ML20245G034
| ML20245G034 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1988 |
| From: | NORTHEAST UTILITIES |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245G027 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8908150171 | |
| Download: ML20245G034 (30) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-- - - - g. l - 1 l ! I NORTHEAST UTILITIES \
.g ALARA PROGRAM I
I ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL I . EXPOSURE REPORT I 1988 I I g ALARA I lI YOUR~ I RESPONSIBILITY pau8mn88;ggj g . L__ _ - -- --
l-I Lg TABLE OF CONTENTS : I 'g i Executive Summary g ; l 1. Introduction 'I 2. ALARA Exposure Summary j
- 3. Exposure Trends
'I 4. Industry Comparison i j I I I I LI I LI Lg lI lI !
, t EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The two-pronged Exposure Reduction Plan (Three-Year Average Goals and Exposure Reduction initiatives) initiated in late 1986 continued successfully through 1988. The benefit of a three-year goal planning process and middle-management involvement in exposure reduction initiatives was evident, The NU system total exposure (Figure 1) shows decreasing trends through 1988. The anticipated 1989 increase is because of the four units being in major outages. Nevertheless, the three-year average exposures (Figure 2) show a consistently decreasing trend. This is a more realistic picture of the exposure trend as it adjusts for the refueling cycle spanning more than one calendar year. Noteworthy amongst the exposure reduction initiatives are the MP-1 participation in the GEZIP process and the MP-3 participation in the EPRI high pH program. The results will become available in 1989. In general, the NU record on exposures shows: o Continued reduction trend in the NU system's three-year average (Figure 2) e The NU annual exposure per unit was below the industry average (Figure 3) e MP-1 is consistently well below the industry BWR average (Figure 5) e MP-3 is consistently below the industry PWR average (Figure 4) e CY and MP-2 are higher than the industry PWR average (Figure 4) e MP-1, MP-3, and CY had less than the industry average number of radiation workers, whereas MP-2 had more than the average (Figures 13 and 14)
- MP-1, MP-3, and CY had less than the industry average exposure per worker, MP-2 had slightly above the average (Figures 15 and 16)
The NU 1990-1992 Three-Year Goals set in 1987 were adjusted in September 1988 to be proactively lower and are achievable by all units, if the current trend and management commitment to the process continue. t 1 4
i
- 1. Introduction This report summarizes the man-rem expenditures, major activities, trends, and progress of the Northeast Utilities ALARA program, at the two operating I stations, Haddam Neck and Millstone, and at the engineering support organization NUSCO, for 1988.
I Industry comparisons are provided for 1) annual exposure, 2) number of workers with measurable exposure, and 3) average dose per worker. Industry data from 1979 through 1987 are provided by the NRC. Data for 1988 are
,, provided by INPO (or noted where estimated).
Detailed information on individual job exposure, ALARA controls, and their effectiveness and recommendations for future improvements can be found in the individual unit's ALARA reports, as prepared by the site Unit ALARA Coordinators.
- 2. ALARA Exposure Summary for 1988 Figure 1 shows that the NU system annual exposure total for 1988 was the I lowest its been for the period 1979 to 1988. It is also significantly lower than the former low of 1987. This record low exposure reflects, in part, the fact that 1988 was more of an operating rather than a refueling outage year. Only s
' Millstone Unit 2 had an entire refueling outage during 1988. Connecticut I Yankee and Millstone Unit 3 had 1987 refueling outages carry over into 1988, but most of the higher exposure work had already been completed. The Company's efforts at reducing occupational radiation exposure are better and I perhaps ironically shown by the 1989 exposure estimate, which although higher than the two previous years, includes a complete refueling outage a c!!
