ML19257C148

Summary of 790918-19 Meeting W/Util at Site Re Assessment of Const Schedules

ML19257C148
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	01/16/1980
From:	Hood D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8001250047
Download: ML19257C148 (20)

Text

e QR "FGO J

0, UNITED STATES

[ $..cf( j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!ON

, C r#

C W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555 s %dh,f 5/

Jhh 1G 1380 Docket fios.:

50-329 50-330 APPLICAflT:

Consumers Power Company FACILITY:

Midland Plant, Units 13 2

SUMMARY

OF SEPTEMBER 18-19, 1979 MEETit:G Afl0 SITE VISIT TO ASSESS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES On September 18-19, 1979, the f RC staff met with Consumers Power Company (the applicant) and Bechtel at the Midland site to discuss the scheduling of con-5truction and to observe the construction activities in progress. The meeting agenda is attached as Enclosure 1.

Meeting attendees for the two days are listea in Enclosures 2 and 3.

NRC representatives included members of the Caseload Forecast Panel.

The purpose nf the meeting and tour was to examine variations in estimated dates for completion of construction of the Midland plant. The applicant's current estimate is June 1981 for completion of Unit 2 and November 1981 for Unit 1.*

The generic-based estimate by the Panel prior to the visit was November 1981 for Unit 2** and November 1982 for Unit 1.

These estimates by the Panel are based upon a generic forecast model derived from previous history of similar plants and the applicant's reported percentage completion.***

The tour and discussions are an integral part of the Panel's prediction pro-cedure in which plant-specific f actors are reviewed to determine if adjustments to the generically-derived estimates are appropriate.

Conclusion In the judgetat of the Panel, another nine months will accrue before sufficient system turnovers occur so as to constitute start of the preoperational testing phase. The tests are estimated to require at least a 2-year duration, result-ing in a projected completion date of June 1932 for the first unit to be completed, Unit 2.

Michael I. Miller letter to OL Board dated June 20, 1979.

R. Hoefling letters to Midland Boards dated May 21 and 31,1979.

Tne February 1979 issue of the Yellow Book showed Unit 2 at 56%

complete and Unit I at 52". complete, and was the basis for the Panel's generic projection of November 1981 and f!ovember 1982.

1804 536 800125004 7

4 JAN 161980 The staff noted the applicant's schedule assumes a sustained cable installation rate of about 1235 cables per month over a period of 17 months. However, the staff cited experiences of recent plants (San Onofre 2, Grand Gulf, Susquehanna, etc.) which were able to sustain an average rate no more than 800 cables per month over a similar period, particularly in view of latter phases as increased congestion became more severe and rates later than the average occurred. The circuit rerouting analyses presently needed at Midland in view of a projected cable tray overfill problem which is causing temporary cutbacks in the number of electricians caployed at the site is typical of the types of events which affect cable installation schedules. Based upon this history and observations, the staff concludes the applicant's cable installation projection is overly optimistic.

The staff also noted that the overall Midland construction progress for the past 18 months had averaged 1.1% per month, whereas an average of about 1.8%

per montn hereafter would be necessary to complete the remaining 39% of plant construction within the 22 months left until June 1981. An average of 1.8%

per month exceeds the progress demonstrated by past plants at this stage.

The staff finds no basis to support such an increase at Midland and considers a lover rate over a longer duration to be more realistic.

The applicant's schedule for Unit 1 is based upon a revised logic for pre-operational testing in which testing of both units is completed prior to fuel loading of either unit. The staff's preliminary review of this logic during the meeting concluded that the applicant's differential schedule between unit completion dates appears reasonable. The staff's review of the Unit 1 schedule is limited in depth, and a more thorough review will be performed once the applicant's January 1980 forecast is completed. The staff's present estimate for Dit I completion is November 1982.

