ML20127P034

Discusses Preparation of Radiological Impact Section for Plant Final Environ Statement

ML20127P034
Person / Time
Site:	Monticello
Issue date:	11/03/1972
From:	Harold Denton US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:	Muller D US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
References
NUDOCS 9212010485
Download: ML20127P034 (13)

Text

.

I oc N D biIC-3 a

DISTRIBUTION 8

w Docket File 50-263 i

AD/SS-L-Rdg L-Rdg

}

NOV 3 G2 ENVIRCit RLE (NEPA)

,4 A

Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects Lu i

i

}

PREPARATION OF RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT SECTION FOR 10NTICELIA FINAL ENVIRONME!TIAL STATEMENT b, ; 17. l.

e i

Plant = = - Monticello C

l Licensing staFe - OL Docket ntaber 263 Responsible branch - Environmental Projects Drameh f3 2e Project Manager - R. Bevan j

Date request received by RA-L - September 11, 1972 I

Requested completion date - October 17, 1972 j

Description of response - The Radiological rection of the Monticello DES was rewritten Radiological Assessment, Branch review status - Complete i

i j

After extensive consultation with J. Soldat, BNUL, and P. Anderson, ORBf2-L, the Radiological Impact Section was rewritten by P. Congel, RA-L, for the

[

Nonticello Final Environmental Statement. The handwritten draft van 4

j informally delivered to R. Bevan, EPBf3-L, on October 17, 1972. Attached is the final typewritten copy.

i f

Original strned by l

j II. 11, lle ntim I

i Harold R,_Denton, Assistant Director j

for Site Safety Directorate of Licensing i

Enclosure:

As stated l

cc w/o encl A. Giambusso W. McDa==1A 4 $.,

.. ~ _

g 7

ec w/enelt WE i

S. Hanauer a

J.11endrie J. Youngblood t

6 -

n. Bevan j

J. Kastner-D i

P. Congel j

_r. Anderson t

en t,* o m-r CRESS #03 L:RA.

.L.:. RA...

L...: S..S.......

omer >

g.-.-

MC#219283unnar,

FC pngel.: mb...

..JKa s t n.e r Re.,.n 10/31/72 _ oarty 1.1/.%/R..

.l l L } b c m e,se e m oreicsll2....._.. 31/,3'/72_

Fwm MCons (kn. 9.W AECM ONO -

i o

ten.4u.tse 9212010485 721103 PDR ADOCK 05000263 J

P PDR _

~

s

'b

?

I and increased rate of drift. The Staff concludes'that no effect on the downstream drinking water supplies will result from the relatively small quantity of blue-green algae so i

i Species diversity will be reduced, but populations produced.

of thermophylic forms such as certain species of mayflies, stoneflies and craneflies will increase.

Outside the 90*F zone the effects of the plant discharge i

b) will be dif ficult to measure. No restriction in fish l

migration or reduction in spawning area is expected but some extension in the normal growing season may occur.

f.

Biological Monitoring Pre-operational baseline studies of the Mississippi River near the Monticello Plant were initiated in May 1968 and approximately 900 man-days were devoted to this phase of the program.

a Operational studies were begun in February 1971 to coincide with plant operation testing. The applicant intends to " continue these studies for several years, or until a stable-pattern of biological impact has developed." These studies'are under the direction of 4

Dr. Alfred J. Hopwood, St. Cloud College, St. Cloud, Minnesota; and Dr. Alan Brook, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis. An outline of the aquatic ecological studies progra= is given in j

Table V-5.

Special onsite fish entrainment studies, begun in 1972, are being conducted by Dr. Keith M. Knutson of St. Cloud College. A land use agreement was made in February 1970, between the Northern States Power Company and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency) for the use of part of the Monticello Plant grounds for the purpose of conducting temperature studies on fish and other aquatic organisms.

The EPA will test the effects of condenser cooling water on river organisms in experimental ponds that they will establish near the cooling towers.

Start of construction of this research f acility is planned for 1972.

I D.

RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF ROUTINE OPERATIONS During routine operation of the plant, small quantities of radioactive materials are expected to be released to the environment. An AEC co=pliance inspection program is conducted > to audit plant performance,.

to determine that radioactivity releases are within limits prescribed by 10 CFR Part 20.

