ML20211F419
| ML20211F419 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1979 |
| From: | Hubacek W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Reinmuth G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F241 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-378 NUDOCS 8610310155 | |
| Download: ML20211F419 (15) | |
Text
___ __
='g tr
/
.' m .m . .
,. ; ;.'M ! sii av4N r.A:A carve, suits teco - '
. - No. 50-498 '
50-499 '
). w...g g h.
. }-
- .~-
.W.ORANDCM POR: G. W. R* *--nth, Assis ta=: Direc:or, RCI --- 1q ,A TEsC: jfg.ig '. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&IS 3:a:ch _ ..
g y W
. . C:oss=a=, chiaf, Proj ec:s Sec:1== :; . ._..... . .
FRCE: W. G. Rubacek, Raactor Inspector, Proj ec:s See:1c=
SU3JECI: RES?cNSE TO COMMISSICNER BRADFOR.D'S INQuuAT REIATID TO A NEWS?APIR AR'"!CI.E ABOUT TEI SCUTE IIIAS PROJECT (AI E06000447)
Pursua=: to the reques in the above Actie: I:e= Con::cl Fo=, dated October 19, 1979, the felleving i=fer=a:1c= is provided to clarify stata=ents ces:ained i
- he evspaper a :1cle referred to by Cc issione: Bradford:
I. ne " surprise 1: spec: ion" =entioned i= the ar:1cle was as an=cunced i spectics of :he South Texas P cject Quali:7 Assurance Progra= '
(Repor: No. 50-498/79-13; 50-499/79-13) which was perfo =ed Augus: 6-10, ,
- 1979, in accorda ce with the requir =e
- :s of MC 2512, Procedure 352003, "Mid Ter= CP QA I spec:1cs." The i=spectics was a==ou=ced to assure the presence of appropriate licensee persensel who vere contac ed duri=g the inspec:1cs. n e i=spectics was perfer=ed by four inspectors - two i
, Regie: IV Reac:or Inspec:crs, the Resident Reactor I: spec:cr designated f c= Regie: III and a = amber of :he Perfer=ance Appraisal Tea = f:c=
Ragio: II. n e inspection was not c dared by the NRC as a reaction to the "C35 Maga:ise" progra= although =e=bers of :he C35 tea = vere a: :he Sou:h Texas Proj ect site during the 1: spec:ics and sc=e of the NRC 1: spec:ic ac:ivities were fd1 ed by :he C3S ca= ara crew.
II. Allegations by Mr. Swayze concerning the bea:ing of a QC 1: spec:cr 1:
July 1977 and subsequent failure of QC i= spec ::s to perfor= inspectices vere i=vestiga:ed (Raport.s 50,498/77-08 and 50-498/79-14; 50-499/79-14) by Regio: IT but could =ct be substantiated.
ne statement, "nere was some harass =es: of quality inspectors,"
no= burg said, "So ve we== to 3rev: & Poot and told the= to do sc=e*dag about 1: and I believe things go: a ic: be::er," appare::1y refers :o a
=a= age =e:: =ee:1=g (=eeting agenda and Repor: 50-498/78-13; 50-499/78 A::ach=en: 1) held Augus: 15, 1978, by Regien !7 vith responsible Ecusten l
' 8610310155 860930 PDR FOIA $n- (y GARDE 85-378 PDR i N
-_ _ - . . - - - - - . --- -- - n' ~ - -
73
( 0. *.' F,ei =c:h Oc: 'oer 26, IU3 70 Lighting and Power Cc=pany representatives, The =anage=en: = eating was held to discuss NRC cc=ce=s resul:i=g frc= an 1 ves:1gation of alleged irregular 1:1es (Reper: 50-498/78-12; 50-499/78 A::ach=a c 2). ~
Although the allegacious could not be substancia:ad a=d so ite=s of ec -
c==plia:ca vere idas:1fied during the invas: iga:ics, Regie: 7 represe:-
ca':1ves e.rpressed conce= that apparen: lov a=ployee =crale ceuld have adversa effects en the quality of saiacy-rela:ed work. 3:ce: 6 Ree personnel did not participate is tha =aa:1=g.
A Hous:cc Lighting a d Power Cc=pany representative stated that =atters discussed during the =esti=g veuld be pursued. and that Region IV vould be advised of significa= devalep=ents. The licensas sub=1::ed a vri::e:
response on October 3,1978, (Attach =ent 3) which addressed E&P's respense to :he allegatic=s presen:ed in Repor: 50-498/78-12; 50-499/78-12.
Regie IV his reviewed the licensea's corrective actions during subseque :
i=spections and has confir=ed that the actions have been effective.
p 'J. G. Eubacek. Rea::=r
? cjects Sectics Inspec:::
A2 ' ests:
- 1. Mee:i=g Agenda (8/15/78) a d Inspectie Repc::
No. 50-498/78-13; 50-599/78-13
- 2. Inspectie Reper No. 50-498/78-12; 50-499/78-12
- 3. E&?'s Respc=se to Inspection Repor: No.
50-498/78-12; 50-499/78-12 v
l
i 1 t 4 Draf t 10/31/79
, c_e ~ ' " '?
NEMORANDUit FOR: Co==Issioner Bradford ':: :) , '
~. -
FRO!!: V. Stello,
- _7 ; :t? '? ,
SUBJECT:
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ;';;' i?CA'E2 This is in response to your ce=orandum to me dated October 10, 1979, concerning the newspaper article related to the South Texas Project and your question con-cerning enforce =ent action following a Region IV investigation of the alleged beating of a Brown and Root QC inspector. ,
An incident, involving the alleged beating of a QC inspector which occurred during the ss=e time fra=e indicated in the news article, was investigated July 6-8, 1977, by Region III and IV personnel but was not sub'stantiated. The investigation did reveal that,
.. .s ,.2.. .
according to witnesses, a Brown and Root QC inspector and a construction fore-man did enter into a heated verbal argu=ent and, during the ensuing exchange of words and the grabbing of the QC inspector by the collar, one of the men slipped on so=e reinforcing steel and the other fell on top of him; no serious kdA injuries were experienced by either can.g The construction fore =an voluntarily terminated his ecploy=ent following this incident, thus the licensee considered _,
no further action was required. Inas=uch as no ite=s of nonco=pliance with NRC require =~ents were identified during this investigation, no enfo,rcecent action was taken. -'
d 3 c .
