ML20117E621
| ML20117E621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1982 |
| From: | Tracey A JUSTICE, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Jamarl Cummings NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTOR & AUDITOR (OIA) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117E531 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-415 NUDOCS 8505100475 | |
| Download: ML20117E621 (3) | |
Text
f I
n.A L.3 Depashne-e J o>in.-
Duts J Sures. itr.inue s s
Saveth.rn Distri.: <>t oletan
- o u eaa siera v.n o.... s c w.
u,.
r is :1 tuo tan ferk Sur,r, s.
cow <.ursuu.= J!:v:
May 28, 1982 James Cummings Director, Of fice of Inspector & Auditor Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1717 H. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Cumings:
I Yesterday, I received a telephone call fr m red Christianson, a resident inspector at the NRC.
e advised that on May 26, 1982, there had been harrass-ment of CG&E inspectors in the form of throwing buckets of water on them.
Mr. Christianson called to obtain information on the penalty under 18 U.S.C. 111, which I provided. We thought you would want to be informed, and follow-up, on this intimidation of inspectors.
I am enclosing an article concerning a state inspection of the " boiler" at Zimmer; apparently it might not be approved.
Sincerely, CHRISTOPHER K. BARNES United States Attorney
- . *. ~.
s u
gg.
ANN MARIE TRACEY Assistant U.S. Attorney AMTsjls encl.
850206 75 U
$415 p
4
v FINAL. EDITION /NEW5 STAND PRICE 254 FRIDAY,MAY 28/1982
~
A GANNETI f1
- tl't:w p.u_ft Engineering Insppctor Says No g
Y
, 24g g,
To Zimmer's Radiation Shield' L
an.c_e of u ie pio..t io M..of 08.,60._,.ui.ee
~r amu.t. x AumAn of u,. h.e-lng is io get u,e t.-t. on e.
,n
. h.
... b.ht _f.s.y. th.. th. l_.L l.
r r.
r.p_.fth. _.
..g t.f In.
.g g
ati. leam an unanswmd safety ques-nucl. ear f.ee.lHue.s.
O
~y...
6 +M P
_and D Avil) 5HAPIRO N.
M
.f r
If Milan succeeds,it ulti be a financial and Pressure VesselInspectors for a *compre. '
' j. -'"
)
blow to CG&E and its partners in the 308-hensive and complete independent Inveettga-a f.
{'
.. wet.r.ouai,n teswe servece swatt facility. Dayton Power 8s E.lght Co uorn" of ASME code compifance. The obe Co IsuYsElYr'y oNm rye r"
b
'! a a=u hts about a ottal radlauen ehtend Thurs-El cts day provoked Ohio's chtef boller inspector Power.Co&E is in charge of construeuen and The inveeugators' interim report May 12 Iy I
lato opposing startup of the timmer nuclear is to run timmer.
set Milan off.
l
@S l uI 4
The ste -
, when they looked at the eentainment, gl
-~
fl, p t
P"*"* tan"el-and-concrete ehlend/estled the The story of Milan's inteisenuen begine
=
after the NRC fined CO3 E 8200.000 Isat built at the worksite by Chicage Bridge & Iron b' 8 '
contanament,ennlope the reactor and other November for stoppy record-keepir.g. Intiml. Ca,laveeugators found it was not InaE*de J.
d 1
key hards are. JL ta supposed to prevent redle* dauon of Inspectors, and other problegna.
and stamped in accordance with ASMs co
.h tson,from esca inginto the environmeat' to*.
Mll.AN AND Richard E.Jegeer, maeletant regulrements?
.i I'll t a g L e containment if I have director of Inspections for the Natlanal Board Nor had the containsnent been granted a l
d f, * *
, Donal.l M. Milan promised. To him, it's a ve.r,tence,,from ASME codes in advance, called g
. safety lasne.
o,f Bc,tler,8s P,resasure Vessel Inspectors, went g g, g.
,cg gf g
p%.
g gg,,,,
p,, g, II,a Ilis intervention could stop or deley (1n.
The nest day Jagger sent his report to Milan onld sesneene erred and did not I
Inn il s is ctric Co plans to turn on the CO&E It wae en inventory of problema. In.
have the Authertsed Nuclear Inspectar chect
]
p p. r..
I' eluding intimidauon of reshtent inspector compitance with A8ME codes durms con.
l l (.,,
e, l
l Ml!an onld he has authertty over the eun.
I.owell Burton and evidence of a " serious struction. Milan did not blame the inspector.-
{
- }r l
tainment because it le a pressure vessel.
breakdown" In quality aneurance programs but he says it was a lost opportunity that can.
run by CO&g and Kaiser Engtneering.
not be recovered through rettowing docu.
L 1
p,
,..t 9,
[
l Rt.GIONAI. OFFICIAIJ of the Nuclear Burton works for the Hartford 8 tease. menta.
i lasue between Ohlo and CU&E. flut NRC won't la Authorized Nuclear Inspector.and he le re.
"TllE INSPECTOR didn't see certain W,
= ;;
h I"egulatory Commission INRC) said it's an Boller Inspecuon and Insurance Co. lfte Llue i
!t.
I let Elmmer operate unut COS:E and the state sponsible for seeing that American Society of things that he had to have seen," Milan entd.
".h L
__'e
/
e, resolve their differences.
Mechanical Engineers t ABME) codes are on.
- I wili not 30 along with that building?
C0&E elli challenge Milan's authority, forced.
HRC offictate explained their hands-off j h g
g ;.
,l areelity assurance manager llartan 8ager sand.
In Decolnber. Milan and Jagger found approach by saying they and the State of
- ,l e
I t.rcause state law did not apply when cost.
that only one Authertsed Nuclear Inspects,r Ohio apply different standards for inspecting f-tainment work began.
had been on ette for 90% of the construcuan, the containment liner. Also Chicago-based y n---
jj.>
On Thursday Zimmer drew attention in "To assume one Authortsed Nuctear Irg.
NRC of ficiale know Chicago Bridge as fron Co.
l Washington.D C.
spector can maintain proper inspectBorn as a reliable ttrm.
l Rep. klarris K. Udall, D.Arte anto he will monitoring when the quality assurante pro.
Ohle law offers Cn&E a way sist. Milan f
convene his II.ause Interior Committee Jessee ernun is not functinning properly is ludt.
said.The utility can ask for a special bundtn 14 to probe queltty assurance proldenas. Htlen cruus " Jagger charged. This allows only "cos-t nord tn be convened The three-Judge pane Del AW9sc $ HOWS how concrete-and steel cenlebwnent
-an architect, a lawyer and a professional surrounds reactor simger lo todt al Zimmer. The conteJ4 n,
writt he asked to tesury.
metic and token type inspections.. "
"We're concerned about the kinds af IIASED ON what he had seen 4pd on engmeer-can overrule Milan.
housed in the reactor bullrEng,Is on knportant barrier in a n CI:chte.ms retralt:1 bg ths 78tplprr In'esW],- Jerper's reantt. Ef tten tund COD' that " sert.
