ML20062M124
| ML20062M124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/27/1993 |
| From: | Benes G COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401060162 | |
| Download: ML20062M124 (31) | |
Text
-
. ,- s
/ ' s. Commonwealth Edison
~l '
) 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, lilinois 60515 v
December 27,1993 Dr. Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
LaSalle County Nuclear Power Station Units 1 and 2 Response to Request for Additional Information; Proposed Technical Specification Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374
REFERENCES:
(a) P. L. Piet letter to T. E. Murley dated August 20,1993 (b) A. T. Gody, Jr. letter to D. L. Farrar dated December 2,1993
Dear Dr. Murley:
In Reference (a), Commonwealth Edison (CECO) submitted an Application for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18, Appendix A, Technical Specifications (TS). This proposed Technical Specification amendment deletes TS 3/4.6.1.5, " Primary Containment Structural Integrity". In Reference (b), the NRC transmitted a Request for Additional Information (RAI) to CECO in regards to the Reference (a) submittal. The Attachment to this letter provides CECO's response to the RAI.
The information in the Attachment to this letter has been reviewed and approved by.
- CECO On-Site and Off-Site Review in accordance with Commonwealth Edison procedures.
To the best of :ny knowledge and belief, the statements a ntained above are true and ,
correct. In some respect these statements are not based or; my personal knowledge, but obtained information furnished by other Commonwealth Edison employees, contractor employees, and consultants. Such information has been reviewed in accordance with company practice, and I believe it to be reliable.
Commonwealth Edison is notifying the State of Illinois of this additional information pertaining to an application for a license amendment by transmitting a copy of this letter and its Attachment to the designated state official.
0300N 1 9401060gsg gg3gg, DR n ggl p' ADOCK 05000373'N '.
PDR _Q lly m
1 Dr. Murley December 27,1993 l i
i Please direct any questions you may have concerning this submittal to this office. i i
Very truly yours,
[
Gary G. Benes - t Nuclear Licensing Administrator i
Subscribed and Sworn to before me
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.. >1 day of ,
%on this
,s4 1993. j; OFFICIAL SEAL :
ll- MARY JO YACK D' NoT ARY PUBLiC ST ATE OF #Li.lNOIS 1 d MY CoMMISStON EXPtMES 11/29/97 ay)%w (% 7ml- i...............-............. _;
Notitry Pyblicy /
Attachment:
Response to NRC Request for Additional Information ,
l cc: J. B. Martin, Regional Administrator - RIII '
D. L. Hills, Senior Resident Inspector - LSCS A. T. Gody Jr., Project Manager, NRR Office of Nuclear Facility Safety - IDNS 1 I
I 1
l 1
I l
i I
l l
9 ATTACIIMENT RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION' LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 CECO REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO POST-TENSIONING ISI TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION j
Background
The containment .itt actures for Unit 1 and Unit 2 of LaSalle County Station (LSCS) are identical structures at the site. There is no design, construction, or environmental differences between the two containments. The containments are identicalin all' aspects such as size, tendon system, materials of construction, and method of construction. There is no unique difference that may subject either containment to a different potential for structural or tendon degradation. They were constructed by the same general contractor in the same manner. Construction of the two containments was continuous from the start of each containment and lasted approximately the same' period of time from their respective start of construction to completion of post-tensioning installation.
Unit 1 post-tensioning was completed in July,1978 and Unit 2 post-tensioning was completed in December,1980. Unit 1 SIT was performed in December,1978. Unit 2 SIT was performed in June,1983. The structural response of the two containment structures under test pressure were practically the same. The ILRT of the two Containments were successfully completed within a time span.of one year, in July, 1982 for Unit 1 and July,1983 for Unit 2. Operating License (OL) for Unit I was granted in April,1982 and for Unit 2 in December,1983 within a span of two years.. '
Since then, the two containments have been under the same operating and environmental conditions.
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.35, Revision 2, applicable to LSCS, allowed that for a twin containment site such as LSCS, the Post-Tensioning System of the second containment need only be visually inspected and that tendon lift-oiT need not be performed for the .;
second Unit. However, Draft Revision 3 of RG L35, published in April,1979 proposed that complete ISI (i.e., tendon lifboff, detensioning, wire tensile strength tests, visual-inspection of containment and anchorage components, and filler grease examination {
and testing) should be performed for t,ach unit in twin containment sites if the SITS for- "
the containments were not performed within a span of two years. j i
l 3
i
1 i
e In deference to the Draft Revision 3 of RG 1.35 proposal, LSCS Technical Specifications for containment post-tensioning ISI voluntarily committed to performing complete lift-off and visual inspections for each containment. To date, complete ISI's have been performed for the 1st,3rd,5th,10th, and 15th year inspections for. Unit 1 i and the 1st,3rd, and 5th year inspections of Unit 2. The identical post-tensioning ;
systems and containments of the two units have successfully met the acceptance ;
criteria for each of the ISI's performed to date. j Results of these extensive ISI's performed so far clearly demonstrate that the !
performance of Unit 2 SIT more than two years after Unit 1 SIT is not at all a factor contributing to any unique condition that may subject either containment to a different l potential for structural or tendon deterioration. j Based on this actual performance record of the two identical containments and in :i consideration that the period of active concrete creep and shrinkage and wire :
relaxation is nearly over, NRC approval was sought via LSCS ISI Tech. Spec. j Amendment (Reference 5) to allow alternating tendon lift-off between the two units for the remainder of the plant life. The 15th year Unit I tendon lift-off was completed 1 recently in December,1992. Therefore, pending NRC approval, it is sufficient to perform only visual inspection and filler grease testing for the 10th year ISI of Unit 2 during its planned outage starting in September,1993. -l i
To review the Tech Spec Amendment request in detail, the following additional j information was requested by the NRC Staff via Reference 6.
NRC Reauest for Additional Information 3 Request A.1: Provide: "The data collected at the time of the ISI test (ISIT) for - .
each unit as required by RG 1.18. This data should be presented l either in graphs or tabular form."
Response A.1: A summary of the data collected during the SIT for each unit is presented in Section I of the attachment, Containment Structural . U Integrity Test Data Summary. )
Figure 1 shows the cross section of the containment structure.
Figures 2 through 4 show the location of Containment Radial Displacement Meters, Equipment Hatch Radial Displacement 3 j
Meters, and Containment Vertical Displacement Meters, respectively.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 containment-responses at peak SIT pressure. The average maximum displacements measured (vertical displacement from drywell floor to ,
containment top) at the point of predicted maximum displacement for-both units were identical and did not exceed the predicted v'alue. ;
The average displacements of the two containments at most of the j other locations were also very close between the two units. j 4
1
~!
j
Table 2 presents a comparison of the average displacement recovery of the containments after complete depressurization. The displacement recovery of both containments at each of the measurement elevations exceeded the minimum required recovery value of 80% The overall average displacement recovery was 93.5%
for Unit 1 and 94.9% for Unit 2.
