ML20040E268

Statement of a Colasanto Speaking for Joint Labor/Mgt Board of Const Industry Re Economic Impact of Facility Shutdown

ML20040E268
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	01/21/1982
From:	Colasanto A BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
To:
References
NUDOCS 8202040100
Download: ML20040E268 (6)

Text

. .. .

-er.----

Statement by Arthur Colasanto, President, Rt@i.ldih% add :Cpnstruction Trades Council AFL-CIO. Speaking for the Joint Labor / Management Board of the construction industry which represents 17 building trade unions as well as the Building Trades Employers Associatiori &

e and the Builders Institute. 'UY D

, M

..j

,, . ,N.b.dia

'4 p tj %,;'O,p 'I'$Q

'\

..a *M

. e.g.sy,g

.tpa 11

\Y:n rQQ* w%

s/f w-

~

(

s o .. ,.t u.,..,y sp r .re 5 0 .g g (, $ p I

b5o3 S

l

//

8202040100 820120 PDR ADOCK 05000247 G PDR

Any discussion of the energy needs of our .

, area mu.st include the economic impact of ,

i

\

shutting down Indian Point II and III. The impact of not  ;

2 -

having Indian Pointfin service was clearly felt in our pocket-books when consumers were forced to pay additional fuel ad-  ;

\

justment charges when the plant was out of service many of between i October 1980 and May 1981. It was ironic thatAthose seeking ,

to have the plant shut down permanently were tho ones screaming the , loudest about the increased fuel adjustment charges because  !

I the plant w;gt out of service. .

(gw3 M \

Neither I, nor any of my colleagues in the L= u ' _

are experts in nuclear plant safety. It is wiser and more prudent to leave such important matters as risk assessment in the hands of the experts. However, we are i

business men and women who represent labor and who are con-cerned with unemployment, with a slow-down in construction, with the rise in crime, and with people and businesses perhaps , l contemplating leaving the area.

In October 1973 when the Arab oil embargo placed a burden on our nation which will be felt forever, our efforts were directed towards supporting alternative sources of power --

coal, nuclear and gas. W'e continue to support Con Edison's plan to generate electricity with coal, we support research and development programs, and we support continued use of nuclear power to generate electricity. It is unconscionable for us not to continue to support programs and technologies which would reduce our dependence on foreign, expensive oil --

l

l not increase our dangerous reliance. It is morally, politically l

and especially economically ridiculous for us to put ourselves ~

atthemercyofma[oroil-producingcountriesintheMid-East who have forced high prices and threatened the survival of l

small businesses in our country and specifically our area.

Because of the incident at Indian Point in 1980, my electric bills increased substantially, as did those of all Westchester and New York City utility customers. Without the Indian Point plants, the temporary increase we felt then would become permanent. These higher costs would result in adding further to the burden for those of us who already pay the highest electricity rates in the nation.

Let us not forget the long gasoline lines. 'Let us not forget that what,we are trying to do is strengthen our economic and our social structures, not weaken them. Nuclear power is essential, as is coal power and all other sources of -

energy. Ist us not push ourselves backwards. You can achieve the same results by mandating proper safety measures with proper management and oversight to maintain the integrity of the Indian Point plants. We urge you to carefully weigh all the factors.

Keep the plants operating.

l 4

1 - - - - - - - - -- __

W'.- . '.).h!.$'- f ,: %.. [',, '. 'h, ;[i

• . .. ". , .. . e '. ,[, . ,

(.

deon .oac <c[ro, un,c .pape.i.;.y

.;:.:. : '.: . qc:.. ; ,. _. c.fi.' Wh. W:.f: K , * ..<

. w '

, d. .mrr s m. ;.s . ... .E. .

t-

1. d ,,t.,

,.% ,pc . " . . c '.5.'.Qh*p,

%'et,y!hf q ..Q?

7i

%,tW:

.,y;Y;.k;.'.::L G,'.y@:j' -

%. yp.:.n.p.? . .-

fi.,. .n.

