ML20235A078
Text
_ - _ _ _ _
L W
i FEB 2' 1 1975
'l l'
SUPPLDIENT NO. 2 1
f TO T!!E i
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:E:ISSION IN THE MA' ITER OF GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY GENERAL ELECTRIC STANDARD SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DOCKET NO. STN 50-447 ACES 0 " ice Copy - Retain for the Life of the Committee y y q(e) p e R2.th '/f *'
i i
hbhO dlbbh))[f[F,m,er-a'h' b hf s
'bh
.mm
(
- '122 w' 2 9707080308 870610 E #4 Om0V f-~~e rom /i(,su) v"^illC6
_J J
~~
^
__- ___-__--- a
.9 I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. 1-1 3.0 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS.
. 3-1 3.2 CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURES, SYSTDIS AND COMPONENTS.
. 3-1 3.2.1 SEISMIC CLASSIFICATION.
. 3-1 3.5 MISSILE PROTECTION CRITERIA.
. 3-2 5.0 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTDI.
. 5-1 5.2 INTEGRITY OF REACTOR COOLANT PRESSURE BOUNDARY.
. 5-1 5.2.2 OVERPRESSURE PROTECTION.
. 5-2 6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES.
. 6-1 6.2 CONTAIN'IENT SYSTCIS.
. 6-1 6.2.1.2 Si!0RT TERM PRESSURE RESPONSE.
. 6-1 6.2.1.7 SUBCOMPARTMENT PRESSURE ANALYSES.
. 6-2 6.2.1.8 STEAM DYPASS OF Tile SUPPRESSION POOL.
. 6-3
.6.2.4 CONTAIh? LENT ISOLATION SYSTDI.
. 6-4 6.3 DIERGENCY CORE COOLING SYSTDIS.
. 6-5 6.3.1 SYSTD1 DESCRIPTION.
. 6-5 11.0 RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT.
.11-1 11.4 SOLID WASTE MANACDIENT SYSTDIS.
.11-1 15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS.
.15-1 15.1 ABNORMAL OPERATIONAL TRANSIENTS.
.15-1 APPENDIX A CONTINUATION OF THE REVIEW CHRONOLOGY APPENDIX F ERRATA TO Tile SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
\\
s 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) in the matter of the General Electric Standard Safety Analysis Report (CESSAR) was issued on November 13, 1974.
Supplement No. 1 to that SER was issued on December 7, 1974.
In that report and the supplement, the staff noted that there were (1) areas where the applicant had not supplied enough information for the staff to complete its review, (2) items where the staff had only recently received information from CE and had not completed its review, and (3) certain staff requirements
'that would be made conditions of the Preliminary Design Approv,al l
(PDA) unless GE made commitments to meet these requirements.
The purpose of this supplement is to update the SER and Supplement 1 by providing the staff's evaluation of additional information received since the issuance of those documents.
In addition, a review of the SER and supplem'ent has revealed areas where correc tions or further explanations are in order.
Each of the following sections in this supplement is numbered the same l
as the section of the SER that is being updated.
Appendix A to this supplement is a continuation of the chronology of the principal actions related to the processing of this application. Appendix F is a continuation of the listing of errata of this SER.
Where appropriate, item numbers af ter each
4 4
i 1-2 1
topic refer to the item number in the list of outstanding' issues d;ted Ilovember 5, 197/, issued with the staff SER and revised with the December supplement.
l
.i 4
. l l
4 e
4 0
j.
u i.
3-1 4
3.0 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, SYSTC4S AND COMPONENTS l
3.2 Classification of Structures, Systems and Components 3.2.1 Seismic Classification (Item 1)
In our SER, we stated that we will require the offgas system to be designed to seismic Category I requirements. This 1
position was based on the calculated consequences of a seismic failure of the charcoal delay tanks causing the charcoal in the l
beds being spilled on the floor. As a result of concerns related to the relatively limited amounts of radioactivity available for release and the multiplicative conservatism in our dose calcula-tions, we reevaluated each of the factors in our calculation.
We also reviewed available information related to the retention characteristics of spilled charcoal.
Based on this, we have concluded that there may be a, basis for accepting design l
standards somewhat less than Category I requirements.
We do want the of f-gas system to have some seismic capability.
We are pursuing with GE and the industry methods of achieving substantial assurance that frequent releases could not occur l
without meeting Category I requirements. We will report further to the ACRS at the March Full Committee meeting. Until an intermediate des 1gn standard satisfactory to the staff is developed we will require the design to proceed on the basis of seismic Category I requirements.
{
l 1
1 l
1
3-2 3.5 Missile Protection Criteria (Item 2)
In our SER, we noted that the various tornado missile velocities proposed by GE were unacceptable. Our concern was that GE's velocities were too low to demonstrate resistance to penetration and structural stability.
In Amendment 25, GE demonstrated to our satisfaction that adequate penetration resistance was provided for the GESSAR structures for missiles with velocities that we felt were acceptable. They did not propose using those same velocities as design bases for structural stability and spalling evaluations. We have informed GE of our position and they are evaluating the l
structural capability for the missiles with velocities close J
to our requirements.
We expect to be able to report further to the ACRS at our meeting in March.
l 1
i
{-
4 5-1 5.0 REACTOR COOLANT SYSTDI 5.2 Integrity of Reactor Coolant Pressure Boundary 5.2.2 Overpressure Prctection (Item 8)
In response to our concerns related to inadvertent operation of safety-relief valves in some BWR's, GE proposed design changes for the GESSAR EWR/6. CE provided design details and drawings as well as test data to confirm the design. At the time of our SER, GE had not made an acceptable commitment to develop with the staff a valve surveillance program. This issue was resolved when GE submitted Amendment 26 where they agreed to work with the staff and utility applicants to establish a program post PDA.
We consider this a satisfactory coranitment for the PDA.
e
.l
\\
\\
l L--_____---_--
_,... _. ~. _.
l 5-2 l
~
5.2,
Integrity of Reactor Coolant Pressute Boundary 5.2.2 Overpressure Protection (Item 32) 1 In our SER we stated that.GE prop'osed 'using 19 safety / relief valves. This change from 22 was made in Amendment 22 to GESSAR. At the time of the change GE did not' provide the basis for going from 22 to 19 valves.
