ML20141N531

Comments on Review of Structural Adequacy of BWR Mark II Downcomers for Nine Mile Point 2 Nuclear Power Station. Allowable Moments Are Less than Calculated Applied Moment of 4914 in-kips

ML20141N531
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	02/10/1986
From:	Rodabaugh E E.C. RODABAUGH ASSOCIATES, INC.
To:	Liaw B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML17058A523	List: ML20141N531 ML20141N532
References
TAC-63425, NUDOCS 8603120205
Download: ML20141N531 (15)

Text

c

. ENCLOSURE 2 E. C. cRodaBaugG 09ssoetatas, Dnc.

4625 CEMETERY ROAD e HILUARD, OHIO 43026 614/876-5719 February 10, 1986 Dr. B. D. Liav, Chief Engineering Branch Div. of BWR Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Dovncomer for Nine Mile Point-2, Your Draft Memorandum to Bernero, Dated 1/28/86

Dear B. D.:

Renee Li called me on 1/31/86 to ask if I concurred with your letter to Bernero. I told her I did and this letter is intended to confirm that con-currence.

Since the meeting, I have looked through the Report, " Review of Struc-tural Adequacy of BWR Mark II Downcomers for Nine Mile Point #2 Nuclear Pov-er Station", prepared for Niagara Mohawk Power by Stevenson & Associates, dated 20 January 1986. Renee Li called me on about 2/5/86, saying she was writing the SER portion on the downcomers and asked for my comments on the Stevenson Report for possible une to her in writing the SER. Renee also ask-ed me to look at the downcomer fatigue evaluation. The remainder of this let-ter gives my comments on the Stevenson Report and the fatigue analysis.

Stevenson Report (Report)

The question is: Since the Report contains three checks of the ability of the downcomers to withstand a moment of 4914 in-kips, and assuming 4914 in-kips is an accurate (or upper-bounding) estimate of the maximum moment that can be applied, why are we still uncertain about the acceptability of the struc-tural adequacy of the downcomers?

• l2.h2h5 $0 Sff

4 I 4

The Report, page 7, summarizes the three checks.

(a) Hg by 2x elastic deflection N/4914=1.12 g

(b) H gby NEDO 21985 H/4914's1.03 g

(c) Hg by E a 0.2 t/r Hg /4914 = 1.03 ,

j The problem with check (a) is that it is based on a small displacement analysis that cannot predict buckling. Indeed, the Mg = 5503 in-kip corres-ponds to a strain (see Table 3) of about 0.008 If ( = 0.2t/r = 0.00625 in-dicates the onset of buckling, then the analysis would be invalid for locds greater than about 103% of H = 4914 in-kips. Accordingly, I view check (a) 3 as not meaningful. .

Check (b) creates an uncertainty in that NEDO 21985 was developed for piping systems. The downcomers are different than typical piping systems in that:

(1) Piping systems have two or more anchors; hence, a single plastic hinge vill not lead- to gross plastic displacements of the piping system.

(2) Piping systems usually have internal pressure. Thepressureterm[See Eq.(1)) is usually a conservative aspect in that, for large r/t, the pres-i i sure does not reduce and might even increase the moment capacity. The l

pressure effect can be illustrated by assuming P = 100 psi in Eq. (1).

) ,

j In that case, the allowable moment would be M = (1 5S 7

- PD/4t) x (1.>0.006D/t) x z r(15x22750-100x24/1.5)xo.916x1619 = 4823 in-kips This relatively small internal pressure (PD/2t

• 3200 psi) would change the NEDO criteria from pass by a factor of 1.03 to not pass. l l

1 1

! i i

4 It is pertinent to look at allowable moments if the applicant had chosen 1

to consider the downcomers as structures subject to compressive stresses and 1

used ASME Code guidance for other-than-piping. Enclosure 1 sumrarizes that ,

4 look. These allovahie moments are all less than the calculated applied mo-ment of 4914 in-kips. Perhaps the applicant first tried that route and came to the same conclusion.

Check (c) is dependent on the validity of Es 0.2t/r as a buckling criter-ion. Fig. 2 of the Report shows data from Reddy's paper. Inoking only at Fig. 2 of the Report, it appears that at D/t = 64, a margin on strain of about 0.0088/0.00625 = 1.4 exists. Of course, this .does not mean that a margin of 1.4 exists on mo=ent capacity; the margin on moment loading would be less than t

1.4; perhaps as lov as 1.1.

