ML20094M528
Text
y s-
_a_
-..~
UNITE) STATES
.I j
j a na.%
NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION f.
ff
[.\\
RsGION ll!
S j
_ [
<r 79e moossysLT moAo j
e otsu stuv a.ittinois sois7 j
t,......*'f
.9 n
'l MAR 2 0 G84 4
1 4
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Region III Files FROM:
R.' F. Warnick, Director, Office of Special Cases
SUBJECT:
MEETING WITH DALE BRIDENBAUGH On March 14, 1984, Dale Bridenbaugh of MHB Technical Associates was in Region III to obtain information regarding Midland and Zimmer.
Mr. Bridenbaugh is working for the Ohio Office of Consumer's Counsel on conversion of Zineser to
~
a coal plant and for the Michigan Attorney General on a Midland rate case.
I spent an hour to an hour and a half talking to Mr. Bridenbaugh about both Midland and Zimmer. Most'of the time was spent discussing the Midland plant history since the formation of the Region III Office of Special Cases.
We discussed the formation of the Office of Special Cases, the diesel generator building inspection, the construction completion program, the construction implementation overview by Stone and Webster, the remedial soils work, control of soils work by the work authorization procedure, stop work orders, and current job status. There was no discussion of cost or schedule.
The few questions about Zisuner were mainly historical and touched on the management audit by Torrey Pines Technology and licensee actions required by the NRC.
Mr. Bridenbaugh asked about a 50.55(e) report from Marble Hill having to do with Sargent & Lundy and structural steel deficiencies.
I was not familiar with the report.
Steve Lewis, Regional Counsel, participated in part of the discussion.
$f R. F. Warnick, Director Office of Special Cases cc: J. G. Keppler J. J. Harrison b
f*
8408150666 040718 s
=1__
7 ___.
~
1 L.......,i,...c..
1-i.
i,,
FD'.Gi C0iilp3iiy 3'l " : ',w 3-e....e.. m v.,,, v e.;.- 2...... ;,o.o n. m n:ci. csi n tes t sco 1
[
pginCIPAL STAFF _
.'a n., a r :.(, eS4 gJ2s I /__
34,.
y '.i
\\./ -
L K~jKF:)RA
/
f
/
Honorible Frank J. Kelley Attorney Ge.neral DAO
- i. ?.
Lansing, MI M913 *
$~GA d
fd' State of Michigan p i le.Lj yNF
Dear Mr. Kelley:
This will i.cknosledge receipt of your letter of January 19, 1984.
Your suggested solution to our Midland problem is not, in my opinion, the tolution for our customers and is therefore unacceptable.
Icast cost Further, I <- nat ready to sacri fice our stockholders, o
Rate sche:'ules are kind of tricky things subject to many Interpretations and comparisc.ns.
To show that our. rates are relatively high you like comparisons using industrial, commercial or larger-than-average-use residential custo crs.
I like our average-use residential customer with three or n. ore in the f amily. That comparison shows that we are one of the low-cost producers with 87% of all residential customers in the
^
tJnited States having higher bills than those served by ConsuWers Power
- Company, in both cases, however, the results are really due to rate manipulation.
A more telling measure is the average rate paid by all classes of customers.
For calendar year 1983, average rates in some representative upper mid-est cities were:
o c/kVh t
Chicago, Illinois 7.56 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 6.08 i
Toledo, Ohio 6.89 I.
Cleveland, Ohio 7.08 f
Detroit, Michigan 6.52 Consumers Power Company's comparable rate is 5.79c/kVh.
i i
g s
E I
i 9
- h a
t U
u
~ ~ ~ ~. - _ _. _. _ _ _..
2" h;
9.
Fr
c)
J :.. - **
~*
l-q.
Pi:
ri*
- . ; L(!id e.h*onstrL:ei car cencern and cc-.i int to providing
- Ivc scrsite and indicates that our judg.ent regarding future j
]
c e t. t - r -
t' ic h g! i.n considertble weight.
+
l gc t:s r.
.::h your nu-ters, of course the cost of power from
- s N
- r!!.
p :. r..
That would be r.;cti r
.t ! : ;.r.u t.sr. our r-r esunt system average.
}
is fueled by coal, oil, natural gas, k
true fcr.c ic.v plant whether it fundeentally, to today's inflated wage'scates
- p an ; due, i
uren t ur
- cs, *:ir interest and tax rates, and the cost of providing c.d r :. :
hig'cr h s o f ;.:: ! ! : safety and environmental protection.
t u ysars, 641 MW of base load coal-firei capacity r,eaches During t.s ext the servi:e life when it can no longer be considered reliable generation, and 302.T.' c f peaking capacity reaches the end of i ts depreciable life.
4 Midland l'ni t 2 is rated 786 MW net. The Michigan Public Service Comission Ve think it will be estir stes e.nual growth in demand of approxirmately 1%.
Meeting this growth will very likely require the spending of even higher.
conside:rerie su-s to es tend the life of existing units and require the In the last ten years, 1974 through burning c4 r::re oil and natural gas.
1.53, the ave rage annual growth in peak demand was 1.6% and 1983 over 1982 4
sho-ed an increase of 7.2%.
9 A further conecrn regarding capacity is that our FERC licenses on 128 MV of in 1993 Ve will, of course, apply for an extension, hydro capacity run out but with the issue of r unicipal preference not settled we have no assurance that we will be successful.
4 - '
All of What,all this tells ee is that we need Midland or some other plant.
our studies show that the economic choice is Midland, provided its cost to complete can be controlled.
Ve are du. ling wi th a serious problem - the f uture availability of an adequate supply of clectricity et competitive rates - a situation that will affect the people of this State for years to come, and one none of us can or do take lightly.
Eut, we better r.ake sure that the course of ac' tion chosen is the correct chraice, and re; just an expedient one, to discussing the' i,ituation with you and other State of ficials.
I l o:4. f o r.ta r t' Yours ver) truly,
.s.
?
s
'[
.g
(%
BCC: dJSchnetdewind (3)
JBFalahee
,i
/:
'/JJ 0, SelbY WRBori s.
se SHHowell i
h
{
/
JD5/ t r t
. JyReynolds R alcolm Lts hepard LBlindemer (3)
-i RJFItzpatrIck i
GLHeltis j
6 SN5pring
]
IDPenson 9
HBW5chroeder RAMatteson
e
$1 ATE Of HICHit.*N.
g Di.I uT 4f NT OI-ATIOF.NL) f ! i 3. At r 3.,
" y,& G
\\
N h
5TANLEY D. 511 -
i.
Cheyf Asssstens Atre.
(..ea*
j?
FR ANK J. KELLEY JDs
- 1120 34 k
ATTORME) CENERAL LANSING I
48983 n
January 19, 1984 E
t*
Mr. John D.
Selby Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer Consumers Power Company 1
212 West Michigan Ave.i Jackson, MI.
49201
Dear Mr. Selby:
I write to again urge you, and your Board of Directors',
to abandon the Midland nuclear plant project.
As you know, I have been urging cancellation of'the Midland project since early 1980, at a time when Consumers Power had sunk "only" $1.3 billion into the project.
I exhausted every legal avenue in an effort"to save Consumers Power investors and ratepayers from what is now generally recog-nized as the economic folly of continued Midland construction.
In January 1982,.as you know, the Michigan Supreme Court agreed with your position that the state is powerless to stop.a utility <f rom committing economic suicide in the financing of construction of unneeded and uneconomical' electric power plants.
Bdt, the Supreme Court warned that utility investors proceed at their own risk, and must bear the loss if the power plant proves to be unneeded
?
or uneconomical.
When I mounted my legal challenge to continued Midland
, construction in early 1980, Consumers Power had invested
,$1.3 billion in Midland.
Your Company had recently revised
.the estimated total cost of '.he Midland plant from $1.67 a
')
, billion to $3.1 billion.
Thus, instead of a " cost to go".'
Aof less than $400 million, the remaining cost to complete the plant became $1.8 billion, or seven times more' than the
' plant's original total estimated cost of,$256.million.
i 0
\\
0 5
1.
- p l
-.l
i
~
)
J=.
t i
k j.
Mr. John D.
Sc 2' y l
Page.,
~
1 Now, after four more years of construction, and a further investment of r.iore than 51.9 billion, the estimated cost of the plant has risen to the range of SS-6 billion, i
meaning that it will take at least another $1.8-2.8 billion to complete.
The longer that construction goes on, and 4
the more money Consumers Power puts into this plant, the more the amount of money remaining to be spent increases.
In the Midland financing case that went to the Supreme Court, your Company said in its Brief that an interruption of !!idland construction could cause a further reduction of the Company's bond rating that would mean that the bonds would be considered " speculative", and that if such bonds 9
could be so3d, it would result in higher cost to ratepayers.
The company also told the Court that failure to timely complete the portion of the plant being built to supply steam to Dow Chemical Company threatens loss of Dow's facilities in Michigan, and'" attendant calamitous.cffects on employment and the Michigan economy."
Although the Court permitted Consumers Power to continue construction of the Midland plant without interruption, the company's bonds have been downrated on several occasions since that time by the three major bond-rating agencies, and are now rated below investment grade, or " speculative", by all the agencies.
In July 1983 Dow Chemical Company withdrew from its contract for steam from The Midland plant, thus rendering about 24% of the Midland investment useless and unneeded virtually overnight.
i If the Midland plant were completed at a cost 6f $5-6 billion, the cost of the. power delivered to customers would be in excess of 20g/kwh, compared to your present average price of about In your pending a' plication at the state Public 6t/kwh.
p Service Commission for a rate increase to take effect upon commercial operation of the first unit of Midland, 'you are.
requesting a rate increase equal to 42% of 1982 revanues'.
for the first Midland unit alone, at the April 1983 Midland cost estimate, which you have subsequently said must be i
gubstantially increased.
Wlednesday,theDetroitFreePresspub'lishedan' editorial eptitled " MIDLAND:
It'.s time to reconsider the prospects c
tor a troubled nuclear plant", which' saids
/
l 0
/
+
t
~
1 N &wendutw esce =
.e..
p.
tj
. - - - -..p} o
..w.-.......-
t r
s i
i s
c, *.
f Mr. John D.
Sc1by Page -
1 a
3
" Abandonment is no less risky a course.
It, too, will cost Consumers' customers something.
But as events in Illinois and Indiana have shown, it is no longer unthinkable.
What is-unthinkable is that we should end up with a S6 billion plant whose prospects of winning a license from the NRC are dimming,'and whose output would be unaffordable if it did.
"A successful solution at M1) land has to do two things:
Spare the state the costs and chaos of having Consumers. Power slide int 6 bankruptcy, and sp'are Consumers' customers from having to swallow the entire $3.5 billion already sunk in the project, much less the additional billions that would be required to complete it.
I agree.
Year-in and year-out, Consumers Power's rates to industrial, commercial, and larger-than-average residential customers are 'substantially higher than the average of the East-North Central Region of the United States, according to annual rate surveys by the Edison Electric Institute.
Consumers Power service territory could not remain economically viable in the long run, with the magnitude of rate increases that would be required to fully compensate investors for a
$5-6' billion Midland plant.
Your Company can probably still avoid financial reorganization by cancelling the Midland project now, as. equity capital is sufficient to absorb the after.-tax effect of a $3.2 billion write-off._ However,.
should the Company go forward with its plans to spend another
$800 million on Midland this year, and a like amount next year, the point will soon be reached where financial reorgani-zation will be the unly solution, whether done ir. or out of bankruptcy court.
I believe you owe it to your bondholders and other creditors to not jeopardize their security, by continuing to throw good money after bad into the Midland project.
ihe action taken Monday by Public Service Company of Indiana, ynder circumstances similar,to yours, demonstrates that a act,ility need not continue construction of a project!that no p
d e
e t
O s
P
=_
e-.mussese-
+--%
k-.,
p..w w4
_w_m._.
4.,
_ _ _ _ _ _... z _.. ; 2 _ j
~
~
ri 3
j r
.l
'n:. John D.
Selby Q
Page.
il 3
4 longer makes economic sense, merely because billions of dollars -
^
PS Indiana had spent $2.8 billion on have already been spent.
the two-unit Marble Hill nuc3 ear plant,' but elected to follow the recommendation of Governor Robert O. Orr's task force that the project.be cancelled.
The task force recommended that common stock dividends be eliminated for a period of three years, and then be resumed at a rate equal to 35% of net income.
PS Indiana promptly cut its dividend by 654.
N' I commend the same course of action to you.
Obviousl'y, the common stockholders will have to swallow a bitter pill:
1' elimination or drastic reduction of their dividends for many Consumers Power stock, which in the last year years to come.
has fallen from $22 to $13/ share, will probably decline i
further.
Similarly, PS Indiana's stock price has fallen from $27 to $10/ share.
But the question is no longer whether the stockholders can be protected against loss; the question is now the timing and extent of the loss.
It is much better to take the loss now, salvage something of the shareholders' investment, and lay the groundwork for future financial recovery; than to attempt to postpone the day of. reckoning, and thereby run the very real risk of salvaging nothing for~
the common stockholders, diminishing or destroying the value of th_e preferred and preference stockholders' investment, and
~i jeopardizing the security intere'st of the Company's creditors.
I stand ready, as I have in the past, to lend the assistance of my office in ameliorating the consequences,of a decision to cancel the Midland project.
But again,. I urge you to act without delay isi bringing a permanent halt to this unfortunate episode.
Yours tr y,
/
o
.]
N RANK KELLE t
Attorney j
ss i
i !
/
,spl.s. ; -
/
- g..-
8 j
y:
a
,[
t a>}
0 u
a a~.-
...-,.,7
^
l,
-~
??]
T", T~
Q
-p s
LBP-84-20 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,/PRINGiPAL STAFF WA ATAPP
/.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
[/
D/RA OE 3/RA jw.;p 4 Before Administrative Judoes "C
DW Charles Bechhoefer, Chainitan SO 3CS Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Dr. Jerry Harbour p'[,
ASLBP Nos. 78-389-03 OL 80-429-02 SP
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL 50-330 OL
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM 50-330 OM-(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
May 7, 1984 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Motions Arising from Dow Litication)
Dow Chemical Co. filed suit in the Circuit Court On July 14, 1983, for the County of Midland, Michigan against Consumers Power Co.
(hereinafter CPC or Applicant), seeking a declaratory judgment and monetary relief arising out o'f a contract under which the Applicant agreed to supply Dow with steam to be produced by the Midland facility.
During our first hearing session in Midland, Michigan following that
[
filing, Ms. Barbara Stamiris and Ms. Mary Sinclair, Intervenors in this consolidated proceeding, each filed a motion based on the Dow lawsuit.
Ms. Stamiris seeks to litigate in the OM proceeding three contentions based on Dow's complaint (Dow contentions). Ms. Sinclair seeks to hold open the OM/0L record pending the completion of the Dow lawsuit.
A!AY I 4 m 1T'lO50@Dl
,., - -.. +
I j
s s.
The Applicant opposes litigation of all three of the Dow j
contentions. The NRC Staff would have us litigate all three of them.
1 B~oth the Applicant and Staff oppose Ms. Sinclair's motion.
~
For reasons hereinafter set forth, we admit for litigation two of the three contentions proposed by Ms. Stamiris and decline to admit the
~
We also deny Ms. Sinclair's motion, but without prejudice to her third.
moving to supplement or reopen the record should the Dow lawsuit uncover information of significance to this proceeding and not a part of the
~
existing record or the record to be developed hereafter.
I.
Stamiris Motion A.
Ms. Stamiris' motion was presented orally on July 28, 1983 (Tr.19358-65) and was followed by a written motion dated August 8, 1983 (corrected on August 12,1983). As set forth in the written motion, Ms. Stamiris is seeking to litigate the following three contentions derived f' rom the Dow lawsuit:1
~
Consumers misrepresented its time schedule for completion 1.
of the Midland plants to the NRC, including the NRC Staff and this Licensing Board.
See paragraphs 20, 37, 39-48.
4 1
The July 14, 1983 complaint was dismissed by the Court sua sponte for procedural reasons on July 15, 1983, with directions to Dow to 1
~;
i file a complaint complying with specified procedures within 10 J
days. Dow filed a First Amended Comolaint on July 18, 1983, 1
Paragraph references in the proposed contentions refer to p
paragraphs of the initial July 14, 1983 complaint (which is considerably more detailed than the First Amended Complaint).
r-l:
L L;
[i-j i l
, - ~,
b...__'_.._._
1, h..*,
j
. ~
s_
k Consumers used and relied on U.S. Testing test'results to 2.
fulfill NRC regulatory requirements while knowing that these test results were invalid.
See_ par. 24, 35.
Consumers knowingly represented to the f!RC that the 3.
single test boring taken near the diesel generator building demonstrated that unmixed cohesive fill had been used as a foundation for safety-related structures at the site even though this test. boring actually indicated that See randomfplhadbeenimproperlyusedintheseareas.
par. 27 Ms. Stamiris further sought discovery on these contentions, both in the form of new discovery and as a claim that certain documents referenced in the Dow complaint had not been turned over to her in response to earlier discovery requests which, she claims, called for prnduction of such documents.
On August 17, 1983, the Applicant filed a response (corrected on August 18,1983) which offered to make available to parties the documents which it had provided to Dow ("Dow documents") and to which reference was made in the Dow complaint. The Applicant urged that we defer ruling on the contentions pending examination by the Intervenors of the Dow documents, &nd that, if Ms. Stamiris found it appropriate, This third contention was later restated as follows:
2 3
Consumers knowingly misrepresented to the NRC that a single test 3
boring taken near the diesel generator building indicated that unmixed cohesive fill had been used, or alternatively, did not
/
c i
disclose to the NRC that the single test boring demonstrated the use of random, improperly compacted fill in the area and constituted evidence of site-wide problems.
Second Supplemental Memorandum, dated October 5,1983.
t
~. -.
e -;
i
. }
she should thereafter supplement or resubmit her motion. Ori the merits, however, the Applicant set forth its grounds for opposing all three contentions.
~
In a telephone conference call on August 25, 1983, we heard arguments of all parties concerning the Applicant's response and we adopted the Applicant's suggestion that we defer ruling on Ms. Stamiris' proposed contentions and request for discovery until such time as all parties had had a chance to review the Dow documents. We also requested the Applicant to make available certain other documents. Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Telephone Conference Call of 8/25/83), dated August 29, 1983. On or about August 25, 1983, the Applicant made available the Dow documents; on September 14, 1983 it provided the additional documents identified by the Board.
Thereafter, on September 21, 1983, Ms. Stamiris filed a Supplemental Memorandum which, as a result of time constraints (Tr. 20792), was limited to the first of her contentions. On the same day, we held oral argument on all of her contentions, in which all parties participated (Tr. 20791-873). At that time, the Staff took the position that all three should be accepted (Tr. 20805-806).
On 4
October 5,1983, with leave of the Board granted on September 23, 1983 (Tr. 21202), Ms. Stamiris filed a Second Supplemental Memorandum, in z.
~
support of her second and third proposed contentions.
The Applicant filed a written response on October 14, 1983 (corrected on October 17, We heard further argument on those contentions on October 31 1983).
(Tr. 21297-305).
t r
m-
-~_m__._.__.
3 1
J.
i j.
4
't During the early part of April,1984, counsel for the Applicant and NRC Staff each telephoned the Board to advise us that each y
would be filing additional information bearing on the Dow contentions and to suggest that we defer our ruling on those contentions (which was then imminent) unt'il we had received the additional information.3 p,
h have followed that suggested course of action.
l}
The first comunication we received was a Board Notification from the Staff (BN 84-091), dated April 27, 1984, advising that an allegation regarding misrepresentation of soils data provided to NRC had I
been received, that it could be material and relevant both to QA/QC issues before us and to the proposed Dow contentions, and that the
~
allegation was being referred to the Office of Investigations (01) for 4
evaluation. No additional identifying information was set forth, but we presume (from the reference to " soils data") that the information would a
have a bearing on the second or third proposed contention.
The second comunication we received was a letter from the Applicant, dated April 30, 1984, advising that CPC had become aware of discrepancies in records of several borings made during the 1977 investigation of the settlement of the administration building. This information has a potential relevance to proposed contentions 2 and 3.4 1
S 3
The Applicant confirmed its telephone comunication by letter dated April 17, 1984, which has been circulated to all parties.
Apparently this is not the infonnation which the Applicant advised us by telephone was forthcoming.
1 o
- M
+.sem m e m
E
\\.'
k
_g.
(
1,
]
Finally, by letter also dated April 30, 1984, the Applicant
?
lj advised us that document discovery in the CPC-Dow litigation had brought i
4 to light certain Bechtel documents bearing on Bechtel Forecast 6 which, 4i according to the Applicant, may be inconsistent with its response to 1
)
Ms. Stamiris' moti~on.
(This is the information about which the
$j Applicant had earlier notified us.) The Applicant further advised that the Bechtel documents are subject to a protective order in the Dow a
litigation and cannot be released at.this time.
CPC suggests that we L!
rule on the "Dow" issues without regard to the newly discovered information (although it offers to initiate the process under the
{
protective order for disclosure of the documents, if we deem it necessary).
B.
In proposing her contentions, Ms. Stamiris asserts that all three of them bear on her already-admitted management attitude l
contentions and that, accordingly, the record should be supplemented or reopened to incorporate the newly developed information brought out by the Dow complaint.
In her written motion, she asserts that, in considering her proposals, we should act under our inherent authority to shape the course of proceedings over which we preside (citing, inter J
alia, Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants), ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 201-08 (1978); 10 CFR I 2.718(e); and 5 U.S.C. 6 556(c)).
3 In contrast, the Applicant regards the first contention as a new contention and thus subject to the requirements for late-filed contentions set forth in 10 CFR 6 2.714(a). With respect to the second 3
l and third contentions, the Applicant would utilize the standards for 5
t.
o J.-
.a
.l
=.
'i d..
i n
- 1-7-
j-
- t q
i reopening a record.
In asserting that we should consider all three new
- .]
issues, the Staff does not definitively spell out what standards we i:
should utilize.
We recognize that Ms. Stamiris has raised a number of management-attitude issues in this proceeding and that her first issue here bears ultimately on that subject.
Nonetheless, the subject matter of her other management-attitude contentions--i.e., "providing information [to NRC] relevant to health and safety standards with r,espect to resolving the soil settlement problems" (OM Contention 1),
and implementation of the QA program with respect to soil settlement issues-(OM Contention 3)--is far removed from the scheduling representations on which the first proposed contention is founded.
In admitting Ms. Stamiris' earlier management-attitude contentions, we explicitly limited their managerial-attitude aspects "to factors which could be said to bear upon the Applicant's managerial attitude in resolving [ soil settlement] issues." Prehearing Conference Order, dated October 24, 1980, at 4 (unpublished). The management attitude alleged in the first proposed contention (as well as in the material false statement alleged in the Modification Order) may be analogous to (and hence have some bearing on) the attitude alleged in OM Contentions 1 and 3, but the technical subject matter is disparate enough that the first proposed contention must properly be deemed a new contention.
That being so, we seriously doubt whether we could employ our general authority to shape the course of a proceeding as the foundation for accepting such a new contention, particularly since the Commission s
9
-...p w w.*
- -,e me 54 es -wg
- e,i w-
.e=
.e q
go wy
a-
___...m___
u t
I 8-e l
has in place explicit standards for dealing with new " late-filed" l
contentions.
10 CFR i 2.714(a).5 We thus will apply the standards for
~
l late-filed contentions in determining whether the first proposed i-contention should.be accepted.
As for the second and third contentions, both raise allegedly new infonnation bearing on issues already litigated. Ms. Stamiris' motion for us to consider this information is in substance a motion to reopen the record on such issues.
Because the Comission has explicit standards governing the reopening of the record of a proceeding to consider new infonnation on issues already litigated, we decline to use our general authority to shape the course of a proceeding as the foundation for considering what in essence is a motion to reopen the record. We will instead consider the second and third contentions under standards for reopening the record.0 5
A " late filed" contention is any contention filed after 15 days prior to the first special prehearing conference which (in the OM proceeding) was held in September, 1980.
10 CFR 5 2.714(b); see Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-63, 16 NRC 571, 576 (1982).
0 The Appl'icant would also have us apply the standards for reopening a record to the first contention (response, pp. 6-7,28-29).
If we l
- regarded the contention as adding new information to matters already litigated, we would have done so (but would not apply standards for late-filed contentions). Since we regard the first proposed contention as a new contention, and since (as Ms. Stamiris points out, Tr. 20838) the OM record was not closed at the time it was filed, we decline to apply the standards for reopening a record to that contention.
4 i
n..
m
.n -
c.-
t
}.
9-i The allegedly new information in these contentions was p.roffered prior to the close of the record on the segment of the proceeding in which the matters were litigated.
For that reason, we
- will evaluate these contentions on the basis of the same standards we spelled out in ruling on motions of Ms. Stamiris and the Applicant earlier in this proceeding--i.e., whether the motion was timely and whether it presents important information regarding a significant issue.
. See Memorandum and Order (Denying Motion to Reopen Record on Containment Cracks), LBP-83-50, 18 NRC 242, 246-48 (1983); Applicant's Motion to Reopen and Supplement the Record on Sinclair Contention 14, dat'ed October 28,1983, at 1-3 (ruled upon favorably by Licensing Board at Tr. 22655-56).7 See also p. 18, infra.
C.
We now turn to each of Ms. Stamiris' proposed contentions.
1.
Inasmuch as we are considering Ms. Stamiris' first contention--which alleges that Consumers misrepresented to the NRC the time schedule for completion of the facility--as a late-filed contention, we must initially. consider whether the contention meets A
7 The circumstance that our ruling here follows the closing of the record of a major segment of the OM/0L proceeding does not alter the governing standards, which are based on the status of the record at the time the proposed contentions were first offered.
Cf. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and
'2T,LBP-84-13,19NRC n.43 (March 14, 1983) (slip
- p. 89, n.43).
9 I
e 1
+
==
g*e 0-e-+-
~
e+
we
,y
~-. -.
i j
k.
1 nonnal contention requirements.
If so, we must additionally consider the factors for late-filed contentions set forth in 10 CFR 92.714(a)--i.e.:
(1)
Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time.
(ii)
The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be protected.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to l
assist in developing a sound record.
(iv)
The extent to which the petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
(v)
The extent to which the petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
In applying these factors, we must determine whether application of all of the five factors, on balance, favors admission of the contention.
J Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983); see also Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-63, 16 NRC 571, 576-78 (1982).
In balancing the factors, however, we are not necessarily required to give the same weight to each one of them. Florida Power and Light Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB,-420, 6 NRC 8, 22 (1977) (cited approvingly by the Commission in Catawba, CLI-83-19, supra, 17 NRC at 1046); Midland, L59-82-63, supra, 16 NRC at 577. Where a proponent demonstrates " good cause" for late filing, the showing required on the other factors is decreased. St. Lucie, ALAB-420, supra, 6 NRC at 22; Wisconsin Public (Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant), LBP-78-24, 8 NRC 78, 83 Service Ccc s.
a 4
- ~~~w.
. - ~ v.~ ~~ m yue-w
-n~.-s~
- - ~.
l
<[.
1 4
(1978); cf. Nue: ear Fuel Services, Inc. (West Valley Reprocessing 4
7 Plant), CLI-75-4, 1 NRC 273, 275 (1975).
j Turning first to whether the normal contention requirements have been satisfied, the Commission's rules require that
~
there be filed " contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity." 10 CFR Q 2.714(b). The Applicant claims that Ms. Stamiris has not satisfied the basis and specificity requirements n
(response p. 28).
The basis asserted by Ms. Stamiris is primarily'the first Dow complaint. The Applicant asserts that Ms. Stamiris should back up her accusations "with something more substantial than allegations made in a complaint" (id ).
Back of this claim is its view that a complaint represents no more than unproved allegations--i.e., what a party hopes to prove--and may not be regarded as "new evidence" (jd_. at 14). At oral argument, the Applicant portrayed the complaint as "a lawyer's document * *
- an advocate's piece" (Tr. 20841). The Applicant also emphasizes that it has denied the allegations of the complaint (response, p. 17).
In short, the Applicant appears to be asserting that a complaint in a judicial action cannot serve as a basis for a contention, at least where its allegations have been denied.
We disagree. Under a long line of NRC holdings, we 4
should not attempt to ascertain, prior to admitting a contention, the validity or merit of its bases, only whether the bases have been set forth with adequate specificity. Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens a
i r.
- -, ++ q q - ~.,.
,-...g
m i- -
l h
I-.
(
Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590,11 NRC 542 (1980);
l Alab'ama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 & 2),
/J.AB-182, 7 AEC 210, 216, reversed on other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203~(1974); Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-109, 6 AEC 243, 244-45 (1973). Ms..Stamiris has not only s
identified.the basis (the Dow complaint, which is a sworn document) but has identified the particular paragraphs of the Dow complaint which she asserts support her contention. She thus has set forth her basis with reasonable specificity.8 Moreover, in her first supplemental memorandum, Ms. Stamiris has pointed to several of the Dow documents which, she claims, support her contention. She discussed these documents during oral argument, pointing to how, in her opinion, they demonstrated that Consumers was not telling the full truth to NRC (Tr. 20792-98).
By doing so, she has supplied additional bases for her contention.
Moreover, although we cannot rule now on the sufficiency of those documents, we do note that they include infonnation which, in our view, O
In an earlier proceeding involving CPC, a Licensing Board considered allegations from a complaint in a suit filed in a U.S.
District Court in detennining whether to reopen the record.
In denying the motion to reopen the record, the Board considered the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the i
petitioner, without raising any question as to the propriety of relying on such allegations. CPC apparently did not raise any objections to consideration of the substance of the allegations of the complaint. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-75-6, 1 NRC 227, 229, affd., ALAB-283, 2 NRC 11 (1975),
clarified, ALAB-315, 3 NRC 101 (1976).
3 4
.__.,_.y..m...,-.
7 h:.
h
(!, (,-
t W
)
at least represents a " showing * *
- sufficient to require reasonable j
minds to inquire further" (cf. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v.
j NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 554 (1978)).
h
- l In particular, we note that Bechtel Forecast 6, presented a
to CPC in January, 1980, calculated the fuel load date for Unit 2 (scheduled as the first to be completed) to be April 1984.9 A review of 4
i the Bechtel Forecast by a CPC staff team, dated May 5,1980 (" Review Report"), analyzes several completion possibilities and concludes that,
]
"even though we take minor exception to various sections of the estimate as presented, we generally agree with Bechtel both on schedule and cost, and are recommending a total project estimate based on the premise" e
(document 0014312, at 2). The document includes the statement (page 1 of transmittal letter) that "No distribution of the CPCo F/C #6 Review j
Report is being made outside of the Company."
i Notwithstanding the recommendation of its staff, CPC management decided to retain July,1983 as the target fuel load date for Unit 2 (document 0013524, also attachment 8 to Applicant's response).
~
CPC also attempted to convince the NRC to structure its OL review on the basis of that target (document 00358). Whether the justifications 7
advanced for that target date (e.g., documents 00234 and 00237) were reasonable is an appropriate topic for litigation.
In addition, as Ms. Stamiris points out, some documents suggest' that CPC may have 1
naintained two schedules--one for internal use and another for 9
The Licensing Board and then-parties were first inforn:ed of Bechtel Forecast 6 by letter dated February 8,1980.
s
- *w m Pe
.,.:-e
-m-e, ;
--=,ue
m e.
14 -
others,includingNRC(e.g., document 009546).
Further, whether the Staff was aware of CPC's Review Report when it made its scheduling determinations in 1980, and whether (assuming it not to have had access
.to the report at that time) information in the report could have altered its scheduling determinaticns, are also appropriate subjects for litigation. The Bechtel documents about which CPC recently advised us also may be pertinent to this contention.
We recognize that, as the Applicant readily admits, the various documents may be subject to more than one interpretation. That being so, however, the proper way to resolve such interpretive uncertainties is through litigation of the contention.
In short, we find that Ms. Stamiris' proposed Contention 1 sets forth appropriate bases with adequate specificity and hence satisfies the contention requirement of 10 CFR i 2.714(b).
