ML20054L700
| ML20054L700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000451, 05000450 |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1982 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| To: | Miller W NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054L701 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207080379 | |
| Download: ML20054L700 (4) | |
Text
F Il u x T o x & WI LI,I A >I S 1919 PE N N S Y LVA NI A AV E N U E N.W.
P. O. B o x 19230 por rest waiw sentc7 WA MIIINGTON, D. C. eoO36 ae&T evuoiNo Tt tt p M c N E 202-223-8650 c
, v m o i N i a 2 3 2,,
A Eo caTw caacuNa 27 eor a G4 - 788 - 82 CO 9'9 - 8 2 8 - 9 3 7a 808 ST, PAu t*S BO v L E V A A D P. O. B O s 1989 Fett NO.
~ o o r o u., -,.., 3 5 4 June 30, 1982 604-625-E%Os RECEIVED BY LFMD Mr. William O.
Miller Date.. 7 "2 - D-United States Nuclear Log....r.j $,,,",,",,,,
f Regulatory Commission g1 -(
Washington, DC 20555 Delmarva Power & Light Company, e_ t_ al. :
O r.b. To.
Summit Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (NRC Docket Nos. 50-450, 50-451)
N
Dear Mr. Miller:
This letter responds to your letter of May 7, 1982 to Dale G.
Stoodley, General Counsel of Delmarva Power & Light Company (DP&L), regarding an invoice sent by the NRC to DP&L for work by the Staff to evaluate the Summit reactor appli-cation (NRC Docket Nos. 50-450, 50-451).
In that letter, you suggested that the NRC Staff would reconsider its proposed assessment of some $968,037 in license review costs if DP&L presented " sufficient documentation to demonstrate that it notified the NRC prior to March 23, 1978 of its decision to withdraw its applicat. ion and terminate the NRC proceeding and if all wor k by the NRC... ceased prior to March 23, 1978."
In a subsequent telephone conversation, you indicated that a pr eliminary idea of DP&L's views and supporting doce-ments would be useful, recognizing that one or more meetings and the development of further documentation, such as affida-vits from knowledgeable persons, might later prove useful.
The purpose of this letter is to respond to your sug-gestion, and to outline the facts and circumstances which led DP&L to believe that the test you set is satified.
The letter encloses several documents and refers to others.
Further docu-ments and, as necessary, af f id av it s in support of the contents of this letter can be produced if you believe they would be helpful.
As you know, the Summit application was for twin High h
Temperature Gas Cooled Reactors (HTGRs), then being marketed by the General Atomic Company (GAC).
The reactor contracts between DP&L and GAC were terminated in October 1975 at GAC's 8207080379 820630 PDR ADOCK 05000450
.G PDR H IINTO N & WI LLI A3f H instance.
By that time, DP&L had been issued a Partial Initial Decision and a Limited Work Authorization by the ASLB, based on a complete adj udication of environmental issues and of site-related safety issues.
Hearings on the balance of safety-related issues, necessary to issuatice of a coristructiori permit,
would have commenced on October 28, the day after the reactor contracts were terminated.
As events turned out, the pro-ceedirigs wer e then adjourried sine die.
The effect of the caricellation was to terminate the application and the related proceedings.
Since the twin HTGRs which were the subject of the application were no longer available, the application did not and could not describe a potentially licerisable plarit ; and without a specified reactor the applicatiori was inheretitly incomplete from that time forward under the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR S 50.34(a).
The steps taken by DP&L were consi3 tent with these cir-cumstances.
It voluntarily relinquished its Limited Work Authorization.
It also had a partial appeal from the ASLB's Partial Iriitial Decision, brought by the State of Maryland and thern pending before the Appeal Board, placed in abeyance.
DP&L also commenced an evaluatiori of potential al ternative reactors to replace the HTGR, given the substantial time and effort which had beeri expended to obtain a Partial Initial Decision arid LWA:
DP&L desired to avoid having all of its efforts be wasted if the aborted application could agairi be made viable.
However, this evaluation never led to a determination to seek either a Construction Permit with a new reactor, nor to an Early Site Review.1/
DP&L never thereafter filed any papers with the NRC, nor took any other action to revitalize the appl ica t iori.
Thus there was never a valid application before the Commission following October 1975, more than two years before the NRC's revised regulations were issued.
The history just recounted is summarized in a letter dated October 26, 1978, from Donald F.
Irwin, counsel for DP&L, to the Chairman of the Appeal Board panel then in charge of the dormarit appeal from the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision.
