ML20147E619

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Transcript of 850508 Investigative Interview of Rl Long in Parsippany,Nj.Pp 1-20
ML20147E619
Person / Time
Site: 05000000
Issue date: 05/08/1985
From:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML17342B416 List:
References
FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210178
Download: ML20147E619 (22)
v • d • e


Text

-

( m ORIGINA

'* s UN11ED STATES

~,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE :.uATTER OF:

DOCKET NO:

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF ROBERT L.

LONG LOCATION:

PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PAGES:

1 - 20 DATE:

WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1985

(

ace-FEDERAL REPORE% INC.

F0En-87-696 04 ::al &m

/rH North Capitol 5:reet B//o Washincton, D.C. 2000:

CC2) 347 3700 8801210170 080106

. Nato.NwTDE COVER. ACE W

SS p96

,PDR

[ f 3 ' M ' '~

I

J$aWalch 1

29027./

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[

2 NGCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION 6

3

__.-.--------------------------X 4

In the matter of 5

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW 6

of 7

ROBERT L. LONG 8

X 9 :l 0

10 ]

GPU Nuclear Corporation gg 100 Interpace Parkway a

Rcom 308

,, !j Parsippany, N.

J.,

07054 un F

Wednesday, May 9, 1985 The Investigative Interview of ROBERT L. LONG,

'5 commenced at 10 :07 a.m.

before Richard A. Matakas, s

16 Investigator, Nuclear ReguJ atory Commission.

'7 16 ON BEHALF OF THE NRC:

Richard A. Matakas U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Region I 631 Park Avenue j

1 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 2:

22 2

4.:p y Repo*ws In:

)

]

t I

=

+-e.,-

J

Walch 2

1 PEQqEEQEggE l

2 (10:07 a.m.)

3 MR. MATAKAS:

Okay.

The date is May 8, 1985, 4

and the time is 10:07.

Present for this interview is myself, 5

Richard A. Matakas, Investigator, NRC, and Dr. Robert L. Long, 6

Vice President, Nuclear Assurance, GPUN.

7 The purpose of this interview is to discuss facts 8

and circumstances leading to GPUN's submittal to the NRC involving environmental qualification of e.ectrical equipment 9

10 p at TMI-1.

11 If Doctor Long, do you have any objection to providing 12 h this information under oath?

i; I

13 !

WITNESS LONG:

I do not.

1/

MR. MATAKAS:

Will you raise your right hand, please?

16 Whereupon,

{

17 ROBERT L. LONG, i

is was called as a witness, and having first been duly sworn by 4

Mr. Matakas, testified as follows:

22 DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. MATAKAS:

22 O

Dr. Long, what we are going to be talking about 23' first basically is GPUS Internal Audit 81-02, and what I 24 ?

would like to show you and introduce into the record here is

.v

  • .: n.mn.

inc.

25 the original audit, the subject of which is Environmental i

l i

i P

=

. - - - - - - _ _ - ~ -

3 l

1 Qualification Program at TMI-1.

(

2 I couldn't get a copy of Tech Functions response 3

to the initial audit.

It can't be located.

But what I he.ve 4

here is QA response to the Tech Functions response, which 5

reiterates what Tech Functions originally said.

6 The revised Tech Function response and a memo-7 randum concerning open items of that audit.

8 For the record, actual audit 81-02 was transmitted 9'

via letter dated June 25, 1981, and the letter number is OA/4'-

10 q 61.

11 glI The response back to Tech Functions by QA was 11 12 k transmitted via interoffice memorandum dated June 25, 1981.

11 1,

i 13 1 Letter No. QA/41-86.

't And the revised Tech Functions response was 15 transmitted in a letter dated -- in a memorandum dated 16 August 21, 1981, letter number EP&I 81/0176.

J' And tilen the last letter is a memorandum, subject is of which is Open Audit Finding for Audit 81-02.

It is dated April 4, 1984.

20 Why don' t we take a couple o' minutes break and 21 let you look these over?

22 (Witness peruses documents.)

23 Do you recall being made aware of the initial 24 l audit?

Were you ever made aware of the initial audit a.-

ca. secocem i,.e 25 ' findings?

i.I

1

-.r 4

1 A

At what point in time?