The staff has made estimates of the annual rates of release of radionuclides from the Monticello Plant based upon actual operating experience gained since the plant began 4

i (I

~

TABLE V-5 MONTICELLO UUCLEAR PLMIT AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL STUDIES PROGRAM i

SAffPLING NiD NIALYSIS SUtttARY Sampling Type of Sample Type of Analysis _

Sampling fiethod and Site Frequency l

11ac roinverte-Taxonomic Concrete block substrates on river 30 days *

g.,

t 4

brates Organism' counts and average bottom at 22 stations upstream and weigh ts dcunstream from the plant discharge.

Water teinperature, depth, and Surber. net sampling is also employed flow rate at 80 stations niong four transects.

Attached Algae Taxonomic

!!icroscope slide substrates sus-14 days *

(Periphyton) At tached biomass, weight, and pended in river current at 14 i

cell counts, chlorophyll stations.

'a' and phaeophytin 'a' Fish Taxonomic Electrof f shing, seining, and fishing Weekly

• 4 Population estimates taggitig in five sectors of the river Length, weight, age upstream and downstrean from the General condition plant discharge.

!!igratory and ' local distribu-t tion patterns Rooted Aquatic Taxonomic At sampling sites for other types of Quarterly Plants and Visual estimation of dist ribu-samples and in shallow areas along Bottom Sedi-tion, abundance, and seasonal the riverbank.

ments variations of plants Visual classification of bottom sediments.

River Water Chemical Water samples taken at four stations 2 weeks

. Physical - temperacure, tur-Palmer recording thermometers at nine l

bidity, suspended se, lids, Continuous t

flow rate, temperature i

• Sampling frequencies apply to periods when the river is navigabic; i.e.,

free of floating ice, unstab]c surface ice, or dangerous currents by flood level flows.

s l

coc=ercial operation in June 1971 and from the release rates These release rates, associated with other operating reactors.

which take into account the augmented gaseous radvaste system, are shown in Tables III-4 and III-5 for gaseous and liquid releases, respectively.

Evaluation of the radiological impact based upon radiatio,n doses l

received by residents in the environs is more meaningful than a consideration of only the rates of release or concentrations of the Theref ore, the Staf f has calculated the probable radionuclides.

radiation doses to residents that result from the calculated re-the releases leases listed in Tables III-4 and III-5 as well as fr.o reported by the Monticello Nuclear Generating Station for the latest six months of operation (January thru June,1972; Tables III-6B and Conservative assumptions were used to estimate use factors III-73).

}

for people and the food chain bioaccumulation factors listed in Appendix 3.

1.

Dose to the Individual The persons most likely to receive the highest radiction dose are those who reside closest to the site, go fishing, boating, or swin-and drink ming in the Mississippi River downstream of the plant, It was assumed that milk produced at f arms near the plant site.

these individuals consumed 7.3 kg of fish and 7.3 kg of molluscs

• per year 24 hr af ter they have been caught from waters containing i

The annual total-plant ef fluent water at about a 3 to 1 dilution.

body dose from consumption of these foods based upon the calculated liquid releases listed in Table III-5 would be about 0.2 mre:/yr.

Doses to the other body organs would be somewhat less as shown in Table V-5.

For comparison, corresponding doses were calculated based upon the Applicant's operating experience for the first six months of -19 72. To extrapolate to-a full year of operation, the nuclide amounts listed in Table 111-63 were increased by a factor i

j of 2.94.t Thus, it was estimated that - the annual total body dose from fish and mollusc consumption based on actual plant releases could be about 1.0 x 10-6 mrem /yr. Organ doses were also calculated and found to In: about a factor of 10-5 less than the corresponding values using the calculated releases. It must be emphasi cd however, the calculated releases are based upon the expected lifetime of that the plant and may not reflect the measured releases for several years.

Therefore, the long term impact of plant operation was evaluated using the calculated releases listed in Tables III-4 and III-5.