The applicant is currently developing a revised fcrecast (Forecast No. 6) to incorporate recent increases in electrical quantities and the influence of TMI-2 issues and open licensing issues. Forecast No. 6 will be finalized in January 1980. The estimate by the Forecast Panel coes not presently include provisions for the effects of TMI and open licensing issues; however, the staff perceives that these effects will be quite significant to the ultimate completion date.

1804 337

, JAN 161980 Sumaries of the presentations during the meetings are given in Appendices A and B enclosed hereto.

~

Darl Hood, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/2nclosures:

See next page 1804 338

4 Consumers Pover Company CCS.

Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Mr. S. H. Howell Isha:n, Lincoln. Seale Vice President 2

Suite 4200 Consumers Power Company One First 1:ational Plaza 212 West Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60603 Jackson, Michigan 49201 Judd L. Bacon, Esq.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers tianaging Attorney Office Chief of Engineers Consuaers Fover Company 212 hest Michigan Avenhe Pulaski Building - Room 6115 Jackson, P;chigan 49201 Washington, D. C.

20314 Mr. Paul A. Perry Secretary Consumers Pover Company 212 W, Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

One IBM Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Mary Sinclair 5711 Sumaerset Drive Midland, Michigan 48640 Frank J. Kelley, Esq.

Attorney General State of Michigan Environmental Protection Division 720 Law Building Lansing, Michigan 43913 Mr. Wendell Marshall Route 10 Midland, Michigan 43640 Grant J. t<erritt, Esq.

Thompson, tiiel sen, Kl averkamp & James 4444 IDS Center 30 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Mr. Don van Farowe, Chief Division of Radiological Health Departrient of Public Mealth P. O. Box 33035 Lansing, Michigan 48909 1804 339

1 ENCLOSURE I

,,n - m. c. -

na z..Dn.

~,m. u,.

, - v ~,

x...

.a

2 es~

.r cem-tevmem wiAL W 12.1.

Septer.ber IS Throuch Septerber 19, 1979 S en'.n r.ber 13 1.

Eriefing for site tour (G5K).

2.

Construction scheduling tools (WGJ).

3.

Consurers Power scheduling tools for testing (DDJ).

h.

Site tour (DEM).

Septerber 19 1.

Staff presentation of Forecast Fanel's current =cdel and application or results for idland.

2.

General discussion on bases for May schedule revision of 6/81 and 11/61 fuel load dates and bases for following presentaticns (G3K).

3.

Presentation of installaticn curves for separate unit startups and rela-tion to new startup philosophy, productivity rates, etc (WGJ).

h.

?!ev Testing logic (D3M).

5 Status of Freop Progra: (DEM).

6.

Status of problers and corrective acticn en site fill (TCC).

7.

F/C #6 developments (G3K).

8.

Discussion on CF Cc recent actions on SER open it er.s and TMI-2 issues (G3 ).

9 Staff caucus.

.0.

c + a.r.e 2.v.

_e G2 Keel ey/c g 9/1L /79 1804 340

ENCLOSURE 2 Attendees September 18, 1979 NRC D. S. Hood - LWR-4, DPM, NRR L. S. Rubenstein - LWR-4, DPM, NRR B. Lovelace - MPA S. Boyd - MPA Consumers Power Co.

Dennis Johnson - Scheduling Supt.

Donalu B. Miller - Site Mgr.

T. C. Cooke - Project Supt.

R. E. McCue - Test Supt.

K. R. Kling - Project Control Supt.

G. S. Keeley - Project Mgr.

Bechtel John A. Rutgers - Project Mgr.

W. G. Jones - Project Cost & Schedule Supervisor 1804 341

ENCLOSURE 3 Attendees September 19, 1979 NRC D. S. Hood - LWR-4, DPM, NRR S. Boyd - MPA B. Lovelace - MPA L. S. Rubenstein - LWR-4, DPM, NRR Consumers Power Co.

Donald B. Miller - Site Mgr.

James J. Zabritski - Project Licensing Eng.

