ML20209C310
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- t..;.- ~ m.,, 0 :> s ,;.A. 2 D33 ? N-l 0 Docket hos.: 50-275/32,3 i t { MEMORJMRBt FOR: George Lear, Chief Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch ) Division of Engineering r - TMU: Pao-Tsin Kuo, Section Leader Structural Engineering Section B e. -- g 4, Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, DE f (y. x,.V FR(M Norunn D. Romney, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section 8 .? ~ 5tructural and Geotechnical Engineering Brancn, DE j. E. 4 Harold polk, Structural Engineer b Structural Engineering Section B ..~ Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, UE i 5UBJECT: TRIP REPORT m DIABLO CANYON SUpERSTRUT ALLEGATI0h . ;;, y ' n.. .As port of the staff review of the Diablo Canyon /Superstrut spot weld t allegation p.;nonney and M. Polk of SGEB visited the Bechtel San Francisco'o,ffices en June 7. 1983 to observe the test progran devel by FGSE'and techteli - The purpose of the test program was to determine Diable Cagoe.. The following was observed: statistically the spot. w .. Y. t;y 1. De. specimens were prepared for testing in accordance with the test specifications previously reviewed by the staff; 2. iThree specimens were tested in accordance with test specifications; and ~ -3. .The records of.the tests completed up t'o June 7, 1983. With respect to'the three tests witnessed by the staff, the ultimate capacity.of the: spot melds were in cacess of 6,000-Ibs/ weld. yielding of.thi welds occurred at about 3,000 lbs which indicatedHowaver, considerable ductility of the welds. The lab technicians recorded the load'at unich the weld failed and not the load at which yielding began. Although the test specifications did not call for it, the lab technicians melds.e Tyrecorded the longitudinal and transverse diameters of the failed spot , transwersepically the longitudinald aneters were longer then tha i dianster.. - ) anne.nug( mue % T e [ c en, esp iMansemasase f88gi(??^'""fT____
e. s. N George Lear
- A 2 51983 l
i inspection of the completed test records indicatec nu values below 300 lbs/ weld. There appeared to be some correlation netween weld ultinate sin ngth and the transverse diameter of tne failed spat welo olthough this observation was inconclusive. 9 In addition to witnessing the testing of superstrut spot welds, Hessrs. honney and Polk: visited the Diablo Canyon site to observe the installeo superstrut cable tray supports. All of the sepports were iabricated . from back-to-back strut-meterial or single strut material as PG8E had previously indicated to the staff. Typically an individus1 cable tray support was-constructed from either superstrut material (spot welds a only)t pouer strut material (combination of spot welds and fillet.
- stich welds *). back to back struts field fabricated from single channel
. strut astorial with fillet "stich welds"; or some combinatiori of all these, his created a; situation wherein a randomly s' elected cable tray support frun which a piece of superstrut naterial was to be removed did not cantain any superstrut material. Where this occurred an additional support was selected from those randomly generated. ..~. r Several supports were observed that had superstrut material removed. PGEE officials. indicated that the superstrut material that will be used to replace those removed will have an adequate vendor QA/QC progran as specified in the purchase order. Based on the above observations it appears the applicant's sampling anc testing program conforms to the specifications previously submitted to the staff. PGEE. officials indicated that a report on the testing program results will be submitted to the staff by June 30,19d3. The staff will review the report and prepare an SER. /s llorman D. Romney, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section B Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, DE S/ Harold Polk, Structural Engineer i Structural Engineering Section u Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch. UE cc: R. Vollmer J. Knight P. 500 S. Buckley F_ h eill Rn V /i P.I.1.ItIJ.8(p... D C.:.5 G.E 5 ' D...E..:..S..G..C,.. ..r .NRamacy./xt tfR.9.lk p7xu 1/Ad.K3. 1.L2.8.. 8. 3... . 7.a' /B3 .l IM O 88 5 OU bN ONO ^~
