IR 05000498/1980017
| ML20211F014 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1980 |
| From: | Landsman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Hayes D NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F241 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-378 NUDOCS 8610310024 | |
| Download: ML20211F014 (16) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter: UNIT ED STATES c.
- g
" /j,/ g f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y {g .e REGION ill [ 7M RooStvrLT RO AD e.p' A*.r .a ' . CLEN ELLYN. 8LLINots 50137 e...*
July 10, 1960
.. , MEMORANDUM FOR: D. W. Hayes, Chlef, Engtheering Support Section 1 FROM: R. B. Landsman, Reactor Inspector SUBJECT: STP REPORT NO. 50-498/80-17; 50-499/80-17 . I am signing the cover sheet of the attached report with the understanding that my comments discussed with Mr. Hall by phone on July 10, 1980 will be Incorporated, except for the one on vibration frequency which he . Indicated will be addressed in their reply to the test fill report of the Show Cause Order.
. I also have the following reservation about closing Infraction No. 50-438/ 79-19-21; 50-499/79-19-21: Closing half of the Infraction on the basis of a DCN that states "Any such criteria, if needed, will be Incorporated..." negates the whole Intent of the Inf raction, which was failure to provide a criteria.
- Furthermore, HL&P's response to the Infraction states "the backfill specification has been revised to speelfically Identify criteria for testing depths". The DCN does not provide specific criteria.
It also compounds the problem by Indicating HLsP might not need to provide a criteria.
. R. E. Landstr.an ' Reactor inspector
Attachment:
1.
Report No. 50-498/S0-17; 50-499/80-17 2.
Docurrent Change Notice (DCN)
REGION IV== , ' Report No. 50-498/80-17; 50-499/80-17 ' s ' Docket No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Eicensee: Houston Eighting and Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, Texas 77001 ~ Tacility Name: South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Inspection at: South Texas Project, Matagorda County, Texas Inspection Conducted: June 23-26, 1980
Inspectors: R. E. Hall, Chief Engineering Support Section Date . ' J. I. Tapia, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section % S. K. Chaudhary, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section, Region I . R. B. Landsman, Reactor Inspector, Engineering Support Date Section, Region III Approved: W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section Date . R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section Date .
i ~ ' . . -. .
. , . . 283 . . Inspection Sumur.ary: - Inspection on June 23-26, 1980 (Report No. 50-498/80-17; 50-499/80-37) Areas Inspected:. Special, announced follow-up inspectio activities including observation of work and review of r,n of construction ecords pertaining to the NRC Inspection Report No. 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19 findings related .tg earthwork.
The inspection involved one hundred and eight inspector-hours by four NRC inspectors.
Results: No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
. . . % .
i , , ! I l ,
- - . . . . . .. - . - _ _ _ - - _ -. . -. - -. -. . - _ - _ _ _ _
. . "- - - 284 . , . . DETAILS . , 1.
Persons Contacted , ' Principal Licensee Emplovees
- R. A. Trazar, Manager, Quality Assurance
"
- L. D. Wilson, Project Supervisor, Mechanical /NDE
,
- T. J. Jordan, Supervisor, Quality Systems
- T. K. Logan, Lead Engineer, Quality Assurance R. A. Raymond, Lead Engineer, Geotechnical R. Jt. Hernandez, Lead Engineer Structural other Personnel C. S. Hedges, Project Manager, Woodward-Clyde Consultants
. R. J. Woodward, Vice-President, Woodward-Clyde Consultants
F. L. Worth, Project Manager, Shannon & Wilson T. E. Kirkland, Engineer, Shannon & Wilson
- J. L. Hawks, Engineering Project Manager, Brown & Root C. B. Pettersson, Lead Discipline Engineer, Brown & Root
- S. T. Carland, Project Geotechnical Engineer, Brown & Root
- G. Martin, Assistant Project Manager, Brown & Root
- C. Vincent, Project Management Staff, Brown & Root The IE inspectors also interviewed other licensee and contractor employees including members of the Engineering and QA/QC staffs.
i
- Denotes attendance at the exit interview.
2.
Follow Up on Items of Woncompliance During this inspection, corrective actions described in Houston Lighting and Power Company (RL&P) letter to the NRC, dated May 23, 1980, were inspected. The letter was in response to the items of noncompliance related to the Category I structural backfill resulting from special investigation as reported in IE Investigation Report 50-498/79-19; . 50-499/79-19. These items were identified as Infraction Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, and 17 in Appendix A to the NRC letter to HL&P dated April 30, 1980. In the discussion below, the track numbers from IE Investigation Report 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19 are indicated.
