ML20106F954
| ML20106F954 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1984 |
| From: | Roisman A Citizens Association for Sound Energy, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#484-805 OL-2, NUDOCS 8410300428 | |
| Download: ML20106F954 (56) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ _ _ REUsTED N.wrvmph- ,
$OS 9 Cue Octooer 16dI'984 I
Nsf 007 1 > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - ' gg38 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In tne Matter of *)
)
TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2 COMPANY, et al. ) and 50-446-2
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric ) ! Station, Units 1 and 2) ) I CASE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO APPLICANT REQUEST , FOR NON-DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT LIPINSKY DOCUMENTS In a letter to the Licensing Board dated Octooer 18, 1984, Applicant refused to provide the parties with relevant documents regarding O.B. Cannon and J.J. L1pinsky, asserting that those documents were privileged DeCause prepared in anticipation of litigation. (See letter to the Board, October 18, 1984) CASE opposes the assertion of privilege and requests that the Board order production of all of the withheld documents. CASE and Applicant agree that if the materials sought i represent attorney-work product then the standard to apply in deciding whether to produce them is:
)
A party may ootain discovery of documents and tang 1 Die things otherwise discoverable. under paragraph (o)(1) of this
' section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing oy or for another party's representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has suostantial need of the materials in the preparation of this 8410300428 841026 PDR ADOCK 05000445 C PDR
G . j t
~
case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the suostantial equivalent of the materials oy other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required snowing has Deen made, the presiding officer shall protect I against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. S2.740(o)(2). ) At the outset it is crucial to place the infornation Deing withheld into the context of the issue involved. The issue is whether, as the result of pressure orought to oear oy Applicant f f or its counsel on Mr. Lipinsky and/or O.B. Cannon, Mr. L1pinsky modified nis previously held opinions regarding the adequacy of the paint coatings, and QA/QC related to it, at CPSES. A part of that issue is whetner Mr. L1pinsky had what he had indicated and Delieved was a reliaole basis for changing his opinion. What is not at issue at this point is the adequacy of the paint coatings' program as such, an issue to De fully explored in the other phase i of the hearings. (It was apparently in preparation for the former issue that Mr. L1pinsky was preparing testimony.) In summary, CASE oelieves that Mr. Lipinsky was pressured, coerced, or influenced into recanting and changing the conclusions that he originally reached about coatings and related a quality control at Comanche Peak. In his original report of August 8, 1983 about his trip to Comanche Peak on July 26-28, 1983, Mr. L1pinsky expressed a number of serious concerns aoout the adequacy of the coatings quality control program at Comanche Peak. Nonetheless, over time Mr. Lipinsky recanted those concerns, ultimately culminating in an af fidavit filed with the t Board on September 28, 1984. CASE Delieves that numerous factors f
point to tne very real possibility that Mr. L1pinsky was improperly pressured or . influenced into ' changing his conclusions aoout quality control at Comanche Peak, and indeed may have Deen coerced into participating in a " cover-up" of serious quality concerns. Because CASE has a substantial need of any evidence of pressure on Mr. L1pinsky to recant the concerns that he expressed in nis August 8, 1983 trip report and Decause any evidence of such pressure is clearly relevant to these harassment and intimidation proceedings, Applicant should be compelled to produce all of the relevant documents which it has until now I withheld. The withheld information apparently contains draf t testimony proposed Dy Applicant's counsel representing what they wanted Mr. L1pinsky to testify to regarding the adequacy of the paint coatings at CPSES; the information also apparently contains i Mr. L1pinsky's reaction to that proposed testimony. Meeting notes and letters apparently further memorialize the exchanges I Detween Mr. L1pinsky and the Applicant's counsel on exactly what Mr. L1pinsky would and would not say. Thus the withheld information will likely provide important evidence of any actual attempt to pressure Mr. Lipinsky and of any evolution of his testimony or views thereoy potentially proving that such pressure had been Drought to Dear. A number of factors potat very strongly to the likelihood that Mr. Lipinsky was pressured, coerced or influenced into chrnging his appraisal of the coatings rpogram at Comanche Peak. I First, Mr. Lipinsky never undertook any audit of Comanche Peak
~
F. . ..
'suosequent to the July,1983 trip on which he based his initial I trip report. At least as late as four months af ter that initial trip, Mr. L1pinsky noted in his " diary" (produced in discovery Oy O.B. Cannon) on Novemoer 17i 1983, that any full audit of coatings at Comanche Peak "would or might confira JJL's
~
concerns". The only " data" that Mr. L1pinsky rece1ved on the quality control program at Comanche Peak subsequent to his initial visit was the information he received during the November 10-11 meetings with Ron Tolson, John Merritt and others (meetings which took place prior to the Novemoer 17 diary entry cited aDove, and in which Lipinsky indicated that his concerns might De confirmed oy a full audit). Nonetheless, Dy the time he met with l I NRC inspector Hawkins in January,1904, and certainly oy the time of his Septemoer, 1984 affidavit, .4r. Lipinsky, without the Denefit of any new information, had reached radically different conclusions aoout the quality of the coatings program at Comanche Peak. f Further evidence that Mr. L1pinsky was improperly pressured ! into changing the conclusions that he had reached in his August 8 i trip report can ce found in numerous other entries in Mr. Lipinsky's diary. On a nunper of occasions af ter the November
- 10-11 meetings (in which his initial report was " discussed" oy l
Tolson, Merritt and others), Lipinsky made entries in his diary which indicate that an attempt was oeing made to cover-up the i concerns voiced in the August 8 trip report. For example, Mr. L1pinsky was clearly concerned that he might De pressured into l perjuring himself: on Novemoer 14-15 he wrote at least three r l l
4 times that he would not commit perjury, and felt the need to express that feeling to Norris, Roth, and Trallo. On November 17, Mr. L1pinsky wrote that O.B. Cannon President Roth was l demanding that he sign a changed version of his original trip repor t; L1pinsky did not. In refusing to sign the modified report, L1pinsky expressed a conce'rn that "the more JJN/RBR I [Norris/Roth] talk to the utility or try to stRtr-up, the deeper OBC gets -- OBC could have serious proolens if federal agencies M l
! perceive OBC committing f raud." (See Lipinsky 11/17 diary entry; received f rom Applicant in discovery) (Emphasis added) ;
L1pinsky further wrote on Novemoer 17 that: JJL pointed out [to Roth] that JJL has problem in signing a changed trip report (may De thought of as f raud). RBR (Roth) Decame flush and said that was not fraud, Dut final copy of memo / trip report, and JJL was to sign the changed trip report and place a copy in the clue three ring oinder today. JJL said "yes sir" out did not sign the changed trip report. JJL draf ted a meno from RBR for RBR signature g (telling JJL to sign the changed trip report), if RBR forces JJL to sign the changed trip report. L1pinsky was clearly feeling pressure to cover up and ignore his concerns. The pressure he felt was so intense that he felt the need to protect himself Dy draf ting a letter in Roth's name detailing that he had Deen forced to alter the report and to sign
)
the changed copy against his will. CASE has no way of knowing to a certainty why Roth was pressuring L1pinsky -- i.e., CASE cannot
) De certain that Roth was himself Deing pressured by the Applicant or their counsel. Clearly, other correspondence netween L1pinsky, O.B. Cannon, the Applicant and their counsel, and any h draf t testimony prepared during this period for L1pinsky will shed light on the degree to which Lipinsky was pressured and
F -
. coerced into ultimately completely recanting the very real concerns that he strongly felt af ter the Novemoer 10-11 meetings p at Comanche Peak.
M r. L1pinsky's diary contains numerous other indications that the recantation of his concerns was not completely voluntary, indications that will a1most certainly ne further evidenced if the documents that Applicant- has refused to produce are in f act produced. For instance, in notes on his Novemoer 22 meeting with TUGCO attorney Nicholas Reynolds, L1pinsky wrote:
"JJL [L1pinsky] asked attorney (NSR) whose side they represented.
Indications are that OBC [ Cannon] is not getting all info." The next day, L1pinsky wrote that he pointed out to Trallo "that 2 out of 2 meetings were not what JJL had Deen led to Delieve -- what is going on, someone is not above ooard." These diary entries oy L1pinsky are compelling evidence that the concerns L that he voiced in his August 8 trip report were recanted oecause he felt coerced or was in some other way influenced to change his 6 po s itio n. (See Exhibit 1) Additional evidence that Lipinsky was pressured into changing his story accut the adequacy of coatings end ralated v quality control at Comanche Peak lies in the f act that at the Novemoer 10-11 meetings at Comanche Peak, of ficiated Dy John Merritt and attended ny Tolson, Lipinsky, Trallo, Norris and four 5 others (see CHI Exhiott 4 of CASE's Preliminary Proposed Findings of Fact), L1pinsky said almost nothing. At that meeting, Tolson, k Merrit and sometimes others characterized Lipinsky's concerns and purported to " address" them, out L1pinsky himself apparently did
?
------------ - _ _ ------ J
l a not feel comfortaole enough himself to say; much of anytbing. By either his own admission or the recognition of someone else at the meeting (contained in notes appended to the diary produced by O.B. Cannon in discovery), there was a " lack of JJL talking on tape" (of the NovemDer 10-11 meeting). Those meetings could hardly have convinced L1pinsky that his concerns aDout coatings and quality control at Comanche Peak were unfounded. The likelihood that L1pinsky was coe:ced into participating in a " cover-up" of his concerns is lent additional support Dy the f act that O.B. Cannon President Roth was extremely sympathetic to e the concerns of TUGCO and even hostile to the concerns voiced by L1pinsky. This " motive" for Roth to cover-up is evidenced cot only Dy the diary entries cited aDove, out also by Roth's own categorization of Cannon's concerns. In c November 3, 1983 meeting with Joe George, Dave Chapman, John Merritt, Billy k Clements, Tony Vega, J.J. Norris and himself, Roth " apologized again for the lack of security at OBC, in that an in house meno j ' leaked out' and had caured our client such consternation and new additional exposure to intervenors" (from Roth meno to file, dated 11/4/83, Exhibit 2). In a NovemDer 28, 1983 letter to Nicholas Reynolds, Roth wrote that " Cannon's posture is to support TUGCQ/TUSI with whatever oDjective and honest effort we can render". When these professions of support for and apology to "their client" are viewed in the light of the intense pressure applied by Roth to L1pinsky to sign an altered version of his trip report, the clear inference arises that the O.B. Cannon president, the Applicant, and/or their attorneys may have Deen seeking to paper over and cover up Lipinsky's concerns.
- - m_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ -- Finally, support for the argument that L1pinsky was J pressured into retracting his initial concerns is found in the repeated insistence Dy Doth Lipinsky and Trallo that the concerns raised in the August 8 trip report would only De either allayed or conformed if a full audit of the plant were undertaken. For example, Trallo wrote in his November 28, 1983 trip report that
" Comanche Peak Site Management adequately detailed the program .