_,,,,,gea_sg yr g gtp pr Qprwaiar e -q.++- -g % -
f i
M M CPec> matt ENQuutot Fncey.m,23, i,t2 h
invesugators are checsme into O ZI R
fresher chstges by worsers and
(
former employees at Zimmer that CONTNtKD F40aA PAGE A.t came up wheninspectors checked T they go over my haad. M1 out Applegate's charges.
At the same time. CO&E is fol-t fight it," Muan saML "It's all I can towing a quality confirmauon e
do.*
program, ordered by the NRC.
v Dorwin Hunter. a senior NRC th at involves checking or re-1 rettonal of fletal assigned to caeckmg thousands of welds and Zimmer. ssJd COLE might be able other work where quesuons of I
to prove compliance with an 8"I*IF N*
3 arduous records cheth.. Lf the The NRC probe and COLE's e
records are complete.
quanty confirmauen program are e
blilan took no postuon on nu.
to be finLsDed before yests end, clear power. Bol;ers and other according to turrent schedules, pressure vessels are his 11telong NRC's Atomic Sately and passion lie has operated and in.
Licensing Board is considering epected them for 25 years and is CG&E's applicauon for an operat-qua!!fted to desl with beth nu. tog 11 cense for Zimmer A dectston clear and contenuonal faelltues 2tM3fER AND CO&E are stul could come any weet.If the board rejects intemnow mouons to re-unoer NRC scruuny. Tederal offt-open the hearings. COLE could cials are in the second phase of a sc getits utente and load fuel m probe that began last year and led IE to the then-record fine against &
That would allow CO&E to plant under construccon.
roduce power commercially f1rst the NRC pursued leads-from her in 3M brought by private invesugator Thomas Applegate. Now. NRC O
f yI h
.j
, 'c, UNITED ST ATES
[ yhf _38[e j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO{l fy j
_.f REGION lli j
/
- .pM 799 ROOSEVELT Road GLEN ELLYN,ILLINolS 60137
',q
- 5
- j x
~
k)
June 1, 1982
./
l MEMORANDUM FOR: Zim:ner File TROM:
A. Bert Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
' MEETING WITH U.S. ATTORNEY, CINCINNATI, OHIO ON MAY 20, 1982 r
. Messrs. Cum:nings (OIA), Davis, Warnick, and Foster met with U.S. Attorney i
Mr. Barnes, Assistant U. S. Attorney Ann Tracey, and Assistant U.S. Attorney P
Tony Nyktas in Cincinnati on May 20, 1982. The meeting was requested by Mr..Barnes-in letters of April 21 and May 7, 1982 to Mr. Warnick. The highlights of the meeting are discussed in this memorandum.
The NRC personnel discussed the roles of the regions and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement, as they relate to investigations, since
- regionalization was established. We also described the forthcoming change j
.in investigations involving the establishment of the Office of Investigation.
We discussed examples of special inspections and investigations.as we anticipate they will be distinguished under the new organization.
NRC representatives also described the work that has been accomplished under
[
this investigation since the inspection report of the first phase of the investigation was issued on November 24, 1981. We stated that our efforts had been focussed on computerizing and prioritizing all allegations and
- detailed followup of the work being perforn.ed under the quality confirmation program and the Isnediate Action Letter.
The representatives from both offices discussed the potential of a criminal investigation impeding a health 'and safety investigation.
Mr. Barnes f
indicated that his primary responsibility to the public was to assure that which would compromise this primary responsibility. NRC representatives
~
the plant was correctly built, and he would not want to take any action stated that we believed the risk was small that a criminal investigation l
vould significantly impact our civil investigation or our ability to assure i
that the plant would eventually be properly constructed. We did allow the possibility, however, that a criminal investigation could cause people to not cooperate with us as fully as they might if no criminal investigation l
were proceeding.
t Tr { D Q W N q, Ql-)
Q]
i
P
(
(-
~
'Zim=er Files June 1, 1982
- i r
E Mr. Barnes stated his concern that a May 14, 1982 letter.from Chairman Palladino to Congressman Ottinger states that no IE investigations or special investigations have been performed at the plant since November 24, 1982. NRC representatives stated that the letter did not mean the NRC had not done any investigations, but rather meant that the Office of Inspection and Enf orcement had not done any investigations since that time.
Since
' Ms. Janeen Hall of Coyressman Ottinger's staff is concerned about the investigation not proceeding, Mr. Cummings said he would take the necessary steps:to attempt to clarify what was meant by this letter. We agreed to provide Mr. Barnes with a copy of RIII reports of inspections and investiga-tions performed by NRC at Zimmer since November 24, 1981.
Mr. Barnes asked what areas identified in our investigation may have criminal implications. We stated that record falisification and intimidation of QC inspectors may involve criminality.
Mr. Cummings committed to review the November 24, 1981 investigation report and provide a formal answer to this question. He did not commit a date for accomplishing this.
Mr. Barnes discussed the subject of a formal referral of the Zimmer findings to the Department of Justice.
Mr. Cummings indicated he had kept the-DOJ 1
. informed of the progress-of the investigation but could not refer to a piece of paper which would constitute a formal referral.
We discussed how the NRC would respond to possible future questions concerning whether or not DOJ will proceed with an investigation. It appears that the f
I best course of action is for NRC not to comment on this subject but rather to refer the matter to DOJ.
l In response to a question as to how DOJ. intended to proceed, Mr. Barnes indicated that they would review the investigation report, decide which elements of that report may have a potential for criminality, then decide when and if they would proceed with a criminal investigation.
M A. Bert Davis t
Deputy Regional Administrator
(
cc:
. Cummings, OIA I
R..F. Warnick, RIII J. E. Foster,' RIII L
S 9
4
'(.
(
\\
8/^
l lV l
June 4, 1982 e-Note to the Commission The attached letter was received June 4, 1982, and is forwarded for your information.
At the May 20, 1982, meeting USA Barnes noted that h'?had been e
furnished a copy of Chairman Palladino's May 14, 1982, letter to Congressman Ottinger.
Barnes was unaware of NRC's recent regionalization and contended that the last paragraph of the letter dealing with the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
led him to believe that no investigation or inspection activities had taken place at Zimmer since September 1,'1981.
Mr. Davis corrected Mr. Barnes' impression on this point and briefly described the inspection and investigative activities which had taken place at Zimmer since September 1, 1981.
