ML20154P700

Informs That Chairman Fugua of House Committee on Science & Technology Asked NRC to Comment on HR 1852,bill Which Would Provide for Research,Development & Demonstration of Permanent Federal Repository for Nuclear Wastes & Sf

ML20154P700
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/05/1979
From:	Stoiber C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Ahearne J, Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
TASK-TF, TASK-URFO NUDOCS 9810230050
Download: ML20154P700 (9)

Text

' '

.'  : o p at:0 UNITED STATES O gfdau

/ 'o g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p[/)]

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p,,, {

i y June 5, 1979 '

e

(

MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Hendrie b b k fg h}

Commissioner Gilinsky Commi'sioner s Kennedy hy 1;

' \

(  %

h (*

1 Commissioner Bradford y J Commissioner Ahearne g

FROM: Carlton R. Stoiber, Assistant General Counsel

SUBJECT:

COMMENTS ON H.R. 1852, A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR A PERMANENT FEDERAL REPOSITORY FOR NUCLEAR WASTES r.

V. '

r ,

Chairman.Fuqua of the House Committee on Science and Technology h s asked the. NRC to comment on H.R. 1852, a bill which would provid for research, development.and demonstration of a permanent Federal repository for nuclear wastes and spent fuel generated by civilian nuclear power plants. The bill also provides that the Department of Transportation shall make several studies on the transportation of nuclear waste and that the En'vironmental Protection Agency shall-promulgate standards and criteria for waste disposal activities.

NMSS.and ELD have identified several problems with the bill. These '

comments have been incorporated in the attached draft letter to Chairman Fuqua prepared by OGC.

We would appreciate receiving any comments you may have on this

~

. proposed draft. -

Attachment:

Draft ltr, Hendrie to Fuqua ,

cc: ELD OPE (2)

NNMSS SECY (2)

-CONTACT: Sheldon L. Trubatch, GC X-43224 j_,

9810230050 790605 PDR COMMS MtCC .

CORRESPONDENCE PDR .a ,.;

m. , .

^

. - s  : .c . . . . .

RlPT.*G '

• p .. .

(.

ijgyF I meh{ t-T :

M UNITED STATES

_G 4 , . o. . *

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.:..; . 5 ,

. . . . WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

_ l

. . .: =.. * ;_~g.:y:

~

YiQ I .**4hq4n . 4 -

.,:: :.:. .:: . ~ :...

.}

. -g-- , y CHAIRMAN . ..--

h-I:-l *)t,.. . ,0 * ..

.Q ^

• i fl.W ' ^: . .

. .:;.L *.

.:. e :l . :.  : :: ;.lili .

SE*h. "

,[. .. ' . = -

.h*f ' a

. . ..n . :: .. .. -

1. iWeJ. The Honorable Don Fuquai' Chairman

~7=.0 c. 7.b. Comittee on Science and Technology r.Y_ 5.YJ1' United States House of Representatives . . . ~ .

E.73.T Wash'in5 ton,' TC1 20515 5.? N... '9.) .

F

• M:- _

W.. . * *;M.5-lh- u +.:,0 :.:.: & :- Y= -

$M% Denr$Clia$n$h*.'. A-$.?$$.& * 'iG3. .'...  % ? ~.&< . 5 .

aesgwg.-.qgpz.w.%Eh.mri59= w ?; p:' -

an-N.The: Nuclear RegulatoryiComission 'is pleased to respond to your request for .

95.u.,.-,

w. 35W 'coments on H; ." ".

g:_m.  ; :;. - demonstration...Rb.1852;T.. bill '"[t]o provide for resear.ch, development and ' ' -

of a pennanent Federal repository capable of receiving nuclear. '

h .@3 wastes'and spent. fuellassemblies -generated from the operation of civilian .

=-%=>.. nuclear power. plantsrand for 'other purposes." These other purposes include 9r EW :.: several studies. on the" transportation of nuclear waste and spent nuclear fuel,

.M " . " promulgation of. standards .and criteria by'the Environmental Protection Agency, 7 Z

:.. t and?e'stablishment of.# Nuclear .- -

f:7.% = : :. 5&~ . . ;.=:f.%=W * ..:. .Waste . . . .