and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo". (See Exhibit 4) Cannon has no oasis to confirm that these programs and co 'rols are in place and are Deing effectively implemented. Confirmation could only De provided by a detailed aud16 Similarly, Lipinsky wrote in his diary on NovemDer 17 that only an audit, which would require four to five weeks could confirm or allay his initial concerns. (See also the October 28, 1983 Lipinsky letter, ExhiDit 3) Nonetheless, Dy the time he met with NRC inspector Hawkins in January, 1984, Lipinsky was much less concerned with the adequacy of coatings at Comanche Peak than he had been only a month' earlier. (CASE is also concerned aDout the possible inferences arising f rom the awarding to Lipinsky of a raise only one and one-half weeks Defore his crucial meeting with Hawkins (see Lipinsky's December 23, 1983 diary entry), especially when viewed in the light of Lipinsky's fear for his joD only six weeks earlier. (See Lipinsky's November 14 diary entry) Based on the documents that CASE has received thus far through discovery in these proceedings, there is simply no adequate explanation for Lipinsky's 180 degree aDout-face with
(. . regard to his feelings aoout the adequacy of coatings and related quality control at Comanche Peak. It seems incrediole that Lipinsky simply accepted the explanations given oy Tolson at the Novemoer 10-11 meetings and oy Brandt in his testimony. On the contrary, suostantial evidence exists which gives rise to the inference tnat L1pinsky recanted-n'is August 8, 1983 conclusions either Decause of pressure applied to nia to cover up or some other reason unexplained and unimaginaole. As detailed Delow, a suostantiated Delief in the likelihood of a cover-up provides a suf ficient showing of necessity to require production of documenta that signt otherwise De undiscoveraole under 10 C.F.E S2.740(o)(2) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(D)(3). 10 C.F.R. S2.740(o)(2), adapted f rom Rule 26(o)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allows discovery of trial preparation materials upon a showing oy the party seeking i discovery of "suostantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue i nardship to ootain the suostantial equivalent of the material oy other means." The allegations detailed and suostantiated aoove and in Ennioits 1-5 satisfy the requirements of this standard: Applicant should therefore De compelled to produce all of tne l relevant L1pinsky documents. 1 As a preliminary matter, CASE notes that no time need De spent on the " undue nardship" prong of this standard: CASE j obviously cannot hope to ootain the suostantial equivalent of the materials withneld here oy other means. The contemporaneous notes and written draf ts of positions taken oy or proposed to Mr. L ! / i
Llpinsky are the uniquely superior evidence of what transpired -- possiole pressure, coercion, cover-up -- and no similarly reliaole evidence exists anywhere else. CASE's need for the withheld L1pinsky documents is apparent. If Mr. L1pinsky recanted his initial concerns aoout quality at Comanche Peak only oecause he was pressured into doing so, and only as part of a larger attempt to cov7r up the quality control proolems at Comanche Peak, then his initial concerns still stand. Indeed, those concerns cast serious doubt over the adequacy of Comanche Peak's coatings program.1/ Claims of necessity very similar to CASE's claim in this motion have been recognized oy the Federal courts as a sufficient showing of necessity to justify production of otherwise undiscoveraole work-product documents. In In Re Grand Jury Suopoena Dated Novemoer 9,1979, 484 F.Supp. 1099 (S.D.N.Y. 1980), the district court ordered defendant's lawyers to produce withheld documents which the Government (the party seeking discovery) alleged would provide evidence of a cover-up. The court characterized the Government's claim of necessity as compelling, stating that an assertion that documents sought will provide evidence of a cover-up is an even stronger claim of 1/ This issue is not moot if, in reality, the sought af ter documents contain evidence of attempts (regardless of their success) Dy TUCGO QA management to cover up the seriousness of Lipinsky's initial concerns. On October 19, 1984 Applicant suomitted to the NRC its Program Plan responding to the findings of the NRC's Technical Review Team (TRT). Mr. Ron Tolson, the very individual descrioed by several witnesses in this proceeding as the cause of the QA deficiencies in coatings, was named an Project Leader for the resolution of all coatings proolens. (See Exhiott 5) =
t necessity than other claims routinely accepted by courts. 484 F.Supp. at 1103. _( The court in In Re Grand Jury applied the standard of Rule 26(o)(3) even though the case oefore it involved a grand jury case, not a civil suit. 484 F.Supp. at 1102) The courts in Doth In Re Grand Jury Suppoena Dated November 9, 1979, 484 F.Supp. 1099, 1105 (S'.D.N.Y. 1980) and In Re Grand Jury Investigatio n, 599 F.2d 1224, 1232 (3d Cir. 1979) recognized that a mere naked assertion of a cover-up does not constitute a , sufficient showing of necessity' to warrant ordering discovery of work product. However, in this proceeding, as in In Re Grand i Jury Suppoena, 484 F.Supp. at 1105, a suostantiated claim of a i suspected cover-up has oeen alleged. The requirement of sunstantiation means only that the party making the assertion of cover-up suostantiate its Delief -- the party needn't prove its allegations in order to compel discovery. 484 F.Supp. at 1105.
)
CASE has offered a quantum of evidence suostantiating allegations of a cover-up. Attached to this orief are the October 31, 1983 meno in which Mr. L1pinsky reconfirmed his initial concerns; a Novemoer 28 meno in which Mr. Trallo emphasized that none of the concerns raised in the August 8,1983 trip report could ne
)
completely put to rest unless a full audit was done (and none ever was done); and numerous excerpts f rom Lipinsky's diary which Indicate that he was pressured into recanting his testimony and may have Deen forced to participate in a cover-up of the concerns r raised in the initial report. Further, the record in these proceedings contains the August 8 trip report, a transcript of the Novemoer 10-11 meetings, the January interview of Lipinsky Dy Hawkins, and the Septemoer 28, 1984 affidavit of Lipinsky.
- i However, in view of the fact that Lipinsky ultimately recanted his initial concerns without ever performing a sucsequent audit I at Comanche Peak, the record completely lacks any legitimate reason for L1pinsky's shif t. _ Indeed, the gaping lack of a {
l legitimate explanation for Lipinsky's'shif t lends further support for the argument that Lipinsky was pressured or coerced into recanting and covering up. Finally, CASE does not concede that the documents withheld l oy Applicant are either privileged or contain attorney work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Indeed, without l l seeing those documents, CASE cannot De sure what they contain. There is substantial evidence that the draf ts of testimony and l other documents likely contain proof of improper pressure on Mr. L1pinsky to recant his story; evidence of this improper pressure is not " privileged attorney work product."jb/ l Even if the Board does find that the documents do contain privileged work product, CASE has demonstrated its substantial need for those documents. Lastly, if the Board is reluctant to 2/ Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-691, i 16 N.R.C. 897, 917 (1982), cited Dy Applicant as justification for withholding the relevant L1pinsky documents does not' control this case. First, Consumers dealt with the possiDie discover-aoility 2f ordinary drafts of testimony. However, the L1pinsky draf ts were very unlike the typical draf t testimony case. Here the focus is on the possiDility that those draf ts will point to pressure and coercion of Mr. L1pinsky to change his original f story. The documents sought are sought precisely to show that the ultimate testimony was coerced and thus unreliable, no t to prooe attorney thought processes. Second, though Consumers addressed the possibility that draf ts of testimony might De privileged from discovery, it did not reach the merits of that ques t io n. The Board in Consumers decided only that counsel who asserted the privilege could not De censured for making that assertion, it did not decide whether the draf ts were in fact privileged.
allow CASE to view the documents in their entirety without first ascertaining their contents, CASE urges the Board to view those documents M camera to determine whether they contain evidence of pressure and cover-up. If they do, then Applicant should De denied its assertion of privilege. For all of the above reasons, CASE requests that the Board order production of all of the withheld documents. Respectfully submitted, ($ 3 M3hh ANTHONY Zd ROISWAN M { Trial Lawyers for Public Justice 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite 611 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 463-8600 Counsel for CASE I I,
\
1 1 l
v --
. t d . -f l -
- , ~ Exhibt il *
. J' i -
t ,.
~-
.a
- . :: . id .
November octon.r u , usa o.c.mo.c l Wednesday ==rar s ==v-vr. ==r-r s r . ...,; .,: 14,'a ...,J J"UMEMS n=== Essnss2 0%#M#ss
; . i, ,-
ganan=n
,- m a n = = = 2.
- 't:
i i j
$ AIERW & 0.P 42d S
- S'/'* "2 i re r 4 a.mauurt ,.
; p,osabes cetf ae' fAuf056 ALDif flat /
. ., -). - d.MERdr;- (JM) u]Mreb To # Mor) L&ect.E 4id ulas r T.co41.v . RAr ,o h.7t:w.iin owe.g dad u.th
~ '
- 4.Ms.Rirr ti.iremen Mlvt f J.h. -v AeTuW
. To ikrruz. Axj3 Bor AETued w/o .ud M~
. (lla
,9eops Abibd Adb p.*d0b0 f)Ma* u/o .bGFAV6 ,
i 1 r.coad.uil6AT - Mr-M43' w 5'T*V /u norn. . 4 T.drad..tclJad - umsns -13L To d*"E 'O #lM ,
. g (,)ib MOT iM Toff *\ d3 L O F I M D FT d 3 7 M' & ~
c do OrctL "iT.I'f REfe/.'.T) -'" .UL /d/fdL'WD
,1.111 m cearac.r Aar ,
( T,$gd.u)f&kT- /dMMCD .1)L. o f 7 n frAriv.r Eco }$, MTU, . ,,}05TyoAf O ULYn Dl80'
?AT Jj.ITO/LMr'b -DL. ThdtT J36 UM Y fEAN Kifl)Sti TD bOC\.)L'S '1%( LEt%'T) 4 hc.F-Op R47 AT 3 Ft.d W.l MI-O k DhE W00 STA'f0S f,lMPAcrsinod3 ,
j 4 T v.oad.J a.b.Gaiired (ade)ur of Mrd. rat i.us n.c d i@ ole {
. +.
, *e .
'T5.1 - , -
"~ ~~
)
[v- -- e . c-. u.- n-- zz777 ,- -
, 7 7... s_._ _ _ _
e * ._ e 4
. I t .
~. -
- ** 'g ,e .
*.I. *. .- *. .
I
. . . s. * , .
,- .* ,?
, g L
,I , January 1984
, Fetruary Mwcti November
. s, w e a r a s, sutwrrs
, .,.=. ,
a.. .s 3 s. w r w t,, a s, Thursday
=II= =>D 34 ... , . .a ,
- = 272= ., = 4 =,.,2, ,., 2
;,, a n = =2 23 24 s, ,.
7.
= = u =7.Pipi ==2pe, r.
; y l [] , . & MTg., ed siiTE ,
'l *
- saz mfex /Tgadan,47
{ Oloc. u ns.lbd:eo&uls 3%, w op,cas @l~31d j amw Y>w' *n e i.- . t i 4 gw. y a, e..c,iti i ra c.aad L
- a-3, -=>- .
. , . -; g.,i
- AAmr boe ro J34-)
-c -
- Mm..as y nss.easses:, au m.ceum.m.m,-
r -
. ,. ]
lisoE 4 do u m b *
- a e F' stsM Pbcsie t'KaN (M,W. tss Ash t,sf Wa;..yt mpu,
= '
-ut ge4,e our .wer ouo,
- m wm & wuss, er Mw.c o? ,
me ms. - n.is. orippia ro c.er Atxe . ROLL @ . 4 . , - . H8(- Mo 70 der op.atad o u d!L
.. i
dob s74rus Rodn' rc T2i
%p ? AYe .
- 19 wgu r ovin. % W d'yi<.s-} MRe) s ilJ t puo on apalG Tsywx4 gne>nx)
. - 33u pil.cres o trr miacr w.eeau.<Aeim.
1k. -
. -' I~ g g m a sa. ud n sa us{ntira '
.p 92g. woAn .au iue date usu. Nor
'I L AvEmyr w P',e'our a d ,uc w.4 RE
>ot.r sutrewn - H ao ST*rd WAT w I
r. Ali,0. id Odt y' Gede.6%ud q N .
, .1 TEr auie.% cop nmar er Tt+=r ut Tiy A=WT- ,
4 e .t
. r, i'
.n. .
L.
M: =. .,
, k
+
e I g , 0 '
. g .
. O n- _ m o o
. :- . - - - - - - , ~ ~
a : . _ w 2.=~, &. -- - a, .. .,;i .~;. ~ <
. .._a.. . .
- n- u .
.I .
g
, t. . ,. ,
1 4 " . . 8
. eV *
.: . 1 .
.4 .s . I e' h e' =
. .if. .
. rl ~
lj
.. November ocioner u m n.,ises o.c e r Frida *"'** '
- t
* = ' ' ' '
3 234 S 334 34 7 8 # 23
. 8 78 999 9112 4 S6 7 8 9 se - . *j S te 181213 to 95 la to 95 to 1710 ft 19 ft 13 e4 4 9617
- 1617 te et M F172 30 ft 23 33 34 39 36 ' ..
.- 23 M at M 2735 at 37 38 39 38 te M M F172 73 M ,
. M 31 25 M 3F M 30 38 at .
(,,j;l -
~'
~
*Qq g AAY.oM O N D . ,-'$
I $ (3gg y[ T1&,*A12c.MfT ~
. .'} ,
R rDt Sou THAT 'TV'P vet e.v u r Au
- i ., :' .. 1*1'bei)GT* *\%if REfc/-T', G \vC .S'M 'lD MT*
- 4- .- '
safe (= teoav est) mcar Vim / 'I ,
.' Mr' Mai - P bg. opo re.up.
l t i Pvsw seu r ro -ni bH.We km) . ,
- %.~1 A Rei*ed8b Cod 7cWu 44b 6HP*
- fMWAse To MT FoC. talk.%) {conuzur '
, ,, U.%.- TD Ger o,d AouW itlW(th .
', '] '
ALSO Bfiey. birc. ors'& IF (fPAd PJh ' , uw,2 equa ro naco m wee . l . s "i . is Mot.E THhl adC tid 8SA @ JJ'- l Wf MICfT~ i,- .
~
@ AngMgr ro M4dcd j. ." -
e
- 4
- l . .
l
./
Veterans Day 8 e === .. -, , , . p
%~
. . 9
. 0 ' * *
. _ __ _-_ _ s y .
-M - n
o _ _ _ - _
- - - = _ _ _ _ _ _ . -
e
, { . *
, e-
. . . . ., s -
- t . ,
o ., 8
,
- g *
.a
- I . .
. 3 , 4; ..
- a. ..
- r1
*r ....
- . .. - n:.
- 2
. e t,, .
Jenpery 1964 Fetruary Mwch November
*
- sutwra ~
s e334 88 F :utwee: aurwiss? O vseee334 o u s m it e aaer823
= = ir =
= n n is u =n =
! ON*
u n s a n= tr n riu n r~,.4 se n 3s enssnnun = ,o n eunists w nnu er
. q, . , n as m se u n si n se n 3a ~ .
- i. a
* ~
9.:si 13 g . k ?$s*. T@<ul. dlVAC15M RGyOf-ince.c id
, h,q daw f reer wem e a,am -
l i . '
.. .i a c
h w To Apg .
$TJ
\ ** p$.qu -opmc Jd e4 .
cou.,ar wwe (.cser, e,qsaa-e en6- * [ 4. wac Esp-r - MA
- - a w nnuead nr crnnus ed Tates(
i p ItMsu,Qt - J.W To p44de quer,w*v.r
$nges .t L-4 (JAGE O
1
. . i e .p; .
e
~
a 4
~
M t' ,
- i. '
. . . El .