In Amendments 23 and 26, they provided the necessary information to us regarding the reduction in the number of saftty/ relief valves.
They have increased the safety /reliefvhlvecapacitybyabout2%and'madethesensing and centrol circuitry protection grade.
In the analyses presented in Chapter 15, they took credit for valve actuation at the relief set points in accordance with ASME Section III, NB-7630.
We find the basis of establishing the number of safety / relief valves satisfactory.
l 6-1 1
6.0 ENGINEERED SAFETY FEATURES 6.2 Containment Systems 6.2.1.2 Short Term Pressure Response k'c noted in SER Supplement 1 that the containment analytical model for GESSAR was acceptable for the PDA provided GE
- 1 committed to increase the available flow area at the HCU floor i
if required to maintain adequate pressure margins.
In Amendment 26, GE provided this c ommitment, and we consider this commitment satisfactory for the PDA.
E o
e
(
4 A
6-2 6.2.1.7- ~Subcompartment Pressure Analyses (Item 12)
In our SER we noted.that GE had not discussed _ completely othe assumptions used in the containment subcompartment analysis.
l and had not provided tbc results of their analyses.
In Amendment 27, GE provided the assumptions and results of the various RWCU compartments in the containment.
GE performed the analyses using the SCAM computer code. We are presently reviewing _this information and performing similar analyses of these subc. compartments. We will report our conc 3esions in a Supplement to the SER.
Not included in Amendment 27 was information for the drywell head region similar to that provided for the RWCU compartments.
In addition, GE has not provided a multi-node analysis of the reactor vesse1 shield annulus.
Prior to issuance of the PDA, we will require that GE provide the information on the drywell head region and describe their analytical modeling and assumptions being used for the shield annulus.
The results of the shield analysis calculation will be reviewed as they become available. When this infor-mation is provided, we will complete our review and report t
our conclusions in a Supplement to the SER.
O e
u__e
6-3 6.2.1.8 Steam Bypass-of the Suppression Pool (Item 4)
We stated in Sections 3.8.3 and 6.2.1.8 of'the Safety Evaluation Report that we are requiring the drywell be subjected to a structural proof test and leakage test at about I
design pressure.
In revisions to Sections 3.8.3.7 and 6.2.1.4.1.4 of GESSAR by Amendment 26, GE agreed to perform both of these tests.
The instrumentation requirements and acceptance criteria for the tes,ts are being developed and will be established post PDA.
Uc consider this a satisfactory commitment for the PDA.
h i
l t
f
. J l
l
_o
______________________-_________-_.A
6-4 6.2.4 Containment Isolation System (Item 15)
In our SER, we noted that we felt continuous purging of the containment was undesirable but it could be acceptable if the following requirements were met by GE:
1.
Charcoal filtration of the purge exhaust.
2.
Design of the isolation system to safety feature criteria.
j 3.
Redundant instrumentation and controls from diverse actuation.
4.
Reevaluation of the flow requirements and reduction in the penetration sizes.
5.
Comprehensive testing to demonstrate the performance and reliability of the isolation valves.
6.
Isolation 'on purge line radiation.
As indicated in previous reports, CE does not intend to filter the exhaust.
In Amendment 27, GE addressed items 2, 3, 5, and 6 to our satisfaction.
We are still evaluating whether their justification for line sizing (Item 4 above) is acceptable.
Ue expect to report further on this at the March ACRS meeting.
We still require filtration of the exhaust flow and will make this a requirement of the PDA.
6-5 1
6.3 Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) 6.3.1 System Description (Item 17)
We stated in our Safety Evaluation Report that we required a thorough assessment of all manual actions required to mitigate the con.cequences of an accident. GE's response in Amendment 20 was not adequate to allow us to make such a review.
In Amendment 26, GE revised the positio.1 and committed to providing the necessary information for our review prior to the time that irrevocable final designs are available.
We consider this commitment satisfactory for the FDA.
i j
i 9
9 l
1 1
J
4 4
11-1
\\
11.0 RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMEIU 11.4 Solid Uaste Management System (Iten 28)
We sta ted in our SER that the available storage space for solid waste was not satisfactory and more space should be provided.
In Amendment 25 GE stated that they ".
. could-provide in excess of three conths storage capability in the radwaste building for the high level cleanup and spent resins solid wastes." We consider this a satisfactory commitment.
l l
l I
j l
4 1
i i
1 l
1
I 15-1 i
i 15.0 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS 15.1 Abnormal Operational Transients (Item 30)
We stated in our SER that the use of PRT on GESSAR was an open issue. We also noted in Section 7.6.2 of Supplement No. 1 to the SED that we had some concerns related to the conceptual design of the PRT system as proposed.
In Amendment 26, GE stated that they had been evaluating a design alternative to PRT. They have proposed substituting rapid insertion of the control rods as an alternate.
This would be accomplished by increasing the size of the piping in the scram system and increasing the pressure in the scram accumulator.
These changes, result in scram times'in the order of 1.5 seconds (for 75% insertion) as compared to the old design of 2.78 seconds. GE'has proposed confirmatory testing to demonstrate the capabilities of.the faster insertion and any effects it may have.
We consider this alternate design an acceptabic approach i
forethe PDA.
l f
9
(
APPE!! DIX A CONTIIR!ATION OF CHRONOLOGY December 13, 1974 Amendment 25 filed.
This amendment addresses outstanding issues listed in the September 12, 1974 letter to GE.
December ~23, 1974-Amendment 26 filed.
This amendment addresses outstanding issues listed in i
the September 12, 1974 letter to GE.
January 16, 1975 Meeting with GE to discuss RHR single failures and alternate shutdown methods.
February 3, 1975 Amendment 27 filed.
This amendment.
addresses outstanding issues listed in the September 12, 1974 letter to CE.
February 38, 1975 Amcndment 28' filed. This amendment addresses outstanding issuen listed in g
the September 12, 1974 letter to GE.
4 i
1 i
(
1 I
y
)
.(.
~l I
e
APPENDIX F (Continued)
ERRATA TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT
'I
~
Page-Line 5-5 5
Change "126%" to "111%"
7-1 (Supplement) 24 Add new paragraph as follows:
GESSAR was submitted pursuant to the Reference System procedural option contained.in the staff's study entiticd, " Methods for Achieving
)
Standardization of Nuclear Power Pl. ants," issued March 5, 1973.