Management

?=:- Advisory Comittee.-~ '

5: . :,

MNW:5.-l H.R.'1852 seeks't6 e nsiife that'a Federa1' demonstration repository;for spentP"'

p ..T . nucleaFfueras~semblies and civilian nuclear wastes will be in operation by.

c--- vr' : September.30,o1988.s .To accomplish this goal the bill sets rigid time periods---

. for site selection, license application, and license review. In addition, the

_%: L hill twould limit certaiWaspects of'the Cneission's environmental review for'

=C"" the purposes of the National Environmentr,I Policy Act (NEPA). While the . . .

Ep.,_. , 'Cogrpi,s.sionl appreciates.the need for a prompt solution to the nation's waste m.=.e=_# management noblem, the Comission is concerned that these aspects of H.R.

@f < 1852anay.be'iriconsistent

. . . . . . . m- .- : ....-.:..-

~

with its health and safety responsibilities.

+_i. = .w . .. w w ..? . .:., x.w -

m I. The. Federal'wa'ste repository proposed in 'H.R.1852 would be the first per- <

W V manent waste facility of its type. In view of thi.s circumstance, and the need M .h" to ensilre that the repository will provide safe disposal for the t.housands of F:Fi-T. years; tile wast'es 'will remain hazardous, the Comission believes it is un-

-;i2 7. .i.. .realis. tic to. set a rigid. timetable which may- not provide adequate time for a T::iF9 thorough licensing r*evies'of such a facility. Consequently, the Comission does not 6!?

.....m ..

. suppor_'t H.R. .1852 as dr.afted.

.. .~

J _ a. ;. . In addition to 'the for 3 '. following detailed com,egoing. ents on specific generalprovisions coments, ofwethewould proposedlike tolegislation. make the

=g = =,:. .  :.;. w .. -

3[C.'Y ' 'ComEst's 'on ' $cecific ' Provisions 'of 'H.R.' '1852

p. pa. ih.%?. .Section-- -%2 * * -C; -

"= . *.;c

., ; ,9 ?;9'

-" t ;'. ? . .. 'k#

E..i At this time the Comission cannot subscribe to the finding in Section 2(a)(5)

' F Q that:. scientific studies have confirmed the availability of safe waste disposal 0

. .- , h :.

~ _ _ - _ _ _ _

o o The Honorable D'on Fuqua 2 techniques at the present time. ;While the Comission is reasonably. confident that safe waste. disposal will be available when needed, the Comission, and others in-3.

cluding the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management, recognize that sub-4 stant'ial research' is still required before safe waste disposal becomes available.

. Consequently, the Comission recomends that Section 2(a)(5) be amended to recognize the need for more research to confirm the availability of safe waste disposal.

Section 3 The definitions'of nuclear waste and spent fuel in section 3 imply that spent

~ fuel is not high-level waste. The Comission has determined that spent fuel is'high ' level waste for the purposes of section 202 of the Ene,rgy Reorganiza-tion Act of'1974. Consequently, the Comission recomends the redefinition of high-level waste to -include spent fuel. -

'Section 4 .

O Section 4(a)(1) provides that the Secretary of Energy 'shall consult with the Chairman of the Commission before maki.ng a preliminary detennination of site .

suitability.and facility design for a demonstration Federal repository. Consultation with only the Chairman of the NRC would be contrary to the Commission's collegial structure as* established by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Consulta' tion with

. the Comission would raise question's of pr'ejudgment when the Comission is ' called on

. to license .the Secretary's choice of site and facility' design. However, the Com-mission believes that. NRC should participate in DOE's site selection process because l site suitability is critical to site integrity. Thus, we rec ~ommend that section 1 4(a)(1) b6 amended to provide.for informal consultation with the NRC staff. .A con-forming amendment should also. be made in sections 4(a)(3), 5(a.), 5(b). and any other provi'sion in H.R.1852 which calls for consultation with only the Chainnan of the '

Commission.

c .. .

'.Section 5 .

Section 5(d)(1) directs the Secretary of Energy to file with the NRC an appli-cation for repository construction within three months of the date of selection

'of a repository site. The Commission believes that a complete application suitable for thoro, ugh NRC review cannot be prepared in such a short period of time. By way of comparison, approximately one year is required to prepare an application to construct a nuclear power plant for which the technology is already highly developed. Thus, the Comission recomends that section 5(d)(1) be amende'd by deleting this , unrealistically short time period. '

Section 5(d)(1) refers to a . license application for construction. The Comis-sion has no authority to license the construction of a waste facility because it

. wo61d be neither a production nor utilization facility. 42 U.S.C. 2235. Under Section 202 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, the Comission is author-ized to license DOE's ' receipt' and possession of radioactive waste desinted for disposal in certain types of repositories. This licensing authority implies the authority to require a construction application. Therefore, the Comission recomends that Section 5(d)(1) be amended by deleti.ng the word " license".