. ! ri J'. ,'
d . t
. e.
/
L,' -
- I g ~ .
- i. .
./
~
,e
_ it _ o ^
w_.
. , ], . - . _
~
I i \ . . ,. .,. c .
. .q. ,,
- a. . -y;
; , 'i . .. l.:,. .
n - n . . . r. ; . a. . 1 .
* ~ r November ociati.e m e,.r u s o me,.e T'..
Monday 5"'*, * " ', '; 1 '. ' * " ' * ', ', i
. ' =
- 9 10 13 M 96151710 ft 15 32 33 se es te et *t
.'r. . . ! = ir ft .1713 se le ri4 n m ai n aa m a n isio m me n n u n a naam
. m a ni m m as si
' m us a, m m ar ..
. q d
I.
'[~* j ,
4 r, cod 4 - @J 81d8 l0*8N **8' 8 " " * " Y' ' " '. i .
-I coaveuam&A .
5 , *,' 4 -r,ccad. u3 l H.'h.GRiFP/A1 (,M P.c) 14Ae'erec. OF coar,%.sv*s t1,y-(we. Mc or.-uim -e o.wab
- i. . ene '35 M c upis.mrie.,gAE A B A y g , J< W) A lf't W E
.j 4 .h? AFT WAivaw
.3Ame (,Rk% citostsek fiks'7' E'Euraut
- g y
..j Sat.sa b p-%Le4pg)
, r .-
k R6R, WiDUT Ot/M. C#Ao44t.06 e4 t.y (.cf.o l
"t Ho.d CHAs&cc cafy oF TRif MykrT-o .l' idhe DCs W 're ~1.McRA.sW (TUd.lo)-
. . WkAl*7E b d.!L To / DJc/t. 64, erg - At.30 .
~.
d anpc.xsJJL., 1q Steh Cft M ,6 p.cyet.T" ~
\
. *L .i k T. CDad @p.5.ht,qV. u 1 H.L. Gastr el(NAC) j '
1 1 -3.it we's W ova @A tver 9' bbD p tg
=
e swib u1Aieze u)ks on.
. -i ~ Mot o ds.EED topn r.cL cuUsuT* SITUAnod '
($bO6H AlarbR006ttTodofA/M) l r
- 30 Gem,wo .111 .:>Tv T !.a, cA. br~n.y og t.p(utaodsynnpr (9% ,m.aT16u To
.nr apcpan ou ma-csc My -
Nor che ret Q (HSlot)IMh 13 1.00, gy g y Alor' 90bsT45.1. MV CO2- . A wic e b .UL. T M T 4t W M # M i TWiuAT16d 'r6 F[LE hub UL ##AW Dbb n Wu if F02c2 A RAVE D . S .r H 4 Ai MM-kilbE" adAl 533. A A)1 U!C R,ER 74 TAT W L Wru AleT* p (d.jutt. '
.. - BWut.e (Jjl.)' To ..iupper.7 sts#J 'T u.A:s TF e)
*! i Gcers 6.21.9T - i: 6 8. 9Ai.3 =TC(. S WM A.d OI-H 50idl b u * 's~
- bMMG C0 two.;. Deb We mur3. 400 i.2( ,3 -
v,
,/
. ,l
- 4
---____________________._m_.__ __.m.._ n
m ,
.* l t
. 2 s . .
g * * . .
. . . ;. _g I
~
,, , ] dWm % uary , March November sutwvss
****5er sutwirs esse s=t=tr,s, , Tuesday
,e e *
- n w i3 w sersemu n4 ws ,e3 I. .#
* *" wasort
# F3 38 28 M 27 35 t2 3 w a w ir =
19 30 Il 22 23 3e 33 n . ,, gg 39 R 21 Pt 23 7e
%, N M 31 35 27 at 79 0
- 25 M 21 JS W .30 31 i
~
1
*- . 4 NAAT h5ac./ sf 04 -do e7,4.s. To se 4 RtA chu.z:m.1.1t_ in M,c. aprice v,qr pr;g. nra
~ '
I
~
..,.. jt Mat.ddit- (r.orosew.c.v) So wa.rr. malm usner-ik
,7 ,'
MA 70s b J.M.DR.E. n-
'-l. . , , ,
- sistruasr ty r,u.ss , Ars aw4so , A ce-o.it .boe -
3 ; . ro to n aJs. u r h .kr t- -
-) h, -tsscur nne.cok wncasicare.upd upevet op '
I'. TAQ Myran.ser Jcua.a/eb sy AM. Ta UPvW . o .
~)a pyy 1100 ;strs<uur rup **yus ci.rr (.MJ an o -
g g .m p ri k v ar p.u w *u == 1J4. To */.'s tre
~ crseuuD BENGT) m.b s.mmer wirr- n.ar .ut.nts **yezf Iam,4*s mal
- : ?, &~f.co us),sl RAT liesfM446) ^MW Abs ~ of dMT -
h ,ypews f y,g, ersw ,a.sw as uo THer -lat wd.e Mer1~ r
%g 4
(EAsugg ed Txy Aspa.r ; Ant' .fria acs.o<.ed Mit Ar,s.rst .r.n. drzs rsen en aowd
- ' f*Y U*" JJ L-
. . M
A r. w aY JJ# A C 48 *a " P i C" " * " 8 e** *ir~ f
~.
d wtu Not I 'f.M cons 4/u)/J4Lt if h0!M'.T)faJcAf
~ '
,y .m M.2.ac bec. %
. .i .) )3i,, piamr0 Our DtPfr Jg. 7%r.or0 E) 7*.d*fdd.t ace.
-"( 1
. . . . . ,.h - - go Aeod.s oL a.eu P'WS4 #7Mi3t [l#[#7D#8*fiEPUMeidf-/
Om MAC
. f 1.e,ud.4 t.neMit w: for 90%n' arm 'YH*T ~a)'-
,7 Aap nu Mour AA f dw#'*'o 786r M/W~ '
( 3DD u)ANdf ';3 M40. -CEE75FiED d'#h IWJ '7.:V07A
'I
. .- as (Mig.s'cAIM.as)fdddS.0 COfi[ O( NN [*f g a ,e fn s. orp,4a j #or Jul8 sA,- ) Alre.
- U g gp g toGc.o t,erM.1st OM fHitA.. W 6'*oy r(=I.'b; "C'0"
'l> tome to der itdmr'# *d *f*d5" 'l* * / -
C g,jp,. b. coq,mu po.o As 6 tg ( T.7c EJJ4I Amfeam);
, - car orp satavse Jsn How T.viH* (7th'o ef0a4 yesse-hedsppcx:. Afundt.t w.arcor/so to ot=.1 f */u , E.9-WS, .
\ f1,'<0c ris f i,2 Go*Vtr ,T' 'M. A.I.. ~ Afft Let" ,JJL. @ m2 ke. rieux: Eal Af!? eff!Cd (G?ff CF 100 f.S.K A (?st.*l-!! p My/.0 k33 C) l .' c k
- 4 T.Gra/o Ata a.trems u)[R/ir Ath/d'eb Aar en tur aac64I peau,uAN8f'irce- ofiaer em5^4nar 0 1,c I S .5') M adiM e' Teo A09 n T1 Alc bO'aM.) *4ti.
'Ntr 'r7 Lip g.cpe.,v-a C GsM r~MTUdt AG('cun r
. , 411A t.c.,r Tiec v H s s's' ras LA#20ur 79ny q 0 ,
. t
, e
.. . %~
. *9 .
,8 , ,, =
'~
_-__l____-________-_____----,
, , . c ,
l .
, - \
1 .
- t . '
. . \
t
,. ,8
}," ,. ..
.% . .. s.e .l s.L .','.
l .
- .i- ; .' .
.. ,. , . . 1 l
November ocion r w=.me.r inn o.cere.r
' l
* ;- - - l
.
- Wednesday sur=rra suvwvr surweas
~
.....,.1 . t .1 2..3 4. 5 ...r.923 an"3 = ====
g g = = ,2,=* n 3
- n nu n" a3,2,=n An n.
== ==2 .
l o 4 g.e,44. J/tur (co.ovidos raw n /ss) ' RAT ACKEED LOl JJL W^#'~ '33 ' d ' i . AM r0 Gen -ro LiA6tc JJL i
~
'.5 4 T.toxhj id SSAl
'0660 Pet. nAd 4Ai.t AJer M 'ro ,
STbusuku ; 4+%AT. hat.F LIFE OUT *
, .IF RE oecoAg My 014.tT -d.L T "DH.,ic. y ,
' fEdor.:ress - J k- pc,hTe0 co 'To Jul - '
- N AfM fA6lL }MDbilA16 fAZ54 { dk bohk,-
i '4%W AEA .hMEt.7s tol g.E,e ro p.ess 2 ro gnisWdk ad nad g. par -
.. M I-c%BD d)L 12)Dide te'>
THM E M A 7 o4 'b'b.ujRc)me,uo 607 - LQoo s b AJOT 'bl.10 GC.0 Kl ALL htE 'tO -
' O D M Inn o n it u n / is s u r
.434 skke.D IF J.M 2"D N*dd P+fet. -
NR.11ew THw uns ra ev.opico To 08e- - Mil A . off ict - J)L. 347) y'cr gor, Act-
- ~
d W'm A o r/ f n+nts ra c i rr e n i M -
$ thi' nc.ts _ ajaj ,ts.y.g3 aje, ,py aje .
ID MOI AML/E A Co 't C (4 H /& tt 4.JL. te x te a e a n w rsa .a snor aff w
-3hl .5%id " TWT tts' (.000s d S'eMD dep/
P bt Hosc M0'-cW eAl f-tNa \T-f 'ro ser Lg'd5?YOUT OF 'rou)ll ( m m I r e t = ,. mu pw - CALh a fh.,jk 0 A e se so yns0 iili.In . celae,,,.,,ii's,g*i$W - si aafa -
.uunace masroa pur.aaa ma N_'. i d TMT T)Ms 050AWY bM
- 7g)gcp PR pf,p. 3A oy( A th 21% IM OM- '
- l' 09 (bi tit.d C d LI U T P.'A W U000C II E1 0
+
8 .s
* .g ,
_ '____-_-___-l-_~.
= ' --
- _ _ _ _. = . . ~ . . ---------.=.===y.
^":::=.
f ~ ._ - __l ,- l *
.= s .
u
., e e s ,
s : , t e. ..- , 1
. =
. .e 5* - =a l
L l.s. . T. e ~
.j s,,"
l
.- .. . ' - (
-, t
* "64 F% b ch November :
.I surw,,, ,,,,,,,
* " 'd ',',s,
,j o wn a. , ,, Thursday ,
- w
. .e e, .n ,,i,, ,2 ,, ,., ,.,,, ,,
- ir e.s n i,3.,. , , , ,, .
e- ar nm a n ss a , , , , , , ===rin,.,, y,
- s.
- j i. m as:: m,,,, nun as m ar m a 3.s u,, *
]
k T.Cosat\, @}~L1N CcA/C't,) pg.pm f; ' j ey - h Mei:50s o IF.e., . s w *
- ~
.' ',j ll M S 4 f.0 o ?.,0. t W L E A r- A,f.re (t@jdo fenJ .
yhr.,,,r* 4.3L LtM. S-d'D DON of TEdp- E. MoussyR MwC Q ota - JJt i
)' '4.l'.3 go,,4n,,co to .J.1 ih r Jat i.Kt 7e
- Qaa.r w0 .us i..<ve s.rsoasn.
- cery n yAa<cuus
~l tva w.: 0 u.a. xtrsm. traos. = s u'~ c-ty *F.c.Moosda. 6.tvol i
I., M0180#4 j pr 'cauucrr Rct.As A c,
,or Txip AzpAT -o1 6 ~T#dhi.4.16 *A ABC. R*'l'D is' lWTA
- cCA jj T HA*r Mos.sDV LOT
". Caytj oF. f.e]. OLT FfoM dJN r>her Y+iMR t lepacr (bbassnn.,_ m.s) ,
(0 1
~ 1.y mai.u vma snip /o4ir ese ca.ai no cor- siuc guy
- CU A , M 8 A a ~4.4. Asemo) ct%Dt DETAfi,. OL / UFO.
' [, A = isys .ws car) al, pa ab Olay
.- .- gg e a_ (.w sai *AJ CP m/m-is ye,w ,** mr4Jo...0or awr .
swt;r p.dJc:, Eri/c 'v fMA T f.it'M s2,t* Al' '2'O ttsva* st,1g,,
, .; gy p a) THAr A LL j Q y,La 3pc egMidgO lof AAIL) AAlb 7?ts.i' wout O Br ,
. j ,gjju Of. AFT - 331 Ciya.ED c Hema k0 T"*f w aar
/G 38A ft.EP7 - JJ4
. ?"'
Oth A.1ci .maa .5 icd on. -psei, l ei,hr .nm s,r
--- ~ - -
j njnt,L $ O'l,tp Mo (53T) 1*.esLIU.u'.l UT - 4Ju. 'hrg.rgo y
.s.w uaw.a sa ese. s.in. wt wei.