I Because check (c) depends largely on Reddy's results, I looked through t

Reddy's paper and prepared some comments; Enclosure 2 herewith. Three role-vant aspects are:

(1) The specimens were 25 mm (1 in.) nominal diameter. To obtain a specimen with D/t = 61.46 (Reddy's steel specimen 4), the vall thickness would have i

to be 0.0163 inches. These would seem to involve some experimental prob-l lets in making such a tube; particularly when they were 24" long. Reddy does not discuss actual dimensions of his test specimens; e.g., actual

, vall thickness or out-of-roundness.

1 (2) Reddy states that he used " stainless steel" for his " steel" specimens.

The Stevenson report, Fig. 2, indicates the material was Type 304; I do not find that in Reddy's paper or, indeed, whether the stainless steel was 1

austenitic or ferritic.

I i

1

_4_

1 (3) Reddy states that "a number of lengths of 25 mm dia. steel ... tubing were procured and drawn down to thinner vall thicknesses." Reddy, in his j

Fig. 5 (b), shows caterial stress strain for some of his (as-dravn?)' tubes.

He does not give the units for his stress-scale but, as indicated in En- .

closure 2, I think the units are megapascals. If so, then the 0.2% off_

set yield strength in the axial direction of the tube is about 750x145 =

109,000 psi. This, of course, is a far higher yield strength than would j be expected for the downcomer material. In addition, the material was probably significantly anisotropic; e.g., the yield strength in the hoop i

direction might be significantly different than in the axial direction.

i These material-property aspects raise considerable uncertainty as to their l direct relevance to the downcomers.

l l The precedinE is perhaps sufficient to answer the earlier posed question regarding why, despite the Stevenson Report, we are still uncertain about the i

j acceptability of the downcomers. However,, since I am working on the subject, there are some other comments that may later (after the present SER) be rele-l vant.

j Enclosure 2 includes Reddy's Fig. 2 with one test data point added; that i

being the Battelle test on 42"0.D. x 0.280" vall pipe made of Type 304 au-i

, stenitic stainless steel. Enclosure 3 contains my summary of the Battelle test.

Reddy's Fig. 2, in contrast to Stevenson's Fig. 2, indicates very little margin between the ( = 0.2t/r criterion and test data on buckling at r/t = 32. .

t 4

i i

l t

Reddy's Fig. 2, in conjunction with the Battelle test point, seems to core sist of two types of tests. One set includes the open triangles and the i Battelle test. The other set consists of the remainder of the data. The various references should be carefully examined to see if the reason for this i seeming difference can be identified. The answer may be significant to the ,

, assessment of the adequacy of the downcomers.

l The calculated maximum applied moment of 4914 in-kip presumably is due entirely to dynamic loads. During about the past 5 years, simulated earth-quake tests have been run which suggest that the dynamic moment capacity of piping systems is substantially greater than indicated by static-loading tests;

e.g., Reddy's Fig. 2 tests. Enclosure 4 describes a recently completed test j involvingType304stainlesssteelpipewithD/t=49. It may be noted that it

! is analogous to the downcomers in that only one end is fixed. Evaluation of 4

this test, and other dynamic loading tests, may provide a good basis for ao-

, coptability of the IEF-2 downcemer design.

j Fatirue Evaluation I obtained, a't the meeting in Bethesda'on 1/24/86, a copy of "Downcomer

]

Analysis and Fatigue Evaluation", Stone & Webster Calculation No. MS-1869-2, l dated 1/20/86. Fatigue evaluation of the downcomers is described in pp.67-127 l

l of this calculation.

The results are summarized on pp.126 and 127. The maximum cumulative

usage factor, U, is shown on page 127 to be 0.182; the code requires that.U i

f be less than 1.0. (There is a " typo" on the fourth from last line on p. 127; 0.639shouldbe0.0639.)

f f

The evaluation is for a location on the downcomer at the too of the fil-i let veld between the downcomer and the floor plate. I agree that this is the

{ critical location for fatigue evaluation. The stress indices used are stated I

to be (pp. 92, 98)

C2 " I'43 E2 = 2.0, K3 = 1.7 The indices for a girth fillet veld in the current Code are:

C 2 = 2.1, K 2 = 2.0, Ky=30 If U was calculated to be close to 1.0, rather than U = 0.182, I would be inclined to ask the applicant for more justification of the stress indices.

However, I think that using the Code indices vould still give U << 1.0 The analysis method is not a straightforward application of the Code rules. This can be seen by looking at the first line of results on p.126.