That letter, attached hereto, reports DP&L's prefer-ence for pr e s e r v ir., the nuclear option at the Summit site, but notes that DP&L has settled on neither a vendoi nor an in-se r v ice date.
The letter goes ori to riote the DP&L's belief that the most appropriate course was for it to prepare a 1/
The Early Site Review regulations, see 10 CPR YS 2.101(a-1), 2.600, et seq., were not promulgated until 1977.
. 11 NTox & WII. Lint s separate applicatiori for an Early Site Review, assuming it determitted to proceed toward a teactor license.
Pending any such filing, DP&L voluntarily requested the Appeal Board to dismiss all proceedings before it in the Summit Application as moot --
i.e.,
as pertaining to matters or issues no longer in existence.
Possibly even more sig ni ficant, DP&L voluntarily r equested the Appeal Board to set aside the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision, without prejudice to summary reaffir-mation of portioris of it still considered valid, if and when the Summit application were ever revitalized.
The Appeal Board granted DP&L's request iri all respects (ALAB-516, January 3, 1979).
This document is also enclosed.
Of course, no subse-quent Early Site Review application was ever filed by DP&L.
Iri short, the Summit proceedirig terminated as a matter of fact in October 1975.
DP&L thus believes that the tests set forth in your letter of May 7 and summarized above were met on the facts f acing DP&L f rom October 1975, even though the appli-cation as such was not formally withdrawn until December 1980.
DP&L also believes that the Staff regarded the Summit application after October 1975 in the same f ashion DP&L did.
A January 24, 1977 letter from Sydney Miner (NRC), the Summit Project Manager, to the Delaware State Geologist states that Summit "has been carried on an inactive status since DP&L announced at the October 1975 (ASLB] hearing that they were terminating their arrangements for a (HTGR]".
The letter also refers to " unofficial" information suggesting that DP&L was consider irig putting an LWR on the site, but ackriowledges that the NRC had not been informed officially as to either a reactor type or proposed date for submittal.
An earlier letter, dated March 26, 1976 from Lee V.
Gossick to Senator Joseph R.
- Biden, notes that DP&L appIlsed the NRC Licensing Board " forthrightly" of the cancellation of its reactor at the hearing in October 1975.
These letters are enclosed.
As further ev idence of the Staff's view of the status of Summit, the NRC Constr uction Status Reports (NUREG-0030) for February and Match, 1978 -- bracketing the date (March 23, 1978) when the fee-schedule regulations which underlie the assessment in question took ef fect, both contain an
" Alphabetical Facility Listing".
This listing apparently pur-ports to include not only plants with construction permits but also projects with construction permit applications pending.
Summit is not shown at all on either of these listings, which are also enclosed.
As for the date of termination of Staff work on the project, DP&L is aware only of the following Staff efforts Il r:NTON & WI LLI A3t s after October 1975:
(1) Staff inspection of the site to verify that DP&L had stabilized it; (2) one, and perhaps two meetings in the 1977 period in Bethesda to discuss hypothetical possibi-lities for r ev it a l i za t iot. of the application; and (3) re sporid ing to DP&L's various pleading to wind up the appli-cation formally.
DP&L submitted no technical documents for substaritive Staff review after October 1975, and is aware of no other Staf f wor k ora the project, other than the nominal matters just listed, after that date.
From these facts DP&L irafers that the Staff knew what DP&L kriew:
namely, that the Summit application as it had been filed before the NRC was dead as of October 1975, and that the withdrawal /termitiation papers which were filed by DP&L in December 1980 were only the most techriical recognitiori of a fact which had existed for five years.
DP&L personnel cart corroborate these facts in more detail, based on their personal experience, if necessary.
DP&L will be happy to meet with your arid your staff, or to take other steps which will be productive in resolving this problem.
DP&L believes that the facts and circumstances recited here satisfy the tests suggested in your May 7 letter, and that the NRC should reconsider and withdraw the invoice it sent to DP&L.
Sincerely yours,
?
L, tr,t Donald P.
Irwitt 91/728 cc:
Dale G.
Stoodley, Esq. (DP&L)
Peter G.
Crane, Esq. (NRC)
s.'.*
O Huwrow & WILLI AMS 7o7 East MAIN STREET P. o. Box B535 Ricuwown,VINGIN1A 20212 T c L e e w o w r. (8 04) 78e-8200 Caste Huntwawo W4ensworon, D. C. Orricr.