The above results are not indicative of any unique structural .
behavior attriimtable to performing the SITS more than two years apart that may subject either containment to a different potential for structural or tendon' degradation.
Request A.2: Provide: The data accumulated for ISIS performed 1,3,5,10, and 15 years after the ISIT for Unit 1 and 1,3, and 5 years after the ISIT for Unit 2, as required by RG 1.35, Revision 3. Particulatr emphasis should be placed on the tendon lift-off force for each of the fixed --
tendons; or in the case of random' samples for a group of tendons, to the representative lift-off force for the group. In order to determine the trend in the reduction of tendon force, the lift-off force for each group of tendons obtained from the past ISITs should be plotted in the same manner as indicated in RG 1.35, Revision 3.
Response A.2: A summary of the data accumulated from the post-tensioning tendons ISIS performed to date for Unit 1 and Unit 2 is presented in Section II of the attachment, Containment Post-Tensioning Tendons -
Inservice Inspections Data Summary.
- a. Tendon Lift-off Force Tables 3 and 4 summarize the tendon lift-off force history for Unit 1 and Unit 2 respectively.
The measured forces in the hoop and vertical tendons in both Unit 1 and Unit 2 are typically well above the~ predicted values which assures that the prestress assumed in the containment design continues to be available with some margin for both units.
Only four tendons out of a total of 102 inspection tendons, two each from Unit 1 and Unit 2, that were tested for tendon lift-off force were slightly below the predicted value. In accordance with LSCS ISI Technical Specifications and RG 1.35, two tendonsz adjacent to each of these tendons were additionally tested for lift-1 off force. The force in each of these adjacent tendons were above -
their respective predicted value. Thus, all of the inspection tendons from Unit I and Unit 2 meet RG 1.35 acceptance criteria for tendon lift-off force. These four tendons and their adjacent tendons art. 'dentified in Table 3 and 4.
5
.-m
- Considering the 2% measurement tolerance normally inherent in '
the measured tendon forces, the tendon lift-off forces accumulated' so far do not bdicate any unique behavior that is attributable to performing the containment SITS more than two years apart.
- b. Common Tendon Behavio_r The tendon samples to be inspected during each inspection were randomly selected for each unit from each group of tendons (i.e.,
hoop and vertical). However, one hoop tendon and one vertical teadon from each unit was kept unchanged after the initial 1' random selection in order to develop a history of tendon force as required by RG 1.35. These four control tendons are denoted as '
" common tendons" in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 5 summarizes the lift-off force history in the four common ;
tendons. Figures A through D are plots of the tendon force versus log-time for each of the common tendons summarized in Table. 5.
i The measured tendon force in all of the common tendons during each of the inspection periods for Unit 1 and Unit 2 are above the predicted values. The trends are also as expected.-
The data scatter in the plots (with respect to anticipated linear trend of prestress loss with log-time) is relatively very small compared to the magnitude of the tendon force measured and is ,
within the 2% measurement tolerance normally inherent in the measurement of tendon forces. The measurement tolerance or i scatter stems from jack calibration accuracy, pressure dial gauge accuracy, reading accuracy, and variations in lift-off techniques.
In view of the above, the common tendons behavior is consistent -
and not indicative of any unique behavior attributable to performing the Containment SITS more than two years apart.
- c. Tendon Wire Strenzth During each inspection of Unit I and Unit 2, one hoop tendon ;
and one vertical tendon were randomly selected and detensioned l to verify if there were any wires broken or damaged in service. "
One wire from each of the detensioned tendons were removed <
during each inspection for visual examination of the entire length l of the wires for corrosion indications and for testing the wires for tensile strength. The tensile tests were made on three samples cut from each removed wire, one at each end and one at mid-- -
length.
l The wire tensile strengths obtained from these tensile tests of inservice samples are summarized in Table 6 for Unit 1 and i Table 7 for Unit 2.
i 6 )
1
Out of a total of 53 tensile test specimens, only two showed slightly lower strength than the required value of 240 ksi. One Unit I specimen was 0.21% lower and one Unit 2 specimen was 1.25% lower.
Based on an extensive study of the original installation Certified Material Test Reports (CMTR) for randomly selected 62 coils of post-tensioning wires used in LSCS post-tensioning systems,it wt.s found that the wire strength variation inherent in the coils is Inger than the variation observed in the ISI samples. It was roncluded that the two (out of 53) lower values were unique and act systemic. Details of this wire strength variation study were sobmitted to the NRC in J'une 1989 and reported acceptable by the NRC in Reference 4.
In order to confirm the conclusion of the above study that the lower strength observed was a unique occurrence, an additional tendon adjacent to the Unit 1 tendon in question was detensioned subscquently during the recent 15th year inspection of Unit 1 in December,1992 and tensile tests were performed on three samples taken from a wire removed from this additional detensioned tendon. All three samples showed tensile strengths above the required 240 ksi.
Visual examination of the tendons detensioned during each of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 inspections showed there were no wires broken or damaged inservice. Visual examination of the entire length of each of the wires removed from the detensioned tendons snowed no indication of any inservice corrosion onset.
Thus, the wire examination and test data accumulated from the ISIS performed to date are also not indicative of any unique behavior of the tendon system attributable to performing the containment SITS more than two years apart.
- d. Tendon Sheath'ntr Fifer Grease Performance The visual inspections performed on the Unit 1 and Unit 2 tendon end anchorage components and on the removed wires of detensioned tendons indicate that the grease in both units has been serving its intended function of protecting the tendon system.
No grease leakage has been noted in either unit. The grease in the cans was found to have good consistency. Laboratory chemical analysis test results of the grease samples were found acceptable. Some, darkening of the grease color, which is normal for the grease, was noticed in a few of the grease cans.
b Request A.3: Provide: "Any other information which might affect the integrity of the tendons as specified n: RG 1.35. For example, the effect of high temperature on relaxation cf tendons."
7
- Response A.3: Tendon wire relaxation tests are performed typically at room temperature (22*C/72*F)._ LSCS operating temperature is 95'F. The ambient temperature for most of the time in a year is between 80*F and 90*F. Thus, the tendon ~and the sheathing embedded.in the concrete are judged to see an average temperature of 80*F - 90*F.- .