In
.7 discussing the major advantages in the standardization of nuclear power j
[
plants, the staff stated in the study that "The most important advantage is the enhancement of reactor safety due to the concentration of staff l
1 effort on the in-depth revicw of standardized systems and on the resolution of gene'ric safety-related issues that arise in the review, as well as in hter construction and operation of the plant." To insure that this potential advantage is realized, the staff's review of the GESSAR instrumentation and control systems will not be substantially complete until. af ter the preliminary designs are completed and evaluated by GE and the preliminary designs are complete and GE's evaluation of the desiens are submitted for review by the staff.
7-1 (Supplement 1) 25 Replace the phrase beginning with
" Guidance" and ending on line 26 with
'JGESSAR" with the f ollowing:
" Additional guidelines by the staff regarding the implementation of the
(
Reference System option"
.5
9
. fage Line 7-2 (Supplement 1).
5&6 Delete "a functional design and,"
7-2 (Supplenent 1) 6 Change "are" to "is" 7-2 (Suppicment 1) 7 Delete " detailed" 7-8 (Supplement 1) 14 Delete the period after PDA and add " subject to" 7-8 (Supplement 1) 15 Add a period af ter " design" and before "will" add the following: "This aspect of the review"'
7 Appendix G 15 After "1 inch" add.the'following (Supplenent 1)
"or 1 1/4" for Hydraulic Control Units,"
I 1
l 1
t 9
l
)
l t
i
\\.
(,
k 4
_____--_____-1---
l!,h' i
)
Revised 12/6/74 4
l l
'/
NOV 5 1974 R*viS*d 1/31/75 l
Revised 2/21/75 SER SECTIO!J STAFF CONCER'I STATUS 1.
3.2.1 We will require the applicant to Applicant does not 3.2.2 commit to the seismic and quality conform.
only unresolved classifications of the liquid and
,See Section 3.2.1 for part is seismic gaseous radvaste treatment systems
- updated sta tus.
class, of gaseous per Appendix B of our SER.
syst em 2.
3.5 Uc will require specific velocities Applicant does not for the assumed tornado missiles, conform.
Amdt. 25 should Uc do not agree with GE's analysis "See Section 3.5 for resolve this.
that many missile velocities are
, updated status.
zero.
3.
3.6 We will require to prr N ae GE has not yet provided specific critr ph that,6 1 be sufficient information to used to post oDte pipcf)reak the staff.
g ti types F
locations sing th p break for piping r
'gh containment.
We are requirir3.he d Yell +q b 4.
3.8.3 oe Applicant opposes this structurally g"sof twed aref eak requirement.
testedatie?. des 3<fbresrgeof I
the dryt 5.
4.3.4 Prior to Am c). ment 2'N all affected GE has provided this 15.1 been anr f@eed b [ us'ng the new transient nd acc d'nts had not information in Amendment i
21 and our review is not q
scram activ'ch; curve (D curve).
yet complete. We will report in a supplement to the SER. (12/6/74) 6.
4.3.7 GE has not r b,dded eno-. descrip s We will pursue this d physicsg.alytica]g-with GE as a post-PDA tion of~tF qf[havetb,y,"presentrc#
methods
- item, comps
.,onsofmepredreargc dat, sith the e.ytical r
'aictions.
7.
4.4 Prior to Amendment 3"3.,r; had ne' Amendment 19 provided analyzed GESSAR Sp%I GETAB.,, \\.ee this information.
We we had not co-SE ed our V.ew of will report the results GETAB.
cf '
of our review in an SER supplement. (12/6/74)
STAFF POSITIONS:
Items 1,9, and 15
- ITEMS REQUIRING RESOLUTION PRIOR TO
(
ISSUANCE OF A PDA: Items 2,12,13,18,19,23,24,26,2 7, and 33
- Unless satisfactory resolution is reached, these items will become conditions of the PDA.
g STN 50-4I7 '
SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS 8.
5.2.2 We will r quire "E to cr<v.it We need a commitment to perfr. a s c?/eilla q. 2 from the applicant.
an th.. acw segs ty/
progra reli valuejElor tt BWR/6 and eriod!T.11yrdTort the results of. hat' egram.
9.
5.4.5 We require the RHR system GE feels that they to be single failure proof can achieve a cold as required by GDC 34 of shutdown even if a 10 CFR 50 Appendix A.
single failure occurs in the RHR system.
10.
6.2.1.4 We have not had ti to complete We will re 3.c our our review of t'b suppression resulte gge an SER pool makeup gp C.em since GE has sup4ctent.
only recer c9 submitted this g,
informa' 11.
6.2.1.5 As a result of GE' dancreasing GE is working on this the design drywe'sf external item and we will report pressure, the gener'and size further in an SER vacuum breake 4 should be reduced supplement.
to reduce t potential sources of bypass eakage, rIn addition N GE needs to furq '.'r 'j us tify egq '
C
. q assumptions #j used in t' 4 con-still tainment v NEmbreaker [hysis.
12.
6.2.1.7 We will require GE to provide GE says the results of all the assumptions ~used in these analyses will be the containment subcompartment ready by January 31, pressure analyses as well as 1975.
provide the results of those See Supplement 2 for a
- analyses, revised status.
13.
6.2.1.8 We vill require further dis-GE is working with us cussion of how potential post-to resolve these con-LOCA steam bypass of the sup-cerns. We expect to be pression pool is prevented.
able to report on The identity of all potential resolution of this in paths needs to be addressed as
- an SER supplement.
well as periodic surveillance of those paths.
4 1
i
~--
i
~
STN 50-447 SER SECTION STAFF CONCEPJ:
STATUS 14.
6.2.3 We will reg' *re a pregare GE needs to provide fuel b1dg. is analysis g che fua? % uilding N further analysis to only item and ECCS.p%d RUCV Q p roome demonstrate that to denc,.0 crate tF these e negative pressure is needing pressure y.
are s
. main at nogtivg, wing 1)* sis.
maintained.
prer te of 1 w.g. fr
.o a LL.,A.
15.
6.2.4 If GE wishes to purge the GE needs to provide 11.3.1 containment continuously,
.added information they will have to provide with respect to additional information their proposal.
related to filtration of
'See Supp. 2 for revised the discharged flow and the
- status, design of equipment to isolate the flow.