...;). .."..  ;%. . u:

47' j.hWA,.,d.  :

,%.,csti.);

..: s.;;:r' ,:L 6 . .*.

c. L ;  ::!1:

'  ; ,y .*

@s.

. @. , ,;_w,p:...;'."'

.N+Q

. g g..

g'.m:

.r.

c p :.g. 3 ,

/.;.R,:.y}y; c

q;. y, , ...

}1:

. . .y

. -c . . s, ." ... ? . . 'n..L,,,

W; ,.. ;p .d.:, ~;.

". 3 i ..(

.'??v;9 q,. ;..

?',/.h.

 ?.

.:e

. m

.4 3 3.:

g:4.yW...

c. dk) %p: e.

M.4Gyf4..

. . .w E,.

• Y *\) ' . in;...;.

' ' . -> i. &e ' - m. '

n;;t u ~ i

' ;.:y;7,m . ,. PETITION . :..)y;.ir..OF  :. UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS.,.%19;Q' M-d i,4 ;,Q,d;',Q,V. 'y0Wi-f.7

~~ '

5N % "'. ' i. '

I;,. g,j., /g. .,

[k '. M. .. 2 I '/.4pllJ p , a. TO SHUT DOWN INDIAN POINT :f.syg.;i ,

h?&r.)&.:p:'<;.h@h,h@'~.UI

< ;. d's. a -

hW: k,.f; T.In

n.&'w& l.~ :?. P .. s

.an

m. . . - . .

. :'!.W M & M e.? %N%.,tfq:g. UWM 3.h'

.[':.f.f.;$:%

G,%%$d.V{.R 5 r'

(% c' T!. . t (UCS) petitioned the ' Nuclear' : W8/ 'i

~

)h/d;!N. h. 9 he ' Union of Concerned R Sci ~entistsRegulat'ory Commissio'n .

?,tof> fy..t ;'.

th3M.Sh[MPoint .! Unit 3 unti'l Unit 'the' 2 and the Powed'.

suitability of the sit' Authority of 'the ' State t of New fR.".J ? r.Jfeasibility of evacuation. from' the , vicinitiy 'de'termined p,i.d.

b/h 4, ... .

v%..,W..

sp  :. 'l.'the units re trofitted .

'with devices ..

r. equired ',o,.n,'.:..n.ew u

.jf..y12,.

/:".t .n.>.

?hh'hh : ,h.'Ui.&N .< lants~the'n .i&,b??.under &,!Ji&.k.f$. cons'truction..'?' Jm.v. 'lW W -~., q?'.h.4,.abij:$.Y. t. ja.A.. m($$;h:I.Nh,k . N

-C'E.'.,'.hdy,:fC o'n Edison' and the Power Authority vigorously ' opposed l,jhis ylyr,g.r.d,!h.. ,

! 2.h Ja?' :,fTeffort, both on ~ grounds that the, comprehensive'. safety program Mg"4 ~

g'?

i.......

c.0fa'.E..?l'..'lf of the NRC, '.-a.'nd .th. e .util'ities' . own saf e...ty e f forts ,". pro.v..ide~?4.i';E .

m ,M a dequate protection .a. n d because' of .the severe negative effect ' :.9.g

yn 54.;;.-l cP.,

R. '..)[ ~ '.such a move would h' ave' on consumers of , electricity !in 'New York M,'y M,g.sl"I.. " LCity and Westchesterf County. J. Operation of the' . Indian] Poi ~tnti'.%.h .f.;:

R U a.',:.?.Y,..

3 5.;

l:. , ' " . ' . . .

and unreliable units supplies 'substantially of foreign oil,-fand saves reduces c6nsumers,1.'r. this area' .

%';liO." in New' York LCity and Westchester County more than }$600 million M.' ,,i} '. .

1 price s . ' .. . ' ' ~. g j,';

n f, g ;l.lr f,.;' g .-

[

• '8.