T. C. Cooke - Project Supt.

G. S. Keeley - Project Mgr.

K. R. Kling - Project Control Supvr.

R. E. McCue - Test Supt.

Bechtel John Rutgers - Project Mgr.

W. G. Jones - Cost & Schedule Supvr.

i8G4 342

4 APPENDIX A Discussions and Observations on September 18, 1979 1.

Plant Status as of September 1,1979 (G. Keeley)

CPC0 bases estinates of construction completion on manhours which correlate to work in place. The ratio uses actual manhours expended in the numerator, and the denominator is the sum of four factors:

1) the estimated total manhours to construct the plant; 2) an allowance to incorporate support effort and productivity of labor; 3) a # actor to account for contingencies; and 4) a scope change factor. On the basis of total manhours for the project (both units and common) CPC0 estimates the plant is 62% complete.

On the basis of those manhours associated with installation of physical quantities (i.e., excluding certain support activities), Unit 2 is estimated by CFC0 to be 61% complete, and Unit 1 is estimated to be 54%

compl ete. Engineering is 82% complete.

Staffing levels for engineering and engineering support total 575 people, which includes 366 engineers. The total of 3,954 site personnel is com-prised of 2,238 manual personnel, 705 ncnmanual personnel, 652 subcontrac-tors and 359 (of which about 200 are operating personnel) Consumers Power personnel. Some temporary reductions in wiremen at the site (discussed later) were in progress.

Expenditures for the plant are $1,150 million. Procurement is 95% complete based upon dollars expended.

Bulk material installations for the total plant, based upon the March 1979 forecast, were 88% complete for large oipe, 46% for small pipe, 95% for cable tray, 66% for conduit, 38% for wire and cable, and 26% for connections.

Dow Chemical has received approval from the Michigan Air Pollution Control Commission for continued operation of the existing fossil units for prccess steam until December 1982. However, evaluation by the Environmental Pro-tection Agency is continuing.

Contracts for almost all site crafts are due for renegotiation in 1980.

2.

Tour Principal work activities in progress and observed during the tour included the following: for Reactor Building Unit 1 - closing of the construction opening, NSSS erection and main steam line installation; for Reactor Building Unit 2 - tendon installation and post-tensioning, reactor coolant pump erection and main steam line installation; for the Turbine Building -

turbine generator erection for both units and HVAC installation; for the 1804 343

APPENDIX A Auxiliary Building - hydrostatic testing of the spent fuel pool at the lower level in preparation for installing fuel racks, dewatering in preparation for excavation of soils beneath containment penetration and feedwater isolation areas, and HVAC installation; for the Diesel Generator Building -

removal of the 20-foot sand surcharge completed earlier and rebound and crack-mapping measurements continue; for the Guardhouse area - installation of underground ductbanks around the site perimeter. Erection of the Borated Water Storage Tanks and the Service Water Cooling Tower was also observed to be in progress.

1804 344

4 APPENDIX B Sumfrary of Presentations on September 19, 1979 1.

Staff Presentation of Forecast Panel's Model and Results (W. Lovelace)

The staff described the model used by the Panel to forecast construction completion dates. The model consists of an average curve of construction versus time, based on the construction history of recent nuclear plants which have received operating licenses. Using this curve and the reported percentage completion of construction for a specific plant, an estimate can be made of the time remaining for completion of construction. The generic-based estimate is then combined with observations by the Panel during a specific plant tour to arrive at that date which will be used.

by the NRC staff management when allocating ano just.fying resources.

The Panel's original estimate for Midland followed a March 21-22, 1978 site visit and concluded that although the projection for Unit 2 seemed a bit optimistic, the applicant's schedule of November 1980 for Unit 2 and November 1981 for Unit I appeared to be achievable. The Panel's annual update for 1979 resulted in a revised gereric-based estimate for Midland which projected a one-year slip. This estimate by the Panel was based upon the reported percentage completion in the February 1979 Yellow Book which indicated Unit 2 at 56". complete and Unit I at 52'.'

compl ete.