~KtA towso re. ,ut To Sth/ unst:c twj nye.m- .
b) (c,m uaya,s q,aa wra swxA0 *'*r stor aw
')J'- 70 'O 60f -
' ~ ~ lkT SA'b Hf CDUs.uAV'C Ttn' gy woJs s,sor Didd A exo>tNo xcyocr- 'R8,c
-al Expresst:o c.Noard rhee w:F eur UN, t
,' - ,9t.v 1o Tw urra iry or.rry rt> av,an. up 4rsec ,pertso s't; .
,, CM (Je TS r ~ Deke CsNs.b ti,$v5".Yt'CoCGo' ,V, b3Les.2
- o. Odd GMme troite f):4so (TDCaos *tGDe.sks fKattsNd' Mr MactD
. i z c5 Ao ure t.x r)itjafya hiaG &,va, in .%,<.) w/ s ($ R
{ - y.u p hse.neu fme hy -mw4 is.; m.,w.s<pnaxs,.
- ili
- n. .m ,-
e ,,.,,,.,,.n,,a o,
*T f Ccc,A ss.y scos.s neg. s,,,qsa,j I ,y ggy',rsys;c.r' Nlu .
- 1 le .3 2L rhtrt0 'to rLtd N adasy 414 crys,4,,,j
($f171ht-
,F,e
* [j 4al[cc.,leregacro r7:,g AeP 4r-Thalv.'U ## //e"4/ M4ef U4/JE')f.,, /f /f[7,3
/
+
- , . , . . J t .
# ?
- 4 ., ' '
m
a; ;.tr ~ d '. '25.7 ~ " ~ ' ~ ~
.' - ~
. l , .
. e l i e' *
, - **. i
.' *\
* . g e.* .. 1* !
. 4
. e i
g- l
. 4' *
-d
.. .. .g ; -
.. g.
~ .
e{
. . . . . r. ..
. ... a
.a .
p .-. . P November ocion., n.,,,,,w an o,c ,,,w .j -
~ Friday
~
=r I38 88 F S 9
==v=res 1334S 4 7 8 9941113
- = r - r e s-
- 23 s.
. 9 80 8812 83 W 95 93 4 96 9817 se se 4 54 7 8 e se l**
(* .*
- te IF te 99 3 2372 3 gg 33 23 M St ae st t2 e3 u is is it 7*
233124 M M FF M 29 3F M M 34 to tg 3 21 F2 23 pe 30 35 M 2738 3 m at
- I ' \tfilllh GN?sy Co M J5st at u l'A u ** W ,A 'E f 4
- C
'd k paisnn) OTr TH"r JJi M** PU** Al W'* '
i
- A cyggwrgoy $t.yed.r (Mey if Thttberf /f- M FRAV,h *
} ~u gg&pe ruocn up .wiu TMo UM Nor FRh@
.r str pow copy op namo/ rury scrar- M'D lJ' l'"' !*. .
3 . .
,ggi,a THer o,tastde o Tx p Acyoer AuD tws- A dW ,.
;g .me e,ure pir.r.r sshc, .etaaen rooy-J>< snio
*{
g 3(p, y no xor stal 7HC !M*u'eu rsip Rey
- g Nar.reo A nota breo r <<R.
- Itu' A6rt w eatsraer
%jgg. 3,3t 70 L'h,d CHal6sb Tacoy Affcer). /Ic AAA '
y ag_ io .9ied THs cit.*%~C TRQ /4.or *
,JJL Mccma:o etAe# wso we. =e3 uf, v.r- s f (MO we3 - Mor~ CPct.to ic) tot * ~UL. seks c,mattarge ru,4
) S.ltLd uor Tl+Nir- 77t41' .J1L Ret.oese o i,ypo, py,, y,j,,,,u
' # Sct. cow r<Ma face. spahoras ry _
ttMu. n<no or saa'y,a,.g g *T$_ d
. '. ~ RtA CcNdewen wfsoittie,&A JJt. twp.,m- la any a;iry
. ;
- l! MRt. (Maiy gg,Oos rned
' Utit.irf cs't.6 do AfilY. God -JJL. Pciarto r.ss,rr nspeer bshwe A .
. l.THA1" 13 NA& lastarlwt'nen .so./Cys esafvo*4C <>bt fccc. wo r
.. ~ FK Mt.c1) saHot7 wous.4 ut. 9+y unaart. dAast unorig,asue sQ .
- NOUT Mou) 'fdM.D ,
Vf LkracD MUAY cew&.nda ~ t.t. 9tio IF UT1UTY d*Wir t$$47 Ikt)' 0'M*! kNU J)"
%.) por fr.ovt dur unf CA )?rf erkz% '7?rcu Co.vt.ausr Lcouu)
- i. -
l 6 2 M TI lir's it 0 - (ATH A8il {~Ut. Fat r urit.ory - l . A MuLD W b% HtWe facc>i TTED 't-l'% M T 'it' f07 M*'lEn - l . $61% 'UL. M10 Mt M\ t".*:~ JJL rdareprx0 TH#7~ e 4'.9CDR c4 thrftass s& t < 1.T T1tWr Ad Aadi erarim ax. a,acer.s., - ax ma,r woutalgb};or ace, n.u en ?,
- All 40.4iT~ [ dll Se7. t.jcp */-J WaTM ,, /J m2. (p,en71;o 'rd
, tMotp Hab ))t c006.v s** ** a.c AfTN. la O1 A f f 8.rr AmW '(-yat4.tvv 'tk firpt/le A u r.r ilt /.Af.*AT'
' djt. (. quito Fe.A. A t,w0 e4 ns Tsvar Md,f TM ss @ hy,W.
it (Do0Lh th K fr., r r#s e e e / W d T'.to4d d 4jM V5-lid' HfJ L&T Ii\IN R.*M4i'Pa. t
^# /4'M l A cedo @r.A (. = 'i4s gotm ge.u ve s.,
- u r Or) **"' 3 0*'r esr-cas-1 ,,<.>o,r e ep i u.iaod hu r .uara w .s- m una rss A si r m dat. eq~~~s v w ,*.iy utur i
m
~ u
- QA ,:.uus . .u\ 0 r, u os.r l sks:Ar oc ';o eva:r stMu raioc or :.,. v u e wy n r.s (,ua wf vic s,vpg
- u.mr,a 0.., eu r. r <a
.i.u p ie t , a r.ut.u *- * %
* /
y* , l e %
, ,e *
- g , 1 n
A - __
-.m.._,__.. _-.a s. ;___ .
* * ~
, e. .
. a . . , , ,
j
..o
* , . * . =*
O. I
, a ae *
. , . J*
,. )
t .
. t
. 1
.s. * ** *
*e. o .e .A* . . > .$. a g
D-
. February u.Fea', . November ? l
.. . L . January tes4 .
,.*. {
3
- S M, f W. f. F. S, SWTWTFS. t ea S M T W i3 f, S Sat. / Sun.
. . . , .9 . t. l
.t . 88 2:39. .. 19 .
12 t3 st..8.. tf t 1 6-
- l ri, f
- 1. t# t 22 23 M 27 2 t
y; M 3. 24 2 992t9M 20 29 72 23 34 2. 21 3e 19 e vp as S. s. tai er 20 ft 72 P3 ps M 212e Pts 30 at
. . 38 27 N N. '
St{ttliS Exay U m w* Ma'sf!*
- th' . ,
; g sap
=.ae n=== "
. s:
,m i
; p r,orre., wer) st yrps M 4+t*
- w * *^"'**
i issin T. I
.4 21 l*g w-Mr.,ca near)F .ML. I ,.Mt. MACqFfMg,,
.}g it,qdes 40 s0#6/ 'M N '" , # g mw,p,e _d ,
t
; ,i
'l g r<.g,7 1 ;J,% % y %-.oye.dMAAafr- wa - m l,Mg ge eg;5g, we w/ tim ac, ude**Ida.Mut4 Age 4 A NJ
... ., ?-
l 1:] 4 ano.u.m m,, a sp cer)irl:4,.s s wr er *"" %.ur w - r k,. 'u av>me~ . w t~.
,n, t.
, .:. I, g ,0 .
r3 .s' peta s s v e l d nouds * ^l
- S
', ){
si MMo e o rx4 m e r ovec.-mr . e **, s e*
.a
. . 1
, .I .y
=- ,I d
. 2
- iP . .
I -
.t 4 .
. . F .
t: -
. t1 .
9 [! - a f n' 9 7
, e.
/
+
. ,/
* . ,I e .
c
- l. . . .
- l t .
g-j "., &
, l . .
~
- y. - .
~ .. .
. .s . a i .
' ,3 J November oe m p
~
Monday * ' '
.} a=rarra
>3.,=. r
=r... . .. .,,.
==> ===.t . .t 3. 3
, .. ,., ,,. ,., ,. ,, ,. ,, .-, ,9 ,2 ,3 _.
*,/ gys=### :::"'. 5 2;gsggg ;
. . r;j *"
l 2ot4sMr.o(.or.) ti/.ntk3 p'avin MrMina .,
's1
- s. .1.~ ut coiy or wa,s,r s'<<tu rw mut me
. ;'i A u r 's ca. w ea. !
g Mr w on pa/)naamjm;,s u,; m *kw urr oitoua to se.v. euerrwas/04 nm
*^l T'GMytw oss A coess ss. Joos) wirMaars
- ,m .
i' " %ctoS*Mr.y (.gr)s/as).3 EJA LChrMDMee a={arp 71
..- .,, W *! 43L.f.LW <;eilg. p veen. 75+ir IMDr f**H' Akkro e ..
5 'J HE4 krur w xm.d.h.t. ap.,oAl spra 7tAxN'esiff u.es MNadcD ~N&E :. CEF - Mt 11'Aci 7,wt >.M. (41 hewted tscoslo%f ex'r st s
~bd es pf TD Aigper 70 warn.n. ra weee Araanlay& *
--* .\ .l t.- Muta Mr wHm up q Mr sais wr s.try. .' .
w6e to we beat aweta) Li
% iblC litt.(WST) E nl 13 W AI.s4 4M se crwoir yuna,las v.. ,}&88.f,P.q' , r> - u,,;,.UL maTD x btgf .
Ar 0% ou ut oj.saj,0 rr va No nyatoics .ggg, y,7, gg
- 'f D GZr Dda73te*K M'IER. EfNt*/' dN aja ofg3 li
. ,1 0j.$kjrpr lar)to/hl?S coud.syssor p,t: Mrtras,o Alor
. j Sidd ntiCmid/D TRIf R Ar.r f ofO' /feu difo.
- fpAP:sf *F '*
*? , .r Mrs. 's0 h2Tivir*/196& A nscity -Nor JWK; wi. fab.! mt JJ!l *
. L.Mn
. ggyo ANo'c) f di ettw!EX /*'s***J0!!Vi- Mr AdM*3 i'Ih-dAr744f /<k//Y dk A'V
. d.st 't'/fMM .
G y I,j)sjfjot*gjg z;fjyy.10 L.A. IAl Aa3/4A.Lfh* 70 ARTk's'ai 3 f
,y,s. u. srar ~ui. .
i 44g JW(,sgr)likII3 M dfKj W A { . f5 0 s jp
. . 1 m g .i jtg 'gfjor /.AmW IA14 w w 7 7Tu/ ^#/ # ,, , _ m n U
n{u'k)a MTJMiO'*f W *d ' "O "# ~ E# ' g*"" ,, -, #-n. Jtcc. ft
=
iabIibs.Ht- 1. bit ! y-gohn,og gieyg,rrt- et. Crys *in . Mod'* f}^'a"M ' m p acw a nkm. m
. . L
] .
t.1
~*~
- 6 .
~~~ I
*t .
~. . _ _ _ _ - . .
- s. -
l .
\
. l
.. . - . a.:.
. c g . , .
i- . u
.- ....u. .. y; - ...
*p ..
1- 'J.' . 5 . % tes4 reru.ry ndren November - -
.. s, w ar w r, r, s, s u t . r, , , ,,,,,,,
' m evenie ir ie oem is ,u,
,,; *" s. i,. Tuesday
- 4 s e r e s io 3 mmaas msim m er a m
.s . ,. ,, ,l ,
- a ss u is
,se, ,i ,n n u m = = = ,uinum n w ir
. m a ar a m as si I;p C h #r.# - 49.5dehe assr)is/a.-g F. **** w w a A w 'y.r vr w au ym..a. '
j
= 5
. .;. , i *O430 ter G =c-/7/o%::.r)ri,Q pyyg, g -
8 -
\ Y W M /Al* @ (LIC. Q atj,,s,p,.r,wu(
S/dA ***NA. (AM.ac. AJre.cacy) d.e.<W,6/w hesus
)
m p(goe.si q-
-\ .'! -. IPdk. **wsx. S' tu ma wr ors s mn,w s. css,.r a \
J.sy'r Arm 5 /4,.bewo
- .. . : . dW8 A/J4
- FEE. dde*W/d 5- /YJ0.4rJ)-
V. " T%n Asei.c sur.fnw+ suor La of re ct.: 4Mid ro
... Of%n.) . tire }we t.L ' pun.v atni sslo a%+r 9546 Jer%
IFJk. eWw.co pasoa.wa. dosa ~.de 1'!suo "w!~ /*"'& l 11HuenjDL.Til tend . supEu.i.s .,lli Aer.sdc.eJab;f 9.qc's-r; ; Mtst.'. . .l.k. Innes JJ: MTr an.s'{o ,Godd s s l'. dlNALj W fcs.newsgrsy Ogi) stveu '
. % T l'7/5##d 6
- Albs W4 11:#res. t%w 7uGde 4rragocyJ cc :h<!/ .