The visit to Brown and Root (constructor) referred to in your 6e=orandu= and .
in the last paragraph of the news article was, in fact, a manage =ent meeting i
held on August 15, 1978, by the Region IV Construction Branch Chief and other regional representatives with the responsible Itouston Lighting and Power Company Vice President (licensee) and ce=bers of .his staff. , e- The canage=ent
' pa ,
5 ?_1
5 . . --
- tO
't meeting was held .to discuss NRC concerns which arose as the result of another Region IV investigation conducted on July 25-28, 1978, of alleged QA/QC irregularities at the South Texas Project. The Region IV investigation efforts
, did not substantiate the alleged irregularities and no items of nonco=pliance with NRC requirements were found; however, there was evidence of low morale of Brown and Root QA/QC personnel. The possibility of adverse impact of the apparent low corale on inspection of safety-related activities was considered sufficient justification for the meeting. The meeting resulted in the implementation of positive corrective actions by the licensee which were determined by ongoing NRC site inspections to be effective in correcting many of the major factors contributing to the morale problem.
N Ir RIV gg ,
WCHueacek/nh RACrossean WCSeid e 10/31/79 10/31/79 10/31/79.
l l
'l .
7G r
W&k ;y f1 V
& ,n saeu W p w ~p xsum u.xRa, M M & &
M - 26 A def &,
oc h h ya 7 y
%ye 9 M pd.
B . Sch. oaf %~.xfA P9 4G2ss;f Gc a s p m &AJ&c4 -
M e y p & w )- x /9>>_
a XQa
& W n se.
y% s % 9 Q,
~
l wMMe;qM9 W -
l / v Q4 // /519?% % M&m M S
1 M Q '2 h xsx m a - z &up 7.xs ~
a p. arm, y p sL
' AV N "f *L,3 xfa y A , / >
- Y
?. " n .XGs
/r- aM ACd.xR3 - ('
M & cp w ~? A p f4mc axw pm m l A K n.J D %
4 4 Ma c-e+%~4 f,xu?na-e 2 -Q st]
't 77 W
w rae' 0
- m. u 2- ,
aev - -
s.Lo du'
% db' wM
'?23Lu Apd%m ud M c+ m f ,A V ,
9 w knm, uofa y & w TA /mc m a%- 4 ~ ~A.%lE//
l> m Se'7<~eu.' 70s< e
@C ,
( x w >. x x s a m p .
l l
l l
l
D (B A V V ( _a
'5 draft 11/7/79 h Ecc J~
L-:* . _L4 MD!ORANDUM FOR: Cocraissioner Bradford .- - 2 g 8 FROM: V. Stello,
_ . C s .'i? L'T '," ."
' ' ~
SUBJECT:
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE This is in response to your me=orandum to me dated October 10, 1979, concerning the newspaper article related to the South Texas Project and your question con-cerning enforcement action following a Region IV investigation of the alleged beating of a Brown and Root QC inspector. An incident, involving the alleged beating of a QC inspector which occurred during the same time frame indicated in the news article, was investigated July 6-8, 1977, by Region II and IV personnelbutwasnotsubsta/ntiated. The investigation did reveal that, according to witnesses, a Brown and Root QC inspector and a construction fore-O!> T O 'n. 1c , ' ' * *.' .
man did enter into a heated verbal argument and, during the ensuing exchange 7
of words and the grabbing of the QC inspector by the collar, one of the men slipped on some reinforcing steel and the other fell on top of him; no serious injuries were experienced by either man. The QQ inspector was sent to a
%"*' 0 '"
L# O k '
i m tJ.a w kS h ./d fr hospita for observation -for-possiblesinjur$e&ab{ig result from this incident,
.h b a *Y . j L a,..<fs >.k.A e .yC~ pw 92.4 -) c .
We )/either Region IV nor the licensee have knowledge of the hospitalization ,
( of a QC inspector because of a beating by construction personnel.
The allegation that Brown & Root QC inspectors were involved in continuous card games for several months in 1977 and left the card games only to sign insp,:ction
! records when reciuested by construction was investigated by Region IV September 11-14, 1979. Nine individuals interviewed during the investigation stated that they had
<s-i ff&
- .g f
\ q ( ,. .
3
.i 73
\ no knowledge of the card games and the alleged failure of QC inspectors to perform inspections during the period in 1977. Two of the nine individuals stated that they had knowledge of card games which took place in 1976 but these games were not extensive and took place during periods of little construction activity with no adverse impact on safety-related activities. This allegation was not sub-stantiated.
Region IV investigations revealed that some of Mr. Swayze's allegations concerning Cadwelding and other civil construction activities were substantiated; however, the alleged discrepancies had previously been identified by the licensee's QA
& sv.sif ,'s % w M % 3 2 program and g in accordance with established procedures. No items of noncompliance with h*RC requirements were identified during these investigations.
The visit to Brown and Root (constructor) ref erred to in your me=orandum and in the last paragraph of the news article was, in fact, a management meeting held on August 15, 1978, by the Region IV Construction Branch Chief and other regional representatives with the responsible Houston Lighting ~and Power Company Vice President (licensee) and members of his staff. The management meeting was held l
6
Y'
/,
( (-
3 80 DRAFT draft 11/7/79 "
4 ( :<._
..;~.7...
t
: ; j J .26 I HD10R.O~dUM FOR: Co:=aissioner Bradford FROM: V. Stello, -~, \ . ,. ,; ? /. f'f.--
SUBJECT:
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE This is in response to your me=orandum to me dated October 10, 1979, concerning the newspaper article related to the South Texas Project, and your question con-cerning enforce =ent action following a Region IV investigation of the alleged beating of a Brown and Root QC inspector. An incident, involving the alleged beating of a QC inspector which occurred during the sa=e time fra=e indicated in the news article, was investigated July 6-8, 1977, by Region III and IV personnel but was not substantiated. ne investigation did reveal that, according to'vitnesses, a Brown and Root QC inspector and a construction fore-man did enter into a heated verbal argument on June 30, 1979, and, during the ensuing exchange of words and the grabbing of the QC inspector by the collar, one of the men , slipped on some reinforcing steel and the other fell on top of hi=; no serious injuries were experienced by either man. ne QC inspector was sent to a hospital for two - three days for observation because he co=plained of back pain but he was released by the doctor to return to work with no physical impaircent. Neither Region IV nor the licensee have knowledge of the hospitalization of a QC inspector because of a beating by construction personnel.