four operating units. Indeed the 1989 estimate compares favorably with the 1981 to 1985 exposure totals when there were only three nuclear units in I operation. Despite the anticipated increase in 1989, the three-year average exposure I trend, shown in Figure 2, continues to decrease. This statistic attempts to balance the enormous exposure swings that occur between operating and refueling periods. This swing becomes noticeable on Figure 3, which shows the average exposure per unit. While 1988 was below the LWR industry I average (total manrem divided by total number of units),1989 totals are anticipated to be somewhat above it. I The effectiveness of an ALARA program can be measured by the exposure (manrem) avoided through the use of various exposure controls, such as shielding, decontamination, CCTV and robotics. Table 8 gives the estimated I annual exposure avoided at each unit and the total for NU. 2.1 Haddam Neck (CY) At the start of 1988, CY was in a refueling outage that had been extended because reactor vessel inspection determined the need to perform repairs to the core barrel. These repairs were followed by core reload and reactor head j'I I replacement. Total exposure during this period, January 1 to startup on March 23, was 159.8 manrem. The inspection and repair of the core barrel / thermal shield expended 59.8 ,I manrem. Mock-up training, water shields, video camera HP surveillance, underwater camera diver control, and QA checks are credited with significant ! exposure savings. I i
CY experienced a forced outage from May 1 to the 27th to repair the reactor coolant pump number 3 seal. The job required 5.2 manrem; about 3.5 manrem was saved by decontaminating the seal on the charging floor rather than the loop area Mock-up training also helped reduce seat repair time and exposure. > CY spent tl e balance of the year in power operation. Its exposure performance versus the annual budget is listed below. Exposure Budget Annual 220 217 Refueling Outage 160 134 Power Ops. Monthly Average 6.5 8.15 2.2 Millstone Unit 1 (MP-1) MP-1 expended 's57 manrem during twelve months of power operation; its
' exposure performance versus its budget is listed below:
Exposure Budget i Annual 157 180 Refueling Outage N/A N/A l t Power Ops. Monthly Average 9.2 11 ( Remote tools and equipment / component decontamination were used to control exposure for the Spent Fuel Pool Cleanup ar.d Rerack work. Remote tools saved approximately eight manrem for the spent fuel pool work, but about five manrem was lost modifying the control rod cutting tool. Shielding saved approximately four manrem performing valve repairs. ! 2.3 Millstone Unit (MP-2) IviP-2 expended 583.7 manrem in a refueling outage which was in progress at the start of the year and continued to February 29,1988. Refueling and steam generator inspection and repairs were major dose contributors. f Power operation, which commenced on March 1 and continued through the ) end of the year, was interrupted by three forced outages: April 9-16 Clean CEDM Coolers 13.9 manrem May 7-21 Reactor Head "O" Ring Replacement 117.5 manrem June 7-18 Clean CEDM Coolers 19.6 manrem
MP-2 was in power operation for the balance of the year and expended 48.8 i manrem during the period. l MP-2 exposure performance versus the budget is listed below: l Exposure Budget l Annual 783 679
~
Refueling Outage 584 601 Power Ops. Monthly Average 5.4 7.8 2.4 Millstone Unit (MP-3) MP-3 was completing a refueling outage from January 1st to February 16th and expended 61.7 manrem during the period. The unit was in power ' operation for the balance of the year save for two short forced outages: April 14-26 RCS Leakage / Valve Repairs 9.1 manrem October 21 to Circulating Water Purr ps, MSIV Repairs 3.5 manrem November 5 Local shielding was used to save 0.5 manrem during the hot leg stop valve repair and 0.75 manrem during valve (CHS-V59-66) repairs in the regenerative heat exchanger room. Exposure Budget Annual 92 90 Refueling Outage 62 68 Power Ops. Monthly Average 1.7 2 I 2.5 NEO - Exposure Reduction Program As instructed by senior Nuclear Engineering and Operations (NEO) management in December 1986, NUSCO RAB took the project management lead for the Exposure Reduction Plan shown in Table 6. This two-pronged program of Three-Year Average Exposure goal and Exposure Reduction I Initiatives resulted in a major buy in by NEO middle management and a significant turnaround in NU's exposure. The Three-Year Average Goals for the four units were developed for 1987-1989 and 1990-1992 in late 1986 and I modified in late 1987 as more information became available. The 1990 to 1992 three-year goal was proactively reduced in September 1988 and the 1989 annual goals were set at the same time (see Tables 1 and 2). I
A new ALARA program procedure on the annual and three-year goal setting process 1992 goal. was The approved ExposureinReduction 1988 andInitiatives used for ERI) setting (the 1989 program goal and continued in the 1990-I 1988. The current status of the thirteen short-term initiatives and eight long-term initiates are listed in Table 7. During 1988, five of the short-term and one of the long-term initiatives were dosed. Note that a new ERI, LT Technical Specification ALARA Review, has been added. Detailed quarterly status i reports on these ERI's were issued by the RAB in 1988. In August 1988, NUSCO RAB transferred its ALARA engineers to the sites (one I per site) to allow for ALARA planning, cost-benefit and engineering analysis to be better coordinated with on-site activities.