II I
James J. Cummings, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor Attachments:
- 1. Ltr dtd 6/2/82 fm Barnes
- 2. Ltr dtd 5/14/82 fm Palladino to Ottinger cc:
/s.tts
~
W. Dircks l
H. Denton l
R. DeYoung L. Bickwit J. Keppler G. Cunningham J.
Fitzgerald Distribution OIA File 81-39 OIA rdr dA W AM (b l
) % % id' f)
(
f/
oIA cmes >
suanau >..J.C. w r d n s.s fb,a.b..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
.f h
... 6../.. 4../.. 8. 2......
.......h...,,,,,,,,
_are >
m
.rc scre. m ;u-o, sacu em OFFICIAL RECORD COPY es m..n_ m u
s a
,o arcq
' f,,
l 1
f N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R Y C O*.*.*.* !! ' ' O N v.w.c i c o. O c 2nh
,j g.... ~ ?.j 1
s 5eptember 23, 1952
[
n Ms. Ann Marie Tracey Assistant U. 5. Attorney U. 5. Department of Justice 722 U. 5. Courtnouse
[
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Dear Ms. Tracey:
The purpose of this letter is to confirm in writing major issues discussed
(
at a meeting in your office on September 8,1982, regarding the Zimer l
facility. This meeting was attended by Messrs. Cum.ings, Fitzgerald, Sinclair, Gilbert, Hunter, Lewis, Christianson and Dick of the fiuclear Regulatory Ccamission; Messrs. Ryan and Danielson of the Federal Eur:au of Investigation; yourself; and, Messrs. Behlen and Nyktas of the U.S.
Attorney's Cifice, Cincinr.ati, Ohio.
I At your re:;aest, the r.seting was held to discuss an c.*erall investigative plan which would deal with the various construction ceficiencies which have psen uncovered and/or alleged to exist at the Zimer facility.
I believe the major topics covered during this meeting were as follows:
NRC's overall investigative effort at Zimmer is the responsibility of the newly. formed Office of Investigations (01). Three investigators are currently assigned to this matter on a full time basis and supervision of the case is being handled directly by OI Headquarters, k'ashington, D.C.
By mid-October 1982, 01 anticipates that two additional inv.estigators will be assigned to the case.
NRC's overall inspection effort at Zim.er is the responsibility of the Region III office. Five inspection persor.nel are currently assigned to this matter on a full time basis.
The overall aim of NRC's investicative and inspection effort at N
Zimmer is to insure the full resolution of all significant public health and sr.fety issues.
Mr. Fitzgerald provided you with a listing of the major investigative areas his office plans to look into. The priority areas that will be initially addressed include -
x d
D
T(/T h\\(A -O4\\
C
(
$)
g Ps. Ann Marie Tracey 2
1.
falsification of records, 2.
harassment and intimidation of 0; inspectors, 3.
welder cualifications.
Mr. Fitzgerald advised you that it is his intention to concentrate inifially on these priority concerns, issuing interim reports as the investigation proceeds.
Information contained in 01 reports could form the basis for an NRC civil enforcement action.
Fu rthermore, 01 reports will be promptly reviewed by the Office of Insoector and Auditor to determine if they contain infornatior.,chich should be referred to your office.
Mr. Cummings agreed that any referral to your office would contain a brief analysis of the facts as they pertain to applicable Federal criminal statutes.
With regard to your cIrsterns about preservation of evidence, Mr. Hunter and Mr. Fitzgerald agreed to look into this matter and infenn you of the arrangements and procedures put into place to protect evidence.
Mr. Cums.ings advised you that your office would be pro ptly ir. formed in the event that NRC were to take any significant Enforcs.i:nt action in the Zimmer catter.
You expressed some reservation as to whether the overall NRC plan would adecuately serve your offices' purposes as oppesed to a plan that would call for a joint NRC/ FBI investigation.
You infor..ed us that you would be discussing this matter with Mr. Barnes and officials of the FBI at a later date.
From NRC's point of view the meeting of September E,1982, was very useful. As you can appreciate, NRC has committed substantial investigative and technical inspection resources in order to resolve the numerous issues that are associated with the Zimmer facility. I suggest that we meet again in mid-No~vember to discuss the overall status of this matter.
Sincerely,
'N h/://{/J
<W7m-19
-F G Jafes J. Cc a,ings, Director 0 fice of.INpector and Auditor cc:
FBI Office, Cincinnati, Ohio J. Greenspun, DOJ
7
- f *cq',
s UNITED STATES
[
.g g'e NUCLEAR REGULATOR 9 COMMISSION f'
p REGION lit
,(h Np n
I 7M ROOSEVELT ROAD W
Y
+,8 GLEN ELLYN,ILLINol$ 50137 t***
AUG 4 1981 MDOPJ.NDUM TOR:
J. F. Streeter, Acting Director, Enforcement and Investi-gation Staff R. F. Warnick, Reactor Projects Section 2B A. B. Davis, Deputy Director
. FROM:
J. E.. Foster' Inve.stigator
SUBJECT:
CONIENT OF ZIMMER INVESTIGATION REPORT From an editorial standpoint, the Zi==er Investigation report is progres-sing well, and a good draft effort should be available by Friday, August 7, 1981.
However, now.that most portions of the report have been edited, and i
I am getting a feel fo'r the co:pleted report, I have some concerns -(fro:
nn investigative standpoint) r.egardi.ng the content of the report.- Listed by apparent importance, these concerns are as follovi 1.
There is no statement by Kaiser QA Manager Gittings. -
2:
There is no statement by Schwiers, Marshal, or'Svain (there are no state =ents by Kaiser or CG&E manager.ent).
t 3.
There is no information on the study done by Gladstone Labs.
This study was (at least partially) the reason that Kaiser personnel felt that their inspectors were over-inspecting and writing unjustified NRs.
l 4.
We need to include a state =ent on whether we vill re-contact Hof-I stadter, Martin, Criffin, Reynolds, Duche and others and what the basis,of the contact vill be if they are re-contacted.
5.
Almost all personnel in the report are fully na=ed, whereas most l
investigation reports include a more extensive use of individual identifiers.
~
6..
We never obtained the notes from Mark Hertsgaard of his contacts with site workmen..-
7.
More information is required on the original noncompliance issu.ed by Isa Yin for improperly voiding nonconfor=ance reports (NRs).
l i
\\
8 o
p gu
1 i
i l
^
AUG 4 19B Multiple Addressees 2-8.
7nere is no indication'that was interviewed in person, and the statement appears inconsistent with scee of the allegations ascribed to him.
~
7 James E. Foster Investigator O
a b
9
=
e e
9
(
l i
e l5 II o,
I
?
e a
,.m--
-e e.e--.<-,--,r.-s,-r--w
.-,.,,-.m.-
r-----
r----r----, y 9-.--
-,n
osse j'je UNITED STAT ES j$
NUtLE AR dEGULATCP / CoMul5510N i hM. 8 rg accion m vn moostvsce now W
S s.....J ou~ cuv~. u.~o,s um OCT e 1981. '
KD:0RA' GUM TOR:
PICION III Files TROM:
J. F.'Streeter, Chief,' Reactor Projects Branch 2 SU3 JECT:
TELEPHONE CALL WITE TOM APPLEGATE On Septe=ber 3,1981, Applegate called to infor: Region III of his recent address and phone change.