e

. _ _ __ ; ,~._._ _ _._ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _

o -

o The Honorable Don Fuqua 3 Section 5(d)(1) also directs the Comission to dispose of'the Secretary's application for.. construction within two years of the date of selection of a site. Such c.n application would be the first ever submitted to the NRC for

. such a'fa'cility. NRC review of the application will be time-consuming because the NRC staff. has no experience in licensing geologic repositories n'nd because' the technology is new and complex. The NRC staff currently estimates that three to four. years will be required for Comission action. This time period includes the staff's extensive review, an adjudicatory hearing by an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, review'of the Licensing Board's de' cision by an Atomic Safety

-and Licensing Appeal Board, and possible appeal of that decision to the Comis-sion. Thus, the Comission recomends that section 5(d)(1) be amended by deleti.ngla fixed time period for Comission review. '

?. -

Section 5(d)'(i)' directs the Commission not to consider any site, technique, or method for the design, construction, and operation of a waste repository other than that selected by the Secretary of Energy if the NRC determines that the-

' O . Secretary!s choice is reasonable. The Comission believes that a det'ermination of reasonableness will require the consideration of alternatives. Moreover, the Carnission believes that a truncated NEPA review would be inadequate to assess the potential impacts of a Federal' waste repository which must provide. safe containment for thousands of years'. Consequently, the Commission recomends .

that Section 5(d)(1) be amended by deleting the provision restricting NRC's consideration of alternative .

4 Section 5(d)'(2)(B) provides that the Codrnission shall authorize construction of the main repository ~ shaft if the construction plans "can be' implemented in a manner compatible with the use of such site for such repository."- This licensing criterion is a substa' tial n departure from the Atomic Energy Act's requirement that.a production or utilization facility will be consistent with the comon defense and security and will provide adequate protection to the

' health and safety of the public. Atomic Energy Act, Section:182a'. Although a a waste re' p ository is not a production or utilization facility, the Comiss' ion bel.4 eves that the potential hazards associated with such a <>cility warrant application of the same stan'dard for licensing criterion. .This principle is recognized in the licensing criterion rovided in Section 5(d)(2)(A). .Thus, the

' Commission recomends tha't Section 5(d (2)(B) be amended to require the same licensi.ng criterion as Section' 5(d)(.2) A).

4

' Section.5(d)(3) directs the Commission to satisfy the requirements of section 102(2)(C)' of the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with section 14 of the bill.' Section 14(c)(2) directs.the Commission and DOE to act'as joint lead agencies in prepar.i.ng a final environmental impact statement for

the construction and operation of a. Federal demonstration repository. The Commission is concerned that joint lead agency status with DOE would be in-consistent with the NRC's role as an'ind'ependent r.egulator. While the Com-mission appreciates the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of DOE efforts, the Comission also believes that it must perform an independent assessment of

. DOE's environmental analyses. Consequencly, the Comission recommends deleting the joint lead , agency provision from section 14(c)(2).

P O.

r 9 m - e -

t , , - - - - - - ,,-,.n ,. ,. , -n.--

o o

- The Honorable Don Fuqua 4 Section114(c)(2) also provides for a single impact statement for repository construction and operation. ~The Commis'sion believes it should prepare an environmental impact statement prior to authorizing construction of the main repository shaft. This statement could be updated prior to repository opera-tion should new information warrant. Consequently, the Comission recommends that this section be amended to give the NRC discretiori to determine how to satisfy its NEPA obl.igations. .

Section 14($)(2) requires completion by December 31, 1 981 of a final impact statement for the demonstration repository. .The Comission is concerned that. . j i

this'short. period of time may not be sufficient to permit a full analysis of" l the environmental impacts from a Federal repository. Thus, the Comission recommends deletion of this deadline.

Section 5(d)(4) directs the Comission to dispose of an application for an operating license "in a manner consistent with the. goals and purposes of this O- Act."' The Commission believes that repository operation presents hazards

'which'are just as serious as those considered for facility siting and con-struction. Consequently, the Commission recomends that Section 5(d)(4) be

' amended to require the same licensing criterion as provided by Section 5(dK2)(A). . . .