The higher temperature value is considered to be applicable to a localized portion near the upper anchorage of a few of the vertical tendons.
The tendon lift-off data accumulated so far does not indicate any.'
increased relaxation loss of concern due to the higher ambient. _
temperature since all of the tendon lift-off forces have been above the - M predicted value. Reference 7 also indicates that the increase in the relaxation loss for wires tested under 22*C (= room temperature.
72*F) and under 35*C (= LSCS operating temperature 95'F)is small. .
compared to the magnitude of the total tendon force. ;
LSCS Unit 1 tendons were tensioned in 1978 and Unit 2 tendons in 1980; the two units have been operating since 1982 and 1984 -
respectively, under the same operating and environmental / ambient conditions. Typically, most of the tendon relaxation loss takes place in the first 12 to 15 months after initial tensioning. Thus, when the ;
two units started operating, most of the relaxation loss had already occurred under room temperature. Any suspected increase in~ the rate of relaxation loss due to operating temperature above room temperature had been realized and should have been detectable by now. However, such an'effect of concern is not discernible from the ISI data. The remainder of the relaxation loss to take place during . .
the rest of the plant life is in itself small; any increase in the _.
relaxation loss, due to the higher ambient temperature and its effect. 1 on the integrity of the tendon system and the' containment structure i are considered insignificant for the remainder of the plant _ life.
Request B. Also, in Attachment A under " Description of the Need for Amending the Technical Specifications," you state that specification. 3/4.6.1.5 is redundant to specification 3/4.6.1.1. The staff does not believe th~at to be the case. Containment integrity is compriscd_ of two components: leaktight integrity and structural _ integrity. ' Structural-integrity is a necessary condition of containment integrity, but is_not :
sufficient without leaktight integrity. Specification 3/4.6.1.1' deals :i with leaktight integrity and specification 3/4.6.1.5 deals with 1 structural integrity. In view of this fact, your statement regarding . i the redundancy of these two specifications is incorrect and the _ ,
statement should be changed accordingly. !
3 l
l El l
8 :l
V Response B.
Commonwealth Edison Co. LaSalle County Station agrees with the NRC staff that the current Technical Specifications 3.6.1.1 and -
3.6.1.5 are not redundant.- By including the surveillance requirement for Primary Containment Structural Integrity in 4.6.1.1 with the specifics included in a program required by Technical Specification 6.2.F, the Limiting Condition for Operation for specification 3.6.1.1, Primary Containment Integrity, includes the requirements for both leaktight integrity and structural integrity. As a result, the Primary U
Containment will only be OPERABLE with the requirements met for both leaktight integrity and structural integrity. This is consistent with NUREG - 1434, Rev. O, New Standard Technical Specifications.
The third paragraph of the " Description of the Need for Amending the Technical Specification" in Attachment A of Reference 5 is revised to read as follows:
Review of NUREG - 1434, Rev. O, "New Standard Technical Specifications," determined that specification 3/4.6.1.5 was relocated to a " Primary Containment Tendon Surveillance Program". In NUREG - 1434, the requirements to verify primary containment structural integrity in accordance with the program is required by a -
surveillance requirement. Therefore, primary containment structural integrity is maintained by adding a surveillance requirement to specification 3/4.6.1.1 to perform testing in accordance with the program at the frequency required by the program. The program -
requirements will be stated in section 6.2.F of Technical >
Specifications. Failure to meet testing requirements specified in' the -
program will result in the Primary Containment Integrity LCO not being met. Therefore, specification 4.6.1.5 Surveillance Requirements can be relocated to a program required by Technical Specification Administrative Controls section 6.2.F., except for-Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.5.c.1, visual inspection of Primary Containment surfaces.
9
REFERENCES -
L - Structural Integrity Test of the Containment Structure, LaSalle County Station -
- Unit 1, Sargent & Lundy Report No. SL.3726, April 24,1979.
- 2. Structural Integrity Test of the Containment Structure, LaSalle County Station -
- Unit 2, Sargent & Lundy Report No. SI,4273, February 15,1984. t
- 3. Post-Tensioning Tendons Inservice Inspection Data, LaSalle County Station,
. 1l Units 1 and 2, July,1980 through December,1992. i
- 4. U.S. NRC Letter dated December 12,1989 from Mr. P.C. Shemanski to Mr. T.J.-
Kovach of Commonwealth Edison, Evaluation of Containment Tendon Wire ;
Strength and Tendon Inservice Inspections, LaSalle Units 1 and 2, TAC Nos. -
71396 and 71397 (attached).
- 5. Commonwealth Edison Ictter dated August 20,1993 from Mr. P.L. Piet to Dr. j T.E. Murley, LaSalle County Station _ Units 1 and 2, A'pplication for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-11 and NPF-18, Appendix A, Technical .
Specifications deleting 3/4.6.1.5, " Primary Containment Structural Integrity".
-r
- 6. U.S. NRC Letter dated December 2,1993 from Mr. A.T. Gody Jr. to Mr. D.L. .!
Farrar of Commonwealth Edison Co., request for additional information '
regarding Technical Specification change deleting Section 3/4.6.1.5, " Primary Containment Structural Integrity" for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 ~
(Tac Nos. M87305 and M87306). (Attached) 7 N. Podolny, Jr., T. Melville, " Understanding Relaxation In Prestressing", PCI Journal,1969.
.i n
10
SECTION I. CONTAINMENT STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TEST DATA
SUMMARY
FIGURE 1. Containment Structure Cross Section FIGURE 2. Location of Containment Radial Displacement Meters FIGURE 3. Location of Radial Displacement Meters Around Equipment Hatch FIGURE 4. Location of Containment Vertical Displacement Meters TABLE 1. Comparison of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Containment Response at Peak SIT Pressure TABLE 2. Comparison of Unit 1 and Unit 2 Containment Displacement Recovery ARer Depressurization 11
, ~. , ,, . . .. - - - ,
, -- P
!.'. .. t 4 9
~ . , . ,
't I , ::
- l FIGURE 1. CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE CROSS SECTION -
I f
a 9--T..# 6
- STEEL DRYWELL WAD EL B55' 3 t/2" ' d
'bes iier"J p i
'i CIAOUS Dj .
..{
1;g
' -: 4
'i REFuttanIG 4A0 S FLABE (90LTED J0WT.i '
- EL et- e v - -
D.
1 D ,
'.(
6*-O" TMsCK CONTassastNT inaLL nq
- i
,?
q f =;
- .l 3
- 0sHZ 4 WERT '5TFFENERS - $
, STEEL LutR ,
PLATE .l
. t, , g, it -o"is towntwT ' Access w: '!