His nev' address and number are:
He said he had nevec at~the request of his former landlady who had experienced numerous harrassing telephone calls regarding Applegate.
Applegate said it had been well over three weeks since he had been contacted by Jim McCarten and.he was wondering about the status of our investigation report.
I told hi: I expected it to be issued within two weeks and I would call him if it wasn't.
Ee asked if Region III would let him know before the report was publicly released.
I assured him we would.
I called Applegate on September 17, 1981, to tell him the report vould not likely be issued before three more weeks and I would let him know if it vasn't released by t
then.
Applegate expressed an interest in the information we received free C. K.,Sr.ith, Ee described Scith as a for:er Kaiser Assistant Project Manager.
i I told hi= I didn't recall us talking to Stith but that he could be assured we
[
vould talk to all these people brought forward by him during the February,1981, I
meeting with us in Region III.
Applegate also expressed interest in the OIA report and our interface with l
DOJ.
I told him I couldn't ce=ent on the OIA matter and that Region III
- jg vas interfacing with DOJ.
% Wh J. F. Streeter, Chief Project Branch 2 cc:
J. G. Keppler A. B. Davis R. F. Warnick J. B. McCarten i
v.h., -
t
=
. ;s. -
u
!~.4 6
Q
- c a
~
.h0V.1 e 19 9 MD40RANDU:1 FOR: Bert Davis. Deputy Director, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement FR0ti:
James J. Curmings, Director 8
4 ee Office of Inspector and Auditor
- %:q[
SUBJECT:
ZIh?'ER INTERVIEk'S AND CORPORATE CORRESp0'iDENCE Attached for your review and any action deemed appropriate are the interviews conducted by Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) investigators, regarding potential falsification of records at the Hilliam H. Zicner Nuclear Pcwer Station. Also included is cornspondence transmitted between the Henry J. Kaiser (HJK) company and Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E) describing attempts by Kaiser to staff the Quality Control (OC) organization in order to meet the requirementr set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The requests which were sent to CG&E for authorization were officially disapproved by CG&E. Copies of the stipulated correspondence is furnished as an attactment.' OIA has also provided a copy of a CG&E internal memorandum dated Hovember 7,1980, instructing Kaiser to " eliminate?
the HJK requirement for system certification (review of Quality Assurance (QA) documentation) prior to the release of systems from construction to the Electric Production Department for prToperational testing.
CIA had briefed persennel at IE Headquarters regarding the described doctr.entatiort and attached interviews on September 16,1951, in order to assist in the identification of any unresolved health and safety issues. As a result of the meeting it was concluded that none of the infomatien presented any question concernings health and safety. h*e are, hewever, providing this documentation at this time to assure that no issues remain unresolved and that IE is aware of the infcmation obtained by OIA.
If there are any questions pertaining to the material please feel free to contact me or Arthur Schnebelen, Acting Assistant Director for Investigations.
Attachments:
1 As stated.
l t
l l
Distribution l
OIA file 81-39 OIA rdr JSinclair AA A2 f
l DIA OI A,
OIA a
omer)
M
-o
..J.S i n c i a.i.rtb.d b _S e hrie b.e 1..e n
,. Cum.ings z) if/f8/81
.........[....'../. 81 TY 11
......./...../.81 em>
..r n e r t r's t I A s r.O R O CO PY a m mi..
s
\\*
Q
\\
- .d UNITED STATES
-[ g g( h NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMf?.lSSION 2
- P.-
W A1* NGT O N. D. C. N555
. 4.,.
y
./
INOV 18 1961
}u e
MEMORANDUM FOR: Bert Davis, Deputy Director, Region III Office of Inspection and Enforcement FROM:
James J. Cunmings, Director Office of I,nspector and Audito Amcd
.,mhp N
ZIMMER INTERVIEWS AND CORPORATT) CORRESPON SU3 JECT:
Attached for your review and any action deemed appropriate are the interviews conducted by Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA) investigators.
regarding potential falsification of records at the William H. Zinner Nuclear Power Station.
Also included is correspondence transmitted between the Henry J. Kaiser (HJK) company and Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E) describing' attempts by Kaiser to staff the Quality Control (QC) organization in order to meet the requirements set forth in 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
The requests which were sent to CG&E for authorization were official.ly disapproved by CG&E.
Copies of the stipulated correspondence is furnished as an attachment.
OIA has also provided a copy of a CG&E internal memorandum dated November 7,1980, instructing Kaiser to " eliminate" the HJK requirement for system certification (review of Quality Assurance (QA) documentation) prior to the release of systems from construction to the Electric Production Department for preoperational testing.
OIA had
/
briefed personnel at IE Headquarters regarding the described documentation and attached interviews on September 16, 1981, in order to assist in the identification of any unresolved health and safety issues.
As a resuit
{
of the meeting it was concluded that none of the information presented 1
any question concernings health and safety. We are, however, providing this documentation at this time to assure that no issues remain unresolved and that IE is aware of the infcrmation obtained by OIA.
If there are any questions pertaining to the material please feel free to centact me or Arthur Schnebelen, Acting Assistant Director for Investigatier.s.
Attachments:
As. stated.
r i
l N0Y; 2 0 1981,
,O )
m 'Pe/
O M'
Y
~
Entl0 SWd
t
]
h i
PHILLIP GITTINGS
{
Deputy Quality Assurance Manager Kaiser Engineering, Incorporated William H. Zimmer Nuclear Construction Project Mr. Phillip Gittings, former Quality Assurance Manager, Kaiser Engineering, Incorporated (KEI), assigned to the William H. Zimmer Construction Project was interviewed on July 8,1981, at the Zimer Construction Site. Prior to any questions being asked, Messrs. Albert Puglia and John Sinclair identified,themselves as Investigators, Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC).
Also present during the interview was James McCarten, Investigator, Office of Inspection and Enfo.rcement (IE), Revion III.
Mr. Gittings was also provided the opportunity to review appropriate credentials and advised that the purpose of the OI A investigation was to determine his knowledge of alteration or falsification of Quality Control (OC) documentation (Nontonformance Reports, Kaiser Engineering Inspection foms-KE1 foms).
Mr. Gittings began the interview by describing his employme.it with the Kaiser Corporation.
Gittings explained that he had worked for Kaiser for approximately 4 1/2 years and had held the position of Kaiser Quality
/
Assurance (QA) Manager at the Zimer Site for about one year.