The allegation that Brown & Root QC inspectors were involved in continuous card gn=es for several months in 1977, and left the card games only to sign inspection records when requested by construction, was investigated by Region IV September 11-:
N F <
.r
(.
( 81 Y
1979. Nine individuals interviewed during the investigation stated that they had no knowledge of the card games and the alleged failure of QC inspectors to perfort inspections during the period in 1977. "No of the nine individuals stated that they had knowledge of card gates which took place in 1976 but these games were not extensive and took place during periods of little construction activity with no adverse impact on safety-related activities. This allegation was not sub-stantiated.
Region IV investigations revealed that some of Mr. Swayze's allegations concerning Cadwelding and othe'r civil construction activities were substantiated; however, the alleged discrepancies had previously been identified by the licensee's QA program and corrective acticas were implemented in accordance with established procedures. No items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were identified during these irreestiga tions.
The visit to Brown and Root (constructor) referred to in your memorandum and in the last paragraph of the news article was, in fact, a management meeting held on August 15, 1978, by the Region IV Construction Branch Chief and other regional l
t representatives with the responsible Houston Lighting and Power Company Vice President (licensee) and members of his staff. The management meeting was held to discuss NRC concerns which arose as the result of another Region IV investi-gation conducted on July 25-28, 1978, of alleged QA/QC irregularities at the South Texas Project. The Region IV investigation efforts did not substantiate the alleged irregularities and no items of noncompliance with NRC requirements were found; however, there was evidence of low morale of Brown and Root QA/QC l
l l
( 3_
(
82 b y personnel. The possibility of adverse impact of the apparent low morale on inspection of safety-related activities was considered suf ficient justification
- for the meeting. The meeting resulted in the imple=entation of positive corrective actions by the licensee which were determined by ongoing NRC site inspections to be ef fective in correcting many of the major factors contributing to the morale problem.
4 9
e e
f f
g#
l . .
'S ' '
- e &{ . _ .. ( .. w
...~..,v. ,
Ik
,7
- FI' .
MEMORANDUM FOR: Commissioner Bradford --
.'Om:0 ':'. f. 59.-
r W. J. Dircks, Acting Executive Director for Operations THRU:
A FRCM: Victor Stello, Jr. , Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT This is in response to your memorandum to me dated October 10, IS79 which was in the process of being answered when twelve new allegations came to light on the South Texas Project. As a result of these new allegations which were repetitive of some of the earlier allegations, the long history of these allegations, and the licensee's failure to take effective corrective action, I elected to initiate a special investigation under Headquarters direction. As a c:nsecuence of this action, I have delayed responding to ycur Oct:ber 10 memorancum until our investigation was c:mpleted.
At the Commissica briefing held on April 15, 1980, the results of the investigation were presented along.with seme of the background information en
. this pr: ject. As you are aware I indicated at the briefing that we were censicering a civil penalty to address the items of nonc:mpliance uncovered during the investigation and an order to assure proper corrective action sc tna ne future werk wculd have a better chance of being ccm:leted in c:nformance with regulatory requirements.
The final enforcement package has new been ecceleted and consists of a
$100,000 civil penalty and an order to show cause wny safety related construc-tien snculc not be stopced, in 90 days or until certain information is catainec and action is taken. It is c:nsicered that these are a::repriate actions for the circumstances. A copy of the enfercement package is enclosed (Enciesure 1).
In answer to ycur cuestion concerning the article in the Washingt:n Pos- in Oct::er 1979 as to wny "no enforcement acticn strenger tnan a visit ec:urrec",
tne ex:lanatien is based en the results of previous investigations. Allega-tiens cf in-imidation and tnreats were received en August 8, 1979 wnien no ceu: Or:m:tec :ne Fest article. The investigaticn re::rt (IE Re:crt 50-49E/79-14; 50-499/79-14) accressing these broke tne allega-icns c:wn int:
ten (10) se:arate items (Enclosure 2). As a result of tais earlier investiga-tien a notice of violation against Oriterion V of 10 CFR 50, Acpencix 5 was CONT /CT: :i . E. Shec aker, RCI
~: u ::. g g/.}. F f o79 g #
.- ; y J _ ,. .-_ 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
(.
F. 'mmissioner Bradford 84 issued to the licensee which identified the nonccmpliance as an infraction.
Shortly after this investigation report was completed and released, the additional allegations (November 2, 1979) were received. These precipitated the special team investigation which produced the findings that support the -
current enforcement action.Section II of the current Order to Show Cause describes the history of the project and basically indicates that no stronger enforcement action than notices of violation for infractions had been taken since the earlier investigative findings had not substantiated harassment, threats, or intimidation. It was not until the special investigation had been conducted that we were able to substantiate harassment, threats and intimida-tion. For your information a su:rmary of the enforcement for this facility is provided as Enclosure 3.
C:'icim:1 :..'.c .d by
{ictor!talla ,,
Victor Stello, Jr.
Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosures:
- 1. Enforcement Package
- 2. IE Report 50-498/79-14;
. 50-499/79-14
- 3. Enforcement History, Oct. '76 - Mar. '80 cc w/encis:
Chair:1an Ahearne Cemmissioner Gilinsky Ccenissioner Xennecy Cccmissioner Hencrie W. J. Direxs, Acting E00 S. Chilk, SECY Oistribution:
E. K. Cornell, E00 K. V. Seyfrit, RIV IE Reading R. G. Smith, ECO W. C. Seicle, RIV G. Ertter (ECC-7551)
J. F. Murray, E*D M. Licitra, IE V. Stello, IE R. E. 'Shewmaker, IE C. Them::sen, IE Central Files H. O. Thern::urg, IE E00 Reading G. Reinmuth, IE IE Files . fg kFU:SM RCI:IE $IC IE Okb:I.I. ED 00f 0: E::
5/2/S0 REShewmaxer GWReinmutn HOThorn::urg JPMurray RCDeYo'ung Vftelle JCE L(2) 5/ f/SO 5/[/80 5/}/80 5/ 80 5/J/80 5/7/EC 5/
. . . ~.