{

2 Q

At any point in time.

In other words, were you 3

ever made aware of that audit?

4 A

Yes.

5 Q

When was that?

6 A

To the best of my memory, it would have been 7

early in 1984.

8 Q

Okay.

QA response to Tech Functions response to 9

that audit, that second document, letter number QA 41-86, have 10 j you ever seen that before?

i, II j A

No, I have not, il 12 i; O

And then August 21, 1981 letter, transmit ting 1.

I:

13 " Tech Functions revised response.

Have you ever seen that

't before?

4 A

No, I have not seen that before.

16 O

And April 4, 1984 mere, addressing open audit P

findings, have you ever seen that before?

16,

A I don't know whether I have seen it or not.

I am

~

certainly generally aware of the contents of it.

I don't 2'

remember whether I actually saw that memo or not.

21 Q'

Okay.

You mentioned that you became aware of the 22 audit, the actual audit document in early 1984.

Prior to 22 1984, had you had any discussion with members of either Tech 24 Functions or QA regarding the EO program at TMI-1 prior to a

. n.oo m.i.ine 25' 1984?

I.

l

5 I

A Not that I can recall.

2 Q

Was there a specific event or point in time that 3

you became. aware that there was a problem, or that problems 4

were identified to you regarding the TMI EQ program?

4 5

A Yes, there was.

6 Q

And when was that?

7 A

On March 9, 1984.

8 Q

What transpired?

9' A

The QA Department Director, Mr. Kazanas, asked to 10 ;! have a meeting with me, and that meeting took place on d

11 f March 9th.

H 12 y It involved Mr. Kazanas, Mr. Bader, Mr. Stromberg, l.

I 13 Mr. Wayne, and Mr. Guimond.

And the subject was environmental

'e qualification of TMI-l plant.

H Q

Was Mr. Wayne also an auditor?

It A

No.

He is not.

He i.e. the Manager of Manufacturing J

Assurance.

16 Q

Unrelated to either QA or Tech Functions?

A No, he is in QA.

He is reports -- he is a direct 22 report to Mr. Kazanas.

He has the section that does the 21 manuf aturers surveillance work.

Field inspections of 22 equipment; those kind of things.

I 22 O

What transpired in that meeting?

2d A

Oh, I also should tell you Wayne also has under r,

e n a m i r.<

25 !b him the corporate QA engineering group, which is why he was i

i 1

'~?

~

~

6 1

involved.

2

-[

His folks interact with Tech Functions in doing 3

review of engineering documents.

4 I am sorry.

Can you repeat the question?

5 0

What transpired during the meeting?

6 A

They reviewed with me at that time an assessment 7

report which was in draft, and according to my notes I made 8

at that meeting y I understood at that time that it had been 9

prepared by Ray Guimond, Mr. Liscomb, and Mr. Solakiewicz, i

10,i who were two of our QA people from the sites.

11 They were expressing concern, according to my 31 12 h, notes, about three quarters of the skew sheets were inadequately 1

h 13 ' backed up by documentation.

't' The filing of the documents and the procedures for

't controlling the various EQ documents weren' t satisf actory.

16 They were aware that an NRC inspection was coming 7

up in the next few weeks to look at the environmental 15 qualification emergency feedwater system, and they were particularly concerned about whether or not we would be ready X

for that inspection.

2' Again, according to my notes, the plant had not 2"

been logged down to look at how and where the components were 23 installed, in order to look at their present condition.

24 And the last note that I have

-- Mr. Wilson r,

<ee' nexw one

(

25 l heads up about this concern.

[.

j

_m.

7 1

0 Did they indicate to you who they had provided r

2 the information to regarding the assessment -- the findings 3

and assessment?

4 (Pause.)

A I can't recall any specific people.

6 0

What I am getting at is why did they come to you?

7 Were they trying to escalate this to a higher authority 8

because they had problems in the past, or why would they 9

bring this concern to you?

10 A

Yes.

They came to me because they were etncerned 11 that the Tech Functions staff people that they were interacting it

2 i. with weren't being as sensitive to the concerns as they felt 0

13 i they should be.

't 0

Who were those people?

Did they identify them?

(Pause.)

It A

To the best of my recollection, Mr. Maus was

.7 mentioned.