73 lHf 84
. . , ? Skt ho 6 HCG . 'T.ceJJ. WlAnort. W rWorc-
, en QS Atas.oef asketts .UL. j.34 10 4C $';'t.snfy 4 A- TE>re,s ,
{ M Df., lm#ED 8.rr r7tery dan'. at.syurtrD rp 6e als t.04o daterWeh
-N.9K ASsto lF 0$s nes.O 4e AS r". toc undal.ns
- '. *: J)t,. SMO e ada. .SJAJ fez, No pMat.cm
~l Y. O 0ssssth..'ry f e Enteossir. Aar.irvate, icy,u -Noruosr
'n h Capaktsu '
.. 4 '
L$)f L ed. Alo As fa A.144 -4r4.J)L h5kED teTitt.AsEf (H ' piedu,1,as ar.e ner at is nor saw ns'- #^tra
*rm t U~ 70 /s W "Cor
~).
(d , ppd a.,D r,,ga n;,.e nen,e n o nM. a Arincuey *Am *U . y m m l ats.uspasts'm W fannt M=>ood dritusef y ,, g u pee, m. .*uto1*ortu ruar 4mnator n-ur , [ it ggx yaeg,,htn >>ean j .sk ine.s.f. StV'"'**'y'5I {4'iGCury e
' g py ye.oaum, wf.uM cffan W4 *hnat'"Tx) Yk. anM-u't.
*
- 0A' 1;*f E'M 1* *** *M
. y ,ges mm ( A cunpe.*nt I
- JJM dt. mot 6s aler. #58 *
- " 8 JJs. ta)^4f To s.Moid **eeteH' <poNsO M TO We ,
sym ,3: m zans. e h A4es* 3 oee, o.s reacr1eert:j Ra,med de-
. Mud d!L MC%s, f s'thfirmau2 -Liz#M-13 441 op 7e?
L
@. A'.'( sier.arV y ca.4 64,64 Axl A rn'ma'y f~ t'.*4.6f E. Alt"T f wMv0 "%8 T lllf0(it {Th MW "BCA4 V.J.lsbEb we. m a sen ,w w, a -ra p os,remp -
m w unklq a.mtr i .
- s. .. *
, .. /
e - 1 t
.e .
b . ~ . . 1 I - - - - _ _ * .- '* ., .- . _ . - . ' a __ . _ _,
.. < l ,
~..
I . ' .
. I .
- e. ..- '.,..
. rs.
,^ ) ,,
e
- ' .Y: ~ ',,,
.- , A .3. . .
p ' **** * , e, .- *
, j;g,- ..;
I November ca. November 1933 % 3h;
~
s l
- - W9dn9Sday u,,,,, suvyT*s sstor,s I 334 ser
' **s ,
.? . -
$$ $ = m a n = = n 3,b$bbby
- - hf 10 MWSlur) npples ,h. ed ama aar .,, w c
. .. . . % *7 a car.o* A m u ss Mor u.wn r aat. m,.a w
*
- M ~ 'U'*T M d4 ou,Juarasur 12 Mca~ sas,c 4
. , at /030tW' Ocy) # / 2JJ/J UMm = i,woM'ar <ar)
, t gar,-u4 s',w_ gay m=cj .ug. e3%g Mrs.w/8.8!3 .:
. O mye.. unew wk se u we .sercave, sr s rusu. ,y j i
Q(l0roc,ce kl .% ema,y .,,, a wr-ser.unasa n,. .r.me.4rrmeon o., r ittif C 4,ts (41d'f'Gg)rn,,, _ o ai .u srwpaes, xts 1
' rmer- osa et . i AMfr 4c90 m ^"" N #f Y #$ M'!"
f'O /k .$t y Tk s>M /N f 0 fj0 hfA YA TO otCYUW IUY00L AO ll0
- j -
.l kgpJNilo Me4a"u'A $/A W AA mir rsvc A<.nbor g4g m Ayyiwe. oW 7tkofit.U'r evs&.t' /r#<ar,ar
'q ,y(,,pu r rwo **Y ?"'@'L* /* .
-v
'* ypx. swr nekid .
g y9i counddi re M cs.eener gy,op bywdidntiba & MhAt
. u j
, g}& ar'& l @ 4E}d infi m & Anb UL tasarav ear ro .
M#k-Y~ T**'**I# g pjxxtl.nl 'idiraux.mr n M & r *@rr IU. g' y A//W .,dirxio:cJs D*G
-l
' A y' m go kWCW M -
, y 5,,a, ggr) . M of i :
f,jk?",qggign;>,VM4'A'Mdl,,,w i , , , , . , _ f ,JJL //n) Ala AJk'-70 /* AMID-y jyp:
$g gynyg. '
gl3 p,p) y .ne p.cir j?rHf aan.wre $dt*u.ur M3.f'ddl a.m , &bst I s. L/
. . ,l
l . . . c. 2 . . ,
- r. .
..a *-
i .eL.e. t .. . .
- . . l. . - .m.. -
.. i November octoon u .n inn o.c.mo. F
- v. j; O
. Monday . *"'"* , * " ', 1 ' '. * * " ' " ',',*
as s.2. .,....,2 . . . ,... E- , .9 2 27 N 2 MN og 7 22
,. '.., 37 38 at at 25 M 2128 29 30 3. g,
- . 233M.
35 25 2 27 35 29
- pso me(m) a 'ar'nT. cow.ujr.i4,..ixai,.
-l' -
tad uwta z nr up hin u!/w.-(yurway U c
,.: : 4,a wott ,c d weousa) m 2deae uov ,vro -
unu r.he,ar eaxa ime 4. toins we 3
,. one. pin 64 As one@ 'o c= ora.=.
?' -
. x.l Afbntec (ar)Idroe,4 Flier A*T c' .
,nea r.aw.a. 4aa w AwW o.J li *
'f'asAhl.OlF.HkJKW2
[+ . 4tj ajDi9:w r*of & OE Yk\ K fA00F ,
, gmn o.u nl>o 9, u m s. w usim e . sjgso frarler) W Weesvrt 78AT
? '. ,
., i 4hl. Cab 7ner A).REyWodt Okl NN H 7 . j g 3 t g af) .>oj u it s o o T To M r m 'im
.__, .y n A T
- d 3 L l a U '* U A l # T ~ S E E * " ' * .
l' . :y,,o vob e f H & % i G $ *J .E C' Fl<- l - Qnz pyt.s/ JM&E=$r AA.& 1AITO @'dH -
.i y, j}gtlid/J' JWDOLb CW OUT~j
[ ,,
. . o -
t
. r
, g i j i
s : i
?=
. . i .
. .+ -
~. ..
- -- - . .m m._;_u._..__.-.+. n., _, _ _ .
l
~
o.: .
, . s 5
. ~
. : a l, .
- Y .:.i
' :s s.
., .. .- c .ik{ '
l Janury 1964 February Leh November I surwers surwrr: s u r w r,,r s, Tuesday
- . ins 4 ser ins 4 r .. e s a n o is u s e r e s ie n 4 s e r e s ie l.'.- sen
. = = u is w a ri u o w s m er ie n o is u in m i
= = >s,a nsrae .n a, -.rinnun
<J. .in .,n ,n, ,r.i3 nsn .i i
lrst.cond.aJ/g,t,r
- 7 i -
g wotsox x (cr) n rA 8 w
- - ;r (w.co en wr msr^se
}
i * '
- Ta.a.qau w.a e m n:n) *a ute ~ise.- 4fn n.
;- mr^**"'gy'-
~~
41.waswe)- so.wico .a aw
- n an uor u .wa , m'anyeim."=*r -
,1',
Arenant fot fM43!KA4r 70 l' " gp
~ - -
': -1.aa. sta i==."sn <"v),fl1^'L*;% a,w
.I upuw n "*u' ic '"*La $.s.u. wr> v wlo
, ;,,,. u.sa u r F g a **as n- . l
, .. gog o't as M ** " "Y. ,, m ,. i , m a m,g ,2w's eene.nnuss seem se i' ##
Tuer.7"'Y(U" AN'~ #gg.y ;;g epiendo 04 Ja 'lal*1' */lf!3 W po r yMVC MUf MiTitaits *
~
.!.' ~1 ov m *) - M '8 *
- Y#*? y la cu re4c )
($56 'r0 MM* * '#
, 'l'J g g o,d MR'tul (. &6F ***A*'*
- - C' A uac M 4 0 A b) W l M # A 9'
., ,]
t g RA'r~ od # M M g ,@ T.t.oAld'Oh 0&E247"f UTI # * ##
- j3 y yasypq (,,get. GI.?TSN W"
- N # ,
ed c.y. f w *'"*# e
- i e
- ! fi -
. .. .. g , -.
..- . 4~
~ ~. * -
)
o n. .. - J
+ .e . i ,
l . . -
. r, -
- e * . *-
I.
* '~ ' * *
, ,.... . .L . . .. : . - 4. - ' -
.f.
si Pi -
,. December Nomew DM*"* # 1888 M I
Monday sutwtrs s u t w i, r, a, si,w t. w.se t r s, .
.~..,
a
.e,.... s
= ,. .e ..s. . ., n.a. .su..'.s .t.,=. .
= =.. u=.anw
.e. .e se, .s. .s. ie, .nt .e.r .
- = = = ,= r".'
. ...i n... ==== .. .*
; :' des Pierr nn avraks pn.
~
{ Mig}ngall.l M M @ N *$ "' 7 '
- y* 4, apud gpq safj/,M pres,1nde (on'ier) 4/Ar. ny t.k nse b _
r yuns a t.,a e ab
, p si e Q o w re. c 9l . ,y "; l 7, -
*h .
.'i q g,ga y & M FUMIT* M* " '"*'
e Aerr Mur>%s /E Fd N 'A'.' $ o 4y;st JJQ ed AllA LETER #f ^* .
- GM**'fY 9 S$ $ d*tY m .us#fapp r Pu-.mre 4"7M'"p' AltvityAftt M-wW g .bor.idM
-r.d**! die M<x. yaf eponess Hab i
ww i 4 ,.em.u.u. , 3 r. covi.2e'r * * "-
*f#?hyor$$hA C"r weng mnq'd
]
.- w
? .
- l. -
t,......,,,... . . ., ; . . . . ... . . . .., , . . .
- .e g . -
. t .
. 4
. . s.
", , e e 1 ,
* ~~- --
I_ . .
- l
.. . . O.
. ,.
- o 4 ;- .
December uo, [ne,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,
-{-
' .f Wednesday i=1,.,,. ,,
II3 9 234 S67
,, 4 i 8 9 to it 12 4 g I : la/S/n 550$AAAA3'bbbb5 $$55505 ' ~
M N 37 3e 3 33 38 39 30 31 1,
- s. i t. A &R C A u z1> D L a.b RaA onAs (u.tO -
i .Y.;rs Arkc / es.<*. air 84 4?m. .sarr ru
.1*
ose. ( w ) sy Mr.R. ,A2..tv Asg warr ovest.
daco. for .ut. To r?xast-. ' :. 4/sfyr.ead. taff.x.Me) 6WAac r Nuiod c .noat RM ws s~9
-pgr >.pu.) pn f.enatwc kxM kan ut yo e n u A ,
/.z/7(g5 - a -
Macar tw< na.seguraoa.-,,,.gu.,) a raa
' .- g wea, n 1xtes m cnu. i Leyr narr&
- qqh m fezr) 1.o.a/.a/RH 6'/48 pyg., focT/wa5 (A'Ad G.ormM"")? M .
pasm a.y'.grA sezikr'
/ 7yox f3 gsn-qrys ::seo93strar))7.w # * "d HJM A /"".' /^ r AIRd. A?ss' /Loe'*l#$1 patuay sc
~ -
1g'na uogs tus wr mesrac bH'i" pg., egyeauro -M4e hd f&w '") p y sy sr>44 //ascu'*) fee J W y yg3 Illw KMr GA
.,jg M' W'W rto> O 358 *[ Mi 4 .
e a , ** "-,t,'.,- . ; er .. ;. .j ,, e l O . h t . 0 _____--~"--_- _
~
. e
..e
- 0 * . . . .
e .,
- t ,
- t .
g , e
. t . . .
l
- we
. . , . . .s. . .. e. . .. t t .**=4 l . . .
T December NovembeE December 1943 January 1984 . {*g.y Oy Su?wiF S 3 as T w T F S SMTwfFS . J t 234 S 123 3 234 S6 F
, 8 F 4 3$ 7 g g 3018 87 83 u in w .0. .C. .r 4 ie18 n 525 = u w .3. 9 30,
~. = = i, = n m ei
( nrinnana = = = ri n n a n n a n a zi m
, ar re n 3o se as at as se se as a mi ss I. } i .
t'bH$t. ffint.1 A51lr4 4F WtAjf7f Rhojufugg -
'7*.942. Qfjjgg .ssr LE91~ / FEMA 4 c Mf>7" '))L.