O[ 'e, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j' ' , ,--,.3g// rj REGION IV . O j_
[o.5 rg/ f 611 RYAN PLAZA drive.SulTE 1C00 ARUNCToN, TEXAS 76012
% * .[/ *P j
Nove=ber 27, 1979 socket No. 50-498 ' -
50-499 MEMORANDUM FOP.: File FROM: W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch SU3 JECT: TELE?EONE CALL TROM MAGAZINE REPORTER FIGAPSING SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT (ST?), DN 50-498;30-499 On Nove=ber 21, 1979, Ms. Sara Clark, reporter for the Houston City Magazine, called to discuss the Dan Sway e allegations regarding ST?. She specifically asked if records ha'd, in fact, been falsified which raised questions about the quality of the plant. I infor=ed her that we were unable to substantiate this allegation. She also asked if we had investigated all of Sway e's allegations. I infor=ed her that we had.
Q' ----- - -
W. C. Seidle, Chief Reactor Eonstruction and i Engineering Support Branch cc: W. A. Crossman C. E. Wisne H. S. Phillips W. G. Hubacek / L L_ .
l .. - :. _ LS _
.} .
e e _ 4#
00 0C tf-2'6 , c
r
.c , . ..-_._.__..., . - . _ _ _ _ _ .. __ ....
8G jl c_ c k' :; ' 3 ~ ' ~
draft 11/9/79 { : -L,:-
^
2C)
.-- 3,s
~o
. - J.
- f
^'r Senator Lloyd Bentsen 'l . *: 2;g:7ER
'~'- z.?JT'.MI .
912 Federal Building Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Senator Bentsen:
The following is in response to the inquiry you received fro = C. S. Cage of Berger, Texas.
There have been four incidents called to the attention of the Office of Inspection and Enfor'ce=ent, Region IV, Arlington, Texas (Region IV) which have involved alleged threats, harassement and assault by Brown and Root construction personnel of QC inspectors at the South Texas Project.
The first incident involved an altercation between a construction foreman and a Civil QC inspector en June 30, 1977 (both e=ployees of Brown and Root). There was a verbal exchange, the fore =an grabbed the QC inspector by the collar and both fell on reinforcing steel on which they were standing. The foreman fell on the QC inspector. The QC inspector co=plained of back pains and was sent to the hospital for two-three days for observation. He was then released by j the doctor to return to vork with no physical da= age. On July 6-8, 1977, Region IV investigated.the altercation; there was no' beating. The fore =an involved in the altercation i==ediately ter=inated his e= ploy =ent.
1 The second incident involsad a verbal altercation between a construction engineer and a Civil QC inspector on March 7, 1979 (both e=ployees of Brown and Root). The incident was reported to the Office c~ Inspection and Enforcement on March 7, 1979, 1
l by an unidentified individual. Region IV investigated the incident on March 20-13 l 1979. There was no injury nor hospitalization identified. The QC ins ector is I 'DD
.'. ~; . - * *
~
- ....'~~.-- " '::'. 7~~-
.- r: . .
87 still working at the South Texas Froject, the construction engineer was terminated.
The third incident, which occurred on November 1,1979, involved a verbal exchange between an electrical helper and an electrical QC inspector over the use of a ladder. The helper would not loan the ladder to the QC inspector. The QC inspector thought the helper had a knife under his coat. It is not known if the knife was visible. There was no physical exchange (no injuries and no hospitalization). The electrical helper was terminated. This matter, which the licensee called 't'o the attention of Region IV on November 7,1979, will soon be investigated by Region IV.
A fourth incident, which was reported to the Region IV Resident Reactor Inspector on Nove=ber 2, 1979, involves allegations concerning threats, harassment and intimidation directed at QC inspectors e= ployed at the site. Although there was no physical abuse alleged, Region IV is presently conducting ah investi-gation and, consistent with NRC policy, the details associated with the allegations can not be disclosed while the investigation is in progress. The findings will be docu=ented in a forthcoming investigation report, copies of which will be placed in.the Public Docu=ent Room located at 1717 H Street, Washington, D.C., and the Local Public Docu=ent Room located in the County Courthouse, Bay City, Texas.
Based on information provided by the licensee and through Regien IV investigations, there is no evidence, to date, that any beating of QC inspectors has taken place at the South Texas Project.
RIV N M <v RACrossnan WCSeidle M WCHubacek/nh p 11/9/70 Rl/0/79 11/9/79
'I k .. '
e.
88
, / g UNITED STATES i %' . p*f lb s
,,;,gI fi NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R EGION IV
- ,8
'r s11 RYAN PLAtA oRIVE.sulTE 1000
%g j AR LINGToN. TEX As 76012 In Reply Refer To: * #"*#7 '
RI'.*
Docket No. 50-498/Rpt. 80-02 '
50-499/Rp t. 80-02 [ ..
cd :"- r g. " ..
.: ;l?li ?it,.. _ N ' q~
a*
Houston Lighting and Power Company .: '
i:4" ATTN: Mr. E. A. Turner, Vice President Power Plant Construction and : I.1 U U~'.W Technical Services Post Office Box 1700 ' A " 'I OTES Houston, Texas 77001 Gentlemen:
This refers to the inspection conducted by Messrs. W. G. Eubacek and D. P. To linson of our staff during the period February 5-8, 1980, of activities authorized by NRC Construction Pe:=its No. CPPR-123 and 129 for the South Texas Project, Units No. I and 2, and to the discussion of our findings with Mr. T. D. Stanley and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection.
I Areas exa=ined during the inspection and our findings are discussed in the enclosed inspecti n report. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of selective exa=ination of procedures and representative records, interviews with personnel, and observations by the inspectors.
Within the scope of the inspection, no items of noncompliance were identified.
We have also exa=ined actions you have taken with regard to previously identified inspection findings. The status of these items is identified in paragraph 2 of the enclosed report.
One new unresolved ites is identified in paragraph 4 of the enclosed report.
In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosed inspection report vill be placed in the NRC's Public Docu=ent Room. If the report contains any infor=ation that you believe to be proprietary, it is necessary that you sub=lt a written application to this office, within 20 days of the date of this letter, requesting that such infor=ation be withheld from public disclosure.
The application must include a full statement of the reasons why it is cla1=ed that the infor=ation is proprietary. The application should STAFF EXHIBIT NO. 50 h
l 9 -
l 0
cM tg. - - '
g0
_ _ _ . . _ . _ . __ , . . - _ . _ . - , - . . . _ _ _ , . , _ ____----_-.-r-.._-- . - , - . _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . . - - _ - - - , _ , . . , _,
1 .