Since we regard this contention as " late-filed," we turn to the factors for late-filed contentions which we must consider (see
- p. 10, suora). No party explicitly discussed these factors in its written submissions--Ms. Stamiris was relying on a different theory to support litigation of the contention and the Applicant believed it to be Ms. Stamiris' obligation to provide information in support of her contention (Tr. 20820,20835). Nonetheless, through oral argument at I
e
- ** P""**
- T [f
- N8 w
'f
" ^ * * * *
- * * * * ^
3ej'. ~. - _ -....
3
. c, c., is.J?in t T.NWk.' sC '.i
~ ~ J (:-.bf,
=,n.
q, p-s
- )yW,.
6 6
d 15 -
ti jf which all parties asserted their positions
}
sufficient information in order for us to bala
, we were able to develop ve factors.10 First, Ms. Stamiris has demonstrated " good ca delay in filing the contention.
i e
or her the Dow complaint, and it was submitted initi y
a the Dow complaint was filed.
y only two weeks after
}
which in our view represents important infor i
n concerning CPC's
'}
l truthfulness, was first made known to the I t s
)
far as we know, the Staff as well) after th n ervenors and Bo in July, 1983.II e filing of the Dow complaint This factor balances in favor of admis
~
contention.
e J
j The second and fourth factors also bala admission of the contention.
avor of No other means are available for y
Ms. Stamiris to obtain the relief which we find that Consumers did in fact knowingly could grant if we were to or conceal information from, the NRC--h, license d such as the replacement of particular personnel enial or conditions i
Moreover, Ms. Stamiris 3
10
\\
Ms. Stamiris offered to submit infomatfor i
" late-filed" contention, if we were to reject h n support of a could admit the issue through our authority to shape t 3
er theory that we a proceeding (motion at p
<p*;
Ms. Stamiris' theory (pp. 7, n.2).7-8, supra) Although we have rejected e course of to perform the requisite balance of factors, we have a sufficient r g
11 We commend the Applicant's counsel for volunt i
potentially damaging document to the Board and parily prov 1
Applicant's response to Ms. Stamiris' motion arties, through the 5
O t
a e
a er pa
._4..-
e****'
r-- - --
. - --_7-m.
.-m j
i-ri 5>-
' - = -
i
~
h
. probably would not have standing to intervene in the Dow-Consumers lawsuit (Tr. 20856). Ms. Stamiris' interest will not be represented by existing parties since, absent our acceptance of the contention, there would be no issue in this proceeding raising the question of scheduling misrepresentations.
Finally, although NRC's Office of Investigations could investigate alleged false statements, such an investigation (if it I
detennined certain statements to be false) might in effect only postpone litigation of such statements. Both the Appif cant and Ms. Stamirts L
oppose that method of resolving this issue (Tr. 20870-72).
In our view, Ms. Stamiris' participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record on the question of management attitude. The basic issue will be the cred.ibility o# CPC's witnesses.
In the past, Ms. Stamiris' cross-examination (and that of counsel who is to represent her on this issue) has been effective on questions of this type. She has also brought to our attention many pertinent documents bearing on such issues. We expect she would do so on this contention.
Indeed, she has already identified a considerable quantity of particularized information regarding the substance of this contention.
The third factor accordingly balances in favor of admission of the contention.
As all parties recognize, the litigation of this contention could consume considerable time and effort. The issues in the consolidated proceeding accordingly will be somewhat broadened.
(The proponent of the contention views it as somewhat narrower than does the Applicant.
See Tr. 20811-13.)
Inasmuch as the fuel load date for
}
3 Se
--o-=*a-e-.,,
ean W3 emge
- e,,
NammeMe
+P.
- - ~
~
Ng=w =
>**-werae e
_e--wew--.
~ ~
L L
==
~~
=
j,, -
1-I :,
i i
1 l
Unit 2 is now cstimated by the Aoplicant to be July,1986 (see letter to Board from the Applicant, dated April 12,1984), we agree with Ms. Stamiris (Tr. 20851) that there should be no delay in concluding the 3
- proceeding prior to the fuel lead date, whether or not we admit this contention.
Reflecting the broadening of the proceeding, however, this factor balances slightly--but only slightly--against admission of the contention.
Given that the first four factors balance strongly in
~
favor of admission of the contention and the last factor balances only 4
slightly to the contrary, we believe that the balance of the five factors favors admission of the contention.
Since the requirements for 4
a litigatable contention have also been satisfied, we are accordingly admitting the contention. As we discussed with the parties (Tr. 20861-63, 22666), the period of time covered by the contention is to extend from the release of Bechtel's Forecast 6 in January,1980, j'
through November, 1983.
The parties discussed extensively whether the proposed contentions should be regarded as OM or OL contentions.
In our view, the first could be regarded as a part of either proceeding, but the second and third are clearly OM contentions. Given consolidation, the allocation of contentions to a particular proceeding does not make too e
much difference.
For convenience, we are numbering the contentions we are accepting as OM contentions.
The first proposed contention will e
become OM Contention 6.
Nevertheless, we expect to render decisions covering some OM issues prior to the completion of litigation of these g
r
-, - + - ~
-n-v qww m *' **-
~
~'
-. ~.
..~
new contentions..Any decisions we make which could be influenced by th outcome of the new contentions will be expressly subject to change in t
light o'f that outcome. Moreover, the designation for convenience of the first contention as an OM issue is not to be taken as limiting the relief we could grant to that appropriate in the OM proceeding; reifef l
in the OL proceeding may also be considered, to the extent appropriate (e.g., to the consideration of corporate character).
2.
The second proposed contention alleges that the Appifcant used and relied on test results provided by U.S. Testing Company to fulfill NRC requirements while knowing that these test results were invalid. That'CpC used and relied on such test results is no secret:
evidence to that effect has long been a part of the record of this proceeding (e.a., Stamiris Exh. 3, Attachments 9, 11 and 14; NRC Inspection Reports 78-20 and 80-32/33 (Attachments 2 and 3 to testimony of Gallagher, ff. Tr.1754); Tr. 2438-39 (Gallagher)). The new allegation in this contention is that CPC knew that the U.S. Testing test results were invalid at the time it relied on these results before i
the NRC.
As we previously stated (p. 9, supra), in determining whether to reopen the record as of the time the motion was submitted, we must inquire whether the motion was timely and whether it presents important infomation regarding a significant issue. The Applicant claims that the motion with respect to this contention is "not timely" (response, p.17) but provides no elaboration of its statement.
It h
O f
O
__ _.. m., _ -
w -. - _._.
p;
- *;,2.. ' T J. Wj 'i s.? M ' %".Tp UV. '.,* 0 s4 l
n
.e
' ';._ f i,., '
1
,y'.
}
ij -
founds its opposition largely on its argument th n
at no "new evidence" justifying reopening of the record has been presented t
0 We disagree on both counts.
the Appitcant's truthfulness has been the subjIn t
+
s 3
ect of some earlier testimony, the allegation of CPC's knowledge of invalidity of the tests represents significant new information steming f I
first Dow complaint.
rom the filing of the two weeks later clearly satisfied the timeli l~
A
\\
on ess requirement.
More important, for reasons we have sp,elled 4
(pp.11-12, j!upra), we regard the Dow complai t out earlier n s, which are sworn documents, as valid bases for the contentio validity of the positions contained therein in o dWe ne n.
complaints to reopen the record.
r er to rely on the knowingly relied on inaccurate infomation b fBoth t
e ore the NRC.
This infomation has a direct bearing on the c:a nagement capability and attitude which we are evaluating in this proceedi differ from the infomation previously ente ng, and it appears to red into the record.
Indeed, even though Ms. Stamiris is not requi o
satisfy the standard because of the time she filed h red to believe that, if proved, the alleged misstate er motion, we significantly change the end result which we mightmen s
Thus, not only could such false statements otherwise reach, sanctions but, in addition, they could signify a lif prov ack of management character sufficient to preclude an award of ope least as long as the responsible individuals rating licenses, at retained any d
. p _.e n.
... - - - ~. -,
e ~
~
- w ow - '
g j.*
Q
(
{- 1 6-l}
responsibilities for the project.
South Texas, LBP-84-13, supra, 19 NRC a't
.(slip op., pp.16-18), and cases cited, particularly Consumers f.
Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-2, 17 NRC 69, 70 E
(1983).
t
}
The Applicant directs our attention to the circumstance j-that the amended complaint (112) presents this claim only on "information and belief"; it also characterizes the claim as " absurd" in 4
post'ulating th:t it would act contrary to its own interest by relying on test'results known to be inaccurate (response, p. 14). We decline to 3
resolve these positions at this time, since they go to the merits of the contention. We note, however, that "information and belief" pleadings are accorded considerable judicial stature (Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 5 1224).
"[A] corporation [such as Dow]
may find pleading on infomation and belief a useful form of allegation when its infomation has been received from subordinate employees within the fim" (id.). Further, we might also observe that what may be
" absurd" from a corporate viewpoint may not necessarily be absurd from the individual viewpoint of a particular corporate official or agent.
Other information steming from the documents provided to the parties and Board also supplies bases for this contention. For, example, it appears that both CPC and Bechtel (CPC's agent) had knowledge of infimities-in certain U.S. Testing results some time around February,1978. See letter from J. F. Newgen (Bechtel) to D.
Edley (U.S. Testing), dated February 1,1978 (copy received by Consumers on February 10, 1978) (Attachment 3 to Ms., Stamiris' Second Supplemental m
oow.so-s--,,e---
. -w m. ~ s w w m
u_
w.
- _p3, eaa r e- - --m s e mp pu rpg
3
.m>A'
~._. - - -
~J k. S If.~* *'-
.g } g N,,#3 (* p.,.A*,"(,'f.,}.'E #
- 4 W,, / N
~
t.
s i/'~f5;,*-
,..l, N * *,;_,.,.' *J* W
- ),;
a b
- 21.-
i Memorandum dated October 5,1983) tests performed for the administrati Although the doc which could be construed as indicating Bon buildin pervasive failure of U.S. Testin'g to co fechtel's awaren (Tr. 2573-74 (Gallagher)).
n orm to testing specifications a
Nonetheless, the Applicant's testimo 1981 indicated that, on the basis of b ny presented in July, 1977, the Company determined that th orings taken from September 27-j administration building was localizede grade beam failure U.S. Testing was also said to have Keeley, ff. Tr.1163, at 5.
9 of its tests throughout the site (Trused similar procedure discussions with the NRC Staff as l 1263 (Keeley)).
l But CPC, in have continued to portray the ca ate as the sumer of 1979, appears 1
i C
with respect to the administration builuse of the U.S. T 7908170390) ding borings as " administrative problems" (document problems as early as the fall of 1977 (despite kn
~
3; Bechtel " Administration Building" R Audit Report F-77 document SB 13752).
eport dated December,1977, grade beam failure until DecemberIndeed, the' rmed of the y
investigation into the diesel generat1978, despite the fa s
October,1978 and the administratio or building settlement began in n building settlement was considered d
e.
-w-,
.,..~%w -.
..m..-
4
. m w.
j
- a __
i j.-
j d.
j' a
by'some Staff members as indicative of soils compaction deficiencies in the area of the nearby DGB (Tr. 2336, 2341, 2412, 2345-47 (Gallagher)).12 The Staff also testified that it had no basis for concluding that information regarding the admini.stration building (a non-safety structure) had been intentionally withheld from NRC (Tr. 2342, 2357 (Gallagher)). This proposed contention, if proved, could alter the record in this regard.
For that reason, the infonnation appears to be important to an issue which is also significant.13 Moreover, Ms. Stamiris initially filed her motion in a timely fashion, two weeks from the filing of the first Dow lawsuit. The standards for reopening the record have thus been clearly satisfied for this contention. We will admit'this contention as OM Contention 7.
3.
Ms. Stamiris' third proposed contention concerns a test boring taken near the DGB and analyzed by U.S. Testing Company. The analysis of this boring by U.S. Testing Company involves one or more of the tests alleged in the previous contention to have been falsified.
The third contention is very close to the second in alleging that the Applicant knowingly misrepresented the results of the boring to the NRC.
12 Apparently the Staff did not beccme aware of the February 1,1978 letter to U.S. Testing until some time after December, 1978 (Tr. 2572-73 (Gallagher)).
13 The information about which the Staff informed us on April 27, 1984, and that concerning which the Applicant advised us in the April 30,1984 comunication which we discuss first (p. 5, supra) could also be relevant to this contention. We express no opinion on this matter at this time.
t 8
d, y -
m
l ~
j.
1 To the extent that this contention is based on N
information in the Dow complaint, it was submitted in a timely fashion.
3 But unlike the previous contention, there is no significant allegation
. here that has not been previously addressed in this proceeding. The Applicant was already charged with making a material false statement that incorrectly indicated the placement of random fill rather than controlled compacted cohesive fill and has agreed not to contest that issue. For its part, the NRC Staff agreed that the material false statement was not made intentionally. Joint Exh. 6; Hood, et al., ff.
Tr. 1560, at pp. 4-6.
Even more important, the boring log in question has been introduced into evidence and was tiie subject of extensive testimony.
See Stamiris Exh.19; Tr. 3437-41 (Peck) and 3589-3636 (Kane). Although the soil in question is different from what the FSAR represented, it 1
nevertheless is competent soil (Tr. 3618-19(Kane)).I4 Either type would have been acceptable if it had been compacted ' correctly (Tr. 4426-27 (Kane, Hood)).
In short, all of the information in the bases relied upon by Ms. Stamiris appears to have already been considered in this
~
proceeding. The Staff asserts'that we should litigate this contention 1
'I4 We assume that, in giving this testimony, Mr. Kane took account of the hamer weight and fall in relying on the blow counts shown en 3
Stamiris Exh.19 and discussed by CPC in its letter to us of April 30, 1984.
If not, we call upon the Staff to' advise us promptly (with an appropriate affidavit, if necessary).
j
- l a-
?
t_.--
j j
j i
because of the allegation that, at the time of the boring in 1977, CPC knew the problem was site-wide and provided the NRC with incorrect information (Tr. 20806). An affinnative intent by the Applicant to mislead the NRC on a significant matter would, of course, be a serious indictment of the' Applicant's managerial. attitude. We read the contention (either in its initial or revised forms, see n.2, suora) as based on alleged misinformation about the soil type used for plant fill.
Nothing in the bases relied upon by Ms. Stamiris in both versions of this contention would indicate that the types of materials utilized for plant fill was a site-wide problem.
Indeed,.we do not view the' log itself as indicating any problem with the soil type, as alleged in both forms of this contention.
For that reason, we do not perceive that Ms. Stamiris has brought to our attention with respect to this contention any significant new infonnation of the type which would warrant a reopening of the record.15 Since standards for reopening the record on this contention have not been satisfied, we decline to reopen on this matter.
We note that the question of the Applicant's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the site-wide nature of any soils deficiencies is a 15 Unlike with respect to a new timely-filed contention, on a motion to reopen the record, we can give some consideration to the u
substance of the infonnation sought to be added to the record.
~
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Station),
ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523-24 (1973); -cf. Houston Lightino & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Ttation, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11
'NTC 542 (1980).
a 7
- '.**N*7 1
' * " " * * ~. "
- * ~
. =. - - -. -
t *,
t L
(
part of Ms. Stamiris' second contention which we are accepting. The question stressed by the Staff in supporting the third contention will thus likely be considered to some extent in our resolution of the second
. contention.
r We also note that our ruli,ng rejecting the third proposed contention does not take into account the information provided to us by the Applicant on April 30, 1984 (the first CPC communication of that
[
date discussed on p. 5, supra), except with respect to the matter 1
4 described in n.14, supra.
Nor does it consider the information provided to us by the Staff on April 27, 1984.
Insofar as we can ascertain, we regard this new information as po'ssibly relevant to the j
third proposed contention but more likely relevant either to matters heretofore litigated or, alternatively, to a potential contention comparable to the third proposed contention (i.e., knowledge of site-wide deficiencies) but premised not on whether information on soil type was withheld but rather on whether information was withheld as to the degree of compaction. We _ trust that the Applicant and/or Staff will keep us and the parties advised of any new information of this type which may develop.
4.
Ms. Stamiris has asked for discovery on her proposed contentions, both in the form of documents allegedly not turned over to her previously and new discovery. We will not determine whether any documents should have been, but were not, turned over to Ms. Stamiris earlier.
We note that, upon further checking, Ms. Stamiris discovered 1
'4
[I,
^I
_2 e
ee.*
-q w-M" N
- M,"
- 7-Watg.
9 * *,
'T*e.""W$
.,y A*W 51L *
.e =M y T *,. 43W*t y
. _ n:-
- c ;... _ _. -
.. ]
1
-~
~
h>
- 1 that she had received certain of the documents she initially' thought had 1
i not been turned over to her.
1 1
~
CPC has already voluntarily supplied many documents to
/
the parties and Board. We believe that further discovery on the two
+
admitted contentio'ns is warranted, but only to the extent it seeks 4
i information or documents relevant to those contentions beyond what CPC has already supplied. The discovery we are permitting will be so j
limited.
l}
In addition, to the extent we must evaluate discovery a
1 requests, we will consider, as within the proper scope of discovery, d
information tending to demonstrate, or leading to information that could demonstrate, whether CPC knowingly made false statements to the NRC (either the Staff or a Licensing Board). By " knowingly," we are y
including intentional falsehoods, intentional incomplete statements, intentional omissions, and statements made "with disregard for the truth." Houston Lighting and Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-32, 12 NRC 281, 291 n.4 (1980); i,d., LBP-84-13, 19 NRC (March 14, 1984) (slip op., pp. 16-18).
But whether CPC should have known that a statement was inaccurate or incomplete is not in i.tself a part of these contentions (although it may bear substantially on issues already admitted to this proceeding).
We are presently authorizing a four-month period for formal discovery, consnencing on the date when the Applicant's reply findings on QA/ management attitude issues are to be submitted (currently June 8, 1984). We direct that parties engaged in discovery on these two
- i ii
- i
.-----x~
- y. - m.--
eyr, -
p
~y -~,m n-
- 7.n -r-r r.~,e
-v-
y a.
i.-
i -
. contentions. send us monthly reports (either individually or '
l colle_ctively) on the progress of discovery.
(These reports should be s
filed on the first Monday-workday of each r6onth, beginning in August, i
1984.)
Ms.' Stamiris has requested four to six months for discovery (Tr.
20813,s20864); we will utilize these reports to determine whether additional discovery is warranted.
)
Bearing in mind the fact that these contentions are I
limited to knowing misrepresentations (as defined above), we would hope s
E that the parties could agree (prior to trial of'the issues) to a limitation of scqpa to matters clearly tending to demonstrate or suggest such knowing misrepresentations. We would also trust that the parties will attempt to develop methods for pre-trial settlement or dismissal of at least portions of these issues, to the extent appropriate.
Such a courseofactionappearsconsistebtwiththatfavoredbyseveralparties at oral argument (Tr. 20806,20814-15,20865-68).
II.
Sinclair Motion Ms. Sinclair's motion was made orally (Tr. 19341-46,19382-83)and followed by an almost identical written muer. 'ated July 28, 1983.
It st ks to b ne the record of this consc<ium
- ,ceeding held open until i
the completion of the Dow lawsuit, on the grcund. that information may be y
obtained through discovery in that litigation "which will be pertinent to the issues of the OM and OL proceedings" cad that it is important
)
that "all available facts" relative to those issues be considered oy us.
t t
i J'
4
- -.... g y
~
as 8
+
+, -
pm.
u-
..... _ u _
}
28 -
n..
i Ms. Sinclair spells out eight areas of inquiry where, she claims, "more i
information can be expected."
l The Applicant opposed Ms. Sinclair's motion, both through an oral response (Tr. 19346-47) and in a written response dated August 17, 1983.
r I
The Staff also generally opposed Ms. Sinclair's motion, although it I
recognized one allegation of the Dow litigation (the scheduling matter) which should be litigated before us (Tr. 19350-52,19356-57,19397).
Mr. Wendell H. Marshall, another Intervenor, supported Ms. Sinclair's motion by mailgram dated July 29, 1983.
We do not believe that the relief sought by Ms. Sinclair's' motion is warranted.
In the first place, Ms. Sinclair is only speculating at this time that the Dow lawsuit will lead to the discovery of significant information pertinent to the OM or OL proceeding which woul'd not otherwise be incorporated into this record. Many of the issues in the Dow lawsuit are not particularly pertinent to matters before us.
In that connection, the two new Stamiris contentions which we are accepting incorporate in our view the allegations of the Dow lawsuit most closely related to the matters at issue in the OM/0L proceeding. One of those fi contentions will litigate the scheduling allegation which the Staff, in J
commenting upon Ms. Sinclair's motion, found appropriate to consider in 9
this proceeding, y
Furthermore, if the Dow lawsuit should produce truly significant infomation not previously included in the record here and pertinent to the OM/0L proceeding, Ms. Sinclair could (depending on the status of this proceeding) move to supplement the record and incorporate it into i
- i 3
N
=
~~'^v^~
~ - 7=
.h :. w ~ ~ 2L :.
1
..... =
i
. ]
l 3
^
this proceeding, or to reopen the record of this proceeding, 'or (if, all i
n k
levels of review within NRC have been completed) seek consideration of' 3
l the matter under 10 CFR I 2.206.
Finally, the length of the Dow lawsuit, and hence the scope of 4
All relief being sought by Ms. Sinclair, is presently indeterminate.
?
llr proceedings, of course, even this one, must at some point come to an end. See United States v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 396 U.S. 491, l
521(1970).
In our view, it would be " productive of little more than untoward delay" for us to freight the possible conclusion of the OM/0L Southern i
proceeding with the uncertainties of the Dow lawsuit.
California' Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-171, 7 AEC 37, 39 (1974); Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 747-48 (1977)'.
For these reasons, we are denying Ms. Sinclair's motion. This denial is without prejudice to Ms. Sinclair's seeking (to the extent appropriate) the other forms of relief which we have outlined, particularly to supplement or reopen the record before us.
ii f3 i:
a I
i l'
n r:-I' G
L
_ y - m - 3; wm.-- c~.. -~~ y m--
_ ;-_3 -
~ _ _ _ _,
- s,-
= +=. :
e j
t 1
1 III. ORDER 1-il 4
u q
In light of the foregoing discussion and the entire record on the f
motions before us, it is, this 7th day of May, 1984 sj ORDERED
~
i 1.
That Ms. Stamiris' motion to admit three new contentions is granted in part and denied in part.
Proposed contentions 1 and 2, G
A renumbered as OM Contentions 6 and 7, are admitted; proposed 3
9 contention 3 is denied.
j 2.
That discovery on new OM Contentions 6 and 7 is authorized to the extent indicattd in part I.C.4 of this Memorandum and Order.
Parties are directed to file reports as set forth therein (pp. 26-27, j
supra).
t 3.
That Ms. Sinclair's motion to hold open the record of this 4
proceeding pending completion of the Dow lawsuit is denied, without prejudice to Ms. Sinclair's later seeking (to the extent appropriate) to supplement or reopen the record before us.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND
'i L._I, CENSING BOARD
<j x
A d
J e.
$i Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE a
~
4 u
q J
7.-- - -- - ;v
.w,--~-e..,,-
-.c
___m___
/f
]
UNITED STATES Tn
/
o,,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
J
., g g
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
[
j l
March 12, 1984 PRIN$1 PAL STAFF V
RA f 7]lCDPRP
~
-D/RA DE A/RA DRMSP 3 MS
' MEMORANDUM FOR:
Stephen H. Lewis O
C Regional Counsel, RIII SGA ML
/)
}(,[F File f/ M FROM:
Dan M. Berkovitz Office of the General Counsel
SUBJECT:
DOW LITIGATION (MIDLAND)
OGC has decided that it is in the agency's best interest not to permit any informal interviews with NRC employees by Dow Chemical.
The attached letter uo Carol Rice of Kirkland and-Ellis, attorneys for Dow, explains our reasoning.
NRC employees therefore should not speak informally with representatives of or attorneys for Dow Chemical or Consumers Power in connection with this lawsuit.
As a result of our decision to prohibit informal interviews, we anticipate that the NRC employees listed in your March 1, 1984 memorandum to me (Shafer to Maxwell) will be subpoenaed for formal testimony.
Additional personnel familiar with
^
Midland may also be subpoenaed.
Carol Rice stated to me that Dow probably will try to take these depositions within the next several months.
We shall try to avoid any undue burden on the agency by requiring a discovery plan as outlined in our letter.
Although NRC personnel can expect to be called to testify formally, at this point they should not spend any time in preparation for such an event.
The extent to which persons should prepare for depositions in this private litigation will be determined when we have a better idea of the scope of NRC's involvement.
Attachment:
Ltr, 3/9/84, Berkovitz to Rice cc:
J. Lieberman, ELD R. Hartfield, RM G. Lear, SGEB, DE E. Adensam, LB, DOL J.
Zerbe, OPE g
R. Lewis, RII g T,r h
,l CONTACT:
1 X-43224
- 1 c l/.,r in n a % l
% iLAC.n w a l 7
~ ~ -
v v
?
-w a
wA-
~*
w. -.. -
a..
r sa ne:yq UNITED STATES j
/
g J-f ' q,.,. gyg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION waswinctow. o. c.aosss p
y., e.,,.g., f a.
%,..c j /
. >. m g,
4.
? -..
March 9, 1984 1
4 4n; 4
.Ms. Carol Rice, Attorney l
Kirkland & Ellis 200 E. Randolph Drive Chicago, IL 60601
Dear Ms. Rice:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's position with respect to providing witnesses in Dow' Chemical Company's lawsuit against Con-rumers Power Company regarding the Midland nuclear power plant.
Although I realize that you are aware of the NRC's views on this matter through our conversations, perhaps this letter can serve as a clearer basis for NRC's future involvement and our further conversa:1cns.
The NRC recognizes that private litigsnts will of ten see a need to request information or testimony from NRC employees.
Because providing witnesses for private litigation divert.s sgency recources to a purpose that is peripheral to the agency's mission, the NRC must be assured that acceding to ruch requests will not become unduly burdensome.
The NRC
~
generally responds to requests for such information or testimony in the following manner.
Parties should scruti-nice the files of the Public Document Rooms maintained by URC for pertinent information and then provide detailed information in the form of a discovery plan setting forth:
(1) names of persons necessary to be depose'd or interviewed; (2) the specific subjects to be covered; (3) the time away from duty involved; and (4) any documents to be examined during the deposition or interview.
If the agency is ratisfied that the discovery is not unreasonably burdanceme er violative cf any statute, regulatien, policy, or rrivilege, infermal interviews or formal depositions may be cbtr.ined.
4 The'Cffice of the General Counsel has decided net to agree tc. your request for informal interviers with NRC employees ne this time.
At this peint we have no reason to believe
. hat granting these interviews would result in any savings in time spent by the agency in this lawsuit.
It wculd qpr.ar that any voluntary NRC assistance provided to Dew
- uld not reasonably be denied to Concumers Pover chculd
.S.cy request it, as they probably would.
This wculd dcuble 4
- ).c resources com.itted to the informal process unicss iscussions with both parties present wore arrangec.
4 Y
l
^
mj _ a 21%
r yJf WUdTY
%=g emmmees%,. es warr
,.pe--_-
_pae--
, seggasegy wa.,,,m..,e-e 9.m-ep
-1m=,. eve,-
p-ww ej am.m.+,,,e.
1
--~
y i-f/
- t.,
?
h.
j,,
Ms. Carol Rice 2
Mar.ch 9, 1984 i
Because Consumers Power's application for an operating license is pending before the Commission and some of the issues in th.is lawsuit are related to those in the operating j
license hearing, invariably there would be requests from other participants in the licensing proceeding to be present 4
at the inte'rviews or to " discover" the information presented there.
The matter thus promises to take on a complexity that could be unjustifiably burdensome for the NRC.
With respect to formal depositions, as noted above, under normal discovery rules the NRC is committed to providing relevant non-privileged testimony that is not unreasonably burdensome upon the agency.
To determine whether NRC's involvement will be unreasonably burdensome, we will request that both parties provide the NRC with sufficient information along the lines described above before we agree to any depositions.
If the agency determines there is unnecessary overlap in areas of inquiry, incorrect associa-tion of individuals with subject matter, or other unneces-sary or privileged testimony being sought, we will seek te modify the plans.
We believe that the preparation of such a plan is useful for both the agency and the parties.
The information provided also can be used by each deponent to prepare for his deposition so that the actual time spent by each individual can be minimized.
We do not expect to treat these discovery plans as binding commitments limiting the scope of discovery.
We do expect, however, that each party make reasonable estimates of the projected scope of discovery.
Unfortunately, NRC operates under severe budgetary and manpower constraints.
The agency therefore must proceed with caution whenever involved with requests or responsibil-d ities outside its primary duties.
With an understanding of these cencerns, I am sure we can proceed in a mutually
~
~
satisfactory manner.
i Sincerely, 3
t
(
+
y Y
awr h se f J
Dan M. Berkovitz Attorney 1
Office cf the General Counsel 3
e W-
-g'-
- 9 M.'e
- ,N yWNMW Fi g werv
s.n~ ~
m --
- k. ~
c. ( 4dc&rt oczn-v
,e
[
hb 4ANtTE3 STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION naciow ses a
.s -
l too noosevetr nono otam su.vn.stumoissots?
March 1,. 1984
,d 1,
MEMORANDUM FOR: James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator FROM:
Stephen H. Lewis, Regional Counsel
SUBJECT:
DOW LITIGATION (MIDLAND)
On February 29, 1984 Carol Rice of Kirkland & Ellis, representing Dow Chemical, eslied my office to speak with Dan Berkovitz (OGC) who was in Chicago on a I took the following information from Ms. Rice, which I have deposition.
communicated to OGC by telephone.
Dov.at NRC's request, has identified the following NRC employees who they want to interview:
?
Wayne Shafer, RIII Isa Yin, RIII Bill Lovelace, RM Ron Cook, RIII Ron Gardner, RIII Ross Landsman, RIII Bob Warnick, RIII Darl Hood, NRR Joe Kane, NRR Gene Gallagher, OPE George Maxwell, RII Additionally, she indicated they wanted to interview Gerry Phillip, a former Region III investigator.
OGC had requested this listing of NRC personnel Dow wished to interview because of concern that Dow would otherwise just " feel their way along" and NRC would end up with a great drain on its resources. This list and additional informa-tion provided by Ms. Rice confirms that there could be a substantial drain on NRC (and particularly RIII) resources to accommodate Dow's request.
The additional information is that Dow has already identified certain NRC personnel (she only identified you) who Dow already knows they want,to depose.
She further indicated that they might want to interview Jay Harrison, Bruce Burgess, Chuck Nore11us, and Lee Spessard.
4 i
_ vanL/70 W c
vw
.. y,_
m.
,_.,a_.
James C. Keppler 3/1/84
' (
I indicated to Ms. Rice that Region III was concerned about the substantial i
i time commitment that would be involved in making all of the identified personnel j
available for interviews, particularly if the inte'rviews led to a request from Consumers'that they be interviewed and eventual depositions of some or all of these individuals.,I suggested'(I had previously discussed this with OCC) i that as a preliminary step Dow submit a list of questions they wanted to pose and NRC could then determine who we would consider making available. She stated that Dow was reluctant to limit the areas it wanted to explore and was also reluctant to put any questions in writing (I gather because they do not want to r:.n the risk of having to produce the questions upon a discovery request).
I indicated that I would pass along this information to OGC. She stated she would contact Mr. Berkovitz on March 2.
OGC will be representing NRC personnel in connection with any depositions in 2j this Federal District Court litigation. I will coordinate with them, so that they are aware of Region III's position. Prior to that, I will schedule a meeting with you to discuss this matter further.
E Stephen H. Lewis 3
1 Regional Counsel cc:
D. Berkovitz, OGC J. Lieberman, ELD R. Hartfield, RM G. Lear, SGEB, DE E. Adensam, LB, DOL J. Zerbe, OPE R. Lewis, RII R. Warnick, RIII C. Norelius, RIII R. Spessard, RIII A. Bert Davis, RIII a
q
,s h
g 0
fl r
lj 1
"N*"*v"-
w_._
7 g_,
~...
