IR 05000341/1987032

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Insp Rept 50-341/87-32 on 870720-24.No Violations Noted. Major Areas Inspected:Confirmatory Measurements Program, Including Sampling,Qc of Analytical Measurements & Comparison of Licensee Analyses W/Region III Analyses
ML20237J127
Person / Time
Site: Fermi DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 08/25/1987
From: Januska A, Schumacher M
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20237J091 List:
References
50-341-87-32, NUDOCS 8709030503
Download: ML20237J127 (9)


Text

.

  • I

..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l REGION III

.

. Report No. 50-341/87032(DRSS)

Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 Licensee: The Detroit Edison Company 6400 North Dixie Highway Newport, MI 48166 Facility Name: Fermi 2 Inspection At: Fermi Site, Newport, Michigan Inspection Conducted: July 20-24, 1987 k . mN Inspector: A. G. 3anuska O/4f/B 7 Date

. . M Approved By: M. C. Schumacher, Ch ef 6/4k87 Radiological Effluents Date and Chemistry Section Inspection Summary Inspection on July 20-24, 1987 (Report No. 50-341/87032(DRSS))

Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of the confirmatory measurements program including sampling, quality control of analytical measurements, and comparison of licensee analyses with those of the Region III Mobile Laboratory onsit Results: No violations or deviations were identified.

J

[0ggo J G

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - -

_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ___ -_ __ -_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

..

DETAILS

' persons Contacted

  • R. Lenart, Plant Manager

.

  • F.1 Agosti, V.P. Plant Operations
  • J. Leman, . Director, Plant Safety

.

  • W. Tucker, Superintendent, Operations
  • J. Price, Licensing Engineer
  • S. Frost, Licensing
  • P. Lovallo, Engineer
  • K. Shields, Chemist R. Nearboof, Lab Specialist G. Cole, Chem Tech
  • Rogers, Senior Resident' Inspector
  • Denotes those present at exit interview on July 24, 198 . Confirmatory Measurements Sample Split Comparisons

.Seven samples (air particulate, charcoal, liquid, reactor coolant, spiked air particulate, spiked ' charcoal and ' simulated gas) were analyzed for gamma emitting isotopes by the licensee and in the Region III Mobile Laboratory onsite. The spiked air particulate (F Spiked) and spiked charcoal (C Spiked) were compared after no activity was detected on plant particulate and charcoal samples. Similarly, a simulated gas sample (G Spiked) was compared because the plant was shutdown and no plant gas sample was availabl The comparisons were made variously with four different licensee detectors: primary detectors (Nos. I and 2) in the counting room and backup detectors (Nos. 3 and 4) in the E0F. Results of the comparisons are given in Table 1; the comparison criteria are given in Attachment Overall, the licensee achieved 76 agreements in 104 comparison Detector I was compared in all geometries with 48 agreements in 54 comparisons. Fe-59 was in disagreement in the liquid waste sampl A portion of this sample will also be analyzed for tritium, Sr-89 and Sr-90 and the results reported to Region III for comparison. (0 pen Item No. 50-341/87032-01). Detector 1 initially showed two disagreements (Mn-56 and Zn-69m) on a primary sample. However, problems with the sample split were suspected, and a repeat sample split showed no disagreement j Detector 1 also showed three disagreements in nine comparisons on a simulated gas sample which had been used by the licensee as a calibration standard. The apparent cause was the licensee's failure to correct for absorption in the source matrix and containing vial which could result in substantial error at the energies of interest. The licensee agreed to

' determine the appropriate correction factors and recalibrates if necessary, by August 21, 1987 (0 pen Item No. 50-341/87032-02).

1 J

-_

.,

Detector 4, which was compared for the primary coolant sample and the spiked filter showed no agreements in 17 comparisons. Further testing and review of the licensee's calibration data failed to identify the reason for the discrepancy and this detector was declared out of service while the licensee investigates the problem. Detector 2, which agreed in eight out of nine comparisons on primary coolant, but only four of eight comparisons on the spiked filter was also declared out of service for all geometries owing to unexplained variations in resolution that were being observed by the license Detector 3 achieved 16 agreements in 16 comparisons on charcoal and filter spikes. However, it was declared out of service for liquid geometries owing to the fact that it closely agreed with Detector 4 and significantly disagreed with Detector 1 in an internal comparison performed by the licensee and observed by the inspecto Based on these results, the licensee agreed to investigate the causes of disagreement in the discrepant geometries using sources independent of the current calibration by July 28, 1987 and recalibrates, as necessary, by July 31, 1987 (0 pen Item No. 50-341/87032-03).