I Distribution: JUL 2 61M3 See attached sheet Docket No.: 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chainnan Palladino Consissioner Gilinsky ~ Connissioner Roberts Connissioner Asselstine FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut. Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION ITEMS REGARDING THE DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRN' FOR DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1 (Board Notification No. 83-103) In accordance with the pmsent procedures for Board Notifications, the following items are enclosed for information of the Connission: 1. R. L. Cloud Associates Open Item Report, dated July 8,1983. 2. Teledyne Engineering Services, "TES Semimonthly Report," dated July 8. 1983. 3. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, "SWEC July Semimonthly Report," July 8,1983.- lhe above information will be considered in fonnulating the staff reconnendations regarding reinstatement of the low power license which was suspended by Connission Order CLI-81-30. The infonnation is relevant to the safety issue on the design adequacy of Diablo Canyon Unit 1. .:...c.. - l Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Enc 1csures: l As stated cc: See next page
Contact:
..H. Schierling, ONRR . McWWW' X27100 8306270417 s i l
- g revjous page for concurrence 3
'~ l D.h!.hB#.3...h. Ph.:.h.B#3 . h:.Ap,3,(,,,,,,, ,,p,h ,R ,g;(B #,@,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,h,,, D cmc.. .c-Wic.h.1.rlin.d1P.h,,*g,K },ig,h,t,gn,,,,,*T,N,9,v,a,k,,,,,,,,,,,,,i,s,e t,,,,,,,*J L e e,,,,,,,,,,,,, 9 ..m.4z.ea.........w.st.8a......m sz a3......... 7.t.6.t.83.....?.0.?.(.83 .m. MC FORM 318 (10-40) MCM 0243 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY uso.o. 1
,,;. as 4 9'o,, UNITED STATES 'l'I' ~ 8 o' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a WASHINGTON. O. C. 20888 ,/ JUL 2 61983 Docket No.: 50-275 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Roberts Comissioner As*;elstine FROM: Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
INFORMATION ITEMS REGARDING THE DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM FOR DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 1 (Board Notification No. 83-103) In accordance with the present procMures for Board Notifications, the following items are enclosed for infomation of the Comission: 1. R. L. Cloud Associates, Open Iten Report, dated July 8',1983. 2. Teledyne Engineering Services, "TES Semimonthly Report," dated July 8, 1983. 3. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, "SWEC July Semimonthly Report," July 8,'1983. The above information will be considered in formulating the staff recomendations regarding reinstatement of the low power license which was suspended by Comission Order CLI-81-30. The information is relevant i to the safety issue on the design adequacy of Diablo Canyon Unit 1. \\ Y 4(fl,l@ Da'rrell G. enhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc: See next page
Contact:
H. Schierling, ONRR X27100 ,, ~,-..,.,,, -, -....., -.
~ DISTRIBUTION LIST FOR EDARD NOTIFICATZON Diablo Canyon Units 1&2 Docket Nos. 50-275/323 OL ACRS Members Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg Dr. Robert C. Axtmann Mr. Richard E. Blankenburg - ~ 5-Mr. Myer Bender Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Max W. Carbon Mr. Herbert H. Brown Mr. Jesse C. Ebersole Dr. John H. Buck i Mr. Harold Etherington Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. Dr. William Kerr - Mr. Frederick Eissler Dr. Harold W. Lewis David S. Fleischaker, Esq. Dr. J. Carson Mark Mrs. Raye Fleming Mr. William M. Mathis Arthur C.-Gehr, Esq. Dr. Dade W. Moeller Mr. Mark Gottlieb ~ Dr. Milton S. Pl.esset Dr. David Okrent Mr. Thomas H. Harris Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Dr. W. Reed Johnson Dr. Paul C. Shewmon Janice E. Kerr, Esq. Dr. Chester P. Siess Dr. Jerry Kline Mr. David A. Ward Mr. John Marrs Thomas-S. Moore, Esq. Bruce Norton, Esq. Joel R. Reyno ds, Esq. l Mr. James 0. Schuyler Mr. Gordon Silver ~, Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq. Paul 'C. Valentine, Esq. Harry M. Willis John F. Wolf, Esq Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Mr.. Malcolm H. Furbush Resident Inspector /Diablo Canyon NPS Dr. William E. Cooper Mr. W. C. Gangloff Mr. Owen H. Davis Dr. Jose Roesset 4 q.-,.,. 7., ,-,..e- ,v-m .,,,,_..enn, _-,.e. --w,, w,.- a-y, ,a<- en ..n_,,-