1 l
l
\\
February 16, 1984 t
l' l
/
f PRINCIPA(. STAFF
,/
I. 1 LAng40PRP,Q g/
i J/RA
~
'OE Note to: Darrell Eisenhut
^/RA Og.13 p Jim Keppler
'O ORf4A d,y, Richard Hartfield
- y scs
- 3A_.
rat
+d DOW-MIDLAND LITIGATION 94F Fi 1(ke, For your information I' received a call from Dan Berkovitz in OGC concerning a request by attorneys for Dow to interview NRC employees. They are interested in meeting with Messrs. W. Schaffer, W. Lovelace, and I. Yin.
OGC is considering the request and will contact ire before they make their decision.
[
4 ames Lieberman cc:
Guy Cunningham
+=.%
4 4
4 k
1 884 F821 l
m LLI w nD, o w. - vu a
-e
-e.,
.w-men.w.e..
~~
.m-
-,w-,n..
w,,,
~,, -
m.
em-,,.,...e
k 7w~
. -... -.Y
$8.. Ye Ce/VAf Csty?7r?)'8:t/bs AlS$ et-ysw Awe 7Am.7
.. _.. CeJQ J9o P h r.r e cz/ 2 A StrAt [5/7-G4 -al7h amd eiUw pa h/A 7b dd>r(er.nm me ahlo reymidf re,oress>n' Aw cm 777zr>e&)) er e/re m.r.4e arr pe n h 1
frv R F 4'.
vb 7WA 76 J uz) m 74
'ih rk 7xwwy%(v.e a ~ << o s&.
aIe-mf r
_ f ta Axw eAe e
ns7'
. DAW Air mye hf snew/edy' d
af wny p zf /AL/ M&-
4 7hN whz F aac ih 4+ /e;%, of 74/ /gzi
'I G:sA a fv Gs4.
0 et4 sam n
.deu.Iaw:,savu nk.M h
ar<-
nuuL 4.
(%to
<tAgued h
cmt.
4 b q
U. beu,nah Q
@ 2evaw pryssa resynre 4
2-a s s,
oog nww A Nob G a z p,/erzn & w a-2.
16vt C Geo O p A v s/
w
( u u m g ec n,~,;,,-)
g$e-*
ewe
.-er=
gui
$ 4 m-W4M M&**-1N4WWm-a-p_
,e og
,ye-s,e
-pa ww,p, e-Mga
- We
% a-a 9
9 og
r r
k 2
P Consumers I
Power s
James W Cook -
$0&$0f Vice President - Projects. Engmeenng
~
and Construction Generet offices: 1945 West Parneal Road. Jackson, MI 49201 + (5171788-0453 PRf f10lPAL STAFF May 24, 1984 O-N MN Qint x
a
^h.-
. _l
.c n,
u:- *n jg>
~CS
-h JL Mr Harold R Denton gg ag7 Oftice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 MIDLAND ENERGY CENTER PROJECT MIDLAND DOCKET NO 50-330 FILE 0485.2. 0485.11 SERIAL 29801 Attached hereto is an application for amendment to Construction Pemit No CPR-82 for Unic II of the Midland facility. The application requests an extension to the construction completion date for Midiand Unit II from July 1, 1984 to July 1, 1987.
In accord with past practice, we are requesting an amendment running to a date one year past the July 1, 1986 announced fuel lead date for Unit II.
~
This application for extension is limited to Unic II or the Midland facility.
In 1983, Consumers Power Company curtailed construction of Unit I of the Midland facility except as necessary to support Unit II construction. Deci-sions with respect to Unit I ot the facility are under review in light of a number of considerations, and the Company will take such steps as are deemed necessary with respect to the Unit I construction permit once such review is completed.
We enclose herewith a check in the amount or $1.200 for a class II construc-tion permit amendment, as specified by 10 CFR 170.22.
Thank you tor your attention.
Aau4
&WL James W Cook, Vice President, Projects. Engineering and Construction JWC/WFK/mdb
\\'aY I
CC JGKeppler, Administrator, Region III g%
RJCook, Midland Resident Inspector IC0584-0219A-MP04 Q/]nR2m IR/l -
v cv w vsa:
.- ~._ -_
, j
_n.
m i-
_ se 1
f.
p ei h
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Midland Units 1 and 2 Docket No 50-329, 50-330 Letter Serial 29801 Dated May 24, 1984 At the request of the Commission and pursuant to the Atomic Energy Acts of 1954, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended and the Commis-sion's Rules and Regulations thereunder, Consumers Power Company submits an application for extension of Midland Unic II Construction Permit.
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
By
/s/ James W Cook y
James W Cook, Vice President Projects. Engineering and Construction Sworn and subscribed before me this 25eh day of May 1984
/s/
pmerteim i Puffer Notary Public JI*EsenCounty, Michigan My Commission Expires 3-4-86
( S E A 1. )
l s
I i
IC0584-0219A-MPO4
.y.-
.-6--..*7 m -mee.e- =.- +
=.-,~--e.g*we-m-
r e.*+=
e.-
.-4
,, i. e 9 a-.e
-+--e=+.
w-e-e.
.gm
y,-
1 j
j May 24, 1984 3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS PO'4ER COMPANY
)
Docket No 50-330
+
)
(Midland Plant, Unic II)
)
)
2 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO CPR 82 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b) and 50.90, Consumers Power Company
(" Permittee") hereby applies to the Nuclear kegulatory Commission for an amendment to Construction Permit No CPR-82 for Unit II of the Midland facili-ty.
Construction Permit No CPR-82 currently specifies July 1, 1984 as the latest date for completion of construction of the facility.. Permittee's currently scheduled date for fuel load is July 1, 1986.
In order to provide the time needed to finish Unit II and to provide additional contingency, Permittee respectfully requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission amend Permit CPR-82 to specify July 1, 1987 as the latest date for completion of Unit No II.
Permittee submits that good cause for granting the extension exists because of dalays or projected scope increases due in part to the following factors:
1.
In late 1982, Permittee revised its plans for completing the Midland faoility by initiating a construction completion program. This program has resulted in construction delays and increases in the scope of inspections and other work needed to finish the Midland Plant in compliance with NRC requirements. On October 6, 1983, the Director of NRR issued an order incorporating the construction 7
l MIO584-0219B-MPO4 od, nGW ffA_
v v.n, -.
w__-
~
.... -. ~..
..,,.,.,,.. g.
. ~ -.. - -.
-..-.s
~-.
- 7--
e 1
2 4
i i
J completion program in the construction permits for the M'idland facility, including CTR-82.
2.. Certain systems or components were redesigned or modified to meet NRC requirements, such as those relating to 10 CFR 50, Appendix R or contained in NUREC 0737.
3.
Applicant has experienced delays in its remedial soils program in order to meet expanded seismic criteria and other design, construc-tion, or quality-related requirements of the NRC.
Permittee recently presented the basis tor its latest schedule projections to the NRC Staft at a public meeting held in Midland, Michigan on May 4, 1984. By letter to the NRC dated May 14, 1984, Permittee submitted the slides presented at this meeting for the public record.
The extension of the latest completion date for the construction of Unit II does not present an unreviewed environmental impact or significant hazards consideration and is not inimical to the common defense and security or to the public health and sarety.
Respectfully submitted, CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY By James W Cook, Vice President P* jects Engineering and Construction O
MIO584-0219B-MPO4
.___,,....m._...
~
. L - u.
l i
~
~
UNITE 3 STATES
[
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8
T l
wasMWGTON,0. C. 20665
/PRIMC LPAl. S_ AFF l'
October 12, 1983
'[
j Sg*****j-A/RA
.:.. /. ', H I
ac m'[h hdq3 v
p Docket Nos: 50-329 OM, OL pgo and 50-330 OM, OL SGA L
t)
Fi!; @'
EtJF i
I Applicant:
Consumers Power Company Facility:
Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 p
Sumary of September 12 and 13,1983, Meeting
Subject:
on Structural Adequacy of the Diesel Generator Building a task force comprised of NRC structural On September 12 and 13, 1983, engineers and NRC consultants from Brookhaven National Laboratory met at the Bechtel Offices in Ann Arbor, Michigan to discuss and audit structural design calculations of the Diesel Generator Building for Midland Plant, Units 1 and The meeting is part of the re-evaluation described by Board Notification 2.BN 83-109 dated July 27,1983 (and subsequently by Brl-142 dated September 22, is is a sumary of the meeting and audit.
1983).
an executive sumary of the design of the Diesel Generator Building provided Attachments 3 and 4 provide a best fit. polynomial as a meeting handout.
matching the known settlement data which, at the request of the audit team, Results of is to be used as input for a finite-element analysis by Bechtel.
the analysis are to be provided to Brookhaven.
A report by the task force will be issued in October 1983.
Darl S. Hood, Project Manager
- ' ' Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing Attachments:
As stated cc: See next page l
OCT 171981M MlAnt-1Off u J 14 jug g 7 -
w= we
- a M-. e Oes-
- w--
s4p e
~ ~
i s
e l
8 MIDLAND 9
)
Mr. J. W. Cook Vice President l
Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 Mr. Don van Farrowe, Chief cc: Michael I. Miller, Esq.
Division of Radiological Health Ronald G. Zamarin, Esq.
Department of Public Health Alan S. Farnell, Esq.
P.O. Box 33035 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Lansing, Michigan 48909 Three First National Plaza, Sist floor Mr. Steve Gadler Chicago, Illinois 60602 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 James E. Brunner, Esq.
Consumers Power Company U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 212 West Michigan Avenue Resident Inspectors Office Jackson, Michigan 49201 Route 7 Midland, Michigan 48640 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive Ms. Barbara Stamiris Midland, Michigan 48640 5795 N. River Freeland, Michigan ' 48623 Stewart H. Freeman Assistant Attorney General Mr. Paul A. Perry, Secretary State of Michigan Environmental Consuners Power Company Protection Division 212 W. Michigan Avenue 720 Law Building Jackson, Michigan 49201 Lansing, Michigan 48913 Mr. Walt Apley Mr. Wendell Marshall c/o Mr. Max Clausen Route 10 Battelle Pacific North West Labs (PNWL)
Midland, Michigan 48640 Battelle Blvd.
SIGMA IV Building Mr. R. B. Borsum Richland, Washington 99352 Nuclear Power Generation Division Babcock & Wilcox Mr. 1. Charak, Manager 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 220 NRC Assistance Project Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Cherry & Flynn Argonne. Illinois 60439 Suite 3700 Three First National Plaza James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator Chicago, Illinois 60602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
-,-r-
--.--p--._,.-
-.-m,
-,,-,-w,ww
=-
2-Mr. J. W. Cook l
t Mr. Ron Callen cc:
Michigan Public Service Commission 6545 Mercantile Way P.O.. Box 30221 Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. Paul Rau Midland Daily News 124 Mcdonald Street -
Midland, Michigan 48640 Billie Pirner Garde Director, Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 Mr. Howard Levin, Project Manager TERA Corporation 7101 Wisconsin Avenue Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Ms.'Lynne Bernabei Government Accountability Project 1901 Q Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20009 yor e
o 4
e op eos.
4.e. e e O
- '**E'hP%6" 4
e
,q
'me-w-=
g
~
1
}
Supplemental page to the Midland OM, OL Service List 3-Mr. J. W. Cook cc: Commander, Naval Surface Weapons Center ATTN:
P. C. Huang White Oak-Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Mr. L. J. Auge, Manager Facility Design Engineering Energy Technology Engineering Center P.O. Box 1449 Canoga Park, California 91304 Mr. Neil Gehring U.S. Corps of Engineers NCEED - T 7th Floor 477 Michigan Avenue Detroit, Michigan 48226 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Or. Frederick P. Cowan Apt. B-125 6125 N. Verde Trail Boca Raton, Florida 33433 Jerry Harbour, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Geotechnical Engineers, Inc.
ATTN: Dr. Steve J. Poulos 1017 Main Street 2
Winchester, Massachusetts 01890 C9
- Me=-*
- %.e.
. n..
I ' e =< g%,
ATTACHMENT 1
,6
[
UNITED STATES i_
T,n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
Zj,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4
/
SEP 2 91SS3 L
Docket Hos.: 50-529/330 MEMORA!iDUM FOR: George E. Lear, Chief Structural ano Geotechnical Engineering Branch i
- 7. Division of Er.gineerino THRU:
ao-Tsin Kuo, Section Leader.
~
Ij/ Structural Engineering Section B Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering.
1 FROM:
Nonnan D. Romney, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section B Structural and Geotechnical-Engineering Branch
~
Division of Engineering Chen P. Tan, Structural Engineer Structural Engineering Section B Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Brar.ch
~
' Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
TRIP REPORT - MIDLAND DGB STRUCTURAL DESIGN AUDIT As part of 4.he liRC task group review of the Landsman's concerns regarding the Midland Diesel Generator Building (DGB), N. 0. Remney and C. P. Tan of the SGEB staff visited the Bechtel, Ann Arbor, Michigan offices on September 12 and 13, 1983. The purpose of the visit was to tonduct an audit of the structural design calculations of the Midland DGB. Mr. Ro ney and Dr., Tan were assisted by NRC consultants frcm Brookhaven National Lab, represented by Ors. A. J. Philippacopoulos, C. Miller, and C. Costantino.
On Monday, September 12, 1983, the NRC task group reviewed the following DGB calculations:
- concrete /rebar stresses using settlement data by Karl Wiedner;
- straight line (rigid body) settlement by Karl Wiedner;
- concrete /rebar stresses assuming the DGB is supported at four points;
- stress totals from all load combinations;
- finite element modal for DGB.
On Tuesday, September 13', 1983, the NRC task group reviewed calculations CONTACT:
N. D. Romney, SGEB.
X 28987 Q
b w
t g3tco7 coo? M m
......=
3 ll b,
l George E. Lear i
)
by Mete Sozen on rebar stresses estimated from concrete crack widths.
In addition, the task group reviewed concrete pour data (sequence and date cf pours) and settlement surveying prc:edures used on the DG3. it.e r
afternoon of September 13, 1983 was devoted to an interview of Mr. Ross Landsman.of Region III by the NRC task group. The purpose of the interview was to gain a thorough understanding of Mr. Landsman's ccncerns regarding the DGB.
- is a list cf attendees for both d6ys of the audit. Enclosure 2 was provided by Bechtel at the audit and is a,chronbicgical list of events before and after issuance of the NRC staff order modifying the construction permits.
t l&
[NormanDr-Romney[tschnical j
Structural and Geo Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Ala-I? J-u Chen P. Tan Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering
Enclosures:
-As stated cc:
J. Knight Adensam
.' Hood P. Kuo T
i l
,. -+. w..
,,-.4,-.
..+..e-
., +
j
.__m__.
ENCLOSURE 1 ATTENDEES
~
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING AUDIT SEPTEMBER 12, 1983 N. Swanberg Bechtel J. A. Mooney CPC0 N. D. Romney NRC/DE/SGEB Darl Hood NRC/NRR/DL/LB4 Chen P. Tan NRC/NRR/DE/SGEB Carl J. Costantino BNL Charles A. Miller BNL A. J. Philippacopoulos BNL P. Shunmugavel Bechtel B. Dhar Bechtel F. Villalta CPC0 Ernie Koerke CPC0 John Schaub CPC0 Bechtel-SF Karl Wiedner CPC0 K. Razdan A. Boos Bechtel G. Tuyeson Bechtel D. Reeves Bechtel D. Zanese Bechtel T. Kumbier '";
Bechtel S. Afifi Bechtel T. R. Thirivengadam CPC0 e
e 4
.e e
+
,-..,u.-
_w.,
m
%~~-
e
. e..
9...
.%%#==.
p
- p... w-.,. _,
i t
q s
a NRC AUDIT OF DIESEL GE!!ERATOR BUILDINGS (DGB) MIDLAf!D SEPTEMBER 13, 1983 i
NAl'.E COMPAfiY J. A. Mooney CPC0 T. K. Thirivengadam -
CPC0 9
P. Shunmugavel Bechtel N. Ramanujam CPC0 S. S. Afif.i Bechtel John Schaub CPC0 B. Dhar Bechtel K. L Brorohn CPC0 G. A. Zanese Bechtel NRC/SGEB -
Chen P. Tan Nonnan D. Romney NRC/SGEB A. J. Philippacopoulos BNL Charles A. Miller BNL Mete Sozen Bechtel Consultant Carl J. Costantino BNL Karl Wiedner
- Bechtel Darl Hood NRC/NRR/DL.
Fernando Villalta CPC0 l
J. N. Leech CPC0 N.Swanberg,,,l Bechtel Bechtel C. Wilson l
t I
{
J bi _
g av l
- t d..%g
.=%
.9-.
.= _.m d..
. e7w.en g e o
. +
g.% eeee g-s-_
74w %
e op
_g ey= e *re,*e
-g-w.e.,=
e-mz
'~'
Eacucwav <2.
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF EVENTS BEFORE i
.i AND AFTER ISSUANCE.0F NCR STAFF ORDER j.
MODIFYING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS.
ii
~
(.
Date Activity Reference i
i 1975-1977 Fill material is placed in vicinity BLC-11412 of diesel generator building (DGB)
(Final Report of MCAR 24) i 1977 October 5 Begin pouring the OGB foundations to SK-C-628 el 630'-6" (see January 28, 1978) 1 October 5 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" on Pour DG south wall of bay 4, and south half (630.50)A of east wall of bay 4 (56 yards)
October 25 Poured foundation to el 6 }O'-6" on Pour DG
==
north wall of bay 4, and north half (630.50)B of east wall of bay 4 (66 yards)
October 28 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" on Pour OG south wall of bay 3, and south half (630.60)C of each wall of bay 3 (55 yards)
November 8 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" on Pour DG north wall of bay 3, and north half
(*630.50)0
,,,;of each wall of bay 3 (61 yards)
November 23. Poured sump base slab to el 627'-6" Pour DG at southeast co'rner of bay 2 and (627.50)A southwest corner of bay 3 (33 yards)
December,13 Begin pouring the DGB walls to SK-C-628 el 635'-O" (see February 20, 1978)
December 13 Poured walls to el 634'-O" on Pour DG north wall of bay 4, and north half (634.OO)A' of each wall of bay 4 (36 yards)
December 16 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" on Pour DG south face of buy 2, and south wall (630.SO)F of each wall of bay 2 (60 yards)
December 20 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" on Pour DG
]
no*th wall of bay 1, and north _ half (630.50)G of west wall'of bay 1 (56 yards)
December 22 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" on Pour OG north wall of bay 2, and north half (630.50)E of each wall of bay 2 (61 yards) h OO62y 1
y
..m
....:. r r - - - -- - - ~
=-- ~ -
Chronological List of Eunnts (Continusd)
Date Activity Reference I
December 28 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" oh Pour DG p
south wall of bay 1, and south half '
(630.S0)H of west wall of Bay 1 (47 yards) k December 30 Poured sump base slab to el 627'-6" Pour DG at south east corner of bay 1 and (627.50) southwest corner of bay 2 (24 yards)
~
t December 30 Poured walls to el 635'-0" on Pour DG l
south wall of bay 4,
and south half (635.00)A' of east wall of bay 4 (29 yards) 1978 January 4 Poured sump base slab to el 627'-6" Pour DG at northeast corner of bay 1 and (627.50)B northwest corner of bay 2 (36 yards)
==
January 6 DG ped'stal foundatio'n in bay 4 is Pour DG e
poured (190 yards)
(637.53)A January 16 Poured foundation to el 630'-6 ' 'in Pour DG i
south half of east wall of bay 2 (630.50)I (61 yards) 4 January 19 Poured walls to el 634'-6" in north Pour DG wall of bay 3 and north half of (634.50)B' of east wall of bay 3 (27 yards)
January 25 Poured foundation to el 630'-6" in Pour DG north half of each wall'of bay 2 (630.50)J (45 yards)
January 25 Completed pouring the DGB foundations SK-C-628 to el 630'-6" (see' October 5, 1977)
February 2 Poured walls to el 635'-0" in south Pour DG wall of bay 3, and south half of (635.00)B' east wall of bay 3 (46 yards)
February 10 Poured walls to el 635'-0" in Pour DG south wall of bay 1, uno south half (635.00)C' of west wall of bay 1 and south half of east wall of bay 1 (46 yards)
February 14 DG pedestal foundation in bay 3 is Pour DG poured (190 yards)
(634.53)B February 14 Poured walls to el 634'-6" in Pour DG.
north wall of bay 2 and north half (634.5)C' of east wall of bay 2 (29 yards)
? 2 Jj 0062y 2
T ees-o w,. -,ww w 7 w a>
< < = -
mg t e vvg 7 - W eeemse gje
.g - me w s.a p..
.~
=. eo s
.,~:.>...
.~. - ;
v l
Chronological List of Events (Continusd)"
Date Activity Reference g
February 20 Poured walls to el 635'-0" in Pour DG a
south wall of bay 2 and south half (635.00)D' l
of east wall of bay 2 (28 yards)
' February 20 Poured wall to el 634'-6" in Pour OG north wall of bay 1 and north half (634.50)D' of west wall of bay 1 and north half of cast wall of bay 1 (41 yards)
February 20 Completed pouring DGB walls to S K-C -6 2 8 el,634'-6" or 635'-O" (,see Occcmber 13, l'r/ 8 )
March 8 DG pedestal foundation in bay 2 is Pour DG poured (193 yards)
(631.53)C t
March 14 Begua pouring second lift on walls SK-C-628
{~._
to el 650'-0" or 654'-D." (see April 28, 1978)
March 14 Poured wall to el 650'-0" on north. '
Pour UG wall of bay 4 and north half of (650.00)4' east wall of bay 4 (89 yards)
?
March 17 Poured wall to el 654'-O" on south Pour DG wall of bay 4 and south half of (654.co)n' east wall of bay 4 (92 yards)
Marih 23 OG pedestal foundation in bay 1 is Pour OG poure! (192 yards)
(637.53)D March 28 First scribe mark is install d on..
File C-?:.4 5 DGB March 29 Poured wall to el 650'-0" in north Pour DG wn11 of bay 3 and north half of (650.00)B' east wall of bay 3 (81 yards) l:
April 4 Poured wall to el 654'-0" in south Pour DG wall of bay 3 and south half of (654.00)B' of cast wall of bay 3 (94 yards)
April 11 Poured wall to el 650'-0" in north Pour OG wall of bay 2 and north half of (650.00)C' east wall of bay 2 (85 yards) a, s'
April 14 Pournd wall to el 654'-0" in south Pour DG i
wall of bay 2 and south half of (654.00)C' east wall of bay 2 (81 yards)
Apr il 24 Poured wall to el 650'-0" in north Pour UG wall of bay 1, nnrth half of east (650.00)0 wall of bay 1, and north half of j
West wall of bay 1 (139 yards) -
j' 0062y 3
1
~
~
~ ~
s ? -
~~
~~'
,. 4,,,(,
~ - - _.
~
Chronalogical List of Eunnts (ContinuGd) i i
Date Activity-Reference L
I April 28 Poured wall to el 654'-O" in south Pour DG wall of bay 1, south half of east (654.00)D' wall of bay 1,
and south half of west wall of bay 1 (1$6 yards) 3 A'pril 28 Completed pouring walls to el 654'-0" SK-C-628
~
4 (see March 14, 1978)
May 9 First settlement marker is installed C/S File C-2645 d
.on DG8 May 12.
List scribe mark is placed on DG8 C/S File C-2645 July 7 First suruey record taken on scribe C/S file C-2645 marks July 10 Begin Pouring HVAC chamber slab (see SK-C-628 b
August 22, 1978)
July 10 Poured walls to el 656'-6" in sout'h Pour DG wall of bay 4 (26 yards)
(656.50)A July 10 Poured wall to el 651'-9" in north Pour DG wall of bay 3 and bay 4 (22 yards)
(651.75)A July 17 Poured walls to el 656'-6" in north Pour DG wall end south wall of bay 3 (42 (656.bo)8 yards)
July 21 Poured wall to el 662'-0" in north Pour DG wall of bay 4, north hdif of west (662.0)A' wall of bay 4, and north half of,
east wall of bay 4 (129 yards)
July 26 Poured wall to el*656'-6" in north Pour DG wall of bay 2 (23 yards)
(656.50)C July 27 Poured wall to el 656'-6" in south Pour DG wall of bay 2 (23 yards)
(656.50)D August 3 Poured wall to el 656'-6" in north Pour DC C
wall of bay 1 and south wall of (656.50)E q
bay 1 (45 yards) i
^
August 7 Poured wall to el 662'-O" in north Pour DG b.
well of bay 3 and north half of (662.00)8' j
west wall of bay 3 (84 yards)
)
August 8 Poured wall to el 662'-O" in north Pour DG wall of bay 1, north half of east (662.00)C' wall of bay 1, and north half of west wall of bay 1 (125 yards) e j.
-?
0062y 4
a 1
__,j-7 77, h._, mm 7
i 1
j Chronological List of Events (Continued),
1 3
Date Activity Reference y-U August 15 Poured wall to el 662'-0" in south Pour DG i;
wall of bay 4,
south half of east (662.00)0' 7
wall of* bay 4, south half of west l-wall of bay 4,
and east half of g-,
south wall of by 3 (100 yards) r:
August 18 Poured wall to el 662'-O" in east Pour DG half of south wall in bay 2, west (662.00)F' half of south wall in bay 3,,
and i
south half of east wall of bay 2 (61 yards)
August 18 Poured wall to el 662'-0" in north Pour DG
},
wall of bay 2 (57 yards)
(662.00)E' August 18 Finished pouring HVAC chamber slab (see July 10, 1978)
August 21 NCR 1482 (on s' oils issue) is MCAR 24 generated Report 1 0
August 22 NRC inspector at Midland jobsite'is j
informed of unusual OG8 settlement August 23 DGB construction voluntarily halted BEBC-2427 August 25 Soil boring program initiated MCAR 24, Interim Report 1 Septem6er 7 NRC Region III is verbally informed NUREG-0793 9
of abnormal settlement df diesel (Appendix A) generator building September 7 MCAR 24 is issued (see September 1,
~
1981)
September 27 Poured wall to el 662'-0" in south wall of bay 4, south half of west I
wall of bay 4, south half of east wall of bay 4,
and west half of south wall of bay 3 i
September 29 Interim Report 1 to MCAR 24 is for-Howe-183-78
. l.
warded to thi NRC (ref. BLC-6578)
(
j November 7 Interim Report 2 to MCAR 24 is for-Howe-230-78 warded to the NRC l
November 16 Construction activities resume on the 8EBC-2547 DG8 November *16 Isolate electrical duct bank from the SK-C-628 DG8 in bay 3
~
0062y 5'
e.=,
w e e
.. essw o. - w wam
++.*w
-game mm -
4e
,eg..
gg,g
u-(
1 Chronological List of Evnnts (Continued),
Date Activity Reference November 18 Isolate elsctrical duct bank from 'the SK-C-628 t' S DGB in bay 1 /
3' y
November 21 Isolate electrical duct bank from the SK-C-628 DGB in bay 4
)
I November 24 Isolate electrical duct bank frcm the SK-C-628 i
DG8 in' bay 2 j
December 4 Meet ng held with NRC, CPCo, and MCAR Interim 8'eshtel' to inform NRC of current Report 3 l
s tatus oof DGB settlement t
December 12 Placed mezzanine floor'to el 664'-O" SK-C-628 in bay 4 (171 yards)
Pour DG (664.OO) A 7
December 19 Placed mezzanine floor to el, 664'-O" SK-C-628 4
in bay 3 (152 yards)
Pour DG
~~
(66 4.OO) B December 20 Placed mezzanine floor to el 664-O" SK-C-628 in bay 1 (166 yards)
' Pour DG (664.OO)C December 21 NRC is informed of decision to preload Howe 267-78 DGB December,28, Placed mezzanine floor to el 564'-O" SK-C-628 in bay 2 (154 yards)
Pour DG 1
(664.OO)D 1979 January 5 Interim Report 3 to'MCAR 24 is for-Howe-1-79 warded to the NRC January 5 Poured wall to el 681'-6" in north Pour DG 1
wall of bay 4 and north-half of east (681.50)A' wall of bay 4 (131 yards)
?
)
Janudry 10 Poured wall to el 680'-d" in north Pour DG wall of bay 1 and north half'of west (680.OO)A' wall of bay 1 (126 yards)
January 12 End of pond fill MCAR Interim Report 2 January 16
,First crack mapping of DG8 completed Memo from McConnel to Dhar e
i,s f
DOS 2y 6
I 1
.J p gis gs-w4 g9.My <
'I'9'**
J,
~
s.___.
_.. +
l Chronologien1 List of Events (Continued)
Date activity Reference January 18 Poured wall to el 678'-3" in north Pour DG wall of bay 3, nort'h half of west (678.25)A' wall of bay 3, and north half of east of bay 3 (143 yards)
J'anuary 24 Poured wall to el 678'-3" in north Pour DG
-i wall of bay 2, and north half of (678.25)B' I
west wall of bay 2 (98 yards) k I
January 26
.8eginning of surcharging (completed on April 6, 1979) in accor. dance with j
Specification 7220-C-81
~1.
January 31 Condensate lines 20"-1HCD-169, Field Engineers
/.
6"-1HCD-513, and 6"-2HCD-513 were cut Report 1/31/79 loose on the south side of the tur-
^
l bine building.
Horizontal movement i
of 3 to 4 inches to the west was 7
obser0ed.
~~
o February 1 Condensate line 20"-2HCD-169 was cut Field Engineers
)
loose on the south side of the tur-Report 2/1/79 j
bine building.
1 e
j February 10 Last settlement marker is installed
- IOM, C.
Dirnbau on DGB (see March 28, 1978) to S.
- Reo, 1,
2/10/81 February,.15 Preparatory work for installation of Field Engineers strain gage monitors in the turbine Report 2/15/79
/
building wall started today.
Strain by J.
Wasylewsk gages are being installed in accor-
?
dance with Specification 7220-C-63.
February 20 Poured wall to el'678'-3" in south Pour DG wall of bays 1, 2,
3, and 4; poured (678.25)C' south half of all north-south walls
[
(476 yards)
- i y
February 20 Completed pouring walls to el 678'-3" SK-C-628 (started on January 5, 1979)
E February 23 Installation of strain gage monitors Field Engineers for Q line wall of turbine building Report 2/23/79
}
is completed.
Installation is in by J. Wasylewsk
^
accordance with Specification
^]
7220-C-83 (see February 15, 1979)
February 23 Interim Report 4 to MCAR 24 is for-Hows-58-79 warded to the NRC i
n W
j s
d g
W OO62y 7'
N 1
W
~
=
==
____ w_
- - ' - ~ ' ' ~ " " ~ ~
Chronologien1 List of Eunnts (Continued)
(..
Date Activity Reference C
March 5 All surcharge activities through Field Engineer Step III of Table 1 on Drawing 7220-Report 3/5/79 C-1141(Q) have been completed.
Sur-by J. Wasylews
[
charge placement is suspended until March 22, 1979, to observe effect of surcharge placed to date (surcharge approximate elevation is 644'-0")
March 6 NRC visits jobsite to observe pre-NU R EG-O'/ 9 3
. loading program for consolidation (Appendix A) of backfill under DGB March 8 Commence placing roof and parapet to SK-C-628 el 681'-6" (completed orr March 22, 1979) (401 yards)
March 21 NRC initiates 10 CFR 50.54(f)
Telecopy from Requests Regarding Plant fill Denton to Howe:
March 22 Temporary settlement markers were' to S.
- Rao, IOM, C. Dirnbat installed 2/10/81 March.22 Placing of surcharge resumes in accor-BEBC-2806 dance with Step V of Drawing 7220-C-1141(Q) (see March ~5, 1979).
Roof and parapet completed,,i.e., last of DG has been poured (see March 8, 1979)
April 7 Placement of surcharge *is completed Field Engineers (began on January 26, 1979)
Neport 4/7/79
~
by J. Wasylews)
April 24 Applicant submits' response t'c Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f)
April 30 Interim Report 5 to MCAR 24 is for-Howe-132-79 warded to the NRC May 9 All pedestal markers are installed
- IOM, C. Dirnbat to S.