(0 pen) Infraction 50-498/79-19-18; 50-499/79-19-18: Tailure to Complete Backfill Compaction in Accordance with a Qualified Procedure. During this inspection, Brown & Root (B&R) Technical Reference Document (TRD) No.
3A700GP002-A, " Test Program for Compaction of Category I Structural Backfill," dated June 2,1980, was reviewed. The purpose of this test program was to provide assurance that the construction methods defined in l B&R Construction Specification A040KPCCP-2 were sufficient to produce I a backfill which satisfied PSAR committaents of 80% relative density throughout the laye/, iM"'"% ":t-bedfi4-1--ee th t g :f m -;eusly - N
. - - -_.
-- _ __ ___. -- . _ _ _
. s,._;. w m. ~.. u =r.s _ m. a. ,.._ m _._ - _.-.. _.... ..,.m.
a . '. {3 .'
. . . .r- . -- M . ... p14 cad 3 yers. Preliminary test data were reviewed from the test fill progran performed for 2, 4, 6, 8 and 12 passes of the compaction equip:nent.
I- - These data verified increased compaction of da mnterleyer boundary;. r t' ( '., however,41d not produce eenswtant results above 80% relativej'ensity ~ . for the entire underlying layer. The test is continuing, and*ges'ults p 'A . ke .s.4 e Pf} Portions of the compaction of the test fill, area were observed duringwill be incorpora ..e hh . - d., vibration-fregwmi J the-compactor "
- this inspection; me++wresEn1.
v sand cone in-place density tests (ASTM D-1556) were 4 three ederr e - observed being performed in the test fill. No discrepancies with the TRD were observed during this inspection. During these observations,.swo - J... differences between the test fill and normal backfill placement and compaction were noted: a.
The water application methods observed for the test fill were different in that water was applied immediately on the roller and issnediately ahead of the roller during the test fill. For normal backfill, wetting of the area is more generally applied.
. b.
Surface protection and preparation for rolling of the test' fill , were more carefully controlled relative to normal backfill.
, .,
- -
- '
e ...:.- ri.
%..., },. 1..' c.
n, *l . "hb The potential for these differences affecting test rescits will cE ' ?- require evaluation in the test fill final report.
e . l. r .
p,.)
Results of the origipal test fill progrank and the construction procedure',.c y.r gri g verification programt dere also reviewed. The data apparently formed the original basis fo$ the backfill placement procedure requirement to i compact the newly placed lifts with at least eight passes of the .r# N.:u M' compactor before relative density testing. These tests, though not .~n e r sT; W' . well documented,were apparently used as the basis for change early in g [+ l-f construction from 12 to 8 passes before testing.
), Since the test fill program is not yet complete, and since the soil boring and test program is still being evaluated to support a response to Show Cause Order Item Number 2, this item will ressin open.
(Closed) Infraction 50-498/79-19-22; 50-499/79-19-22: Failure to Take Prompt Corrective Action When Test Apparatus Tailed, Balting Testing.
During this inspection, it was verified that a backup vibratory head and a spare sold Yor acasuring relative density had been procured and both were available on site. B&R Instruction Letter SQA-3329, dated February 1, 1980, was reviewed relative to clarifying subcontractor responsibilities concerning identification and reporting of nonconforming conditions. It was verified through review of Pittsburgh Testing Labortory (PTL) Document Disseminationfsignature sheet that each PTL employee on site had reviewed SQA-3329. This ites is closed.
.-
.. b - ! t - _ - - -. _ . _ _ - _ - - - _ _ - __ -. _ - - _ - _ _ _. _ - - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - . -- . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , ,. \\ - . 28G . _ (Closed) Infraction 50-498/79-19-21; 50-499/79-19-21:
IE inspector reviewed the changes in procedures e m.
The Notices 3YO69YS029-F/DCN/2-34-80, and 2YO60S4033-C/DCN/2-34 6-5-80.
ent Change 1980, to the QC Procedure QC-STThese documenta and PTL Field C and applicability of the propose,d changes to the items of n , .. , ances.
Based on the review of the above indicated d'ocuments a changes effected in the procedures by the abov s on with a the resolve the noncompliances regarding depth and location of in place y testing of granular backfill in all layers excapt the v item of noncompliance; however, the licensee indic ery top layer.
o this solution of the in place density test depth and location in th e re-layer is still under engineering evaluation.
e top based on experience obtained with the new procedure and analy iT test fill program.
fill layer will be revised to incorporate the requirementsProced s s of the but before the work on the top layer begins.