16.
6.3.1 We will requ!
GE to perform GE has not done the ECCS analys' assumir the tw N analysis assuming LPCI pumpr bre dive S.d to t*R' two LPCI pumps are g
spray mo y(Jenonstrfaftera[0minut.ediverted.
delay t h that I.e perfo *.'nce and Tceptab![.ty i
of t' ECCS it n,st adve-.:1y affs.ted.
17.
6.3.1 We will r. tire Gr to prot
.e GE has not provided the post
.il act
.is to a satisfactory assure [d,0 Cama-4 4at the are r unde-response to date, m
siral A conser "7.nces Clulting including Amendment 22.
Iro' #.mprope.f.sperat J. format p needed ac
.)ns.
is listed Sect
'n 6.3.1.
18.
6.3.2 We will require an analysis that GE has recently provided shows that the consequences of a such analyses. We will LOCA with a recirculation loop report on this in an valve closure will not cause the SER supplement. Amend-peak clad temperature to exceed ment 21 analysis is not acceptance criteria values.
acceptable.
1 e
(
)
1 l
l D
l STN 50-447.
SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS 19.
6.3.2 GE will need to reanalyze GE recently submitted the LOCA using methods this information and we acceptable to the staff are reviewing it and, and in accordance with will report in an SER Appendix K of 10 CFR 50.
supplement. (12/6/74) i 20.
7.0 GE needs to rovide th design GE is working to 8.0 bases anc1
.iteria, f.ctional prepare information i
diagrar & and an ev aation for our review. We of tb A'.esigns of s.e instrumen-will report on this in a' g?. and contr v areas.
tat' In an SER supplement.
. tion incon [ tencies within Chapter 7 of 4.JSAR and between Chapter 7 a f other chapters need to be arrected.
21.
9.1.3 Werequireanegeh. source of GE has proposed
. of seismic Cago\\.cy I makeup the essential water f N ne spent fuel watersystryhs.vice c
this pool ener than PJ1R.
source. cp are revier, this and wi]*
eport in an 9'
supplement.
I 22.
9.1.3 GE needs to demons'
.te that 100*F GE has recently covided is the maximum r
. ion cooling such informat' We have water tempera'ebe that could not yet com 4cItedour occur in tb oYnalysis of fuel review.
I',oNill report pool cool f; capability even on this gdm in an SER in the ent the normal heat supplc
.it when our sink
, unavailable.
revie, is finished.
23.
9.2 We will require further Same status as item 22.
discussion, P and I diagrams There are still some open and safety evaluations of issues in 9.2.
Many q
various water systems others have been resolved.
I discussed in Section 9.2 of our SER.
24.
9.3.1 GE needs to provide further Same status as item 22.
MSLIV leakage control system Two minor items still discussion, unresolved.
6 TherearesevergehACsystems Same ste* oYIs item 22.
25.
9.4 that are pr ge# o single failures.
S a
t
____.__.__._______-_______-_______.__i__..___
STN 50-447 i SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS 26.
9.5 GE needs to provide added GE needs to supply information with respect added information.
to the fire protection We will report in l
system for it to be a supplement.
acceptable.
27.
11.3.2 Additional means to reduce GE is reviewing the activity of gaseous this item.
releases are required since the SCTS appears to be too small to handle exhausts from all areas directed towards it.
s l
<b WereepDethe,% pace 28.
11.4
.t GE is proposing a soli'N q
prcq*e,as te f, rage 'Sded te % 10w (* more capability.
one month storage t'
. one r.th de M.
N b
29.
11.4 GEshedaverifv[e GE feels their waste S
c abse,,c. of fre uater in preparation methods 80'#l waster feI prevent free water.
i
(
30.
15.1 We wi p' require g rthe-GE is preparing 4
eva.1.fcion of '..nsie a information to wij.P pRT, an/[nat address these c.v.ernative Dare tg%'RT.
concerns.
NEU ISSUES
.b s
Werequ@C GE to /,s'ine the GE feels that they can 31.
5.2.1 upset e ad cond.4 cMn as upset justify by time history tran' @,nts plu t.he OBE.
analyses that cuch a g
4 combination is not I
required.
g GE has 4)t justified Yanent-g '
GE is preparing this 32.
5.2.2 9
3.) why they 'g'.t fre information.
(
ment 0
22 # 19 safety r, fief veh es, j
/
33.
6.2.4 GE has "cb presented r 1 GE has addressed these Y
T cons 4 o.ntdescrig9.: of items further. We will re-in gc* ament ling'd they need to S, Penetrating view them. We will report c..tainment,
- 4..i on this by 12/6/74.
environmental criteria clarify the enviror..iental I
still outstanding, design criteria and bases for I
safety related equipment in
(
the drywell and containment.
i j
J
3 2
?
~
~
5 i
3 ni
/
2 1
1 1
1 1
i 0
0 0
S-4 1
4 4
4 0
9 5
4 2
1 2
1 1
1 7
q 1
2
/.
/
/
/
/
/
/
2 6
4 6
6 6
3 9
9 4
9 9
9 4
1 1
y t
2 0
i 4
c 2
6 4
6 6
6 n
4 o )
5 7
6 7
7 7
8 o
/
l S
3 1
2 1
1 1
8 i
0 0
0 e
P
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
r F,
5 0
V f
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 e
3
/
4 2
8 2
2 2
6 e h 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 m
s (
s.
.'r 1
t
u 3
1 7
1 1
1 6
t-1 8
2 1
1 1
1 1
0 2
6n 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
5
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
i
/
8 4
6 4
4 4
2 t-0 0
e V.
0 C
4 1
4 4
4 7
9 7
6 2
1 2
1 1
1 2
3 c
f a
w/.;'
o n
m o o 6
4 4
4 2
i d
8 4
)
u h
t a G
p
)
c n
e
)
m s
a r 6
c h
(
p r o I
p f
FT.'
m y /
s r
(
t h
i p
s g
y c
m i
M c
t o
(
i i
l
)
o g
c e
y yd o
V t
t t
b l
i i
f a
t.
~
u e
l c
s /
0 0
0 0
0 3
V a
o n b 5
9 9
9 9
4 n
l e l 4
4 4
4 t
0 T_
l o
e D
(
a i
V i
t t
a m
n l
u e
s m
g n
i n
a x
a r
a T
T t
I h
)
n b 0
8 8
5 3
0 0
i l
0 7
8 4
9 0
c 2
2 7
4 0
'.~(
?