89
, Houston Lighting and Power Company ,,
7,.orua n 21, 1980 be prepared so that any proprietary infor=acion identified is contained in an enclosure to the applicacion, since :he application vi:hout the enclosur2 vill also be placed in the Public Docu=en: Room. If we do not hear from you in this regard within the specified period, the repor: vill be placed in the Public Document Room.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspec:1on, we vill be pleased to discuss them with you.
Sincerely, v }//f{/ &p k*. C. Seid. Chief Reze or Cons rue:1on and Engineering Suppor: Branch
Enclosure:
II Inspection Repor: No. 50-498/80-02 50-499/80-02 1
9
. . , _ , - , . . , _ _ _ . - . _ - , ym ,m_ . _ _ _ _ . ,_ _ _ _, __ ,,m , .,_,.,,_7_ _ - _ _ __ , , - _ , , , . _ _ . _ - , . , , - , - . - ,
I. ,
90
=
- U. S. NUCLEAR RICULATORY CO.WISSION 0?i1CE OF INS?ECTION AND ENFORCEMENT REGION IV This Repor Con:ains Investiga:1on Inforna: ion (Paragraphs 4, 5, 8 & 9)
Report No. 50-498/80-02; 50-499/80-02 Docke: No. 50-498; 50-499 Category A2 Licensee: Houston Ligh:ing & Power Company Pos: Office Box 1700 Hous:en, Texas 77001 Tacill:y Na=e: Sou:h Texas Project, Units 1 & 2 Inspection a::
South Texas Projec:, Ma:agorda County, Texas Inspec:1on Condue:ed: February 5-8, 1980 Inspec: ors: _ =_ 1 W. G. Hubacek Reactor Inspec:or, Projects See: 1on 8D (paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 & 11) Da:e s '
l
'g. P. To:dinson, Reac:or Inspec:or, Engineering Suppor:
L- /m 1
See:1on (paragraphs 2, 6, 7, 8 & 9) Date l
Approved: ;; --
W. A. Crossman, Chief, Proj ec:s See:1on 8
Date R. E. Hall, Chief. Engineering Suppor: See:1on > h.fm Date '
l i
,i l /b' l Sob [I
4 S
91 i
Insoection Sn-i v:
_Inseeetion on Februarv 5-8, 1980 (Recor: No. 50-498/80-02: 50-499/80-02)
Areas Insoected:
Unannounced inspection of cons: rue:1on ac:ivities including:
review of procedures and observation of verk related to reac:or coolant piping; review of licensee ac:fons on previous inspec: ion findings: and investigation of matters that had poten:ial i= pac: on quality of cons: rue:1on. The inspection involved forty-eigli: inspector-hours by two NRC inspectors.
Results: No ite::ts of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
9
. l
> 1 ,
1 92 g DETAILS a
- 1. Persons Contacted Princioal Licensee Enclevees 4
- L. D. L'ilson, Site QA Supervisor
- T. J. Jordan, QA Lead Engineer J. W. Sovard, QA Specialist Other Personnel U. D. Douglas, Project Manager, Brown & Root (B&R)
- J. I. Adkins, QA Procurement Supervisor, B&R I The II inspectors also contacted other licensee and contractor employees including members of the QA/QC and engineering staffs.
- Denotes those attending the exit interview.
- 2. Licensee Action on Previous Insoec,-ion Findines (open) Unresolved Item (50-498/78-18; 50-499/78-18): Storage of Per=anent Plant Equipment. The II inspector was informed by a licensee representative that this =atter concerning storage and =aintenance of equipment has been resolved except fer achieving satisfactory responses from area =anagers relative to discrepancies identified in their areas.
! This matter vill re=ain open pending resolution of the discrepancies and subsequent review by IE.
(open) Unresolved Ita= (50-498/79-14; 50-499/79-14): Frequency of Inspection Required by B&R Procedure CCP-12. The II inspector observed that incensistencias regarding frequency of inspections required for waterproofing membrane still axist in paragraph 3.4.3.1 and Appendix B i
' of Procedure CCP-12. A licensee representative stated that chase incon-i sistencies vill be promptly resolved by revision of the procedure.
This =atter will re=ain open pending revision of CCP-12 and subsequent review by LE.
i (closed) Unresolved Ita= (50-498/79-12; 50-499/79-12):
Anchor Bolt Material. l= proper use of testing equipment Identification of and questionable i
! identification of anchor bolt material was identified on nonconformance report (NCR) S-M-ll51.
Since the NCR vas issued, Brown & Root established and issued Procedure CCP-24 for hardness testing. Forty-two QC personnel attended a training course for the correct operation of the acuipment and inplenantation of the procedure. All previously inspected anchor bolts
1' &
i . .
b3 vere ratested and positive material identity esta'blished. A total of fifty-seven installed anchor bolts were ratested and all future testing i vill be monitored under 5A840-SQ-14A (Anchor Bol: Integri:y Verification Program).
An approved procedure is in use, inspectors have been trained and all questionable bolts reinspected.
This item is considered resolved. .
1 .
j
- 3. Site Tour The II inspec:or valked through various areas of the site to observe construe ion activities and to inspect housekeeping and equipment storage.
The II inspector observed that Centrifugal Charging Pump 1A located in the Uni: 1 Mechanical / Ele'etrical Auxiliary Building has been cleaned and was free frem the sandblasting dus: previously noted during IE inspection 79-22.
1 The II inspector also observed that the Reactor Containment Tan Cooler fans previously located in Kelly Enclosure Level B storage area. The II inspec:or was"A" have been moved in:o a informed that efforts to i
upgrade Kelly Enclosure "A" to meet Level 8 storage requirements have been abandoned.
No items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
I Talsification of Personnel Records bv Brevu & Roo: OC Insoector i on January 18, 1980, the Resident Reactor Inspector (RR!) was infor=ed by a licensee representative that Br wn & Root had ter=inated the e=ploymen:
of a Level II coating QC inspector for falsification of persennel records.
The former QC inspector had used an arsumed name and failed to state his past cri=inal record in his application for employment at the South Texas Project. Brown & Root became aware of the for=ar QC inspector's criminal record after the individual was apprehended for a traffic violation on January 15, 1980, and the local police discovered that he was an escaped convict using an assumed name.