During review of data associated with the inspection, a licensee

.

representative identified a software problem that may have affected quantification of source nuclides in liquid release geometries. The licensee agreed to review their liquid waste quantifications back to June 1,1987, and make any necessary corrections (0 pen Item No. 50-341/87032-04).

The inspector reviewed the licensee's determination of gamma isotopic LLD's. A series of repetitive and systematic analyses were made to show that the requirement in T/S 4.11.2 was met. The documentation shows that for the count times selected, dependent on the geometry, the required values were at least 2.5 times larger than the attained value No violations or deviations were identifie . 0A/QC of Analytical Measurements The inspector examined the results of a radiological crosscheck program with Analytics for gamma isotopic measurements for 1985 and 1986. The licensee has had good agreement with his contractor, but the inspector noted that except for one sample, no crosscheck analyses were made on either Detectors 3 or 4. Had there been, the licensee may have been alerted to the problems identified during this inspection. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments and stated that all detectors will be involved in the crosscheck program although only one set of results will be submitted for the recor .i'

The inspector examined the licensee's QC program for the counting room gamma spectroscopy system. A source is counted daily and the Resolution, kev / channel, and the efficiencies at 122 key and 1173 key are checke If any test fails, a jobstream which generates a plot for the failed o parameter is run to show past histor Past plots for Detectors 1 and 2

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

__ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,

..

appeared to be complete and no obvious trends were noted. The resolution changes previously mentioned (as noted by a licensee representative) were evident on the plot examine ~ '4 . Open Items Dpen items are matters which have been discussed with the licensee, which will be reviewed further by the inspector, and which involve some action on the part of the NRC or licensee or both. Open Items disclosed during-the inspection are discussed in Section . Exit Interview The inspector reviewed the scope and findings of the inspection with licensee representatives' denoted .in Section 1 on July 24, 1987. The inspector discussed the radiological confirmatory measurement program results stressing the need to have the backup system repaired quickly, and review releases which may have been analyzed on the primary syste .

The inspector also discussed a possible cause of the changes in .

Detector 2 and the need to have all detectors involved in an independent i crosscheck progra During the exit interview, the inspector discussed the likely informational content 'of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspector- cNring the inspection. Licensee representatives did~not identify any such documents or processes as proprietar Attachments: Criteria for Comparing Analytical Measurements Table 1, Confirmatory Measurements Program Results, 3rd Quarter 1987 l

<

<

t 4 l t

a

-___ _ __

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

.

.

..

.

,

ATTACHMENT'l CRITERIA FOR COMPARING ANALYTICAL MEASUREMENTS This attachment provides. criteria for comparing results of capability tests and verification measurements. The criteria are based on an empirical relationship which combines prior experience and the accuracy needs of this progra In these' criteria, the judgment limits are variable in relation to the comparison j of the NRC's value tc its associated one sigma uncertainty. As that ratio,  !

referred to in this program as " Resolution", increases, the acceptability of a licensee's measurement'should be more selective. Conversely, poorer agreement  :

should be considered acceptable as the resolution decreases. The values in the ratio criteria may be rounded to fewer significant figures reported by the NRC Reference Laboratory, unless such rounding will result in a narrowed category of acceptanc !

RESOLUTION- RATIO = LICENSEE VALUE/NRC REFERENCE VALUE l t

Agreement j

<4 0.4 - .5 - .6 - 1.66 16 - 50 0.75 - 1.33 51 - 200 0.80 - 1.25 -

200 - D.85 - 1.18 Some discrepancies may result from the use of different equipment, techniques, and for some specific nuclides. These may be factored into the acceptance criteria and identifieG ' the data shee i l

.

.

I

,

..

..

TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: FERMI 2 FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1987


NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T

'

C SPIKED CD-57 8.9E-03 1.2E-04 9.OE-03 1.6E-04 1.OE 00 7.1E 01 A CO-60 1. 5E-O'2 3.8E-04 1.5E-02 4.5E-04 1.OE 00 4.OE 01 A 7'# HG-203 8.1E-04 1.2E-04 5.SE-04 1.3E-04 7.2E-01 6.9E 00 A Y-88 7.3E-03 2.9E-04 7.6E-03 3.6E-04 1.OE 00 2.5E 01 A CD-109 4.7E-01 4.9E-03 4.7E-01 5.1E-03 1.OE 00 9.SE 01 A SN-113 5.8E-03 ~2.6E-04 5.8E-03 2