1 4
,t I
l!
lI a
g e
n r
o a
g l
g g
g n
l 2
n n
n o
a 1
o o
o l
5 t
l0 l
l0 0
3 n
x 4
4 4
o 5
x r
0 e 3
5 e 1 e f
2 1l 1l l
d 1
u x
u
,u
,d
,d 0d "t
x 0 e 0
d e e
5 f
h h
" h
" c
" c 2 c 3
0 4
3 c 1
6 s 1 s 1
2 ne l
i e
n l
n k
e e
e o
e i
n p
d p
p P
l
~
a i
o i
i i
l P
n P
P y
b P
t o
l l
l l
i m
d e
e e
e l
o o
e e
e e
i t
c t
t t
t t
u S
s S
S U
A 1
1 1
)
l 3
l l
,lll1iL
l
- i1\\l d d n
n ai W
t f l a 0
i 0 t N
2 n
O e
S r
g N
e n
A wa W
oT S
L f
n o
E i
s l
u A
eih dd p
o am MR S
5 E
d e7 T
l h A
et f B
o i
F n
id C
d h e
nt e
p i i WiS F
V O
e 1'
1 tl ll
\\
l
h p
m h
7 p
5 0
m 9
7 1
1 0
5 1
2 d
D L
e L
e d
I m.
E R
r p
e P
J S
e l
F A
p 1
S D
F R
a N
O E
l i
K t
a l
V O
C n
c i
D E
e i
A 0
g t
~
N H
n r
R a
e T
V O
T H
m m
u u
S A
V m
m i
L i
i L
x x
A a
a D
M k
l
+
F l
C 3$
g CI S TE I
e a
MSL n
o m
AI I
m
=_
NRS 4
-YES DTI O C M.
C i
D Y
p L
S' R
E C
O s
T I
I e
F M
C A
E D
N J
im N
Y A
a e
H D
R m
W V
T m.
a no.
E L
E O
D L
I A
S I
N S
S R
S I
O M
I T
M g
l
\\
Kuorx-k wnmn ~ /- /*- rr
~
AC R.,S / ST A F FAliE,A S 0 F C O NC E R N-
-.' 7,,
y7- **r g
i.-
1 i
.15
.,l
-- t i TEhi GE Positien (Currerlt Test data do not Prescure
- 1..
Oscillations indicate a
problem.
i i
No model needed.
2.
Relief Valve Model is developed.
!l.
Loac; Additional tests arcj planned.
_l e
l Models are developed.,
3 Pool Swell
'(Dynamic l
Loading)
Test data are cur-rently the design basis. -
Vertical model 4.
Vent Interactions developed, j
Horizontal model not rlanned.
5.
Pool Not a
problem.
S t r a t i f.i c a t..i..o n G
Asymmetry Not significant.
(
m;; - -
,q
~ 1
)
/
O FT/SEC A
(B e
i
.s.
[
\\;
l
[ / j M l' l
/
l I
)
l l
I i
j i
f 600 400-
't
/
. /
- 'vr l
- I m
j l
l 8
WQ l
l l
SECTION A-A I
i i
i p
j 600'
'I I
u.
3 i
,,,s, /lN,,'/~%."
2OO O
300 200 10 0 O
10 0 200 300 SECTION B-8 R A DI AL DISTANCE-FT TORNADO WI NO FIELD.
.-______-_A
d e
s S
o E
p C
m R
m O
o i
F r
y f
l T
d F
n n i
o o I
p L
i i a
t t r
O c c T
e e o
l r t
E f
i U
ed
- e D
d u
l d l N
o a
a O
t c
ni I
i
~
ot T
et n
C ur i
t e
E d
e c
r J
v N
e e
N n
O jf o
o I
nf i -
t I
T i.
C t
i C
d cl I
E e
M e
a J
v e
A jt N
r N
n n i
s u
Y l
o i
o s
D z
E l
s O
pi L
p e R
mr x r E
a o
I S
E p
A R h S
)
)
)
l i v 1
2 3
i
0 9
l I
O d
I I
i I
, =, -
]
".v T. -.a.' W 3:6. m ~
."...'g.iig& WLW f[7W1@iNA M.? W T ',.W<- M.Q?b!gfC.f...A:*?.Qgg Jf"I"TV'7*"bW1**
s '.'""fff.4 '.O.?% *,"* W* y'**p,1x. s av,fS. [.P";.'.*C ';..,.,.- %.[ T *j.m;.y
- a.***"'**j*F. g.gth g g*: y3pr Tiitte.Ngn.~~4.
_ f f:-a r.*7*a t' +-
l
('y,?~y y ; {, n.:, p-p3y'sp.,Q.:r{aQ-Q-Q+, ___
- *
- ~~:.\\ ;n
~ g.
g.f. -
g-p.:r ~..::
..1.
- u. g 7
3 v.y ^<vfQ ]v., g,.1 y,. :.."*. a v.,wy'g, &gm/Q 1,.p.".
.L, g p.,u
,,e n.&". 4. C,h,...f.g..'. n,.. % 4=,1,d,( Wi
.hTM Q.
.,ogn.
7,..! s.;7;n.m.,,,.;.m:~n;;;.c h,gk...?;Lyv..%.3~1
' ' ; ; e - * 'e. e '
^
y,.. 4 a y,:.g n
&p&,,
w.
y;u.,.
.mr m,m.,.,,..vy %.:..
y
-v
..c m,.
+t,*
C>
g.p.,...-
f7 a.
. v, ;, ;
'.2 g.
&, a
..y,e e
g
<c, o
.- Q.
f: A t
,.c; 4~
- b.
.ps
- ,. e
.g,..
k*
Y
- W
'**I $ J'?_
a
- W t'h',,,o s ' ^ *.
e c pflIFA
-t 9..
- .&=' P.' Le e -
y p,',.: rye-F* 3 sef s n g.,,
qn. 43, ;..y.;.
.. )..,.,;
..=w'*g,.. +c g" :,
,'. g" l' "g
Qht'.g'ri,
- <.g" p
,, g
[i.e-
'%r
- + ' -
E. ': ;.
p..