16 0

M-a-u-s?

A Yeah, Mr. Maus.

I don't recall whether they identified specific other people or not.

2' Q

Did they mention that they had -- first of all, 2:

did they mention -- was the main concern that of documentation, 23 or was that one of others?

24 A

Yes.

The main concern was documentation, and I w.r

. m.ww. e x 25 l recall probing very hard on that.

Do you think we have en....

.w,.,

J

8 1

serious problens in terms of whether or not the equipment i

2 is environmentally qualified, or are the problems in terms of 3

being able to document that the equipment is environmentally 4

qualified, and I understood thct it was primarily the latter 5

that they were concerned about the ability of the documentation -

6 to show that the equipment was environmentally qualified.

t 7

Q Did they also indicate that there was a problem 8

with lack of management direction in the area of Tech 9 ;i Functions?

a 4

10 }

A 1 don' t recall that they did.

11 b Q

Did you ask them if tney had brought this to the 17 ! attention of management in Tech Functions?

In other words,

v l'

13 :

Mr. Kazanas would be more at the level of Mr. Stromberg.

't A

Mr. Stromberg reports to Mr. Kazanas.

Oh, I am sorry.

Mr. Croneberger.

It Q

Croneberger.

'7 A

Mr. Ka:anas and Croneberger are department IE dire ctors, so they are at the same level.

I can't recall whether in that particular meeting 2;

I asked that question.

I am sure that I asked that question 2'

a number of times after that meeting.

22 From that point on I was being kept informed of 22 what was happening, and I know that I was encouraging Mr.

24 Ka:anas to work directly with Mr. Croneberger.

M

-* a RW e't 'l 1 84;

(

25 O

And what was -- what were you finding out as a

- - -. - ~ _.. -

9 1

result of your questions?

l (Pause.)

1 3

A My sense was, as time went on, from March into 4

April, May, June time period, that there was a significant 5

difference of opinion between the QA reviewers and the Tech i

6 Functions staff as to the level of detail and the ease of 7

verification.

8 The general condition of the files.

How good 9l they need to be to really satisfy first our QA reviewers, I.

10 j! and subsequently NRC reviewers.

O 11 O

In between that, were you made aware that the 17 {fb Franklin Research Center had conducted a review of documen-6 13 tation and that review was provided to GPUN and the NRC SER

't in December of 19827 A

Somewhere in that time frame I was made aware of 16 that, yes.

D I couldn't tell you exactly when.

li O

Were you informed that they also found problems in the area of documentation?

In other words, to support wha:

2; QA was saying?

2; A

I don' t remember whether that specific item 22 was identified.

23 0

Were you made aware that in October of 1983 or 24 thereabouts, and in March of 1984 prior to your meeting with e

..- m.oem.i. im 25 : QA, that Tech Function people had met with the NRC, and the

=w-.%*

  • -=w

--w,,

m_

10 1

NRC then advised them that there were problems in the area of

{

2 documentation for their files?

3 A

I can't remember those specific dates of October 4

and March.

I know that the QA team was sufficiently concerned 5

that they certainly were telling me that other people had 6

raised the concern, including the NRC.

7 I can't remember the details.

I didn' t get into 8

the details.

I was more concerned with where we were at that 9

present time, and the f act that we had a history of this i

10 problem was important, but to me it wasn't as important as 11 trying to get out what we do about it, how do we fix it now.

'2 0

And what action was taken at that particular time?

i:

13 h A

I know I had a conversation with Dick Wilson

'e shortly af ter this meeting on March 9th.

I have gone through my notes and I can't find whether I made a telephone conver-16 sation or whether I went to see him.

We were in the same D

building then.

18 I don't know exactly when, but it was within days of this me eting that I went to visit with Dick and expressed 20 the concern and I recall that I was assured that Wilson 21 recognized the problem, and that he was trying to go af ter it.

22 O

The reason I ask you about following up on if 23 they were having problems with Tech Function management, and 24 why they brought it to you, is that I have been provided with e

. m.ww, a 25 b a OA procedure that was in effect -- supposedly in effect t

e

~ < ~

  • __ mm

11 1

during that time period.