'.SE-04 1.OE 00 2.2E 01 A CS-137 2.4E-02 3.9E-04 2.3E-02 4.3E-04 9.8E-01 6.OE 01 A CE-139 3.8E-03 1.1E-04 4.2E-03 1.3E-04 1.1E 00 3.5E 01 A PRIMARY CR-51 8.9E-05 1.SE-05 7.SE-05 O.OE-01 8.5E-01 5.7E 00 A 16TI MN-54 3.SE-04 3.SE-06 3.2E-04 0.OE-01 9.1E-01 9.2E 01 A MN-56 1.7E-05 1.SE-06 9.SE-06 O.OE-01 5.SE-01 9.3E 00 D CO-58 9.6E-04 6.1E-06 8.7E-04 0.OE-01 9.OE-01 1.6E O2 A CO-60 5.3E-05 1.SE-06 4.9E-05 O.OE-01 9.2E-01 3.OE 01 A CU-64 1.2E-03 1.7E-04 8.2E-04 O.OE-01 6.6E-01 7.4E 00 A ZN-65 3.2E-05 2.8E-06 2.6E-05 O.OE-01 8.1E-01 1.IE 01 A ZN-69M 8.7E-06 1.9E-06 3.5E-06 0.OE-01 4.1E-01 4.6E 00 D AS-76 9.8E-05 6.3E-06 8.SE-05 O.OE-01 8.7E-01 1.6E 01 A L WASTE NA-24 6.1E-06 5.2E-07 6.3E-06 2.2E-07 1.OE 00 1.2E 01 A g g7 g CR-51 1.1E-05 2.3E-06 1.OE-05 8.5E-07 9.OE-01 4.SE 00 A MN-54 1.4E-05 5.8E-07 2 1.'E-05 2.3E-07 9.3E-01 2.3E 01 A MN-56 4.3E-05 1.1E-06 4.1E-05 4.6E-07 9.5E-01 4.OE 01 A FE-59 2. 7E--06 5.9E-07 1.2E-06 1.9E-07 4.3E-01 4.6E 00 D CO-58 3.1E-05 8.OE-07 2.8E-05 3.4E-07 8.8E-01 3.9E 01 A CO-60 3.8E-06 4.6E-07 2.6E-06 1.5E-07 6.9E-01 8.2E 00 A ZN-65 4.8E-06 9.SE-07 2.6E-06 2.3E-07 5.3E-01 4.9E 00 A AS-76 1.1E-05 1.1E-06 1.OE-05 3.8E-07 9.4E-01 1.OE 01 A l TC-99M 2.4E-06 2.4E-07 2.3E-06 7.GE-08 9.3E-01 1.OE 01 A

, PRIMARY CR-51 8. 9E--05 1.SE-05 2.5E-04 2.1E-05 2.SE 00 5.7E 00 D lerel MN-54 3.5E-04 3.SE-06 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 O.OE-01 9.2E 01 D T TEST RESULTS:

AaAGREEMENT

, D= DISAGREEMENT l uCRITERIA RELAXED

'

N=NO COMPCRISON l

,

_ _-_ _ __ __ __ -__ _-_____

_

_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM l FACILITY: FERMI 2 FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1987


NRC------- ----LICENSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RE'EiULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T MN-56

'