The Commissionirs 2-cc: J. F. Wolf, ASLB ~ G. O. Bright, ASLB J. Kline, ASLB T. S. Moore, ASLAB W. R. Johnson, ASLAB. J. H. Buck, ASLAB SECY OGC OPE EDO Parties to the Proceeding O e M i -e ,,w, - =., ,r..,, a..,
[/[ 'o, UNITED STATES g., g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION vik 5 *- E WASHING TON. D. C. 20555 k.....,el ,4bll AUG 8 B83 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas.Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM: James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structures Engineering Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON BURIED DIESEL FUEL TANK BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS LETTER REPORT Enclosed is the letter report from the staff's consultant, Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), on the analysis they performed on the buried diesel fuel tanks at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. The report should be forwarded to all parties of interest. The results of the BNL analysis was presented to the IDVP and the DCP on June 17, 1983 and at a follow up meeting on July 7, 1983. The BNL report shows the Harding & Lawson analysis of the tank incorrectly modeled the fluid inside the tank, underpredicted the loads and would not allow expected mode shapes to occur. The assessment of.the factors of safety indicated the tank might be overstressed.. The report recommends considering various levels of fluid inside the tank. Tne IDVP should consider this report in their assessment of the tank. v Jame 'P. night, /) sistant Director for Components And Structures Engineering Division of Engineering (J l cc: D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer G. Lear (Schierling P. Kuo H. Polk S p/ M amo a
2 nILW tl BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY s t e-rgr Qgg ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES,.INC. Department of Nuclear Energy Upton. Long Island. New York 11973 Building 129 (516) 282N 2448 FTS 666/ ~ July 25,1983 Dr. P.T. Kuo Structural Engineering Branch Room No. 550 Phillips Bldg. 7920 Norfolk Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814
Dear Dr. Kuo:
This letter report describes the work performed by BNL on the review and evaluation of the buried fuel tanks utilization the Diablo Canyon Plant. The work was completed in May of 1983 and the results were presented in a public meeting held in Bethesda, MD on June 17, 1983. As a consequence of this meeting some additional investigations using refined models were performed. Results of the latter studies were presented in a " follow-up" meeting held in Bethesda, MD on July 6,1983. This letter report summarizes the BNL ef forts for this particular task which is now considered as complete. Essentially, the work carried out under this task, can be subdivided into the following three categories. 1. Review of soil structure interaction (SSI) models used by Harding and Lawson Associates for the 1978 and 1982 seismic evaluations. 2. Develop SSI computer models and calculate stresses and safety factors. 3. Construct refined models and perform SSI seismic evaluations. l l A more detailed description of each of the above items is given below: 1. The work carried out by Hardirg and Lawson on the seismic evaluation of the buried tanks was reviewed. Specifically this review included: T 4
~. ' Dr. Kuo July 25, 1983 The Harkng and Lawson results reported in the seismic' part of the a) 1978 report (see Ref.1). b) The _ Harding and Lawson 1982 r^e-enalysis described in the letter ~ report (see Ref. 2). The objective for reviewing the 1978 work was' to identify a variety of
- data, i.e., soil properties, damping values, etc., needed for the subsequent BNL evaluations.