Brown & Root terminated the employment of the QC inspec:or on January 17, 1980. The former QC inspector was returned to the control of authorities who previously had jurisdiction over his imprisonment.
The II inspec:or examined resul:s of the licensee's review of the former QC inspector's credentials which had been conducted to deter =ine if the individual's education and work experience stated in his application were valid.
- The II inspector observed evidence that on January 29, 1980, the licensee had verified the individual's education and experience by con ac
with a high school and a previous employer listed on the individual's application for a=ploymen:.
i
l f ". .
bd The for=ar QC inspector was certified as a Level II coating inspector en October 24, 1979, based on his education and experience and satisfactory c =pletion of an exa=1 nation in the coating discipline.
The IE inspector also reviewed resul:s of reinspec: ion of the for=e QC inspector's work which had been requested by the licensee to deter =ine if the inspections perfor=ed by the for=ar QC inspector were corree: and accurate.
No indications of i= proprieties were identified during the l reinspection; however, the reinspection had not been co=pleted as of the date of the IE inspector's review of this =at:er.
This =atter is considered unresolved pending co=pletion of the reinspec:1on of the for=e QC inspector's work and subsequent review by II.
5.
Alleeation Concernine the Oualifications of a Brown & Root Fere=an on February 4, 1980, the RRI received a telephone call fro: an anony=ous individual who alleged that a Brown & Root fore =an had never been anything but a bricklayer and ques:ioned the fore =an's qualifica: ions to direc: the activities of personnel of various disciplines under his supervision. The anony=ous individual stated that he had no knowledge of acy specific proble=s related to the fore =an's area of responsibility. The anony=ous individual declined the opportunity for fur:her contact with the NRC.
The II inspec:or reviewed infor=a: ion ex:: acted fro: the Brow = & Roo: foressn's personnel files which dese:1 bed the fore =an's e= ploy =en: experience prio: :o his e= ploy =ent at the Sou:h Texas ? ojec . The fore =cn's experience during the period fro: 1967 to 1977 included direc:ica of the activi:1es of carpen:ers, iron workers, concrete craf:, =achanical craf:, elec:ricians, pipefi::ers and 4
insulators.
The above infor=ation indica:es that the fore =an had previeus exparience in directing the activities of various disciplines pric: to his e= ploy =en: a:
the South Texas P oject.
This allegation was not subs:anciated.
- 6. Reactor Coolant Picine - Review of Procedures The II inspector reviewed Procedures No. 2012, Revision 3,* No. 2024 Revision 1; and No. 2034, Revision 2 for the installation of Reac:or Coolant piping.
g These covered the tack welding and =anual repair as well as the auto =a:ic gas-cungs:en are velding (AGTAW) of the 31" dia=e:er ' loop piping. All three procedures appeared to co= ply vith the require =ents of the ASMI Boiler and Pressure vessel (3&?v) Code, 1974 edi:1on with Addenda chrough Win:e 1975.
Welding was also perfor=ed in accordance vi:h Welding Engineering Standard (WIS) 12 which s:1pulates even = ore precise para =eters and equip =ent recuire-
=ents than the approved procedures. All essential variables for the AGTAW process were addressed and li=1:s were specified.
No 1:e=s cf nonce =pliance or devia: ions were iden:ified. '
k .
.b0
- 7. Reactor Coolant Picing - Observation of Work Activities The IE inspector observed work being perfor=ed on see:icns of Rese:or Coolan: Loops 1 and 2.
The identification codes of ten velders working on this piping were ce= pared to the qualified velder's lis: to assure that all were qualified and tha: their qualifications were curren:.
Welders checked vere ACJ, AF.I, ACK, AUX, AVC, AVL, AVQ, AVT and AWA. Work ac:ivities shown on were observed Drawing on Joint FSP-0239, Rev. No.
- 4. FW-0002 and Joint No. FW-0013 as The pre-veld fit-up for align =ent of FW-0013 was witnessed by the II inspector and during inspection by a Brown and Root QC inspector. The traveler package and weld record card for this joint appeared to be correct and ce=plete for all previous operatjens. This veld will join the staa= generator nozzle to a spun-cast 40 albow for the cross-over leg of Loop No. 2. Work on Joint FW-002 was witnessed during deposition of the final veld layer using the AGTAW process. Records of the veld indicated the use of correct filler ma:erial, purge and torch flow, inter-pass te=peratures and interpass, cleaning. Wire brushes used for in:erpass cleaning were correc:1y =arked for use on stainless s: eel enly.
No items of nonce =pliance or deviaticas were identified.
- 8. yeld Filler Material Control The II inspector coured the varehouse area used for the receipt inspection and storage of purchased veld filler =aterial. NCR S-G03382 was wri::en by Brown & Root QC following a co= plain: =ade by the P.aterial Distribution Sta:1on (MDS) 'll a::endas: tha: veld filler =a:erial was delivered to this MDS in den:ed and ripped =e a1 con:ainers. A QC inspec:fon of all veld red received on purchase order 35-1197-2044 revealed tha: a total of 131 containers ou: of the co=plete order of 318 vere da= aged to such an ex:en:
tha: they were dee=ed unacceptable for use. This discovery was =ade af ter the ship =en: had been "inspec:ad" by a varehouse=an and a QC receiving inspector and all docu=entation signed off as acceptable. Thirty containers ,
(1500 pounds) had already been issued to MDS #1 and nine con:ainers (450 pounds) issued to the Weld Training Center. All rod, except that issued to the WTC, was returned to the varehouse and was reinspec:ed. At the etse of this inspection, 7550 pounds of rod fro = the ship =en: of 15,900 pounds had been found to be unsui:able for issue due to the condi: ion of the cans. The
=a:erial has been segregated and the accepta11e 8350 pounds of rod will re=ain in the dis::1bu:1on systa=. Toltoving the discovery of this dis-crepancy, both the varehouse=an and the QC inspec:cr were ter=inated. Forty-three a=ployees in warehouses A, B, C and D, along vi:h seventeen in the receiving inspec: ion area, have been reinstrue:ed in :he du:1es and responsi-bilities of their jobs. No ac:1on is planned for this i:e= as 1: vas iden:1fied and corree:ed by Brown & Roor's QC sys:e=. All 13,903 pounds of 1/8" I-7013 filler =a:erial has been accounced for and none has been used for any purpose o:her than training.
i l
l l
9o i . .
t
- 9. verification of Recair Radiograohs A for:e:
he though:Brown & Root velder con:ac:ed EL&? QC personnel and stated that repairs on three velded pipe join:s were inadequa:e and that radiographs that of the repairs =ight have been switched. EL&? de:er=ined three velds en the Che=ical and Vole =e Control Systa= (CVCS), Joints CV-1019 r='-0006, CV-1086 FW-0002 and CV-1088 r=~-008 vere the only velds repaired during the ti=a period mentioned by the velders (Dece=ber 12-13, 1979). EL&P QA personnel visually inspec:ed the repaired areas and reviewed the radiographs for the original velds and for the repairs. No basis for the clai= vas found by EL&?.