{

2 Procedure No. 7-18-01.

Under Section 8.8, audit 3

responses, on page 14, Number 7, it says:

Lack of response 4

to any memos identifying inadequate response or inadequate 5

implementation will be elevated to the vice president level i

6 by special note in a monthly report addressed to the Director 7

of Quality Assurance.

Input should be made via the month 8

the report to the Manager, QA Programs, Development and Audit, 9:

as a problem area.

i 10 And as Vice President, Quality Assurance, you 11 have under you the Quality Assurance Department, is that 120 correct?

i; 13 A

Vice President of Nuclear Assurance, yes.

e O

So what I am getting at is it indicates to me tha there was a problem getting through to Tech Function manage-It ment above the level of Gerry Maus.

When Mr. Kazanas comes to you and Mr. Stromberg comes to you.

15 Was Mr. Stromberg at that meeting?

A Yes.

I agree.

There was a problem.

When you ask me did I remember who was mentioned, I am sitting here O'

and trying to think, and I can't remember in that particular 2*

meeting whether or not Don Croneberger was mentioned or -- I

3 don ' t think at that point anybody had talked to Wilson, because 24 they were asking me to talk to Wilson, which is, again, the u

-. m exm, i, 25 normal way we would progress,

-~

~~....n.

12 1

Q

-And Mr. Wilson, is he vice president --

[

2 A

He is Vice President of Tech Functions.

t 3

0 What action was subsequently taken as a result 4

of the meeting that was held with you?

You talked to Mr.

5 Wilson?

6 A

I talked to Mr. Wilson.

He assured me that he 7

was aware of the problem, and that they were being worked on.

3 Following that time, I then had a number of contacts 9

from my QA Department to me on -- informally, basically --

10 giving me the status of progress.

11 We had several meetings -- I may have notes for it, 12 but I didn't look for them, in the May-June time frame.

We c

1 were -- Dick Wilson and I together were trying to make sure 13 y'

tha' our two teams of people, his Tech Function workers and

'S my QL reviewers, were coming to agreement on what these to -

packages had to have, how detailed '_ney had to be, what

,7 format they should be in.

18.

There were memos going back and forth between t

4 the two departments which eventually led to satisfactory 20 inspection by NRC of first the environmental qualification 21 files for emergency feedwater, and then subsequently for all 22 the packages, but that there were a number of interactions 23 between Dick Wilson and me over that period of time to make 24,

sure we got those files in a satisfactory condition.

A

-. a.m.n m '

25,

O Did Mr. Kazanas and his subordinates, did they I

u I

r

13 1

inform you that they had identified the programmatic-problems,

{

2 documentation and lack of management direction and lack of 3

training, in audit findings back in 1981 or at an earlier date 4

and that they weren't being addressed?

5 A

Yes, I becane aware of that af ter -- probably 6

initially at that March 9th meeting, but certainly subsequent 7

to that I was aware that we were working with Tech Punctions 8

to try to get those audit findings cleared.

9 Mr. Stromberg talked to me a couple of times 10} about the work that he was doing to try to get those cleared.

j I

11 0

Was it ever related to you by anyone that the re it I2it was an attempt by one of the auditors to document basically

't 13 the same audit findings that you see in that April 4, 1984

't memo, that lists open audit' findings, I believe 1, 3, 5-A, 5

6-A, and several subsections of Audit 11, that he attempted I$

to address those in a memo in 1982 and the memo was unforwarded?

P Do you have any information regarding that?

Was IB,

that ever brought to your attention?

~*

(Pause.)

22 A

I think the first time I became aware of that was 21 last week.

22 Q

And who brought that to your attention?

23 A

Mr. Kazanas and Mr. Markowski.

2' O

Did they have a reason why those items were not

.v

.. mexw m 25 I. addressed?

Why those memos didn't go out is basically what I an l

e-..

%-_4

_ _e_.

14 1

asking.

t 2

A No.

At that point in time when they had found 3

that, they. didn' t know why it hadn' t been issued.

4 0

Did they find out at a later time why?

i 5

A Not to my knowledge.

I haven't had any further 6

discussions with them.

7 0

What I would like to show you is a Corporate 8

Quality Assurance Review Committee meeting minutes, and it 9 I is via interoffice memorandum, and it is dated March 2,

1983, i

10 and the letter number is PDA/83-056, and it is regarding II February 18, 1983 meeting, and it is. addressed to Mr. Kazanas.

il

2 k I would like you to -- do you normally get these 13 minutes?