- Rao, 2/10/81 May 31 Applicant submits Revision 1 of Responses to NRC Requests Regarding l
Plant Fill, 10 CFR SO.54(f)
June 25 Interim Report 6 to MCAR 24 is for-Howe-174-79 warded to the NRC
(
0062y 8
g
?
I L,_
~
~ ~.. -
' a:
-. : - s.
~
}.
Chrnnoingical List of Evnnts (Contingod) j l
Date ActivitV R e f e re n c_e t.
i July 9 Applicant submits Revision 2 of j
Responses to Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR SO.54(f) y
}
August 15 Removal of surcharge commences August 22 Construction activities resume on the DGB 1
]
August 31.
Removal of surcharge is complete September 5 Interim Report 7 to*MCAR'24 is for-Howe-233-79 warded to the NRC September 12 Survey readings are taken on both
- IOM, C. Dirnb temporary and permanent markers and to S.
- Rao, permanent markers and conversion 2/10/81 September 13 Revision 3 of Respuhses to NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR SO.54(f), is forwarded.tc NRC September 19. Poured topping slab at 664 Pour DG (25 yards) in bay 3 (663.75)A September 21 Poured topping slab at 664 Pour DG (20 yards) in bay 4 (663.67)B Sep,tember 28 Poured topping slab at 664 Pour DG (24 yards) in bay 2 (663.83)A October 2 Poured topping slab at 664 Pour DG (23 yards) in bay 1 (663.83)B October 8 Poured carbs for removable roof Pour DG plugs - all bays (18 yards)
(680.58)A October 16 Poured east-west ductbank in bay 1 Pour DG (632.58)A October 22 Ann Arbor office allows field to BEBC-3344 0
reweld the condensate lines at the turbine building (see January 31 and February 1,
1979)
October 24 Poured east-west ductbank in bay 2 Pour DG (632.33)A i,
November 2 Interim Report 8 to MCAR 24 is for-Howe 284-79 warded to the NRC h
November 13 Revision 4 of Responses t'o Requests 1
Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR SO.54(f),
is forwarded to NRC N
~
OO62y 9
g*<
p
- + =, =. - = =
.e
= - ew
- i e==*-=
-q f
~
Chenna16aien1 List of Evonts (Continued) j Oate Activity Reference November 14 Initial site visit by Corps of NUREG-0793 I
Engineers (Appendix A)
December 6 NRC staff issues order modifying the construction permits e
December Crack mapping of DGB is again per-formed December 4 Poured removable roof plug in bay 1 Pour DG (23 yards)
(682.1)A
=
December 6 Poured removable roof plug in bay 2 Pour DG (23 yards)
(682.1)B December 10 Poured removable roof plugs in Pour DG bays 3 and 4 (44 yards)
(682.1)C 1980 February 13 Poured base mats for stair towers Pour DG
~
(14 yards)
(634.33)A February 15 Meeting with NRC to discuss soils-
' NUREG-0793 preloading and dewatering program (Appendix A) for fill under diesel generator building Februarh29 Revision 5 of Responses to Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f),
is forwarded to NRC April 1 Revision 6 of Responses.to Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f),
is forwarded to NR'C May 5 Revision 7 of Responses to Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f),
is forwarded to NRC July 24 and Poured mudmat for bay 2 base slab Pour DB 31 (30 yards)
(633.08)A and DG(633.08)B
^
August i Ncrth half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG poured in bay 2 (26 yards)
(634.08)A August 5 Poured mudmat for bay I base slab Pour DG (33 yards)
(633.03)C August 12 South half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG(634.08)I poured in bay 2 (39 yards)
- 4 OO62y 10
- *~
..c___..
7-,
i
..w..
2.
... ~.
t i
Chrono 1ncical List of Evonts,(Continuad) 1 Date Activity Reference August 15 Revision 8 of Responses to Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f),
h is fo'rwarded to NRC i
. August 15 North half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG(634.02 poured in bay 1 (26 yards)
?
August 22 South half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG(634.08
{
poured in bay 1 (38 yards)
~
7 August 28 NRC and their consultants tour site NUREG-0793
(
(Appendix A)
August 29 Begin grouting the gap between the REM C-2817 DGE footing and the mud mat (see September 11, 1980)
August 29 Grouting of the east footing of Field Engineer
- ~
bay 'd begins; completed on Report 9/17/80 August 29, 1980 by J. Wasylews September 2 Grouting of the north footing'of Field Engineer bay 3 begins; completed on Report 9/17/80 September 5, 1980 by J. Wasylews September 8 Grouting of the east footing of Field Engineer bay 4 begins; completed on Report 9/17/80 i
September 11, 1980 by J. Wasylews Sept' ember 9 Poured east-west ductbenk in bay 4 Pour DB(632.0)
(10 yards) 4 September 11 Completed grouting of. gap betwee'n REM C-2817 building footing and mud mat (see August 29, 1980)'
September 11 Poured part of east-west ductbank in Pour DG(630.0) z.
in bay 3 (10 yards)
September 14 Revision 9 of Respons.es to Requests Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f),
is forwarded to NRC J
September 19 Completed pouring east-west ductbank Pour DG in bay 3 (16 yards)
(632.0)B a
September 24 Po.ured east side of bay 4 mudmet for Pour DG base slab (632.92)A i-September 29 Poured remainder of bay 4 mud mat for Pour DG base slab (632.92)B October 2 Poured mudmat for bay 3 base slab Pour DG (28 yards)
(633.92)A 1.
j OO62y 11 k
+
4
.gw-~
. m.:... a.. w a.
j
)
Chrnnolooien1 List of Events (Continued)"
y.-
l Date Activity Reference-y j.
October 7 Oral depositions of NRC staff, CPdo
, NUREG-0793 to BPC, and consultants (of NRC) during (Appendix A) 3 February 20 discovery for soils hearing 1
~
. October 8 North half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG(633.J2}f poui d in bay 4 (26 yards)
October 14-South half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour OG(63 3.')2) E poured in bay 4 (40 yards)
October 16 North half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG(63e 0)B po'ured in bay 3 (28 yabds)
Octoher 23 South half of el 634'-O" slab is Pour DG(634.0)C poured in bay 3 (39 yards)
October 31 Diesel generator has been installed Geotechnical in bay.1 Trip Report (Com 037095)
November 13 Diesel generator has been installed Geof:.hnical
~'
in bay 2 Trip R e:.o r t (Com 037095)
November 21 Revision 10 of Responses to Requests Regarding Plant Fill,~10 CFR 50.54(f),
is submitted to'NRC Decembe 1*5 DG has been installed in bay 3 Geotechnical Trip Report (Cnin 03709 5) 1981
~
Feb rua ry 5 DG has been installed in bay 4 Geotechnical Trip Rep..rt (Com 037095)
Mar.-h 16 Revision 11 of Responses to Requests CPCo leti.ar Regarding Plant Fill, 10 CFR 50.54(f), Serial 11632 is submitted to NRC AprJ1 18 Calculation DQ-14(Q) is signed off at Revision O.
Calculation supports re.alts presented in NRC Technical Audit of April 20 through 24
+
April 20 to NRC performs structural technical April 24 audit of Midland Nuclear Power Plint g'
Apr il 16 Crack mapping of DG8 is again per-
- IOM, J.L.
Hoek-H.
Formed water to B.
Dhar
]
(Com 028197)
]
t g
3 OO62y 12 t
'*T" 77.
%)
g.,
g, 79 M
r
--g
.._._...m__
Chronoloqicrl List of Events (Continu!d).,
c i
Date Activity Reference July 7 Sent nodal forces to D. Green of
- IOM, L.H. Curtir
~
Earthquake Engineering Services for
- to D. Grcon input to ADINA analysis (Com
)
July 13 Crack mapping results of DGB are fur-
- IOM, J.L. Hoek-I war.ded to Ann Arbor office water to B. Dhar (Com 036143) s 4
July 17 Sont nodal fnrces to D. Green of EES
- IOM, L.H.
Curtis for input to ADINA analysis to D. Gree'n (Com
)
j August 19 Preliminary Report on ADINA an.ilysis IOM.
D. Green is submitted to Bechtel by CYGNA to L.H.
Curtis (formerly li.S)
(Com 039796) c Aug" t 31 Authorization is sought to retain IOM, T.E. Johnson M. Sozen as consultant to E.A.
Rumb mgh (Com 048581) 3 J
i September 1 Final Report on MCAR 24 is submitLed BLC-11412 f
to CPCo t
i September 10 Final Report on ADINA analysis is sub-IOM, D. Green miti.d to Bechtel by CYGNA (formerly
.to L.H.
Curtis 1-EES)
(com 041955)
- IOM, F.
Villalta Sep; ember 30 Meeting with NRC staff to discuss study of stresses in vicinity of to A.J.
Boos crack in wall of DGB (Com
)
1 4
October 6 Meeting with NRC on underground NUREG-0/93 and 7
.,sipes and DGB settlement; measure *
(Appendix A) monts October 16 Letter to NRC forwarding final NU R EG- 079 3 reports on NRC structural audit (Appendix 4) open items Octo!.or 21 Technical Roport, " Structural CPCo letter 2
Stresses Induced by the Differential Sorial 14316
'i Settlement of the Diesel General.or Building" is submitted to the NRC a
j O c to bo.- 26 Rcuision 12 of Response to NRC C P C o l e t.t. e r 3.
Requests Regarding Plant Fill is Serial 14333 i
transmitted to NRC 1
December 10 Meeting with NRC to discuss existing
- IOM, R.C.
Bauman concrete cracks (N. Swanberg, to A.J.
Boos 1
T.E.
Johnson, and M. Sozen present (Com 055320) for Bechinl) w 13 0062y
~"j_ -. - -. _
^
,3-
,s-
,m_
. ~
-u a
~
Chronological List of Events ( Co n tinued )--
E L
o Date Activi'tv Reference 1982 January 11 Meeting in Bethesde between NRC and consultants, CPCo, Bochtel, and its consultants to discuss cracks I
f January 28 Calculation DQ-23(Q) is signed off 4
at Revision O.
Calculation DQ-23(Q) supports first drafts of Karl Wiednor's Public Hearing testimony ( S e t tl e.m.n t f
whichjaas previously contained in FSAR load combinations is removed.)
Fctuuary 12 Report of Construction Technology (Com 059271)
Laboratories' (CTL) " Evaluation of Cracking in DGB at Midland Plant" is forwarded by CTL to CPCo
=
February 16 Report entitled Evaluation of the J. Mooney to Effect on Structural Strength of
.. H. Denton (CPCo Cracks in the Walls of the DGB by Scri ' 15978 Meto A Sozen is forwarded to the NRC l
BPC, Com 059799)
Februm y 23 CPCo and Bechtel moet with NRC in to.
Rothesda to dircuss : soils remedial February 25 actions February )$' NRC staff receives advance copy of NUREG-0793 K. Wiedner's draft testimoqy,
(Appendix A)
(January 8, 1982) on structural reanalysis of the DGB, oxcluding Appendix C March 5' Crack survey of DGB cast wall is"com-
- IOM, J.L.
Hoek-plcted water to B. Dhar (Com 061512) 4 April 19 ACRS Report is submitted to NRC C PCr. letter 4
Scrial 16t,29 i
s May 11 Safo!J Evaluation Report (SER) is NUREG-0793 j
issued by the NRC' (Appendix A) h June 2 Technical report revision (required BLC-14356 4
as a result of meetings with NRC in i
Bethesda during February 23 and j
25, 1982) is sent to CPCo i
June Supplement 1 to SER is issued by the NUREG-0793 y
NRC
-,i a
1
~
L t it *,. 2 y 14
.=
=
..m. m _. ~. m..,
C_hronnlodien1' List of Events (Continued)-
t t
Date Activity Referenco 5
June 125 Revision 13 of Responses to NRC
.CPCo letter Requests Regarding Plant Fill is Se' rial 1/916 transmitted to NRC J...n 23 FSAR Revision 44 is transmitted to CPCo lettee to NRC (Revision 44 is first revision NRC (J.W. Cook I
of FSAR which physically includos to H.R. Donton) four settlement equations of Scrial 17897 Response to Question 15 of the NRC j
Requests Regarding Plant Fill).
3 July 29 and NRC visits Ann Arbor office to dis-July 30 cuss comments on NRC's draft Safety Evaluation Report September 2 Meeting hc1d in Alburquerque, New s
Mexico to discuss the fifth draft of Dr. Peck's testimony (S. Affifi,
==
[
K.
- Wiednce, J.
Brennor, M.
- Millor, D.A.
7anese)
A September 23 Public Hearing Testimony of K. Wiedner BPC letter to is transmitted to lawyers (1 sham, Is h,m, Lincoln &
Lincoln & Beale) for distribution ~.
Beale October Supplement 2 to SER is issued by the NUREG-0793 i
NRC December Public Hearing in Midland Courthouse
, on Diesel Cencrator Building December 17 Revision 14 of Responses to.NRC
.- CPCo letter Requests Regarding Plant Fill is Serial 20390 transmitted to NRC 1983 January 4 Dead load, live 10ad, and sett1cmont BPt: 1.tter to SMA j
load stresses distributions are for-(Com 100:.:'2 3 )
wneded to R.P.
Kennedy of Structural Mechanic Associates
,'MA) i January 21 Add i t ional stres s ' dis tributions arc BPC letter to SMA submitted to SMA (node coordinates (Com 102278) j and connectivity) t
.4 f
l s
j w
aj 0062y 15 i
i 9
- -- ------ - j x
_. ~.
- ~ - -
~ - - -
lr w.s
. ~. + -. ~.
x-- -m.
u.
/
@ll L. t' 2 l
l; 3 JM ATTACHMENT 2
+
i August 24, 1983
(
l e
s b
J Yb s
L!
3 i).
i i
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 a
')
o DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
-t EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
g
- i 3
A 4
I 4 I
l l
9 3
a L
1, n
l:
h l;
P he r
I j
i l
t a
L With September 12, 1983 Addendum
{
i t
0204y10
- o ~ r a n i x I(19 u Jtudtu a a <
6,, _ _.
m _ _.
. __-.... cz 1;..----
2
-j j
MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 9
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
- .j,
l
.e TABLE OF CONTENTS s
Pace I.
BACKGROUND 1
A.
GENERAL 1
B.
LAYOUT 1
C.
ORIGINAL DESIGN 1
1.
Philosophies 1
2.
Structural Systems 1
3.
Conservatisms 2
II.
DIESEL GENERATOR dONSTRUCTION HISTORY 2
III.
REMEDIAL PROGRAM 3
A.
SURCHARGE PROGRAM 3
}
B.
PERMANENT DEWATERING SYSTEM 4
C.
SETTLEMENT PREDICTIONS 4
1.
Settlement Predictions Based on 4
Surcharge Program 2.
Settlement Predictions Based on 6
Laboratory Data D.
FOUNDATION MATERIAL PROPERTIES 6
j 1.
Bearing Capacity 6
2.
Dynamic Properties of Backfill 6
E.
SURCHARGE EFFECTIVENESS 7
4, F.
SETTLEMENT MONITORING 7
2 IV.
STRUCTURAL REANALYSIS 7
A.
DESIGN CRITERIA 7
l-;-
it 0284y19 11 l
~
-a
~--..... - --..:.
j; h
Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary j
1 j
TABLE OF Con 1sais (Continued) 8 I
Figure No.
Title 3
ES-4 Typical Settlement, Cooling Pond Level,
,,j Piezometer Level, and Surcharge Load History b
ES-5 Settlement vs Logarithm of Time from 1/26/79 F
,to 9/14/79, Marker DG-3 ES-6 Settlement vs Logarithm of Time Since 9/14/79, Marker DG-3 ES-7 Estimated Secondary Compression Settlements from 12/31/81 to 12/31/2025 Assuming Surcharge Remains ES-8 Measured Settlement from 9/14/72 to 12/31/81 ES-9 Average Settlement After Surcharge Removal, BA-8 and BA-53 ES-10 Settlement v3 Logarithm of Time Since 9/14/79 Showing Corrected Slope, Marker DG-3 ES-ll Shear Wave Velocity Profile ES-12 Comparison of Effective Stress Before and After Surcharge - Southwest Corner
~
ES-13 Finite-Element Model ES-14 Summary of Actual and Estimated Settlements ES-15 Comparison of Settlement Values, Presurcharge Period. August 1978 - January 1979 ES-16 Comparison of Settlement Values, Surcharge i
Period, January 1979 - August 1979 j
ES-17 Comparison of Settlement' Values, Postsurcharge Period September 1979 - December 2025 W
s 1
j 0284y21 iv i
_w, c
s 9
a y
.7 m
.c
m-
]
'~
4 s
[
c MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 b
DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING f
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
4 I.
BACKGROUND p
A.
GENERAL d.
A construction permit for Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 was 4
k issued by the Atomic Energy Commission on December 15, 1972.
l Soils-related problems were first identified in July 1978 h
when the settlement monitoring program detected excessive p
settlement of the diesel generator building (DGB).
The DGB K
has a shallow foundation and is located at the southern end h
of the main power block as shown in the site plan (Figure ES-1).
The building had settled more than was
,.j predicted for this stage of construction.
Shortly j
thereafter, the applicant verbally reported the matter to the NRC site inspector, and formally reported it under 10 CFR l
j 50.55(e) in September 1978.
n B.
LAYOUT The DGB is a two-story, reinforced-concrete structure with
'l three crosswalls that divide the structure into four cells; each cell contains a diesel generator unit.
The building is supported on continuous footings that are founded at el 628' and rests on till that extends down to approximately el 603'.
Plan dimensions of the DGB are approximately 155' x 70' with a total internal height of approximately 44 feet as shown in Figure ES.2.
Each diesel generator rests on a i
6'-6"-thick, reinforced-concrete pedestal that is not structurally connected to the building foundation.
C.
ORIGINAL DESIGN 1.
Philosophies The DGB is a Seismic Category I, safety-related structure designed to protect the diesel generators and associated
]
equipment and to protect this equipment from extreme environmental conditions such as seismic events and tornado and wind loads.
As a result of these requirements, a box-type, reinforced-concrete structure with thick walls and roof was chosen.
The building is supported by strip or continuous footings.
The diesel generators, supported on separate foundations, isolate j
the building from any potenti'al vibration problem.
5 2.
Structural Systems i
In general, conventional and standard calculations were t
used to analyze and design the various components of the structural system.
Computer analysis using the finite-element method was used in some cases such as the 1
4 0284y 1
4
.m.
n-s 9
3 f
Midland Diesel Generator Building j
Executive Summary s
~
set'lement monitoring program detected settlements of 3.5 inches t
at the point of greatest settlement, compared to the design q
predictions of 3 inches for the 40 years of expected plant H
operation.
It appeared that the building was settling due to the consolidation of the underlying fill and was being partially support,ed along the north portion by four electrical duct banks n
M acting as verti' cal piers resting on the natural soil below the fill.
Shortly thereafter, the applicaat verbally reported the matter to the NRC site inspector, and formally reported it under 10 CFR 50.55(e) in September 1978.
Construction of the DGB was voluntarily stopped in August 1978 and a soil boring program was initiated to determine tre quality of the backfill under the foundation.
Drs. R.B. Peck and A.J. Hendron, Jr. were retained as consultants to advise on the selection and the execution of any remedial action.
The exploration program confirmed that the fill did not meet the specified compaction requirements and that it consisted-of both cohesive soil and granular soil.
Lean concrete was also used j
locally as backfill.
The fill ranged from very soft to very stiff for cohesive soil and from very loose to dense for granular a
soil.
At the time of the exploration, the groundwater level ranged from el 616' to el 622', and the cooling pond, located about 275 feet south of the building, had a water level at j
approximately el 622'.
On the basis of the consultants' recommendations and after a review of various alternatives, it was decided to surcharge the DGB and the surrounding area to accelerate settlement and consolidate the fill material.
During November 1978, the duct banks (see Figure ES-2A) entering the DGB were isolated from the building so additional settlement due to surcharging and the additional deadweight of the structure to be constructed would not overstress these areas.
Construction of the building was i-also resumed in November 1978 with the remainder of the concrete work on the building being essentially completed by the end of March 1979.
Before the surcharge program began in January 1979, the utilities entering the DGB were isolated from the DGB so that settlement during surcharging would not overstress these areas.
j-The utilities were reconnected after the surcharge program was j
completed in August 1979.
III.
REMEDIAL PROGRAM A.
SURCHARGE PROGRAM The purpose of the surcharge was to accelerate the settlement so that future settlement under the operating loads would be within tolerable limits.
Furthermore, this procedure would permit a reliable estimate of the future settlement.
Before i-the surcharge was placed, soil instrumentation was installed
'~
(see Table ES-1).
The instrumentation was directed at monitoring settlement and pore water pressure in the fill.
g O
0284y 3
1 "a
,,_iEl
. lE
~C
__J~"~_._,_
~ ~ " ' ~ ' -
~7~
~
~
~
~
a;
}
]
t j
Midland Diesel Generator Building j
Executive Summary k
I j
building showed a maximum settlement of about O'.1 inch.
i
~
l This is less than the range of 0.2 to 0.5 inch, which was i
predicted on the basis of the previously mentioned i
straight-line extrapolation.
Following the start of dewatering activities,in September 1980 up to Eecember 31. 1981 the building settled 0.4 to 0.5 inch (see Figure ES-8) primarily due to lowering the groundwater table from approximately el 620' to el 595'.
Between December 31, 1981, and June 1983, the building settled an additional 0.3 inch primarily due to further e
lowering of the groundwater table to approximately el 587'.
As shown in Figure ES-6, these settlements display relatively steep slopes on the settlement-versus-log-time plot.
However, when these data are compared with the observed settlements of.the two Borros anchors BA-8 and BA-53 (see Figure ES-9) embedded in the natural soil below the structures, it is seen that most of the observed settlement ~of the building was due to deep settlement of the underlying natural soil caused by dewatering.
When the uniform, deep-seated settlement of the natural soil (below el 603') due to dewatering is subtracted from the total building settlement, the resulting backfill settlement-versus-log-time plot (see Figure ES-10) displays a slope less than the one used for secondary consolidation settlement prediction.
Therefore. the predictions of secondary consolidation settlement given in Figure ES-7 are conservative.
Furthermore, any future dewatering settlements should be small because future drawdown would exceed the present magnitude by only small amounts.
4 Concern about liquefaction of the loose sand portions of the backfill is eliminated by permanent groundwater lowering.
The settlement of the unsaturated sand because of ground shaking caused by earthquakes (shakedown settlement) was calculated on the basis of the approach described by Silver and Seed (Reference 2) and the recommendations on multidirectional shaking by Pyke.
5 Seed, and Chan (Reference 3).
The estimated shakedown settlement is approximately 1/4 to 1/2 inch for ground acceleration up to 0.19 g.
The north side of the building will settle the maximum of'1/4 to 1/2 inch during the 0.19 g earthquake, whereas the south side will settle a negligible amount because there is a smaller
)
thickness of sand under the south side of the DGB.
- Thus, the building will tend to. rotate slightly toward the north during seismic shaking.
To date, it has tended to
- rotate south during static settlement under the surcharge load due to the higher percentage of clay under the south side of the building.
1 9
J
- O284y 5
~
N Y7
~
g
-v L.
--..--m,
- + - - _
..,.--r.,
L.
.m 3
Midland Diesel Generator Building o
[
Executive Summary 4
j surface to el 615' and by a value of 850 ft/see'from el 615' to el 600'.
These numbers were used to determine j,,
the shear wave velocity value used in the seismic T
analysis of the DGB.
E.
SURCHARGE EFFECTIVENESS 1"
Figure ES-12 presents a comparison between the pressures that 9
existed during. surcharge and those expected during the i
operating life of the structure.
This comparison shows that at all depths in the fill, the pressures that existed during surcharge exceeded those that are expected while the structure is operational.
Furthermore, all settlement-versus-log-time plots show that secondary consolidation has R
been reached.
Therefore, the settlements predicted on the assumption that the surcharge remains in place for 40 years (see Figure ES-7) are conservative based on the fact that all l
loads added after surcharge removal, including those due to permanent dewatering, will be less than the surcharge loading at all depths.
1 F.
SETTLEMENT MONITORING The settlement of the diesel generator building will be l
monitored during plant operation.
Survey measurements will be taken at least every 90 days during the first year of plant operation.
Survey frequency for subsequent years will
[
be established after evaluating measurements taken during the first year.
Allowable total settlements, which are based on the predicted values. have been established for each of the i
settlement markers on the structure and pedestals.
If 80% of i
the allowable settlement (settlement action limit) is reached, survey frequency will be increased to at least once every 60 days and an engineering evaluation will be performed.
If the allowable settlements are exceeded, the j
plant will be shut down until the structure's safety can be established.
IV.
STRUCTURAL REANALYSIS
)'
A structural reanalysis was performed on the DGB to determine the settlement and surcharging effects on the building.
A.
DESIGN CRITERIA The DGB is predominately made from 4.000 psi concrete (except the roof slab, which is 5,000 psi concrete) reinforced with Grade 60 steel bars.
The building was originally designed for the ACI g
code allowables.
The load combinations employed for the original analysis and design of the DGB are provided in FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3.
The j
original FSAR load combinations did not contain a settlement effects term (T).
Four additional load combinations were 0284y 7
'.- n.-.. _.,-
~
,.,. _, - -..,,,... _,,. -. -.. -., ~, _,..... _ _.. - _. _,. -,. _ _.,. _ _., _ _ -., _ _. _ _ _ _ _,. _.. _.
- _. _ - -
m
-.n..._
a
y.
~
^: ::
}
\\
I Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary-i 1
the boundary condition.
Figure ES-13 illustrates an
?
isometric view of the finite-element model.
~
2.
Load ReDresentation
)
The' dead load is represented in the finite-element model by the acceleration due to gravity.
The live load is represented by pressures applied to plate elements i
modeling the floors.
Wind loads are represented by pressures on plate elements and concentrated nodal loads.
Seismic loads are represented by accelerationn and settlement effects are represented by the soil l
springs explained below.
3.
Soils Sorinas i
I a)
Short-Tern Load Analysis 1
l
]
The overall translational soil impedances from the dynamic model are used to calculate soil springs in j
the finite-element analysis for short-term loads
}
(i.e., wind, tornado, and seismic).
b)
Analysis Without Settlemept Effects The analytical model for dead load and live load case without settlement effects was constructed by using large values for the soil springs.
?
j c)
Analysis for Settlement Effects For long-term loadings with settlement effects, the structural reanalysis addresses four distinct time periods.
A unique set of measured or estimated settlement values that corresponds to each of the following periods are used:
1)
March 28, 1978, to August 15, 1978 U
The first scribe mark was placed on the structure on March 28, 1978.
August 15, 1978, represents the closest survey date before halting DGB construction.
The structure was partially
!r completed to 26 feet (el 656'-6") above the top j
of the foundation.
A long-hand analysis was used for calculating stresses.
L.
2)
August 15, 1978, to January 5, 1979 The duct banks were separated from the structure, I
and DGB construction activities resumed during this period.
January 5, 1979, is.the last survey date before the start of surcharge activities.
4 0284y 9
,= -
=
- =
.:e A.
= =
=
~
_. - ~t j
a f
a g
j Midland Diesel Generator Building j
Executive Summary j
1
]
4.
Analysis of Survey Data 4
j An analysis of the survey data reveals that the data are 1
not accurate enough to reflect the exact changes in the structural shape due to the settlement.
The results of a review of this survey data can be summarized as follows:
a)
The di5ference between consecutive measurements at a building location reveals both positive and negative values.
The negative values indicate that the structure moved up or a potential inaccuracy in measurement existed.
Because the structure cannot easily move up against its own weight, it is likely
/
that a negative value indicates an inaccuracy in measurement.
b)
Review of relative displacements of the north and south walls show that the data vary irregularly.
It cannot be concluded from these data that the-structure developed differential settlement in the period considered.
c)
Angle Variation Analysis During the settlement period considered, random changes in algebraic sign exists for the vertical angle formed by three markers along the south wall of the DGB.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the settlement of the structurt during this period was mainly rigid body motion.
d)
Warpage Analysis The warpage across the structure was found to vary with time between positive and negative values.
It can be concluded that the survey data are not 1
sufficiently accurate to prove that the structure has developed differential settlement (warpage)'across i
the corners.
i Summarizing, the survey data analysis concludes that the existing data were not accurate enough for direct use in
~
structural analysis and need to be modified, error bands were established to be between 0.125 inch and 0.225 inch i
for the four settlement periods.
By smoothing the settlement vs time curves to compensate for the survey inaccuracies, the data reflect that the structure was experiencing mainly rigid body motion in the period during which settlement was measured.
0204y 11
~ "~~~ C ~ ~ T.
c
~'7 7
_ T- __ 7l r y_ 7 m e -
w
wa
- -.. ~ _ =..
l
(
f' Executive Summary Midland Diesel Generator Buildi'gn l
i junction of the south wall and the interior wall separating i
bays 3 and 4.
Soil spring values were then. linearly varied i
in the north as well as the east-west directions so that they l
' returned to their original 40-year value within a distance of
~
l approximately 15 feet from the zero spring.
It can be l'
concluded from this analysis that the DG3 can successfully span the assumed soft soil spot introduced without j
significantly increasing the stress levels.
b E.
EFFECTS OF CONbRETE CRACKS A set of electrical. duct banks located beneath the building foundation initially acted to restrain the even movement of the structure during fill settlement.
A systematic crack pattern was observed in walls resting on the duct banks.
Cracks in walls that do not rest on duct banks are attributable to the effect of restrained volume changes y
during curing and drying of the concrete.
Cracks were first mapped after the duct banks were separated from the DGB and prior to surcharge placement.
Another crack mapping of the DGB was performed after surcharge removal to acertain the effect of surcharge.
The concrete cracks within the DGB were formally addressed in the response to Question 29 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill.
In this response, the cause and significance of the concrete cracks in all structures were presented.
Subsequently, during the NRC structural technical audit of April 1981, further discussion was held concerning the effects of the cracks and the additional stresses resulting from the concrete cracks.
To evaluate the additional stress'es associated with the concrete cracking, a number of analytical approaches have been used and the results forwarded to the NRC in the response to Question 40 of the NRC Requests Regarding Plant Fill.
These results indicated that because these stresses are strain-induced secondary stresses, they do not affect the ultimate strength capacity of the cracked member.
o In response to an NRC request for a nonlinear, finite-element analysis to evaluate the effects of cracks on the integrity y
b of the DGS, an additional computer analysis of the DGB was p
performed.
This analysis was performed using a finite-l~
element program. Automated Dynamic Incremental Nonlinear
]
Analysis (ADINA), which is a three-dimensional, nonlinear y
program capable of considering concrete crushing, cracking, crack widening, and reinforcement yielding.
The east. wall of b
the DGB was selected for the ADINA analysis.
A crack was Q
modeled into the east wall, and the ADINA analysis was j
performed for two governing load combinations.
The analysis p
indicated that the effect of concrete cracks was localized and minor in nature.
The results of this ADINA analysis were
]!
submitted to the NRC, followed by meetings with the NRC staff to discuss these results.
t b,
0284y 13 d
,mm
..u..-.
-. J :.,-
. 2 -.K...
L.
- L C Y L - -.--.
- = _
s l'
a P
h y
Midland Diesel Generator Building a
]
Executive Summary
,b i
the load distributions to the individual walls.
Th'e shear 1
valls and diaphragms were evaluated for seismic loads i
combined with loads due to normal operating conditions pre.dicted by static analyses.
1 j
Capacities for the shear walls were developed in accordance with the ultimate strength design provisions contained in ACI 1
~,
349-80.
Shear walls were checked for their ability to resist j
'in-plane shears and overturning moments.
Margin factors were i
determined for thw selected walls based on comparisons of the N-loads due to seismic and normal operating conditions and the code ultimate strength capacities.
The selected walls were found to be governed by overturning moment.
The lowest code margin calculated was found to be 1.8.
The SME must be increased by at least a factor of 2.2 before the code margin for any wall would be exceeded.
4 Diaphragm capacities were determined using ACI 349-80 criteria develop 9d for shear walls.
The diaphragms evaluated were found to ho governed by shear.