1
..-.7,f u
- .A-
. -.fysq.
.. f.2.,, t
- g ;:
t
,w,
..s.
~;,
Lsosttnseg.
m.mg;.
s
. s::.-
+y
, c, u r.: :.
..r-.
y' ;M.* '*
.c.,
j g ;.' J
~.
~
- .y
+;
,.. e p.
- f-
^
.~
~ -
3 I's'
' ~ '.
.g N[,..
ea
. - 7> i f* */P '
"[
f.g.,
]
f' q,...., -*
3.. - $,. i..
r,.
..O N I'
'N'
[h y.i.
., nas p==.,
'N " ~
- g.,'
8
'.6
' w
,iT hjf,*i *
. m. h - ** -
&+1 <
h' M.
-. f.,, n. c' e
m
. '(IIIlllWI)
"M. Mg.
V:T/ 7l p.y
.a
'?
,4-T
, o s
.c 3 a
...r.
,.p.
+
v.
w l
.s t.+.
.a.,x,, p..
4g g%.
L..,
3, 1
.y v.,
Jit.-
,as
.m 4
,,e; 9
r.
..i, b
, M, A,,ym s
A n~~4.,..
" o,% -
g.'t,%.:* n... v-
>. *m
, e
- m..
x r..
.)
M h..
e M 'e#.
10.3-s t
N ".:*-
H'*."
"'j.i y*:
2
'J A.
.i l%;
..m]ng'p.
.,i.e \\,,
s=.M y
. =
- j w
r..
, c.
- 4,.
s..
5..
.r M,
O
,. (;
O
.j g
Q;.' '.
,,...v.,'g..*.'..w
.~
i
.r., r -
.4 4p= a s.
( q.*.;
D,.
s
~e
-
- r ;,
..?
3,,fN,,.%.,..7.:s-ye}.... MM
?. ffU,q^..m~
- jt.h, O<
~% %&
. k..,k
-ll r
- c. :.
c
~p
,m::r N:. -
v.:.~
c.3..aw.
eg.. a
..ws -
l
.1,l, k..
p-w.;
t 4.
e*'.
p,.-* c,s..
,s.-
[.-,
..y m
g e
-i
~
- e g
9
~
w p
g 8
- 8..
I. -
> I.
E R,eFsE '
c.ir b.
g
,% v.
I
- [.
t s., ( ~
,I
=*
Q1,,-
I l
n' -.
~
'h a
w (
n e
n
?
h, II N g
N N
.e es) aggd o.
.e.
o.
o.
o.
t G
g V.
e.e g
.s..
t 1
?. M n
- Ng k.c 8
{
1 5
./
e m
'm og
.m
-~g y
NE N
'N N<
c c
Ing=s o.
=.
og
. ",I
'g, y,,,
o
".4,,
- e c-i
~
n.
,,e
=
n*,,,
.4 i
g
.g 1o
+ .i.' b*
- O C
? h I t'*e g g [ . -* C, .,4 I' m m e to f h N .f,'.r', ' +- -ge O . + m. s t + g r.i. s. ~ .i.- l IN) YN \\ k. .e se
- 4tg -
/g e w 2.' P c M M M M N M e (9sitged en.6 O. O. O. O. O. ". *I* ,I ,e
- ) vu
( 3 fsg6 .s. > ne r1 . g'eng es.Lg g 5 m aus 5 993W73088Y 3.g E,, mns o. o. 8 8 .\\ g \\ t s = w % s.'- 4 n. s 4 Y e s' M Nam (tt) 3g5 en 8 o. 5 h
== N are - N 44 .ar 04 e e
- V'g
/ ."W N 3 I
- E aE t1
%h p? 4 s n a .p.= m e/* qu ga h-P __. 5.-2 sN t c =. s s. q e 'w nl m e tw s an e N -_3am.h- ._m.am ._m.._
i. [. fJ i I t I,., ,1 1 1 a .g i-t J i- .z'200 [ TOTAL VELOCITY O. ( c ,i ^ w ._J. w ELEVATIO N c: ~ 7 o N / P HORIZONTAL VELOCITV' i-3c y .: = 10. 0 -). -o- -I ,1 l .tj t ) N VERTICAL VELOCITY i ( ABSOLUTE' VALUE) j ll L: .i [ t O o s so TIME (SEC) From TVA-TR74-1 Tumbli ng Mod e Utility Pole t 1 i
i ELEVATION. Goo-t 500 n { ,r-2 1 2 400 t-Nw TOTAL VELOCIT Y c: o 300 G' 1 i i ~ 1 l~U.200 j o Jw \\ 10 0 l H O RIZ ONTA L l y VELOCITY -VERTICAL VELOCITY l (ABSOLUTE 'ALU E ) o o 5 to Tifd E (SEC) From TVA-TRT4-1 Wo o d F la nk Tumbli ng i.io d e 4
) d c ee es p/ S t 926 00 0 35 6 f 599 2 5 7 46 3 ( 211 31 1 13 1 d n e o t mi f ut i ma l i v) xet 242 t 2 alf 742 o 3 6 ME( 723 N 3 26 ) g W n / 55 85 7 o A 899 79 5 9 l 300 30 1 3 0 D 000 00 C 0 0 0 3 s. re te d m n a u i l l o o d e e r m v v g l el c 1 e l e 1 m v v o el d e d r l e nl n F b v u u l l d c od o e n1 rn r v 8 u gu g g e ( od . o n l rn mr m i gu og o l d l D o r r b n e m r '0 F m F m u v OR o g5 o u r - r T r '0 o e l L F mm F g5 E oo g g d E - rr n - n mm n T FF i i s oo u S g l g l e rr o n-b n b t FF r i mi m a g l gg ul u i b nn Tb T c m mii m o t o ull ou s e r Tbb NT s k F mm 7 A c ouu 9 o NTT 8 t D o 7 r R c e n A s P b o S A a A l r S V b C i y E T E W G B G Il
l n33 tg,4 ~ ~ ~ 4 Proposed Missile ? Velocity ~ Y 94 6-- 3 o33 - n
- s ug s -a o a
, n c. f l -f 1 's 4 5 .G 7 6 9 f. Fraction of Maximum Tornado Wind Velocity 4 s MISSILE B Proposed Missile 'I Velocity ,, s 7 w;o -, t .E03 f -' i 1 t =~ 2: L t - - l i { l i 2 3 .G .f 3 9 /, Traction of Maximu:n Tornado Wind Velocity I I e l l l
MISSILE C ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ' ' ' ' p Missile ~ Velocity w .w 8 m87 or4 kJ.,/ U I [f =. ,C* of ~ 3 o ] s a G j z .I 1 / -2 3 4 5" 4 7 8 9 t. Fraction of Maximum Tornado Wind Velocity l l l MISSILE D Proposed Missile ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ^ ogg Velocity
- 4 7
Y u .s c. 1 QJ u .f i 3 tJ a E,' Z 3 j 1 i l V l ~2 3 9 5 .4 7 6 9 /. 7 Fraction of Maximum Tornado Wind Velocity l i l 2 1 A r
I .l 4.t.v z _TT r.r ..a Proposed
- ~ ~ ' ^ ~ ~ - ' - - ' ^ ~ ~ - - - - - - ~ -
Missile ,l Velocity 3 t Y ? O ) [ e,,J .*-e-a-G / s ~ c. t 0 r u 4 o o %./
== -s
- j 2
= / l ./ 2 .3 9 ,4* .C 7 .g 9 j, ' ~ ~ Fraction of Maximum Tornado Wind Velocity ~ B ... y i ( P.ISSILE F . u. Proposed Missil.e I Velocity- .~..-. -. Y + c l. O e,
- l'
'J u. -1 i sl 2 ; ~s f = i s .- l l .I 2 3 4 5 .6 7 5 .? /, ~ Fraction of Maximum Tornado Wind Velocity ~ l
J 1 1 i .n.., H.,~ G aoa. I 1 EC Missile Velocity Y t ~.... - -.... .. ~. - t i I 1 ._l 1 i, i 1 j e 1 l 1 .i e o io a n . -... ~... 4 u o j uy .g _az g I, P ./ 2 3 .+ 5 6 7 5 9 /. l i Fractier.'of Maxi =um Tornado Wind Velocity _ l 4 I 4 i l