1730 Ptn=5vLwawia A4,N.W 20036 R o. Box 89230 October 26, 1978
'< " ~o~ < (i c e> '"- r a co me ao. 28759.000002 o..ccro..L o.
c.,.. 8357 Michael C. Farrar, Esquire RECEIVED BY LFMB Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Dato..N" " 'b,
"**='='m U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
Washington, D.C.
20555 Lo g., c: @, *,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,.
In the Matter of Delmarva Power & Light Company (Summit Power Station, Units 1 O rig. To..........,,,
and 2):
Docket Nos. 50-450, 50-451
- ,ctic a c o mpi..........,
Dear Mr. Farrar:
This is in reply to the Appeal Board's letter of August 8, 1978, which requested a status report by Delmarva Power & Light Company relative to its construction permit application for the Summit Power Station.
The background to this report is as follows.
On October 27, 1975, Delmarva Power & Light Company (Delmarva) agreed, at the request of the General Atomic Company (GA),
to a termination of the contracts between them, under which GA had been obligated to provide twin High-Temperature-Gas-Cooled Reactor nuclear steam supply systems of approximately 770 MWe, along with associated nuclear fuel, for Delmarva's proposed Summit Power Station.
This agreement was announced to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on October 28, at the opening of the safety phase of the construction permit I
l
'2 C / /,, ej 7-1
HUNTON 8e WILLI AMS hearings on the Summit Power Station, and to the Appeal Board by letter of October 30, 1975.
The ASLB had earlier issued a Partial Initial Decision, LBP-75-43, 2 NRC 215 (1975) and a supplement thereto, LBP-75-44, 2 NRC 251 (1975), and a Limited Work Authorization had been issued to Delmarva for certain site preparation work.
At the time the contracts between Delmarva and GA were terminated, two matters related to the application were pending before the Appeal Board:
1.
An appeal by the Interested State of Maryland from that portion of the Partial Initial Decision which related to the treatment therein of the entrainment of striped bass eggs and larvae in the proposed Summit intake structure; and 2.
A request, filed originally with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, on behalf of three private organizations not parties to the construction permit proceedings,AI for a stay of the lbmited work authorization pending the outcome of an appeal in the Delaware state courts of certain permits which had been issued under Delaware law.
AAI Delmarva notified the By letter of January 26, 1976 Appeal Board and the ASLB of several decisions and actions relative to the Summit application.
First, Delmarva indicated that it wished to study alternative nuclear and fossil generating capacity options at Summit and elsewhere.
If, upon examination, the preferable choice continued to be a nuclear plant at Summit, Delmarva proposed, and the Staff agreed, that amendment of the outstanding Summit application appeared on the basis of then available information to be the appropriate course.
Delmarva
- South Summit and Territories Civic Association, Coalition
- /
for Tax Reform and Coalition for Nuclear Power Plant Post-ponement.
- /
Irwin to Thomas W. Reilly, Esq. and
-- Letter, Donald P.
Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
p HUNTow 8: WILLI AM S f agreed tc keep the Appeal Board, the ASLB and all parties informed.
Second, Delmarva agreed not to undertake any construction activities at the Summit site pursuant to its Limited Work Authorization other than those necessary to prctect against environmental degradation and to maintain the physical security of the site. /
Third, Delmarva voluntarily undertook to carry out the further monitoring and related work on entrainment issues that had been re-quired as conditions attached to the ASLB's Partial Initial l
Fourth, Delmarva requested the Appeal Board to Decision.
i stay further proceedings relative to Maryland's appeal, pending the outcome of its evaluation of alternatives.
During the winter of 1975-76, Delmarva voluntarily relinquished the various Delaware state permits which had been issued to it in connection with the original Summit The Delaware Department of Power Station application.
Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation had pre-This viously denied a request for a stay of these permits.
request had been filed by the same three groups which were seeking a stay of the Limited Work Authorization pending appeals of the Delaware permits in the Delaware state courts.
In the period since January 1976, Delmarva has evaluated a range of options for baseload generation on its system over the coming ten to fifteen years, and has concluded that preserva-No tion of the nuclear option at the Summit site is desirable.
nuclear steam supply system vendor has yet been chosen, however, nor has a specific date for commencement of operation yet been Delmarva therefore believes that the most decided upon.
- Agreement and Stipulation Regarding Limited Work Authoriza-
- /
tion, dated January 24, 1976.