4
. . gw goy. pyg,.g- prvi .aAl /Afhaft.S ~72idD '70
,gyyggogg . mg sA a. wit.L. anu W M MW" y,uajy ,)fJagt Oa s4hws.ad '!*M M 'd 64
_.w. . u t, e,r a n a t m . s m oc
. Fion c.+ o m e.a.
A.sto u Fr M as u di
. r .. -c.ou wps,e. (ose I:.lA.oF+ AE " I=MQ RN 'Gb ,
'~'
, . '3 (ut etTM.**' i t)
' y %. a nsp, t.eaad ** 'Ac.aua. af M eA (lSHHnr* n, Ma' ***Th' " /*/
. . g.o4y ja eMN.,.ke-
, , 1
.,, , j
, j ; , ........ e .~... .
, , , , j
- r. ,
.- j e .. . ,
.. .. . .k
. 6 ,
g . s .
- e. .
g *
,,.<s.. e . q. . , a : ,,. , . p . , . , , , , , ., , , , , . , , . ,
P.,. '
.g .. ..
. . +
W .
- s 4
g O 5 . e*
, *t
- l . ;
l.. l ,
, 3
\. .
*~
. ' .* ,' , , ' . .-[. . ,,,.
. - 3 g ..
. .. e . .s
.j , .( .
- j. n. ; - -
. t:.
4 .1m. A - 1 I
. .. . December * . November December 1983 January 1984 :
g pE SMTwfFS SMTwTFS ShTwfF S
.t {. ' '
8i - I t234 S 333 g 234 56 7 ,, sF 7 to - e n u .S 918, .1182 4.54u w 8 9 90, .e. 9. ir. 8.U. =13 => to 30 2122 23 M St M 18 se at 2123 23 M 22 23 M at M 2F 3G
, . um== m a ar = = = si n a zi
' e toi/r Hed. (:EST) Sl'*l" 'I **# *Y
' ~ p.ynew.;uc (#Ae) wrAlvi 70 AEE4#2bpl4" I M. NA If'/fN gjt,yo e m W A W o m @yo jam ra MfA To M j . OlV 1AO*SESO
's fje*\ }hQf.( N1 '
/Alleff3AffW-
. O W#
ffh g,yy(gsy)/A//6//J 4 gYg SA LEP1' M M AGd' A j (sty) th//6/n "T 4*AI4 M**P
, J (4/4g .cai.) e.u AEsontuoten Art.
575{. At tHic4so%
'f. danhl.
} {deJhetlssy)/
WM M: rg' 4; ay A y * . a. >- ,4-,......, - 6 .
.* l
.. .. , **. to y
g . I -
- a .
.s < .
l . g . . i- ,. F.eru.ry u.ren t December
* ' ' Aars savwr<s
.. : arwras sarwras
. e ia ae2 e 3 .3 4n .
eie2 e e in
- 3 1 3ase2 2, to is t2 t3 w Tuesday
.{
. . f. '
- 1213 M se se 87 te et er 13 se M te et il 14 tF 9819 ft 21 to 30 ft 22 23 3e 25 se 89 20 28 22 23 24
, , * . 35 27 M M 35 M 27 M 29 30 at 22 23 N ts M 27 M
29 3
\ -
\'
.y, coed.afE.Mnp k C*" N '
l :
'.) u1! l, <+>/n M7$.<dl## '# '
gy;u op prs i Muk Met 7'd""A**'#&
' i ;
.;.'. \ .r 7.w. 47.xan ofs m) som *d an
- k l :
I . p ' W- . 7/M ,
) .
- es s
e i' t; ...
- s . .
=J ,
.g l . .
.. .. I nm .
- 1 -
s . e
- '. i;. .
, ,. ,i l -
. 3.l i
i . - e . 9 . . 4 .
. ,, . ~~
I q ,
.. . g. , .
t
. I
. t
( . 9 e .
.,~.+.. .
. . .. . .. w ..,... .. . . . . . + . . .
.4
. . . . ... . . ............e....
.. p .
~~
0 g , e t
- d
./
- l. . '* -
. .' i
. I s - *
.-w.
~ . .
=== , - - - - -- --
, -]
i ; -
, i. ..
t . . .
, t ' -
i
- d ..
*. l . .
December w
- .g
- 1. . ; o n.r ms annuny isu
. '. . Wednesday ur= ras 1234 S eavwras suewras 123 0 23< SeF I
e r e s ie n u ase e s ie e e s ii n u w ' n ein n s< a n ==nunnu n n temrS u w a m ir = = w o u w w w i, i, ir = = n ri
. 27 3e 3 Je nn u sa n
- 1 1-
- pg 33 3:
21'11.mwm..ba.4733331 ( ossonne
-}!' .~. .gyo s e w.r.) m .y w. m rx wr 1 1 M.neyana g r. no e ceJ **oa. rua rut ,
i La. den Mrs. succo Ar *'/roome.s lesr)
- s c! svee. . user o;. 7axnmauy p p m p .nsou ar ea D4**r* *t' 'M s M ovy t
-hiseoss da4 4041-- TD ' "
ko,,w sinriks nu+Y ~~rwyswr DL Al*W mener eat AldtLew. M ~N/A N entr%r A24 {/MM *f.! '* "Y ^^ r* .i
' (JJL HM do Nou'*" "Y#^b '
k
~- kid u t. ors Dt.if A4?otr UHAMseo Af ASA
,. ~ bdto Lsas AtM M % s'M*'t*W. Fougy .
l
-J3L kovices MSX 74*r' JJL &e/i nkw o
ed. Cf dd $ edT' M a f M et Mor N
# ) bl84.4)Cs oW'N~ W TMwsof*'*MM 4% EffAgssEb 14 ll(lf3 72tje ArW
...:. l .% iSWoIHk' Gist) Thw.t/ ufA41~ Mikny hvied w/ur xn ay'Mr.R.$'M.u.). ,
6 u 1 . l -
..... m . .
. *G. .
, .. .e au. .
g
- 9
.- .,. . +~
- e. ' '
*t
- s .
- 0
*g **
______.___,_=_m_____-_-___-------- O
iii 4* (>
++ IMAGE EVALUATION ((/jg/f d f/777/ i +$f f' TEST TARGET (MT-3) Y j fp(,/
y,, + {% ,,,,
,, $ g
+ %
l.0 F 03 E
" NE ll L5lE
! ' lim l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 4 150mm >
< 6" >
h +// ss* 4% >d 4%'+ .
/ ,, g s"v/,%pff 4
7// 4% h yfff/4 o #o<g.#en
9$9 4& b#, O 9 IMAGE EVALUATION
$p/4
//jjg//j jp// Sg, f'%k/f///TEST TARGET (MT-3) T <
#++ '%
'k 4
I.0 lf2 UE b !@ Lal l-l
!E L2g ea
,8 1.25 W l.4 1.6 il 4 150mm >
< 6" >
h * // 3 "h$ $ +s/A* p74, % e>$w&
- e. ,,
4%,o e4 4: 3.gr. g /h +/fhb ' d(@+
. i ., e 1 , ,, ,
I -
, - 3 g . 4 g
u i . . i 1 .,
.]
December Noven'bor ' December 1983 M 19M 1 Friday **'*= =='= ' =ep34='**
' 8234 5 -
t33 SS F e . ( 6 F 4 9 se et 17 4 34 7 e 3 se e e se 116713 94
*. 13 to 8514 IF to 89 M 9313 se n to 17 M se et te rt .*n 71 1 .. 3e 2122 73 M at M to to se et n 73 M 27 F3 M 76 M 27 M
-
- 27 N 29 30 N N 37 38 3e as at a as se M eh ,
. . ; ' .c y gN bn. Arf or J.it 'rssAny, bl a
*];
, w ,w iucj Pa6 W~ M *" W e n# J3 # #,'
< UnicL M c C h1t*A'**
.: e,your we var D' 3* ** Q .
' a w s e m d w W '-8d885 1 mW"W "Y
. g pg 3,3 h #Al W t 'r b e fr. f "A**
gg ysr p m ana. anstna- ceriMCY
.[ 97 >Ay lo M/ f AWH J N J' .
g g s 4 3 M s t r W h6175i** *f " 8 pp wc_ pol- % J'0Pr M i W ,
. roiae.A>{YF: A ' 'D * * - 1""ud
,s y;,. 4'ESb W %#
- 8 # 5 pg,,,
WY YT hhl & SC
- h Dib uoT AAkivr - cofy 're 11r my 0
.', % .)L c[3 A4,i Nae E' A - (s Ut d. 64e i O ,
,,==.y .
. i .
I 1 e 0 l
-. ,, ,., * , k -. t e ,.
- . . s.j . . . .
.E .
. ?
- O% ,
4 e l e
- 6 d'
't .
- 6
.' .e. * -~ ,
O_____ - - - - . , - - - - - - . - . - .:_ -__
[e f - l l . je .< . . : I t * -
. .. . l
\ .. s . . t . a.:.
. I . .
1
- . . 4.
'- t
<r. . .... +
i ,
- February March
- Apn1 De'cember
. 4s .
surwrr : urwtas su5wtas Tuesday 8234 123 1 234 S6 F g S4 7 8 91814 w u w s ie ir e 4 S4 7 8 9 to st u u w w isir a 9 411 tf 13 te s w ir to w se rt 4*' l 19 M 2122 23 M M tese 3g 212323 M 22 23 M B M 27 N unan m a n n = = >, nm ~
$ ., e t -
, a.e,.,e
&lh OD l
- i-
., r. g
. : i .
e e Of
* . , ! i)
I i . . ;
~ ~,
- . ., =
,O l
1 . i . l
. <3
. - i i- .
e . 8 l j a h
, 4 .
te
. n.
8 e . 0 0 . t
.I 1 i S
{w. 1
. .t e
e I 6 , , O e - .
.e. p-
= . . . * .
M* i 1 e 4 . .
. - - - : :::X **"* ~C" .~ ~ ' _ * " ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ L2. : ~~ -
~
OLIVER 13. CANNON Q SON, INCs Exhibt #2 , DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
'" " # O ' 'O
. DATE SUDJECT Hecting TUSI - Dallas 11eadquart ers - Wednesday 11/3/83 - RE: COMANCllE PEAK COATINGS File cc: JJNorris, RATrallo T1 FEONI kMR th Joe George, Vice President - TUSI Dave Chapman, Corporate QA Manager - TUGO ,
John Herritt, Jr., Assistant Project General Manager - TUSI Billy R. Cl w nts, Vice President-Operations - TUGO , Tcny Vega, QA Manager to Chapman - TUGS R. B. Roth & J. J. Norris - O. B. Cannon & Son, Inc. .
- 1. Session st arted at 3:00 p.n. and was principally on clients reaction to August 8, l'.'83 Joe Lipinsky trip report. In general, with only a three
( day uit.c visi t in July,19S3, certain of the positions taken by Joe, and stated as ' factual', would have taken weeks of close examination and evaluations according to the clients peopic.
- 2. RliR cpologized again for the lack of security at OBC, in that an in housc.
m.'mo ' leaked out' and had caused our client such consternation and new additioaal expusure to intcivcnors.
- 3. In answer to IFR specific qu.>stions, liilly C1rments said that site Q. C.
reports directly to him, also, contrary' to Lipinsky merao, site QA Manager, Telsen, reports I o bin .md not to Preduction. Dave Chapaan readily con-fitued this. Further, Teulson is a TUCO nan and not Brown & Root.
- 4. Joe Ccorge is Vice President and has complete charge of C. Peak. lic empha' sized that nrown & Roer, currently are essentially habor Brokers and he is calling the shots. 11cacer as suggcuted by Li iinsky l momo, whether Brown & Root would be receptive to, or responsive to a Cannon audit and/or .
the findings thereof is a mute point with TUSI.
- 5. JJNorris raised po*nt of writing NCR's, or the lack thereof, and Clements and D:ive Chapnan respo:ul il that nothing in 10CFR50 requires "NCR". TUC0 clected to have 'u.n:at isfactory reports' as their mechanism for identifying construction or cynipwnt deficiencies.
1 ( l d
. - ~ * * * * = . . .
g- - t Ol.lVl?.it 11. C.\NNON G SON, INC. . , _ Meeting TUSI - Dallas licadquarters , Page 2
- 6. RBRoth asked further who has responsibilities for generating QCP's, QAP's and QIP's and Ch.ipman answered, TUGO, through Toulson's group.
Jack added th.it he was present, when JJf.ipinsky raet with Toulcon and Toulson's remark about 'not his concern' related Io'the Plant hicensing Procedure and not to JJLipinkys's voicing his view .of the quality of work and inspection at the site.
- 7. RURoth suggest ed that to further address C.mnon and TUSI concerns on t he class I coatings, and recognizing its been three months or bett er since Cannon made any actual site inspections, that Cannon set up a Taskforce Group, to visit the site ASAP and. take shatever time is required to corac up with a realistic overview of the coatings effort ,
- c. specially since the retro . fit program was effected around the first of Septiaber.