- 3. Exposure Trends This section provides charts showing trends in each unit's annual, refueling I outage, and power operations exposure.
Annual Exposure 3.1 Figures 4 and 5 compare NU's three-year annual exposure averages with PWR and BWR industry three-year annual exposure averages. The three-year
.' average is used to compensate for the large exposure variation between 9
g operating and refueling periods. Figure 4 shows that both MP-2 and CY are consistently above the industry I average, but show a decreasing trend. MP-3 with relatively little operating history is below industry average. Figure 5 shows that MP-1 is consistently below the industry average. 3.2 ,Refuelino Outage Exposure Trends Refueling Outage Exposure Trends are shown in Figures 6 through 8. The data is plotted against fuel cycle. CY, except for cycle 13, shows a general reduction I from cycle 11 to 14. Cycle 14 is also the first "under 1000 manrem" refueling ! outage since cycle 10 and the second lowest of the past seven refueling outa es (Figure 6). At present, MP-2 (Fi ure 8) shows a definite reducing I tren . MP-1 (Figure 7) shows a relatively lat to slightly reducing trend since the high exposure refueling outage of cycle 7. MP-3 has had only one i I refueling outage and, therefore, insufficient data to trend. 3.3 Power Operations Monthly Average Exposure Trends Power operations monthly average exposure is the power operations exposure for the year averaged over the total operating time during that year. This does not include unscheduled shutdowns, scheduled outages or Project Assignments (PA's) not associated with power operations. Figure 9 shows that ! MP-1 and MP-2 continued a downward trend, while MP-3 and CY experienced l I smallincreases.
- 4. Industry Exposure Comparison l Industry exposure data up to 1987 was supplied by the NRC. INPO supplied l l
1988 average PWR and BWR exposure. Other 1988 industry data was estimated.NU 1988 data was obtained from Regulatory Guide 1.16 and 10CFR20.407 reports. i
---_-_________w
g- - l g The data being discussed is annual manrem, and therefore, if an individual unit had a refueling and maintenance outage during the year, its exposure
,I probably will be higher than the industry average. This is the weakness with using an annual rather than a three-year data comparison. !
4.1 B W R's Figure 10 provides a comparison of MP-1 to all commercial US BWR's from j 1979 to 1988. In 1988, MP-1's exposure of 159 manrem was lower than the ) I. average of 511. I Note that since 1982, where the quartile data is available, MP-1 has been at or below the industry median and., for two of these years, has been in the lowest i exposure quartile. 4.2 PWR's Figures 11 and 12 provide industry comparisons for NU PWR units in 1988, MP-2 had 793 manrem, MP-3 had 92 manrem, and CY had 137 manrem; the I PWR average was 345. MP-2 had a refueling outage in 1988 and its higher than average exposure
.should place it in the highest quartile when quartile data becomes available.
i I This can be anticipated by noting that for years 1984 to 1986 the highest quartile range started at approximately 500 manrem. MP-3 had lower than average exposure and should be in the lowest exposure quartile judging by past industry data. CY had lower than average exposure I~ and judging by past data should be in the second lowest (25-50%) quartile. This would be the first time CY has been below the median since 1982. 4.3 Number of Radiation Workers with Measurable Dose The number of workers with measurable dose consists of all radiation workers with annual exposure greater than 0.000 rem. For 1988, the industry average l was estimated. Figures 13 and 14 and Table 3 display the unit's number of workers for BWR's and PWR's, respectively. In 1988, MP-1, MP-3, and CY were less than the average. MP-2 was higher than the average. 4.4 Average Dose Per Worker Figures 15 and 16 and Table 4 compare the average dose per worker at NU plants to the industry average. MP-1 is almost always below the BWR average in this regard. There are only two exceptions in the past ten years, namely, 1979 and 1987. NU's PWR experience is much more erratic. CY and MP-2 have had many years in the past when they were above industry average exposure per worker. This I is especially true during the 1979-1985 period. However, MP-2 has been very I close to average for the past three years, so has CY for the past two. MP-3 has been below average for all three of its operating years. 5 I
g -
.c.