HUNTON St WILLI A M S appropriate course of action for it to follow is to amend its present construction permit application so as to seek an early partial decision on issues of site suitability pursuant to Subpart F of Part 2 of the Commission's regulations, 10 CFR Delmarva intends to file appropriate amend-55 2.600 et seq.
ments to its Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and Environ-mental Report to update the record which underlies the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's 1975 Partial Initial Decision in all relevant respects, but presently believes that in relatively few areas other than entrainment effects will significant amounts of new information be required.
Delmarva believes that it may thus be possible to avoid unnecessary relitigation of the many matters already resolved by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and not appealed from by any party.
<...
.f.f..~.=.o.r<.s,..
.....-.3f......
ee
.w=.*.
1 1 1 =. =. $ l.
e
...3........*gge.d
..g..
a..
1.....1:n.
Y
\\
u
qm V.
Ny -
N o
m.
o-si!!!!!!!!ssiillill!!sili!!!!I!!!!!!is!!!!!!!!!!!if t
- n it n u.n nl:t
- n: : nl t
in.. nnn.unannusuu n.i.n"n:n~ t.3.nnun ni g
t g
- us:::::::::::nn:nn!!::.................. 72!!!!
s j
g gl,
..............................g..g.;.....g...:r.g.
I 3
..... s u s
.3 s.
- rgrergs:4 reser:- - Ine;;n::: r.gn
- g i
a
- :3 88!!::n:.u :-
- .n
- n n:: :
g i
!!!s !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!
- i l
y 1 : ::.:.:.:.-
21.::.::.:.:.::. : i :.:,:,:r :::::!:.:.
na n
en 111 :s s !!vignif f.i. e i.ss t.pl! l.i.v...
- 1:.-::l,f.l.i,! ss.,n ss.lss s.
ls l.sst thist l
) o i.lsil s i
. 11 li E
l 1
I i
a}
. ::. :s d
-s I ::: '
i
= :
.s:
3 111::
a ser f
..:: :=
e ::::
l4:
. 33 :::
- n
- ::$::I,I.!! j! !! i.'i
- ne :5..ll,gani'n-iles:"l);:!,! Ei;i5
-if!5:s!!"~
-!!! iii---
- ;..:.g n s. n.i' n I :::i'"-
I 1
i.
I:
-:.-,c-
)
s:-
~ : :.1 n -
s:
i:::s:t!!!..!!..::::n l:;:nt.f:f:g[g.f:. :!!!e..
- . n.- ~ ---:n-lig
- 11 ::
n
---i n.
--:--: n 1 21-1
- .sl; s
- :
- n. !! !n:::1
~
~:--
- lti.:::(::.g; g nli:g;.
8:
gy n
n..s.;4I::..-:illH f f f f *t
- ltI: i8-- 14tir-
.2 6 ie f :is, tis:k :
H.::st ;t*f*lft: llfit'st"i f*fII's-
[.
L t..
5-n,;,.:::.. fess ::s.*!:-.
s
.1 n -
I t
- z
.,3.til :8 "s e. ~:. ::f n.-- !. ll,e !. 3 ::- t.... l. !:. '..:
1.
11.:1
--f un
.I*
1 n :..: !:ii -.
!!!iiilllIli!!:!Il!!!!!'$gg~:: ! 11II!!i!!:!!gst:al!!ifi!III$ii!!dIii
-- in maw <iiiiiiiiiiiiiii-:iiiiiiisiiiiiiiiii::iiisiiisii
.N a.
wn2 k
_=x__
W
^
. f.
h
g
-- K a.-
7 1
H 5!!!!ill!!!!!iliii!!!!!!!8ililiii!isi!!!!!!!!!!ii li!!!!!!i; a
..:: n -...u n:
n
.un:
pu:..p n
usins..lilinnassin nansniansnisienn. inn : 3.unn 8
erre un:.s.su.n n.sunus.. n:..
u..nn.u{22n.nz.;;
vvvy j
er.
E g............................................................
...;.g.p..;.....go..~~,.--
- --.;---.;g.o;-
y I user:r:sito.rstp:e. nut.s.t.raggr!.n-un.in"88 nsign.n.:zt. :
e i
-n n
un."2 n.n
- n- : n :n.
1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
n-"
!! ninnirljn:ililll 1,illlitililiti!!!Ill!!!Illsunu:lllill l 111!!!fIl.Il in H :nrnsjurisunarill!!il n
I i,t 1
i:.
t.
t..
p n
E
.g
.....g) 8
%) I 8
.p.
r
.u-B.