The lowest code margin for the diaphragms was found to be 2.0.
For any diaphragm to reach code capacity, the SME must be increased by a factor of 2.1.
1 Code margins for the selected structural elements were all conservatively based on minimum specified material strengths and maximum seismic load cases.
Reductio'ns in loads to account for inelastic energy dissipation were not used for the DGB.
All code margins were determined to be greater than unity.
Before code capacity is reached for any DGB element investigated, the SME must be increased by 2.1.
It can, i
therefore, be concluded that the DGB has more than sufficient structural capacity to resist the SME based on code criteria and significantly higher capacity before failure is expected.
V.
CONCLUSIONS 4
The original design of the DGB, based on its overall geometry and layout, produced a structure with a great deal of reserve strength.
The settlements during early stages of construction y
and during the surcharge program did not cause any unusual distress or significant loss of structural strength.
The remedial program of surcharging the area with 20 feet of sand has y
caused the fill to now be under secondary consolidation.
Future a
settlement can be conservatively predicted and will not be j
excessive.
It has been shown through the soil exploration program that the fill material under the DGB does have sufficient reserve in bearing capacity to resist all the imposed loads with y~
the proper safety factor.
This area of the site is being permanently dewatered to eliminate any potential for liquefaction 4
that could occur in the sand backfill below the DGB during a f-seismic event.
9)
N a
i o
0284y 15 i '.
+-- _, z,
y.
a.
~.
-.L
-- :2 L:
C L
+
- ~. -
-..----- - - x... -.
a-..
Midland Diesel Generator Building Executive Summary i
l REFERENCES-i l
l.
N.B. Seed. " Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation l
for' Level Ground During Earthquakes," Journal of the Geotechnical Encineerine Division. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol 105 No. GT2 i
(February 1979). Pages 201 through 255 2.
M.L. Silver and'H.B. Seed The Behavior of Sands Under l
Seismic Loadino Conditions, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California.
i l
Berkeley, California, December 1969 i
3.
R. Pyke B. Seed, and K.C. Chan, " Settlements of Sands under Multidirectional Shaking," Journal of Geotechnical
(
Encineerino Division, GT4, April 1975. Pages 379 through 397 f
0284y 17
...s.-.,..:.,
.7....,
F I
TABLE ES-2 i
LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR CONCRETE STRUCTURES OTHER THAN THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING
\\p -
l FROM THE FSAR AND QUESTION 15 OF RESPONSES TO j
NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL 1;
'Resnonses to NRC Recuests Recardina Plant Fill. Question 15 a.
Service Load Condition U = 1.05D + 1.28L + 1.05T (1)
U = 1.4D + 1.4T (2) b.
Severe Environmental Condition t
t U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0W + 1.0T (3) c U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.0E + 1.0T (4) 4 FSAR Subsection 3.8.6.3 a.
Normal Load Condition U = 1.4D + 1.7L (5) i b..
Severe Environmental Condition r
U = 1.25 (D + L + Ho + E) 1.OTo (6)
+
U = 1.25 (D + L + Ho + W) 1.0To (7)
+
U = 0.9D + 1.25 (No + E) 1.0To (8)
+
U = 0.9D + 1.25 (Ho + W) 1.0To (9)
+
{
c '.
Shear Walls and Moment Resisting Frames U = 1.4 (D + L + E) + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (10)
W j
U = 0.9D + 1.25E + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (11) f',
d.
Structural Elements Carrying Mainly Earthquake 3
Forces. Such as Equipment Supports 0
U = 1.0D + 1.0L + 1.8E + 1.0To + 1.25Ho (12)
.i
- i i
"A 0284y23
)
, +uem w._. g wn
=
4 M
- 7 ^' W
~*
' ^ ^ '. " " " "
~
.L.
m.a ~ i
~
s 4,
j TABLE ES-3 i
LOADS AND LOAD COMBINATIONS FOR COMPARISON ANALYSIS REQUESTED IN QUESTION 26 OF NRC REQUESTS REGARDING PLANT FILL ACI 349 as SucDiemented by Reculatory Guide 1.142 a.
Normal Load condition U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.7L + 1.7Ro U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.7L + 1.7To + 1.7Ro]
b.
Severe Environmental Condition U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9Eo + 1.7Ro U = 1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.7W + 1.7Ro U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.9Eo + 1.7To
+ 1.78 ]
0 U = 0.75 [1.4 (D + T) + 1.4F + 1.7L + 1.7H + 1.7W + 1.7To
+ 1. 7 Ro ]
c.
Extreme Environmental Conditions U=
(D + T) + F + L + H + To + Ro + WT U= (D + T) + F + L + H + To + Ro + Ess d.
Abnormal Load Conditions U = (D + T) + F + L + H + Tg,+ RA + 1.5PA U= (D + T) +F+L+H+TA+RA + 1.25Pg + 1.O(YR+TJ
+ Yg) + 1.25Eo U = (D + T) +F+L+H+TA + Rg + 1.0Pg + 1.0(YR + YJ
+ Yg) + 1.0 Egg N
where
~
Normal loads are those loads encountered during normal. plant operation and shutdown, and include:
T
= settlement loads l
0284y25 L
-. ~. - _,
.a = _
=s-..
e l
}
' continued)
Table ES-3
(
f.
= jet impingement load on a structure generated by a Yg t
l-postulated break i
= missile impact load on a structure generated by or Yg j
during a postulated break, such as pipe whipping N
9
)
O i
i s
4 t
1 1,1 0284y27
- F"'
- e'-w ow-
_-_er.-,--
J
.u u
.L
_. _. _ _ _ ~. _ _....
a j
e H
R3
=e ?
5' SS S.l x8 v'
e 8 "-
Is z"
I i.
8 i
E-5<9 r
o 4
08 u.
bE j
4
=
=
r f
?Y<7 >kl //
/W!
ii,4
/
A/
l' Mp,;, "Y7[II( A /. k;7 /y' l
~
3 h.
-/
f I
g i a-n y,.
l;-
t, i f.i
- 6],.
l 1
I
'r i!/c -
rl'
/ ).'
, ;i,:
fg N./r-,1 ;; -
a-pi
, W~ ! r,, -
.~r j,
t-2 j; <, i,. '.y (. > A ' // bl - b." j. '\\ i : ' s f..?
.i r ~
x S
i
./ N -,I: /l c'& r6W y-
,t :
p
.x i, a.
+
e
//
!,b s 9 * '
. / '.&
! il
~/.'
18 4 31
./
'A 4
,i
'V.
j
'~
.i; ' '? gh
- .L
- i o / '/' j
. M '.
m!
b 'li!:.'V'$
at
.y
irl
&/
l 1
~ N:,M\\
i-k
,('
'.,__ l.,i hi m %.g V
.., ! ~'
'i
/V p an d-
..d h, !!ri
-- m - 7 a
lie,
7 d's'!):L ro
.i i
m g
p d' EVte
'i!
- ~i!f.
! rl t
It r
nr i
.it f "I. p, I;: lo di, r
r Ir ol R.: % - ij '-
.tj6 i.
1 Y
3 r
s'
!U h 'g f>e' Q 1l W '%m l
dqtfyi i
'\\
~
e a
o gy g,-ww=-a y.,
4
~
y
-f H EF j
\\
n
_i r
f 1 y i
/'
i 4 i l i
8, rm a
's y
g t i t.
ry a
'n i
,,q ;,r--h_ u t&
=
p 1
mi e J
- s i
j J J_
! Q
.m x
4 a
I i.
1 f %m
- 2. [~~
- ~~
-,g,,
p.
,e.m b*
'O
-e
- g i
e
+
w 1
9 O
5 a
B<
9
~
gi a
.a a
=
t-g
=
52 E
z-E o
38 I
$b 3
a b
to
- 4:
11, 3
t
,/
rf
.t 1-ry;t.L L
a J
s 1..
i l ld3....d'$
Q
}
l
-=
k M!,
C e
i
-l J
--ty ~:
i w
i si s_
d
,d i
ef 1.
- E
-I
~'
't I
g, '.
'r i
i
+
u- '
s f_ ;,
i
/.%c ir iT 4
L
=!
il
!g r-. J ("j li w
'--- # 7-i
'i L 2
!!6 l
. 2.1,. __.
j M
Ibb!!!!$!!! -'
j h
- l!l.
l E ! r. m
" $ z ! F il. $..
!.d. !; !.!.!d..!E.
li!,.
.m oi g ry, l!E
.... q' ' 4 l',
l h' h
~
. ], _
i
-l
- l L
- ,c : w I-J wi*
I.:
g..
k Ni i
,m i
l I!.. :l.
.I II l I i,
c,
- l y
si lj l l
i 1!I li t
i
!I i ! :
e
,t l
l ],
l l.
6 l
- t i
y-
=
p
_fJ h-ar'
~'
8-w it' r.?...
l
. in
-, =
_.f Jl l u
. y J
9 i ;:.. f 9e A - k Il l' g
- 5'.
r
~
_r.I h.
~
r' '
s'J a
q
~ J-l l
W v*
(5"_
a i:!l 6
!!l,lJJ L.~-
l di 1
7, c,.
.47 aw.
- m i
- li G
l #
1 i
\\
.V
%\\ \\ (
I.
aC 9
c I.i a
}y g
J i
i l
I4 i
r ab e.
pg 9- -
a hj J"7
,.....y.-_-._...-~
v]-7
.=--
y-7- -
y: :....
wxa _w w--
1 iI T BANKS t
n a l*s l) ib so s s-ss r!
TURBINE BUILDING ss
- a s%
i bi iI ggg ts sa usse gg
.q pp 11Il gs l.
pp i'
iiin s s
)) ((
\\\\
l i
ei ss s s
\\s s '.
m
- w3
.i ne.,..:.
- e. :.
..x -c.,
..x. -c.
.x.,c.-
k
- [
//
'g }
\\'g
' I
/p
\\
\\
g
\\
/
s g
g i
l i
s I
/
s\\
\\
\\
L L
J a
es.
i i
s g
S-n-
i i
e, y ALL NORTH
,e -
.{
- l '
I t
l il I
s BAY 1 BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 5
3 i
I i
)
c 1 -
g,..
i De II t.
- e. -
1,.*'-
jj
't a a
.4 :
j 1i
~
00 TING se ue:.
. x. w.-
- ims.y
. x. w.-
- z,n y
. x.w.-
- i.n.y
- x. w. -
- 1,s.
U M
N O
O ll
~
REMOVED DUCT BANK i
I
' DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING TYPICAL SECTION EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
f l
I DUCT BANK LAYOUT i
1
~
i I
i FIGURE ES-2A
[
f a
,u i
~
i i, I
Aw i:
i i
' ~
1URRINE BLDG WALL m insa g
~
1 '1 1 \\
,y t
y e
q TRANSFORMER
~
~
[;
il si _
e!
8' 18 4
+
j 1'
al gl l
58 l
m i
Il gl BAY 1 'l BAY 2 lj BAY 3lI 4
+
ll BAY 4
' l!.
'l T__7 / "
88 l
av 81 1
1
--_ me.
Il 16 si y
q.
a n.
u.a w
w w
w 20' min n
~
s -
l A
PLAN-j 1
t 1
APPROJr i,
sr c
- i TIED RETAINING APPROXlu-2 EL g STRUCTLIRE
~
l e
m 3,
SURCHARGE
' ~ '
L A
(1 Ij
' (
GRADE El. 634.&- #
I h
TURBINE BLDG.
g-N DIESEL GENEHATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.1
-1 SECTION A-A I
i GENERAL LAYOUT OF i
?
SURCILARGE LOAD 0
50
- 4 W
FIGURE ES-3 l
SCALE IN FEET
_t
^
's.
~ * ~:.
~
lw - *
'; V d..a.'d t h-
. n .S' r
a s
[.
.t-9 t
teams gnavet d,
is is.
me n.
m.
m
=
m me ese m
me as me m
,e 5
u u
a e
u u
u s
_g 5
8.
==..
g" a
e t
ae
~
en y
l t-
[
i I
..e..
p-e-
- l_
l 4
e a
e a
a a
a e
a a
a e
a a
n gg thesatIngemeist we temas i
E==
.g g
g gm
}
- g. /.f e.
I*
lBO POIEDEttwAttons WS Inst
.j
.i 6
I I
E u
s a
8'8 Ig r
u a
5 5
s E
ensanannteneras i
g g-p-
_ q...
=
j=
i a
n
" I sc3retionssten ettwateous we tuut g.-
LO i
It g
i g
g s
gg s
n a
a e
a a
a a
a a
a a
1 d
8 te les See 3ES and 3ES 3B8 480 448 048 868 000 ene Me See see gne i
800 waa**** LeAO eestomy i
teint 4DAvel 4
- I DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
TYPICAL SETTLEMENT. COOLING POND LEVEL. PIEZOMETER LEVEL AND SURCIIARGE LOAD
- j IIISTORY 4 J i
S FIGURE ES-4 4
- eil
.... -..I d.a.d
~
g,
,(
7 y
. e t
e
~
N s.
t i,
A ge 4
f 4
9 Og l
I t-I-
la e
1 9 Se
=
.2, e
1 g
N. ~
u N
300 N
N h
EE TTLE.sti.I PE R t OG CTCLE Of telst C.
0 2S*
g I
N s
\\
s ee g
i:
N.
n
___.._______s i
'f
+
sa
- N smne mm
,,, /""
.l....
N.
l.
e l
s ee scu.an alive navs.
i I
9' E
l
- p. pe.w m.t.6es sound me. De
- e..se
,<d m n... n.
., r D1ESEL GENERATOR BUILDING a
..:.. 4 EXECUTlVE
SUMMARY
3,
~. :
< =. i. n.
w ame ens
.in tocaramPtas.
f-
~s 'l petMt 00setRA1088 oueLDessG~
SETTLEMENT VS. LOGARITHM OF j '
m 'o ause TIME FROM 1/26/79 TO l.j 9/14/79 j
j MARKER DG-3
'",l A
FIGURE ES-S I
k '}
71
}
Itj l
- i' I
r
,j
}
F N
M O
G ID H9 Y
T7 L
R I/
IOA R4 BM A13 6
G/ -
RM O9G S
OU L
D E
3 8S 8
TS E
A
/
E
.CR E
9 6
R V SNE R
2 5
EI VIK U
/
6 NT SR G
3 EU T
A I
GC NEM F
E EM L X MI E
E ET S
E LT ID T
E 00 S
,e.
0, W
1 y
Tk I
s l
"s.
i e
t i
i S
Y A
D
(
M I
e i
i T
E V
I T
A A
em G
t OLr i
i c
2 R
E1 s
P T
N a Ec M
E.
I t Te Tr Ec S
I i
97
/
4 1
e,
/
9 u
2 4,
6 s.
0 2
4 6
0 0 0 0l0 0 0 0 g
2 0
0 4
O 0
1 1
l l
l 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 7 3 2 1
6 6 6 6 5 5 5 t4>WJW
.tF y aI"w w a. " 20e t * $ w J. -
mwxuZ '
a xwt4Ro23OgO wr4E.XONQQ<-
l 2
c w,.
.!i 4'
,i ii Iii
_. i
- 1l4j; Il jl;
.d
,f.
1 1
- 8i
..- wu a a u a: 22 a z:. m at w u. a ::~ = wa a e..
u.
~
2.I UILSEL GENEllATOH BUILDING d
Y u'
3r n
n n
I
,y s
y
$I 0.79 0.99 j
[Q ~ ~kl0.97 0.82 0.85 1.06 O 0.94 X
2,0.84
[ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0.37
,7 ~ ~ 0.76
~~
t'.
I g
a l
I 8
g 0
l a
g g
g s
8 1.06 ) [
l g
g g
I g
i jQ.06 I
e 8
f I
I g
l k
l k
i f
1
(
)
(
)
(
8 I
e 1
8 I
l t
I i
1 l
4 8
l g
8 8
1 l
e 3
i I
I I
g e
--- j,.,'O O
-- X'i j
X asa X
- '** 'J
- ---]' **J.43X -,) ' *'- l
' "'_X X
0.99LX L
i i
hl.10 N
N N.
1.38h I" 1.20 1.22 1.49 h
LEGMQ
.i O
DEEP 80RROS ANCItOlt i
X BUILDING / PEDEST AL SETTLEMENT M ARKER l.
1.20 SETTLEMENT IN INCilES ki
!l DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING i l ll EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
l' l'
ESTIMATED SECONDARY i
i4 COMPRESSION SETTLEMENTS FROM i'
}
12/31/81 TO 12/31/2025 ASSUMING SURCilARGE REMAINS 4
fl i
t, FIGURE ES-7
.-. _u..u a.
s ;
.t
, _ s s...,
-c
...m.
p i
fi
~
'i UILSL L GLNE HATOH BUILDING
'.1 0.61)
(0.39 i
IO Q j
I Q
I I
l.
6
't RSS
~
0.47 O.50 0.51 1
1 h- ~ ~ ~ ~90.51
,S ~ ~ ~ 0.54 A
h~ ~ ~ ~ 0.52
@~~~~
0.49 e
g 8
8 e
i 1
8 I
i 1
I JCR41 t
I e
i 0.54 ) :
I e
g 8
I l
I I
I 1
\\
b
\\
\\
o
)
r I
(
)
(
1 r
I I
e i
I I
I I
I i
I I
I I
1 g
l l
8 I
I I
- * 'X
- 'lx_ __4gJ aak__4,q-asi:8___N,,;,O
.__x!,g 0.42)[g y
y (a43 0.47 0.49 t
Ii
- t. '
I)
LEGEND X
BUILDING / PEDESTAL SETTLEMENT MARKER 0.42 MEASURED SETTLEMENT BETWEEN 9/14/19 AND 12/31/81.
ll DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING i
{[
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
j
!i I'
'I MEASURED SETTLEMENT FROM 9/14/79 TO 12/31/81
}
r t
li FIGURE ES-8 h
r
i, t!
1!
,{
jIfr i ::
[,
o G
R N
ET ID Y F
L R AL
~
=
~
m
=
I 0
UA A3 0
TV5 0
BM 9
I NO -
i 2
OU MEB E
TS ER AE L
D E
RV TEF R
EI TGA U
N T ER G
EU SA8 I
I G C F
I E
RS ost E
se set E
tna ID V
t ate A
i ma L u T TmT aee sDs e
0 p
0 sN 0,
1 s
g 3
I e
0 I
0 0
e
/
g
-z I
3 e
0I i
0S 0Y 3
i AD E
V I
3 T
E i
A A
L g
S u
O se e
u 8
A CI S
E A
e S
0t w
1 0s f
8 41 e
O EGAR 2
t v
A 0
a 0 I
B 3
g 9
7
/
4 1
/
9 E
0 s 0 I
s 2
g u.
c 2:
J
~
a I
M I
0 O
o M
e L
0 2
4 s
0 0
o H
s S
s S
L a
=
IUE e ;os>5
- w g<lngO#<QOEt<
w:
e.
m
- tl.
.j j ".
q i
- 1
- - j
! f l.
1,l,t
..... :.. v, s
.L:
sc.
'~;
.:. a..
- x.<.
+n.a..
x.:.
< i.
.-..; r..:.
e
- I
'O*I j{
I I
I I
I I
I r CotaterED Plot (alATilRAL
=4 SOIL BEWArttillC j
g e.
.e
,e ee**
, e e ' ' ***
s Trtmaur svartActso)
= =. =, "
w.0.2
" N.'. % A N ' % %
=
w in
.e" I
r1 0 4.4
=
z e-o 0.6
- A'T -
~
s w
0.0 i
z 2
w J.
- 1. 0 s
e-W l.2 serrtrieur Pea Loc in cycts c. - 1.25-1 3,s 4
m W
l.0
'l1417' 6/2s/as-t H
['
1
<t U
i i
t i
e i
t W
t o^
i.I z6 630.0 4
q.
3w e
e e
a e
a a
ow
- * * = =.
,,,,=,,.
e u 620.o o
8 slo.o
=
w z e,'
r o 600.0
'=.
t-I' 2 6-590.0
...e 4
>< > 500. 0 -
ow 8
8 8
8 8
m s 570.o l.000 1,500 k
CtAAA ATIVE Tit ( (day $3 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
a SETTLEMENT VS. LOGARITHM OF TIME SINCE 9/14/79 SHOWING CORRECTED SLOPE MARKER DG-3
};
I-I FIGURE ES-10
[
l L
- ll e
l
It I
t
,1-pIf [ [ b t
y 3
E L
G I
N t
I F
n D
O e
Y R
s L
R P
I e.
rs UA 1
pn BM Y
1 eo ri RM T
I t
OU C
E S
sa TS O
l c oo A E L
E bl R V E
R m
EI V
ytsn NT UG e
EU E
I d r GC V
F ee E
A sf L X W
of E
l i E
S cd E
RA I
dt D
E na a
H s
S E
nt T
es O
pe N Ot 000 3
L L
I F
0 F
0 O
5 2
NO TT O
B E
0 T
0 e
0 D
A 00
-/-
5 1
A A
^
0 O
h 0
t 1
0 A
g A
1 4
A A
6 00 5
A 0
5 n
5 n
5 n
5 0
3 2
2 1
1 0
0 9
9 6
6 6
6 6
6 6
5
.5 Clk6* ! u>3an l
l
}
ri.-
, lj !t +ji
!,:.,1
s
~.
, n z;-
.w.. u j
PRESSURE (KSF)
O 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
c 828
~ '
t DEAD LOADS l
BEFORE SURCHARGE REMOVAL
/j i
/
I
/
t, 623 (Il (2)(4H5) (6 (3)
/
/
p i
/
/
I g
618 l
0 l
3 j
DEAD LOAD w
ADDED AFTER g
613 d
SURCHARGE l
i R E MOVA L--*
i LIVE LOAD--*
- h 60,
'2 DURING SURCHARGE g
IN-SITU EFFECTIVE STRESS LN t
p t.
SURCHARGE I
EXPLANATIONS 603 l.
p 1
(Il In-situ elfective overburden pressure (GWT at 627).
(2) Total of factive pressure before surcharge removal due
.l to In-situ of fective overburden pressure and structural j
dead loads present during surcharge.
(3) Total effective presure at the end of surcharge due
- In-setu offactive overburden pressure, structural dead DIESEL GENERATOR BillLDING i ]}.
loads, and surcharge loads.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
d' i (4) Total of factive pressure due to In-situ effective overburden
. !j pressure and total structural dead loads (loads present during surcharge plus dead loads added af ter surcharge rernovail.
COMPARISON OF EFFECTIVE g
g
- 'l (5) Total effective pressure due o In-situ ef fective overburden SURCHARGE SOUTIIWEST CORNER pressure, total structural dead loads, and expected live loads.
i
\\.
Gl Total of fective pressure during the life of plant operation due to in-situ offective overburden pressure, structural dead loads.
FIGURE ES-12 t
ii Jewatenng loads, and expected isvs loads.
f 4
3 l
- If f I
GN L
I D Y E
L D
R O
I H
UA M
3 T
BM 1
$ m.# #
N OU N
S f //#/// ! p/
E E
_1 TS o
M A E E
E i
e R V L
R n
.$g
!'i!k~
N T eI M" I gi
[
EI E
U n
i N
i!i!
G r
i i!!!l' EU E
H
,i I
7ie
/ / d!!
GC T
F 6rt E
I e n L X N
[3 /[///
N g ^>
/
E E I
t e
n o SE P
e c
ID t
A3
/
/
// /
'"i
.afl!!i!!O/ h
.sj!l$
i m
n!!
i
!srd l)
,ad
\\ N>
nne
/ #
oot i,i
/ / j/
ii c
(!# #
tti e
aap
/
/ '
y/
tl e nsd g!!
en x
l; M4h i
~
ij $
i san l
g!!h"i!!
rte i'
ere d!!
f!
_a 3!
p b gm ~
e l
/
f ae
//Iy/
ocv
[
i a
/
// // / //
eth sr aes evg
- .i s
.n.i!
N s
i=
n ei i
=
- b.$'
ryi
- i
/
ti f np ol r i
( os o
+k !
N \\ g,>,,/
/
i e
iE
/
n e
E' i
\\ \\ \\N \\ \\N
'6 n l
I r
i
'2 rte c
i
\\ \\\\ \\
5 e n i
- m. s'm it 1 i e
n ii
!.i o
N\\\\\\N\\
c
!IU f
.IU
\\\\
\\N
.r:
g N
\\\\
\\\\
n l ior op N
\\\\
t s t
rl s
s ea vno t t f
f ot oo o oo M" e e )g ps t
l l nbn yn 0I a
n I
t a 1
ii i
r
- rsl tr t
'9 e o
e tf o
4 t
no n f eo e cr c
(
e
- l!;
i
l'
!{l llilj l '
Il
- jlj' j'
z:a.n - ---
. x. ~- - - - : -
=.
~
. ~,_ a n. a. m 3
,i 0.90 0.85 O.76 LINE A 1.19 1.02 LINE B 0.77 1.09 1.54 1.98 2.41 LINE C 1.50
' t. 51 1.78 1.86 1.91 LINE D 1.33 1.15 1.19 1.18 1.29
.i TOTAL 4.79 4.77 5.41 5.87 6.37 i:
O m-
- .csJ
'u' 1
j A
A 1
1 J
J J
J p
p s.
NORTN l
- a l;.a i;.a
- a I
t t
t t
k BAY 3 k
8AY 4 h
BAY t h
BAY 2 A
S m
3 f
(
i i
i i
y,:..... s Q n r e:a. a.w _ea g w c m. r e. g. m w.aaa.-rg o
O O
O O
LINE A 1.67 1.42 1.28 1.44 1.99 LINE B 1.14 1.12 1.46 1.92 2.21
,I LINE C 3.00 2.92 3.I6 3.37 3.24 LINE D 1.62 1.67 1.69 1.98 1.89 TOTAL 7.43 7.13 7.59 8.71 9.33 LEGEND I
+l O
DIESEL GENERATOR DIESEL GENER ATOR BUILDING e
i BUILDING SETTLEENT MARKER EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I L, J I
i.
lj SETTLEENT IN INCNES If
SUMMARY
OF ACTUAL AND fi PRE-SURCHARGE PERIOD (3/78-8/78)............LINE A ESTIMATED SETTLEMENTS PRE-SURCHARGE PERIOD (8/78-1/79)............LINE B i
SURCHARGE PERIOD (1/79-8/79)
...............LINE C FIGURE ES-14 POST SURCHARGE PERIOD ( 9/79-12/2025)........LINE D ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE l.
l' l - - -
,1
- z..
m.2
_ _ _. - m m.
.z
,,i I
REFERENCE SURFACE 1
,i
!i';
NORTH 1.09 i
>i 0.77
~
. I I. 34 I 1.54 I 1.55 1
~ '
II'II I
' =,,
j' t y I:
j 1.98 par.E i
3 BAY I BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 2.41 l
EASURED SETTLEENTS i
9 i
8 1.12 i
l
- 1.46 L
3.34
--- 'M+;.g I 1.27 I
-ERROR BAND CONSISTS OF i V8" DUE TO g 1.561 I 2.17 i LIMITS OF SURVEY CALCULATED ACCURACY SETTLEENTS t.92 j 'l 2.21 1
l lI II DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING l
!I EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
I COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT i'
l VALUES 3f PRE-SURCIIARGE PERIOD AUGUST 1978 - JANUARY 1979
- j i
. i FIGURE ES-15 11
!1 I
/
1
~
l WN I
/
I l.481 1.51 1.50 ' [.. ^ [
h'hSNf :31u
' - ODW0.X%I-j.'.
r.: - f,w.}l[J,.,
.[' ', -j 2
!1.721,
t 9i i
- 1. 6 OT' '
g g,g3, m
1.78 1.86' BAY t BAY 2 BAY 3 BAY 4 i
I f
NRRORBAND CONSISTS OF 2.92 1 3 ISI
- 1.
- V8" DUE TO E
,E - - - ai#J-;+h I 3.241 3.24 LIMITS OF SURVEY r.c;...
w 2 c.
ACCURACY a
3.00
- 2. AVERAGE SYSTE-13.05 l
_* MOM.+.i-:p:-i+x,;.:.;+.
7.
3.I6 c_
MATIC ERROR OF i
EASURED N.37 I 3.331 0.t0 INCH CARRIED 3
CALCULATED SETTLEENTS IN THE SURVEY SETTLEENTS DATA FOR THE 1
PERIOD 3-20-79 TO 9-6-79 DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING
- i.
1 j
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
f, COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT VALUES SURCIIARGE PERIOD
,]
JANUARY 1979 - AUGUST 1979 (r
j
).
I FIGURE ES-16
[
l I
I ot t
REFERENCE SURFACE i
/
/
- 8 38
/
[
NonTN 0.45 0.40 0.4s 0.51
/
.;,,,, /:
/
s,S
..,8 M. cMic.:&os::5:6:Z:L:c;2:a.-
f /?: 61:s:-:id.,:;::esIM;:-L l'.29 gg;.:+:e,:0:-
-.-/.-
r-
. i. 7.:..f
,,,3,
/]3 It.20 1 11.23 I It.27 I 4)
[ 8AY !
8AY 2 8AY 3 BAY 4
,t
/
/ M I
0.42 :
.I
' 0.4T 0.47
" 0.49 0.43 EASURED / PREDICTED ERROR BAND y SETTLEENTS CONSISTS OF:
l 1.67 f.69 10,20 INCH DUE
-e Ig,a3 1 TO LIMITS OF f
- n...:....,,.......:
l.62 g;:.. ::;;:::::..:.g.;..
ON
- r. -
OfMIN7s? ~
57 Ii.71 1 gg,7 N CALCULATED g.gg SETTLEENTS ACTtJAL EASURED SETTLEENT FROM SEPT.14,1979 TO DEC.31,1981.
f4 THESE INCLUDE EFFECT OF DEWATERING TO APPROXIMATELY EL. 595',
i ~
.AND REPRESENT MOVEENT OF THE STRUCTURE DUE TO SETTLEENT OF THE FILL AND NATURAL SOIL BELOW.
l ACTUAL EASURED SETTLEENTS FROM SEPT.14 1979 TO DEC.31, 1981 PLUS 1'
ESTIMATED SECONDARY C0hPRESSION SETTLEENT FROM DEC.31,1981
-)
j" 9
if TO DEC.31, 2025 ASSUMING SURCHARGE REMAINS IN PLACE.
i DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING r;
f
'. }
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
!.!l COMPARISON OF SETTLEMENT ll VALUES I
t
. )
POST-SURCHARGE PERIOD
[
SEPTEMBER 1979 -
[l DECEMBER 2025 2
I FIGURE ES-17
)
l
=
.'>e M-w
-e
~ -
t
=
=
- i rg k
S h
r N
s s-
~ -
i i
l 1
t g
d 4
I J '
}
i 6
2, y
e
'. *.r 5
6 m
.,a-e d
.E e i
i
- w
. f e
15 \\J I. I I 4
g r f, 4 l xm 5*
n' l
s I
t
>. e V
s q a'
,kdb I
(
o i
y t
v g_
s i
1.2 i
~:
.w..
g.
a g
4 l
l O
~2 n.
A 1}
i c t.
=
I c
1 4
! o le 2
i j'
h V Q.
e l
E t
o
}$
--T
(
' LL.
i 4
v
/
l Er
~.
s Q
- s.,
',' w].
t 't I
I
)f t
i 4
le e
W%
p e
p.ed t
y 7
4 i.
..A
.- =
I a
w i
t, y
O c
J.
l 8
r U
1 i
1 I;.
L.
t j
1
. t.!.,3,g
,,y tc.
- u a,
{YJ I
A' Or l
6 r
+ - *.
e,-
1 j.
3.2 ePj I
a i
e, e!
i
.. = g l.., f., -
' aff.,,
.1.
s S....'2.
}
i C1
~
.C e_
e
[t.1 E.ri a
C "I t.c
~
E "i
4 Ifi,..
i i
s.
a 3
.. l
p-
~~E.-
-e m % %,
t T
q y
~
~
s N
~
.. ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
m i
3 l
.Y
.4 i
p a
s
-{
~
t i
A 1
i
< r e
s 6
a g
{
,a
- 4 g J
,t e,
w a
a b
$..s l
I
.W W i
j 3' y i
6 a
e4 w
. Ag d
s t g; c,
1 w:
Q t
1 i _
3e l -
u..