4/18/89 Page: 1 I NU SYSTEM EXPOSURE DATA WITH COMPARISONS TO INDUSTRY AVERAGES TABLE 1' l Annual Total Person-Rem (% Contractors in Parenthesis) I Industry Industry ! I Year Average For BWR's MP-1 Average For PWR's MP2 MP3 CY TLD 1979 733 1,793 510 472 - 1,161 5 " 1980 1,136 2,158 578 636 - 1,353 1981 980 1,496 652 531 1,036 I 1982 940 929 578 1.413 - 126 1983 1,056 244 592 1,881 - 1,384 1984 1,003 836 (64 %) 555 120 (52 %) - 1,216 (66 %) 1985 744 608 (67 %) 422 1,581 (79 %) - 101 (22 %) 1986 651 150 (35 %) 390 894 (Bf %) 25 (33 %) 1,567 (81 %) 1987 513 684 (77 %) 371 163 (62 %) 342 (79 %) 749 (74 %) j 1988 511 159 (34 %) 345 793 (69 %) 92 (63 % ) 237 (60 %) Goai 1989 - 494 - 699 381 759 I INPO Goal 1990 469 288 TABLE 2 Three Year Averages (Person-Rem) (TLD) ..
'81-83 992 890 607 1,275 -
849
'82 '84 1,000 670 575 1,138 -
909 )
'83 '85 934 563 523 1,194 -
900
'84 '86 799 531 456 865 -
961
'85 '87 639 481 394 879 -
806
'86 '88 558 331 369 617 153 851
]
l
'87 '89 "' 446 354 552 272 582 I I
Forecast 512 s NU 87-89 coat"' - 471 - 538 316 602 495 270 495 I NU 90-92 coal"' - 430 - 1 (1) 1989 Goal and 3 Year Goals approved by W D Romberg and E. J. Mroczka (9/21/88) 3 (2) Based on pianned work and some short term ERI's being in place I
I0 4/18/89 Page: 2 I
. NU SYSTEM EXPOSURE DATA WITH COMPARISONS TO INDUSTRY AVERAGES TABLE 3 Number of Workers Exposed (% Contractorsin Parenthesis)
Industry Industry I Average Average Year For BWR's MP-1 For PWR's MP-2 MP-3 CY 1979 1,010 1,769 924 757 - 1,226 1980 1,311 3,024 1,101 892 - 1,860 I 1981 1,340 2,506 1,076 890 1,554 1982 1,240 1,370 1,086 2,083 - 559 1983 1,287 309 1,065 2,383 1,645 I 1984 1,522 1,992 (67 %) 1,117 285 (54 %) - 1,430 (65 %) 1985 1,378 1,578 (57%) 1,000 1,057 (77 %) - 381 (27 %) 1986 1,270 489 (36 %) 1,070 2,190 (76 %) 100 (36 %) 1,945 (77 %) 1987 1,269 968 (77 %) 978 474 (64 %) 1,586 (77 %) 1,762 (75 %) 1988 1,270"' 470 (34 %) 980'" 2,353 (69 %) 374 (63 % ) 735 (60 %) i i TABLE 4 Average Measured Dose Per Worker (Rem) 1979 0.726 1.014 0.552 0.624 - 0.947 l 1980 0.867 0.714 0.525 0.713 - 0.727 1981 0.731 0.597 0.606 0.597 - 0.667 1982 0.758 0 678 0 532 0 678 - 0.225 1983 0.821 0.790 0.556 0.789 - 0.841
]
1984 0.659 0 420 0.494 0.421 - 0850 1985 0.540 0.385 0 422 1.496 - 0.265 l 1986 0.511 0.307 0.367 0 408 0.250 0.806 5 1987 0 410 0.707 0.380 0.343 0.216 0.425 ! 1988 0.402'" 0.338 0.350"' 0438 0.247 0.323 i' (i) at w ated g i I i l _ _ _ _ _ _ -____ D
e eg)
= Y aD e rL e
r v( eT - - - - hA ) 1 T 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ( 8- 8 8 8 8 8 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 et r n
) u a )D sl 2 3 4 8 2 2 7 2 1
