P. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 175 ) IV-C-14

2 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:21:00AM Sheet 175of 232P. 2

? A\

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

### DEC 

## \ 4

## 198 8

Mr . Jame s E . Pasek , Manage r Automotiv e Emissio nContro l Environmenta l Activitie s Staf f Genera l Motor s Corporatio n Genera l Motor s Technica l Cente r 3040 0 Mound Roa d Warren , M I 48090-901 5

Dea r Mr . Pasek : Thi s i s i nrepl yt o you r lette r o f Octobe r 25 , 198 8 concernin g th e G

Mevaluatio no f th e EPA"simplified " refuelin g contro l concept . You r lette r supplie d som e additiona l dat a o n th e evaluatio no f th e G Mhardware , and raise d som e question s whic hI woul d lik e t o follo wu p on . You r lette r restate d th e performanc e problem s whic hGMha s experience d wit hit s versio no f th e EPAsyste mconcept . Thes e problem s ar e th e sam e item s raise d i nyou r origina l briefing , whic hw e hav e indicate d ar e no t characteristi c o f th e EP A system . Th e supplementa l informatio nyo u provide d ha s allowe d u s t o bette r understan d som e o f th e difficultie s yo u experienced , bu t no t all . Fo r example , i t i s easie r t o understan d whyyo u experience d highe r emission s fo r partia l fill s fro m

9 5 t o 10 0 percen t o f tank capacit ywhe nw e kno wtha t yo u use d si x"click-offs " fo r eac htest . This , o f course , i s anunrealisti c condition , bu t i t explain s v/h yyo u woul d ge t highe r emissions . I t i s remarkabl e tha t you r dat a indicate s tha t a ver yhig hleve l o f contro l i s bein g realize d eve nunde r suc hextrem e conditions . Similarly , yo u use d a "fil l quality " tes t whic hemploye d 7 automati c shutoff s befor e completion . Again , thi s i s a n unrealisti c condition , and i t i s possibl e tha t yo u wer e simpl y overfillin g th e tan k throug hth e us e o f multipl e repeate d click-offs . W e woul d als o appreciat e anexplanatio no f an apparen t inconsistenc yi nyou r data . Th e partia l fil l test s indicate d tha t n o spitbac k event s occurre d i nth e thre e test s whic hproceede d t o a ful l tank , whil e th e fil l qualit ytes t indicate d som e spitbac k o nalmos t al l tests . Pleas e explai n thes e differen t results . I shoul d als o poin t ou t tha t mos t o fP. 3

th e comparativ e fil l qualit ydat a yo u provide d fo r a stoc k fue l syste m wer e collecte d usin g onl y3 automati c shutoffs , whic h yo u characteriz e a s a "custome r fills " procedure . W e d o no t believ e tha t result s fro mthes e tw o differen t test s shoul d b e compared . Ou r ownexperienc e ha s shownth e refuelin g contro l syste mt o b e a s goo d o r bette r tha nth e stoc k syste mi nnorma l fil l operations . Fo r example , ou r testin g wit hdifferen t nozzl e brand s showe d n o effec t o nth e refuelin g system , bu t som e limite d evidenc e o f sensitivit yo nth e stoc k system . Concernin g th e questio no f liqui d los s fromth e tank durin g vehicl e maneuvering , yo u indicate d tha t th e ven t valv e had receive d "functiona l checks " befor e bein g used . Sinc e w e ar e ver yconcerne d abou t liqui d spillage , w e woul d appreciat e a mor e detaile d descriptio no f th e valv e testin g yo u conducte d an d you r results . W e woul d assum e i t include d rollove r test s and othe r liqui d discriminatio ntestin g if , a s yo u say, yo u verifie d prope r functio ni narea s relate d t o liqui d leakag e fro mth e tank . However , neithe r th e typ e o f test s o r tes t result s ar e identifie d i nyou r letter . Th e fina l performanc e issu e concern s runnin g los s vapo r generatio nrates . Yo u stat e tha t i f runnin g losse s ar e t o b e controlled , tank pressurizatio ni s probabl yessential . W e ar e no t convince d tha t thi s i s th e case . Fo r example , th e evaluatio no f a nunpressurize d fue l tank don e byFor d indicate d tha t ther e wa s les s tha na 1 0 percen t differenc e i nvapo r generatio nrate s onc e fue l RV P wa s controlle d t o 9 psi . Suc h difference s shoul d b e o f relativel ysmal l effec t o nwel l designe d purg e systems . Eve na facto r o f tw o difference , suc h a s yo u clai mt o hav e found unde r extrem e conditions , doe s no t appea r t o b e excessiv e give nth e rarit yo f th e condition s involved . W e woul d think tha t yo u woul d find th e safet yissue s involve d i na mov e t o highpressur e fue l tank s t o b e a t leas t a s significan t a s thos e associate d wit hth e adoptio no f refuelin g controls . You r lette r indicate s tha t i t i s als o t o b e take na s GM' s respons e t o ou r Jul y11 , 198 8 reques t fo r copie s o f 1 9 specifi c G MUnifor m