. at a later date; 3YO69YS029-7 (DCN 6-25-80) has been issued to prevent placementA lifts of Category I structural backfill until sampling provisi of top defined and incorporated into the specification.
ons can be anticipated changes to the specification and result on, the ' will be reviewed.
This is considered an unresolved item.ures changes Item 50-498/80-17-1; 50-499/80-17-1.
(Unresolved (open) Infraction 50-498/79-19-24; 50-499 Soil Lift Thickness and Number of Passes o/79-19-24: Failure to Document been completed as indicated in the EAP response to res had not em.
(Open) Infraction the Use of a Noncomforming Hammer for Penetration 50-498/79-19 Failure to Control Reports (NCR)," dated FebruaryConsultants' letter to Brown and R . nconformance 24, 1980, was reviewed This letter documented the fact that the initially reported weight of th . (148.9 lb.) included the weight of the hoisting nhain e hammer weight as found to be 138.9 lbs.
Actual hammer . Another hammer used by Younger Drilling Company wei 142 lbs.
tolerances,ghed Since ASTM D-1586 does not prescribe acceptance both hammer weights were considered acceptable by Woodw Consul tants. The initial hammer was within 1% of the weight specified by AS1h D-1586, and the Younter Company hammer, though slightly e than the ASTM D-1586 requirement, would result in conse v ti eavier results since a slightly lowered blow count would be obtained because ra ve test of the small excess weight.
i that any variability introduced by these minor weightThe consultant stat ' distance, friction of the hm==*r, friction of the borimasked by other uncontrollable variabl variations would be mmer fall ng tool, etc.
__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __ _
._. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 9 J + '. { y " R,. g ' ' r - . . u c+. .. a Woodward-Clydewascommittedtorevisesiteworkproefduresforhandling ' ' of NCRs prior to resumption of their work activities.V At the time of
- 6 this inspection, these revised procedures were not yet available (due N
by July 2,1980). These procedures will be reviewed during a subsequent M.s
inspection.
l ' i IE review of the revised procedures relative to NCR resolution will be ' = required prior to closure of this ites. This infraction remains open.
'
(Closed) Infraction 50-498/79-19-28; 50-499/79-19-28: Failure to control the Dimensions of the Split Spoon in, Soils Test Control. Woodward-Clyde Consultants' letter to Brown and Root, " Evaluation of Nonconformance Reports (NCR)," dated February 27, 1980, dispositioned the dimensional differences between the Terzaghi spoon used and the spoon specified by ASTM D-1586 as having no effect on the standard penetration test results. Their disposition indicates that the thinner annular wall of the shoe would, if anything, reduce driving resistance producing conservative blow count results. The length of the bemelled tip (1/2" as opposed to 3/4") was judged to have little or no influence on blow count rescits.
The II inspector requested the calculations supporting the conclusions
described above; however, sine,e they were not available on site, they will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection. Unresolved Ite.a 50-498/79-19-29; 50-499/79-19-29 incorporates the requested analysis.
On the basis that the licensee's consultant has concluded that the dimensional variations had little, if any, impact on test results, and . since the Terzaghi shoe was replaced with an ASTM D-1586 shoe early in , the test program, this infraction is considered closed; however, Unresolved Item 50-498/79-19-29; 50-499/79-19-29 will remain open pending review _ of the technical basis for blow count shear resistance calculations or disregard of Standard Penetration Test Data from tests performed with the ' Terzaghi shoe.
3.
Follow Up on Unresolved Items
J During this inspection, licensee: actions being taken to resolve the following .. Unresolved Items (UI) froniIE Investigation Report 50-498/79-19; 50-499/79-19 l were inspected.
- UI79-19-M Test Fill Programs J., l4 > e UI 79-19-f. , Compactio'n,U[derStructures VI79-19-k Test Till Programs ' UI79-19-2$ Uniformity of Placed Backfill UI79-19-2[ I.iquefaction Potential-fe l'N' r P' ' ' ##
a z u e v v< <e U y d % * y f t : f ,J.. ) d.. :. N d . UI 79-19-2h Shift in Max / Min Relative Densities Q f M e".', ( * V a i s', 4( 0, t I t b y re n t u q. t 4 en ae rc. IL
y M.t b.~.4, 4. w.. g r-p.o '.I ~ d i. d. % re.,e 2 l s.~,., c:.. ;% ' . . de*l% h.1: w; ll f tf.% c.,*.s' .- p q;M cf JM Nopc?t% hes: h.. b-c, h,-h J '-: --
. - - - _ - - - - - _.