The dynamic response of the tanks _due to the Newmark-Hosgri event was reviewed on the basis of the 1982 regnalysis results. The FLUSH model of the soil-tank systen used by Harding and Lawson in the 1982 re-analysis is shown in Fig. la. A lumped mass model was constructed (see Fig. lb) with the fluid modeled as lumped masses rather than finite elements. The objective for developing this model was.to obtain a quantitative appreciation of the effect of the fluid on the seismic response of the tank. Seismic responses due to the Newmark-Hosgri earthquake applied in the horizontal direction using the lumped mass model were obtained with the-FLUSH computer program. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1 together with the corresponding results from the Harding and Lawson 1982 re-analysis. By inspection 'of the results shown in Table 1, it can be concluded that the - results obtained by Harding and Lawson differ significantly from the corresponding results obtained by BNL via the lumped mass model.. It was felt that this difference cannot be justified on the basis of the sloshing effect alone which is 'not included in the lumped model. The sloshing effect would .~' i usually be expected to alter the response by 10 to 20%. Sloshing frequencies were calculated and found to be very low, i.e., 0.1 Hz. As such, they should not have important effects on the response of the tank. In view of this, BNL concluded that the significant differences between the Harding and Lawson model and.the lumped model constructed by BNL were due to the fluid elements used in the Harding and Lawson model. In reviewing the computer princout from the FLUSH code, it was observed that the Poisson's. ratio value used for the fluid elements was equal to 0.4999, whereas, the instructions in the FLUSH manual clearly state that this value must be below 0.49. Thus, initially it was suspected that this was the problem. In reflecting upon this problem and the flexural ring modes that occur in such a structure, BNL came to the conclusion that such modes could not exist in the Harding and Lawson model because of the inappropriate fluid node ling. Specifically, as a result of the finite element descretization used l by Harding and Law' son, the fluid is not allowed to perform its natural motion. Results from a finer grid indeed, proved this BNL position. j r i + 4
f-p v Dr. Kuo July 25, 1983 ~ ~ s 2. The subtasks completed under the second work category are: a) BNL FLUSH model development. b) Deconvolution studies. c) Soil-structure interaction response evaluations. d) Evaluation of stresses and safety factors. The FLUSH model, shown in Fig. 2, was used for the response evaluation of the soil-tai systen normal to the tank axis (transverse response). Inside y the trench, it was decided to construct the model in a similar fashion to the + one used by Harding and Lawson (Z-Z section) for the 1982 re-analysis. The major dif ference, however, was that the mass of the oil was lumped at the~ walls of the tank. This approach although, somewhat conservative, was found to be more appropriate than that of the fluid element idealization employed in the 1982 re-analysis model by Harding and Lawson. Furthermore, in the BNL model, the transmitting boundaries were moved further away from the tank walls. This was done to avoid possible reflections at the boundaries. Before performing any response evaluations with this model, deconvolution studies were undertaken. The Newmark-Hosgri acceleration pulse was used at the surf ace and by deconvolution the input at the base of the soil-tank system was obtained. For the deconvolution studies the SLAVE code was employed.. Re- 'sults from the SLAVE code we,re compared with those obtained from the FLUSH code. The two results matched quite well. Using,the FLUSH model and the deconvolution results described above, the ~' response of the tank was evaluated via soil-structure interaction analysis. '~ Frequencies up to 30 Hz were included. Horizontal and vertical evaluations were carried out. In these evaluations, the Newmark-Hosgri acceleration time f history was applied directly at the base of the soil-tank system. In addition .to these evaluations, analysis were made with the acceleration time history f-obtained from the deconvolution. .I Due to the nonlinearity of the problem, five iterations were perforuied in all evaluations, i.e., horizontal - vertical and with - without deconvolution. The results of the soil-structure interaction evaluations were moments, q i axial and shear forces associated with the beam elements representing the tank- ) walls. Based on these results, a stress evaluation was carried out. The i 1 e 4 .~r o I
,y., ic. r e-Dr. Kuo July 25, 1983 seismic stresses obtained by BNL were then combined with the static stresses given by Harding and Lawson in their 1982 static re-analysis. Based on the total stressas (i.e., static dynamic) safety factors were computed. In evaluating the safety factors the same approach as that used in the 1982 re-analysis was employed. These safety factors are depicted in Fig. 3. (.'. 3. At the first meeting with 'the project staff held on June 17,19fi, BNL's position was that the fluid modeling used by Harding and Lawson was crude. It was. felt that because of this, the response evaluation of the tank performed
- rsg by Harding and Lawson could be inappropriate. To prove this position; BNL carried out some further investigation which included the following subtasks:
,f a) Development of a BNL refined FLUSH model. s b) Code modification to include fluid elements. .,(y c) Soil-structure interaction evaluations using the BNL refined model.