ESection 7 ~

~

Section 7(a)(2) would authorize.the Secretary of Energy to regulate the form

~

'of nuclear wastes or spent fuel suitable for. deliver'y to a repository, .This.

authoHty could' conflict with the Commission's' authority to regi21 ate the form of nuclear wastes or spent fuel suitable..for transportation to a repository or for dis 7(a).(.2)posal in a repository.'

.be amended by replacing the Consequently, word." Secretary", we with recommend that subsection the word " Commission".

. 'Section~9 .. ... . .. . . .

O V .

Section.9(b) directs the' Administrator of EPA to assess the public. healt'h and

' safety aspects of any repository proposed by the Secretary.of Energy. This . .

assessmbnt would include the health effects of radiation exposure' from.such a' repository', 'and the possibilities of migration of radioactive material from such a repository into the ecosystem. The Comission believes that such an .

assessment by EPA would duplicate.the NRC's detailed safety and environmental review and would represent a departure from the established division.of respon-siblities between NRC and EPA. Consequently, we recommend that subsection 9(b) be deleted; The Administrator of EPA is currently able to comunicate -

his assessment of any proposed Federal project by comenti.ng on the FES ~sup-porting that project. * ~ '

' Section ~11 '

Section 11(b) would require the Commission to allow the State des.ignated as the site of a Federal repository to participate in any'NRC proceedi.ng on any

4 o o The Honorable Don Fuqua 5

' application.for NRC authorization of construction or operation of that reposi-tory.

The right of States to intervene as parties with full rights in Com-mission proceedings is already well-established by the Atomic Energy Act and Comission's regulations. This right to intervene is not limited to the State which would contain the site but also extends to a neighboring State which may be affected .usually by a facility near its border. Beyond 'this right, on several occasions the Comission has stated its intention to encou' rage State participation in NRC's license a' pplication review process which pre' cedes any formal proceeding. Such participation would go far beyond the State's current ability to coment or) Comission environmental impact statements. In a recent report to. Congress..*./..the Commission made the following recomendations to improve State participation: ,,

1. establishment of 'a' Federally financed planni.ng council consisting of State and Federal representatives. m

[2. establishment of a Federally funded State technical review capability.

3. improved procedures for Federal-State comunication,

' ' ' 1

4. establishment of a Federally funded grant program to allow a State chosen E

'as a repo'sitory site'to fully parti'cipate in the Federal waste management program, -

5. Federal consideration of local and State tran,sportation issues, and

6. l.egislation implementing a pr.ogram for improving State participation.

The Comission recomends that H.R.1852 be amended to implement this program for increasing State participation in the Federal nuclear waste management pro -

gram. The Comission also recomends.that participation in.NRC proceedings Q should be the prer.ogative of a " State" rather than a " State 1.egislature."

Section'13 '

Section 13(b) provides that the Chairman of the Comission shall prescribe re lations implementing H.R.1852'within 9 months of the date of its enactment.' gu- As noted above,'the C'ommission is a collegial body and the full Comission, not the Chairmarialone, would issue r,egulations. Although the NRC is prepar.ing such regulati'ons as expeditiously as possible, they will not be ready before early 1981. Therefore, the Comission recomends that Section 13(b) be amended to.

recognize /the Comission's collegial nature, and to allow the NRC. time to develop a consistent complete s'et of r.egulations. .

• l Means for Improving State Participation in the Siting, Licensing and Development of Fe'deral Nuclear Waste Facilities, NUREG-0539 (1979).

i

.o o

\

i I .

The Honorable Don Fuqua 6 i l

Section 13(d) provides a time limit for judicial review of "any regulation '!

promulgated under this Act". This provision may lead to disputes as to whether '

particular NRC regulations are promulgated under H.R.1852 or under the Atomic Energy Act, especially if such regu1'ations are of broader applicability. The Comission recommends that Section 13(d) be amended to eliminate this possible amb.iguity. -

l Section 14 t .

Section 14(b) would amend Section 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of.

-1974 to ' extend NRC 1.icensing authority to DOE facilities used to store spent nuclear fuel assemblies and transuranic wastes.

L In June 1978. the Commission expressed the consensus view that it already has authority to license DOE facilities for the storage and disposal of spent fuel

_ n . because such material constitutes high-level waste for the purpose of Section U 202(3) of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 (ERA). However, the Comis- ,

sion would welcom'e 1. egis ~1ation authority by. amending Section 202(3) to make '

, explicit reference To ensure that the NRC's authority would'

! extend over all spe.nttofuel, spentthefuel.