facNarent frapn Jrnrn 43rren r / -//- 7F'. STN 50-447 g Revised 12/6/74. ~NOV 5 1974 Revised 1/11/75 SER SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS 1.. 3.2.1-We will require the applicant to Applicant does not 3.2.2 commit to the seismic and quality conform. only. unresolved classifications of the liquid and-4 part is seismic gaseous radwaste treatment systems class, of-gaseous,per Appendix B of our SER, . system 2. 3.5 We will require specific v'elocitics Applicant does not for the assumed tornado missiles, conform. Amdt. 25 should Uc do not agree with GE's analysis resolve this. that many missile velocities are l zero. 3. 3.6 We will require to pre N.ne GE has not yet provided aD that 69*.1 be sufficient information to . specific critr c used to post elte pipcfJreak the staff. g locations +C' typesg+ break for a piping p. sing th- .gh containment. 4. 3.8.3 We are requirirs.he d' @ ell to be Applicant opposes this structurally s *sof t'g ed and Icak requirement. 4 tested at ie?g.desi y0 pressure of the drye '. 5. 4.3.4 Prior to Am ment 2'4 a11 affected GE has provided this 15.1 transiente ndaccjs'ntshadnot information in Amendment been an cd bg b using the new 21 and our review is not scram activ'ch curve (D curve). yet complete. We will. report in a supplement to the SER. (12/6/74) e.ided eno-.'descrip s We will pursue this 6. 4.3.7 GE has not r b fsi physic with GE as a post-FDA tion of tFge$havetb[sS.alytica]9-9 methode presentee? item. compe ons of meg 'ared rearg.- dat. sith the e.ytical r 31ctions. 7. 4.4 Prior to Amendment Jr .,r: had nc-Amendment 19 provided analyzed GESSAR e
- GETAB, 4.e e this information. We S' ed our g #,;ew of will report the results C
we had not cow GETAB. gt of our review in an SER supplement, (12/6/74)
/ STN 50-447 C' SER'SECTION STAFF CONCERN. STATUS I 8. 5.2.2 We will r quire "E to commit We need a commitment to perf d'. a s'$/eillance - from the applicant'. progra sn th.aew safety /' relir value for the BWR/6 and)~eriodi.11y report the results of. hat program. i 9. 5.4.5 We require the RHR system GE feels that they to be single failure proof can achieve a cold as required by GDC 34 of shutdown even if-a 10 CFR 50 Appendix A. singic failure occurs in the RHR system. 10. 6.2.2.4 We have not had t4 to complete We will rg.c our our review of t' result gd an SER pool makeup ;p *.3 suppression sup ged nt. em since GE has s only recer e., submitted this g informe* a. -11. 6.2.1.5 As a result of GE',dincreasing GE is working'on this the design drywe~g external item and we will report pressure, the *g20er and size further in an SER vacuum breake i should be reduced supplement. to reduce t' potential sources 1 of bypass eakage In addition N GEneedstofur4#glrjustify**9 ( 9* assumptions +'s f used in t5 % on-o tainment v Tombreaker 1 ef 1ysis. i 12. 6.2.1.7 We will require GE to provide GE says the results of all the assumptions used in these analyses will be hgf [p the containment subcompartment ready by January 31, pressure analyses as well as 1975. h provide the results of those analyses. 13. 6.2.1.8 We will require further dis-GE is working with us cussion of how potential post-to resolve these con-LOCA steam bypass of the sup-cerns. We expect to be g pression pool is prevented. able to report on k10 t The identity of all potential resolution of this in paths needs to be addressed as an SER supplement. well as periodic surveillance of those paths. (
STN 50-447 e i 1ER SECTION STAFF CONCEPE STATUS i i 14. 6.2.3 We will req <'re a preg are GE needs to provide fuel bldg. is analysis e3 che fue.14 ailding further analysis to only item and ECCS g'.d RWCV g./.ip rooms demonstrate that t deme o needing pressure g crate th/. these negative pressure is analysis. areas 9. main at negative maintained. prer te of 1. w.g. following la LL.,A. 15, 6.2.4. If GE wishes to purge the GE needs to provide 11.3.1 ' containment continuously, added information they will have to provide with respect to additional information their proposal. related to filtration of the discharged flow and the design of equipment to isolate the flow. 16. 6.3.1 We will requ! ' GE to perform GE has not done the ECCS analys' assumir che tw-analysis assuming LPCI pumpr te dive'S.d to t two LPCI pumps are emonstrp[aAhat[ty fter a > minute, diverted. spray mo delay t e Teeptab!. perfo' 4.nce and of t' ECCS is nst adve-ely affs.ted. { 7 17. 6.3.1 We will r. tire Gr to provide GE has not provided the posqd,0CA ma-22 actions to a satisfactory assuregaat the are no unde-response to date, siraFg conser "e<nces resulting including Amendment 22. fro *4.mpropeg/.sperator ac Ons. I,fermation needed is listed . Section 6.3.1. I 18. 6.3.2 We will require an analysis that GE has recently provided j W shows that the consequences of a such analyses. We will ,N[g hp LOCA with a recirculation loop report on this in an l)g ' f. p valve closure will not cause the SER supplement. Amend-peak clad temperature to exceed ment 21 analysis is not acceptance criteria values. acceptable.