PRIMARY 1.7E-05 1.8E-06 O.OE-01 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 9.3E 00 D CO-58 9. 6E- 04 6.1E-06 O.OE-01 0. OE--01 O.OE-01 1.6E O2 D CD-60 5.3E-05 1.SE-06 O.OE-01 O.OE-01 O.OE-01 3.OE 01 D CU-64 1.2E-03 1.7E-04 3.OE-03 1.3E-05 2.4E 00 7.4E 00 D ZN-65 3.2E-05 2.SE-06 0. OE--01 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 1.1E 01 D ZN-69M 8.7E-06 1.9E-06 1.SE-05 2.6E-06 2.OE 00 4.6E 00 D AS-76 9.SE-05 6.3E-06 3.2E-04 7.7E-06 3.2E 00 1.6E 01 D F SPIKED CO-57 9.4E-03 9.1E-05 8.9E-03 1.4E-04 9.5E-01 1.OE O2 A by 3 CO-60 1.7E-02 3.2E-04 1.SE-02 4.3E-04 9.OE-01 5.3E 01 A HG-203 7.GE-04 7.SE-05 7.OE-04 9.9E-05 8.9E-01 1.OE 01 A Y-88 7.3E-03 2.3E-04 6.6E-Oo 3.oE-04 9.1E-01 3.2E 01 A CD-109 5.1E-01 3.3E-03 4.7E-01 4.9E-03 9.3E-01 1.6E O2 A SN-113 6.6E-03 2.OE-04 5.4E-03 2.4E-04 8.2E-01 3.3E 01 A CS-137 2.9E-02 3.4E-04 2.4E-02 4.2E-04 8.5E-01 8.5E 01 A C E -139 4.1E-03 7.5E-05 4.OE-03 1.2E-04 9.6E-01 5.5E 01 A PRIMARY CR-51 8.9E-05 1.5E-05 7.6E-05 0.OE-01 8.5E-01 5.7E 00 A 372 MN-54 3.SE-04 3.8E-06 3.2E-04 0.OE-01 9.3E-01 9.2E 01 A MN-56 1.7E-05 1.GE-06 1.OE-05 O.OE-01 6.OE-01 9.3E 00 D CO-58 9.6E-04 6.1E-06 9.OE-04 0.OE-01 9.4E-01 1.6E O2 A CO-60 5.3E-05 1.GE-06 5.2E-05 O.OE-01 9. SE--01 3.OE 01 A CU-64 1.2E-03 1.7E-04 8.7E-04 0.OE-01 6.9E-01 7.4E 00 A ZN-65 3. 2 E-05 2.SE-06 3.1E-05 O.OE-01 9.9E-01 1.1E 01 A ZN-69M 8.7E-06 1.9E-06 4.8E-06 0.OE-OJ 5.SE-01 4.6E 00 A AS- 76 9.SE-05 6.3E-06 9.OE-05 O.OE-01 9.2E-01 1.6E 01 A i

G SPIKED CO-57 1.7E-02 1.6E-04 1.2E-02 2.6E-04 7.1E-01 1.1E O2 D yy , CO-60 9.OE-02 5.GE-04 8.5E-02 1.2E-03 9.4E-01 1.6E O2 A HG-203 6.3E-03 1.7E-04 5.6E-03 3.2E-04 8.9E-01 3.8E 01 A l SR-85 1.8E-02 2.7E-04 1.6E-02 4.6E-04 9.OE-01 6.9E 01 A j Y-88 5.9E-02 5.4E-04 6.OE-02 1,2E-03 1.OE 00 1.1E O2 A j T TEST RESULTS: I A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT

  • = CRITERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON i

- . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - I

..

..

TABLE 1 U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: FERMI 2 FOR THE 3 QUARTER OF 1987


NRC------- -----L I CE NSEE---- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T l G SPIKED CD-109 4,6E-01 4.OE-03 3.6E-01 6.4E-03 7.GE-01 2 1.~E O2 D SN-113 3.4E-02 3.3E-04 3.3E-02 6.7E-04 9.7E-01 1.OE O2 A CS-137 8.4E-02 5.2E-04 7.4E-02 9.4E-04 8.8E-01 1.6E O2 A CE-139 1.3E-02 1.5E-04 1.OE-02 2.7E-04 8.OE-01 8.7E 01 D F SPIKED CO-57 9.4E-03 9.1E-05 3.1E-02 4.7E-04 3.3E 00 1.OE O2 D

%ET4 CO-60 1.7E-02 3.2E-04 5.4E-O2' 1.6E-03 3.2E 00 5.3E 01 D HG-203 7.8E-04 7.5E-05 ~2.6E-OZ 3.SE-04 3.3E 00 1.OE 01 D Y-88 7.3E-03 2.3E-04 O.OE-01 0.OE-01 0.OE-01 2 3.'E 01 D CD-109 5.1E-01 3.3E-03 1.7E 00 1.8E-02 3.3E 00 1.6E O2 D SN-113 6.6E-03 2.OE-04 1. 9E-O'2 7.5E-04 '2.GE 00 3.3E 01 D CS-137 2.9E-02 3.4E-04 7.7E-02 1.4E-03 2.7E 00 8.SE 01 D CE-139 4.1E-03 7.SE-05 1.4E-02 3.SE-04 3.4E 00 5.5E 01 D C SPIKED CO-57 8.9E-03 1.2F-04 1.OE-02 1.7E-04 1.1E 00 7.1E 01 A bg7 3 CO-60 1.5E-02 3.8E-04 1.8E-02 4.4E-04 1.2E 00 4.OE 01 A HG-203 R.1E-04 1.1E-04 7.5E-04 9.SE-05 9.2E-01 7.2E 00 A Y-88 7.3E-03 2.9E-04 7.SE-03 O.OE-01 1.OE 00 2.SE 01 A CD-109 4.7E-01 4.9E-03 5.8E-01 7.1E-03 1.2E 00 9.5E 01 A SN-113 5. OE--03 2.6E-04 6.6E-03 2.3E-04 1.1E 00 2.2E 01 A CS-137 2.4E-02 3.9E-04 2.6E-02 4.3E-04 1.1E 00 6.OE 01 A CE-139 3.8E-03 1.1E-04 4.5E-03 1.4E-04 1.2E 00 3.5E 01 A F SPIUED CO-57 9.4E-03 9.1E-05 9.OE-03 1.3E-04 9.SE-01 1.OE O2 A bFT? CO-60 1.7E-02 3.2E-04 1.OE-02 4.2E-04 6.2E-01 5.3E 01 D HG-203 7.GE-04 7.5E-05 5.9E-04 9.SE-05 7.6E-01 1.OE 01 A Y-88 7.3E-03 2.3E-04 3.1E-03 3.9E-04 4. 2E--01 2 3.'E 01 D CD-109 5.1E-01 3.3E-03 4.9E-01 4.7E-03 9.SE-01 1.6E O2 A SN-113 6.6E-03 2.OE-04 4.7E-03 2.3E-04 7.3E-01 3.3E 01 D CE-139 4.1E-03 7.SE-05 3.9E-03 1.2E-04 9.SE-01 5.5E 01 A Cd.-137 2.?E-02 3.4E-04 2.OE-02 4.4E-04 6.?E-01 8.5E 01 D