2.

Applicant's Schedule Revisions (G. Keeley)

The visit by the Forecast Panel in March 1978 was based upon CPCO's Forecast No. 4.

In June 1978, CPC0 developed Forecast No. 5 which pro-jected a fuel load date of November 1980 for Unit 2 and November 1981 for Unit 1.

A laborers' strike from May 1,1978 to June 15, 1978 led to a reevaluation in July 1978 (Forecast Sa) and resulted in no changes in the fuel load dates, but utilized the three-month contingency in Forecast 5.

In March 1979, CPC0 again reevaluated the target fuel load dates (Forecast 5b) to incorporate better definition of the 1978 work stoppage effects, known licensing requirements, increases in projected electrical and small pipe installation, and backfill settlement effects. The Forecast 5b study resulted in a recommendation by Bechtel of a February 1981 fuel load frr Unit 2 and no change in Unit 1 fuel load.

In May 1979, CPC0 changed tht Unit 2 fuel load target to June 1981, without changing Unit 1, based upon a revised logic which calls for ccmpleting construction, preoperational testing and hot functional testing of both units prior to loading fuel in either unit.

Because of delays in conduit installation and the 1978 work stoppage, the start of cable pulling was delayed from January 1978 (as per 1804 345

APPENDIX B 2

Forecast #4) to September 1978. Additional electricians from Canada were added. However, the cable installation effort remains behind schedule.

In July 1979, CPC0's preliminary findings indicated an increase of about 20% in electrical quantities. This results from revised lengths of average circuits, later information from vendors indicating more circuits, and refinement of the design. Much of the increase in circuits is in the yard for site security purposes. Nevertheless, a cable tray overfill problem is projected and rerouting analyses are currently being performed.

Pending completion of the rerouting analyses and cable tray engineering changes, a cutback in electricians was in progress during the Panel's visit and was the subject of considerable local rews media interest and brief picketing at the time. On Septenber 14, 1979, 120 no n-journeymen wiremen were laid off, reducing that force to 350 people. On September 19, 1979, an additional 15 electricians were terminated.

Quantities of piping and wiring for the various forecasts are indicated in the following table (see next page):

1804 346

APPENDIX B CPC0 FORECASTS SINCE MARCH 78 PANEL VISIT Forecast No.

1. 5

1. 5a

1. 5b Present

1. 6

& Development June 78 July 78 Mar. 79 May 79 Under Development Date (J anuary 1980)

Principal Laborers To incor-Increased Revised Increased electrical Basis strike in porate el ectri-testing quantities and cir-progress effects cal and logic cuits, TMI-2, (5/1/78 to of strike small pipe,

Open licensing issues 6 /15 /78 )

Backfill Startup Schedule Revision No.

4 5

6 8

9 Resultant Target Fuel Load Date:

Unit 1 Nov. 81 Same Same Same To be determined Unit 2 Nov. 80 Same J une 81 To be determined Large Pipe *

(linear ft.=lf) 261,200 265,200 269,000 268,800 Small Pipe (process and non-process) *

(if) 227,300 227,300 297,300 304,200 Cable Tray" (if) 64,230 64,430 70,700 72,700 Cond ui t*

(lf) 267,700 241,800 336,000 364.200 Circuits *

(each) 25,000 27,000 30,000 34,000 Wire & Cable *

(Power & Control)

(if) 4,900,000 5,400,000 6,300,000 7,600,000

• All quantities are for total plant.

1804 347

APPENDIX B 3.

Testing and Startu; The revised logic and schedule for preoperational testing which was incor-porated into CPC0's May 1979 forecast is shown in the attached handout entitled " Midland Project Preoperational Test Sequence."