3 0 4 4 69 55 0 3 8 oPL 8 2 prT 1 3 0 8 1 7 7 6 4 3 5 m xe( 1 1 1 1 e r EP n a la 6 7 3 8 9 2 0 6 8 1 D ( M t o L T 2 4 4 3 4 1 6 6 0 4 3 2 0 7 5 3 2 1 9 3 9 6 9 2 2 2 3 1 8 1 T l s m l a e 4 6 5 6 0 6 2 9 4 3 3 t s C 2 7 6 8 7 7 9 5 9 5 3 t I 5 8 9 4 7 1 4 8 9 2 3 o S y P 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 2 T e r D L - - - - - - - 5 2 4 2 - _ 2 9 u 3 T 3 5 s P e o p M 8 l C - - - - - - - 7 5 2 1 8 2 9 b x PI 3 3 a E T l e 2 6 1 3 1 0 1 4 8 9 6 9 3 3 - D 7 4 6 3 3 5 4 1 8 2 8 5 8 7 n T L 1 1 1 1 1 n 2 P o s M 6 3 8 4 2 1 8 2 1 3 9 C 4 1 9 2 8 2 2 6 7 8 9 r _ e I P 3 6 4 4 1 0 2 1 7 9 1 1 7 6 P 3 8 6 9 4 6 8 0 4 9 m D L 9 5 9 2 4 7 1 4 9 2 8 6 3 0 5 8 5 1 6 1 t e 1 T 1 2 1 e s P r u y M 2 5 4 9 0 9 1 2 6 7 4 s S C 2 7 9 3 7 4 5 6 3 0 3 9 2 8 6 7 1 5 9 4 o I 1 1 p P 1 2 1 x U E N I t 1 3 6 6 4 6 1 7 9 7 - e D 6 5 3 2 8 1 0 6 4 3 g L 1 3 0 1 3 2 1 5 7 2 d T 1 1 1 1 1 1 u Y B C 6 8 3 3 8 6 3 8 9 0 9 9 5 8 C 5 8 7 2 1 0 1 0 4 2 _ I P 8 1 1 0 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 7 7 1 2 7 9 1 g n is u _ r 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
)
t e d t e a 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8g a e 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 19 9 9 9d m Y 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 u i B t s ( E
)
1 (
, l 1 l
}c -
I
-j Table 6 i
Exposure Reduction Plan g
)
Achieve Culture Chance l
- Worker exposure reduction is same as reducing risk to public health and safety i I
5
- ALAR A is mandatory
- Exposure reduction is integral part of design, installation, and maintenance
- Exposure reduction is everyone's job - not just that of H.P. .;
A. Evaluate and Implement Exposure Reduction Initiatives
- Reduce Rad area work
- Increase rad worker efficiency g
- Reduce area dose rates I B. . Person-Rem Goals ;
- Use three-year average goals l
- Outage exposure goal set thirty to sixty days prior to start of outage I
l 5 8 l' LI L i
l I. TABLE 7 EXPOSURE REDUCTION INITIATIVES l l INITIATIVE # INITIATIVE TITLE LEAD PERSON Short-Term initiatives i ST # 1 Increase ALARA Awareness- All units R. C. Rodgers ST #2 Job Cancellation / Scope Reduction - All units R. C. Rodgers Closed R. A. Crandall ST #3 Work Practice Review- All units H. F. Haynes, MP Closed E. A. DeBarba, CY ST #4 Construction Work Efficiency- All units F. C. Rothen I Closed ST # 5 Decontamination - CY, MP-1, MP-2 R. P. Necci Closed ST #6 CET Grayloc Flanges & Reactor Head Stud R. P. Necci Tensioners - CY ST # 7 Permanent Neutron Shield - MP-2 R. P. Necci ST #8 GEZIP - MP-1 R. W. Wells Closed ST #9 Snubber Reduction - MP-2, MP 3 R. P. Necci I ST # 10 Closed ST # 11 ALARA Installation Reviews - Early Stage - All units Cobalt reduction - All units R. A. Crandall H. F. Haynes, MP E. A. DeBarba, CY ST # 12 MP-3 Project List R. R. Viviano Closed ST #13 Hydrogen Water Chemistry - MP-1 R. P. Necci Closed I Lona Terminitiatives i LT # 1 Decontamination improvements - All units R. W. Wells LT # 2 Longer Fuel Cycles MP-2, MP-3, CY R. T. Harris Closed LT # 3 Steam Generator inspection / Plugging R. W. Wells Criteria - CY, MP-2, MP-3 R. P. Necci LT # 4 Primary Chemistry Controls - CY, MP-2, MP-3 R. W. Wells LT # 5 Robotics- All Units R. P. Necci Closed i LT #6 Steam Generator Replacement - MP-2 R. P. Necci LT#7 Cobalt Material Alternatives- All units R. W. Wells LT # 8 TechnicalSpecification ALARA Review- R. A. Crandall (New ERI) All units R. M. Kacich l l