- -. -- - -.
. - . . . 288 . . '. UI79-19-])pj Engineering Analysis of Blow Counts UI79-19il(2 Low Density In-Place Backfill kl.. r. 7 l-Due to the inter-relationships between these ' items and the Show Cause Order (Ites Number 2) transmitted to HIAP by NRC letter dated April 30, ' 1980, these items will all remain unresolved. They will be further "*
- inspected as a part of the inspection fol19w up to the Show Cause Order.
4.
Unresolved Items Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, iteus of non-compliance, or deviations. An unresolved item disclosed during this inspection is discussed in paragraph 3.
5.
Exit Interview The IE inspectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in paragraph 1) ! at the conclusion of the inspection on June 26, 1980. The IE, inspectors summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection and the findings.
A licensee representative acknowledged statements of the IE inspectors con-cerning the unresolved item.
. I
. % .. . - -
l . _ _ _.
_ _ , - _, . -. - -,
- - _ .- - O ~" - ATTACliMFNT ? l ptre hal cloud Out cnfaJcn j ' u. p-d,ai - . '" ' i pte ,, .....,.a... , W s T h T Af'S j
. , .. 4[ kd ro-ii-i f 8.
.' DOCUMENT CHANGE NOTICE Oraorosso . DocuuEurTveE: secciricariou ovivess ,,c, i opt ,. & APPROVED - - $$ i .lDENTIFICATION.
3YO69YS029-F/DCN/6-25-80 Structural Backfill ' ' 800sumesseT ese.JDCIWSATs) iTITe.es
1. DESCRl8E THE CHANoE: Construction of the upper lif t (i.e.18") of Category i . Structural Backfill, under Category I Building foundations shall not be perforse, ! f.gg,g until the requirements for spectfic' testing criteria, in addition to the present l crs teria of sect. 9.0.o. have been determined. iAny-such crJ emef t M a==d=L / ' ,,,,,g,,, f uill be incorporated lato sect. 9.0 of this specification.
- ,,,, J v , J ' ~h -- - _ A-2s~-80 l ' l - j seemezant essacus a sara , , , j 2. DESCRISE THE SASIS FOR THIS CHANGEi % L/4-8-82 3 This DCN provides 'tional step to avo1d further itaas of potent,141 non-au o
- -
a,L,,g gl!C'8 notice of violettensua - esas W s=Tsusci L-mais compliance in rega t
- y_
q/W-fb
- . __ '
:=e enoescveson.
oars . ) f gg 3. DOES THIS CHANGE AFFECT ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS?:
.iuransessn ansAre6asse6sl ears s. FSAa OVES ONo 6.Soo vES No . _ c. DRAWINGS ' YES NIL /r /-EA[> e/ 'M8 IF YES, LIST DOCUMENTS / IF YES, LIST SECTIONS: d.
UYES N . i*/-- nua(ste assondaca~ oars r,tesaerucasts .T !l . / . _ /pwM -_:__ 'c of saa mees scan 6a - ears FSAR CHANGE NOTICE ROO:CYESb NO - 4. REMARKS: . . .. - [ - j gg The requirements for additional criteria will*be determined *from presently oppoi ' , field compaction test program and based on studies performed by ifCC.
The eva un
- *.
,,,, l, tions will be cospleted, and the specification amended, by 7/26/80.
, . . .
4' g *43 '/ t4- . - ,, . '290
Qeel170 . , -.-._.__7.,h..-C c._ W % s _ _ 10 p.r ud_. _...__ ___.&r: .._.
.... _ c ur _ . < g- _=. ,. p.
L n:cie.nn Fn,, _.
. I ~~ $; g.T ;~~ .. ... - -. F~fg(,3.._9_4gg,j7.7.,,,,g0_ ~ ~ . . . . _ .. -.. . ---. --.. . _... . -... 7 9'-/f.. _. . - - _.