I..
esses.
.!.!.!. g ag~!.j!!..#i,.
s..
a ::.
s s.:#
g g!..!',1! a !!!!!* ;
......ninl;J) 5 11.P.,)3!!i.;~S I
~ss
,,~
i a, e s s a g "... =r,l. n g,lll!p;a:n..i.n:'m} r r!!"l.l.n.r g u,:~f,f..n..n..n n..
.i n 1 ~..~. :. n.. :. n.u i n. 2. n..,.
5 g~.::. n.i.:.:I a.
nnu l..n.3.. !!
f
~.
f
- - u n.. ; n' 'n,.... 'n :-s t
.m u
.n{i.il;ts.tt j;.;..o:. ru g;.:g b:n~lHil"a:nh.h,, H.. n.rI...:.:us U.
li:1n,-tjii
- t!!nntr nh:s
---n mili sslis s e." fit.fils t*in.s.i.i.
m.::n.l i
s-etttt*tt*
l ei
' fit's; st'st**fs.u~st L.D
.s 3
E
[
3 si r
en g g-p u..
"I 3 ".n::.i:,'.. ij.t I--.."iiilin!?y.;n.ng....:e :nin.
i!!" r ~f r,, tilfi.u..ll.E !
..i;r!a
-g..
i
~!
'li!--!- n i E :[
8
!. H
==J
.i n.,
e
..il[i:li!!iii;U!Ifi!!HH H
.!!!!:niiiilal....lilliin n e
!H E
~;;ll iiiiiiiiiiii::::en iiitiliiitisisiiiiiiilff @ ~ _. y;.
!!kiHOU!!!ii!!!!!!!ili!!!!!!H iiiillifiIMH!!!ba'?!!
t.a.
-J n n....n C
n..
p:
- n:g...
n egp n iinassa n n n l 3:pn:
.ii n n u s s s n{.. n nin ii n..s r s y
in..is
- .f:sH..zn.n u n.... u n..fl1U n u n n u.u.1 211a..~
gl,....................................................~..-...
g g.,......I.............II.............................
=
a en n::
an u
llg;;
g n"::eni u.n =ert ~!n~:: ten ~8 nnunn.urentenstsarts1r.:. gp:n. s:
8b.
nn 8
n:
.n
- un' "n
nn a
i I
E lI 1111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!Ill!!Ill!!!!ll!!!
. r.,.i n. t e. s u. ; n. s. i. n.. : : -
4:
l.
1:!!:!!!isi; sill;isilllIlyluti.n.,~n..u..te.:..n-~n:.na-n 3
lLl!
rrrs; ue i
,s..n:s
- n:;
- . 11 re f pm.;.
53 5:5 n.
ggg
- :n-fu_ gg g;eg n.g il I !!!-~
g fin!!8u..-
n $a.
- ...it n
- ~ ~ ~n I,. n... ".. u s. u. n.. -. ! !
n
- ~ e.~
n.= i n n
c
...........n.
. ~. n...
s
... n - s,...n.,!!!!)i } n,... ~I..... U !'.f}iiiijl.-.:!n i n
-lJ.f.E'iie.l.!!!.!.!~3 3.
n81!nn I!!I!!I l i: l II,ggn..ggun... l..n.n. inn::...
n-
! u..n ""n.
s.n:, i n
.p.
.~. 11:.
- s s - ~-. ~g g ~I.. I m..n. H u
.i" E iliii H,g..... ;n.. u.. li. :.:.u '
i n.
u s
n.
gn l~..
s
~
I.!!i!!!I!!rn:
-UPI.!I rr t -
! --. u s...
.. ; ~ --ils--
..ij...
...i..n i!!!!!!i...{
5 E...... i. i. "i i. !!.!.!. n : n.... 5.:. ~. :
- 3 n
- ns: ::.
"~'
gggj..~ f! g:,
~ ansa.I)n....n.t 2,.:::s.r....s.; n.~61{
~.~nssul...!
s....
g. st
. ~.
a6.r
- s
.ssssss:n n.
ssas un w iiii:n:iiiiin:niiisuiiis unn:iiiiiii:iii :
g~*,
a -
r
......'?
s vs.
..ss...