Comission recommends deleting the word ,

"assembl-l es". '

l1 'In addition, the Commission notes that Section 202(3) of the ERA may exclude from NRC licensing authority some DOE facilities.used to store foreign spent

! fuel delivered under acsubsequent arrangement, as. defined by the. Nuclear Non-L Proliferation Act of 1978 (NNPA). 42 'U.S.C. 216a. '(2)(E) . For example, fore.ign spent fuel generated f-rom uranium obtained outside the United Stater sould not result fro'm any activity licens~ed under the Atomic Energy Act (Act). Further-t more, .it is not clear .that DOE's importation of such fuel would require an NRC ,

1icense .or. that"the issuance tof an NRC-31 cense-(should one be-required) would--  !

l imply tilat such wastes fesult:from activities licensed under the'Act for the M~

. A>. purposes .:of .Secti on ;202 (3) :of :the -ERA. Bowever ,the storage and .' disposal of that fuel would present thelsame' hazards as'the. licensed storage and disposal of-domercial spent fuel. Con' s equently, .if Section 202(3) is' amended to extIend NRC licensing authority over spent fuel storage., that amendment should expMcitly authorize-NRC licensing of DOE facilities for the receipt and -

l storage of ' spent fuel-transferred under a subsequent arrangement entered into l l pursuant to the NNPA. l l- The following revised version of Section 202(3) incorporates the Comission's recomendat' ions, and is consistent with the position. it has adopted since June  ;

~1978. It also implements the Comission's understanding of Congressional intent in this area. 'In' addition, I would like to point out that the specific reference to spent fuel'-in.Section 202(3) suggests that a s.imilar' explicit

- reference be made in .Section 202(4).

'NRC' Proposed' Revision'of'Section'202(3)

(3) Facilities used primarily for the receipt and storage of high-level 4

. radioactive wastes or spent nuclear fuel resulting from activities licensed under such Act..or spent nuclear fuel from foreign reactors transferred under a subsequent. arrangement authorized under such Act.

.v. - ., . - . _ - - . - - . . _ . _ - - - . - -

Q Q l The Honorable Don Fuqua 7 i

i Regarding the disposal of transuranic wastes, the Comission believes that its licensing authority should be extended to new DOE facilities for that purpose regardless of the source of such waste. The licensing of existing DOE waste facilities would'present practical difficulties for NRC. NRC's issuance of i

licenses for such facilities would carry the implication that they met some reasonably stringent set of standards that might have been established pros-

] pectively, had the facilities been subject to licensing at the time they were

originally proposed and built.

• Consequently, the Commission believes that i

NRC's role in regulating such existing faci.11 ties should take the form of review and conc'urrence in any. safety'-related cha,nges proposed by DOE.

i Section 14(d) refers to State authority to inspect nuclear facilities pursuant

! to State law. If this provision means only that State representatives should have 'an opportunity to visit the site and view the activities conducted there -

from time to' time, in accordance with Comission .r.egulations, it should so pro-

. vide. On the other hand, if this provision provides that the activities should 9

i Q ~in some way be subject to State r.egulation, the Commission cannot at:this time support Section 14(d) because such State regulation has not received the careful j evaluation it requires. Consequently, the'T. omission recomends that' Section

14(d) be amended as su.ggestedeabove. - -

Sincerely.

1

[ '

_. a Jost ph M. Hendr.ie i

n

!. l Q

j

v. .

4

. . . 1

~

I i

I

' " ' L.{

..;.,.,...y -

[....,. ..

... " "d:22.T*::.b .? Min l;.nt'" ~""- ~

2.". ..x, . .~ .. . . . -

3 bENL"= '" 'bl.'E= EE'#

T5'"E'Ui ~*

. . . . . . . . - . . . _ . . . " " . f::G.

i:[5A.~@

~

..j;,.,... - . . . . . . . . _ . . . .

.; .g. . .

2 r* i~ S .

n===

....L

...f.../....

"==

. . . - ..-..-.......j. -~

-~ :n== ==5= " "=.ii=;:... . , :::4" .

=": - " * " -

,.;p:::

~

=*"- _y:L . - x '--"  :;g;;; "-

Q

~

55=.5 = = = - - .- -

y

:E= . . . . . . . . _ . .

. . . . ... ""~::1.

=

J. " "

_f.' ~ ~ ~

=.: =u

"-- - " - " " =

=

M... * * *

. . . . _ . . . :isc- ':"'"'"

..._....."?7= ' ' '

. ~3 ;, ,g... ..X .. ._

....z.,._.;..... .j.......... .... ._..., ..f:j:. ..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . g , s. .. , . . , . . . . . . , . , , , . . _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ _ _

'"' ~ "

.z;p.....-..... ....