• Fresh water colluscs are not now abundant near the plant due to. a para-4 sitic infect,on. Their use as a food item is illustrative but unlikely..

i tSince the Plant. operated at a 65% average load factor, cultiply the half-year releases by 2/0.68 - 2.94_to get 1 year of dose'at 100% load factor.

r s

~ __

4 w

d

L The individual who spends 500 hr/yr fishing from the river shore-line harvesting his 7.3 kg of fish and 7.3 kg of molluscs would l

also receive an external exposure to the total body, principally from cesium deposited in the silt along the shoreline. Based upon the calculated releases, this dose would be 0.3 mrea/yr. Using the i

plant operating data, the dose is 4 x 10-6 mrem /yr.

Those individuals who spend 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> /yr either swic=1n. in the parks l

which are within the plant boundary and downstream of the outfall or canoeing just downstream of the plant would also receive total body doses. The swimmers and canoers could receive respective doses of 3 x 10 and 1 x 10 crem/yr, based on the calculated releases.

~4

~4

~10 and 3 x 10 10 4

I Corresponding doses using measured releases are 7 x 10 crem/yr, respectively.

The Twin-Cities resident consuming 2 liters / day of water drawn from the Mississippi River below the plant would receive an esti-cated total-body dose of 0.01 mres/yr.* The total dose received from all pathways associated with the liquid effluent of the plant (summarized in Table V-5) was estimated to be 0.5 mrem /yr to the total body.

If the plant measured releases are used, these doses are 3 x 10~8 and 5 x 10 mrem /yr, respectively.

i The maximu= exposure rate at the fenced boundary of the plant resulting from submersion in the-gaseous effluent released from the plant occurs 0.47 mile from the Plant in the SSE direction.

At this location the annual average atmospheric dilution factor 6

3 for ground level releases j

vas calculated to be 7.8 x 10 See, n 8

~3 for stack (i.e., from the turbine building) and 9.7 x 10 sec m

releases (i.e., from the main condenser).

Assuming continuous occupancy and using the calculated releases, the total-body dose at this' location would be 1.0 crem/yr. The dose to the. skin would i

be somewhat higher (2.2 trem/yr) because of the additional contribu-tion from the beta radiation. -

I Monticello's operating experience for the first six months of 1972 resulted in the gas' ous releases listed in Table 111-73. These e

values were extrapolated to a full year of operation and were used to calculate the total body and skin doses from immersion at the maximum cxposure point. The resulting total body dose was 8.4 mre=/yr while the skin dose was 14 crem/yr.

These values are.

expected to decrease with the addition of the augmented'radwaste system.

• Uniform =ixing was assumed as was a dilution factor of 0.14; 645 cfs plant flow + (4600 cfs river flow).

(

t

- ~. - -

.... _ ~.. - - -... -.. _ _ _ _...

= -. - - - -...

i I

4 TABLE V-6 RADIATION DOSES TO INDIVIDUALS FROM EFFLUENTS RELEASED FROM Tile MONTICELLO PLANT DURING IDNG TERM OPERATIO:1 WITil Tile AUCMFl!TED CASEOUS RADUASTE SYSTEM (mrem /yr)

Annual Total-CI Pathway Exposure Skin Body Tract Thyroid Bone Fish.

'7.3 kg 0.11 0.062 0.018 0.092 9-Molluscs 7.3 kg 0.12 0.041 0.22 0.11 Fishing and (0.29)g,)

(0.29)

(0.29)

Picnicking 500 hr 0.34 0.29 Swinming 100 hr 4x10~

3x10 (3x10~ )

(3x10~0)

(3x10 )

Canoeing 100 hr 2x10~

1x10~

(1x10 )

(1x10 )

(1x10~ )

Air Submersion 8766 hr 1.6 0.84 (0.84)

(0.84)

(0.84) r l'

3 Inhalation 7300 m 0.48

}

Milk (Adnit) 152 liters _

8.3 Total 1.9 1.4 1.2 10 1.3 4

~ ~

Water (Adul t)(')

730,11ters 0.007 0.021 0.12 0.008 i

l Milk - (Inf ant) 152 11ters 68 t

"} Numbers 'in parentheses ' indicate internal dose f rom external source.

} Nearest farm

.0.8 mile SSE.

(" The doses from drinking water were included as a separate entry because the individual

.i resident near the plant will not be consuming water drawn from the river.

1 s

4 N

~.

i s

The maximum exposure rate at an occupied location occurs at the farmhouse located 0.8 mile SSE of the niant, where the nearest

~3 atmospheric dilution factor (X/Q) was 4.0 x 10'6 sec

• m for 3 for stack releases.