,e...~. ,,'.,. .") i ;.Y"",#

" l*e

f. * . .

. / s.

, f. I ,

.v

.,,.yfjl.-);p,;g.

~,'"

..g.....

.a y . cgu 54;. e..1.,.1 y:,. y.

t.- T ,%, 1,. 'f y2.,.. y. g. GP,(.

.-..,u

.. .n .

,~ .

% , R..: ,..(.: v. J.y....ui:. . . n: > c . .!M . s.. .. ,. . o .,.v.a,.;.h

. 3l; .

..6. -l., O.~ ,?.,.

,y . .wJ :.v:...v

. , . . . .. : Q  ;+e.}'.i

.4.:/:

p >. ,. : s .

. , @>.n

u. .

r., .. .. .~. s ;

. .z, .

r y . ?, ,

.: . .,,%'::. .m.. .'.(, .s .t.iM.'M...

..-d1 ants are Safe and Env'ironmenta1ly'

( e. . . .c

.. s !W .

g J.x, .

i.i.O.,,q:*;?m..7. q In addition '. ' .to being the most economical ; power. plants . ser

-l

./ U.

County, the IndianiPointJunits N :g' h t

$ JQ .U ' are the most . environmentally clean electric .genesatiing -

f ' aciliEj.,.g

c. ,

.l.i;. ylr Q' ties'in 'n"..?;,New 1" T ' ./, 1 > nuclear. facilities have been operated safely at Indian Point

. ,the area, producing Yorkno',harmful City emissions'. l and Westc . Furthermore,Uys- es er 'Y/. '

1: -f. Safety will continue to be the prithe?.M, c G'gY.' E:# s.

? v  !:f,9; d ~

for ne'arly

.3[ consideration in the operation of these 19 yea'rs.- plants. ). 'f . 9.: ' ,

f( l7[J .

. W. n.'.R.c O L. ~

'R -

N- :. . n,:'~. . ;f,yg.<fG'jQ;H,nM'f

- r 1@n?.. s

, . ' s].. "...:. . : 2 Af ter reviewing the UCS petition' for more than four . mon...ths

. e. ....

:> o'  :

V ' . ' "/.

. .J.s,ithe staff of the NRC decided that it was without merit / and recommended Yf[l- %[~::however, the Commission overruled the staf f decision .and ..',,g.,l.7.

that the petition not be pursued.- ~ On .May 30, .',19 80, ' [$'.

l't.....Jf./ announced its intention to designate an' Atomic Safety and~ T .J .

.r-toconducthearingsonsafety. issues.$. n*

.;.M,..V ' -

r y,w~. .a. x.u l+.: . ~ . , .,

? Y  ;. .

Licensing Board (ASLB)Q

p-

.

'. relating s n.  ;;  :.~;. ..

to ,

.a In. c dian . 2.n I

P

.  : , . .v:f.  : >  ::.. -

. .r. . . . . r  : ..? ~. .. e v, ;;n  % ;:q; n>::!yu.4.:;. ~ :w. . ,: : p...,e  :.:.v,;

.;!.W.y...n:

. T,.;.  ;.e.:.a; ,:..;; u. ....;..,. ,:, ,.. . ::;.4:..

2.

,.'W .:.._;m.. .;;:?.::.Q. ..  ?. -

. :,:.,?y

. . .. t ..,r;: ...%. u . ..m ;.;i .:: .. . . .. , .

o. .: .

, .,g y. . .,.

n. 2 ., w, n ;- +

. tat, .; w. ,

. .a ;;; . .

.* ,1

~. . ,.

i 4

f 90Mhll ,

t

l l

.... . ..s.,

.,.. , /, , ,:,s.;,. . , ;' .,7 ..1. .

w .".. .s .

.x  : ~, . .

~.L' (,. "'l5 Q :.N '.U' )

p.g{e, k. ,, , -

. . .. .K .,,, ~ j _ ; ,  % .i. .% 'o ' ' - 4 n

'Th?.S..'yp..[/{#-

I.;:'[(,. f .;.,n f,' p.1..' ?.* .. *p.,.)' *s.