-- ew.. . .M = .* g g - s ?J 8 $ i g _so -M _, W. E F... T J ro : E.. J; d e.s ~ ~ r-rf,'o 2 1,as c/cse </5p%s. as i&:. ~ . Y<p6. j c W h NlY $ 5 1(~,7tl$NW8r fW 5E}~~ _ y yne2&,mam,sc#21,wMesifM+.<r MsNw ccJcr i% s 2a,25. a d 2 e 7/cet a o- .n _ Rn ... .. _. _ . ..... _ I O $ U ]._ & t> v Es C=.afOc......i e.?u_'. P... .. - .WE <l ict . A > , f-l9, f Y.Y tY fe yYG f6 .b2S'.' c C.
' - . -1le:r c to s e e o! t /i t se. Usu c.5__ e.' c.
M'iE._ . ccr c [u!e c! N n '?- Yn& W s _.. k L $of ... ' ' .. _ _..... 6; 7
- - - - . . 2-.291 , . .. - . Q.
% - . ena7c.rae,e fo res3ve. the mucf.. -. -. - -. . i .._.
/c... _ _ _ _ _was c s1. s --Y,W c 21E' $ tko I57s6 Yr vr y c b,h e: -: d - ,, , 5 \\5~( c cSv n cf d55 ths,- Q f5. # /h 5 cls~ % l fo _ ~ Vdr5.1 by M e /rceree do rcf ccusare /4,u,'e/, . U
--~~ 'd j~'~' 11 %2__f l< v hv' : <l. .--( .- . l~ ..sc)n.n.._qe'~----C= v.< :. ' . f -- ^ ^ - t: _ . 4._
., c w a w i x.- -.. ' ,, a,,o -,..i.
- ~ ,I. T W % '< d 1 e l ~ir by t T 7R.s.s.ee.g. a...k... , n .-. -. n l'. 2u . . . ..--.. . jMi d.in ' . - -- - _./. Q, ..j i f g -._g.
/tS 5 + t_.
c']. .. _.. p . -4../ad..-kt 0.59__.cT-ltr m e, -... n 'I + z 7 b...... - -..... -. bc + n e csL ......a _....lc.. ., . ss) by . .. ... .. 7 n.- v cj flu e .. . n c c,, ,
. ..-. & y*Euk._ic._5jihr 1.E'4.% --.truG2L..7.l U.
/ - ...-. d% g y h $ W ....-.. -... S% 5._ nk 1.
M G. fo S&T_G!WL2
- ....
_. - - A .o - .. ---.... oT.t 5 (. 6svu-t / a.f.J. hve N s. _, h..e cl n.. v7t . i.
. - -. . . _... . s neft s. 4... '.3-.. ' .....-( b G.
fe(..rf-N ,..U S H E U f C... VY ( / 6 'c f.
...h5 C M S '._.
.. _ _ _. .. _ . _ _ _ _........ _ _ _. _. _ .... .. c . . - _.
___ _ - _ - - -
,
. . ' .. . - . . . __.
, . .... _..... - _ _ - -. -. . . , ~ y.
-- _ S,_,cye7..yj - S-A '"' ' @ F ~ [[ Y'f W F T, . _ ., h.
. , .. . n . . ... ^5 $ . U$?! r_ih 5 M WY.C i I.___ _. .__- h i . m v>jY M =~M_:$]e M L_sP..RM = = % I
- )
-- , - %= t: 6 - l - ..,. , ~..
m. s... A --t.b G = > X T ~~ .. .. ~~ ~ , . .. .a.s n, e . _.___._._._s-
- =
-- _ _.. __ _ _ _ -. _...... _ . _ _. _... _ ._ . _ _ _3 ). _._. _.
.__. _..._.. M.,.._ 4._._.
htlTt 7o [ O _M5 D._ _C.cg_ g L .._.
_.
. _. - - - _... j _
__ .. . - - - _ Ce n* 'lis l ici th _ Qcccrds.c w [f n y p' fc cv v < & [ t 5? (& tcE& _.. p.Y.
. h,rU;vvG!. . - . [M3 t lict :\\ 1 . t,G t .___ . U. h 5 _ Gf fG &c ' /r'I ' .. . _ . __.. b.
Ccn 2& tc0 c a 7 'i t D ! X _.c . t G l ' ,1 , . , . .... Sui ldC6 {{ t + . . .. _ -_ . f.,.._ ... _. .. _. _ _.. __c. ., ; w s s. w %_ _.. L_..._:n n._w, m E. b r.e.-...... =. up.... -.3 7 7., _ --. - ..... > - . . . ~... ..-- _.
.. - _ .4 . _... . c' Y W M % - -. ..... _.