The previous and new testing philosophies are compared in the handout, " Comparison of Philosophies." Under the revised logic, all construction and testing for either unit is completed prior to the fuel load of the first unit. The revised logic evolved from the realization that at least 75% of the total plant was required to be completed to support Unit 2 startup testing, that Unit 1 construction was ahead of schedule, that security problems would exist with Unit I under construction while Unit 2 was operating, that some. tests involve both units and require checks for unit interaction, and other factors. The ew logic has the advantage of providing efficiency and flexibility; hovever, it has the disadvantage that Unit 1 turnover dates are moved forward.

The test staff located onsite consists of 65 people assioned in 1979. This number will be increased to 75 in 1980. The status of the test procedures as of September 6,1979 is:

Total scheduled 104 (33.4%)

Total draf ted 113 (36.3%)

Total in internal review 68 (21.8% )

Total approved 11

( 3.5%)

Preoperational testing of various systems are initiated once Bechtel

' completes installation and initial checkouts and turns the system over to CPCO.

Systems turned over to date include the discharge pond and plant computers. CPC0 finds that system turnovers are about three weeks behind schedule based upon its May 1979 schedule.

4.

Schedular Impact of Backfill Settlement Effects (T. Cocke)

CPCO's May 1979 Forecast concludes that the remedial actions to correct the soils deficiencies at the site are not critical path items, and will be concluded with about 10 weeks of float. Penedial actions for the Auxiliary Building and Service Water Intake Structure have no inpact upon other scheduled activities for these structures. Temporary cross-over piping will be installed between Borated Water Storage Tanks since the contents of one tank will be used during startup testing. No correction of the diesel fuel oil tanks is planned since these tanks were preloaded with water and no settlement was observed. The 20-foot sand surcharge was removed from the Diesel Generator Building on August 24 and a slight rebound was measured. The rebounds (differential readings for 8/10/79 and 1804 348

APPENDIX B 9/6/79) for the four corners were S/16 inch for the SW corner, 3/16 inch for the NW and NE corners, and 1/4 inch for the SE corner.

5.

Staff Caucus At the conclusion of the meeting, the staff caucused and then advised CPC0 of the results of its findings. These findings are discussed in the

" Conclusions" section of this meeting summary.

1804 349

7

{

MIDLRNo PRozscr PREOPE'RRT'!ONRL Test Seavence UNIT *I

. UNIT *L MIDLAND TESr SctfEDULE RCTIVITIE3 Q

NRC ScMEDULE NRC SCIIEDULE TEST RcTIVITIES l

l TEST RCTIVITIES EYEN T y

l OnTES g

g i

i I

1 l

12.3.ro l INITIR L NSSS / RCS l

.l FLUS 11 8

FLUSti

s. z o - ro l gy l

l P#A E NSSS I

a.1s-ro l

INI TI,9L l

l N33 / RCS FLUStf g

g RCS COLD FLUSH l

l og llYORO TEST

?"A E l

s-z'!* 10 - I NSSS RCS / OTSG l

l HYDRO g

q.so.ro g

-- st ---

l

- g,o.ro I

I m.tL/

RCS COLD l

l HYDRO TEST I_ to-,27.ro I

, I-MCS / OTSG I I

Q MYDRO l

\\

HOT

- - - - - - - 7515 - -

,- it-2 o. ro I

FUNC TIONRL I

l TEST l

1z.11. ro - ;

CON TRINMENT Q

l H O T' FUNC TIO N R L ILRT g

g J

TES TING.

l he,hd y) h 7 l l I 2 4.ri - I -- fo I l-z. r e-ri ILRT/ Sir l l 0 CONTRINM EN T 1 2.s,. ro Q 'l s.s. rr _ f ILRT ILRT / SIT 1-3-i s. ri _1 __g l10T l l FUNC Tl0N RL If 0 T l l 0 COMPLE TE TEST FUNCTIONRL I ,r.. or. rg _ I BASELINE TES TING I l POS T lfFT lilS PEC TION {.* {,*?), ~ ' ~~ -~~~~~~ RPPLIC RN T D I COM PLETE f~ . * ' ', ' ll ESFRS SUBMITS TEST ESFRS t~ RESUL TS itN O SBSELitlE INSPECTION . PO S T HFT l l EVRLUR TIO N BRSE LINE C -- tr-rt -, -- 7 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ HPPLIC AN T g g SUBMITS TES T Q g g 7,sl,'r n",o s s Nore: o r,~-~as ro u