Gittings stated that he assumed the position in July 1980 and had recently been
,_ s reastigned as the Deputy QA Manager and was scheduled to be transferred to another Kaiser project in the near future.
Investigator McCarten questioned Gittings as to his knowledge of " voiding" Nonconformance Reports (NR's).
Gittings stated that prior to November 1950 most " voiding" of NR's was done by the Supervisor for Document Control.
Floyd Oltz.
Gittings responded to questions concerning the qualifications of the Supervisor, Document Control, and his authority to " void" NR's by stating that Oltz did not have the technical qualifications to assess the validity of NR's or the authority to disposition the NR's as " void."
Gittings stated that the proper procedures for processing an NR called for a technical evaluation of the information contained on the NR to determine whether or not the deficiency described was valid, and if not, the NR could be dispositioned as " void." Gittings continued by explaining that the only' person who had the authority to void an NR would be the QA Manager. Gittings al.so advised that the problem with NR's and their
" voiding was the topic of discussion with an NRC inspector from Region III. (I. Yin) in the fall of 1980.
In response to subsequent questioning concerning NR's written by a QC inspector by the name of'Ruiz, which were " voided" by Gittings, he (Gittings) acknowledged that he had " voided" the NR's but could not recall why he had voided them.
(
e e
e
s.
g i
..Phillip Gittings 2
Gittings stated that during an inspection of the site, Yin disccvered the problems of " voiding" NR's in the Document Control section.
Gittings stated that the discovery of the problem had been discussed during an exit meeting between the NRC inspector, representatives of Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E) and Kaiser.
Gittings further stated that he attended the meeting and recalled that Yin questioned the voiding procedures and the process whereby the Document Control Supervisor was exercising the authority to void NR's.
According to Gittings, Kaiser advised the NRC that there would be no more voiding of NR's by the Document Control Supervisor.,
When questioned about QA heing intimidated by the Construction Manager (Robert Marshall), Gittings replied that he was not intimidated by Marshall or construction's challenges to the findings of QC inspectors.
Gittings stated that Marshall has a strong personality, but he, Gittings, would net change QC findings based solely on Marshall's objections.
e Gittings added, however, that there were some instances where he, Gittings, agreed with Marshall's position and subsequently overrode the findings of the QC inspector.
Gittings continued 'by stating that when he arrived at the Zir er site he found what he believed to be inadequate QA Management.
At that point he began t.o hire additional QC inspectors from other ccnstruction sites.
This, Gittings stated, also caused some difficulty.because some of the inspectors came from projects which were inspecting to other ccde requirements than the AWS (American Welding Society) that was in effect at Zimer.
Gittines explained that the differences resulted in Kaiser instructing the QC inspectors that the standards and requirements. at Zim e were those incorporated in the AWS code.
Gittings responded to questions regarding the placing of NR's in a separate file titled the Inspection Report File by stating that he was not involved in directing or placing NR's in places other than where anyone to place documents (NR's) gs stated that he had never instructed they were supposed to be. Gittin in files other than the NR system.
Gittings was then advised that between January and February 1950 " Inspection Report" stamps becan to be placed in NR log books in order to remove or recategorize the original NR as an inspection report and remcve it from the NR system.
Gittings explained that the practice at the site was for the QC inspector to call in from the field to get a control number and
~
after the number was issued write up and submit the NR.
This, according to Gittings, is' compatible with the Quality Assurance Control Manual Instructions (QACMI) procedure which states that QC inspectors can initiate an NR "that is correct." Gittings added that once the NR has been reviewed by a QC supervisor or himself and determined to be valid, then it was entered into the NR file.
D e
F M
1
~
w T
phillip Gittings 3
j
.I
' F
(
(,
Gittings continued by stating that af ter a second visit by NRC, Kaiser o
began an audit.cf NR's to completely review and make determinations concerning " problems" with individual NR's.
Gittings repeated that he b
did not order or direct anyone to place existing NR's in the " Inspection Report" system.
Gittings also stated that he did not order or direct that any changes be made to recording NR's in the NR log.
Gittings responded to questioning pertaining to a Kaiser management meeting conducted in early 1980 by stating the following.
Gittings explained tF-t he believed that the subject of the meeting had to do with the inspection of pipe support hangers.
Gittings added that there were people from Kaiser QA construction and licensee personnel in attendance.
According to Gittings, Gene Knox (QA Kaiser Corporate), Rex Baker (Kaiser QC Supervisor.), Bob Marshall (Kaiser Construction Supervisor) and Scott Swain'(CG&E),ialong with some others, were present in the meeting.
Gittings stated that there was an ongoing problem of writing up and accumulating NR's on pipe hanger deficiencies.
Gittings stated there had been a problem with NR's on the hanger area.
Gittings stated that a decision was reached as a result of the meeting to stop writing NR's and to " void" existing (NR's. This decision was based upon the fact that Sargent and Lundy S&L), architect engineer for the project, was to do a reevaluation of the design of the hangers and inspections would be i
conducted according to design modifications.
A second consideration was
.(
that QC inspections of vendor hangers (Patterson) were not to be conducted.
The instructions were that QC inspectors were "not to inspect hangers
.. purchased outside."
Gittings continued by explaining that the previous fail (1979), there I
was continued " turmoil" concerning hanger inspections. Gittings explained
{
there was pressure to get hangers installed and QA was "getting beat up" concerning inspections.
Gittings stated that in one instance where 60 hangers were identified as having deficiencies and were written up on i
one NR, he had made the decision to separate the deficiencies and place one hanger on one NR. This, according to Gittings, was not intended to overrule the QC inspectors. Gittings also stated that he was not involved I
and had not instructed anyone to set up any " secret files" recarding QA
{
documentation.
i Gittings responded that construction has not ordered him to move QC staff around in order to stop critical inspections.
Gittings did state, however, " people have been reassigned to other systems."
At this juncture, Investigator McCarten left the interview and it continued in the presence of Investigators Puglia and Sinclair.
Gittings began a discussion pertaining to the Kaiser QA organization and who has responsibility for the QA program at the site by stating it is
)
Kaiser's responsibility.
Gittings continued, however, and explained that Kaiser was "doing the work for a very tough client (CG&E) and that e
8 e
p
(
(
Phillip Cittings 4
(
any requisition for additional manpower or staffing for QA/QC had to go through the client." Gittings added that he had to report everything through Bill Schwiers, QA Manager for CG&E.
Gittings stated in response to questioning that the OA organization for Kaiser is currently staffed at a "substantially higher level" than at his time of arrival or initial assignment at the site.
Gittings added that he was continuing to recruit QC personnel for Kaiser employment.
Gittings admitted, however, that the staffing of the QA/QC organization in the past has not been " adequate to meet the requiements of 10 CFR (Part 50, Apnendix B).