'

T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT l

D= DISAGREEMENT

  • = CRITERIA RELAXED NcNO COMPARISON

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ - - - _ . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

_ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -

'

..

l ..

i

!

l l

TABLE 1

U S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT CONFIRMATORY MEASUREMENTS PROGRAM FACILITY: FERMI 2'

FOR THE 3 OUARTER OF 1987


NRC------- ----L I C ENSE E--- ---LICENSEE:NRC----

SAMPLE ISOTOPE RESULT ERROR RESULT ERROR RATIO RES T PRIMARY CR-51 1.3E-04 8.2E-06 1.1E-04 4.GE-06 8.6E-01 1.6E 01 A ggy f MN-54 3.OE-04 2.3E-06 2.8E-04 1.5E-06 9.SE-01 1.3E O2 A CO-58 9.OE-04 3.8E-06 8.4E-04 2.6E-06 9.3E-01 2.4E O2 A CO-60 4.9E-05 1.1E-06 4.9E-05 7.8E-07 1.OE 00 4.5E 01 A CU-64 3.1E-04 1.1E-04 5.2E-04 2.6E-06 1.7E 00 2.SE 00 A ZN-65 4.3E-05 '2.1E-06 3.9E-05 1.1E-06 9.OE-01 2.OE 01 A AS-76 4.6E-05 3.2E-06 4.3E-05 1.5E-06 9.5E-01 1.4E 01 A I-132 4.5E-05 2

'.8E-06 4.3E-05 1.3E-06 9.7E-01 1.6E 01 A TC-99M 4.4E-05 7.9E-07 5.4E-05 5.3E-07 1.2E 00 5.6E 01 A SB-122 7.1E-06 1.7E-06 5.7E-06 9.2E-07 8.1E-01 4.2E 00 A F SPIKED CO-57 9.4E-03 9.1E-05 9.6E-03 1.SE-04 1.OE 00 1.OE O2 A g3 CO-60 1.7E-02 2 3.'E-04 1.6E-02 3.8E-04 9.GE-01 5.3E 01 A HG-203 7.8E-04 7.SE-05 6.6E-04 8.1E-05 8.SE-01 1.OE 01 A Y-88 7.3E-03 2.3E-04 7.2E-03 3.OE-04 9.8E-01 3.2E 01 A CD-109 5.1E-01 3.3E-03 5.OE-01 5.9E-03 9.7E-01 1.6E O2 A SN-113 6.6E-03 2. OE- 04 5.8E-03 2.1E-04

'

8.8E-01 3.3E 01 A CS-137 2.9E-02 3.4E-04 2.3E-02 3.7E-04 8.2E-01 8.5E 01 A CE-139 - 4.1E-03 7.5E-05 4.2E-03 1.2E-04 1.OE 00 5.5E 01 A T TEST RESULTS:

A= AGREEMENT D= DISAGREEMENT

  • =CR!TERIA RELAXED N=NO COMPARISON h,____m_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _ - -

-

,

7--

. .

  • W l

\

l l

l 12 6 V E~ d3S [65; SG-DWiSn i

.

I4

- - - - - _ _ - -