. EL M4'-4 4/2" ,
p- j
.g . . [ (,10f-0"10
. Et ws-s" ' PER90864L . ACCESS AsRLD f,q WEW4I . r=== IWlVWELL FLOOR i
_ - Jr- e EL 736'-7 s/2" i
- .s as 43 4* estSct RADeWS :
l C' , , '$
4E35-
.. 7,
,.4
=. UTTER LEVEL'
' f af gg geo.goa- "
~ ;l
- - Y I
e l
.? .16- 4" 0"TeeCK - CONTasstAE8tf _ timLL .
(, i! ,
, 1 STEEL. ,!
LiegW '91 ,a
.' ' ' 7' 0* Teacet ' taattaaf, PLATE 'y l
. EL-673*-4" g e -
1 e -
-: I 1 i ci i--m '
-~.U u
>- .]
12 .o 1
1
.S
FIGURE 2. LOCATION OF RADIAL DEFLECTION METERS-180 240 300 0 60 120 180 l I i i i 1 29 8 D27 809'-7 3/4" 26 25 " D 30
)
[
775'-6" D20 D19 i D24 D23 = D22 g D21
" D14 = DI) M 018 ' D17 W D16 DIS 746'-3" FOR'-0" 1 D8 : DF 1 r Dit l
' D11 1010
'D9
' 02 '
06 05 L D4 1
D3 685'-4" D1 240*- 100* O' 60* 120* 180*
180* '
13
-- - _ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ .~ . _ . . . -
p; ,
- j. y.
+
I t
i-FIGURE 3. -
LOCATION OF RADIAL DISPLACEMENT METERS AROUND EQUIPMENT HATCH
, , ELL 759 *- 0" D35
, , EL. 754*-lO 1/2
D32
, , EL 75t*-5 3As"
/ -
O--(- MATCH 12'-2" DIA.
- * . A q EL 744'-4 t/2" ,' ,
- D42
' D48 D40' T 'D34 'D35 ' D36 '
'I
% / >
% s.
%. * ..s-EL 737*-2" - l 5'- 0 " m 4'-o" m 7'- 0" D57[" , - y'.o a
9 .
4.- O" -
3'-6" m .:
. .e m .D-D58 4
1(
9.. , ,E*. 720' 4 I/2" i D39 .
.i
- l
'J
~l
.I I
'b 1
14 1 l
i I
+ = - . - , - ,
FIGURE 4.
' LOCATION OF CONTAINMENT VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT METERS sis'., its- sis-s- sis'-s 3/4- air -s- n 5'-, 3ina et 2, 2*-17' sis'-is .
M 3 N h
- 5 C
- u,'-2 if e- 294*-as' i n
- in*-no' 740'-s sis" . in'-2 its" 7H'-10 3/4"DRYWi f.
I Iat 215*-12' I at 1s1*- 30' I at its' i et 56*-03' l: ja-o*
FLOOR.
7 C : f. I 300* 240' Is0' Ito' 51*-07' O*
15
. TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF CONTAINMENT RESPONSE AT PEAK SIT PRESSURE SOURCE: REFERENCES 1 and 2 Average Displacement (in) >
l Measured l
Measurement Location Meters Radial Displacement at El. D1 thru D6 0.047 0.026 0.024 685 near 10 ft above Basement Radial Displacement at El. D7 thru D12 0.081 0.038 0.040 1 708 near Midheight of Cylinder Radial Displacement at El. D13 thru D18 0.020 0.031 0.018 746 near 10 ft. above Drywell Floor i
Radial Displacement at El. D19 thru D24 0.038 0.015 0.016 775 near Midheight of Cone i
Radial Displacement at El. D25 thru D30 0.025 0.011 0.004 i 809 near Top of Cone ,
1 Radial Displacements D31 thru D42 0.028 0.024 0.024 1 Around Equipment Hatch l Vertical Displacement V7 thru V12 0.187 0.074 0.074 '
from Drywell Floor to Containment Top l
- The increased value (average 0.011 inches at elevation 786') was assessed to be due to the effect of equipment hatch and personnel lock as well as due to the transition from cylinder to cone in !
containment. The average deflection recovery for these meters was over 90%. The assessment and -
conclusion as to the acceptability was documented by the report prepared by Sargent and Lundy, Reference 1. The refemnce report summarizes the predicted and observed test results and it was-concluded that containment structure meets all of the acceptance criteria for the Structural Integrity Test as outlined in the UFSAR.
16
4
. TABLE 2 COMPARISON OF CDNTAINMENT DISPLACEMENT RECOVERY-SOURCE: REFERENCES 1 and 2 Displacement Recovery %
Measured Actual %
i Required % Unit 1 Unit 2 Measurement Location Meters Radial Displacement at El. D1 thru DG 80 95.2 83.3 685 near 10 ft above '
Basement Radial Displacement at El. D7 thru D12 80 93.0 92.3 708 near Midheight of Cylinder Radial Displacement at El. D13 thru D18 80 90.3 92.1-746 near 10 ft. above Drywell Floor Radial Displacement at El. DID thru D24 80 100.0 99.1 775 near Midheight of Cone Radial Displacement at El. D25 thru D30 80 81.8 100.0 809 near Top of Cone Radial Displacements D31 thru D42 80 94.0 97.3 Around Equipment Hatch #
Vertical Displacement V7 thru V12 80 94.0 96.7 from Drywell Floor to Containment Top OVERALL AVERAGE 93.5 94.9
.i i
17 .!