- 8. All .* greed - uc were thanked for coming to Dallas on short notice and the m.reting adjourned.
- 9. R1 moth to set up the taskforce Group, to co.r.cnce site visit November
(- 9, 1983. 4 f 9 R. B. Roth
/s e
%t C.
- ,- _s--, .,
l
, . _ . . - ~ . . . - . . u w. - ..
. DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE October 28, 1983 SJECT Texas Utilit ics Services - Letter dated Octob'er 27, 1953
.. R. B. Rdth
'OM_ J. Linin kv i
- 1. In addition to the individuals identified in the subject trip report, the writer act with a number of the coating quality control inspectors. ,
These' individuals were: 1.anet t e Adams Dave Ambrose Gary Corrigan
. Joe Deshanbo-(sp?) -
Margaret Lucke - Evert Houser Casandra Owen Note: The writer net other inspectors but cannot recall the individual names. * - The writer discussed job status, project conditions, work activitics and other miscellaneous itens with the above individuals. The writer has either employed or worked with the above listed individuals on one or more nuclear projects.
- 2. As stated repeatedly by the writer, a thorough review /aud/t would be required to provide specifics on the six items listed by J. N. Chapman.
However, the following explanation is provided for each item as listed , by D. H. Chapsan. , l A. Material Storage - the writer observed that the costing material ) is mixed, and set on pick up pallets outside Containment. None of the material had tags attached (status or mix information), and there is no apparent control on how long nized material sits on the pallets., B. Workmanship - at the time of the writer's visit the applicator qualification program was being administcred by production personnel with no inspection or penitoring of the' qualification process (befor during or after) by quality control. This information was provided to the writer by Mark Wells of site engineering and quality control. ' With regard to the quality of the work, the writer observed numerous areas of in place work which by appearance was less than the quality of work put in place by Cannon on nuclear and non-nuclear projects. _erunn
- - . _ . _ , - . a . ....;-...w..n.,... . . .
=
To Re - R. B. Roth Texas Letter Dated titilities Services s - 10/27/83 - 1
. October page 2 28, 1983. \
L
.: ~
~' individuals Additionally, the writer was iby en e
any good as painters. (34 out of 452 i on C. ndividuals) employed as pain the reportCompliance with ANSI Requir ' s were no all of the required data was notformat utilisedxamined on site
. Also, ANS7 has requircaments there included for appli on,the inspectiohH manuf acturers' instructionsare forms to be completed) ,
reports. D. , to name notcrial a few. storage, tagging, a "Possibly" coating integrit . E. Possible document deficien seniyitem E and F on page 4
- c es l' . Morale see Item C above a personnprobicas the writer concluded - based on conversation that:1, including those individual with vario were us inspection not satisfied with their thejobsins'pection personnel os listed in num n the(projec,t To the writer's knowledge ;
3. H. Williams are no longer, J. Deshanbo, E. Nouser 1 As indicated in the subject that on the project site as o C. Owen and f October 31, 1983. problems in areas of n:sterial'preliccinary . J. Lipinsky assessment t b painter quelf fication and i d that Comanche peal. hasr ments and possibic co n octrination), notstorage,.workmens, hip (qua not my job or concern"ating integrity', he (R satisf . of work and opinior.,
"Thst is not with qualitysrelatedof coating replied integrity debatable) deal, at e possible exception
',"That 's- (an least id, the writer to believe his job that R. Tolson or corvrn" . patters and R. Tolsor., the QA M cerned with quality. enager state 4.
was indicating that he (RTherefore, . e inclined the wri C. Brandt . Tolson) was not con-advised them (C. P. rand:and R. Tolson mentioned T. Mill
' Cannon and R. Tolson employees (inspectors) were o ) that approximater specifically when th!
5 The writer was referring to i r are employed on the projectely nine form . 6. 7 See item 2B abr.ve. ssues raised in item 2 above . In t he writer 's opinion and at resultthe acceting of July 28 , 1983 of this a get apparently in the opinion of luspectors and foremaner. togethtogether planned was(seesituation. page 2) this was t based on follow-up concersatioHowever,this to bringwas the Quality Cont rol As ns with the sita personnel later cancelled, 1 l
.--....,.m... . . _ _ . _
l
. . .m .~.m. c. ,. . . .. . ....,,y.....~.~,.-..;.a.._..,
I i
. - To: R.fB. Roth -
g
. ke: Texas Utilitica Services -
October 28 1983 Letter dated 10/27/83 Page 3 i -
. l
- 8. Appare'ntly, the air compressors or air supply lines were not providing clean (water and oil free) air, and up to half the shift., approximately'j i five hours, was utilized to make the air quality acceptable.
- 9. Zinsner has probicas related to coatings as a result of placing more cephasis on production than they (Zimmer) did on quality. It is the writer's opinion that this appears to be a hang-up at Comanche Peak.
. s
- 10. The writer based this statement on conversations with inspection staff in what appeared to be poor instructions in the procedures (though the writer cannot recall specifics), coupled with the number of changes to the specifications (most of which catered toward relieving requirements on areas or items where requirements could not be satisfied.
The implications of the writer's statement is that somewhere down the , road, another set of eyes may or may not concur with my assessment. l
- 11. See item 2 above.
- 12. As a result of the r..etings attended by the writer, the site management peopic (R. Tolson) declined the offer of Cannon to perform an in-depth 4
' audit that would have either confirmed or satisfied the concerns 1 raised. ! 13. The writer based this on conversations with site inspection personnel and the apparently disinterested attitude of R. Tolson, when advised ' of potential coating quality problems.
- 14. See Item 2F above.
- 15. The writer s unable to recall the nae.es of inspection personnci encoun while in the field. HovcVer, two of the topics frequently discussed we the quality of work and where employment possibilities may currently er.
- 16. There is an honest internal disagreement in the manner in which ANSI re quiren.ents impact the cost of a project and.the quality of the work.
, 17. Sec Item 12 above.
- 18. The writer based this observation on previous work experience, and suggests that the coating manufacturer be contacted to confirm same.
Note: Power grinding on isolated arcas of one square foot or Icss should not be a probica.
- 19. Again, the writer based this observation on previous work experience and suBEcsts that the coating manufacturer be contacted. However, old
- l'henolinc #305 (one year or more, wit,h weld fume accumulation) may not
.........,,.......~..~.~.,,-~......--..........u- . .. s..~u...<~.>..-.~-m.~n.n..<-
. _ - _ . - . - . - _ _ _ . . _ _ . . - . . _ - _ , - . _ - _ _ _ _ . -___-___.______.__.m..-___ m.
. . . . . - , . . . . ~ . . - .- .:. ., .
-) s.
.- To: R. B. Roth
, 'Re: Texas Utilities Services October 28, 1983 Letter dated 10/27/83 Page 4
- 19. - continued be adequately cleaned and provide sufficient intercoat adhesion by solvent wiping.
- 20. The writer's speciality is Quality Anscrance/ Quality control, as,these terms deal with coatings and the writer's offer of an in-depth audit (in order-to confirm or alley quality concerns) was repeatedly rejected.
Also see Items 3 and 12. *
- 21. Based on the writer's observations on site.and my past Nuclear site experience, the work observed in place appears que'stionable with regard to quality. (Again, an in-depth audit / review may resolve this issue.)
Also, any attempt by Cannon or any qualified professional applicator to gsalvage "in place work", may not be practical or realistic. Certainly, isolated areas may prove acceptable and perhaps complete rooms may be okay. However, realistically and from a cost /cifcctive viewpoint,
- " rework" is more logical considering production effort and the attendent documentation. .
- 22. tSee Iten 21 above.
Additionally, the retrofit program trisy well resolve the writer's concerr but I have not reviewed the adequacy or results of the retrofit program. Realir.ing that the writer is not familiar with the results of the retrof j program. I cannot connient one way or the other on the acceptability of t retrofit program.
- 23. The writer distributed the trip report to R. B. koth and J. J. Norris, c or around August 8, 1983.
- 24. .The writer did discuss the subjret matter in my trip report with E. Hous
; Field Coatinge Quality Control Supervisor, on. subsequent trips to the l project site. ;
?
( l . l . MS\ J. lJ-Dated: b' Jokegh Lipihaky
, k 1
.) J l
.~ e --- . : . . ..u .r. v. c r. . s . ,. . n .-v., g.;::-v.e ; s- . .:: . m- . . .,+. :w.1. : .:.y s.a m ..>,..;e
,..,,m e-ea:: mn 1
4
- . , - . .-..._.,---,--.-,.-..,,-.----,,,,n.,., . - - - - - - - - - _ .
.,.,,,,-.,,,.,_.-.,e,.
- - - . _ . . - -n;.-
v
. , . OLIVER B. CANNON Q SON, INC, Exhibt 94 .i i
i DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE November 28, 1983 i.3301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Reporl - vort B. Roth i* ph A. Trallo I.
Background:
Cam..>n Personnel Concerned: Robert B. Both - President and Chief Executive Officer Ralph A. Trallo - Vice President Nuclear Services l John J. Norris - Vice President and Project Account Manager John J. Lipina,ky - Corporate Quality Assurance Director M. Keith Michels - Corporate Quality Assurance Lead Auditor On November 4,1983 a Cannon Task Group consisting of the writer, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky, and H. Keith Michels was established to perform follow-up* cvaluation of items previously addressed within the scope provided under our Consulting Services Contract
- with this client.
This follow-up was to be in accordance with guidelines set forth in departmental correspondence from Robert B. Roth to the writer
- and the principle purpose detailed was to evaluate the nuclear coatings retrofit program at Comanche Peak. Key areas included:
Haterial Storage and Control . Painter mechanic qualification / documentation Working relationship between Produution/ Inspection Status and adequacy of documentation / traceability
- Implementation of coatings retrofit effort, see " Painting Hinutes of Meetin6", pages 1 to 4, dated 3/15/83, as prepared by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engineer Compliance of Nuclear coatings to Project Specifications requiremonta ,
Overview as to adequacy of current safety-related coatings in place, as per proper Industry practice, etc. i
- TUGO Purchaae Order No. CPF-lS245 1 Departmental correspondenne R. B. Roth to R. A. Trallo, 11 fi-83
- , l
_ _ . _ _ , .= . . a w--- -- - OLIVElt IL CANNON C, SON, INC. .
H-8301 - Coatings Ovceview Task Group R: port
- TO Robert B. Hoth '
November 28, 1983 l
- Page Two l(L II. Preliminary Preparation:
The writer discussed the operation and purpose of the Cannon Task Group with the other participants'. A point of departure schedule was
, established in accordance with Robert B. Roth's memo guidelines, and preliminary checklists were prepared to facilitate orderly progression and review.3 The intent was to have OBC QA Services (Lipinsky and Michels) and J. J. Norris (Account Manat;er) onsite for whatever time was i
require'd to complete the necessary reviews. R. A. Trallo was to visit the site to perform an overall evaluation as to the effectiveness of the Cannon Task Group activities. ':ommencement dates for site activities were; November 9, 1983 J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky and M. Keith . Michels onsite to begin preliminary reviews; November 10, 1983, the writer onsite to insure eff5ctive implementation of the Cannon Task Group activities. III. Task Group Activities: On November 8, 1983 I called John Merritt to advise him th'at Oliver B. - Cannon personnel would be onsite November 9, 1983, and requested that he have available the folllowing information for review: Organizational chart with names and titles of individuals and positions filled ' Copy of current rovision of the QA Program - Complete cooperation with various onsite departments, organizations and individuals List of names of all inspection personnel and lovel of certification ' List of nanos and positions 'of production personnel (foremen and abovo) ( , List of certiflod painters and systems for which the painters aro qualified 3* "JJL and MCI Com.mcho Peak Trip Plan" (4 Pages)
,. 4.._., . - . _ , _ - _ _ _ , , _ . . - . . . _ , , -.._.ry~.m..e___.-.... -r., ..~ , . _ . _ . _ , . , _ _ . . _,
OLWER U. CANNf$N r, SON, INC. l H-8301 - Qoatings Ov rview Tcsk Group Report TO: Robert B. Roth j November 28, 1983 - Page Three
*(: ,
III. Task Group Activities: (continued) Linson or interface person for quality assurance, quality control, production, and other departments in order to expedite and aid in the performance of this review
- i -
, Mr. Morritt requested that any reviews conducted by OBC were to be f performed on a joint basis (ie. QA and Accout Management).
a i Cannon personnel were onsite the morning of November 9,1983 At that time J. J. Lipinsky gave a copy,of the preliminary review checklist3 . to John Merritt. J. J. Norris and John Merritt discussed the checklist and Mr. Merritt requested a " kick off" meeting prior to any formal reviews or implementation of Cannon Task Group activities. . ( It became evident that the scope of the Cannon Task Group activities
! which had been previously outlined ,* were not' coincident with that 1
j perceived by TUGO. Mr. Merritt requested a review meeting to discuss the concerns of the "Lipinsky Memo"
- and based on the outcorne of that meeting TUGO would re-define the scope of the Cannon Task Group activities. The review meeting was held comraencing Thursday, AM, November 10, 1983, with John Merritt chairing.