The value of Sdt = 4 kai corresponds to !! = 60100; not 34188; see Fig.

I-9.2.1and/orTableI-9.1oftheCode. It would appear at this point that the tethod is very conservative. But note that n = 24, whereas on p. 71, it appears that n should be 5x10 = 50. Using !! = 66100, n = 50 gives U1 =

50/66,000 = 0.00076; not much different than the indicated value of 0.0007.

However, looking at the third line on p. 126:

Method 11 n Ui$

1

!!s-1869-2 77425 7422 0.0959 Direct Code 156000 24000 0.154 In the above, the estimate of ns W 4000 comes from p. 71; n = (84 + 169 x 30) x 4.8 = 24739.

I would have to review the MS-1869-2 method in much more depth than I have done in order to cay that the method is consistent with the Code rules. How-ever, given that the loadings included in the evaluation are sufficiently com-plete and the stress calculations are correct, I deem the results are sufficient

, , [

I to establish that U 41.0 in accordance with the Code Class 1 fatigue evalua- i tion method.

NRC might want to examine the MS-1869-2 fatigue evaluation method in more t

detail from the standpoint that it could establish a precedent for future fa- {

tigue evaluations. If so, I would be villing to look at the method in more detail and, if appropriate, perhaps frame a'." follow-up" to Stone & Webster.

Yours very truly, bkW E. C. Rodabaugh ECR/cr

Enclosures:

(1) Other-than-Piping Allowable Homento (2) Some Co==ents on Reddy's Paper (3) Battelle Buckling Test (4) NRC/EPRI/GE 6" Sch.10 Test ,

cc: Renee Li .

L 1

I

+

[ncl> s.u ce 3 0 H,ar-1&on- Prpinq A//. =r e 6/e n. <.e/s 1/'ofr s

@ */@

. Fe e P;,,e d:s oesna>> : 2 + O. re. x 0. n r s a.a , r / 2, tc 0. 2 ?r, g/t' 3z Ma /e vocs/ 3 SA 322 fjfe B o 'l ,

Ify* 2 2, I 5~*f

• E , 5* E l 'I*

Tev pgraJ. ore : 3 0 0 l~

(1) ASME Code Ses/r m .T 2 , O.v. I or Sec /,.,n M* NC- J t JJ. co As 0, t 2 5-l(r/f) - 0.125,f.3 2 s A oo 29

/rons fsy. S- UH4 - t r. I or Foy. .El - // o Z, *':

8= alto >av/. ca y ra>rses sless.r * //00072l M* 8E= // 000 < / 6 /.1 ~" / 79'O

• a< kip i 2? AsMf Code , Sec/.n 2, &pendu l'*, F~ /231. s id) 2/3 e/ aeavr /aly ca/c.a/.hd *** espori ,ra/./1, d a fu evo t e d I, a st< tosy .

Tofto.sy thtt As kn, rojo (t s e n }s al by 6 ' A 2 f)'t' s.o el fre. s $/ttsnsen *1 **tg**r / , t /. 06 x Y 'Y/ f

/, d 5 Jr f f/ */ X */.3 "F 3J75' / <a /c / /n (b) 1. 5' x Af8- 3 /13 ** /. T ><. I 7 t o v 2 fo ? o .n kry>

(NG- 3I$ b der o eso f s ever o//o.a k/s e e .,,, ,, r p o s s /re girs other No., 5,*se d.os la We 6'e lc e fl4 o<e fr *f le k J* AfC- 1/19 b) esfernel f142 0n.

(c) Co de Case [Cett N-20Y, fres ven* bly} U:14 fes t.: el falt /y of /. S 'f. //stoy -/St/(e), -/stes (n) a.* d -/1/t./. / ta) of Cats. Case A - 2 Bf:  !

?ien l cypeer t Qv et rl = 0. tooD f t/r ; ac = 0. 707 gyy .

florpor of til, lt),-tritt*Q irscen soshng /t c /.1/-Isis G F/fg in L C as. Cua. us t ,y ?*= FS = /ssfor e/ .r a /, i, a I. 3 y Joy Gjeds mi apres 1. M f, = 0.20 7 x (f.3)~ / /5 x a%)s.c.sega27etop1 a

fsj iEll-/ y { [ la l 'l + 7. 3 2 ) * /36, coo =v R ::: 15' 100 p.s; jv) , 0; y a 2 Sg o ,, .;;,

. s Oc/>s er t 2.