g,4 Table 8 l 1g m- _Manrem Avoided through ALARA Unit ALARA Control 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 MP-1 Design Changes 12 31 5 7 Training 2 42 , Shielding 2 2 3 42 4 Chemical Decon 1300 96 Pipe Flushing 29 20 10 25 Job Coordination 22 Miscellaneous 1 2 3 l E Subtotal 1346 53 18 236 7 M P-2 Shielding 40 78 131 37 2 47 Chernical Decon 360 1374 107 20 ! Robotics 170 Design Changes 5 Job Coordination 8 Subtotal 40 438 1505 107 22 230 M P-3 Shielding 61 1 1 Job Coordination 7 17 Subtotal 7 87 1
~
CY Shielding 68 167 94 254 21 CCTV 63 Robotics 86 466 Miscellaneous 3 Subtotal 68 167 94 403 487 3 TOTALS 68 40 605 1440 1558 535 823 241 5 5 I I
1 b m.~ a m a ,
//
e S L + h 9 8 a O A T T D /;
<s - 8 8
e 3 M/I 7 P ETEA / 8 M a RM ' UIT 6, 6 M SSE / - 8 O9 e P8 / L! 2 5 P a 1 E X,A ETA / M - 8 R l M D .' / - _ R SD A M U 4 l 8E e GI EL T Y ) 9 I F TN IO
/
P 1 8 _ m L I D g- 3 8 M N I TE S
/ d S G
m UAB 8 I N l u ) 2 8 I L T88 d s , E U S-9 n Y EN i 6 F e A79 a s 1 8 C 8 E R E1 u 8 8 N R H o 8 8 I E U e T h t (
' / , -
B NO F R M 0 I L( E 8 O - ND e R - OET N N
- / /
9 SA A 7 TM e I I M ' , , NT
- - - US E
5 4 Q Q 4 a - s u a n n i
- L
$ ~
9 8 E 7 R 8 U S - 8 O ~~ 6 P ~
~
8 X E 7 E 8 G ' 5 8 2 A R R E R E 6 8A U V - E G A _ 4 I 8Y FR A 5 E 8 Y 3 8 E ~ E R 8 H 2 T 8
- M
~ ~
U E ' _ N R
- 8 "
N A 1 8
"o
*e M ' " = "r 0 0 0 0 0 $
I 0 0 0 0 0 Q 5 0 5 0 S 3 3 2 2 e
?.
?nn llJ i.p a mu s m u 7 m u n 9 8 G V A m 8 Y u n T I 8 R T m N S U u s U 7 8 D _ N a R I u s E 6 t P 8 m E u n R 5 8 E T 3U m u ES RO [ s R 4 A A M I T U P 8 E S m G X Y E u I FE
~
~ U
. 3 N m 8 e L S S
A R a m u U N 2 8 _ E N G m A 1 8 A u R E U V m N M 0 A u E 8 U A T R N A m - 7 D u s N A M , 9 7 ED L T N a 0 0 m O u 0 0 5 0 D 1 1 E s S u a m A B e _ m u
_a F6 9 8 _m E - - + 7 R h \h 8 U - _m 3 S P
@8 8 O
M P _ + - m 6 X E 8 9 m E - - 7 2 35 G)A _ =- + 58- P M m A TA 8 i 4R D a E ED VT L ' 6 8 S R R UAN ~ _ _2 + 4 A O E Y G 8 C e I RD - - - Y F A ES 5 EA : e 8 ) Y (B + - M 3 E 8 G R E - m4E+8 V e E A NA1 6 R - R ( M3 H _b - W L m T - 2 8 P A3 OP GM R M G8 M W P E R g ==
~ -
3 V3 A5 N
- 5 5 +8 1
- R-A 2 M A 8 EPE Y M, M - - - - - -
g 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2M W 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 90 86 1 1 1 7-8 Y-m 9 1C-e e
9 E ~ Yp ,8 7 R 8 U S 8 O , 8 P 6 X 8 E ~ 7 1 E ' 8 P N/ M A G )T 5 AAD 8 5 R D S E ELT C
, R R V * ", 6 8 A
U ANO G
~
h 4 8 E G V A I F RDE Y R ASA W M EB q - ' 5 8 B E R Y( h/ , - 3 8 N A E N-
~
M E 1 7 R '
',8 4 4:
L H 2
- A T O
~
8 G 1 M G P E R ' 3 V A M N
* ' 8 s
- R A 1 AD 8 EE M ' - -
~
' YTA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3M 9I T
_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 S 0 4 2 2 8 6 7E 1 1 8 9 1 +
s u s
/
/
a m w :j- 4 1 u . n u n ' /
] /
3 a u S ~ 1 s E n G u A / / a T S 2 1 s U D ~ u a 6 ONE R E s u E R GT - / L a U NER s 1 1 C I G LUS ~ . Y C u EO I u F m UPX ' n FE -
/
0 a a E 1 R s u Y a C ' f 9 m e
~
~ .