SECTION II I
CONTAINMENT POS'JfENSIONING TENDONS INSERVICE INSPECTIONS DATA '
SUMMARY
i Table 3. Tendon Lift-oft Force History - Unit 1 1 Table 4. Tendon Lift-Off Force IIistory - Unit 2 1
Table 5. Common Tendons Lift-Off Force History Table 6. Wire Tensile Strength History - Unit 1 Table 7. Wire Tensile Strength History - Unit 2 Figure A. Tendon Force vs Log Time - Unit 1 Common Tendon H48AC .:
1 Figure B. Tendon Force vs Log Time - Unit 1 Common Tendon V15C J
Figure C. Tendon Force vs Log Time - Unit 2 Common Tendon H48EG Figure D. Tendon Force vs Log Time'- Unit 2 Common Tendon V215C 18
. IABLE 3 TENDON LIFT-OFF FORCE _WSTORY - UNIT 1-Source: Reference 3 LIFT OFF (KIPS)
DAIE TENDON REMARKS YEAR MARK MEASURED PREDICTED 7/80 H1CB 693.8 643.7 1st H12AC 675.0 643.7-H12CB 693.8 643.7 H20CB 652.5 643.7 H21AC 671.3 643.7 H48AC 697.4 643.7 Common Tendon H56B" 680.8 643.7 H56CB 708.8 643.7 H70B 697.5 643.7 V15A 690.0 651.7 V15C 690.0 651.7 Common Tendon V20A F90.0 651.7 V29A 678.8 651.7 V47C 690.0 651.7 5/82 H2CB 661.5 648.0 3rd H14AC 654.0 621.0 H24BA 665.5 623.0 H37CB 657.5 626.0 i H47CB 672.5 640.0 '
H48AC 676.5 641.0 Common Tendon i H57CB 702.5 643.0 H60B 684.0 640.0 V6C 683.0 649.0 V15C 690.0 649.0 Common Tendon ,
V17A 675.0 645.0 l V32C 683.0 649.0 l V42C 675.0 649.0 j 11/83 HSBA 676.5 647.6 ;
5th H12BA 650.1 624.5 H21CB 642.7 624.5 j H23BA 627.6 616.7 1 H38CB 642.6 620.3 ,
H48AC 668.8 637.5 Common Tendon l H49AC 657.7 630.4 H68B 657.7 646.3 V5B 673.0 644.3 V15C 676.8 645.7 . Common Tendon V23A 665.5 641.5 V27A 688.2 641.5 Achacent Tendon V28A 627.7* 641.5 2% less than predicted V29A 657.9 641.5 Adjacent Tendon V31C 673.0 642.7 )
- THESE TENDON LIFT-OFF FORCES CONFORM TO TECH. SPEC. SURVEILLANCE IEQUHEMENT 4.6.1.5.a 19
T TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
, TENDON LIFT-OFF FORCE IHSTORY - UNIT 1 LIFT OFF (KIPS) ,
DATE TENDON ImMARKS
- YEAR MARK AEASURED PREDICTED 7/88 H4BA 642.8 638.1 10th H41CB 675.5 629.5 H48AC 678.5 633.1 Common Tendon '
H50AC 667.2 636.5 V15C 647.6 641.5 Common Tendon V22A 666.2 637.4 V30B 651.3 640.1 H57AC 666.5 631.4 12/92 H48AC 662.8 629.6 Common Tendon 15th H53BA 647.4 632.3 H50CB 665.0 637.2 V18A 653.3 634.0 Adjacent Tendon V19A 631.2* 634.0 0.44% less than predicted V20A 634.1 634.0 Adjacent Tendon -
V21A 666.6 632.3 ,
VISB 642.9 636.8 V15C 656.6 638.1 Common Tendon 20
. TABLE 4 'I i
. TENDON LIFT-OFF FORCE HISTORY UNIT 3 -I
_ SOURCE: REFERENCE 3 - l LIFT OFF (KIPS)
DATE TENDON REMARKS '!
YEAR- MARK MEASURED PREDICTED ~I l
5/84 -HIGF- 676.9 645.5
Ist H12EG 635.4 629.3 o H12GF 639.3 629.3 !
H20GF 650.5 621.5 i H48EG 655.6 641.0 Common Tendon H56GF 648.6 639.3 H56FE- 646.7- 639.3 'I H70F ' 665.6 643.8 ,
V214A 666.6 644.9 Adjacent Tendon .;
V215A 636.7* 644.9 1% less than predicted '
V216A' 666.6 637.7 Adjacent Tendon ;
i V215C 662.9 649.1 - Common Tendon V220A 655.4 644.9 .i V229A 644.2 644.9 :
V247C 666.6 641.9 -l 12/86 H2GF 674.8 644.9 3rd H14EG 618.2 616.7 !!
H24FE 626.2 624.5 i H37GF 648.1 614.7 .
j H46GF- 629.8 629.4 . Adjacent Tendon H47GF 630.9* 635.9 0.8% less than predicted H48GF 648.6 644.2- Adjacent Tendon ,
H48EG 659.7 637.5 Common Tendon :
H57GF 633.5 625.4 H60F 638.4 636.5 j V206C 646.2 645.7 j V215C 649.2 645.7 Common Tendon ' .
'i' V217A 646.2 641.5 V232C 659.2 645.7 -
V242C 653.7 645.7' !
10/88 H3FE 649.6 645.2 j 5th H12FE 633.4 621.1 !
H21GF 650.3 621.1-H23FE 640.9 613.3 l H38GF 664.2 624.4 ,
H48EG 662.4 635.0 Common Tendon H49EG - 665.4- 635.0 H68F 658.9 643.9 i V205B 666.4 641.9 'l' V215C 651.3 643 3 Common Tendon V223A 666.4 639.1 V228A 651.3 639.2 ai V231C 658.8 643.3- '!
- THESE TENDON LIFI'-OFF FORCESTIONFORM TO TECH SPEC SURVEILLANCE -
REQUIREMENT 4.6.1.5.a !
5 l
21 I n
~ A,
-4 TABLE 5 COMMON TENDONS LIFT OFF FORCE HISTORY-LIFT OFF (KIPS) DURING INSPECTIONS TENDON UNIT 1st YEAR 3rd 5th 10th 15th REMARKS YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR H48AC 1 697.4 676.5 668.8 678.5 662.8 To = 2 [
YE.GS V15C 1 690.0 690.0 676.8 647.6 656.6 H48EG 2 665.6 659.7 662.4 N/A N/A To =' 4 YEARS' V215C 2 662.9 649.2 651.3 N/A N/A To = TIME INTERVAL FROM INITIAL TENSIONING TO THE 1st YEAR INSPECTION.
INITIAL TENSIONING YEAR FOR UNIT 1 TENDONS = 1978 INITIAL TENSIONING YEAR FOR UNIT 2 TENDONS = 1980 NOTE: See page 23 for schedule and dates Tendon Lift Off Testing performed after - ,
initial Structural Integrity Testing.
i r
22
w .:
SCHEDULE OF IJFT-OFF TESTING FOR TWO CONTAINMENTS AT'A SITE -
~
%L
$ Na 4N 4.Q- %
en . M.
N 4^ '% 3 g, R
'o I 3 5' 50 13 25 , 3 5,~
, , _ , ., , , , s
- TIME AFTER INITIAL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TESTING OF CONTAINMENT, YEARS -
(LIFT-OFF TESTING SCHEDULE, CONTAINMENT NO.~ 1)
% to 5 S %
M . tg R4 w
N
)$ 35 gp l '1 13 25
, . . . a -
TIME AFTER INITIAL STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY TESTING OF CONTAINMENT, YEARS (LIFT-OFF TESTING SCHEDULE, CONTAINMENT NO. 2) l.
i l
L ~
'23
'l
_ ._:.1 L__... _ . . - _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . m .;_ _ ___. . . _ _ ._m ~ . _ . _ _ _ __ _._ . . 'J s.. .. . ..a . s._. .;..,,.