Q.N.

! .'L? , p ; '"

.. . ,t, . . -

l M/. . . M;y* [v.Q,i*,. , - , . , , . .., . .,

,' ../,'.- . . 1;* ; *.-*3. e. f.f Q,;.,;? .' , . .

,;glyw. .. .3..c .

r .,,

.)o 1,%. q* ',.. ..

c.-

,:g.. . ., . .1,. '7 ** . * *.?

• *i: . .m- , ., [. :Q '10 .4. 2. . 3 s . .. . . .*

p < *, ;. f$.* t ,.f.f.;;

0','

s:. .v. . r . . .. . . . . .'- (<

se

. .' .:. ..'g q'v ,- .

.h,* .. .s .

.h.

r *. q .v ....r -.

,p,;.,

- .. .. . t.

%,....,..,... ' ,; . ... . m... . ~ .. .t'. ~ .- ..

.n'.::n. .s The Commission also ' began an;.. inquiry into the risks of.the 7;- C.~.2.','.

.dvi cc..;.

i'i S@l ,.+;.W,; ',FIndian Point units compared to other nuclear units' in .J'bd the i

(. .W .* i:'* Tj'.Mk hiN."..M~.5.countrytodeterminewhethertheIndianPointunits'sh

. permitted,to operate;during-the proceedings, a' move' ' W' opposed .  ! C; by

' v' ' 'MN J & ..;n. T "' ' ?' .. Y D.l'[ -[/M.I[

kl.Mk.PhlN.),the ;o..

• UCSQ.M.WM ' +' -D. .Y.h ^ *b' e' M .'b ^ @,

Ti..T;d.c.P.5W A special that.while the NRC Indian Point. ' task force quiry re- ,:

M.#f. a

1. '!Ck,$

% .C.h .- W[1 b. ported on . June ' 1.2,. ?l98 0,2 located i n relatively populous are .

W ".;:'; e plan.ts cM ?~

Wim. 0.. .L ,c",.. .r.%,b. features ....Y#not found ~in many' 'other a e. .

u .G.jw ..s

.v h $ .. l Point units',ciU ab.out .th'e ;same .as. ati a typical site.'(';.The taiskf , M3%p

%w@@k.f($@4 Q.dD force alsoifou'nd'that'the' risk'to'in'dividuals living3in"the.T2 -

Q a

}l'd'JV.[3 M,~ vicinity of;. Indian Point was a's much

~ '

NU 1!'c. I d. .at'a typical'n.u' clear plan.t. X..O.n the basis o~f this report, the. S i.L.,W'h.f. .

%l .- .6

. : .;, . .. ..'NRC decided on continuous o.peration of the ' Indian Point plants . '#.4

~ .

l . .,, p . . . .

4..,-

c3 and Licensin M8 7. f 'l .-wh'ile .the :Atiomic .Sa fety 'h:-dM,.W

[.W. 7 'llP..

W.m 4o. c.; .. .; ?. e iM

.u.nh A

. m . + .u Z9 % '

u

f. "@.?G3 N;W50lWMNNh

! i.i

&,  ?.1 < ' :.p?. w . 1:.x

. i,c?..tVn n.; d uc tel. L-4%..a, IMd.N'* 6.  :'::

m .::.],1 q- - c ::; . * . < . . .

rr % ;. y. s .. t .

Q u. m.,g.. y*.;es~t wtr y.; &v : y py.

r

. Q:. .s,Y.-.

=2: . :'

'.s 'A. x;:%)s.

n ; %;f,y Yp

%. hg- H.w *

' ".v

' th ..L.

 : ' .m' . W nd.

n.<

. r .u A, c

'  :. M'.'.? &;r.'%., .dfrfM;::.;;,

• ~  ?.;.*'3.* *; .' T: *

.H c+*.:\- . .