.. ._.._.....;., t ,,

="= ==.. :w. . -

ur -

OWEh - . . . . - . . .

~*

• -

• u* s. soygANMENT PRM ", q y g , ,, e '.G., #WN ~

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

J w.n f, gr ag.:tc.M.M *Ac? *m .

w._w yc=2 nectwao

~'~Tua..

a '

= :

. - , g ' p.

_ . . . - ~-"*'9___-T DATl OF DOCUMEN oAfg

_,=;.. _

____.h ,

6/6/79 , W _79_

o, . . .

msr :3="u==

- = =

~ 6/5/79 ...o

. von, ,

C. i b.er, OGC, u,. .

XXX,

^

OTH(R-

CC ~

omiGJ ,

1 oAfg ANSWi8EU . . . . . . . . . . .

~*"R" "

Comission . '

Ac,oM oceMA v 0 c c ""

pg ,,v.

6/14/79 ,

"E NO' Action NECEMAM O< ,,

. =;;7...=....

~"~

F4E CODE:

. s POST OF FICE , DATE '

W -. RECf wtD BY DATE ptG NO - pgggRRtp TO ,

- s. .=:::. ' i :". . .

3T,oM ~ s. v -' s

~22 -

J. Bunting 6/7 w T :-~~

nments on' H.R.1852 A Bill to"- _

avide for Permanent Federa) -

pository for Nuclear Wasty 65Umt5 , { 3.hy. }

."=~.n=...

p , -

? =.=~:

3, - m = ~

, 2.. . .:.s.. in=

,e r .. _

. ., , J=.E...

+* . .t.

uAans , .

f s y ,t . = . . .

. . .?. 1 t ,4

.e ,  ; . _ ,

, g=={c=

2.%2=:-

ronuto.Nac.nes ..

Tan p =

- ' -'

• gAtt CCMTROt. FORM _

1 l

t

'* g $ NUCLlhR neoutATony couwsso" . . ":::':::.:..:,: -

r .r _.._.. _. , . . .

-- r gr . . . . fd'. =b .55.3 - .. -[: ii :i. Nil.i 9.Irf' . ,

. .i [. . . . .. 3 ' i[.{..[ }  : 'P

[

TF M-l

~ ";..:: ==: ,.

- :." - -- 7

~=""

. . . . . . ... .. . .E55?~ . . .:::::::

"W

<? ":::::: '"::::.  :::W::. "';~ ": M"'O

..--.- " . - . ~ . - - -

. . L.

• ' . . .. . .. . ..' .if..'!I.' . "..~ ." "

. . . . . . . ..:""':'.~..........

{ '

• 5

. . . . . . *.-.2. . . " . ..= ::" .::

.t;; lll,k;;; y;tz e _,

. 5.;.[i

..;., .hil. :h..~-5.._5 .~.?. .[. ..'.? 5. ?:E**? ::.5...:.  :::5.. x.;.;.;.

... . . . . . . . ... .  :;. ._;t. =... :i.l.[..1

. *:::J..=..

.M.

. . ..

ll[.::'

y:... . . . "..;'l.5. !!

..  ?.){:?. :T.l)]

. .. . .. .:; . . . = . . ;;.q-. . ..

.; g.. .; ;;, ..:g. .;,. .y(,;

.-p._,

_ nr.: """:: ==:

"~ " . . " . . . . .55?? " I!k=

~

b= ":7": ._:p._; :ag _

. p. ..;.;-. 3 ,_ __ =:k=::.

. . . . . . . . 9; SE Ei- 9 23-

== ==~ ..==; ==::-  ::

.zli:

35 .,....

.: : .;.  :.;=._.;.;

3..

~ = :::

[ *U_',

-.(( *,

.::: ::..-=

b' ~

2 "*:" ~T. _ , , ,

E."d. .:. d. """

g. .

. . ".'.~.".

. . . . . ..::=.;;;s.

_; . . . . ". ~;";;;."~=

...,.. * . . . . . .Uia =. . .. '., . . _ . . . _ -

y;;.;;;;

.._..........g. . . . . . . . .

g...,;,.u.

. m. . .:;; .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

g.;,." * * " " "

.": 2;  :::,;;;;-:::

. ....::.a. :.

. . . . . . c.... .. . . .

g.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.- -- -