8 scefg ground level releases and 7.7 x 10 Assuming continuous occupancy and using the calculated releases,*

4 the dose to the total-body at this location would be 0.84 mrem /yr.

The dose to the skin would be somewhat higher (1.6 mrem /tr) because of the additional contribution from the beta radiation of the radio-nuclides released. Doses to the thyroids of adults and children from 131I in the air at this farm would be 0.5 and 0.6 inhalation of the mre /yr, respectively.

Corresponding doses were estimated using the same cssumptions and operating data.

The total body and skin dose calculated for this f arm were 6.6 and 11 crem/yr, respectively. The thyroids of adults and children could receive 0.06 and 0.08 mrem /yr, respectively, from 1311.

inhalation of the n-earest pasture is located at the above farm, but no 4

At present milk cow is pastured at this farm; however, potential radiation doses which might be received from consumption of milk produced there in the future were estimated.

In these calculations it was assumed that the cow grazed 5 months of the year and that one liter of milk per day was consumed. Under these assumptions the potential thyroid dose to an infant was estimated to be 68 mrem /yr and to an adult, 8 mrem /yr.

installed, these thyroid (Assuming the augmented radwaste system was not doses would be approximately twice as high.)

Presently, the closest existing milk cow is lo'cated 1.5 miles NW of the plant where the atmospheric dilution factors were estimated to 3

6 sec/m for

~6 3 for stack releases, and 1.1 x 10 be 2.0 x 10 sec/m Based on the same assucptions centioned above, the vent releases.

estimated thyroid doses to an infant and to an adult consuming milk produced at this location were 18 and 2.2 mrem /yr, respectively.

Radiciodine release rates measured by the Applicant (see Table III-73) are about an order of magnitude less than those predicted by the Staff for potential future releases. Therefore, based on

~

the Applicant's measured releases, the thyroid doses from milk con-this f arm could be 2.4 and 0.3 mrea/yr to the child and su=ption at adult, respectively.

If in the future a cow is indeed located closer to t.a plant than the applicant will be required to evaluate the thyroid at present, s

• All dose estimations based on the calculated releases use the limit on iodine stated in the Technical Specifications;..e.,

O.35 C1/yr'from the turbine building vent.

a a

\\

radiation doses likely to result from consu=ption of milk at the new location and to take whatever steps are necessary to reduce these doses to levels which will be compatible with the then-l existing limits for human exposure.

The combined annual dose based on the calculated releases to hypo-thetical individuals who would receive the most exposure from the several dif ferent pathways is about 1.4 mrem to the total body, i

almost entirely from air-submersion.

J 4

2.

Dose to the Population The integrated total-body dose to the population living within i

50 miles of the plant from submersion in radioactive gaseous effluents was estimated to be about 1.5 man-rem /yr with the aug-Based on experience during the first mented system in operation.

six months of 1972, the integrated total-body dose is estimated to be 29 man-rem /yr. The cumulative dose and average dose versus l

distance from the plant are su=marized in Table V-7.

Four pathways were considered when calculating the exposure to the population from the liquid effluents released from the plant -

consumption of drinking water and fish from the river, and swimming l

and shoreline fishing below the plant.

To estimate doses received from drinking water it was assumed that 85% of the 2 million residents within 50 miles of the plant derived their drinking water from the Mississippi River near the l

Travel time for water f rom the plant discharge canal Twin Cities.

l to the Minneapolis water customer was taken to be on the order of l

48 hr.

Although the travel time to a Saint Paul water customer is on the order of weeks, this longer decay time was not taken into account in the interest of simplifying the calculation.

Assuming a per capita consumption of 1.2 liters / day of drinking water by the population of the Twin-Cities, the integrated total-l body dose was calculated to be about 6 man-rem /yr, using the calcu-lated releases and 3 x 10 5 man-rem /yr using operating experience.

Very little swim =ing but some canoeing is. done in the river below the plant.. For purposes of dose calculation, it was assumed that the average person spent 5 hr/yr swimming plus 10 hrs /yr-canoeing downstream of the Monticello ::uclear Plant. It was also assumed.

that the average resident spent an additional 5 hr/yr on the river shore below the plant engaged in such activities as fishing.