The adequate and II inspec:orviewing also requested facilities.andEnough was gran:ed access to these radiographs discernable features were noted on each set of original / repair radiographs of fil= had occurred. The velds following repairs to detersine that no svi:ching were found to meet the quality require =ents of the ASMI B&?V Code and no further ac: ion is necessary.
No ite=s of noncompliance or devia: ions were identified.
- 10. Unresolved Ita=s Unresolved ite=s are =at:ers about which more infor=ation is required in order or to ascer:ain whether they are acceptable ite=s, ite=s of nonce =pliance, deviations. One unresolved ice = disclosed during the inspection is discussed in paragraph 4 l 11. Exi: In:erview The II inspectors =et vi:h licensee represen:atives (denoted in paragraph
- 1) at the conclusion of the inspec: ion on February 8, 1980. A licensee represen:ative acknowledged the stata=ents of the II inspec: ors concerning the unresolved 1:en.
9
-e
O g .-
UNITED STATES b
/pa atowe, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g
- R EGloN IV
- 8D- '6' . = S11 RY AN PLAtA c RIVE sulTI 1000
- E ARUNGToN, TEXAS 76012 9' ,W"sp \ w ,< l
'"4 * ... E .
April 29, 1980
. Docket No. 50-498 dq4ek 9t,:r;3 ., ,
- 3" # 317 .' O.._ M
- - . . i 3 . '. : .:
.T.CRA.'QUM FCR: File
'. G3r~
.0..----
T 1A':
FRCM: W. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ZS Branch -
SL*3 JECT: TE12?ECNE CALL FRCM ECCSTON FOSI RI?ORTIR REGARDING SOLTd TIIAS PROJECT, DN 50-498; 50-499 On April 23, 1980, Earold Scarlett, Houston Post Reporter, called to obtain i= formation about the closed NRC Connissioner's Meeting which was held on April 15, 1980, in the I/W Tower, Bethesda, Maryland. In response to his inquiries, I infor=ed hi.m that K. 7. Seyfrit, W. C. Seidle and E. S. Phillips represented RI7 at the meeting and the South Texas Project was the subject of the meeting. I refused to answer questions as to what was specifically dis-cussed during the =eeting. He asked if the recent NRC investigation of ST? ,
was discussed during the meeting. I infor=ed Mr. Scarlett that I could not answer any more questions regard 1=g the closed meeting.
,. / , A W. C. S le, Chief Q Reactor Cos truction and l
j Engineering Support Branch cc: K. V. Seyfrit I C. I. Wisnai W.
W. G.A. Eubacek Crossman ! -
1 E. S. Phi.111ps l
$?
00 #
$6 ,
i=
gp,8 t c
- '" 4 UNITED STATES
=$ ! V ,5 '** 7- NUCLEAR .NEGULATORY COMMISSION OS 185 5 REGION IV
$.4 s,
'g >M[e[
- / ,,
$11 RYAN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000 AR LINGToN. TE X As 76012 March 13, 1980 M h ^.-~i,. _
Dacket No. 50-498 IX3!I l.C. c) 3 50-499 .
$ [.2 31 ii.: '
MD'.ORANDCM FOR:, File , i, 3 q. 9 p,...
^
THRU: J. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch ggfW. A. Crossman, Chief. Projects Section FROM: W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, Projects Section
.SU3 JECT: MEETING WITH HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER (HL&P) MANAGEMENT CONCERNING NINE POINT ACTION PLAN FOR RESUMPTION OF PIACEMENT OF SAFETY-RELATED COMPLEI CONCRETE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT,. UNITS 1 & 2, DN 50-498; 50-499 At the request of HL&P management, a meeting was held February 28, 1980, at the Region IV office to discuss the status of the nine point action program '
for resumption of placement of safety-related complex concrete at STP. The ,
casting was attended by G. W. Oprea and E. A. Turner of HL&P and W. C. Seidle, W. A. Cross =an, and W. G. Hubacek of NRC, RIV.
Mr. Oprea supplied a letter dated February 28, 1980, which provided an update of the nine point action program identified in a letter, dated December 28, 1979, and a subsequent status report, dated January 25, 1980.
Messrs. Oprea and Turner reviewed the status of the nine action ite=s an'd requested RIV concurrence in the resumption of concrete complex place =ents l on March 3, 1980.
Mr. Saidle infor=ed Messrs. Oprea and Turner that RIV review of the inplementatice of the nine action items would require at least two weeks to complete. He also stated that the findings contained in the forthcoming HQ-directed investigation report (79-19) would have to be considered during the RIV review. He requested l that HL&P not resume placement on March 3, 1980.
M... Oprea expressed concern that the review vill require a longer period than the 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> stated in the RIV IAL, dated December 31, 1979; however, he I agreed to continue the present stop-vork on concrete complex placements.
I i
l l .
- y .
l # 7- R3 . .
186 t
90 Docket File 50-498; 50-499 March 13, 1980 Other matters discussed included recent unsatisf actory E&P responses to items of noncompliance and the apparent adversary relationship which see=s to be developing between the NRC and E&P site personnel. Mr. Oprea stated that there is a general distrust of the NRC because of the use of sworn statements during the HQ-directed investigation. It was mutually agreed that a meeting between RIV and licensee QA representatives should be held as soon as possible to clarify misunderstandings of NRC policy that may have developed.
Mr. Oprea also expressed concern with a recently released NRC document that would per=1t attendance of NRC exit interviews by persons other than NRC and licensee representatives. E&P disagrees with this concept and vill submit coments to the NRC although such comments were not solicited.