Gittings added that the client (CG&E) "did not
' have an adequate QA/QC staff" and "some (personnel) individuals should not have been,in the system."
Gittings co$tinued by denying that he had instructed anyone to " white out" NR entries in the NR log.
He (Gittings) stated that, in fact, his instructions were to make no changes in the recordings in the NR log book.
Gittings responded' to questions concerning the utilization of " punch lists" to record deficiencies rather than NR's by stating that punch lists were used to rectify problems instead of NR's.
Gittings was questioned as to the circumstances wh'ich led to the temination of the contract with 'the Butler quality control inspectcrs.
Gittings stated that the contract was terminated after discussions with Kaiser corporate management and a meeting which took place in which the decision was made to " eliminate the shoppers" (stop the contract with Butler).
Gittings admitted that although Kaiser had been having difficulty in staffing QA/QC, the decision was cade that Kaiser wculd have its own 00 inspectors. As Gittings recalls, offers were made to approximately 21 of Butler inspectors of which 17 accepted.
Gittings added that 34 QC inspectors left for other employment.
Gittings also stated that the piping area was reduced from 10 OC inspectors to three inspectors partially because the work slowed down.
Gittings stated, however, that the corpcrate decision to drop the " job shoppers" also played a part.
Gittings concluded his ccmments on the contract issue by stating that he believes some of the reasons for eliminating the Butler people were that Kaiser could cut down on paperwork and establish a cadre for Kaiser's own QA organization.
Other factors, according to Gittings related to cutting costs, eliminating "over inspecting" and the Butler inspectors had "no loyalty" to Kaiser.
a 6
(
(
i l
Phillip Gittings 5
i t
Gittings further stated there were some difficulties or problems in working with Bob Marshall because he was loud and aggressive, but it did not effect his (Gittings) position or his independence as Kaiser QA Manager.
Gittings did stated that one problem that did effect his ability to carry out his job was his relationship with the CG5E QA Manager, Bill Schwiers.
In fact, Gittings stated "my primary goal was to get along with him" (Schwiers).
Gittings added that Kaiser lost the previous QA Manager (Turner) because he was unable to get along with Schwiers.
Gittings explained that there were numerous requests in the form of memoranda which were sent by Turner to CG&E asking for additional QC staffing which were turned down or denied by Schwiers.
Gittings was requested by OI A to contact Kaiser corporate and advise the-that fiRC requests copies of the memoranda which indicate that addi'icnal QC t
staffing was hecessary to meet the requirements of 10 CFR.
Gittings stated he would contact corporate and advise them of the request. Gittings could not furnish any additional information regarding problems with the QA program.
i l
\\
t e
e
/
\\
e S
O.
\\
\\
h v?
e 1
l William W. Schwiers Fomer Quality Assurance llanager Cincinnati Gas and Electric William H. Zimer Nuclear Construction Project j
Mr. William W. Schwiers, former Quality Assurance Manager, Cincinnati Gas and Electric (CG&E) was interviewed on July 9,1981, by Albert B. Puglia and John R. Sinclair, Investigators, Office of Inspector and Auditor (OI A), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Prior to any questioning, Mr. Schwiers was provided the opportunity of reviewing appropriate -
credentials and advised that the areas being investigated pertained to intentional ajteration of Quality Control (QC) Records and. willful omissions regarding QC records.
Mr. Schwiers began the interview by providing a brief description of his duties while assigned to the Zimmer Construction Project.
Schwiers stated that he first began working at Zimer in the 1973. time frame as a representative for Cincinnati Gas and Electric and that continued until approximately 1975.
At that time Schwiers stated he becam'e the Senior Field Project Engineer in the Quality Assurance Organization which lasted for the next year.
In 1976 Schwiers was reassigned to the functions of Quality Assurance lianager for the project.
Schwiers stated that at that time the Quality Assurance Manager for Kaiser was Bill Friedrich.
Schwiers further stated that the CGLE Quality Assurance group at the site consisted of four other CG&E er;1oyees plus himself.
According to, Schwiers, it was his responsibility to audit and monitor the Kaiser QA program.
Schwiers continued by explaining that it was his perception that the Kaiser QA pr'ogram, at the time he (Schwiers) took over QA for CG&E, "did not have sufficient independence from the Construction Group." Schwiers stated that at some point Kaiser QA Manager Friedrich, was replaced by another Kaiser supervisor Bob Turner.
The exact date of the change could not be recalled, however, Schwiers did state there was a period in which an individual from Kaiser Head:;uarters, Gene Knox, was acting in the' capacity of Kaiser QA Manager.
Schwiers stated that Knox was ccmmuting to the"Zimer Site from the Oakland, California area and although he was the QA Manager for theSchwiers site, he (Knox) would not relocate to the Cincinnati, Ohio area.
explained that he, as well as CGLE found the situation with Knox comuting to the site unacceptable because it did not demonstrate the commitment s
4 6
S.
m
(
(
2 Sch, tiers further explained required to the Quality Assurance Program.
that Turner finally was placed in the position as Kaiser QA Manager Schwiers stated that as which lasted until approximately October 1979.
l he recalled, there was a problem with QA documentation within Kaiser and that Turner was replaced by another QA Manager.
Schwiers stated that part of the problem identified with the Kaiser QA Schwiers added documentation was discovered through a CGAE QA audit.
that the Kaiser documentation problem is still being reviewed by a contractor to CG&E, Science Application, Incorporated (SAI).
i Schwiers continued by stating'that he believed Phil Gittings, the most current Kaiser QA Manager, was hired by Kaiser frem a position in " corporate" Schwiers also stated that he at Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CE1).
believed that'.Gittings had fomerly worked for a Kaiser Project in Florida per'tiining to a transportation project.
In response to questions, Schwiers responded that "on paper" he was in Schwiers also stated that initially all of CG&E control of the' project.
Subsequently, however, the QA organization QA was located at the site. expanded and some'QA functions were Schwiers then stated as the QA representative part of the responsibility was to r.onitor Kaiser's QA/QC activity by conducting independent audits.
Schwie'rs continued by stating that he had "some authority" in relation to denying requests for additional Quality Control inspections submitted
/
}
by Kaiser QA.
Schwiers was then advised that DIA had interviewed p'ersonne'l at the 2irr:r.er site, including Kaiser QA personnel and as a result, information was developed which indicated that Kaiser QA supervisors had made repeated requests to CG&E for additional staffing of the QC departcent in order to meet the requiements of federal regulations, specifically 10 CFR 50, Appendix B.
Schwiers was also advised that the requests had been made in writing by, Kaiserandthateachoftherequestshasbeendeniedbyhim(Schwiers).