I didn't even notice if you were on distribution.

't A

I do not normally got these.

I am not on the

'b distribution for this.

4 Q

Then you don't recognize those particular minutes?

A No, I have not seen them.

15 0

okay.

I just reviewed those the other day myself, and in reading it over last night I notice that Agenda Item E

No. 2, it says:

Inadequate implementation of indoctrination 21 and training for technical functions personnel, reference finding No. 2 of audit 0-TMI-80-10, and under that it says, d.

23 quote, attempts to close out this finding have not been 24 successful because of a lack of implementation of corrective u

-.m.:ewi m 25.l action.

The Committee agreed that this should be escalated, I

. + ~

<w w.m e es m. ~

n.

..W.

L---- - -.::-----

15 1

A memo to R. F. Wilson has been prepared for signature of

./

2 Stromberg, Kazanas, and Long.

3 I have yet to see a copy of Audit 80-10, but why 4

don't you take a minute to look that over, and I am trying to 5

determine if that was another EQ auditor, if the subject of 6

this audit, 80-10 relates to something else.

7 (Witness peruses document.)

8 A

Whether this would have anything to do with EQ, 9

the indoctrinh' ion and training issues --

I certainly can 10 get a copy of that audit.

l 11 '!

O Yeah, I would like to get a copy of that, it 12 i:

A Have you asked somebody else for it?

i, i3 h O

No.

As I said, I received this just the other nay, and I had been getting these documents in.

A I can do that with a phone call.

I can get a le copy brought over to us.

17 Q

Well, we can take a couple of minutes break IE and you can do that.

A Okay.

2; (Short recess taken.)

21 0

The first a9anda item of th!.s meeting was lack 22 of control of procurement / installation of Class I-E electrical I

23 ; equipment requiring eaviJonmental qualification.

24 And under the Results of Deliberatim.s, No.

3, i

u e neoorws. n 25 ; quote:

The lack of templete file of auditable records should I

i

16 1

be escalated to Director of Quality Assurance.

2 And four:

All organizations that have responsibi-3 lit'ies in environmental qualifications program do not have 4

procedures that clearly define these responsibilities.

5 And they give examples.

6 These were escalated, and what I am getting at 7

is back in this time period, 1983, were you made aware of this 8

by -- at that time it would have been the Director of QA, 9l which would have been Mr. Kazanas.

Did he ever have any h

10 ;l conversation about this escalation during the 1983 time period?

I 11 l, Did he mention this to you in the meeting -- we are talking j

2 f. about a' year time period here between when it was first it 13 ! escalated and when you came on the scene.

't A

I don't recall Nick ever talking to be about EQ

'S until that March ' 84 meeting.

When the QARC Committee is 16 saying it is escalated, they mean it was escalated to Mr.

a Ka:anas.

16,

O Righ t.

What I was a little bit confused about, though, is when we talked a little earlier in QA procedure, 20 on page 14, it says it will be escalated to the vics president 21 level, and by special note in the monthly report to Director 22 of Quality Assurance, is this the monthly report that we 23, were talking about, the QARC Committee Meeting minutes?

i-24 l A

No.

A7

-. a mormi. w. -

h 25 Q

Was there any other monthly report that this subject

.n_.

-n.- - -

(_

17 I

was brought to your attention via a piece of paper that there

(

2 was a problem in the area of EQ?

3 A

I don't remember the QA Department does issue 4

a monthly status report to the Directors of the unit, which I 5

get copies of.

Units-1 -- TMI-1, TMI-2, and Oyster Creek.

6 Q

Are you on that for action, or is that just for 7

information purposes?

8 A

It is for information, but --

9l 0

Nothing like that sticks in your mind?

ll 10 A

No.

I just don't remember.

11 h; t

Q And it was this meeting when you first really l

12 1:i became aware of that; that there was a problem?

II 13 i A

Yes.

Q Okay.

During this meeting specifically --

9 A

This is the meeting --

16 Q

March 9 th.

Was it ever brought to your attention i'

that GPUN had responded to the NRC that, in fact, the prograr 16 was in compliance with 50.49 or DOR guidelines?