4y,I- ~ frTc... lun.).;: 'u, G 85.. _. _ _. _ _ _... J ,,.. A, . ,..., _.....-.-- _. --. _ -. .. . -..... - ._ . .. . }$~ ai ~ 4-- -4WQ} ^ 'fic}.'Gi&T.: . ... _ _... ' . A _.
A._.,-. Irsg'.y4j;.~q. W$4 D4.-.5,%,6.7/r.2.r,_7 -- ^ -
._ _ . . _ ... ...-.. .. _ _ _ _ _ _. . _. _. _.. _ _ - _ _ _ . - _ ._ . - - - - _ _ _. . .
F . ' ~ . . 293 -- . - . c. ces sertsa Y...- _ lead 'fes led ud .__.-.r--- .... - . o,e i ' w . A desc a d a F$nk adhaum. /tvukk ud J l _ o _ .... _ _. ... . -.... _ ... - - _. _ - _. _ . ,) __ .._...__]_ -f $ A Se n. % + ci c m s t tv e'l a.' c J ' E y Me>,, , _... . - - f .lo o sG...h t __ )L.h-. n ll ( Y c b.d tVyY b , t - .----.._ d.
-. -.__ - .... _ _ .......... _.. . j.
CC Y f 5 Tu'G A V.;o l-(( c . - Q _'.' * [ ___ r_ f_ __ _ . ,_____._ _ __ _.
. , .. .. _.. - ( . ' d JL s ' 4' ' :, ~f.- . . .. . . ... ' r ..- .. _. - - - _.
_... -- _... . ..... .. . . _ .. _... _ _ _ _ $ $ j t . .. 6. j l e.
r 3.. 4,: c c < A e f <j:r dc . < ct. 7 5 f-/-.. , - S' d (~r.',' ' 11.l7 s e ; ' fb
$( f '. I f) , _ _ -......... .L{c.f 4Y1.
t O bfav. ~ b mt'$ d Y b e m d tM 5..._ b . 6 Q; G('.'.\\ cy Ci'... _ __ 4. hm '..s.ft _.
. S ..- = $._. 9....b g. _S($. ~.0 f......~.f...G.
... - . ' -- . . - ~ - ~ a_. k_ -.3 %+y is ;.. c 2..a_ k...._J._..s. M.
- - _ r.
..... . _ .. . .. .. _. ~....... -. _. ... . =.. . -.... - 0* f5Y 00E .. . -. .. . -.. _ - - .... _ -. - ... -. -.. _.......... .... _.. - _ ._m .... _ h. m h 6 ...._sm- .M._*MO _ _ _ _.., _ __.
- - -.,, -. - - -,,. r- --w = - - - - - - ~ - - ' - - ' ' ' ' - - - - - ' " '
e .. ~ ' 294 , , - . . p . , . Nf t'f' W 4 'VY &, s's foC.sfe $ 'Tl c^
b 'GcN._fL.
. l4.__.. - .. > T$ l _ _._....h.. hhe:.S c'l~ / l Occ 65 umbl6$ c' t-t re, / n - , . . 34, T p 2sS95 cl~ 'tl'C_. _ Eyti.:p,,: V ' + c (7c_. _l'G G. _.
... _ , Tt 'it'[E.( Y herS? IK. . .... _ _ _ _. _. _ _.- _.._.. _. _.._.
_ -... _ _ - _. .. - _. _._.. .. _ _ _ f..__ {E_,'( _b[ f f,'J-t_ c F ~u r.+ L cb. _c.v_s.s ud . . . . _... _ _ , ' j.
__ b _. _ -. _ _ _...il'Dt_ . _ _.. ., (QL'- @ S . N.
_ __..
W? _ &n TGY_____ d _.. _.....___ . .. .. _. _... . -/(W -- .. _ Ytl ~d,*. c y l )n G q G ( <- (450 V cl & i .. s ._ _._.. . . _.
_ _ _..C " W 9_ b -... ._ .. . ..__ _ C6 f.b. $ f) GSS 3r d ._ & W.
^tS . j . .. . ... .. .. _. _.. _... _..... _ .. _ _. _... _ . .. _... _.
_.. _. ._ ._ ....__ __ ... _. _. _._.
. _ _. _ _ _ _.. ._ .... _ _. ....... _ _. _. _ _. _= _ _ _. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _...... _ _.. _ _ _ _. _ _.... . . .. . . _ _ _. _. . _.
_ . __ _. _.._.._...__.
. _ _ _. _.. _ _ __ _ _ _.. ...._ _ , }}