Schwiers stated that he believed that he had honored all of the requests submitted by Kaiser QA and stated that as far as he could recall, all of the requests submitted by the current Kaiser QA, Phil Gittings, were Schwiers was apprised that his statement concerning requests honored.
submitted by Gittings had been confimed, however, the specific requests and time frame alluded to occurred at the time Bob Turner was the Schwiers repeated that he believed that all requests were He (Schwiers) was infomed that NRC had requested QA l'.anager.
considered and honored.
supporting documentation from Kaiser and believed that it was going to be provided in the near future.
1 e
e e
e e
e D
G.
Schwiers continued by stating.that if there are such re::uests as described by NRC and responding correspondence denying the re:;uests, they prcbably Schwiers was then questioned as to the extent of contain his signature.
his authority as site OA Manager for CG&E in either " staffing" or denying requests for additional staff.
Schwiers stated that he had "some authority" and repeated that he probably would have been the CG&E official However, he believed that the whose name appeared on the paperwork.
decisions specifically addressing the described Kaiser re:: vests were probably made in a CG&E management meeting.
~
Schwiers responded to questions regarding the " management meeting" by stating that he believed tbo attendees at the meeting were himself, supervisors from the CG8E' Generation and Construction Departments and the Project Manager (Barney Culver).
Schwiers added in response to' questioning i,f any other CG&E officials were present by stating that he Schwiers stated that he organizationally reported could not r pember.
to Earl Borgmann, Vice President, CG&E, however, he could not recall if he was present at the meeting.
s Schwiers then responded to questions concerning CG&E's OA organizational structure by stating that as the senior site 0A Supervisor he reported Schwiers added that directly to Earl Borgmann, Vice President for CG&E.
other departments within CG8E (Generation, Construction, Design) also Schwiers stated that although he stated reported directly to Borgmann.
in the beginning of the interview that he believed Kaiser's OA/0C organization lacked independence in performing its function he cculd not say there was any significant difference in the OA/QC organization within CG&E.
to deny staffing Schwiers was repeatedly asked if he had the authority (Schwiers) would requests pertaining to Xaiser 0A/0C at which time he continually state that "his name was prebably on the paper" and he could not remember if his supervisor, Earl Bergmann, was in attendance at any Schwiers was also reluctant to state unambiguously that he had meeting.
the authority to deny Kaiser QA staffing requests and would only state that the decisions were a result of CG&E management meetings.
Schwiers stated that CG&E had been conducting audits of the Kaiser QA program and that was one of the methods which disclosed QA problems.
Schwiers was then questioned as to how his statement coincided with the f act that NRC Region III Inspectors had conducted a thorough inspection of the audit function of CG&E's OA program and found that there had been no audits done for extended periods of time and in some areas no Schwiers stated he was aware of the inspection referred audits at all.
to, but did not have an answer regarding the violations cited by HRC pertaining to the QA audit requirements.
A s
e W.
s v
g.
Schwiers Schwiers was queried as to the type of contract with Kaiser. Schwiers replied that he believed it was a " cost-plus-a-fixed-fee".
1 added that he was not familiar with the specifics of the contract, however, he was aware that Kaiser had to get " authorizations" for contract Schwiers agreed that under the nomal cost-plus-a-changes from CG&E. fixed-fee contract Kaiser wculd not have to have had CG&
staffing, however, he was unable to explain the contract restricts which required Kaiser to submit staffing requests to CG&E.
Schwiers explained that during his assignment as QA Manager at Zimmer he 1
k' hen asked to elaborate Schwiers was under " tremendous pressure".
Schwiers declined to comment on what type of pressure he was refering to.
concluded the interview by advising OIA that he was going to retire frcm Schwiers also stated that if CG&E in the October-November time frame.
there were an9 additional requests to interview him, he was going to have to limit his responses to "yes" or "no" answers.
6 5
9 O
e e
6 0
4 m
l I
w
/-
ei a
r.s q _
.rr=
t]/M C kPPA2' CS d u o 6 e k t' -
kl. der hen. 0onn -
Mg
////fkT
/lAL5 cA'-
VGMd'-
JVa _d14' red.
J
=
k L/M m f d S,
hA bleer-fa/pb da/VenxM naa
/
0ivcMpYVA7/
'~
fy)e'tV
\\
p
- w A T -/ M *f-6'eoeo l
I e
9
.p l
s w
W@.x"km' TtE. af >eemee. (7ieY
' G-t E
/wsre/e.
m e smcwn 5, g,e 7,
f}l3$"
,hi A m.
p
'l Sernnp
)(n. 67h/lo s-Yk7'I 4
p$ rggc' & '
a*
,L l
3 68f e
fick bG(2t,I
,4V/.5 ff FGZA
$lgj.flAKRETf fhs&, _
Erneeiert -
l'
(
[Mr A bso Gaedresa.
e o
Od'
@k l
a rAr&
f(4g c
g 2 c,g ruflN
- k.l-
^
J>2..
g,,eem 01C/L he Ouv1
. w/
q p 'af D irec to.
s p5 )W2 3/2%,g
,/
ic,
P Wdins6 Gv
&kneeuk, lhjaM'Lb-Tpoc P-o &.
ppee>Ak as n
y %ge4', g,,,c W b,,,
bnsbm (ipu
~
g dK.
eB"' g t 9'
4].
Ny fi f
PM 5 ' A & a 't) One9 gf v-
I g,
a p tie M e d e r Siea o -
Dna Jexicy sesex.en.
3+2
/
B &R R e3~ -
OTA U/ffC N / C l< -
eTreeerce-pl e e uren -
ch e Ain.
SP-S Si fluer hwi V
/s
/hb
[Pt c e Q.
N, J
6peisetc.
l
..,,,3 4 : n. -
..*..p..
- F ' ' ' '
- i- -L ' ' '
~ ~ ~ ^ ' ~
. q, y,,
,1..., $, : ;2.* g!-
- ' 5 i'
^M-
~ ' ** '
N
' E 'E *' I[h.,.
'I i
f;,!os ge a-,
w
- s e
(({-/3g,-ge e TcR 6(
'}LSCN g
O sL [hp KW$(
,w
/1
[].t'l UAR b gp y
kDb it N
p(4,gMAM
/l5 (L /g/ Rh -
- /
+r.
p u, <
" = ^-v a,;
=X>
~
~.
I
( c N
5 YgEN/ 0-l$
0 jgf ese e in Toe y 1 3
ca n
=
l mepoc" 1
eif/C.
fg_
Ob ?
Nfs'
,ggSeaao-S c HiicBc oy 3
- w.
~f s
1
=
=
=
\\
x
\\
3 i
k$
f f '~)'-
f N ? } s e! b a a e v N
o a,,,
f/v\\S.
. e i
m f,,u 13 / N ' R E e
j( y Aff 0 i f 0 ?
h
^
f, 8 !
=E s,n a ai h//eB M"1 g a e ze gm; a a
f r- /,.