So m a G n, ,u,,,fs so Exp ,,,,,,e.</.) Asp a fr 2/sojst.

of Cedd y 's paprs

• 4 Srpw. usa 41 Siady et if.a. . g ,f g fla5 he Gaskliny a f Circular Oy /.'.e olers in Parc feeksy ,

. int. 7 Se lads $/ruslares, Vol. / Q / f *19, pp. 6 6 3- f.91

. O1 0:m ..n i ns .I +,,/ spe,~aas fleddy .cf h > /A f has specorucer were 26. s (lin.) ne r.,i.r el d'oro c ht, fr 0 0 m ne { 2 Yin I /e no . To a 6 / air, his 7*.6/e / vft- va lv s e, /4< esatt t/ tic.Ausst

&*

• u ld hm lo ha ve k ee n b e luire n 0. 0 / 0 " (3fe u e r.e 2 ) *.e d 0*02'0'[Tjec/#!*** '* ).

su s)/i s s ,

(an sielgri,e] i$n. fe ,,y rf o f 2 '/ " , to a 6 /e s.s dos e urn 11. th sc A n c osts say , d to% , toov id s e em se he a tough pro s, leser. If if were a. psoble ,

1 I?cddy Connjlele /y iy noees N; e f. , l>e does no/ yare 4 any n.co.t und as1L tA<st esses.

Tasle I shc.wr r]t - va /vi s to 'l sijn ili a.., / hy n, e.r . TXi; io en. /uyt, Git te a ts ,tring o'n M al i f tasolic a h s Hal or /ea s t a v re-je. a s /ae l sar *R tt1re L -e rr> < s *. ray 9 vyrstf.sa /i4 f ent hrCk)

I ha ve k e e <> m e i sed ; 6of noi <<assces,,9 ;er /4.) d a',.<,i/.s i /6afofe.!dy 1A*vy4t h e A.n e u.> b,e (o ver ay e ?) cosa /A ra h.e e o e t' e a te sa t c . D oo *

• 2 "-

dl hssy la. //s.i //> ert in a Jorf t str1 ero-la r,** lj am war /AscLn ess oud ray k his (e.s vif.s J ., ks Mj. 2 ( in c l.ided he<e r;ili ) .clea st u in dic a /ad a s o bond of r/4 ; joubsys 4 .5 a r a } de in hale /, A valve.

1 0

f J E.,c/o.sare E O ef @

U) MafreisI f.e ~ Slec/ Spect rerr.s steddy a fa/es f6a/ 4e ased " g/arajeg, g/ga /

• far 4;, ",;,, j ' ,p,,,,,,,,,,,

Sfain/as s afeel car, 4s ass ent/.c. en frerific . Ne sueat L fvets /M.) rue o,.a /* ~ J was asslan t/sc, m aybs lit e 7y* pe soy, h*F Reddy dee r o,.i Jay se .

It) .7asi Spuer,,,er,r ar b rtrain Douse I! eddy aia/os : a no 6er a/ lo.rjAs .1 25 o- dia. s/ce/ . /,%y suara yr.ev,od W

or>d d r a s., +. th i n.,r e w .t> fru. k., aries . Meddy . toes so / say , t, ! z w../J yaass W. dra cciaj war don e a l roo < /e pora /. ors and *% rp scom*.,o .va rs s'* * /* d oil 4 no heal dreal.ne rf al/ar deswi.ry. .

/Tedd y _'s i~<f. Th) is ts cluded b e n .a;M . ,c, ,, ,, ,) aa/,,,/

Me3aa,,4,.,is;

.ig /k m a/ecial ;n tk fes t sj ec t meirr ecp r<t on itI've o f a n n e a led, +ype, so f such at is .as ed fo r NMP- 2 dem co mers , fleddy's Sy. Sis) does or d .ch.us lh an s/s for V. lle sae s t r, l{ nts assJafe 5tddy's 4 lrt ) " ka 5 S A $ "10 f s?,

3' '  ;

l ben }/a kneer f or / son o f 1% e u r e't r i ndice /r/ /Esf O* " '/d o c o r r o ofr a ru cli i

?'o C*ovtet Mef.f arcal/ la ps), enf .*** */l'j* ATJ T

• 0. 00 2 1 3 //O '

• l. 0 000 f tl .