STN 502447... w. a' ff:CTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS i 1N .2 / [M$ GE will need to reanalyze GE recently submitted p e the LOCA using methods this information and we I/h acceptable to the staff are reviewing it and f and in accordance with will report in an SLE (/g A Appendix K of 10 CFR 50. supplement. (12/6/74) 1 20. 7.0 GE needs to rovide th design GE is working to j 8.0 bases and .iteria, f.ctional prepare information diagrar h and an ev .ta tion for our review. We c d of th f.esigns ofy.e instrumen- .will report on this in tat (o*.andcontr areas. In an SER supplement. q '. tion incon'4,AR and between tencies within a-Chapter 7 of 4 dS Chapter 7 a 4 other chapters need to be arrected. 21. 9.1.3 Werequireanegh.sourceof GE has proposed . of seismic Ca the essentia3 '"iU" water f* S.go,cy I makeup b ne spent fuel water'systcq s this c pool. oner than RllR. source. e are 0 Ig this and reviev wi]
- eport in an F'
supple, ment. 22. 9.1.3 GE needs to demons' .te that 100'F GE has recently covided ( is the maximum r ion cooling suchinformar'he.. We have water tempera'eN that could not yet com 4c d our occur in tb oYnalysis of fuel review. 1(oNill report g pool cool h capability even on this q.Jm in an SER C in the ent the normal heat supple .it when our sink , unavailable. revie, is finished. 23. 9.2 We will require further Same status as item 22. discussion, P and I diagrams There are still some open and safety evaluations of issues in 9.2. Many various water systems others have been resolved. discussed in Section 9.2 of our SER. 24. 9.3.1 GE needs to provide further Same status as item 22. MSLIV leakage control system Two minor items still discussion. unresolved. 25. 9.4 Thereareseverge.kACsystems Same sts* oYIs item 22. that are prege6 o single failures. 1 1 i
[- l STN 50-447 5- R SECTION STAFF CONCERN STATUS 26. 9.5 GE needs to provide added GE needs to supply information with respect added information. to the fire protection We will report in system for it to be a copplement. acceptable. 27. 11.3.2 . Additional means to reduce GE is reviewing the activity of gaseous this itca. releases are required since the SGTS appears to be too small to handle exhausts from all areas directed towards it. te the $. pace for 28. 11.4 We ree GE is proposing a o soli',aste <4', rage be one menth storage preg ed to d low for more capability. t' 2 one r.th decay. N 29. 11.4 GE sho f. verifvgie GE feels their waste N so'#g. of fre ': vater in abse c preparation methods .wastee[ prevent free water. 30. 15.1 We vi. ion of '.g rther require GE is preparing eva.1 .nsients information to g wi'p PRT an nat the address these c *ernative are to PRT. concerns. I NEW ISSUES b a e v 31. 5.2.1 We requ y.,GE to <~ line the GE feels that they can 0 upset 'ead cond! On as upset justify by time history tran* +Ints plu +.he OBE. analyses that such a
- 0 combination is not required.
GE has #It justified Yanent-32. 5.2.2 GE is preparing inis g)) why they 'b.t from ment o v inforreation. 22 4 19 safety /ry% ef valves. 33. 6.2.4 GE has r h presented r % GE has addressed these c cons 4 at descri " J of items further. We will re-in-ment ling,% netrating ' view them.We will report c..tainment, 4..id they need to on this by 12/6/74. environmental criteria clarify the environmental still outstanding. design criteria and bases for safety related equipment in the drywell and containment. \\ i O ,..,e. -e
- * * =*
- ______m._____.___________m------
E 6 2 T 3 A D: D C E f a y w R a. l M E r R R =_e d O E S F = w e
- H N
^T A Y B 8 o t cO E e u =P b M D E
- ,e T
O m m A v: E e = i r R c i 8 V N c a D a I h = I E r t O m C t s F e* E m - c i R O 1 e d L = 4l O T i 7E e R O e 9 b D R R I U E O E E = 1d .H C n V P T E l AD O E E t O b N %a t 7 C R r T l. h % u E D R N A N ro4 M L =. E O i' C u
- r7 C, ;.
't M L Y~ N u H n3 J-A O o D 1 7 C c o1 c-o" 1 Md1 1 t : 1e OO f n dN O O M Y a' e i T E C R r~ M C Y A D 4 t s: e s h. R S E det v S r S R A E it i^ M M J S R tt" l M L-t S C E ot D$ ra e O L E E F C J A C N A E N E: E A N O D pn-7 R 5 Y A se s7 O r am-e1 R N TI O C u* i E _i. O s n =< i tG I C h. a T A E nr o' p N tgL L 'M C OI ot E i s C' c N J dO A NF ? sI Mo u e r o t oh A t att v s. 4 Edn u 7 ei 9 yt d 1 t sd E eie I f ed 1 C F 5 rru l F O F l 'y O N r ec v [p Srn T e S G b ai O E m t c 'n ' [/ P R) e ht o de c i e ti f D he is s 1 wr 2 la .ef e / n d e 8 w c d- /.# /,_ U tt t dt e n B .e l rm17t a ts W i u t M( le, e ne C. \\ N F. 3_ s Eh-e om J_ v a i t t s S r ci K V u .y e 0 R 2 g 1 msn 1 bass s A ') S 1 u A M h 0 L E y E t 7 C D g R j}}