L'
[.d.'ldha-W. G. Hubacek Reactor, Inspector Projects Section ec: H. D. Thornburg, RCI i K. V. Seyfrit E. S. Phillips i
t l
l l
- - - - , . < - - + - -----_--__ - ---- -
V
\ ..
- o. 100 UNITED STATES p "'.%g'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ,* ,
REGloN IV
- , ri
.I e j $11 RYaN PLAZA oRIVE. SUITE 1000 aRuNGToN.TEXA5 78012
,g3 ..- -
g
%,, ' p' ,
- June 4, 1980
$cc (~: . v- ~ ~
- Docket No. 50-498 1. : :3; NO._ 51 \f 50-499 g[0 2 ' I351 MEMCRANDUM FCR: File ...'.; '
,; 7 ; k s CCL: H C.'TI?
TERC:
Ny .i. C. Seidle, Chief, RC&ES Branch W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section
.FRCH: W. C. Hubacek, Reac or Inspector, Projects Section
SUBJECT:
MEITING WITE E&? MANAGEMENT TO DISCTSS E&P RESPONSES TO IE INVESTICATICN REPORT 79-19 AND THE REIATED SECW CAUSE ORDER, SOUTH TEIAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 & 2, DN 50-498; 50-499 A =eeting was held at the Region IV office on May 16, 1980, at the request of EL&P =anage:nent, to discuss E&P responses to II Investigatics Report 79-19 and the related Show Cause Order.
The following persons were in attendance:
E. A. Turner, Vice President, Fever Plant Construction and Technical Services, ESP D. G. Earker, Proj ect Manager, E:.&P R. A. Fra:ar, QA Manager, E&P K. V. Seyfrit, Director, RI7 W. C. Seidle, Chief, Reactor Construction & Engineering Support Branch, RIV W. E. Vetter, Assistant to the Director, RIV W. A. Crossman, Chief, Projects Section, RIV R. E. Hall, Chief, Engineering Support Section, RIV J. I. Tapia, Raaetor Inspector, RIV W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector, RIV The discussion, lead by EL&P, tencentrated pri=arily on proposed E&P responses j to the Show Cause Orfer (SCO) to determine if the proposed responses vould be acceptable to the NRC. It was e=phasized that the infor=ation presented was tentative and subj ect to cha=ge. The following SCO ite=s were discussed:
l j
39 r, $ .p
@go I
. - 1
)
- 103 e
File - DN 50-498; 50-499 June 4, 1980
. VA (1)
E&P expressed desire to use Bechtel as a consultant because of Bechtel's extensive nuclear experience.' Pros and cons of selection of Bechtel were discussed. E&P is also planning to contract with Manage =ent Analysis Corporation (.'nC) for assistance with the QA program and staffing of key QA positions by MAC personnel. (Mr. Seyfric requested RI7 be provided resumes of the MAC personnel.) E&P would maintain oversight of the
- program. More personnel with experience vill be provided by ESP and B&R. Training courses for top E&P and B&R executives are planned (R17 invited to a'. tend).
VA(2)
E&P will assemb'le a " Blue Ribbon" panel for consultation on soils proble=.
Panel members are to include Professor Seed of the University of California, Dr. Castro of Boston, and Woodward-Clyde Consultants.
VA(3)
E&P plans to utilire Nutech as a welding consultant. Mr. Seyfrit expressed concern about Nutech's NDE experience. Joseph Artuso (previously involved at Crystal River) vill be utilized as a concrete consultant.
VA(4)
The B&R QA program brochure a=d video tape vill be destroyed. New doc =ents will be developed.
VA(5) l New s:op work procedures vill be developed to clarify requirements. Training vill be provided to QA/QC and construction personnel involved.
7A(6) i B&R has indtiated a trend analysis program for FREAs and NCRs. Not enough experience exists yet for valid analysis of results of first trend report.
VA(7) 1 l The D,esign Change Notice vill be the only for=al method for design change.
The FREA vill be el1=inated.
f VA(8)
The record system vill be reviewed. Retrievability of documents vill be
- improved.
l l
9 4
102 I
5 . .
File - DN 50-498; 50-499 June 4, 1980 VA(9)
- The audit system vill be revised. New procedures vill be developed.
More training vill be provided and management vill become more involved in resolution of audit findings. Apparent problems are with depth of audits, not for=. Surveillance group on site vill continue to monitor day to day status of work.
VA(10)
FSAR, Section 2.5.4 vill be addressed.
In addition, the HL&P representatives stated that they did not plan to contest the Notice of Violation or the Civil Penalty. They anticipated that timely responses vill be submitted.
h N-W. G. Hubacek, Reactor Inspector Projects Section ec: H. S. Phillips e
I t o m
- L .-
i 103 74 S
..w$ er-
...l..: W -
Ic.+ / s . / u d.; r . ..:
~ . ;=:
cq ,
~ .. __ ....,s
/?<: sr?- A.o:a. -- A d a <:c e s p ~ 4
~f-Q:?6
.r aused a i:.L < a.e - d~ e4x4, ,
ca. cin an N
W waxa a ~ ~ i,, a a i n - a
/J 4f: :.44 Y .GIf
- Y / .4 C.4 &&f W. . )tMA42n54 f EWA .
1
- hetin m2~ M ***d*Nk rt- hyal, A
- E /$4//p wf
, %.s r 4 s x.5 g hs na S .c.us <uca.
pe. . m .e .-
.* W. .e 6 h
'. h n M dz m l a. .r % .cr.,cr m d / 4 a~y. g A 4 A g
l ,
- J bY 'Z $"sl ~$ b.c f f $ a'G! g.~</ b .L. &. m m .s W a p , ,,
A u -e& #! p.g.w 4~. ~sa M -.7 ! - n
~ \ ')
l
,sp 1
25
e O O E8
,_m__
194 i
- c. - .
t t
e e
O
-cacA-u N / / u, c3 bH1i- . HtXe-yc.-:/, i sir, $47--isr-
/f.L * { - .S -- -
ml .d.da dxJJ4 . n t-t e 9 -u.a r 6 4 Et 4fue .y f
h 6
~ myw . W9 &^ i .uk. ~4 :t l de . 9/54 /a m
/
h i .: - n- fc v
cc: h nn seme -
e US e
4 e
-a G
e
.