. . _ , _ . _ . . _ . . .,,i_..,,,,,__., .. _ ;;l , . f, _, .
.t w ' '
IABLE 6
.i WIRE TENSHJUiTENTORY - UNIT _1 ;
SOURCE: REFERENCE 3 :
i i
DATE TENDON ID ISI TEST RESULTS - 1 YEAR !
SAMPLE STRENGTH :
ID= (KSI) -
1988 H20CB B 258.7 j IST- M 258.7 j C 259.7-- 1 V47C B 251.6 l M 250.6 C 244.6 -. ;
i' 1982 H2CB B 257.2 3rd M 255.1-C 257,1-
'1
.]
V42C B 249.6 .):
M 248.6 C 246.0 :
1983 H23BA B 256.2. .j 1984 M. 256.7 i 5th C 256.7 l
=i V31C B 246.6 :
M 247.6 1 C 247.6 i j
l
- 24.
k a
TABLE 6 (CONTINUEDJ WIRE TENSILE STRENGTH HISTORY - UNIT 1 SOURCE: REFERENCE 3 '!
.i
)
- I
.DATE TENDON ISI TEST RESULTS 1 YEAR ID . .- i SAMPLE STRENGTII ;
~
ID (KSI) 1988 H4BA El 250.5 10TH M 248.0 l E2 256.5
s V22A E2 239.5* '.!
M 242.0 l El 240.5 1
-a 1992 H50CB S 256.0 !
15th M 255.0 M F 255.0 4 V19A S 24'6.0l :
M 249.0 F 251.0 i
V21A S '243.0 I M 244.0 ,
F 244.0 ;
EVALUATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR TIHS MTRE STRENGTH MTRE EARLIER ~
I PROVIDED TO TIIE NRC AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE NRC (REFERENCE 4).
.9
.J
[h
.)
- 25 ,
n b_ +
- TABLE 7 ,
WIRE TENSITR STRENGTH HISTORY - UNIT 2
- Source: Reference 3 i
ISI TEST RESULTS l DAT_E SAMPLE ~ STRENGTH-TIME TENDON ID (KSI) .
ID tj 1984 H20GF L1 250.0 ,
IST L2 253.0 L3 252.2 ,
M 250.2 I
R 250.2
- ]
L .;
~!
V2470 M 240.5 R 246.1 240.5 !
L 1986 H2GF M~ 255.0 3rd R 251.7 1 249.8 L i V242C M 244.0 :
R 246.3 242.3 .l 1
1988 E1. l 5th H23FE E2 247.5 j M 247.5 ' j 248.5 El V231C M 240.5 E2 240.0 -
t 237.0* q 1
GUARANTEED ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH EQUALS 240 KSI l
- EVALUATION AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THIS WIRE STRENGTH WERE-EARLIER PROVIDED TO THE NRC AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE NRC -
. (REFERENCE 4) 26
r
'O
..p..n* i
, -_- ,u= =-= = . . _ = _ - .- ..n.. - ._ _ . _ . - - - . .. p=._.; . :.
==_ m_.- . m.-
_ ._ m.., . . . _ _
- - = . = +.. .--- - ---:.._ - ~-
_ _ _ __2_.,
.-__-_ . _ . = _ . - _._ __.____._=._==,,,,.
_=_
_._=_:=-r..- _
m, 4
m
. _ .:.::. . . u. . . .: : . . .
-=
,r_ .
u . .
...... .... m.. . - - .- -
. ..._I
- a: ? i j .. _ _."- _,j! r j r::1.ivid E_,..d.s.3~ g - ~_ _n.3 Ed Q_ _ ras. i 4 g.i.t : : lf.1-d
- y. ..__.....g. ; = __
- t-r._......
_ . . . = _ . . . . .
. _ . . , . _ _. . ; 3 , , , -+-. .,.: a
.. . r r. :---- t : . - : :
.. .4
. 3 ._ . . ...... ...__. .. .
2.
. 83 _.. . .. .... . .,. -
,.- N _ , . _ . . .
.eU . . .
.. e -. . . - . . . .
.g . . . ...--.. '
w v .. r .._... . . . . . _
.9g 4... ~ _ n
. . . . . ;. . .;. Jbe
. . . . .g ..
_. . ,. .a..-.. ==
o ..-..s. .,. ~. -_= _. ;...__
_8 a i
,i f{ '
- } .2 5L i :
k : 3 1 a I j. l. . . d*'d. _d is_de I. . r. *l /*. l 4 3 4.*. : {1 1 *1 5 4
- T *5.
- : 4 .W i ; .t 6-
- N ri. i. s. , a.
- ?: s. 4 r.2_: t w- _ -4.
- . : m. m. .J_:
j IF *
!< :!. . . -r . . _5 V i I-i 44F '*- --N N 'I s .a
.Y g2 : =:_;=.. a=.
- l ,Q, . .
- .u: . - . : .: __ . --- -~s2 .:.-=.: : ==:=. d'*::
. g. .y .. ... . ..___ . . _. _ _ ..
......_s- . .
.. . . . ..... . . _ . . ._ , - . -.m.n
". .LK t.%. .
a.
- v. ..
p .a 4
3- o I. 'l$ ?I I.
? E7I-i-I:5. - =N< d5 I **N 'I'~.N__5:-@
v.....'+.
=_ .
a ,
yin :. ... .
. . . . :.r.;:t3:
t.
... ........_y m c9 e ,.
..n
.. . _. ...._g ..... .. g..
m ..
.w
_ g g , . .. . . . . . . . .
. .1 . .
3...,. ... . ... .
. 4 . _ .
6 -
. .c . . _ . . . . .........n.. -
4 .
...g . .. ..
,.4:
.. _ _ _- . .9
.' - % WIbl Md . . . . _ _ _ . _ _
i s f a ; 3 - ; 1 4 *. [ e-
.. . ...;..- - i ; I. i. -
- }
- 1 -
111 4 3 }3 "h as
+
r . ..
r
.l. i -- _.. .. .. - . . . . li: - .
,s sgu pag . ..
6, . . ..
a.
4 1 . .
l4 :.i .: 29.M *lI3.#.,
+-
- j :'
2: .. __.
m
..=.
a w.
k~
OSM awnr e q . g g O 4 LM 'J.snent' (qtQ pyoj ' NoaNgj.,,p- .