s M a E . m R - / a - '. N . 8 a A . u s M ' '
/
0 0 0 g a 0 0 0 g u s 0 5 0 g 2 1 1 s u s s u a s u a
l l 1! m. - e _ a "i 1 e !/[ N 1 e _ S ' a E ~
. 10 G
A e T U S ' ' ODN e 7 GRT E . 9 E E L RN E C e I U LRU Y G ES I ' ' C - a F UOP i 8 _. FX ~
~
EE e R' 1 - e P' i 7 _ M , _ a M E - ' A R- T m _ A
. 6 D N
A C . m M I P - e ' N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 D a 0 3 5 2 0 2 5 1 0 1 5 E S A B e a m
' ll l l l llL
iji ' ,l M. _ M M ' ,
/ i8 _
M : M - s :0 S 7
's9 L : - i7 -
E , M G - A ~ M T ,
, , I .
US ,
~-
- /
,&% i6 ODN M 8 GRE E E
RINTE 2
~
, L M U LR
- .i5C G EUS 7 -- , .
Y _ C I M F UOP - FX ' , EE ~ i4 M R '
- i' 2
M P ' i M - i3 - M ~ M _ E A R- , T M -- A D N 2, i2 C A I M M ' , P
- - - - - N 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 D M 5 2
0 2 5 0 5 E 1 1 S A B M M M
m u a _l 8 8 m u 7 e * # 8 E R 3 e U E 6 8 P S % N M e O N P q 5 XS s
= ' 8
=
u EE a = 2 G = P 9 SAR n 4 M e E NE q ' 8 R R OV I A "
~<
A P a u U TY ' E s GALH I 3 Y
' 8 1 F RT P e EN M PO OM 2
' 8 e R N
=
m E H
' Y e s\ C W T N 4
\ 1
' 8 s O O u
a P M ,
/
M /, - - 0 m E ,
' 8 u R %
n
- ~
N - A s s - - e M m - - 9 07 0 0 0 0 u 4 3 2 1 n m m
i! l ! ]i u'.e s s s: u a - m u n n o w . il o - 8 n -
- L
- 8 s
E-E - u L-L I - s - I T T- - N N-- E- iu 7 E % _ s C C--
= 8 5 N'y a R-N R 7 n
- E-E -
P- - O P H H- - E l _ m S T T---
= b o 6 -
u 6- 8 5 3 I 2- - R - 7 x s u A ~- s P : 5 MYR Ii+N!tr T 8
% 1 s
u s 0 OT 5 P 2 M 1 CSU F!i + '- c [ r 4 8R s E D - o_ UL U A u s R EN I E 2 UR. S I J.-: =lby'" 83Y e G U V. I E m i F S1P " G OM A n a P X p;.f! -q W:" 2 8 O WE V R m i:WN:' ji l L_
- L A _
E
- x-a u
- - U R
1 s ; kYi'" 8 W q Y2 _ m B u
= _
?~ -
0 N
- f@? A D 8 m M. H I A
u E D T n R y G E I A D H M N 9 D m A E =S i" 7 O x L u - - - - - - T M - - - - - - _ 0000000000O N _ s 0000000000 O . u 0505050505 D a 54433221 1 E S s A - i B m a m u _ e s - ,ll lll lll
!1
- m . . u . a m u n m H u - n G g-gE 0 W I -
; 8 H ' -
8 a
'E- - -
m u M M
" N E
" C ~ 3*
7 % 3 i R 8 5 P m N E E 7 M a M e. O " m B s u S I-8 s 2 = y vu
- 6 8 a I 7 =
R - e A m i P Y f i+ 5 8 MRT =
% 2 l/r-m OSU 5 P u 1 --
2 M n 1 CDN - t ,,* 4 E 8R B : n RE S A I u n U RV ~ E G U3P - _i+ 3Y 8 m I - _ E u n F S M, G O2P A R a PM y i*
- 2 WE u
s X 8 O V L A E l-
/
m - U )' u R 9 - ;f
- 18 n 4
- ~~
m W ~ u P ~ s . 1 ,i~ _ T 0 N A M 8 A s H I D T E u a R-N A
= i t l h I
- 9 7
GI HM E A D D L m -- 0 x T u M - - - - - - - N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 D a 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 E S A m B u n m u n a m u l 1
m u n ;- 8 q'8 d3 - h7 k" 8 5 N h 7 O w' -
- d m S -
- Jki6 t,
'8 u I R 7 -
m A - P t " ,4 ,f 5 a =u " 8 MY % s 2 OR 5 Y u T . 2 C s 1 CS U R l-- r
,h 4 8 R E .