A No, I don't think that anything was said about 20 that response to the NRC.

2I Q

All right.

Did you make any recommendations or 22 give them any guidance as far as what approach they should 23 ' take af ter this time period?

24 In other words, we talked about you talking to

=

,. m.mmn. m k

21 Mr. Wilson.

i

s 18 I

(Pause.)

[

2 A

I can' t remember specifically.

In general, they 3

were asked to keep-ne informed and let me know when they 4

needed me to talk further with Mr. Wilson.

5 Q

I would like to show you two responses that GPUN 6

sent to NRR regarding environmental qualification program.

7 The first is dated May 20, 1983, letter No. 5211-83-157.

8 The second is dated February 10, 1984, 5211-84-2038, 9

Again, if you ignore some of the markings in the margin, and 10l along with the May 20th document, it contains some of the 11 review documents that go along with the document.

ii 01:

But I would like you to take a look and ask you

'i 13 b if you have ever seen those before?

I

'd' A

I don't remember seeing the May 20, 1983 letter

'b before.

I did review the February 10th 1984 letter last week.

86 '

O Okay.

And you had no review function prior to the dates on these letters?

For each individual respective I6 letter?

7 4

A That is right.

I don't recall ever having seen 20 them at the time they were being prepared for issuanco.

21 O

At any time subsequent to your meeting on March 9th, 2

or March 8th --

i 23 A

March 9 th.

t 24 '

O March 9 th.

Did you have conversation with anyone

.v

. n.= m =

25 i in eith-

.ach Functions or QA in regard to the contents of

-*--.-w**..

19 I

these two responses, May 20th and February 10th,

'n regard

(

2 to their actual findings or the actual makeup of the EQ 3

files?

4 A

No, I did not.

5 Q

When did you first become aware of the allegation i

6 that these submittals contained false statements?

7 A

About a month ago.

Three to four weeks in the 8

time frame, when I was contacted by the lawyers to set up 9,

this interview.

I 10 ll Q

Did you have any responsibility to looking into 11 N the matter to make the determination of the validity of the 4

' 2 i; allegations during any time?

,:i 13 :

A No, I did not.

t MR. MATAKAS:

The time is 10:51, and why don't 5

we go ahead a take a break.

16 I dcn't have any more questions, really.

I want i'

to wait in the next couple of minutes and see if we can get 16 those documents over here.

(Short recess taken.)

22 MR. MATAKAS:

I have been provided with Audit 80-12, 2'

and the subject of that is Tech Functions people bei:., trained M

in engineering procedures they perform daily to work to, and 23 it does not specifically deal with environmental qualifications, 24 so we won' t go into that matter any further, o.' ne x w inc 25 BY MR MATAKAS:

(Continuing)

I

4 Aw I

Q Dr. Long, do you have any other statements or 2

{

anything else that you would like to say?

3 A.

No, I do not.

4 Q

Have you appeared here voluntarily?

f 5

A Yes, I have, 6

Q Have any promises or threats been made?

7 A

No.

8 MR. MATAKAS:

The time is 10:59, and this will 9

conclude the interview.

Thanks a lot.

10 'j (Whereupon, the interview concluded at 10:59 a.m.)

11 12 l!

il l'

13 :

i

?:

if 16

'7 16 20 21 22 23 24 w -

,.:a =n.,ine-(

25 I i

3

.. ~

s e2.

,e 3 3. e..,....,-

3-....r.-

3 t

2 This :. s to certify tha: :h e a t t ached p r oc e e:'...

.,3 herare the 3

(

.. n. w..-..u.--..

o v.

4 In the matter of: Interview of ROBERT L. LONG.

3 I

Date of Proceedi..g: May 8, 1985.

-t l

Place of Proceedi..g:

Parsippany, New Jersey.

were held as herein appears, and that this is the original

(

i i

transcri.=: for the fi'e of the Commission.

s to e

Garrett J.

Walsh, Jr.

Off:.cial Reporter - Typed l

i2 I

s r i

s I

(-

/. fixW 1

l Of f:::.a(VReporter - Sypature-I is 1

'6 l

'S

'l I

2:

I i

g.

l 4

2; I

j

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20147E619&oldid=4179478"