- (
d) Evaluation of a partially filled case. The BNL refined FLUSH model is shown in Fig. 4. This model was essentially constructed from the Harding and Lawson 1982 re-analysis model. The finite element grid of the fluid, however, was as can be seen subs tantially, refined. Two types of soil properties were assigned to the , y; model. These are the ZZ and YY section properties. E' As mentioned, the FLUSH code was modified to include a fluid. element. Other modifications were also made to o's.ain stress response waveforms for the fluid element. This permitted the evaluation of the so called " tensile stresses" in the fluid elements. Computer runs were made with values of 0.4999 as well as with fluid elements. /. Soil structure interaction evaluations were performed in the horizontal direction only. These were felt to be sufficient to prove the BNL conten-tion regarding the modeling problem associated with the Harding and Lawson 1982 analysis model. Two sets of runs were made using the ZZ and YY section ,, soil properties. Results are summarized in Tables 2, 3 and 4. From these it y + is clear that the refined model results are closer to the corresponding lumped I codel results. It is also fairly clear that the Harding and Lawson 1982 model ss differs significantly from both the refined and the lumped model. Further- ', core, the responses from the YY model indicated that this model is more criti-w k .I +
Dr.kuo " July 25,1983 ical than the ZZ model. From very limited investigation, it also seems that even higher response would result if YY section properties were to be used together with deconvolution. Finally, initial computer runs made with partially filled tanks also resulted in higher response values. In these initial studies, the partially filled tank was simulated by using the model described in Fig. 4 and*by assigning very low stiffness values to the top fluid layer so that it approximated a 90% filled case. For such a case, the bending, particularily, at the top portion of the tank increases. The reason for this is that due to the upward motion of the fluid inside the tank there is less fluid resistance to the tank deformations. Sin :erely, rs, i v Morkis Reich, Head Structural Analysis Division Enclosur es t e u O I 0 e.,. ,,,-n m ..-,ym., .-m.-. ,,..,,-------.m., ..,,,..wev,-. -,y
REFERENCES 1. "Geotechnical Studies, Intake Structure, Water Storage Tanks, Diesel Fuel Oil Storage Tanks, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, San.Luis Obispo County, C A, HLA Job No. 569,031.04, Harding and Lawson Associates, San Franciseo, CA, April 12, 1978.
- 2. - Letter-Report from Harding and Lawson Associates to Pacific Gas and Electric. Company, (569,049.04), October 11, 1982.
e e 9 m o O 9 e 1
d nn A_'. l s s r 7 LUMPED FLUID ELEMENTS ' . MASS ~ i j N__ l i l O i LUMP $D.MODEL HLA MODEL ~ Fig. 1.a Fig. 1.b l 4 J
e FINITE ELEMENT MODEL FOR BURIED TANK (FLUSH CODE) ~ L - 19.O' ..,L c, + 3 s g w:.
- h. ; -
o S I .s ~ m, ,m NODES
- 92 SOIL ELEMENTS
- 65 BEAM ELEMENTS :
B rig. 2 5 y
CTORS OF SAFETY AGAINST COMPRESSION & BENDING C W.'5 5.2) I, g. C9'.'3',' 9. 5) ~ C2.2' 2'7) 63 HLA RESULT ~ 1978 ANALYSIS: 1.22 (0.86, 1.3) 5 1982REMNAi_YSIS: 1.5 ~, / (j!;, .~~ e G. 6, 2'.1) 52 ~ '.'.( A'.; ' B) '. j A: WI .,THOUT DECONVOLUTION I B: WITH DECONVOLUTION (0.81, l'.08) 5 g ~~ (0.92, 1.3) 6. .74 (1. 2', l'. 6) 82 (2 f, 2.'3) ~ ~ S Fig. 3 w >w _,,m
I i e e 9 e
- ..#,y e
e, (. .. j, e R e J, e 6 6 e. J e 'r ge e e w 8 e 9 4 e g S e e e 6 O ge - e. , e s. O.