.. ~. s - h h;;., D 4p.,6';g . .

i 7'N J. m YO.Ml6:Th -

l ff 8 'u ;% y , , ' , ., ' ,.,:y .)',, jlf.{.D. Topics . , to,e gBe a Investigated

. , ,5;"..'. ,g .

f '2 *.ph. ,*[2{h:%$ gf the NRC' announced the specific topics to N.*q.; g.i['

h!T.f.,'l{. mon' January 8, 1981, .

Er. 8," .n?F -be' investigated in the ASLB hearings. These include the risks'7. W.f.%

by serious accidents'at the Indian Point units, ' including .$T EEll0

.P l '. IM. r'.:' .i p o s e d. accidents!more severe than'those for which the units'were  ;.f.. . ,Qff' 3, r.,..? ' : ; 1 designed; 'the current's.tatus .of and prospects for f uture -im ' .. St. '

f)$E P.Y...L 7

.Nlfhow provement ;of emergency risks posed by the operation of these units compare.with planning in the vicinity of Indian Point; @:.

i" .g;0 :i.'.the risks posed by other . nuclear plants; and the energy, environ .t::.

l :e,, . y , 9@I..

,,J..M;Pmental, f.T.y?);:.k .N; u ni.-tsa. . . M.".S.s;p.S.'.".0.d.m  ; economic and' . O b, *b%r other consequences 1%.%:.R of

, l ?d:', shutting' do Y.p y v,. -

.,'i',y n.t,

• <Qtp;.g ".

.:- .. . :c;~ : - -

. . . . :.~. < h . ;.-'. . . q. .: . Q,, . .

-s.......,...

jWn,9 .r . . . %.. .;

.,'f/,J9..'.t,: .

@$.3.1.W:ffr;/.; shortly, andafter. the hearings --report which its'are to i

'only -- would commence soon The ASLB is to In connection with ' . . p#.$

gng::.W [,$ recommendations to the NRC by January 1982.

Q.f:.m,f K ,7?.the UCS petition against Indian Point, the NRC has also directed % E

!.that'an industry-wide proceeding be conducted on appropriate ~ 4 ('?Z

' y/J.n ? '

2

% .'k j *O populated northeast..* At that point,..l, the safety NRC could standards accept,'re for nuclea W Epc .c q l.: ),... .' ' ',j 0; ject or modify the ' hearing board's recommendations, or could f.-?.g;..

S. n , d even direct a further " adjudicatory" hearing on the* 1.5.. future.g.7 .4 7' . operation of the Indian Point 2 and 3 units. -

. ..' .ilj J.c.. - . -

t.;~, .

-  ;. p . _. . g _ . . .. .

9-. . . ; .: . 4, . . . .#. . . .

'..s.

, . s. . , , . w ~L. . _

m. . .n . ' . . .,-

.x. - -

.s.' .

h. .

,;;; * . F% f J . ' ;y". d o' /. '.. 't" .si., ',q%es ..

Support from Scientists and Engineers '. ,M. .

r T. v.:.... W.N...is : f'.U 'I '

N..

.>,.' ; T {$.. ; . ,

..; .v....

m. .

. 9. . .

y  ;

M ' ' m ;.IThe Union'of Concerned Scientists', formed in 1971 for the express' T

~

' purpose of opposing nuclear power, has branded all nuclear power p1ntihn an tuinnfn. In shnep rijnnyreement With the UCS l '1 W i t' H E i n t't l

==

........v,..

{ <.-a s: e.

. . .3. ..

• s. .-.. .

u .

.m. s. . . . . . . ,: .. .

.a.

, w;; ., y -i 4:lw. . .'. ~!.s :" . .

> ?>;;'4 Q - .

7; . %: .

. i :.

.s . . ,.'.;' 4.:c'. .n :,

.. . . - , i. .