E'
=J s-Y4 8
t g
i 2.,
I j
I n#
1 c.1 i
=
i c,
.3.
2
!'ce j'
i h um a D' I
4
)
&O
'l pl l
C je
- ?.
i 1
i to e
h
- T Nw,/.
t Y.
2 f
kf 4
h%
I 2
I
'a o,
6 t
e===**--
4
- 4. C 4
w 1
L u
O a
r t
"y.
I k
G 1
t 7
i L.,
j j
.i 1
f l
.e f
.L L
.t
.o
.e_.. e 1d
., - *. h.
. s 3 1., w h
{ ' f
.'s s
I f
e 4
l i
e f
i
{.t ' <r=g.
.s e
etg,.
5q,j. I '
f
).
E.....
2 i
0 3.:
. sL lt.
e y
.e eet
<S f
E =
gy A
(~,,
a i
I t
l s.
. 00* re
['--
.- -. ~ ~ - _ _,,, _ _ _ _ _
~ ~ ~ - -
^ - ~ -
.m
r m.__._-
... - ~. _ _.
e BOR l,
StpTE 90L lE Rlll gjggR 5,8IU4fot/nRR E
I ggt g, Landsman ggt
- p. T an g D. R # "Y BNL D. 5,* Ecostanti"0 C*
gGTef I
C ',
PhOi99"' ' ul05 t
)
A S
e A e o p*
Y dw i
l 4
. ~
(
.- - -ry -
I-
'
- TT' -
-fe-
~~
'~
M i __.ims _.L
. x.. -.< - _ _..
l -
~
e-
--~4-c- ~ * :Z ----- -- -
~
,d# '
6-i i[
ast6 bum 4/z~7 TtR_ A -
p<io b UILC no +
< n v o lv v6
,o e+w ptop Ltc ennng ? ?
U.nM sd 5 hA M
$)
Cons t - tb, ua.4 bahul$
s Ap h,m3 l h+ py e
pc Tnsee u au deco uok en-
+
cce'!
- A l s, (4c.
C. C.9 -
d.s te m c(4-s pm C64t-loVL h-mb WNCK 7 cew A3 uun. coa % 2 au+
MLP Tr bn emu) m,w
/.me Lanhma t-8 cor tpssea %Q Aa bru+ 4 ock.
6 u,ueH
-b r= p.o-s +-
Ad
\\h o (atioit -
pro w M W,
o.wcu4n.j gg.-
h u.
ms.JMgg (0)t M p,u do U6
.1\\caparq M
Insbnuedadoa bocit
%.go +-
t ss ocA 3
e k
(
1 1
-i,
,....---.m-.
~
~,
=. - -
p.-
r.....
l
(
~ nentn / Lo %,
J N:.6
- t7 ll
1
[
Aa
%gceQ f
_ kb.
U m (>
b cpV ( 4 (Udv b M v d -t C,. p s.t G U S
[
m % n.S ak+
Leyd.
h be (k k V(
\\b
> $10&
suai et uavhe-5 l-v u,c(vs Sl-JW
'i S
%s,m m se aa aA -
au u.c 9 en u +
s 4 iw Gege -t-
+
e0 T+ m +
W q 7 (d Lr
, w, w k, 7,;sgo.c+ 0 Mbb w At-P er I ( - LU J'o cid_i n) i P r i t-fu~
Pr.bv d Ny w t L(
rtov b e%~ ( c4-L.a ccu.D LonA_
c 4 ( m (_x..
ca.h e
4-i 4
W 4
[
l
.l..
E
?
i i
.+-.n.'
..~n
- ~
..a.s
-~w+s.
n.
w n.
,.--. -. p u,
e..... ~.
ps.,,-
e...-w..,
]
2-
- ~
- 3,.
4 ySW
(($s J.)Of /--
Ostm tt g -_L. s M C9C -
'4Nv fj y, dr-Qps 4 9 s-exp<ml -
SM O(
UdA d.0-7 i c. )
9 % "' r....,, j f
);
d 4
- L-q e be_< n a.b et GM g nup-( b T rtsp u A Q u.de ;c ecw b u
[tG.vFvcA p,- a 4 'i %
bg.b 6uLLet
>is.w 4aeg,>.s. #.
9
( D ~Lnsp u k <
< Lc J ij ica <t?orJ.
c.Nw.k J.: vL xG pc.sQ.L C
Qv s G$lh d1 +-
br-rt. i n tpa t*A Of,
u.)c etL hus r-u i.%
u2M mtssJ.ruvisp.a6
',6/ 9C CcP a.utsc4_
S e melotty m uj 9
cet k%
nio.s +
vtcatta__
66D-(.c' Ct.%.) dr\\.L hut" (ud.A N O.c.lu A n ck 6 Cc.P 5 < vs.
owsr Lu-lcs% no:w AJ0.cl_
( 4 N A c7 o
N bbV -31 A Met loss UJG.S (o c % vunSpe. css dou.
Lt\\
/YWNLh skh G.cg + ff.$ OXLLs od6 c c.
(J) b a +iftc d m S c. (.s cc,-u.5:
in o
h )G b Insp.
QA /Q C p A5teo,vt. 6 - D977tf halnon3 thou.tgrm;t - pbQ
- n. < r
+
i I
.~.____..__.;._--r..,-...
u 4 \\
G%l Q c-5-Ec; Ev.posang ef/ce 61 Q4 Eyevia.n a was l (nesabw
. Ctb OJaLk
% s m Lvex uuf 4
00 Sosts QA e.c 9munut upwa/ pag.-
eunaw=
tp A ctedje M oun$
pap -A.
N Gh ot+,eurnse.-R6.1. 7A, un.
ssan_"7s.A.,
- e. m c +,m.,
% ks skeu t.& L.n 'Gt" - g y eng
- g Q4/g C.
keen, u2R
% :n w 4%.nn, R..vc tsne.
9 ha.s wa aw nad a 4-c.cc +r #4.
Lccc ns <n 9 (f) DCS' - Wo.ilt A$
hoec4;.vea Qu.dt p, e d2o n, oAu.ccch o wnsu_
c u+, p, or - u a. c_
u o2 CA 1A<1gpv S+o*ts k cu.A.
Ctnd.g s t1 -
Eu+cpa
' o n t s u o A o q
- 4. ?
b) doc.u.,rntd-CW M k b L 1 ;4
- n - o e t
no.70 A ka.u s s -vT-kda.t 43.ch / -b+
%o %
Coce)w Jn m,(b 4 k L es.n w;
&).as.;
(i) C-6 Aw 6,4 vs.
as._w t+,h 3. asiv~
3 Y4.Salvt3
( \\ \\ v 4. $
t b*>
ib f u Lv KV / 'w t^g
\\(g a uCv&N 0
p,
'c.de*+ /co +)h,u.o
?1 co-en.f g 6e,n) b N 64 thh A%
C st w)
A o + viau %
ucc a M @ g 2 1 Q eln. %h+ *
?
v.
w a sw ca.,
u, w,a w
& J
.._.._..x._
cc ny.
4 4
g/r e, b
Q.D 9 CPr
%. %, Gone+
~T.e-s c u y ip (7a.pr, emi n.
e, ua +
cu ' UtLc sh.pp l
m 's a einas p
pos -h.s
- a L
N lD 60 Q
- 8 D
od,(
0Qb h LV C.
C.Q O b) 8 s
ga L
voc+
tw 13 C_PC.
us 3
3 E3 @5WYIbd4 03wr Lwct crctcma 3 - CM "$ iib kS C vemeu i.
2 G.D E M L-du.c*
u, p. c A.~+['/ /v_e / e 3 ?q 44vu path b uru o.,
L uA.3 m
bewt
\\\\k i4 f f%
Og
$4N(/r).
dc
/
.-lemp Vana.nu.? - Gdk
.% tua L
Yku.
2/s ha (n, Jcava. S u.e a @.t t (M (k
s+,. to,d U2R vs e
sectsb;6p,on.4 3) 6.9 Bu.d os ess +
pJus in w%shd oo-6L
%+
swee.A. 'I DE 9<
bw 9 (c.UAP\\m,c arbp,..,
p, m. w -
l m e,ouss e
a tmr ht n o +-
o cami.a.
%4 Loes m+
acp u.*
cump
-4 o c..
m,.s,'
- Ro+
%% u t-K A c.
spe nt.3 d.)
n.c,-
4>o.st-
[
C?Co Co 4-e et a-%)
c vc a. y L.-t d-, c% [ 3T 4 SAub Q,>.tM) f
_.m..
. _ _ _ ~
~
' ~ ~ ~~
2.1.....m.
. p
.. ~
,t 6A cce-nwa-2o,o whu.
cac L
h oak og appva* L CLun tab % % Lb
- 9mnf, (Nb Pa.
)va4_na h' 5 ( LVwtedug D L(_- -
'4/8/9I M
CoctL QhA A
4(40-pra posi
'I n - L A4 - b,ew - (uncihog CCp ir ve.f,m,4 00+ cf 5
7 bM " 7 (LC./)w-/in -
6 9
e a
4 i
.t
+
t
- 4 l
4 e
e
+s=
, of esee e,- g e-
- e
=< mem weeng ~ e:
r+e=
m.
y+:
,-==
se v - w
2.-
-.. ~ ~ -. -
.~.
o.
q
~
03
);.
Y i zCJ D )
1 4 8 A - J n s e a.c_ b n s
% t LS I
~1 ut l no nc o m P ctaw U
A W/
ca.,uvas Y 4c4aL.
b
(/
8 e
(M SDLPA2' 60 -
SA0PII-pg. 5 ~7
=
Qp < > L s o, t ' B C-pwpavman<_z.
Sin a hM ns !
wnp,-o ve L -
Twa (2e p.*
e a n c c en s - p.w l-e W.ut$ w4tW[
uaw t s
de gn s - 5 4tf reous/ u 43 S N.g - hu.s A waA SAtf reb -
-te-b 6 LG w
us,6 4w 5 44.F NC O S -
- m e.x u 2 1. w a, - (Lu.m,-
,i Y
.,e di
, b e l) c o n u,,, s.
Rx d b
y m u.y oiesta n 4c a A
to la Cam W Us%L
% Ca.cas l.
&(g..r3e r M-Ut,
(,u Qt W $
y p,.eum
% -.y ~~t k h c. c, p -.w/
Wr L,
h g (uk b[p m s, A E(8" 4
od44L.,
a.> y n+w.a. c (M M k C /-4%p,
A/ O m
Y YW TJ5.
S OLF, -
(tt s,
4.)
s ce 6,.
A
%. y ea.A 47 o s) k en. c.
. _. i --, -
7 -
. ~ ~ -
m m_
m._.
n
- l
(z3
,a.
K.qpg4y, * (2.cmsu G.s w a m.t.
[
l 3
~
'Ga9,6+a4 T nsea e+1on]
&9cc<r, d L A a p w A.-(t. u n ~
p m.,. A u s -
aA.wa L~
<%4. -
G q c'v P<>pa u
" b t6 pp u~.' CLd.cp A, 94 6.3 04~1_
ecop t
'L. 4.
Pc.-4 V6,41 ad R c.<_
4 A-ezs / veenw - < eu nc~1 a u 6 u.k.l a / sm p c wo i n 4wywo s.
"h
,u.c,[Pa.-4 Lvu e
/ht L0d "
V ib i d.to.wa
%ca s.,
couc,nw ce,0,es (w 6 ah ideppe -
tl2u.c..,. J a ne n coc. 9, 5 u p waa-s,+
\\4 p s -r.:a, 7
1
- n. a -
L w.v,,
sl l
I%. u ppu-La w LG.A W
O4 Icon s+.
Ev v +-
t% e2 tm r ui+L u
e I en. -
ve-c_n ! eu +
u.n n.
'-taw a ge.w, t u' iQpp +
u.6g 4a -
6_tl Ad go Wr hq A.I Co>,4 m +s 4,
-{v CPC: -
Is.
Ix
~ n t.m W
tu t %s
%.<.1 % d bc >sa-3
.n
=+...nn.,.
s,
p:
t ;
Q s ')
t
.._., PCR. _heophR l
I. k'ehf ca reenme,, Jam k med wilf A.t %M k
i 4 h kk Nwp "Apo+ h-A-) -k 4U
[
hk40 s4 9me.
i hos/ pn w,d o [ $':2.lp.L.l_ kw: Jux 30, ISS / 4 2
i J Riq\\,19T2
+o '. Jam. 3 0, (9 2 / f
.hac o.n besa 3a,.19 s2.cy,cl bas; s de.
- 3. mod;&d SedpH ha on;cLI. na>m s 4A uct bsa m ~ Ae-k l-hucl,pril 1a09 rs Sw keppbx memo A
4 PWW
.-a.
em 9
m e4
.. - -.._g--..
-....n-.-.
n.n 4..... _
e.
4 f
___..z_
- _.2_;__
...._2m._.._.
._._._-.==..m.i e
l t
f de(Qb-i 7
5%P *c gravo~+SA '
, at as P f L'l /9T i^'_,w 5;'i t.Y 4 vL + --
D E f> ^
Ci c
og L
~
Gtwn\\
asgc.uhu.,
th y, s %
o 9, <1, ev op nt,4G~ +
L.e.A o.,,
unk=
Os sed;4,
- L,u k M
/c E3
.ev
- a. 3, "
i t h e.2 G i
I. c. W s m a s :
a
- 6a.m
@r d.t s u.9,.ecu&t -
CPco p -. -.3A 4-reasoe-c 1-ctLL su u un t.wpwk -
fA
<xw %.
%+
pa.s+
ej ens wa s ys wa r a
a n cjAd -/A w.yq
- 3) C 0 p waA m
l Ma 5 54 clo tn+-
[
p5 on r, llc.~ r Plc~
r--.
(i $ &
4x>.1 bu ss.
A5(.6 4 dip cu+./
O er~..a
&~ys.
bw CPCs ha p- -
or k
%.tts geA
. sub y s q {-' CPCo A.
C4.mvAL y s fa c-lu e % hPtr%
n ts a nk e p -s w w 4 v M
.::,=e
. ---. s kW4u -=v )
7:
-._:. p..
-a..-.~....
j
', l i
,, *., i #r y. <,y.
>f' 1
t.
,i 1
t cdLha
.A-ckw L
p.-s ev.n ce
@ "' 4 m't*L '-
k duH-unv l
Lb-CA4%
la a
,;..{
/k.
urah
% eg a
t sL nun y. c + -s nL s&
ck usa ek.
4
'&c 10V-w y +.e.a 1 a s pwh.i ;
Iw-<an y
.+
- 044 v, y y su_
,-cc om.+f w i n., Lu v et.. - + ' s 7
l QL% sp s 4 -
AJ rL c
. M 4-CPc o l!
Cica u ~s Qe_A ~ )
.e.
$ m ~y ap G Ad c c-g peu Scunuty Cg4, NWu.
was bu hu.u t.e.
% C, G. 3nwpem+ e eb =J cuti (tv -
b '+ A 6i h
(
htvL lon_
er lh lh J "
os,c^ 4 %tc i
D Cen> a * '
a.GY AL.y J
o ab, u.x ba Lana y
p u.n r-
=
hf %
ent) hw C ll*
(Lt'M.Z,y& a w p o. s. a,
p.-,6 v ~ -
9/7 / 9't C ec o A
O(Lc s'$
a 9
8 f
i 1, $
e e
T
- 1 l
s
.s
'*}7~'*.
"M
"'"*TA*'*.
' ~9Q.*.
M4 W*
a_-....=-.....-.
l,..s ll 0* Y o3 co4w a.o.e oc 4Le_
ptem+
1 f,
ye.s i
r o fl'l weet cp
} ~%ps '?
\\o I t'L e<
(3.h h 4e Uw"
.&' OPC ;
2> / o / d 3
- 5%.pf e,pasm o n u.) -
h>Lc iw.s
,v, +
as g., A.34_
pp,c MZy Ceuma Cte. % n -
- C o < rcet P, o b %
' C<a EM ( o'W / " e D
. ov m t-v b... a y
V L.S cL v 2.
, 1 A kMwl
(& /N$.k
- Yb
~
ute.
s m, ow m$, a vu o we4..
s WT ha.3
,w.tkw e 4
ssuyc a
Qyd U$hb'
( c v n.a$
%:. pen s
(L&acq3
- UCY u
ie n- %
c-
-Tb.n a 5 c % % r C.cP 9ge u a.aa-bya mc,e 1
CCP dLa qaw, c.
,meu c aA a z hoaf4mu4-vj C dev
!j G.L 13ja M
C4#,
j s % c3 a + a y Abst.
ww 3
u; hen 1
sK gaa L a s,. ~
. _ _ = _
.6) boV 9s, Ccp i4m ciou ea+-
cp.n u,c i
I mpLtecub o 4 -
T i
Nb 8
C(f
%d
- h C 4
e c e.
c.oeu a.
otoer \\
-Q K'c L x.
ap ks +
in 04.z3
,,z Le &
~
,su.nw3 z s64 p c.~ s.e_
na t s ce p +,
Lat ic a p.
osa.<.
() c. ice O W
/MlJvn hy-1 hun kit.), hk0 Na 5 t' v-t M c 't G
C0 Q.ldesps w N
^
~~,-o.66.q pnp A
-
- b e L) di VA.
cLLI c1:..,9jq
% es
%s La e (-
cp o at D c:>6 Ti1w kJ
- pvt md-s v
DBY p Lb A-)
pm ce6x
^ Lu.W.
4-Rh nm.m M c,c D eM u.L '
drato.
Crc.pr /G c / [.e ed &ncj,
tmp.pm r
(nyf p
A v y t- ( wa s.g)C(ph itq y
N L,ccou)
"cla. s a a
?
^%
k na ctk Lth e<
9
[n m b,,,,
O a <.
4,,
a.b,c,p,.
tu i cc,,,,,y, 5 e,.
fd 0 c
?_.u.k o.1 consprevs+ cat ec)
, o ege,
- m.. s.c
- i s tc t et s O r..,,,,.)
.f., a guc. wr. 2 c)
Ps N2 (sa L_.o e,c a_
n w,..- a ob@aas b.e.5 t LJt1 f
PLa& - Shrw s tctenje4 v
!^ etb. G > L; sp En9
-4, dua y a p %, +-
Aug 6
cow. toa cu wc e e.s
's Pr t.M) f-14.
e g
s t
4 e
_m.__
2
)
..e M
i.
b ij @_U0V-[.4m m+
p _ocu i
l f!
( N te. % ) wl w(LLs
- s.cs 4e4 Luct y 6 o e,t "
es b
c c,w.~.u c A cunW. - So -
p x,$
a Suwa
/hu.4nq-49.%
0.icht Co m -c w A L 1.
5 t
64_.
sLppa "
e e.q s c i cs cc-08:4<=d d.'s c*5 h 3
opbn s.
E s4c.WM
% sus.
5 ep+. s I av$
eo A enJenz o c.+.
et
/wt Amt p~t. Tb~aa 4
's4.p' 4.
GJou nreK -
b.c ca.w t eq s &,n w (
b,a a ( sa..yac / w a / scLi %
cn p.. u e
)) o n ~h. 'Zo /t ( )
fhv.[3 (enh pLn3s Pu ud-6'
-ll"" *
/-e *(6 -
1 poss.e 4 enpm.,. e +
cub, acewaA-
<_c a-6.LL D
6 Cf Is.v -
/ht 1(. M bL n c4m M -5 f., ri r -Ce A %
a)L ses fklet C.ca A ad L
W, mL -
/
CPCc iny cu evi r-40 weal x
- s.
-kik sa z +i ha s c<~6 %hy s
)
(6 tlK ao-k4.s
... C D
_dq.4t c, Wit +
~-
(*
v
, Im& r4.g es, o-w s
4 l%&s qm up -
St y dp CcR N o oou QT g
u
- p +o cto, o..
OK u
.s-f-op a.c h A;
/ CCP 4
L sels
.S o,-
.u b
e agar e e-
,c
.mg*+-
am *Wf.r'e -
- I*
**"#'~ * " '-
~ ~ ' * - ~ - - ~ - ' " ' " " *
~ ~ '
_.n,
... ua
" -- - ~~*~~
- -~~~~~;<
t if'
~
c a
(b pPLCF
[001) % \\'l 6 3 ASL@>
4 ett v0 L Ng 5 ig A L[ t CCybb pr0Ob4/l>$
)
ece u vL saw sp s u LL.i.
'T%
- SL4;'
eOA.
u J c v t<--
g o i ett) 04,
-Mo r
C0 bd s m -
- s to L42) 3 e.,g e s, p e o e u c-haan.
Cs L. 1 bo t.i - ap-p e.,
zpk; -
p Jen M s
vViva u!/
3L p@
o vo-o u.
etden sisc
,43 c
4 6uun.
pn;x es.sI~./Gs.
Of)
Oc u.vL G6 u) A P -
ned 4
c; (,,1 cu p, &c <-
il b cc%2L [ 'ad PCA:CJ W. bo u-w dvtun, M-Y AkVt.
h\\.
cad
@O vtts+
s(StLakuA. / obs-cr-eE2mr CD A -
t A + L
.s G,y rtcoc/ FA s. tlc -
e e +
cua a n ce.
hJ v
\\/,ite a sh I
shp q.
c c e,.c4<.
< w, av -
%.3 ro, esL L
.k i n et eus L (I
M k i b e b t -~~' (7) 4} h.
fCa b24MC JJb o op >, $> l
)
d-on; 4k fa, m p+
A 41-s+
/w,
/4 Li sw up
-$,9 r.;
to ipu+
JuuMy i-t (L-Y m
--fA=-
avd. %A.
Op ladt h u/e-meggs c-ive.
W - a x.L m ).
(9)
OJ.w, LaOL
\\ 6-e
- CCP, etp-L p.-. 9 -
<q e -.c vL by uzc-ax p s_
p -.-
IE, o u., u o a.In 1
M d.
f(
o,s 4, mot.
._.m
,o M
i, d_cah-[
61 09_C cana ston.s /ct,an ps muc.
ct.
%,v #- T,l-.,
t.ee h w.
(LcAieve w.<csoa a.bA -
Estura A y ca.seabk custap a. ",
dbwLudQ bc+ I seved aEhn r ck s,ots 3 c.o n c o n s. i M)L+
06 c' Claadown+
d It)
\\\\
ds.or 6 I O %4-b u ccm behm wat 9,un. L~a C M -- O o -
Slew
- Cam w o3 c..v s L M -
kwww con ps,. nodes.3 0 bv p.-L a, h cu.
k IJo
(.URP l AJo
&,4 R v4-y 'ft+ rJ, vu w Li.
yox cus ca.n OPCe ce M p.pc-9 c.cm.sse Casr.
nech
<dh -n coat-.
a n.u av a.,
f0 0 2 n c onh.m way bnh h a.
3 cf dh L /k -
ka 4 x, dci,
td.ch h pq aw L cer scM-ca.4 b y e/ &u.-b e.s e
py c-GI)
O pone ~
p 6
GPC tukLe6 i
,,a pu,n rzt 2
r, 4
B43-Jug wu 4-Q A-ff - o c) ~.
e s ou.s k eL
% \\. 4_
c e _ c, u nf d_
e(
%*L CLs4 ce. n o.s.
Cmk n
pm e c
bo c o.t (,2 6. a s c.,_
f7-33'I u 4 < p.o 4._
6. 4. A m-+
C_ P Co G4 pr. g, _
-ho p he.
c.6 n ~ e -t-rt L e, s
~
by t.k s e.1p
-'L L
Pg oc ew uq v a A t_.
ts c, ad A)L.c TL,s_
p+9 ctpp n.,_;.___
~~ih +p GwPes fru o
-)
w c-c.
Ax<.
p..aw Cu rs L
y i
(Lcheu
..,_._,.__m.
~
-a Sc.LLp EAebl -
putu.r bLcm AJ[Lc - f(-
en 3Q,hp 5 5 El tie cc.pp,-o a
/M W
b l !<.x coppreM va a L+
cy-OPCc p
4 y
.[44 M
,b t,wg ht
@k 8vo y w Atniety
'k.
1 r%.cch tu. (Nska -
63 12. cco K, \\, t g e n s g
nmcw
-j 3
R.. bksman ges 3 6a +
v e uA.
3
- h et 6am(. pcne 4w.6 q [4 I3
~ can ns psa per. k-ycw m k ne-La Y
co u
- C Pce l %LLL Ca k e - p n.v.
k r. e:,
u e rq bs L) - d.n.) bc d )
LUnill - c w C y
/ !L C-3 brp.% s b s li w o h.
C Pc,
~
- W.h M4 G,eno t -
E ve cuoA._
om -< mea a Dd c ltA(. 3 AIO P m
AliG 2s; ec
~
6p O cc.d p, avic 45 (On.a'.v Ed h em ve w %
s.
t m.,a,_
- _o can tw
% - e a, A
cas
,,a +
W C9c. C(uti e oJyd E 'o,.c.:3 6mw e
cw C FC-YN Uhh.w.n/ Cr L 3-kkn,a.v/s - 64,6aw
~
()< 1u r nd-lLekble r
s
...swm,e,--
W W'"
)
==--e,
- * *' ' "$ P"3 Y
- T Y
g-7,_
-]
fns bgbu Gl ESLP G 7.
/hh 3
1
'u N
,I, Wahldtw. eQOnwh 6 b i S a w w c.c hhY JChw 0,, b G.n j
h o5 Sk et C. Q,r d ue.
j cb -
5 k..a L.-
Gu kpcass 2ba Lct+
qs 2cce.,,r w L.+
(,
.l
.~ ^. c. -
Ca v - 4 Ot. C-q Pm. o u c Abg
'E. O u P
]
.On Puy-e n va<o 1/31-w c.v~c t.
Lcs u, -u tu M b,u,s 4,.s.:. ; o.j..a j
u t
II 6/3 m s bLmd __. 5
.4 e pp c w,
A./,c tt n,.;. ;,., e
% R W (n M (1 Lr_w %
w 8b'# Lcacwk h,,
- e. fep t-7A A.gc L
M M -M -
3 Lc s_,.
i Q ik-l Q C-Rh.e ej c + -
k g., &
J '
(13 th.) k 4-u t A LL P.,,, t-c a.ffs.._ / u_
/,c..G_
k + mw w+~
ettL -[C. PtQ
--\\c e o. m ve aA p-.;_--.
m
- /
)
O
[ fop 4k
__ u s +
4 E..
O.crt s %
1
.@,)
o +-
%g to +
1 m
f
%),%& - 6,oA w e + cm [ ~) +
o.
e f
L l
1 Q
f CPcc he-Cs s t ui u cy. s w-il Ae
.-hg h.4 L;
- c. ~4. : C -
m,,
. ~ =
m m
@h
.Gmp-t +.
W uy3 E, o. c a n s _ -- L o.\\ o 8 (n )
ci i Muea, k
e h er uUo Lt Ptam '
wr-p.- "hu 9-87 a
l w w.a.a cl\\n o~
l i
A l
1_)vap+
ty' 5
'"'i d.
- 4 /2, Whqw rw_h.3 e [
u g. Pc O v up+
Cc+W 4 diis+
.lasO -
4 Y {kkkd
'N e
a ein.
'D +
\\
a. ~..
+,
on.t
'T M M -
~
c2 g
L c P(. Q~
-b q$w,,
b, w ar# 3 L, o le U
~
%6 #-
c <<
7c a, ys sat _o (. ci/e e u s..
dd iu 4
('3 u,
6t.-
-1. r-D 2c t
,, :a -
D
@ ft] S.LY
~\\s in 5 A ik <,
54-:c, u s,,- u yc:>
ag c..sc w shs
~
vsF +
r-L% l.. v N r.
f l
h$hs
~
3 NW s% ' ~
(s c "
abbes)
- E 5 eCLr cd, C e str J.r.
s Q
h h & hR i
bso ny.._
u., 4, g ~.
n.m. __
A
OC 4-A_ T
__/Ni Et n i) - C PC :
Nh_ pAGg-
\\/G +.
$ L, u
- ,,. n a.. I, L $ ut)
~~ As 2
(%
3.s pe9 i \\ a 1' La.p
{
Zwfa 4~aa. L%dL. -
u '~
ta h f lrwhmy.
~
s h '..
,,v.e*=,.
N*c 7
"T;T
~ ~
7'
?
1 l
O OC4 A f '. g e s t ta.-
_dOf 6 A - c,,t M g s, A<fg e,,
3 s up L va (
V% c a s Lt cu t,t bt Ls ! -bL P
cuy.w.#
04 - S. r o. :. po.,, v.
hasO 1
- x t u e %. su cu ~.ne,,
, ~.
+, a I
I f
2 i. ~ N t L sc c ec f)c 4 5 -r 2 ~-
cm p,
??
c, g+
on w s-y b'
Eh 1 e u, z w w_ i.
g<,.,V l_
~
io /i t.
t E.6 tW rnu3 rwra d u c m,e~ -)
d 9
cl.?nDG:=1 ht4tc.L s Lt et (tuu.
Enea w.s, bg ne <
r o
c c m-m I(
j lT [O
(.V's k a V.[ts.
~~
(6. ;. ees
.1/wT l
'dsu ;po es4d._ Q'_" c't r
- /14[9 4
- a h.Ii j
cu /
7 CDCo i l1 o-p-. p c.sh Cc P b z ut e. <. J.,y vu.pi c a.v (eae cw L rece.n,~ a A.-
e.,
+
uzz/3rzw sn en w
W
,2/91 L.aa-4 CPc-0 ons a Gehh gl._i p, pas &
i, a o wh om doevaar
@4-Jtnplan,i Rn
] j{yr/,,p cua D ay,4 J L~s
~
[d, hy1Y -
'q
- %L n M -e
('?. bl ! P2 L il
- s. 64A y
- 6. Ib 4 9 - bq ' TELA-LWct.pg,-.veh.
j
,.o..
7 e,.
u w..
c
,,.~,-,..,;,-. _
m.;
~~;
~~
- - - - - - ~ ' * * ~
-~
z
[
Cf)
[ -
elg A as Lau. ( p,. -,Q m.m eitL.
nuwwo.h ett cil e t 4
-~LP D.-
u.sg 4_
s.s w., u
~
b t+ 13 i
%eih /et AL
.* y-.,%
e -. w 3
r j
so,ts
- r. e. c.( f) b 6
v e.c>c o i p, <. -
L cn u.c w n.,
m,+i & L-
\\
l
- Tcck dr.s,=~
wv-i
<;, c.. Le.
vu p; t
\\
e ~ j Qiw
!j
- Lewe.:
m ee t-
- no, e
.. s m
A tt
_ttu.4.
D M.b.
b S O nd_.s m' (@ &.
j
~
3
[Kh,bd % @@ kPip f e/n [81
/no th p q ul:.
et s et L5 ch a.
- )
r0-'
l 0 0-18'l~
i A
E s
Lct w L s., ~
Aucq urb e-cy.
6 8 u-a.
cs-u_.
m L_
%d4 cac.
e/e,-
3 Ch4 g/ e t l
r/e2-cxs s-te, ~ w-CLLL sdA Rdrckd_
tuww L
engca i s-k j
pos. Ace C~)c h wed.Ofb 4c Get Yf
).
a S
LUcu meC kM.c-M ng6 - 9/u /
fe.f. sc j
e n. -
-k nAc%
cu o -u,
01 6 4
sA-
- a. % x -
s oc(
pu b 6-r
- cu,
f
.__.--.._,.-,,-4m.,-
.m.
@)
~
to.ac ua<n %
._L, ho I
i j
Aw 0aA res4-p,..aos wL y
T
'6 % - o S CLp.n L 3, e 3 5 c,u. L s Pva b m LL ma c...
<n p aud -
baut e.1 e,.aA 4 - b, - s Q rwa.m bu. 4 La.C im ac+
ixt,we su cs p; o w, c u_
3 a.S f.tc., w +-
L 5-% p - w 2 sc-c nR Lcck-L-t' a
/
.c s.,, m %
[
(.4L Rt i,tv.< *.