Mr. Ron Tolson, Construction QA Supervisor, started the discussion. In essence the "Lipinsky Memo""* was used as an agenda, and each memo paragraph, or stateinent, was discussed and clarified. The meeting was recorded and the transcript h:Is boon distributed for comraent.$* It became evident that cortain statements in the trip memo ** were incorrectly stated or misinterpreted. This was principally due to the organizational structure at Comanche Peak. (ie. A management team consisting of individual's employed by different organizations.)
- T ..
2* - Departmental correspondenco II. B. Roth to R. A. Trallo,11-4-83 3* "JJL nnd MKM Comancho Pink Trip Plan" (4 Pages) 4* - Trip lleport (JJL to Ill3H) 8-3-83 , S* '
"Lipinsky Me:no Meeting on November 10 and November 11, 1983" .
~68.WEll~ll. dhNNON , n.- ::c c -+ ~== ; ": ' '~^ "'~'~
SON. INC. O~ ~ H-8301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Report TO: Robert B. Both
'f November 28, 1983 Page Four ,
( - Mr. Tolson eaplained the operationalr
- oles of the individuals involved .
on the Comanche Peak Team, along with their proper titles, responsibilities, and lines of reporting. Concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo"** were for the most part, based on observations ano discusalons between Joe Lipinsky and site
, personnel.
At face value this "information," would be the cause for raising concerns regarding the site coating activity. Throughout the course of the November 10 meeting, it was evident that Lite QA Management at Coreanche Peak was not interested in further audits, or program reviews, since they have been sub. ject to nisserous outside and
- internal reviews and audits in.the past several years. These constant and notactimes redundant reviews, compounded by the apparent personnel matters,rosulted in short or clipped responses, which could readily be misinterpreted. .
(i ReCarding areas of coatings material handling, personnel qualifications non-conformances, and quality responsibility, Mr. Tolson discussed the current procedures and controls in effect at Comancho Peak. This
- detailed information not readily available to Joe Lipinsky during his site visit of July 26, 27, 28th,1983, and on which visit he based his August 8, 1983 trip report to Robert B. Roth.
Comancho Peak Management stated that they do not feel they have a " problem in the areas of concern, as raised in the "Lipinsky Memo." *
- A d) tailed indopth audit was not agreed to. However, a review of I
specific items could be scheduled, or program " paper" be made availablo for review, at Cannon's request. { After consideration the Cannon Tank f Oroup decided that a limited review was unwarrantend, since it would not provido sufficient support to a statistical extrapolation as to the entire coatings programa' offectiveness. ( . Detailed discussion and information is provided in the notes of the Novernber 10 and flovember 11 moetings. (Reference footnoto 5.)
- Trip Report (JJL to RBR) 8-R-RD
& e.. 6 ~3 cl Wl:I(IL CANNON Q SON, INC.
- H-8301 - Coatings Overview Task Group Report g TO: Robert B. Roth November 28, 1983 .
Page Five
IV. Conclusion:
The Cannon Task Group did not perform the total overview function as originally scopod by Robert B. Roth. This was due to the request of our client to explore and review the "Lipinsky Memo"
- in further detail, a
paragraph by paragraph. The site meetings of November 10 and 11,1983 resulted in the following: The concerns raised in the "Lipinsky Memo"
- were based on limited information and observations which were neither .
investigated nor discussed in sufficient. detail, during his site visit, to either allay or to confirm. Comanche Peak Site 13anagement adoquately detailed the programs and controls in place, which would relieve or allay the concerns raised in the "Lipin' sky Memo."
- Cannon has no basis to confirm that these programs and controls are in place and are being effectively implemented. Confirmation could only be provided by a detailed audit. Such an audit could be redundant a,nd certainly time consumins'. Further, TUGO has neither requestod name, nor is it required by the referenced Purchase of Sorvices Agreement. -
Based on the information provided by the Comanche Peak Site Organization we can assume that our concerns are unfoundod, however, affirmation could only be finalised by further effort.
/ l Ralph A. Trallo HAT:jr l
t 4* - Trip Roport (JJL to ItBH) 8-8-83
- p. .
-.~........e.
n.= -- I OLIVER B, CANNON Q SON INC, - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE -
, DATE- November 4. 1983 SUBJECT
.inb HB301-Coatinen overview Task Croun. Cannon to TUST'. comanche Penk 70 R. A. Trollo. J. J. Norris. J. J. Lininsky. K. Michels ce? APMe. Acce File JAOM. R. B. Roth -
4 1. As a follow-up to our Consulting Services Contract over the past summer, for this client, I am assigning this cannon Task Force to perform a Nuc1 car Coatings overview at the Comanche Peak Nucicar Plant, Glen being Rose, constructed by Texas Utilitics Services Inc. at Texas
- 2. Task Force to be:
R. A. Trallo J. J. Norris - Vice President - Nuclear Services
- Vice President Ilouston Operations J. J. Lipinsky - Corporate QA/QC K. Michel.s - Lead Corporate Auditor 3.
Site effort to commence, Wednesday morning, November 9,1983. Jack, Joe and i;c.ith to report on Wednesday. till 1.ater in the week. Ralph may not be able to schedule from three to 'five days may be necessary,the butThere I suspect is no established time lim
. seniot best judgment of our manaccrs involved will so ascertain.
Task Force Leader. Ralph is designated as
- 4. Principal purpose is to evaluate the Nuc1 car Coatings Retrofit Program that has been in effect over the last 3 to 4 months.Key arras would include:
Material Storage and Control Painter mechanic qualification / documentation Working relationship between Production / Inspection ' Status and adequacy of documentation / traceability - Implementation of coatings retrofit effort see " Painting Minutes of Meeting", pages 1 to 4, dated 8/15/83, as prepared
- by R. M. Kissinger, Project Civil Engineer Compliance of Nu' clear coatings to Project Specifications re-quirements.
,g g Overview as to adequacy of current safety-related coatings in I place, as per proper Industry practico, etc.
- Onc 315 L
, - . .. .- _ .-- - - . ,- ww - OL3VER 13. CANNON 4 SON, INC. \ To: R. A. Trallo, J. J. Norris, J. J. Lipinsky,. K. Michels November 4,1983
. .' Re: Job H8301 - Task Group Fase 2
- 5. Separate individual and objective reports are due to Task Leader and his composite report shall be submitted to my office within five working days after site assignment.
Ralph is further charged with the security of the reports / observations given to him and his composite report shall be directed to me, and no other copies issued or distributed. ~ 6. 2 I shall then connounicate the results of our effort to TUSI.
- 7. All costs and expenses involved shall be submitted in separate expense envelopes, with appropriate receipts and cicarly marked with Job #118301.
- 8. Any questions or clarifications to the above shall be addressed to my 4
attention.
. e
. ?
i
. ,I * . -
. f R. B. Roth
/1 4 .
j l L. . . - _ - _ , . _ - _ . _ _ - . _ . . . . _ , - - - . - _ - - - - , - . - . . . - . .- . . - . - . - - -
mcmo wrc 3 Page 1 cf 4 JA & WM C04AtOIE_ PEAK TRIP M1.0: Organization.nl chart with n.vnes and titics of Individuals '$ and positions filled Copy of current revision of the QA Program Complete cooperation with various on site departments, organizations und individuals, ,
. List of names of all inspectiori personnel and 1cvel of certification .
List of names and positions of production personnel (foremen and above) List of certified painters and systems for which the painters are qualified,
- Require liason or interface persor$ for quality assurance, p% ya quality contrul, production, and othar departments in order
- to expedite and aid in the performance of this review .
DAY fil Review QA Program in general " s Revicw QC Procedures and how those procedurcs related to the QA Program Cu over QC Procedure num6ering sequence Review site organization and responsibilities (both individual and company) Review Retrofit program (why impl mented, still on-going-why? why nut?, what has been accomplished to date) - Tour Site (containment, paint shop, warehouse, calibration lab, etc.) i' NOTE: Dadge ilk!! as tim.t allous
= ,* - _.,v. -r...-, _. _ . .-- - . _ - - .
- ' ' ' ' ~
Page 2 cf 4
. DAY #2 Non-Confirming Conditions Review existing NCR's Review procedure for unsatisfactory reports to determinc accouacy .
Review procedure for NCR to determlnc adequacy Review logs for NCR and unsatisfactory report Review status tag procedure and 1003 . Revicw NCR and/or unsatisfactory coordinator status Procedure and Spccification Revision Control . Review system and procedure for changes to specification and procedures - Review controls - assure th't a only most current revisions of specification and procedurcs are utilized (. Examine on site situation to dctorm[nc sequence of work activities g DAY # 3&4 Material Storage Review procurement documents Review rocciving procedures and records Review personnel qualifications 'for rccciving personnel Review product certification Examine reject and hold arcas (review tagging procedures and logs)
/
Examina facilities (take reprencntative batches and dcLermine if procedure followed)
,. Review warchausing records Examinc facilitics and check calibration of recording thermographs (examinc certificates of compliance for
(] Instrun"nts, calibration records for instruments, y> paracnn'l for initividuals partorining calibrat. inns) Determine t rareability of material frnm rocciving to in place warh Iriv.i varehousing recarits and daily reports (nico Quing lui:kwards f ron in place uo R) 1 l I I L _ _ . .
_ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - . . - m :. :. I -
+ *
- Page 3 cf 4 DAY #5 Pursonrul Qualifications Painter Qualifications
- i Revicw indoctrination and training program Observe (if possibic) class room session and field quallrications
- Review documentation on personnel qualifications 4
~.
Inspector Qualifications Revicwindoctrinationand,trainingprogram
- Review personnel qualifibation with regard to level of certification l
Review documentation on personnel qualifications Auditor Qualific'ations
- Revicw personnel qualifications for auditors
( Audits Review documentation on personnel qualifications
'N Review audits of the coating operation DAY #6 Calibration .
Review calibration logs Review certificates of compliance for test instruments Revicw traceability of instruments to il0S
- Review training and qualification of calibration personnel
/
Review documentation of personnel qualifications
, .~ \
'o ,
i l j t I l l L
Page 4 cf 4 DAY #7 & 3 Daily Inspection Ih.9)tts , Review adegJacy of daily inspection rcoorts (compared to Information required by A GI) Determine traceability of records for representative areas and/or items , i DAY f 9 & 10 Wrap up and tic together items ~ that were examined earlier. NOTE: The above schedule is tentative in nature and is not meant to be all inclusive. Arcas or questions raJsed during the
- review will be pursued until a responso is'provided.
% O D 0 0 0 e
( e-9 O $ 8 s 6
- 6 0
\
l
- ( _
l . l I
g- , , ,_ , , , . ., ,
\
r a *a tt 2 C COMANCHE PEAK RESPONSE TEAM E s r,
~
H7 (C P RT) .
$s e
l TUSCO PRESIDENT $k K SPENCE 2: > xv xo e-H& SENIOR R EVIEW TEAM bh OD L. F. F 4K AR On ER.s.LEMENTS 3: ::: A SECK CD
, se sEoRsE C g.
! . AC suiBERT r Do
. ec
! I' PROGRAM MA86AGER j . CPRT al MERRITT. Jr. , i. I I - 1 I I I ELECTAsCAL # 3 CIVIL ESTRUCI PROTECTM COATasG MECMAsseCAL* OA#GC TEST 3e8 Pf!0GRAAN l le6STE LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER LEADER
! LM POPPLONELL -
CE N00T088 - EETOLSON CEis0ENLMAad . A.VEGA - ELCAMP -- i E s. .t h. La I.e Ek. I.&s. 1.d.a E.e Ek,EeAd
! E e.,E d.. I.e.
I
; _ W LV0GELSAast M R. M* B AY A.VESA _ S. FRANKS t e. , t.h 4 t s. . E.d. L&e E.a . Eh, t4 l
O3 JONES E. c. M WAResER _ A.LAleCASTER h 1.d a E. c. F S.P. IdMtThMoviCM Q PATANAAR *
- g gan I e .1 e- E E. CAMP t he,1 b t,t h s y - 14 *
- 1. n =
l
.l
I i OctoDer 26, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of .
)
)
3 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING ) COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-445-2
) and 50-446-2 (Comanche Peak Steam Electric )
Station, Units 1 and 2) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE f i l By my signature Delow, I nereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE's Brief in Opposition to Applicant Request for Non-Disclosure of Relevant Lipinsky Documents, b have Deen sent to the names listed Delow this 26th day of OctoDer, 1984, Dy: Express mail where indicated Dy *; Hand-delivery where indicated Dy **; and First Class Mail unless otnerwise indicated. 7 Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch* U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-Nest Highway, 4 th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 i HerDert Grossman* J h Alternate Cnairman ASLB Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Highway, 4 th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l 1 F i ]
,. , l l
l Dr. Kenneth A. ' McCollom, Dean l Division of Engineering, Architecture and Technology
) Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 W. Outer Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ,
Ms. Ellen GinsDerg, Law Clerk
- I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20814 f Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esquire
- Bishop, Lioerman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 1200 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Stuart Trecy, Esquire
- Geary S. Mizuno, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Rd. , 10th Floor Bethesda, Maryland 20834 s Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 5
Renea Hicks, Esquire ' Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Supreme Court Building Austin, Texas 78711 ) Mrs. Juanita Ellis President, CASE 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 b d % @w ANTHONY EgOISMAN 'g l O l _._}}