M Pa b y / f C an d, sir,ce f u o se i v 5 c 59000, uis a r <. es a/ 14 g.nss /Ad IEt 0~- scal: Aris/s o<e M i% . T / rave - added /Ae 0. 2 % offse f yroll s/renjM ax sol d:r e s /se a,,

-t a n'eddy 's M . Sto) ; /4a) 3 irid sfreny/A. 4 a hou f //0, 00 0 y si.  ??str, of covese , j is far ef reeler /A an saoald As ceprefed for ennes/ed Typs soy maio r r * /. l l

1

Enck.tute 4

@ of @

t.5e )

In aJa. lies, a c.id Jr.wnW,Ikn rs3 n.icn H3 ani.r. 4.eic. Ite aJy :

d,<.eknewnHias a n.t I >> w a - doa a f aJ. A>c ea a,nrie , fr< y. a rl y M in is ho.,a a.,eehan .>,,yis i sa.

These o,,sfee,al ye.,,arly aspas/s ta is e ussstderobly weer/non;/y a s /. f4 elsr es/ . r cle ra,,s e o f }Ces e fes /r k /Re NM f'- t dawncomees.

(3) Teshna Pet > e advic Reddy does a f oo) jo b / deJCidbiny /toul he lO*ded l$se l*EY Sf ts/ryeof, IVitis rosyset fa c. ~p ar is.e wed fi s /.c $3 e Ts er s ( e.f. , GaH, //e, se e . a dded a., d En clo eure 7.D fot.s { , , ,

F3. 7 y , . I?e Jdy 's +n e & d o f <* m pe.smy one o.se o fs & revyf re/a hvely La siy niiicany' a nd, in taa easp ee i, rn.re J:<cc Hy eryid esd cops ~ ay p hc.co>a le NMP- Z do.so ca. "J Man, N e ea a ay le, Bal/r A 's fast.

(4) Ecpers nesla / /?cs ulf.s o

lltJdy (pe 4is p. t 75 under "Teshny traceJure " ) imp /. e i M/ the.le=Js-l uro ene.Js?]sf. collapse emuld k 'c/asely e3haraleJ. Ha ss e ver, h e d.-v u./

1:a h ulale an y c ollapse m or>< e,. h . I th eaj h / o. s* //af s e momen f r.s y k +

4 L< it emed fee spacimens 7 a d 'l fra m d'eddy 's J53 . //. h' owe ve r, I i

Y$rD *f O f0 AM s

• En clos ure 2 es e 6t1 feddy's Ey.(1) is pro h as 17 wr o ny ., i + rs ,,.e .ti ,e.,sn.,/ess o n.f dis ay<tas erin W A;-ra,si.

ny - <eer/e us etesi.,.s.n e 7 ., neay's as..., ica,.. . - . ep ,, m >.

m aca,, e,as a ,,..s.v, -..,,, a ..,, a.i & s.,. s . i, ..,

Y/t and no/ on fla. 9 red / >.<.a.<r.,/. I t dtsageres w 11A IAs dja ;n.%.,

in k vs a fa l:o o r ec}io or , k -= 2c r'j't , 4:<.h to al fees / plavoin/a .

cc >

Reddy 's 53. (to) is c,ereci, b ., ) E;. cit) ;e s, / correa/ s'or eijoir lAs p Ic usible de li.r.'hwr in 1%. n. h ston ( giv e.,y m = k t/r') or //<

i mp la w s.6/< cielensha.,i o f- Ej.r. (!) o.,) (9).- In d e r d, .r.n c e ff. (9) saya we old La 6_)

l iia f k sq in dejr., ds.e f a f k, 80ee f eJa t"/*nsktp he /de r n on a.s J k .

(0) //a / bei.,y readi/g diJcourajed, T ce /cula hd h. cadsp os s., . s o n }- /ne r, . a s ,,, , ,,

itsing m = M/(Etrt'& ) and, fn , , m= 0. si. A r.s y i ves M = Errr2 f m = [3 uso 's we o. s ',/23.j]. g g.it s sg coa , n . is au.,y iceady's Ej.te> ae,c,,, s . , a.; , ,,, ,,oa y:,e n , s s,oe  ;,,-ie No sa , u sta,3 /L JYE Oc fjssafron ea rlon P= o, Sy - I'o,100 poi 3 . <s (V{ = /. S x lio, 000 g i o r 9 x 17 e a. S'/23. J -= 2 27 e s*s s -16 n + is i e p a in f, z pve u.y . l I

. .- Earc/o. rare @

$ oI@

An experimental study of the plas buckling of carcular cylinders 678 a.