- p p
i e 9 m yO a w O 9 e 9 f e e b / 8 e e e + 4 .3g 2 i e 4 m I e e o Fig. 4 1 f v - - - - +, - - ww -, --w-gy y--my------w,<--- wi.,+g--e-,-er-e, w-e.-
m w---wwe-----
r.-+
~ TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF MOMENT RESPONSES s; HARDING AND LAWSON BNL-LUMPED MASS ~ MODEL (FIG. la) MODEL (FIG. lb) 45 ~588 35 348- ~ 11 1133 354 1038 84 199 261 2285 95 2356 (Units: ft-lb/ft) .4 'l , - - - -. - - - - -.. -,, - =
I _'7 ' .[ v ...\\ q. \\ l ..w. _-)__).l l 0 1-1I J., \\v . M. f' / . j. m \\ ..1 .. \\. . :..:..... a:.; i y n..,: I\\ ?_,, x... \\ IN . ' :c(.
- p;..- 4l\\ -
y-sI r- .s' y -.. II l 1.. ll..l .. _.,. h.. /_3-HtA Moo El-c
- c 7.E FIN E D MoDEL LUMTED M ot o
.a 'e .. T --. ?. it i 0 S (G o,)_. o / 1 ? 46 347___. (563T ~ 5GB z. 3 35. 296 -- -(116 03_ 349 3 4 11 e ?83 (150 0 )(33 s 5__ 354 629 (600) s 1o 3 8 6 34 293 .( -. -1225) 6 ._199 ~ 1 r 3G1 57.1 6 Cl i-il) 2.2 G 6 T ~ 8' '96 N69 (2232) 2.356 8 R _0 o I (o ) \\ 'O 3 Mome.d5 imff-1;f i 0cDTlhom'li~d. CVM Q61S w( ) Y-T sic-h'rA 9'to.M b D ] v 3 oil BROOXHAVEll llAll0!!Al LABORATORY 0,- mi A5500ATED UlIIVERSITIES, itK. O liI ......~. - = =
. sl:., y .q;- lI .U'""* -i i I 2i p IP / m k .. :: n ..:. y:. Ik - s x-g k.-. - ll lN .l~ 3- _I l - l . l.. ..I ... p. - J-$- HtA M o o El. 7.E F IN E 6' M O D E t_. - ...e 1 't.burE6 Mopt c o, z g g zf 1 9 5 ' '.( 5 ). 2 2 z 14 4 --.G) 5 ( ~ _3_ t 3 2 2. 'il (*r.1) 6 4_ 4 Icg 6 (3e) -) =. 3 5 14 4 (5) ~6 9.- 6 2_8f 1.9_ _ _. (21) 11' - u + 39 g, 24 __(2 s) 1?_ 26 9 (S) 4 8 3_ Ax ic.' forc25 im Kfos \\ @0Tl ? ohcb cvna s(S) / C T-'T SEGT19q soii o'a?,vff?56 BR000iAVDl NAll0NAL LASORA i, ,t i, AssoaATED UNwfRs1 TIES,itK.(li.Il. a u --,,_y-,y-r
r. m .n I U-. I___ i-II .J _ -. 1 / 1 ly X' l[ -{ .l. \\ =,,\\ \\.. is 1 x- _i g ~ ~ ' l l~ t.l~ ,; ;jc I I 1. . l.. l l..I n qp,.* 3.q., '3-ill.A Moo El. _ 7,EF iN E D MoDEL 2' a 1 l.uM7ED Mt s .i a ~ z d
- g !
l L 2D 356 .(3_8.0 263 z. 38 26 __(142.') M6 _3_ 238 (2.wd 1So 3 12 .1, A .g. > ~i-5 4 16 2. pl -( 4'+ o) 5 s 19 6 -403 (7 9T) 526 6 = _ _ _ _ _. 6 133 458 (25 0 t OM I ? IG 222. (7?6.) 'r0 8 ~ 8 42, 7-46 (C)18) -_ l051-M Giovim'ra endsis) ~ U SROOXHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY ) '. T - T S GGb'M Sr5, < tr/h'g Ass 00ATED UNIVERSITIES,INC.O b ._}}