~
LiaA. nun pw~3. -
ebele2
(?w 4
'ric.
- Ox$nsw 'Dise. ucc + ; sa wo. u / w t.A
-c ua.
W i
As t-u m_
m.
L'\\ ce nw (a r ar nL
'dntsp.
,(<. -
u.e-c (& ve3 c c.d
~
b_6) 6 % s s,..s 1
?
C.b d%.
k $m w+
hiuv "
[.0 /( *, J It. crc sj
%b C.,p -
/ m,c6oa yu,A,a s
}'
6:L6 t '7 7 - KLy - co,,,.J
.)
p cs
\\.o O K. -
@ W. Ledt-
@ Ly -
ille/0 3 -
19'CN -
c o<\\co m s:
L/
4JL ito+
r.b v. pic.4 -
/-oLL y < t s f%rt... w c.- t 1 a
d k
%,py ML Mf e%,$[ eL,6 A=
.I" Og L
c xG7-9 o p-cm e - L.L
& impoau& G
%4 i
_ _ _.. _.,~ - - j y_
)h e
q.
(M t
_ho t;+
s c,.s a_
LuL
<t oe mu p c4e-t
)
WL3 Oj o a
(% p 4 n
- Dk -
l
+
4 US UW L>c+
sv6Ll(wl /L%c d au V
'LP2M '.;
av.A.
,s sm 0 occe.
e e,m c e 4
/,
)
@cd-Coqc d 19'E10 kt.L-
<< t *M P e c W&.
~
i h Ls
??
3 p,1a ca/aw-w.s.[gcv.
t se h va-
% w+s 0- ut.R q R
/WLA2. ~
G C-h.H K L ' k.c w.s bs-on y~
e C sq m ( l C but b H d6 - k~"
Cc Av., s 14, c.J.
S te).s ig i c&vs T
- g #- A
~~~~~~~
(sopu%ECL C c yW(o [6 'I-s 3kA~.
%f._-+-
_ n_um+
t u
g j
utc,% ~
em
- q..
a
~ ~~,. a
. e u, so e-M cams %% ~-
Gq.
{~j dpe
% A.
0%
L,v a ms ~ ~ h
, it e +
h
=
5 h o'w4.
M Es1
,89 d6berl
'l b
l@_ CP mtL sahsp; - SQ a:e 4La p4 a.1 1
e p u p w.,c1
- & Dh y
C
[.oChu. txc c-c -
o
=.e=ery++g m eye-e -
e pm =w.e-*w e e-v== e -
e-=-
-y_
a 4'-
^
eM =h umer
_m 5
g g
}
b<D e m o. _ 's ao u c.s A-e (2X -
6. S,
~,
i_. -
_+
m Mue~Lfspa.<>L
%y. (cth a s-1s as. A ba1LLk [.)$A pm u,m t Lw4 n&.
6y e.y
% 4~
- G /e, -
GAP M4-hh GB 4
ut'L 3/e 3 S S-cA c.tce tc;
, s s ve s s 9M_ ~ Co N
%h p f-ihdd)
- d. k (00<C Lc.4 Mt%rshm cLc% t +i u sCL atpp c+
Aa. nL din sp.
CLC5vi4:
6 a 5 6 eo.,t(q rttif wdsbvL p-c.< f. ( -
4-d e $ w s u.t A C o,ts A.c n, b 6 v &x7h M cu.7 M( c c s m a +nu ep 3 A-pg /tt l' +14
( < ~n 6 e -r-b n ct geA-den.
p P+s +
UCLc p44 % u.
1.t L
~4 t Ac s +, g. j -
h
-ile/er_
i Cwi
- Quci w e-- ' (b L' r dta -
t% y.., / y,, ~c.
vi-m rou t. -c ww \\.L.
ktwe
-b wt q -
nic e, s s /yy e
9
_,y_,
~ wnm
~- mee wo %=-~~%*="***wm***.
%'* W e
-- M
..~--;
I 6d i
d ON
- b. ea v e 6 s c.o v's 6 y (t
(A knut <.;
0 d
ownna.
d. Co ed 's U,sN gu 4-a!t n
j$
%m y luet St s v.A.a -
be tu, b.ea
-oe
<,v4 A t A
'IFIJOL Jmp. % pow ( s,u br.cqtuen+ -b.h det4md -
j d4 U R <-
g g,
a j
b-& w+* u%%e.w sysus, -
Y~E d ) - t 5-%-(p
%. P.
In bec-a.au e.%
a stAva. \\,
l LcLCC-F Gm p Lema. ( (kK -
k+
1
\\QOMe (Lwtsou.-+ e s cV-Sca 6 A Zn we cA r
-v a
?
I; d
.5 4-sp LLLI.
S qJi,
)2eic + 1 sch.c -
9 I.%LM no#
d u ptcut'4) c.oA L b
0 PCo
.p 3
WP ntL W A.
b C) 000s Wka s f.).
- d. t.o
~
My w
<p.
N,~ A /.5 cuiA, up j
to #u T-0 cLucvi.
tbt A4,.;
av, ~.
atAm+-
4
% +3 J
Mw-A, u, ca n s,-
i 06 4m 3
(o h 6.d4 ? _ -
A T
.sc< >u,,c r 1 D
+
ts a +-
C Lu.Le.
l %.Lv w 4-.
~
a
.j Ab a pau.m Nekg -
Com ph.mc P. o.1 -
A u l;i n
as an m
/
1 c c P -+
5.- t
+
r.ovce =
Q&a9 s.a Gu.
._. -=
l
[
(LM l'
CCP b5t_ua M i
- 3 /tt[s.I -o-tL k Je_, 3 CCP d.h4eb u L 2Dx.f.c
. % o *1.
m,eks.
n y a suss FQ Ws
^
i Occ4FclyG - 97 E'u,MP s 6% 6 4
i
- b%s s% Lq -
Lpe.:fGnt OCNP ifvuc ess tblt -
pu.g wwc vsvum - Abu xceM4 p a. s c-NJ M W #h P A'Y pro DM rna.p p2w
(%.v.h_o* tcu c~ -{c ws+ _ Ljt.g s
Ly op-M C L
.5 c.jcr.rq
- p., b ton y% W-QCha ta i
W i
W T
h e
i 4,
ch f-5lsl65 s
h vne htae.
4 s b o,
m, u /
l 03 ahles-s we IE-ye
~
z, _ _ra.meug a, pwt.
c,a4e -
o.13 3
2 uac <u'., -
TPrclG, 750cL
[ 6 Mld
@k
- o. s
,+
pan w s
-k k
a%e
( w htb. 4
<d B -
'2,, Coo 4 och wm S,&t F To cic - we
%y va kpp.)
ua A L s,we,
pveuc uw.hty c
a-_
.~(si&25\\* ~
,4,uu
~
- c. s.r. / s coca. '.
to gCw.
g-Q A.
g-.60 -
a; u a r_'
~ ~,
4,. i 0 p g u -
e uay
.h. w,y a.
Auc.sca
-/s ca+ / sm ^
u, a c.,.
g-c, A y <
A M
E.o e, s.. s s e-ogo u s
om
~ ~.
m+
9/n/e2.
MA-1 csn eQwf,'by Gec.
a m h / Pumas, bs+
rh gw s~
ek-th LLud bwe deed o af+uu.
kv, LM--
3 6D % L P%
b cv p-s at.
,wu.
0,1 ~ e/e t.
j (am c>L.-
m c, coa j
pe s t a>
at Ia / et. 3 a o.x,,1 a, Q f g
.v,.t.
z /zeda 9 /e1. (s(w v1 etr#) 9/o/n.
6 4m -
b.
~
9 3
]*
3
(&
- i q
3 4
)
GG1 Sup.p a pp. o as L-of.-
S LU]
%( s i
56vLt bS l
fxpwicA-b a rc L,4 a Pao 9 CP0o be-q t+
s d o) p-c
% s-st d-A o.s c-em nsx p.~uas o e c.
a e p. aas fJ flR b scu.ss, o ~ s u; /
O PCo S Ao) o~
con covn cA p< o pp ro v a.A t = /se./ a1 6.. 's u0%
G s tectum a 0%4mt.:
Oea 8 e LL LtMe
' I 6 p,~&, % /*Co.y A a -Co.v m / ut.6 Aa4 lbtyA.)
/
- Ce nte te&c.
bELO
\\bs
(.c.<.A~
(2 ele m SetLs w : N -.
~
s~
ena t#eu, e n u,e s. m. o.- w. ~
-%p ww. -
, o wa g- -,.
- 54 iM pr b h si u.t : - S ko a lte.--.-
Q 4 A=N d Oca -- o v 4 r s.s q1wco onu.d
- % -rw.u Po,~+ (. h 4 ve d
- ner n 3 cmw.k.
- okk,~-
P u+
- G oc9 (ocA-st 87). (e.gt.
Ob e.ch1.
M
%kW 3
3 h
Oli bpihfg6%
b d
~
c b
OA 0A so.ledno,a 7dtV/ 83 (d4e-
.i
~bh R t gowb r-CV / C O
D( Afslo C.An g m h$N hCd 60 4
iA L i(
W! L [n 7/ti/d
~~".L'-P3 '/
~
Qh4L
= n.
4 8 ^t c bu ca,cu a xl l
G Q v3 si)e.
on se s gg. rssw sw wu qA,W
- s
- o. 4.C 9
[;
- ~
. -.., ~...
g l'
s Ohf 0
lA Si 5
i h s G
.ayp.-+-
- Icuuu, ataLa.-
L Cook-
<t M
/A So L. U U.'d Q 7 11 d l
Q)h(.a.
Eh O
oj(UI, (rWobed 9
6 7. V s 7 8 E SkW Qk SQ epp.--o v4A
-Oe+
/l e u.na.*g M
O (1 G, o M-g Pn b GN b
.fMeuk4._1 Ci?Co /
C $ aJ l LIiLC
{leunu!
4 h
&a E @-l')
-4,.s W~s-
- T P.J~>3 %, u c-1
'b G h s o uts.
-2 c-u-~
i wace - e u e nce.
%d W tvu u eA-S, k.
w, k e.
b<et& loa ~
w Q A-s % a,A 9 uok; vu c4u A-<
- n. 4 5 eigg h. '
i o o % ovw i10pe ch o J pny.-
6 f u.)
7 UJ tto 4-
%g we ev e.s 4.0.a i d 7,o o m eb i Q
w,c4 Rp - o (c seg a ec~uc, -
a e
a gu mu U S'C. -
1OG 9e N
w t L(.
( -/-
na4 hu_
y 7
6vadh w Q-b- - m y 9 4-r sL.g 3. t (s ap e.~L ua.
6st w a t out % no ojh.S n_, + 1 cuo 4-
~ u.u m j
- $ MP I - QoJnn$
La 4 s.a.+s u)1
-GEh o%be sut m
L. 4 re_a w a..
e l
6,e / oct-c. I Ph I C Pc o 4
'N,
.2 s TW%
f1T
" " * * * ' ~ -
~~~***"**"**N'"7""-"~~Y**"*""***P**~'
y V
~
s 6
e b CLb Qfl\\
tytd 4UA OUC(( fev
- d. g h X--
- ~
us e -
cons w. m a.
3' l g #
e, +e o CP Scot, ow_
p+~.-
w/ e<b.
AEc..
y, - -
c< gg,--.t c.a
- m cim a
-,~
<e,ae.*1 o
/
cau+
g
% !(o l
O u
%skst.a gn 5 oc Ls 64-v.-
SLea )
(ACIL y
~
i ObnNHL f
tttcowe.eK s h desnece laz b etun NJy &
b a +-
aphLc v y us ~ /L
,L, pse uk -
G %
qu.La.k p.p q -
%. cs 4
su e.
8s Pa:%
ovsvviua,
- 1 ruutca -
ce./su u / %,w s-w s
u n~. na n
-t, n e
7 44 thm pn'<
L beA) b f ecd-tr EfV j bY_'e3 y
s i._
Scop..
j
' j;- G 6 (eg.3)
- %g beq u_4c L g wrong Hwt sus sdyW[Ycomeuo*.se-
'l{
ne a cntan s a.
p.nu S,t UJ P
4-u.acd--
4 cy hl ((
b3
%ccf (e9@
c o n cue.
At - A4. -
g#
p 9
?'j#4 s i u; hAuAA_ - ?
g#
gpss C
d gdW 0 B(u Q _ ~
bests M re>>tA644 p os &
~
g 4,x ga b
ma - e 3
q
.t ij
{;p~r----
,~ my _
--~~3
- e --
-an ~ ~
__.._.-_._.___...-7___..__.----
5 u
4 GAP se v_- -b 6 -
apnt s, tws 6gg e- &,sms tw
%g u.sgm e o(
5 $ u.)
--bo
/Jd C 1
k t eu 9
% $ UJ Prob L
~
s m r.
(A LU~ -
(gc M
%u.~
~~v e t, e i Do roe au on e
4 rusm. 6 ses
- C-o o e ;
b u, 6 6,m
, is,s, G.cy 6stwh oA i m m*
wkt
~ u %.
u s-1 was tw :
4
$bp - ua c r v-bb CP C.
Ed,*py:-
vh-1 #ha
,w mo 17M
~
y usety auctL
- a. pp..u s.x
, e.,
- bwb m A
s p y:u <
, pu:no.,j, 4e h
A 9,,,7 1
/*
a... era-Exh b,4- % % - cmae.sk%
'I we i
-rc.c4 LL 6%4-ma,n tcx. / cw p 9
,~o
(
Q&
' %uqa qppceaL
- uet ZS L
w e
-a.,
(bAms-s ss - sw os-coas ~~
nn m.uy a
J
/N e.wt PL #
'-'IL h k 4 6 4.<.
d< *.4^- n' I q - _G u r sivt-A
- i u- ++.,
a u 6(
1 n--
- a. - - - -.
t' bbm -
EKa.9 p ks, do au4.-
g p u n +-
S. 004 spobn (m) /to lbw4 rf_
s4akas(&an/s6Lb i
owv
(_6adawt r S4aAmat p,kw-pu.=
a.
on L
Sf%
des ti Q -l.(
k e r<.4 Le an v, mea,
~
)
+ ceu u~e A UL co n~%,4 shyn d
4 M LE_- Paoa.a
- MocN MEA. -
k.)c cellem
[ 5 p e.4Ju.4
/hc A o
- S e t L S.
us.4 - O!.a. c e,ww A 6N
" W <*L
- Lo aA *'
Mo CompLt.V -
\\ t cens et ha.E re s e s< c <s dp<u 4 klyst-of. -
&Atw an v u o in-t 7.s%y6k C 5 cAvr t ut-p,.. p c s wL cb: a s r v:c d g
ctcA - [
M tb e Q u nb *s -
S h,[
le e e hut.ge,vh M
(R.r.
o LO COR *5b p
Ace A.n_ s /.5 +d.3 c 4 <..
S'TO Q4unu 9 M h!L4 Ltcm s.u;\\ Qa.$, -
-w cm m~+ s
,4 my
, p-u M
V:>e.[o-eb
/N.4.nl tu f-LA l
09co / SuA4.4 C+u+. Go. A s D. % /sm/
2 u. am / nd sw ass _c _u.
eu w".
% Ctyp G" enkn.
Y
-ThPQAO oQ G, otra w + - m s, A +, ~
Li m sa.aL -
%ua.L po-r.a aat sML s a paw < sam cuc4b % - t w p,
44,
--+
u
- --- s s W
O 0
e l
fo Q ) W.
UGkkG U2 (L%'
N
%W l<d k Tn spus.h s,.<p9:.-+
yr \\
?
0h.Q bi n a
tav
% p e.)A
%O M
uLoh5 Gk 9
@ da. t/
% - s kw W -t Lanv% C~
DPW 5
egpa. dad &
0\\W f. 1 n. n. y 4
%u
- n. -v w-OPCu La GL.
up.
C.o n % C u Vev Gu444 -
- boco n +
R.e k sa L pp cu.L%-s -
s c; 9 ei r/ws ;
9r.wkt op b tdd4.L eM4:W$
ea c ee oo mbs_- d K44 e
h
~D c c.n M +'
tit. k L
-L.
[ c4- & fm b k W an a')1f.
f bl'? C s, h m g Q-S-
~
904 T~
Cg 5 k Tc//v7 O V 4 c4J J 4 '
e
%~wm=uy 1 Q
C.( f d YU LL t
~%
L l!t f LGet y&t%5 k) / 5 d ecup. [ Cc~du he..
"" % OrO
%Lrwt b p-
.A O "
AJ C -
4.:4 " V"/,
// m e., g
/ 4Ad 0 lt u tf Y ef ws s vm e (uP, Tab CQ P s d.) AL 9.-%
b eew mtw %. 6./ - 36 La %_
3 T,e @ ( % P os M U (I Ad Q,
MfC A
S.ov d
/Lo +
h 4.pftde$ # Skuy. ~ S$p
$-y -Sky
%N 5
I/1 6A
~
/-
N Nr (Q&%
j (Al $ ' SG.5po d 6
rl b5
%Y#
e i
bW l a.
Se td. 3 dh, uJ 4-b.4 (
4/qAM b
d4~~1M ca pau.
ts c o kkA,
yt ind.
R
-lw re%%
Ro s.M
s
-- ---.-- -_~.
--w.
U.
,j.
l.
00 ti Hs fj G A-bg.-u -
54c9
% p n s, o.J
-Je eh k
pWM / %,.~ s. @%
%,a
. sic s
5, GIN p h is -
ped:
'Jm pkWm Lounv op j
Ni-4.- om im
% esa.
~
ki d
4 g h' h -
Ch4 A
- h@d r.r.
]
facpmL E.xawuwba r ut,/-o re Co d --
OLL ls 1[
$ s-ncC Vhthawk a.4 ut a
/Ak
~2-WL - QS
~
L:
[
- b b e.
y a.
(LF 4
0,o x b a. cit _.
(th' So
~.
apn-se mLe
.bu-o!- A aw cw vr+rv+
evK-v ej.'
00o L d. h.c prapcvd-p m s-as 4-o w
O L.
64viq 1
oppmocLu a c e c e e le ruruk. 4e on ruu ok (.oe+
newssousq p a...
spa 4
is2 A-o.h.
w w-emp.ce eu u-ou
=e w4*t*
CnLeew d.
i 9oAsw Gu Le.k<
pebw l 9.n w / -a.is.A.,.,
f.o.o, A co~bb o 96
-4 ww g
bL, -
AJs t-ap a
v
- i 1
i e
-.e
-____e___--=.:_.
j l
CQ)
}-
'l Lw-
'h OL wouA- - uq1 M
E o pod.ASL6
% p tok a p+Ai
% ss.sa
- o. A.
M4 kasu~~)
u.OL%
-c,4 on Came L.w qk 4.ppaaGA.
O-Ltcznq Hu//aA>
C-ns
- 54<mh -
A/ Ec.-
ma.9 apput.
Sauw b.a
- c. x
.a = - - +- hu. '.
L. _,
~
yn 1=
'a h9 Q WW d.3e cAA. L os hX.-
itsf5cea - ufD %
d ep 8
h.su /sF#"4 b'M4'"
~'N o->-
Ass 3 W.o / 6. 1 nwsr go o p9 t s / eo - 10 3 L CPC.
dAuts.n.L 31 t - _a_.s s L.y 6, af._c -
U0 Laap JM &
UTC e,ws Lw n
/ wag +
pn p&s, gs,w / uy mm, -
N u w 's s
m3 au en e esca,y -
-lb Ltcen a esc (& up cw A g Lle p o u +.. e vs P,.
-h b66 JMP-UF6 s h p_warc -
pot,Av.
y 1
9 1
O com u -o_ s%
- mm p-d e y
r b,
o e a p 's & g m
,\\
%(
(E P A,
~
6*
NLC-hm.a wdh LG A./ IL4-s p:4< -
b c_y, ~. u
.knW) epmpM\\0&
C
_bhw~ - % v)n 3 g,,
gg (p
wx
/w+
q.uuph o.-
Ta s eu. m ~
.q c a c m A m m a.s m x l LaAw - L.a kkt:-
- d. DVC F 7, Q Q b
6W-V / tuJ -
i M
c-cP 3 4 -
E%
nudL L A~ coa mv30sv cce
- a. p.3, ca t -
Ecd 6tn GM2 tcp.,b A bhu+
p c Au.
h f 0 0) V4^
I M
hbO3 j
~
~
1 cou~ Ag -
%p -
oA Now ut mt k.%4 wa.s ou.
hN MMWGnor OD e8 M
NO
/hb.W'v/
~
J CCP
- i.j L
r 4
n-
__-~~~--;--
I
-~~
.w-.
_,_.awh L1 J, m.
.w ym._
's
~
3 a
GD 4
@ Mm= -
20 de mp4 a m sso a9 1
LA s
u m. 4 ne 4r cA l-fuM -
'9 0
i
's O
8 4
6
'I e
t e
I
~- " '~2.
..T i~ ~ ',
'"~
~
h
- N-f
(.D j:
]
Ar5 LA=
ma.v)4,ea
_i e
0) 8.44D eoson 's
$ac k s Ad+
aAouwb-
$4 A w6
]
ous an ex h t 6i +
Ihu) aces mpcuu.)
re.co-a, bd cuMk
]
M w aqkk, ne sapewo.
kw cuenL rup.,n. an utq%
q c.tm bu Asw6 ru.h m
hvi y.
nw;. /4 &
a-
)
Obe6 (shn%3)
J f.
%u gc4t e,th CsiL. J s,+ 4.
b y
y o 6 6 6 e.ej.
- % a-<.
o i 61. - M a, a. m u. -1 m
s M M.~
VU Lc Lo,He.
Pacp
-% in a o h h
. v.&
dO atQp hs y n v s.
- k. - S a, e + )-
S a e u, s-hus-c,
'DP' 6eua-d.cp m e -
c_ A. g apm s A
unesss a.
p.
S +op
- a. m e n e c a. s i,t
~ c ce re e co m.~
c O s b. S
(.i Ovt4 - (1 o OL5 d.,2 5tc) /1 'd
- f39
/NE C
A pena o. ht
-b t et e t, t beg 2 G&
r '04,
O nb C2 - o <t e
S4a.LN?$q gaug.
tup a - % c.s-Le S4 vwvasJ.
- j tu
- o-w t-An-s m n.
C U u f of-CastcheAt.-
bertaaAL. -f-I tl P - Fi&L Cnt\\&(f.asn-#t M)' usumk+
sia t tu+ c.us i w&
'pr>-JA ES # #1k) lhP'h b'8 -
E-W~
~
b6 /1 A
/ -OD l - --
C k
- E>&c a.Vd 'k<"-
- f. wd C + b b 0
to 2 4 f. ' p o ut J LQpf-tn ks 4 A.e.M 9a
@ G - gr euniq c4 q s.
k W6d.a Es+i,u,v)
Ai44,3 co gg_
civ,~;
in-/,,L Ex a.VaM7o45 i Exa mp(4.s; d oc+
b nr, f-r tl Gu7A i c
bu.,4, o A u4a
,j samov ceu - co+
sL eo o,t
)
l -6 c t. >ho av.
- u. ~
.... ~
- [j.
j d
/ /'
{.g 1
1
-r N
j
% L ek 's s p-pi&f' mmew g, D a ag.>. a
- 6. Ar dv. cf y vo -
b a4-s n sat. w -
a+s %cs we-daae pub ws,
i j a
j De.n p Vs.
b-G L&,
,.seaw w-J, c a.a 4.e-s,oc44 J,,
Shp ML.
be.u u pe+
MP-hp pn9n.
oc mbW b'd
- n. +
ss sp fo.t ~ t ccu.a.
c
$'WGk 9<.n i snp utad-o. ha p< clad 14v. MA-l Y 4s"Nos-G^
th d e.u y o A
4 A e d o. 4 A _. (
3
[
b ss upmwi-e u.~
vLc.t~L C9Ce u.s 4
Q
t 2
,ug op a d -
cyu % sen euJed. 0- W Q,
(
kuskaa sn
. i.
f Ct b c, w w.
p.,
s,A
-Em u c ; - &.c a.e g v o
J Edbd4E-' Wktk Paymr -
tga :
e:
s o. p. k % M u.a.e -
m,. s.g.g A.a e 4%E. ce,v.krtwJ - 4 cc op,ha t 4
RG t. 79, strmoc.
1 tr f/a- ? meuvig Lgrt 6 es,
w -6:euowc-uu)
% -h. e -
p-.3 0,- !
cm b
3 3-03 pq,f
- at _
Aa o e _ q p,.. c. o.n g gg, q,p
~
^
p V
o
,6.a e
ja \\
u au n.n sa, 'n aeav-
%, p,..x, p. w:
a k.
' b6 0 saels issu.e - l %.'a.
W - shs k
!b bb b d Y
Ik$
]
% eus-an.a JJeo.+
r, a. -
usa <. sma.---
.j/
dioL.eb>L e OM' O Erp-m o eti- %<^ocz5 # -
j
-j
.f
)}
/
1 '
i
,.- -.~sm
,.' h-g'
.~~,, --
--- - ~ ; } - -
m_,_
w s u..m.m.-.. - -
e e
a
^^
y a.
a' b6b b59 k4.
- p 1-L h
Af Dhm
/./a.1 W 4. %.
g j
(p,cwp,ga>.n.)sitgh
,e.c a a g,,
< L
- g. g w c.,,,
ru. ww b69
& p=~ -
kw y-'
/ cz h Zit.se.
w,uG A ss hovnr ruun, a pn c_ pc-pu v {pnem+-/
V%)
I hWU1 -
b l &
Q l l o u !. n cy 9_
puocc <he w 6
, ~ia u
.cn ruu c+
c=,
p.;
E&t
(%? %
(
a kh* gwi,Akff-ed T
- AcA.
om
.sg s &c%s
?
oa t
1 4
t.
=
r.
N
=
h.,.
y ga/ 9 52-uqic 6TdWW
~
~
4J.
(n 1
A S\\_@ _ - P<sno1-
/nay 6,1483
)
Pt %r:
Q 1
to waa. Aa cay, gemJ %ea g-l, Mts p-
~L y
% L aMe.
1W w(
t f6aMet 02 C / c%-ev+
9e e
as-e M,4.I CE)
Trutuq
- / tLE M
c o p W CT)
{2acya tgn op ps,a s
-Teem.L u a w (Tb 7-E0 ; -
D a u c.+ a (Gd) a n - s 3 b,
cms O Pa.ca - a s n/>We3 issue.'
G) kw+ -
Gm 41
<t u m
saLs-
-ft/?u2. 12 W
0
((
vil Cd
.2 Gntwo
' CL-S 2-6p SuhkA inn.o ;G,ril)t9l6 T (
5thi+k, pn,n
.y'j/
v r
kva - Q 6 A w ese p s.
ev Ac e
op ni xA ba y.t d
t wMgos s
! tt$/ e 5
- t3 ia R re a<.cs A c 4-o p 64 mus) b.a r 4-u'2.
extsi.e4_,
bo n6-.
c_uwsnN cs uh ' <
o~
mn(.OsH-adYoEmih. Scht-ast
\\ ~Ll 'Lb G 'L- 04-m.asy h, m a n +y.3Wi t I zule s -
xa
\\
tIzde>faa~%u-A1, cu.e. mu L&Tew
~
s a,u a e A.
- 6. /u+
ta,.s w
~,
~ - -
.tl,..
t I
4.
1 k
qgWW UJ ovtL Pew +
Ls+m-(
- %yua ted.,uues.cwq 1
So(~t OI 7
CPCo - (a.p t 4, s3)
La a.+
a:a.~t 6 app u.y he.e 43 cwho sea
,a n.sem
-fu do po4 14% d.
v e-s ecod. A WA kak
- SowL ~
, cr aavacs m.r lo c d 0 P C s f'
nas 93' p@f<
- Um.u o
/hp9 1
wi pas i &
pio< ^
<w, L-nn 3
apd V
Afk. <
9.
/h, b 3%
09G0 V6*
apu,
h-
+k s s s+ e -
4 L
eppius l pa,- L.,.}
u MLL pre al-
.-w n au
- open i hu
~h e n" ~ Y -
b' b ' C h l
. a. ~ w
.on...
J 0 N d l N D/" O
-f gp
. vag a.s e m. a~t H,P.
. cm w<
a upus.,
- t~9M. ' P'"~
& " <~*
"' -% Lk4-no-kulbL
& c-pa.opr _pf c.LL)
EvauA Lc4ev 1
k k b a. d -
k 'lAti O
f M
h
-%s pos +
h I
l i
^
_w L--
ll
..s
~
e 0
sj d, -
~
j j
g
-7_.- 7.a
%L m 2 m9 23, a o e S uppwt tit 9 c cu L 5 ',' -Q&t c).w). <m/L pwh or m%f ConpschL p it b n.
n
- Cem44 v c w a.
cLce og 4 po a.-
p < <M a e v et cg Nw
%s u l W
Qv c pd1 CAnh c U.c.$ ;
cada.gua.su dumpct ges - DM I
AJf4 c on.s ab+e p oo-LouSn p or L 0-1 s 9 A
\\W
'250. '5'5 %
vsQad 6r
, Lo s4_i, u n eo-Lp44-S d.jpuor M EA- -
a ppevaL op ksnn Ps As l ()/
p-n
- s. u a
.sA,a p e cgsy PwbLn lled4L f
SLQ49 ist ppod &
- ww es, nie s
- u c,
-- S E E - s & -
GL 4
f & $
5 (.ecL, 6,.
cc.at4
'A
. gk.
vs
/-/ <-
p T
i 4
-,c....,%..--..----_.....-.-y,.
.y
y-
= -.
f.,L.7 0) f
..W16.
tl\\A,....(twk C e.o 5.
G / I...._
3 V
't Meul. ' \\ loa._.._.ds.stp _ pWie)-... c.; m p u. h A )di puM Ae+.aAas.
- _ ____udsac Au_.
.........s-f
[
o YA-dh r ba/# r bCtg/1 DO I.A-Cf.t./I'.i@.'d-
~
2 c.d w c 4 e..-. _... _
k
!h.
h I
.f 06 r A.2.Si g /t.
[r CLZ C <'
i g
s%o u w'- /
]tL.4
. ~.
b d
.. - ~ _
j WLc 1&r:. awn.4.-p,W 4. ys_.-.
...... ~ ~ ' '.
. clukt5 op.... 5 bu.c-Iw et-USS...
cm
-A _rt.+
r e... A,c u m _
j bd y Qepsv hn0 Comg214 hen.,_Sycs4 fu kng pac.. }-%9 n.
fana.:
~~
opan !
-)4
7
_.z._.
r.
0
-. y __..
54%g_ pou yg u.Au w..cL g_-Rsg_h 4.n.ag u C uam 2.af_ h _.og.._...w4 h % t._-pne w f
m-nan -
- s,,,n.,
i h t:d L & cnn p,e.al c,
- n acL
/ 5 %. A A SoJ m.
g-ca.s m a a, t. o n tw.M -
c w-rAa, e.og2., fg w p e A. pLL m2A-L
. cou ti N, c.
i......
.. Lud -. _.. La apopw sivu.cAvri-i<f,a..-aera.
~ % v.c~>J, ru,,w &, %
'c. w pa ui.e 4.
ap W ~ C2.c c s.p".
L us.'s ci 6 cctyn lcud ; e e.,
O>
% r.c s <
3,4. :.
.... _ _ __. recu%v cy. vec o d - 7 OL" p*A.m +
. c ones - 6cy 1
c.nc A S.
& ) _ k3 o4 Grs. +
q ::.m y n OSP < tnA.-
(.n a=.c 3
- (,.
l' ). :
1
-.p w c.,
S a g go.
4 L-
. T t' a_c cer ;rz of h :., c
%R c.Mwa c,,m.p. A c,
.c.c e, e.u #
L pc e pun o.ccu+m_ p wu k k,>.
.M?.
? Caru.A/-s a. 6 % Q:.qs.
. nu E e cc_ epPub L do Mn w.
_ _h w c.. pren.u.iq.
no+,r.aa..