On this basis, the integrated total-body dose to the

-1

\\

l i

1 l

=

l

(

)

V-30 TABLE V-7 j

CUMULATIVE POPULATION, ANNUAL MAN-REM DOSE, l

AND AVERAGE DOSES TROM THE GASEOUS EFFLUENT RELEASED FROM THE MONTICELLO PLANT l

Cumulative Dose Average (man-rem /yr)

Dose (crem/yr)

Radius Cumulative Present-Augmented Present Augmented

~

(miles) Population (1970)

Sys t em

• System **

System

• Sys t em **

l 1

8 0.029 0.005 3.6 d.7 l

2 149 0.29 0.030 1.9 0.2 3

732 0.89 0.081

1. 2 -

0.1 i

4 3,003 2.3 0.20 0.76 0.06 l

5 5,129 2.9 0.25 0.57 0.05 10 12,344 3.8 0.31 0.31 0.03 20 54,356 5.2 0.39 0.95 0.007 l

30' 271,182 8.8 0.59 0.032 0.002 l

l 40 1,105,890 20 1.1 0.018 0.001 i

50 1,956,232 29 1.5 0.015 0.0008 i

Dose estimates based upon measured releases from the present (unaugmented) system.

i Dose estimates based upon expected releases from the augmented system.

i 4

4 h

_ ~.

I

\\

j$

persons within 50 miles of the plant was estimated to be 2 x 106 man-rem /yr, using calculated and measured

~5 about 2.7 and 4 x 10 releases, respectively.

I Consumption of fish caught in the river water below the plant con-i The average j

tributes only slightly to the total population dose.

per capita consu=ption of fish in this area has been estimated to be 1.1 kg/yr.61 If 10% of this average consumption cones from the i

(a conservative assu=ption),

stretch of the river below the plant the population dose f rom fish consumption would be 1.6 man-re=/yr I

l based on the calculated releases and 7 x 10

• man-rc=/yr based on I

the measured releases. Thus, the total integrated population dose received by the approximately 2 million people who live within a 50-mile radius of the plant from the 4 pathways associated with the calculated and measured liquid effluents was found to be 11 and 7 x 105 man-rem /yr, respectively, the dose rate from natural background radiation is f

For comparison, about 150 mre=/yr to the total body. This dose rate implies a total-population dose to the 2 nillion residents within 50 miles of the j

1 plant of 300,000 man-re=/yr.

3.

Radiation Dose to Species Other Than Man Radiation dose rates to organisms such as algae entrained in the Monticello condenser cooling water were esti=ated, for the radio-nuclide concentrations anticipated during long term operation, to l

5 mre=/hr. These dose rates would decrease be on the order of 10 rapidly'as the effluent = aves downstream.

Organisms likely to receive the highest' radiation dose fro = the i

plant are aquatic species living in the effluent plume such as fish and fresh water colluscs. A cla= living in the botto: silt i

vould receive an esticated total dose of about 20 = rem /yr.

About l

one-half of this dose comes from: radionuclides accumulated within its flesh. The dose to a fish living in the undilu.ted effluent i

vater would be somewhat less than that received by_ the clan.

Annual doses on the order of those predicted for aquatic organis=s F

near the Monticello outf all (20 mre=/yr) are several orders of magnitude below the chronic dose levels that might be suspected of producing demonstrable radiation damage to aquatic populations' 62 The irradiation of salmon eggs and larvae at a rate of 500 =re=/ day did not af fect the nu=ber of adult fish returning from the ocean or m._,-.

..... m.

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

l*

p N.

d their abili ty to spawn.6 3 Chironomid larvae _(bloodworms) living in bottom sediments near tha Oak Ridge plant that have received irradi-I ation at the rate of abcut 230-240 rem /yr for more than 130 genera-tions hase a greater-than-normal number of chro= osone aberrations,

l but their abundance has not dimiaished.6L The numbers of salmon spawning in the vicinity of the Hanford reactors on the Columbia j

River hase not been adve.rsely affected by' dose rates.in the range of 100 to 200 mrem /wk.65 l

Inasmuch as the planned release of radionuclides from the Monti-i j

cello Plant will be several orders of magnitude less than has G6 where several major nuclear f acilities occurred in the past at studies have detected n > adverse effects on the aquatic population, 4

and because the estimat ed dose rates to aquatic organists will be 1

several orders of magni:ude less chan those expected to cause radi-ation damage, the populations of aquatic organistsJnear the Monticello outfall are lot expected to be adversely affected by the low concentrations af radionuclides added by the plant.