- I- I O
gm d o o =
o , e o o . o, o
, O t== .,3 4 m T M e4
r ..
L.
1 SO . . _ _ _ _ . _ ,
g e-._....c= _ . . . . . _ . . _
.- . .2-.- .- . _ . .
~' "~~ .=_ : ':::%i-G . ..l.'.9: -
. 2
-.__%__._.._.._-l7 9
,;;.g~
1[.3~ ~' -- . t 2.- 3 9 * ' ' ..
i 6
-t I 'd * * ~
g- . r
- - - + -
= .... ...
g :,, . . - - - - .; ."_: **;:
e ; 7 -".'.; . a .
L--
3, +. i n; ". J . _- , _ -.- - --, - - ..
.----- ; .1 _I:.
e.'"::~. ":.. _ . . h . ; 4. 2. *. . . . -
- - . . - . -7. = . .:.:.'g -. ~ .. ..:~;"L;:.:.:4.;v- - - .-
3 .. .... . - , .
_y 3,,__,
- .3
- .
. . .... .. g
... . ._J : : ._. 6_ . .; ;4 : --
--%.sq .-
- J'1
.~
1
......__m r
-t t
a.-.... .. .. ~
~~~~~.**...*---.-.t
- a. ..
.W
.......t
- .m , . .,
. ...-- ' ^
t a . i 5 . ....,. ...
~ . . . .Q -
~
- y _ .g . . . ... ,
. j E . _ .. _ .. .
. . . . . . . l
.I ..
. . .. 1 ( .. .
8 .
.. .- .f 4
, reessra: .y . : ,r . :.
9i: : a: .
J . , .,. or. g ra -e ... .
.. _ . _ i :: : : .. t i j w
+ : i. :
.al. i r T. G 4 :
i::i!s+' = -~ "'
...~.._N. a i. s. t a i i..n. :
. . ...ng ..
2.2. : .r.1 s .4. . aF 2+t '
. ; : :d....;- - ... ..._ . .A y . :-. .
3 Le..e.; . . .. - ..
.-:: : a--
. . : r.. :; ;. s. .
,f.:
- ..?.. U . . ;
- e. :. . - . :...
. . a
- - ... .. . . - ,. . ."- r,%.: T. . .' _ _- . ._:, . .-
,1. .; .: ..: .=...; A,.e gJ. . . . . 4 .
. _. ....... ..g : '"U_
..s. z .,p*
. m. ..- ,....
. ~~.. , . ~_.
. . . . . _ -- j.
l . . . .... sn .
l.....J.E .... ..
. D,. . ..- . . . . .. _ _ .
4 1.
w . m .y , . ..
)- '*i:.gj . ,.
. .a ; -
. wt a..
.Pj: - .. :4 n.:~. :- C" y .a M*"W l .
g . y
.. . ? :,
.. , . .I': *a a
- e ?r .; e . J.. .
_ i ' :;I
- .2 L2-*
T I: ; . *
. .. y .. = .
4..*.., . .; ; ::*. *""=
. .4 2....* 2. :...:. 4 :. 1 M4 3
y.-. m O CO
. . . .... y. %,,...
N 4._
. . + .. ._..... .
. . .. . . .. ... ... .g.
44 g
~ . .
.g _ . . . . . - ....
._.. g
...4.
a... . ...,
..3 .
.....~A
. . . eL.-
.3 .
. a.
.. W. .
..A, .
. . e . - . . . . . . . . _ . . .
_ _ . . . . ~
4 .A ,
. g..
.-... } . . ...g. .- f
,o .
..~.
4.
i
,- a ..9...... .... m
.7e . . . . . . , . et.
er 9,
- :y ' , . , u s es wa. - .
,;4,, ,
. , 4 : gv_,- ;
- .s:. s. ; ;; 4 4 r r. . : I- 3
- ; a. =.r I;
- e. .
i.
- i. i. t l 4 : aa
- t. 4 . ; .. r., *1 s i. : i i. : ; . i es e
ijie:
p 2 .1
.a 4 )
s
. . : : : EgM flott,
. . . .I;
. i
.. e
. ..1 ._.....
....c.
4 N:! il 4+ M li : !ji
'..l.. . .......... il!. :j;*
- 1. . ., .
3 . ... . -1
. . .... . m
.I l.... . .. . . . . ..
.. 2 a4 1
. . ,. ... .,ogW Maf
. l. .
..l.. . . .. ..
.i ca 3
.,. 3 j
.. ..).
.).
.I
.s
.t -
1 . . . .. . .. ....
I'~!
~ ' '
, . e
' 4 L6i ~ WW' (Sd C ' B':nt'Od ' HocME ,.
[,
8
- 8 e %a
- 8 8 8 g 8
. w e ~ -
.J
-4 L
4 00 . . . _ _ . -
t
=g, g _
.y .. . , . . ~ ,
_ .~~ ***~~ . ?.*'* ***
, .- _ - , ., . . .. . ... . - r m, . , _ -.. . , . .. ..s 9_ - . _ . .
g S' ,
E R
.- - + %E
- ... E 4 . . . . .
- ';; ;' . a.Laa.4 -~4,. -"-----'-N3 7.4.* 3.Fr;l 4 .' . . . , '
- : **
2"*,,:: .** ^. -. .- ...a :;' _ _
_ _ ' Z,.~,*,**;*******?~* 1 ?*: 1 ;* ** ? $
.2* ? '. T' i M " . . .........'._...._3
. - . .. .... .- . . . . _ i
. .. . . . . = - . .
8._......-e
. . . . . . . . _ _ . .a . s
-~ -.. . . ..... . - - -
4, ,
. . .... ....~- !
j ..
, . . . . . . . . . t 34..
1.- . ...-... ....
- ,. A 2
. . . _ M 9 .
- _. -
&.. . . . . .. . g .
- t. . . . - _
g .A..
4
. . . _ w _J
'. kn 1_
i
. _ m. n '
... ..h E"-- O T~. 8
-r" t .
- 's 1J...* ..E __---- f g 1 1 : & 3 a.p -2 *: .. .
I 1 .t '
- 4 3.. _ . _ - . _ .
m A__ .r_. .=. .g. n M.a _ &. 4. 3,-3 g _ . .
J ' i I E- 3 i !' t 5 'd":E * *pe .a"l 1 i: ? I .4 1.N {" _ ] { ~ ~ ~~~"" l
-j'*h D *; ;. ; J . 4,.4.;. a
[*'---
.3 ?. . . . .r c : g1.. 3 ;- 2
- n _ _ . ;
.. , . m iu __. .;=: ; .r.s.g . _
t : - -:- . r - . . _ .
