation i

10

')

GE Nuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-01805-16

)

l Table 2-4. Flaw Evaluation Calculated Safety Factors '

With Crack Growth Corresponding to Five Operating Cycles (Required SF: 2.77 for Normal and Upset,1.39 for Emergency and Faulted)

Limit Load LEFM Flaw Evaluation Safety Factor Flaw Evaluation Safety Factor Weld Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted Normal / Upset Emergency / Faulted H3'" 13.8 7.5 2

3.7 ) 3,9gt23 H4 10.9 6.3 2.81* 1. 5 9

H5 6.3 3.8 - --

H7 4.5 2.8 - --

• Uninspected area from 35.50 to 54.50 and Indication #1, #2, and #3 combined due to the proximity cdteria. Uninspected areas from 304.50' to 360.00* and 0.00' to 6.10* also combined.

• Limiting condition given by combination ofIndication #4 and uninspected area from 124' to 186.1*.

• Limiting condition given by combination ofuninspected zones between 124.12' to 186.l* and 215.55 to 235.6*.

i l

1 i

i 11

4 l o.

j .. ..6

GENuclear Energy GE-NE-B13-01803-16 1

I I4

! 2.2 References 1

i 2-1. BWR Core Shroud Distributed Ligament Length Computer Program, GE-NE-

] 523-113-0894, Supplement 1, September 1994.

k E

i

.i

('

e i

4 l

4 a

)

4 d

a d

2 l

2 i

s T

• k

] 12 l

, e, ,,

GE Nuclear Energv GE-NE B13-01805-16

3.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS UT inspection of the core shroud welds was performed during the 1996 winter outage

]

(Outage 6). This report presents the flaw evaluation results for the inspected core shroud l

circumferential welds. The primary membrane and bending stresses conservatively l neglected the shroud deadweight, buoyancy, and vertical seismic loads.

The evaluation assumes all UT detected indications are through-wall even though UT confirmed that they are only part through-wall. No new crack initiation was assumed in the analysis. By exceeding the required safety factors using the flaw evaluation methodology, the ASME Code Section XI safety margins are den.onstrated to be satisfied.

The flaw evaluation method uses linear elastic fracture mechanics (LEFM) and limit load concepts to determine acceptable through-wall indication lengths. For the Limerick Unit-1 core shroud, only welds H3 and H4 were evaluated using LEFM.

The flaw evaluation also uses the ASME Code Section XI criteria for combining flaws

based on the proximity ofindications. In addition, a second method for including the interaction between neighboring indication tips was considered for the LEFM allowable flaw size calculation.

Results of the flaw evaluation indicate safety factors which are greater than the required safety factors. Thus, structural integrity of the shroud is demonstrated for a minimum of i one operating cycle.

1 1

l l

l l

l l

13 l

i <

4

8 GE Nuclear Energy l

APPENDIX A I

UT Inspection Reports for Welds H3, H4, H5, and H7 l

l

I-(

j < 4 l

l l

. \

! l

GENuclear&nergy 4

I

=

muurf A0s aceneurmissurtocic poenmeresos 4

\

Shroud WeldH-3 Indication Data i

ramtsame w assawnew(ossJ 1st.ar N fW 188" roadseentasse asemanewthJ assas- causammenes(W sas.72-

• wenamesserniwWlasse amam sed s&7s% menosperney.e

! Perseasese neweeer-newsLanger 121-i taas asysesparasen em*

Asseampe someserTeam neiertemen z.21sr.

Teevnewestasse(assJ 7.or l resersowasLange(N -

tazr-i he, aswr amW j No. Dep.

Lasse Lange tanger aspe aspe aspe eween samenene seen asestate oss. ass. le. name aser.Ja.

! rmas ene. ass. Themen Leemmes- nye seen 3 1 suo sr.1s 2.as Ars ass

. 2 et.et saa tm 2.sr e.ar est. auz ss.s Lowess0 2a N 4as aan amt. ' sam ses

{ s es.so 7e.as tm tas sno as N 1.sa 4ee eaan

4 112.74 tis.as im aus. mas es.to tasesso 2a N t.s1 ese e.as das sa.as j s arass arzu tm 2zr 4ae 4.to Lanesio as N e.az eos. ar1Ae it.s La=seio an N i

j

m, emee,, -.

4 wad enas a e wem lancemen naam is enessurae tem 6emeen surness. euri.o. or on, as appkehia. inesenen innen as nesse h irames reser 1 oA enesswameras. cosensees or wnsmer me malessen in Lo. or o.o f

Artes NotiemmendbyA#2 Tswandesem(Aatmam Adweneng 18130 roeWDegreasNorfrere ed 400 m &ff Ar Efe asJD D sdA0 Air f&as 13 ADO 6 10K,10 Aer SE.10 EfASP h 23&A0 Air atfe 30680 m 308a0 Air asJe i l

• T" erLJedendene:

Lhnessers: Case Sprer Downeemmers Gedde Rees. LPCI Unas and 124 Lugs

- c.-

NW9 Prepared try- _ Date: 2 /~7 M Reviewed try:

/ 28: I'~

f&

F mege > or /

~ -

GENuclearGnergy 4.s

' W pasfNOS 3Ruume4/TAusmer 20Csc Fessenwy sees Shroud Weld H-4 Indication Data ramtse.La, s.am d(Dega son.u- Tn eu.eee <=., ur roast seen Langer seasheet(h.) ass.n-T_ _ ;_ erwowLange Enasuned chamarence(h.) ese.Tr es21% heehes perDepe. ut-Phrossesse Asisuef afinenesseef WeWLange 6.00% Depeneper men 0.88*

7.- -;_ MeiseefetTeemt14hw Lange 0.80%

resetme.edt gm(DayJ a.or Teest newedLanga tu) Lae=

Jnet saut End Langen Lange Lange Dene Depe Depe percent kneede Seen ACuiente No. Dog. Dep. Dep. he. rrens hisuJn. Treas PenDeg. Thranand Lonesen 1>pe Sean None bodiession Ceanesesse:

• In referenes to we weW inacesan onpeiis meneured from innemen eurtece. eeher i.D. or O.D.. as appkatte, ineanton inngah as na d in inanos refers to 0.D. measuremones. rogueses of whomer the mecamon is i.D. er O.D Areas Net nrw by M 3 Trononumero (Aarneuen nehweneen): 107.86* TotalDegreesNotEt traned LDC* h 6.19 Aar Liv 3EAS* m SLS0* har tL99 ISL12* w tOLtr & St.80*

215J9 m 23L40' k as,ar 39L32* k Seltr W 41.8r 309.0E' en 380.00* Aar L89 shpdemenfoe ofLkammeens:

Umitemens: Core Spray C ac -. -

Guide Reds. LPCI Unos and Ufting Lugs AsMisenet Coneneneet l None Prepared by* -

Date: 1-/7- fl- Reviewed by: hbOb/ , Date: 2-G%

Pe e.w w .L

4 l

- c . . , .

1 1

1

.i QENucJearEnergy l = --

-.s..--,___

i 4

l Shroud Weld H-5 Indication Data 1

4 reest seen Lange samenhed(DesJ 3e2.3r W (hJ 2.or j reserSeen Lange -(hJ ast74* 888.F2" Cirusessflerense(kJ

] .- .= sf MissLange aussisest as.21% Assisen perDayne 1A1*

mereensees maisent avammanneer seinw Lange tes% Depeenpo han aar

Ame=sesenewswerreestwswL ave anos

.reetno.edca ,en(De,J e.or

. resernewsw Lensm amJ tor i.

had. Lange Lange Langen Snart End Dope Dana Depe paroent hanension seen nioiq6e Asa. Dee. DesL Des. h. none Aser.Ja. 7,ese pas.oeg. Thannes Lasemen- rype seen i

1

hunee.e.,r _ .

.

• In rederanos to me weld j inessmen deoen a mesewed turn eieneen sudece, ether LD. er O.D. an e indeceoon towm as noes In irenes asirm no O.D. measuremeras, resanumme ofinsiemer Ine indacemen in I.D. or O.D i

Annen Not Exeunenest byM 2 'traneelueere (Asiesum References) 1ST.ar TaeetDegreesNotEus uned j aar m afr Amr Efr l 35J0' s star Air fair I f M 12* m 10 sbr Air Of.nr

! afser e assar w asr 3eur au san.sr w aar j aff.ss" m asaar Air SJr answeessen avLJanisseme:

! uneesens: care sprey c: -- _ Guide nees, t.Pci unse and unne tugs i

+

Asempenerem-g* -

Qglg*2 */7-% Reviewed by: I u Date: 2-l~/-%

e

/f pere / at /

Aevees 1L

. o ,s

@ ma - a Adammmeamm,f mos skummt4/rAugium9008C Alannersese Shroud Wald H-7 Indication Data mens t. nema m <m.w nass r.wa-w.enau imar rann au tar user an ao amar em .<mwau sme *=< mass m.m.w o. ur e n rm <<a m ewwnt e ames ar asr me.rm *anewnusu.ee anos r.enrm-.nt msn.w aar r.mtm vu.smau aar med. surf anst Ass.

Lasse tense L.mse asym anse asam A une Aessemens ason Asumpfe ces. ans. nos. m. nuns aamun. Dans ess.neo. rhnn or L.melen- nye same esene haanaanien !=

m ew . w imi-n . e

,La..,on.. e me-wnunse.nm.ahei.rs===

0.D. messe.meren. e.garenes .f mammer sie musicamen is LD. er QD.

Acans Net Br===neef byM3 Tse.usseusers(Amm set W: f83.f2 TsentDep ees Wet Emm-einesf ass as ave air afe Edp a SLSO Aur fa.fs fELas a 185 f8 & EEfs 2fEAS as 231As Aar m as N&d3 m ,30&00 Air usF M afL&enisselems usammann: care sprey Oman-amers. Guide Ross. LPCI Unos and utkie Less Amadamer Cass. eses:

None Prepared by-Oste:2-/f*14 Rennewedtry GCT- m *2.-8 4.-S 4 nae. / at /

me==nn _2_

.