VA-
& a.r s manu h_. k...rts.ubm A t.
.b)
A._ u ppu c adt.
.M+
w camp
..em
.W-9.'+-
.w
_ _ % 5 5 - b cud-__. En s tp. 3 A 4 (<
M c $ tn..- % w _ l g s, f u w A.
3
-_-.- _.._ pu.M.._. 4,. _.2.c6.-.3Q - e
% u L u ktu e G rutet LL Ju i__ A st-bwc.._ h,________ ____ _.
L4 G 4 -
b.s t _ c q m u _ o p u h p
_4 Le egeM.a-..y.
e.-
m.
-.JDi
-4 s.w we6 4
4
=
we
~. -.
_ ---._=__.,_.;
g..
N.%
03ML.*
~
b.
-.s.
S$
__ f f.
b b
.__Cupunnst.m -_D q m d ib d
exp.
% $1 A' Y T. 'L. L d?.G I. rd
/~sm ts ota uub coand
?
A. us.s -
n.c, a 6.< s,,a m t by
_ _ X, muunhtev~. - Eg.c.4-o e %,..,s cwc.y 0. &neAwsr L -. o4$U "O~ %,s 9
~L tn ua,4. /uA obo
, ko rtle d, c K.
.. b. b n -..et_
~
- 7.. hvJ s44 -.ott R. olow - b Q & r % 1
++n d.
me 9AO Lao Mvu ca vp oran u s: orc 4 m asi. m is s b l.
cuA 1 /s tb. PW
-b 9p o,
vetu-f.-
(
,n o n<
- p. uo.v.q,
% ~ a.r L Lea 9 ya,M ? Gw ez ma.w h.. uJhulb. 9,wi.aq ruunt ersu co e 3 q a.s -
g %.
-.nu m).
7
- c. y - T u t 4
. s. % +. p u +.,
Aa c. ~, s
'5.5 nW
-Q A. -. b0.C,llQv w A..
.Conh O6hbA.
Y M - f ~~ YOY_t rpoit. C a-e m A. m n c,ua w,p es nc v
/) '
.s
__. _. _. _ __o c _s.+_ #+sAo _ __ p..
- s~ ~..
}
W
......e
..-..-.-...-a
,m...e.,
._s.
...._7
. s.:
+ - - _ w - n..
.-m.~
J.-
h e
- u..
Y}
II d 93 p;
. p._.i LN W.
. -- (J%
~~
-9a htd m;d _w_._ _
l
- Mr...avw wg+. - _... -. _
~-
__._.__..._.a_.___.__._.__.
Opp:
CA.$ Wr.
~
t a s s' - y, % r n+.q, sa&t sa p>y -
Itu A>-
een y,. M 99
.0 %._ \\,.T._ y W.bn shrArns# n a.'
ne:r?-
-?-
A+ u-y fa '
n
,4 0 % aJJ.... -. - - - -. _ -. _.......
.+
.J,
duct a Lt --
dow -/- f taaky h
s u
_. J b.m ~ s, m - <u.
4 n,J
- e. ~
r,*
_N4 vv s -V
-, __ %7 g,,. %
o,. s I
i }.,^ a.uon b,
+,
fnp94 -
q c, 58W O
,_g g,2,1 b
C,a nk rwt. &
Qvh an A. t x
sp:1&
9 nup!
- m. e4 y
.-4 w.,n i, : c y p-saiu on %
0ul.kL o w tLr..s o.,o nu. Ac:.y Jok i La -
N s op 4y Awhii) c A t 4 C a~4.
'?
A T. P -- -..
.-*-.was
- = ~.
- 4 -.
M N
m eme...w__.e.aoe..
e.
[-..
',4.~.._.
t)rk b 6f.hW 1% _- _
U r S... \\S $ a_.. U C Cl t. _..n o A C. W lu.'tv e 7 N
k n k ---t & S t.I r
%ry
%smme.9 (Cahk&o&quAeL.. ha not dvytk.
caw.,ua n s d
.%s v n a-
- l. awl _
Cats.ck.
nux -
L.4 % _..o.c_. c w u...._
1_
. m -- y.-
-- -=
c,,
d
?.
GO s
..se-be.
._..-m L %....c9c w eo r
- asm A --
8h*"_*
e 6
eg
.wM.
w+e.ee+wem-ep.
e-e e e.O=e mem-me ee.w w e-
.me..-
.ee
.w
' hth - Dt.r,tgn. b J~b k. w tik.- *aw d.
b'J E
-.. - - = =
- .--r
-.. - -. = +
6 co -rt.Q. - J g iLs
%q-
...g.se-e
-e-e e
Yh wL pu n c4 s,n
?
5/21 p n c.. v e+ :a,
p usu.
~
u w - ML C.
h yLy 4Q N 'U,_,
(s.<eowh%
it s.
~~~
(bh w
su.u
'tw,, -; ww p n n_.
,p n A,a. /
co-+ a e w
.p c4s.,%.<'_s y.t cmor ~
p t cU.c v6....w<x. f.r _-A-c _ 6.4<9 r w,. c.c. 1/u bed
. / : _
.w,. A Com.hh _ _.en%dn 46 L. --(~
(04 4%. E o o u.w -
- --.s
-e.
.e we h
be a
e e.6 4
h-.
=-
...-e
-m.
e D sfL DAE Vt2.uaphh4 -
- L p u't--
u s _A p._ pu %_ Am$_4nM, wm% -oc
'TA01.g z 4.a.s).L
~~
n
-.Ou__rA.u_u.* em _ mw6,_ o va A.y,.w
~
h i....
,g g
cc4u(43 Owh-M v.t.4.4-ep.-.9.2.4...
M..__.-
e Ms-.J4.1 R. N9Y b M __o r... W d -p5k c
k ke
.o mJ
> At..
K)L.au aJ._.u a w
.._s. Jeca. w L. pp ca.
a i
L aa-r-
_. _....__ - 1 y
J,...
'd 6
/ e ' y W+
- _. cht..
cr p.s b
___mwc I M._o _t.k,,-wome**__.ln.__.__38.._m.pWi )d'. boa. omqd 4,
._..?
3 4 ____M "T4mp u;o d "
M._ GM e L1 d
hrde-. E hek n e. d G e n g W..I _.._.. - _
. p*
1wnw fuu _ -4,.
W, td4A~mw&p pc og c rA.L,*
WL. > %
h bu,
mA :.
M~
/
o kf. Lpgad - w +snecA
% g;:1. - us eL.
%#o A<dwA _wAm G
M' so&Cs
/ Ccp /
.eA-c-e m
==-g-..4
-e-<
%+m e.
-w-m--*_.
e._
m,,u
-+
Pani recanmed e m a 05
.=
I w.
e u.e.
.m em.
...ene p,e.
g==re F er
--emy
>w dup ***
+--.-e.eup-Ma4
.we
- *= = =mm-ge..i
.um eem
..ee
-.-e-w -
m er***
6
-emme-hh-
.O e_*hwe-=#
4
..w m
T j...
'~*
g g
, =..
s-w.--.
4w
- -,. - ~
- .me-.ee_ew.-
g am.
e=em %.
- mew
-NN6 N6'6
- 9N-ih**
-^ --..
4 l
_. _ _ _. _. _,.. -. - - - -. -.... -. ~.
i ;
, O
~;--
~
-~~-
3 -- -
r
-~
p.
.,... =.
.. =. = _.
t i.
j I.
~
p e
03 1i4 y(; _y._.
__. _.. (alt./ &3 r;s.
Pa
%manAa% s : _
i..
u r
b
~ %s r. % a. C s<as ta-
%'s -
du-L wa
. oew n u.-...... _
[
T)sE.
crw4.. u bug
%w.c^~<4 5
~*-
7 acus.
\\n c wL
-n
- '"~'
=
034Sta.a.
Jas urca.s...
o SQ a pa -
er y y iC.1 A.
" 'S fn. k f,,Jr t s i LC dds; pecMR k8dd w,
.A SewL.
LLL N s. cs cu. -
t wtt.,
,,_ 64 ue-
,w, _w,9
& p u.A a. / La a.
. ga, bu w8,e
~ zo..so a
- c. a.
i
-N
. Eos-%. 'i't a.srs s,s 9 DMn
..i-6 4
S-.-
4%
4 l....
- l.
l$b*.. - -..--..
l g.n
-- atw -.La v_Apei 9 - puuuL op waN. _%da w&
Ston-c.... 'Tantc Edn..._ co.sse).. idve.. 9 ta - meu Ldu g j
__._._..._co m 5
h sc 6 % 4~c g. coa.L s u ay n,p.,
a ca.._ a.u. - 1 %q.. leu g s o.g,. a.nem,._ a lj n
n-
_a GAL-. CMW-I M}-fCS%- frr 3 %.
6 WO**-
9-e64*
S'd
.-M
.-b'4.%
h..@
epy
- --47 we++.
W hh mp Wg d4ghe.
+-
%a.
M..
.a e
ep.
tg.g..
}
- u..
- ~ ~ -
~;
~
'l k
a
.-**~ ~ - - * -. - -
- * = =
I lt%t.\\
_so+_ ee Q.cnav.uedjet Je -.Q.CMure c~4":.
=.
w.
.-.--4--
a--
o-Powr m
p G.c.e Srk.
pm tbo-% ~.
QUs os -
9 p(Lee. 3 Ja+ ;01e u m--)-
clo a>n
@o'$k-
. - _ h ar}a)J ea
.- as m ean. -G. &+
Lr m p A.reva,.
_re tv Lh__ t n. con ek.s we :
. kE c_
h o pi o4 veua ud A +
L a.na p 63vu LS:n3 fhun e'a% -.
m ca.w.
A b w-m, w pw z
%a A anhe.<pdaA
- d. ppa.<udal se.Hier:k th s. L,nw 6 cats ( gug a s) - a w uk,gaelun+?,i mp%o m
oama.
m4et-clo ~+
v.
ruz a<1 u. n-w & m ar uyL i
c 4V N>n
'S Nf C.
OL4hk h DVW 9 JnV&d$
f
/nm-64 Wh.
MLC Ru;,.E [ $.s3 d i (G %,<
_ec &
ei-ob-r/sh
. a / 8'L_. _.. _ C PC.. L.c4
~
.l_
N out_. m Lo y 4-. _. r +
c.o Cd -uhptoy 1 SW.-.on._ Annoy / prp, ara u.
c%o. s wu
- _mL wwel !
n
-w A
wn-m a, a. -
L
.h.-M-
-_.m 8
w
._,wp_
cep. -LsuA-./la k.s.f h.-.. I&t, _. cla4<-x _. -.._. - -._
i
,)
e m ese -
we...-=.
. ew.m
---.e-.**+
e.
p m.=*
__.=. muse..n.e..==+*.e..-*
e.-..
.==
6
=*->eoe,pge,.a==,$.aur_-,..*.-~~~+
- e - *==.,
-e.--
e.... -.
.-2..
~~
w.. - ~... ~..
b GB)
- s..
a
_b_ _hw (to.__.b
__.__ b b _.
N Q C. _.
1
- _ GumA pid.
l 4.1
-..~,.-.r n 3 a4_.6 % hm
~ -
3 s.
W6-emenien
-.way.m,se
.e-.eep-w
= = *.
===-W
.=-.
%,.m e
, Y f
l$ O Y
A.
O..
(6:;Ls7
_-k % u q _
~
A#
4 futut Q c In sp.
a% A da_
F
{
A W-ILuhV K m y % % e..
s e u e..~ s.,4-Q
=<asum
= *
.em-em
+
Wulp
-e
==
n--e.
me-=
-e,.
em weime_-=
us-e.
+
me
.=,
@s C4rtson lhch4 Jns+A%
F~b(,m J m
o.--.o a.
~
~ -
ee.-,-o-'
es
. e ww
=-e m'-
+
..==-
. ~=
6
- -. C9Ca W
ofp w-daw.;
p n o %.s
- 4. %
Y.
l& > ;-c L DLC 4
Commun i cwfia-t pnblun r
Q Om k%
wa 5pu.y 3
-e
- 4% e em _ <+ =-
-gi4
--e*-
-w-Wehwe=-5 m6s em e*me saus.
0
..._e...
_....m.
e.
o
~__ - _ _. - -. -
...e n..
W F0
_W 1
_ _ _ _.t A. - _.e.Mn. 8.5._ _ _...__._
,we.-_
-ee=,=
===m.--.m--=-me
.m
.eiime.e-..
.-m.
.g ee,w-e.
wpeg, =
e subw
- -ee+
4== -+m
+
e.m g
we--
.wm-Nwh ep" e
%IL
\\]IoLwf w_p be q. Q 4--up e A.
s.%W
% p.v A mt
^
e-.e.
.--.e 9
.a.== mewp
i I
b, I
- t 0Moorti-cen)cvu'.
CCP_l_XbC)JP o
=
,e l
l-T3 G S_.
- bem. gs ~~+3. cal hicm L+*0. ___
L __ _ Tua
% + +... eM/e slCNd6D Am,q -
s @
1:s. i.
.***.am a.-
W i
w w*
=
e.i
-.a
' _ _ -.... /N ALAL 7
%.opmuu
_. n_.m c
- 4. A. J. coa.c.L %
mm.R akuty a\\k mt.nM sss%s
..ts. _ b uL4A ] _..
D N li n. / A. W w f p r op.or v Wwc.s4 c o A E.
s u tt(., L a m 4=.
e opa.A.
.. gb propwog/ h p H re.s.uc45, a.icpM gr s o-.
yv 59 pA.'? ht pcpo GL.c.A
" u,e su u. usw." -e<m -
ve~
pa r
I
-.e, oL -
cw - % - cau.
rpu sww c eea.<<e m sn M s,suny.
wa,r p.e p a a.
cn edaL.e l
o-c.u a c 54 pp:w,z.- ).c.
O' S
- hwc.
o h.
.p
' % L CL g. No.An..c.%
09 C9C* p (29.t.-
8 col.s ' %VaAn+ 1o d..% >
r._t M,As4-k-812o.3.._ kpA -oe -
s
, y _.I 5 A., '
0(
ou k +. us k xor c - -
Lbt,L _tn D eet (,s9_ _.AJ1._. A/CR [. 0.uk_. hh. ! waJ bc/pM 4'>.t.- F
. _ u %.* _. _. - - _ _. _ __ _ _ a Ak Te ds ok Ga ALF.by
%L*L {. - -- --. - -.-.
w
.------.-e.i.-
1.
L
pi....
Ij b
V h
bdb
- q
=
bv-eul..__bo.Y 7... _
L b
P W
-fv9/t.7 ___.
~
j
- %- _.JN~h uA -
G u
~
,k A
Y a.-
6A up i WA
- owen, c>5 s.
h_
q r4AA 1 -.A. %~ _. s e m %.%
1.a.,g.c
/
a,,
m
.h N'
.Y v e,. ccau. an nb
-. sa m
'..- N% Mu - pa m u-s u n % y ua c;.p.< eaA.
ulc pouwn
_ _. AL.
-4.. osad 6v & u.p AM
(~ me 3 A Ai A c-
. _ _ _ _ b m-6, A.
a.m a
[..____.......
g,,,c.c 4, 3 3%.
4 - Ce u Co~g w t.
15 5 '7,.* cce. w q soli ccp,=.oc m,su.p,, A m u, m ev S osLA Mr. Ir1 cLwtvL - Es W
&tc;.
. bpMse% _. 8 M.
J Ud.*A<
w.....se-.,w.mc.ma-e.--.-m..
..._e w
.b _...
_U_
NP.
DOLb 5
l Ad4 3 h 4su tmh y. m..s e om, % w
- wuso + !
..I n
v
~.
N
@M
.me.
a_
.De" h
.mme.
_e_
' M ___ C4.Pt
.N _ _ N. _ al
_. ded. Q Ni A). & k._4._0L 3 uska g
A.
w3 usm.
ss..na.a 4
Sk. hpb b.__.J4.dus.
f.461wths _#M.._. la Aeon.t ATO-6"'W" 6.
. MMO.
N O
F9
$M'$"$-_
- 5"9'-.',J.-%f-O
$,. M MPgWWWW
9; z - _ _. _
J. e t
q e
b__'h h p_tcm.t_ h p._ CCR, M P Q i Camp % q.-_ b i:7 2. D cv P _.
p b.
o%.a.-v%d coxa bum &,.G whti.thLw}L.z b
.We - 36.&54 h /cet att.L k.a Mtwe.
%O
- Lou of c A Al ciu ta suu o/ ras en me
+.ed
..es.
.e en m
%e,-i-.e..m-
. _ _. I b MJ.lWl.
l.,O is /.,
- De k Wes Pt 08 ?M f =4.c 451 3/-
prJ y a--
j
...w at6.. W,
... -.-. Q P a. c t-q.
If wM b.c y * %, % a n wa t ws.4AM a ver w }w.
1,m~,ve A!
- m. ~ s u
h_ _
cce _ ca.
.s cw _,e,p w. by uc c.
3 VvJ f-uncAk h
91 s 3 < N (>sst $<o:A.
- % l co0/
.Lud op-(m}nA
<<pa -4ng -
N.00E-
/Ac.4<u ws - m l
S C--u-Lasav -
%4vka coks-. Nt-or Cn (ca
(%ul c!pp..-
... un 4.
CPco U R c - n.o + +. relevan+.. ) s s a _ -La Iwv.y m #+
~~
e.-
e..e.-.==
amen--.
_.-----.-m.
e ap-e 4
A O.mesp a meh
-em me.em - e-e+w.-emi+wh'=w-e w
mmmi..*
-m m.-4+-
m'9 e
h w
-.e
-.we--e-.mw e.
em*
e-N m*N.m hw-4e m
,4
-.4..gp
=wh ee
+
w
~
- h D'-
m
-gammmme a.w m-
.gume e
s,.p
-e m m e.,
- e m
w e
a w4-=O.+$F.
ea*
$ wned.
96674
"'M
~-
..m __.. q a.
..s..,
j 7
r 03 s
&!a 0)
M.A fn5.L. b ab o M
Sowwce L : '_
t
- C UhL40$
go%
a.7 v'/
x.u np ' -
h, 3. ~
t o
f s.. "1 't 0 G a n. 46Q h a.4w,,-Vk m-w. s cm W
r uieu!,
J L
A Isa.
M <.s
-G oA en d.ru f M L e
cc.a m
c f oM P_utu.a+ !
thu b :
. Q'rsp b 5d.b, LU ou s4 %.w-Tc4::
- -LLST GLxb-
,c.u,4
- e p.,
u r. C - o %
Cutsu rr J.~
,.,,1.w.a i o p. ~ ;
n re.e Gui.
cr e
u')
.. j,, n.rd -
a.us a.
mz re
- 6. o adre- -,E
- i. s. ;,,.
.,. // s. ~. -
' Le;. L p... u ~.-
.y QC
'Tr:f ~
-.c r
Cadap a - C.A OIL
?
9 - p:u tiit 9 UJE+ P h
m igu y SusA-b1r ved %
p.2rs nneL.
f.js t.f~g',.,,s e ib <- >. '). W' y
, ~,,.
hsr13 twt &*$
N ff lt $ ? * **
h t *% i.
- l f-
- ~
- OI. t
~ Nt4k n
, r.. c G, L
.~^ ' > ip }
CJoSCin"C:sv.:
Jf,
3.<~
Ed r e.Ao F v
G(s bIMG :
E-*1l tit.tJ$ b! It*N
-lti<
~
-4, en)4.
ru.L
- 1. f...,
<:t..
(.t '.'
Le e rwp u..)
o, u i e f.
wi 0', b
- in s.a e,
< tt..
C.urr s teL 1'O JJM > k. p 2. c 8
L d 9 C.
m s, t... A p,, t. s.
.,..,...g.,._.y,,..
=..... _...
~ _ ', '
' ~.
~
' a _.
-w':
u~--+-,
g
,p.-
l y
.9 l
d C2h.
5
~* (.11. S. O b w & ons -
C C_oo'4
_ ma._ ya
[
%. GJs)15 I
a N
.p.
r e
a h s - A.s p,_.<,u
-t
- t. ogA, 9
Pauc A
ms t 3 n Ap,w $
(r Mr.)
opI-ge. h - (3 R.b. Cw: <c.
E a,-f;:) ce 3.t 7 b d.c:
i-
. /l=3N fr t.4c
/
In,s4 om,,,,x
, <- e
- . n c : -
.u >.
1:.-
aL.a s
==
('i)
[ N <: % e Op-N w BUY LCC.sr'& 2 J W~*'
%e.uy
'4 Cd) L u c c e r-d '<
W a c ""c
.,... p
~0 l.T d.t. c :.3 rs L
- s.,~.
fia;.-.-
p ;*
~'h v 1' L
->.s
+
w' 1
'% w -
. f p.s l
~~,
'. C e c.;; r * \\
.t.
- .:.c r,
~
~
..f.
n,.,, ;
,l
- 4 W.
... =.
3'
- & < u o.s
- 9 a.m wa 0 b fe :--
e' i sI
- 'l 9 e,,,,.t fs-y x
f.'
N O
esph.Uly Of-.
G a.d_.
hr Qkf 3 C
(~t. 3 e
~
1-
.a.
tums A ge_:i n,.+. h. - w w u-og oc.1. c.
- 4m
( 19 C
. L s, Q
.c t's :r i c.
O i.. o.:.o r <.
o l.>. e.
t-H..
p N!.fs)
(.o e sy u n--
- 19. '); *s
..p r s ;',. of
[i 1 -
5 l ".' (
- ..~.
~
r.n >
7 Po;ib -
e
. /dkin L s ' *.
-) n - 91. F. '
fY49t &
~
i b
I W
l e
i' t$ N m ooAo 4VA<
1 '-
c o ---
s.
1 1
1 i
1
- +.see',
.w r*-
- &9 P;
98'""-
3t'M4["*7****38*'TP'tfC88-*@**"'**f'_**
f < - --
' r-1
_g 1
l i
-I e)
's hY h
3'-
fWWf DV m
we m..e. w m s.u.,2.e.,
w a, a-,
,un -
)
, E.G.. f DJJ,
);
CPCa-e., a,, ih,, - -
J, iw ?,
I r
OY -
C,0Mlhhrr44h!
j t
i o
(
h S &, GsL.ry, %.s<w l
Inp 9 O
~
>i } f ' w y
mpap i 61
/JR C / Cf ';
_,,.,-,.-: s ; -c.o,p mg,,--
?
p g
impP tg.
1 frnl
-? } ~L
"' [
~[
u g
_ uC' 3
- 1... a kru;>A
' [.t,,
~;
1-,
(,,
.\\
~
rt.'y M / l?
yr !
, L = Q '*Je bl, f.; 3 : $
U yb$ e
- s bib J V OF L
- ?'PQY -
E s '.*.
L
- se. o at :
- t',
el ? li n'
ya i
f \\ *
~n {
fet f'"a f
,,,$ ' r,
?.
ffaf 5
=%
.y.,
ll
'S.
0, f*y
./e
{
F 0
0Qf If e
,f U i
s;c,e,,;,,_...
.,. e l
9 4 C.I s
@a h.3 Y en. om mL f mp 6.u./ A.s y
j IO
^
' NJF j
u.w cai3 twe gP kh-PC4vi o.e e y rsyt,,..
f lk g
s g
--eq+r--------
g,, _-
C *Tg
"'*** "**~****^~~
' ' ' ' ' " " * ~ ' - ' ' ' ' " * "
-wy
-... _,.+
e-
_o
- e. -_
1.'*.
~
.e
^
a.
n.
.'f 1
S,w ~ ~~
-krw ~
s
<m ~
a~s-
~ee, se cy ~+ -
~c J -
I ut. O bt %
bhCo c h(M' k4-Spa 38h b "" Db M M,d..
)
C.9 c,,
yg p<uy e Cro$o9 - 0.sswiqhh) uc. -4, v.
%%C.
- v. c,J
\\%W
- s m p..a aA L
r w.a 9 a.-p r,u,e -
a.x ~ %
siL
-w..m p,..,--
s-seec,,%-b(a -.% % a u 4.". a - ? -. -
lJ Y
].* i f ok L uJ lk,
' :. G s L l, r %
,.o.
i?
'E
- t i e ci: c >':~
r n; -
~
n,"
i n., ta.
,, e 3 C.p=*i, i
$5 h 0 h - l
.A.,. ~
$ m p\\srhe uj~~. t.
p - e t 's + 1
~
'M
- fn. ~
n 3>.c, y L.,v : -
3oa m >..<-
g, ;
,n r
OR k C.
Q%"
1f ? *) fe (U e 6 mn.
N
- 9f e b *
- q
~~
bed J f.- l1.1L Au 4 g
~
' (n PO 9 - \\ ~ Ps a p.a v..
Cn wrv 4. - se# y-
- i'e
.e.,
n.-
r t..
N OCULt.
Oc
- e c_r
- .. :
. l' r C n. ?
0 f
/e ~
?
k(N.
3k-4 t W-Cn's- ;-l 5 L s. 'a
)
?
i : e r - " e_
n
- Y.
ll?. n.
.l ay
- g.
- y
.}
~~
,s
~
-mP09 -\\
rtu. s - u <.w
,w.., ~
. e w, a ca
~ <<s:,~, - w s
',[ 4 I
5 I
.yn
~ W @ & h'D -
\\M Y4.A D*5I U
(9 t l r: 4 tf
?
e'
/
- of l*
~~'"
o 1
w v,, u nce
- u..,,
=
a
. {.
En' :;:.r.
i,
., s (f.le L
L q.o.
r
.1 G
/ r' e r v.
~
A, t*
a 4
9 w ee.
t=
- s
< - - + + * * - ~ ~ ' - * - - * * * * * * * * -
_-4
.pe p
-em, + -
_4. - *g t,
-_.,.s
r
~
....-.-.-._.-...-a.:.:.
a-
)o (1sT Oula n#
ou
/6.P of
- 1., d oA =
o:
+:
)
u,-a
,,, r.,
w cm o u. t :.
qn., e l
6( s.
Irtedu.A e <b a.,vit + req -
In f
cal m :
4gc el 9 4
f i
1, k
m
.,.f.I.
4 V E * }r,-. f,1
, ' ' ' 4,*
8'
-'?
- '~
D '~
.3, 6' G ',:
n., 3 e.
3k i
(L, e 1-l 't?
l j: :,p.:.k Go
- IT\\ 0 0 f
. ')
r
..i p 6 ef
_A h,
e T
,( {, 3, 's al; -
's
_c,
~
i f,~,
'h.'*
t
,e w
I 9
r,
/bf 0
~~
L: ' h.
- }.'/
4 f
I o fe W
['l-r
,./ 1."
f r
(
f
- 9. c ' 1 "J
/ P lu,,< m > ;, ~;
/.o ~
a r.: ; 4 r Dr ~.i wk h r m r.
2 ' ~--o
{ulM
- 9:, /. s:
u bu).s!.
_-):
5t : g.,.
-s:
c
. k e.
tY,0.V) b!C*)2c N.a : p.
c.c114 r p,,t.r P:
p.
~
I L
&cilM g,r.
h~
s' b J u'-
~ e*rA
~ v y.L
.; p presO A W-)
J,.
^
I j
(). : T chA -
M+
Coy awC 2
-. ---. w -- y -. e m-
-~ ~ ~~-~-
- - ~ ~ ~ ~ - -
-~~~~~ -~~~
~1._~--
... ~ ~. -
'..-n...~auo*
....e
.i h e e
f K%
'*)
u k=
,0x,s,,v, Q p~ /
f a
[
/ "'/t*,.
'9-J C,'
y,&<
f, 3 w 4
~
. V-
=
Wb a
~..
J.
s l g
Q,,,,
s',
N r
'- },
4" e
i s "'
Qw 9
}
f*j Yr
!"c L
A s.
Q...
Y r -
v p M x
./
-q,
' & [,',*
}c e - t, e
is,
././
e7
-7 e
-%f s.W w
m o
I, y,
/,
s.
t e
9 9
A m
me fj) r e
O *
/
4
/
- q.
q e
V P
/1 ma.
- g g
O 4
O O
6 O
pu+A MP" %
-em-e t
og 80 y *.; =r ~ ~ - r
'~~
_,,9.---w
^7~'
.**M*
.. w
A.
, he 4 C) a <.
k M_-.-
J l6 F
D
' e \\- Q Ja n. % ~+-
_% e w 2 acan n 9 d
S.i LO -
g/m p (.= sp.c XALv %,-_. d __..Ih Ibbf*t4 --..
M"-
b bS t*)'
l
......D.aler n w :,
9 Ivcil cep.4- -.h M C"'
h 2 \\.\\3
{
a
@T QpeA- [ z. -(-
g s.
musot.h-L m-w
.m 4-t NM to,47_
.. @,t) w/ c pc o /mt/.. cs $y.
[.
T 9/Gv N
(no c. L
\\ ~L ' 6 't.
-1.e. h. u n G) C 9a
~4 % o s
~ :.u % sb en+*.s d '-
-; - p p v.un (ht.nA G, 8'L Gu6
/ Lw Esn ~
h e. j '"'
VafQW
@\\Uq uJh 0-9 m b-
'T AL
/ C a'l mh ass i ssva 6 bene.
C/AL 3 s +g, Gw, w, aQ ee,ni~,
- = --
a.m%.a. um A Ll RZ U o A._ ca w y
. Oa (2ww e M /TJr<-
2
._.La.cf-Ac f r sp~
c-n I:o #cs~ W.
+c h o. '...
maluka / inu vk w.hn,s b
CPC.. -
_ _ (I * ' @d.,y y
. so, L.ho (cl-+or sh reye A 4,r_ W a y#>9 r/h u c:-n.:a. - htt. c l d i w w Mo -.OW 9<.w - f iy A L-. +
)!(hl.0+p.w.4 1..
(?_ -.0 L%....
k_L P L _._.o1 M
[.8 Y
vJ !Sy._ _/u..bo+Ls f
C3 2 _ o p C 4 7
_% Ab-_ y_.Ao M dA 1 _. W. LP && Swc--
9 g
T )... -._ _ _.Lo& _ ht_pg
_Og-9<n P~hM S!_h_ - -.?(?
\\'.
c.--.-
=..
--.7.__
o
,.--e-7 (O
v..
j.
1 o!C b ~ _ _ e h. _ _ _ m. c.
u / 6. o w M
(__._6hL=w Eo nis t 5saa - eudyvbog mu 6taA ips..*f 4 voe. _
SqL._.. b eh a Mu.<+.. A % /) b y.,
t u p e,4 4. 4, _.
j a.LL pm Ly 5 k ki i ssue.s...
.w "3.Se _p#-- S. r, cya
- q p_ow,
U)Pch Y.
bLcL %^'
vJkw trM OpnL 87..
0 I
. Drafd. cwa-W-5
^
g D Qpe'C T~~
l -
(2.s sv A GL u4 Cu cww-s w. L. n a Q.
f^
b c.6 +
% s ( w -. %+
a a
a+ wL l-s k r L M
. O' h -t % A -
3
\\
' % Luk,ck uf p. % G<cae f#gY.
f
}-o f
6p#
a
.sa (nr es
<I,w pm V
W W
- n Enca-k h
N/tre
%P 1
In y 4-j oo+
6,_
3 o Luq..
hmtA
.9xW w.5 5af;f,p h g 7 -L ib =.l (b><
e e-ea.--,e.
em n..
._*w
=meme eu e-w6-meh4e_m.
e g
.w-,m.,m._g g ww6
% =
4w-.ee
.m,ow,..y
,.im.
..M.mee whawmm I
" * " ' * ~ * *'~
.~ --
s
--e
- -M%-.paui.e.-m-co e
.am m'*.*.6***.n*
.*eb' em.w.-g,gw.-
e m
.u,
.e
,,igee,_wg g g,g_
...&hW h**
re. aM -
- w. g ew e, ew.,g,.6-a h
h-
-e 14 g.-
M-. - > -
h
. -,. - -. - =.. ~.....
_.-~.__.. _..
9 m..-*esa.mw.=*
w--.**m.==e..
- =.
wee----.
- w.m.e-emee.-.g.a.%..-.%.-.-.o..
em.
_