- - - . _ , -----r
..~~1* : ; ,
. ... ...a.4_,'J'"_ ...
. ..._ ~ " .~.~ ~::ll~.;lL._'."-~.~
.. 2..
. .I
...... . _ . . . a_d . %. ...s#., .*
e...._._.. ..
s.. ... .. .. .. ...... -._ .
._ n .. . .._
,4 e . . . . . _
n w
..p.
, r
.... 4
._...._.n. .. .. -
g
. - . i. .
- h. . - . .. _ . _. -p ;
5 Q I i *T ! i i* "f5M-iMAI i +
- t* 4 -
~ ' ~
7 E iH ; i DWFU* i sr m,4
- 3. . .
. : r: .. .
...s. -
- 2. ..:..
, .2 - : :..
.';.,.. . r. u . .
m ... . .......,. - .
._..._.,. - .a . . . . . ~ . 'f
..._.... ~. ._.. ..._.1 ty
. C) cq i
. ... ~_ .. _ ...
=
... . . _.. .~. . ._ . ...g. .. :_.,, . .....- -
w
. .._6._ ..,3
=g4 .
'-T t
. .~i.. .
.. . ;= ..
.....y . . .
.....g. - ..
- 4. .-
c
- 4. - - - - . . .
........(..
- 6. . . . . .
L-. .
. . . . ._ - ~ ... ..
1'.. ..; . . . , .
. . . ...-q. ,
.$ . . . _ ' . . . ., . _ . .. ... . . ed 4 o y r s.2 et , is-a i . : : :: : i.i.. i vi , 2. , a i .. i : .2 . . -
..:, S .t :
r... :.2.. :. . i 4 7 t: t
. ..- 4.f"*r J. : : :
, M ma r e se e -& . : ;*1.a t: :; i ; ;: . ,
g l '
- b hkjkfI ' *4j { f '! ..
e l Ef 5hl 4 : E;.ay *
...: . . . a . .; ; ,
- t .j - .s.. . . .J.
- .l; . r=
.: syg Q' . ugg i: :g : -; . : : 2-* : ::
- t,' + . t-- . . .
a g ...... ...._ ._..
.. . ... ..... . ...l,,....
. ... g t...
f.. . ....
......t...__..
gr 4M- i ;,, ,' i*
4 i !!: :
i i ! i i :7+.1+1.} 2
- W
..:g M,5
. . . .~... . . ....2. ..
- s. . , .; : .
- t-:..: .. . .: -. . . .
g 4
,.. . .. . . . ...t... .
. . . .. . .........J.
. . .. t .
. . . . . . . .=
t . .. .. .. .
. ... . . md .
4 .. . .. .
.. . . .. l... . . ..
.. . .- 1 . -
1 a.
..... . ..4 ... . .
- 4. . . . .
i.
. . . ...t.. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . , ,. ..,
1...
. 19 6 das 1
8 ocks.,
.i i
.- 1 2 4e 2 2 g 8 2 & 0 e a , . ~ -
1
'l i
i 1
l
m .,
y- .,
4 i
r b
90 _ . . _ _ . _ .._.
g . . _ . . -
J~.-- ~~*'"""%~"-'"TT
- p
_g,.; ;._.m , , ; _,
., _- - -t :- .:. .r : - ; -;
, . . . . . ...~ . . ._ . .. g
.. . . _ . . r g .:. ::: .= =:.
+ . .
a -
r_.,
=.: ;__::_._ _-- - * , ... . : ; .:- - >
.?-- - - - +- _n,
. - _ - ;.;::~, .,
- - :: e . ._, _-j j
< :. = m
.v.
3
...-.___t. . ._
...-ll,; ~ - ...-
3 - . . . . -_.__
t 1
~
.. - r 2-a -
. m
}...
t rw *
.. e .: . . . . . .
4 n
. . .._._..4 f!'I w . .. # 8 l . .... d
?
e
, .t 9 : 2 .) : = . a, r r. _ ..g n; p 5 i : : : rs:. . . , . _ r-, ._ _._ R -
n.r-
.r :.p _ _. . ,.
1
.__m
--? .ua)- t
' ; - - r.r.
. .? r----.- .tt : -? . - .
34
^
- *? '=_r.: - -~_ " . _ ' - . -" . . . _ - - - -== : . .~. spC'.
sa 3.; : _. _ r.
., ,,;, : g g. 3. . .
.H ._.
, . _ . _--. m 3 p ; : .; -- - : ;;;;-- -- w
. . . _ . . _ _ . . ._ _ % .. ..J-
. {
S. r I
m _
g -
5
- u. . . , . ..
g
........3~..
3
. . 3 ,
. . - . _ .~. ,
Q m;... . . -
'!N : - . = !- . I' ;: - ,
1 m : :. s
_ m
- ~~ .=
- --. :; l . :
- +;:*_. .-. - . . o
.A.
9"= ?_e~- := . . . .
4.:,
g
. .) . ... .. .. .
. .. .. .. , -. ~. .. . . .
6.ng . ._ a g w.--.......
_. _ p.
.y .
Wt y
w .. . . . t m.;q .. .-
. ... . ... e. .
4., .
2 , , , , , , , , , _ , ,,_
._ .. _ g;_
m
,. 1. ,
.< g-g
._ .... . . . .4 . - ,
w -
. a.m .._ -. ..
- - . . .,.. . E
- 4 e
g . . . . . . -
y : t t. .i, i. .
i t. :.ia:
i t. i s. i. i : I a. 4{~ i{g }t aaat 1 4 @
- q. t E M ** I . IU h* .i d I I ! ' I . !3: * ! -3'. '" .d*' 'd E.d 77"; $" 'h l I I' 3'* g "1
3-iii1
~. ; .
- !~l~ l i t MM T1 I i I ~. i N ~5 fi !.I M-P E **
' ii4
- : :. . ; . : ; ggM pac 3
r- 4 . . . . ; , ;.a. 4 a J . f== ;
. :2.r -
- - ::: a.
t: u -
.s J ,
4
.._. 4. .
.:.-ni.).i . .i:; : it9IplMW_ .. .!... .:..j:; *
.- .: *{if.~.= - _i! . !.H. i. .i . . l . .; i.
- a. -
.: ..:J.
. u.
.4
.. , . . .. *O '
6 .
.4 a, . __.-- ....4... . .. . .
.. . . g
. . . . .,. .....t.. . . . .
-p
'i % . , hc Gd tt 7 ~ B'::rdoM Wocks T '~ ~ ~
i R %a 2 2 2 2 g a o e .* m e o o
.n u
.h.,
6
!