4.

Environrental R1diat?.on Monitorine Procram The objective of the Mciticello Radiological Monitoring Program is to measure the radiolor ical ef fects of plant operations on the j

This objective is being accomplished through moni-environment.

toring of air, water, soil, and other food chain components and comparing these analyses with the baseline monitoring data col-lected during the pre-operational phase which began in June 1968.

The operational phase of the monitoring program began in December 1970.

F External exposure to gaseous radioactive wastes and ingestion of l

radioactive contaminated food and water are the primary exposure Thus, the environmental surveillance program pathways to man.

emphasizes sampling and analysis of environmental elements which include these pathways. The sample types, locations, frequencies, zad analyses are summarized in Table V-6 Sampling is conducted by Northern States power personnel in i

The Minnesota cooperation with the Minnesota Depar:ttent of Health.

Department of Health assists in sa:ple collection, and provides laboratory determinations and consultation in selection of sampling te chniques.

An Annual Report on ' the Environmental Monitorine and Ecolocical Studies Program is issued by Northern States Power which describes the program and evaluates the results.

i w

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

._-.~_-J.,

.. ~.... -

t TABLE V-8

}f0NTICELLO NUCLEAR PLANT - RADI ATION MONITORING PROGRAM SAMPLING AND ANAINSIS SIRO 14RY Collection Collection Site Frequency Type of Sample Type of Analysis 137Cs Upstream 600 ft f rom intake canal. Weekly I

River Water CD, CS, 90 Downstream 600 ft from discharge g3 l

3n - (g),

Sr (Q) canal.

St. Paul raw water intake.

137Cs 5 local lakes Monthly Lake Water CB, CS, 3gg, 90Sr 1 control lake 137Cs 6 sites within 5 miles of plant Quarte rly i

Well Water GA, CD, CS, site including the Monticello 3jg, 90Sr Well.

311 Meteorological Station Plant Monthly CB C 13I,S$0 Site. State Health Dept. Bldg.

Precipitation I

Sr and Fallout In Minneapolis.

L Lake and River GB, GS.

5 local lakes, 1 control lake.

Semi-annually 90 137Cs Bottom Sediment Sr, Plankton, Algae CD, CS 5 local lakes, I control lake.

Quarterly 90 137Cs or Insects Sr, i

137Cs 5 local lakes, 1 control lake.

Quarterly

'. Aquatic Vege tation CB, GS, 90Sr, 137Cs Upstream and downstream of plant.

. Quarterly (when GB, GS, 90Sr, available)

Clams 137Cs Upstream e d downstream of plant.

Quarterly CII, CS, 90Sr, Fish i

?

4

=

q

TABI,E V-8 (cont d.)

Collection Collection Site Frequen cy.

Type of Sample, p pe of Analysis CS, 13II, 90S r, 137Cs Two farms / region, four regions.

Monthly b

}filk 137Cs From 3 fields downwind of plant Sem -annually CB, CS, 90Sr, Topsoll site, also 3 ficids irrigated

/%

with river water downstream of plant.

From 3 fields Ikunwind of the Setal-annual s y 1311 Vegetation CB, CS.

plant site.

CS, 1317, 90Sr, From 3 fields irrigated by river Annually (at CB}Cs water downstream from the plant.

harvent)

Agricultural 13 Air Samples GB CS (?!)

Meteorological Station (Plant Weekly 13I Site), Clear Lake, Orrock, Becker, I

(filter)

Otsego, Maple Lake,11as ty, St. Michael Air Samples Beta Camma Dosage ~

Same locations as filters plus Every 4 weeks 6 on-site stations (film badge)

Same location as filters plus Every 4 weeks Air Samples (TLD)

Camm1 Dosage 6 on-site stations.

4 CODING iiY5TF,f t:

CA - gross alpha CB - gross beta CS - gamma scan (M) - monthly (Q) - quarterly e

4

?

4 w

i