D A E i u R E N
~
A s U R I ~ E h 3Y G US a I V l+if l 8 E S _ ' m u F Y +, G OC I
'- A R
s u P - r h* + 8 2 W E X 1 O VA a . L E .N ' s U 0 n u R II l+ . W8 1 i':N 1 W N8 a m u P - N R
,+ lf T 0 A
M - H m E ID u m m R N A T' 9 7 G I HM E U
- u M - - - - - - -
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 a 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 u u m m u n m u
a - 8
~ 8 s -
n u S - / 7 8 R - E K 6 e R 8 O 1 e W)R : - 5 8 P M NW B c
=
=
e 3 1 O (Y I R
- ~-
E TT ~ ' 8R 4 ASU e R U G I D A D N I y- 3Y A E R W E S O D I . 8 B E F RS V. G L B V F P1 A A 2 R D e OM - 8 U E S T A A R EM E - -
- 1 M TI B - -
^8 /S WE M L S e U - -
< 0 E
NA I N 8 NA T
/-
OD e - ,- - S Y R 9 E RT
- ' 7 P S e
NU 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OD N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DI e 5 3 0 3 5 2 0 2 5 1 0 1 5 E8 S8 A9 B)
)
1 2 m n i g a m
m u s 8 n - v 8 e 33 h5$2 - -
- ~ -
E=5E= m S 7 8 3 R - P E
~
M n e K -
,6 l R 7' sf&Sh 8 l O -
e a m WYR T NSU w^ D2Sh 5 8 Y C a 4 ODN 1 I 4 M m E TI B' - 8R e AS h RI V A 2 E S U DY E P O n 3Y h@ D G A C, '- M e I 3 3jhS$'2?h 8 E F RP - - ^ ^ L B a M, F 2 - A m P 2 R i OM yh5$' Y 8 R U S D i A E u c R W ET E - 1 P MA B Th~ 8 G
/ M n -
I WT V S u M A LE U - E u u N h@I - 0 8 Y NA NA T m - OD S Y s <& - 9 R E RT a - pS 7 PS NU n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OD N e 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 5 DI E8 3 3 2 2 1 1 S8 m A9 B) u ) 1 2 m u s a m u
l 3 ' 8 8 7 8 R E - 6 K 8 R O 1 5 P WS - 8 M 1 R 'R 5 EWB V-5- 4 A V E P L 8R R L A U EA - E G V G SS 3Y A I OV 8 F DPM 1
" R W
B E M 2 G - 8 D E A T A R - M E 1 I 8 T S V E N-A . ATA h 0 TA AD
/
8 D D Y L R T T 9 S - M 7 NU E - - . - - - - OD N R - - _ - - - - DI 6 4 2 3 8 6 4 2 O E8 _ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 S8 A9 B )1
)
1 2 ll l l l{
m 8 e 5; $ - 8 e g 7 8 g 3 P R M e E - - 6 l K 8 3~
~
R ! e OS'
= 5 Y WRW - =
8 C m R P 5 g $ S g h j f' L 6 ELA 1 4 E e E P S - - 3 8R R E V - - A 2 U 3 E P e G SP 3Y 8 M F OM I D 2 e P M E , _ 2 8 D G Y C -{j G E e A c= V A T A R ~ - - M E 1 R I T e V - ' 8 W S E P A ATA m 0 TA I8 _ A D D D YR m ._ LT T 9 S M 7 NU E - - 3j OD N e R 6 4 2 3 8 6 4 2 0 DI E8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 S8 A9 m B)
)
1 2 e m}}