7.,

I i nes:t ve funcouusr - ii.1.o. rg 1 -- FUEL LORD l l g rgus, _,g_,,,, con:vmen: rOwcx ca. MIDLRNO YK3 7 tic.T* 7..B. JOHNSTON 9 - ti = 7 cf m-

COMPARISOII 01' PHILOSOPHIES ~ PRESENT: FUEL LOAD C/0 UNIT 2 PRECPS !I F T PES ,~ _, _. _W l 8 U:!IT 1 ENERGIZE PREOPS IIF T PES FUEL LOAD C/0 IIE11: FUEL LOAD C/0 f PES f UNI. 2 T2 R E O p s RFT UNIT 1 ENERGIZE Y* " A " " I'" l PES l PREOPS . l! F T //t FUEL LOAD C/0 (,,,, e t is m,\\ b, escsaI e -f,,g, c,, o a t a y ~ 6 --D 0c) (E=D P '~ c 9 u, M L_ __3 [% I I l 1979 1980 1981 1982 t

1:l in.* ::D l'l:C IECT 'l l{G'c P:;0Cf.in!!'. I t.DEX STATt!S bW b' h./.ffe'!Si~<* /Y?/ ,.- [} s l } L) \\ r ', f. ./ / 1:UM!iE!; SCHr.DUL:CD INTEL:NAL P.EVIE*] TOTAL TO lie DR.',FTED M!i'!MEU DI! AFT!'.D CO:!P LE': !:D APPROVED PREOPS

'.ECn (P)

//Y 52 (292') 32 [23$] /9 (/6.4 2) O MECil (S) /Ch 5l (2'U $ } A/2 (39.b'?h /9 D?Y$) l f~/ nC '/7 19 (@ Y2) /2 l.s2. 52) U (%F.Y2) 1' (FSs ruc 23' 9 (3'/.7 9) to ( 4's.72) lo (V3. 7'!)

2. lo.[2 SPECIFICS MECll (P)

/ / / / O MECu (S) /0 Y (YON) 2- (32) 2 ( D 2) l Do 2) ILC l0 f (062 2 (O $ b (U2 b ELEC O O O O O CE!!ERICS ? 5 (sss2) s/ (W</2) 3 ( 5 5. C y ( s z. 9 ueCu IsC T 5 5' C 5 ELEC 2/ 18 (95~ 72 ) 16(ss72) 19 (sc 7%) 17 (scS; %,e S.rzew,) - /6 V l ' 6' ?] D }l0 } h'iyyT3(y j ii . a w) s . % g \\ x.i .. e g 2,,,,,,n //.. (a., na -c kwon. '%w - 6 8 ( 2/ 0 2) ) 00 h .$52 /i c u 8) 6,.e.,wa

0- 1 e' t' el /f t 'b Og g tu NN00NAl / U 73 to e3 W o, _ 7'.> i*E ./ ~' f / / / X / 2 C "' N c,! / Sol 20 (.O .-.A..... ._L.. D.'b .9 / O 57 J n /c2 g 9, N ICQ St{v 0 $ / Il3 b g .r u, i c., ,,x ec' 7 cocrtacts $ce rt >.;) ._c l e,i g t e d y, X Non. c r r.s 7 ; c:.r;,;c.r: 7 c,.rs o o Acrvai. N o. o r,. e s: /08 ,, n) c i: <1 n sa, ia n sa n s 13 ac ai [~ i,, is :: is e is =2 ait a '3

si :

,; t oc Tus Y A v a J'ir r? Tr >> e <'C C 17 o r V:i. ' // C '.'t in f'd Di r EMO'< f

• n im g y r.',' g r' f, o7o#:f t* 7_ #, l*th y h'p.p nif c, f fr,,.,,. ;,s7,,y_

q /,.., e 7,, ;; g.,,, 3 [* r: m. s-, ~ /*'t*'r* /,.-try.ir=t*: sfy 'e'~..(*.o# 3 4 f g .!),~.,,rrry nff f: ; ~."l,3 ,- /,17l 1804 %3

D A O jl l' l!