. . .n.: u..\.

n .. ; . , . . ...::g.n:,, . ,.; n::

e..

w .q. ; ,

.. t

. , . , .. ,.. s %v .. .~ s

. g ..%, .. . . . . . . .,a.

. : mt ....t...,

.  :- ~ - .

Con; .,n q;@.y. .;..$:

v i and Engineers for Secure ' Energy (SE-2), which supports LU-$.'.;;j  :.f.tV,~b. / { Edison's and PASNY's position on. operation of Indian Point.M.,q@ ,

H . rThis group, organized in 1976 by more than 100 faculty members .d .

T.!:".y.:.y:f"'.of d.W f. M.14-laureates American colleges' and universities -- i'ncluding seven' Nobel .'liy.}s;'

!.MP?.e. - concluded af ter analyzing the 'UCS petition 'that the W S,'" petition has no merit and should be denied. . . ." CThe group also".j, ,

'd.M.k,:.

F.:7s?.Ni.I..'.'; . commented "in a letter to.i he NRC that operation of .th t 7.h..'w.. ' M lm,.

.. .T

.TN'O,,W.M . 2. :.' Point d oil ' units and"will' reduce reduce the of costi

~

electricity .lthe use.d country's

~

by the' dependence City of New'.sbyJ. on foreig P ? ?,? .

At the,'same time SE-2 wishes .to ' express confidence,1.;;;MYi

~

i J'

f WD based on the ' expertise 'o[lf its members and the observed safety '.;'d.d!??

[',' %'7

r. '

record of the" York.

M 'd4. nuclear power option, Ethat' n'6 clear p'ower ' plants ':.M

~

~

b.M. . . . can opera te !s af ely. ev..e..n.,',a.. t. ' sit. ies .like.,J t i p.'. .. i. ."g.

~

.:4.'I.

W. e.a..,.., ...r. .. .

.- .,, . .. -aw y ., t , ..

l.kf'*,

. -f ;$h. .

c.

l:f N. .*o :h. ~~.

h. Y.f;d($. : f.

. .. : r

.\..

- c

, .. ' . - * .u ; . . . .

q. ers for}' Secures., .y En,ergy q.y.s. .:p y,yJ,gg ,4, *.

[l.Q ' 3.w,:>.,_.j.y.;:Q, dison. and the Scientists and, Engine..:,v.

l;?? i :.W:OF d: . Con ' E do not stand aloneTin regarding the  ; Indian . Point funits'.'as.'la .'Q'M: .

M 'M.?. W.cmeans to preserve our area'sf economy'.' 4'.In [a'Novemberl.7,M19

]., ,9';;.

? 'Nreport followingan extensive study, th U 80,7.V!.?!

• 7;[

5. > ""' .R > Accounting Of fice ' concluded that if the~ ' Indian Point ' units 'were .?4 %

J.'s ..".' N,N.to close, it' could .Q::: .. . . 'ce, r.%.

cost area rate payers $18 billionQTj. 'over'JEh s fi[ . .; . AG .:next .

', '15:?years. -Q:ql9'X ':?: 7:: - ~;'? 2:n. '

. W?n ~;47'X .gp&l;

"':N )p ,:..Ey@G&Qn: ';O @

c.:..

h '. ;}.~.:' .J' ".': } -[~ . . In addition,"in' a review of ~

Con Edison's ' Energy Strategy' for';Mi: 45

c. 3.3 r. f the 1980s, M the Energy Research . Center of Columbia ~ University.'l?.-ffi.%.

d. ' .'9. ',e v . . . and the Energy Laboratory of .the Massachusetts Institute of . . MW3.93,j.

Technology endorsed continued operation of the units at e .q M e t i

. . !y.; . .e Indian Point.. "Said the' Columbia group

<"These plants have ',V.7,.3,@ :

N T.y.;h -

T 3- ; . y the lowest generation c.ost of a'ny plants'on the system,'and. ;.,?.y..".