It!!iii!!!il..ii!!iiiii!!!Hisi!!!ii!!!!H 5
"35.tI.33 "53 "33 "3333 "3 "33 "3333 "3333.I I.I"8 5"5 5.tI.33 "59 3
I
- n. Ifn::..n.s...:!. uni:i:!n.ii:!..
5 II 1.....................
I-n : ::
I n ggergr.en. 31.ger..:rren:nnure ssergt.
-t f
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Ill!
l[
i' 13:
li!!!I
- lillI:!siit!!!*!!2E:tt!!il.!!!:ll!!!nt lit!Illi!!!!uldilli t!I
..II 3,."H li,IIIII !! Hu 5 i152l.}.~
"!!!!g;y!!ys:...,,. u; 8 !l!
~
n..
==
u
.u..n.u..n.. u.. "} Il.n!*l):y H
1111:
I j::g
--ig..!l;.4:...flllf.,=-n:~n
......: ~ n ; sj... 9 ten..:j!!::!-
t!!-- - ~
[
Il u.... :-(::nn l. :.4 n
I MI -IIIii!
a.-.4.s..o.,
..n s ss.
- l as.. n..s:5
..~.I
.n jspg ggi:.spussagga,ggs;;,IIIIIIIIi30333iil.
j
.ss
. g.
8.,.
"lI:i""j ~i:
i gy
- pi
>=-
1 (M
- assi
- nn
..u--
- gyggy i
-n
... u
~-."ss...
- it.:g..s e.n..t. : :1 a.s...
}
g
- ii'? y" ! l
- :;".f gt:linass: ant:n"in s,
..88!
... I..
ii :iln!i.**:-st h
II.
sni f "l n g g 3.p :. s
- ~ss!
p l...
renn 1:nn
-.3
.n. n..s.e.r : : : e.n.. r.c.e : v e... "....n. t.u..s: n..
-p 4
(si A
g !!HlillIIli!!!!!iliiill:!!!!ii!!!!!!!i!!I iiiii!!!!!
si
-a 4
- t. i "i n"i n,
. ns n..:
...g g
n ins p:ns.i.n.gg...n 4. g..n sun.ununns nni a
o_
s b
- f u n!!!~..~..n :H ~ s u r n :n.s...~.I...:i.m-... n :i.i 5
.a j
g y,,,
C
=
I llE-g ass 2:
si
- snues s*
N e.g g ;; 8::nig n r r r rt:; s t ni n p t: n : e n t 8 :"n !!.;.;.t.t.;.n:::::: n e
i 4
n-unn.n:n:.n :"~ -
-:nn: n
[g 11 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- -':etl:::~:"::i
- 11111!! lilui!'l'l[ tl :!!' '!"ll"l!!!.'!!'~!!ilil"it!!"!H' a
ll g.i11,i.r:::r.:q.:::d':I e
r.e.s
.. 8 i~
t
!!i i
i ilit n
u
..ss
- 2::::
))
I n..
n n
~~u l g g:.n:le::..e t. e n I., -
.:::gg;l..
- n..
- s
.. I'l!.sa et ggn 2:
- - ~
l
..ll :u:-l.
l
'i r
I.
.. n :n.Illl"- i n...e" m
. u n un u
,.3
- - tru Il u~n":n i
t u n u "=.u.... u. u.. u ! 5 na u,,
,1..
l 1fjg.. ign...nsgn u a..$$n.......
- "*jg
- es t ilgg"ill!!ist:;;n ;..n"la u
- n llIuu:n...!} ~.s u.n..
- s.e ns..
i un n
-" n
- nsu~.n r
' "!~!n.
Hi"s ens ::"U s..
i;.1u. ::l.l.11!:'... !
t r":
n:
- r
- ~--
. gig::lt..
--!!ll: s t a n,
- ~~
P U !!!!;P r-:!!! n u n:' P Pt: dFs:i cI unu uss
-,. n :: ll33 333P" Ul iiiiiis!"t i
1 in....
--!!---.. --~...
n:{I[{:s.....!.1.:!!!!.1 n i
s g *.
n ' u::n".
n. "..i s t- ~ t s""-e n 8,"l-is: a: f f.....
=
E IIllillin ggn...s:g H--
1 s
u~
~nn n tit:silni. ~:.
!o ii r nntililiiiill!!"!!!!!!!!!!!!n!als..
ns rr......si!!!!!!!!ggigigpinsin te rug
!:In
- i. =w..... n. :w.u: u u w....... w v.......... y:......... w,1
- nun.nunu.nnun.u..nnn.n: 7 n.nn n
,