[hFA'M
)h)Idk 7 f-I Jg.
diCfID7
}
&sa e KtC
/1w -
6/l/NKLC' J
~i 3
e e
\\
./
\\.
' ~
fS-g/E/?/ M f c T6K ffi h4cfA h##f.s. errr-hasgN$hsRH-yo f $$o /dT'o 4' h,/
/
r,-emL&,~b
-,9
,l g
geskA'
i i
'4
m
/,
,)
L
,y d5 1
i
/
l ((? ;rd-GSx h
e
%{
c u _u " ' 9 '
h r
Snro 6 '
l pbob j~-.
i FMore;ly 5%'le4b4ka, p
(
y w-gj gg, SWEARS',
C N wt eieS l
puc,
}
xa r
~
1
}
y;p-f i,
G O M * ~~
- 8B-Gyw'Y-'%
p g (r W t y. u~.
f M / s$$s,y e"
- w'VOlece.SS-t 9',
1 n[-
S M 2-y/<c cae ' (9< /fe i l l
7%ec-fgT pfg pLCl.
i~
\\
/
/
f z
v.
oa.
duc+e.flEten 50yy-3cex uie L) iT/-l
,0$/M e 5 hvf u0STCA t
/
'i 0
E/
c, ' 4,,,,
v
,y, s
C. $ d ask x Alo'b
]
c(Gu ef k %dfmsb i
- v. 5. Nadw fley.J.q Coun.> > >m
9 f
%x SPau ff GgeeN
/
jaejiSia7EiVr-gr Q.
5HR P/CPR g
ca z DestinlU-
,posc FWR
,Y 7,
tJou c D 8eEAr v
/
pp 1 Dest Fj
_A gw-
/(NMI L.
im i -
n.
ni i -
-rai
-i's er-iu
-um' m
-r-g su-m-4 pi a
- "
6i' muna1 ip
=
"BB k =
w
"!L 5=
=
m w
M Y
_Q
"!!IB
\\
8_,_
M L
F
=
x
-s=
E R_
g
__M
=ik.
M h
m,
=
E N
=s-
=
T C '
f /L m
-3
=
=
$l B
==
[ [ l[f Afees r (
g
=
lee /f{
e um l
L)Ps.
s g#
&eeKS T 1
Q A FAAMMW4 lg
..?
s p.- 4 ',. ; $_,;p,4,..
7
>,.'"".'.,9...O'-
- y..7
^
-...W V ?,.,; 5 ',.' i.,
,-Y-(~,
si
........;...~, -
.:,, W. C -
'g,
).
n..
- v..
. - m,s.,
~ +
7 o-_-. _ f.". _
n o
g ". ",' s i,..U.','.1, f);.
v..,.
I "., ?.,.
,. e ;:
',d..,4".. ". ',;.,v,', ',%, ;:..
-J' 5
y;y >.ff
..,' 6 3
' h, ' W}. 2,,
.,4
.~ : " : :.. -
.y. :,
'M-p.
s g :-;... ',.
a,
~
c.'
... _ - - g %.. -...s, y
4
.y..
'.:':.,.,,,~.'-- ~,
'..,9-
-..a
..U. - ' * -). I,b
,i
.~.,--,,?.,.
.v....
s t". -..,i.;1 :.%.;..- )( ' -
.r,
-s n+.
3
,-$... )!h. %
J
- 5.;.; 6.~. gi %
Q/3L/
xw -.c g y
.? -],, '..-
[. ', Ip,
, ~. :
_-,.;.. n,,4
.+..
- r p
c
....q..,.
,..,e
~
'4. , (,' {,,*
g h
.h %- l s.'-Q '-f *f Q -
~
- n.,,.
... g /. f. dm.. '-
d.
i
~
M
- s. e.
.o
,4
,. ;.,-, i ;f4
... t
- s v.
r-'
,._, ~
--l e
.LQ.-.
'g w.*
=i
=
.^.l,.T.},Q gy (Q (A L/ C
.y l
' k,..n s,. : :
-\\
~
A W [N ; %,$,'
h kJl l /Q
}[',-
'/
A y('-y r7
. 9, __
. -s?. - -
' %,;f };' 7;Si$. ;.,. '.e$. ~,%Y..
H
~,' T :j J.'s 4
n N"
., 4.' I 3, '..;
1,. $ '-
j", j - c.g,,,
-:._,0..*'
~
l.
s- )
_.f,
.n.,*.'.-
i y
, g y ' br.1
, g.}. ~. ;
5 e
g,.. t, c.s., '/.-. yf2
/7 q
,- (Ak,.f 0
3 j. *
':l a
.y
, ; n,.. _. -
c.; ?
/
i ** -),... f -,
.. ~g '
l I n.p s.I 1/ R' r
\\
'L_=
"'J
- .R _ L 4;).~jl;f.L
^J.,q n g [iUM*I'
%..,yQ 0/fg 7 Jc I g e 5 W L ;i
)
p.Q.
n" Spy #Q i,...
/g#
p, -%.
)
p E,
6 w'e..:.
j I '
c-
.y.
,0,
-~
A
s 4=_
I
~
^&
.Q-_-
ww N_m
/
/
Ei
/
g y
E g,
,i,9 r==
d g
2 [
E d
[
M b-m__.
3 W
"S E
Y'b-N_
EE
/
~
h_.
w' " $$ '- -oRTu'n A ed
?.
M-E
. 'D -
L'L 3
- m
-s g
, i-E-
'[$ha:((
i-4.':-9 g
.gj4p- '[ p. r.d,
..x. z.
=
., w..
/
F a-
,n
'f
!f. "
^M b_-
l y
,,:4 sky %
E 3
l' ' '. R,j... -l N3 (,.
u.: g y\\.y:3(fe
._,,.4 E-
- # ' f.;' f,,4 g g
g in
=-
t
- k.;'.~.'t^_l "c-
}
,}
,s s
e a 4W, u,^..
- f. '.y '[.y@
=
m Q
2g....
L_
2__ -
.q.-
.u g_-_--
- -M j '1f.*
. *;f. f ' _
gm
, e- # _
..:.4
.. +.
i.-(
y.-
g_
',. ' ;[. 'kvT.* s
$,.,. { 1. 2,',y,'e '.ny y y T.f:. -
~_
=
l N
w 2
- ap$41..i.s.:'
'iff,j ':d.4' Y.i IN Wi-Z E;
- f:$
?
vg4 c,. y.c
=
. - A,;y g
= _ _
y
,W s. y_ U ' '4T'y 3
w :.
. ? ~i i]
'n j'-
'7 9.-;....;q:.y. 3
. ;...g
. 9.,;-
2 u
- _.. -y,. c ;-:
=
- l... '. 1 3
+
m
..:. ' _ gy ',.
- ~;.
s 3
s -... -.
s y