7 ,using them reduces the service area's dependence on'. oil.'-f *

/6:.  :....Further, by.a. voiding the use of fossil fuels, these plants .' Jx ...' 1

.T. protect air quality." - And, in the words of the'MIT reviewers:'g ,

'J.

L ~fc.l .y'Mru

.c .n y, i ...

7.fS. ," . . . the continuation 'of electrical power

.WV. . .

, 4,. ,.if.,.,~,, .

."c,<

m : associated

. fission is important with oil-toand minimize coal-fired the costs plants .'.and. andpol.lution,2.M.:..:s

~

to reduce .

m..

,t.w'*:

'. 6- c

. vulnerabili,ty ~to .u. r eductions . in' oil supply." .x< . / D1 '. >e. [? .a.5 '.;-N~

- y.y.v.;d.* %. r:.v ... ';i. ,y, "..,yj '

~-

^c' . .' N. ..a,'.

. . , . . . .. .m '

J - y,~

.;..; .. .. cQ,..i,.... ;p. X. ,, %. . ..:;.v, 3 -. ; . . 3Y; .....,k.

n.

y . .. . . e.,m

.<:u., '.! . e..

. >;s.

. . -,; " .3. , ::; .

, - :rf 9 :

y.

e . .: ., e.:n.; ,,e.

,.y .

. .s. .+,

.;i. . >

.n.

~ . . .

- i .. w; - ,

.s

.;.. . ; a- v -: -

. .. . ,  ; - . p'r T.'-

.A'u*: .:,, . y. .

}..b.. Q.{f..Q; 'f. ? w. .. '

. W'.' . ;lQ; c. 6 ~<-; ., '

4. ..& . . *% . ,'.: f..1, ' .; . . .":i..., ..~.':WS);p

'm g .gs

. . .. '. . . _ . . ' * ..i. ,

..... * .q-:

s

• , r% . . . , . .

. . g.

3.'21.%.u.

...nf.;.,:;y;,..'..

.~ '

i.T

. ..y. .

"' , c.: '..

. .. .,.- p,. , ;,' .e= '. ?Q, r. ,.

.- ~

1. u . * . .a - . . .

G '.

.c , June 1981 , . '

• l .b.... . ... .. , ..,....un:  ;% ; e. .'.,:. r.~ . ?s v;.E, . ugLVa. :. -

.  : ?:

~~....y:.

s -

.- 1..

. . . w. .

[r., -  ? -

w *. v ..._. i. .v.

n... . .

,7 .

., i ,f

. .

• w

.cI .or . .~..

a  ;.

.,-. 9, .

. . . . . . . 3.;

. . . n.. . .. .y.e,

. . ,.:. . . .. . . . i. ..

y, .i*'..' ,~ .s...

y'\s... ..L . 'O. ':, t .t': a: ..' % ,y.' T;. > ... >. .d;;'>. a .....e.- . ..: }. f.f , - '/.? 3* ' p.', t i1..<

,, ? ., ..

.,.; .f. .a y .. "., ., .Ys;f.G . -

. ;; 4 rp < .

e

....+a....,'...,...,.'y..','.-

.. . .: u s .t. ..

. .'J.3, ;. e . m . g:::y.

• ~:  : *. . ..

~.r,..

.:, .;. , ~

,. . . . y ~.' t.ry;;;

. . ... ,..;3: . ,

. . . .' . .e,,.

o .

..i ...: .

~*',.c.... , ....

< : : .... . ,. .:,.. .. Q.3.,..  :, . .s. c,' ; ~.;., . .  : .. .

. y,

~ . - . '

..e n. ; . ,;; ,;. -

, n; . . ..- . . .. '. .. z,.g... .; .;, ....

.n. . c

. . : :.~.q[* :n.,r:t c ...,

..- ' ' . .,..:..p' .

• v ,.;,.  : a;

. ,.. :: y . . .

( - s..(; . ,-

. ~ .

s

• ~ . , . .- ,

s ,

' W' '* * , .

.,f- ', .. . ,

I 1

i ,

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