Os. i e poswe.steet

(, ' e prescal*a4N 0 03- ' e Wdhed Enseewa 16I e Battamen tel a SewwhangISI 03 e O Clasacol elast<

e ',,j (, e 0 6 t/s

~

80, ',;v 03-

• Io sg v '

03- c, p ,

e o 03X._ _ _\, '

c 0& ,

P

• • ,s ' .

d = 0, '2 t/t' Oz. N.

a 02 --

N

= _ ., f w . 7s

• O N A % 50 *C '

@,a , $ sYsSt ge 0, 0 0 0 f Fig. 2. Emperimental values of critical estreme Abre compressive stb tubes in bending, and crideal strains for tubes in asial compression, vs alt (a)

/

. . . . . . - = -e Cr- anik !! ..

0

; " ,'2

• • f e -

._ . . - / . /

n

,.,'i -. . ,.. a

, , ,, - ...t-

=

, AlatAl g .

E - A3. A4 300 ...... ..k3As 13: ,

C fl.)

• gg os os G8 ID .

II (b)

Tag. 5. (s) Dennition of parameters in Ramberg-Osgood representation of stress-strain curves:(b) actual compressive and tensile stress-strain curves for specimens I,2,10. A3, A4, A7, A8 and A9.

E,e c/o s.ra .5 t/te/s s Bage //, res; en gz'o.o,e o, z g o ~ ,,a O of @

Vyps_ Set a v a le.,the stain /rst sfre/ffe,fsp.%.*ftti-3

^

172ss a b1/ae/ Un ha.ted *A d ala tro ,+< Aslle//e's Mys s d nt Pipi .y Preyro n, sj>anurec) by NRC, /Y:// nyist i.c fra yeajesf- me-eike.

Ifu fes/ u as & ren fa d e tar miere /4 b.re u.my in ,m e-/ r} 1 6 y y e. //* e u.v e, b e aria, d ,) oce,,r and 7 ,%;ns y, fe,rt nooy se referaad /. bL trajoal.a o I- JVtt!- x Do .e n c e ~ res ,

Ik e j>;jm loediny afr,we /ar, and some puri6ly sty.oiliced de /.sh ore sk e k. bed bel a

, u .3 e 42 x #* 0. So u.4 4220290 4 2 3r o. fo na.//

q 304 f> f t q roddle, se e de fai t g,,3( l Beafo, se e dele:1

'( F/t seedellss* pjg fjg ( F/g 13.S*ft. } // Ft 13.S // w 4

', Bac Lic l y . , .

eo. So ,, . _

a rye '

,- its' M

!) i

/ sa/Jie f.

ytik wcld

.In } hts '/ Pein + 8e,rds,17 Te.r), tao. Cverte ocevre d af F = 9'?,.r7s /b.

Tle. h ucleting inomraf was 97, S 75 x I.p. s x 12 /t = to co in.xy TXe nemi,sd elashe .s t //u hockhn$ snomea,/ uns 80so sto'

• Z** l

E(yz'-91.19')/fx 32 No shotos yayes wrec u sed in % b o ek /td r ef ,'o rr. T/u un a lert d yse id s lu.ejM

&2 519 eo f.1:, we es/imale that sh sfrein in % b est led a rm was not-m ocJr y<c</ee /4 en /As da s it c r/r atos , S/l

• 2/zoe/29xJo'9 0,oaos 76ts poi.s / Is shosr f ra E n clo sats- 2 ., p . S .

l

Ena/osaru Y 2pejec.

Nrtc,/EP/EI/GE 4 ' Scb. 10 res h D of 0 Sec. lion AX keld A

'/'/// )

7

(

f," Elbof Sch. Y0 f

<)

/.

t -I L

) i/

e s , s.s. io sa r.pe p. p - c. u 1/ o. o v n. y Lu.u w

= >

Inga f Sirr>vla/ed EarA;vake Mo h.n ne. tes/ has 4 ern co m,,Ja led. Failore con.usied a f ^ a fa fry v< ces er.

o lo ng tueu A . .E b is poatble tRet safk a.,+ /,sd was applie.L 1. /A.J Se e/ica, XY mom ent.r wo, e a lw e sfahe tin,.- f na m e., /s ,; e.g .

N G Do - 21115 lien.}s. If so, anol considereny th anc - en l~ asedered and h ete) oli aroue t, 14. tal re seHs may k.<a/euar/ fo evo/v ho.,

of h NMP- E dow- c o mers .

9

. /