,li ss ss ss L

oo oo oo LT 9 MM MM MM EN7 UE9 4 1 1 e 8 98 78 98 2 1 e FM1 6 d rd 9 t H TS po eo G a 1 T ES GE C o M, om oM TAM g~-W \\j L /mf M AS A fM, f f L / a RS R l L 0 L0 E 0 aE 00 00 D 1 58, 00, 79, 54 A 8 O/ .6 5, 5 4, 2 1 1 T L 41 65 1 0 S 91 k I L ', l 1 93 I l E U 2 _N 1 S 1 U U 1 I ' M:K~M F 1 R E Y A T T T Al S Ru f-A T D. Eg S 9 8 S 1 NI NN0 U O Ov L v Nv 9

• /

N K I C A BA OA 1 df}/ gIvT%g 9Aa L l E T a v v D AC l A 0 A C0 A Lf,/ D o A E 0 U L S9k 9kE9k A 0 R O0eE0eaN - a B - a 0e L 2 O8 A A P1 PR1 / I} I L 0 E TX I P N L T P P 1 1 O L ll N E S SE W C N A - / / - _U / Y 1 U1 N A C F ' f y/ I P 0 I 8 M 0RT f /./f !.l/ l l-lI f/ q / 9 / 1 O2 TN C2 ?y 7 CA / - R / j/ / WO LP ? / _ j/ E B F_ L

/

jj f j/ /* J / j / O E L ,/ 7 7- / PD ~~ /- N A / l'1 SR L ST

l_s,

/- A f E DTO _/ j//- 'd g '/ ~ MI / 0 ~ 7r U MET / 7 / <e'. - S G /W / d' /- / 9 / 1 NO R ~ }f / C AT ~ /- o-Q i 4 ~ p'[ 0 C. r FAF A /. O' ? e _. LEL E P. I 000 f 8 E 700 I 7, 0, 0, O 7 o,l - 1 p-8 - j 9 006 733 3 / ~ 4g [

D AO Iil t i,! i l i' ss L oa LT 9 EN7 ili l MM UE9 8 09 2 FM1 il 2 i 9 i W TS i ; H d 0 ES 1 GE C oo M&M M, M, RS R AS A NM $"W FF TAM LL D 00 A 59 1 l A ' t O8 9, 8, 1 T L S 91 / lj 1 P iIllg I T t N L - WT / U G i C 1 T N h U U1 R EI 4 F J NW P A TI @3% 1 A P T 8 S' G RS 9 HW@5 I NE T S 1 ll/ N F1 Big I O.g U OCg j A / E TR9 v g y T D A AP0 A L 9k S A 0 R L L L - a K i l { J Xj/ / I L / 2 O/ A 0e P AA T L 1 P 1 0 E TM L ?j N S SS 1 E U / U U ' I 1 N / F Y B 0 N 8 P G d['/ A 9 / 1 M 0NT / O2 C2 P N j r j-I 7 l/ - / A 7 I R EB P L / j / - P l-WO gN/ J OPD SL / / S*/ f_ NTA J l# dIf AE / y-r S / / / l_ f L T lA'/ 9 J 9 R 7 E DGO 4[/ p - / / / 9 MI -q J / 1 U MRT r S A N p/ 1 / y O T l / g'./( 4 4 $7 C C. l Ji P. N FF LL / E 00 }' + 02 8, 7, 8 88 b 64 l 7 9 22 I 1 1 -ll -}}