Tes t Specification s (GMUTS ) relate d t o testin g o f fue l and evaporativ e systems . W e d o no t find you r lette r responsiv e t o ou r request . A s state d i nou r Jul y1 1 letter , w e had bee ntol d b

yyou r staf f tha t th e copie s requeste d had bee n assembled , bu t yo u had advise d u s tha t GMhad decide d t o withhol d th e document s fromEPA . Th e smal l amoun t o f informatio ni nyou r presen t lette r doe s no t substitut e fo r th e GMUT S whic hw e requested , and I woul d onc e agai nlik e t o reiterat e th e reques t fo r thes e documents .P. 4



### Lastly , yo u asked for copie s o f mor e recen t dat a we have collecte d onour EP Ahardware , indicating tha t yo u ha d no t seen an ydat a othe r tha

nth e origina l 1 3 test s release d inApri l an d May . Enclose d ar e copie s o f al l currentl yavailabl e dat a for your review . Som e o f thi s dat a ha s bee n availabl e in th e docke t fo r some time , som e o f i t ha s onlyrecentl ycomplete d review . We ar e als o enclosing a pressur e trac e fo r a typica l fil l event . Than k you for your response s t o ou r earlie r questions . We loo k forward t o your cooperatio ninsupplying the additiona l informatio nneeded . I f you have an yquestions , pleas e fee l fre e t o contac t me . Sincerely , Chejste r J . France , Chie f Standard s developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h Enclosure s cc : Mr . Scot t York , NHTSA Mr . RalphHitchcock , NHTSA Mr . Alber t Warner , DO C Docke t A-87-1 1 6601 WP. 5 

### Jjl '/ 3 

### -6' ^ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y

AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

OFFIC E O P

_ AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## AUG| 6 I98 8

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT :

FROM : 

### TO : THRU : Passiv e Onboar d Refuelin g Contro l Syste mTestin g -

Result s Collecte d T o Dat e 

# A Pete r Hutchins , Mechanica l Enginee r VjX ^ Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc h Charle s L . Gray , Jr. , Directo r Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivisio n JohnF . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r Standard s Developmen t and S/pportj^Branc h Cheste r J . France , Chie f Standard s Developmen t an^Sup j 

### n> - /f^-in^c*

I na mem o date d Jun e 14 , 1988 , SDS B requeste d tha t specifie d testin g be performe d b yTE B usin g th e "Passiv e Onboar d Refuelin g Contro l System. " Th e requeste d testin g wa s subdivide d int o fiv e phases . Phas e 2 , testin g ha s bee n completed . On e tes t remain s t o b e performe d i nphas e 1 and i n phas e 3 . Phas e 4 and 5 testin g i s bein g initiate d and shoul d b e complete d b

yAugus t 19th . Th e result s o f th e tests , togethe r wit hbrie f description s o f the tes t phase s ar e provide d i nth e followin g attachments . Attachment s 0386 XP. 6



### Attachmen t 1 Phas e 1 . T o determin e the effect s o f fue l RVP o n th e contro l

o f refueling emissions ' b yth e systemusin g a tes t matri xo f four refueling rate s an d thre e fue l RVPs . Afour lite r caniste r wa s employe d t o assur e adequat e storag e capacity . Th e tes t result s ar e show nbelow .

Phas e 1 Tes t Result s Fueling Rat e 

### (gal/min ) 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 

### Dispense d

Volum e 

### (gal ) 13. 9 13. 7 14. 2 13. 8 13. 3 14. 6 14. 2 13. 9 12. 7 13. 2 13. 1 13. 9 13. 9 

### Measure d

RV P 

### (psi ) 8. 9 9. 0 8. 9 8. 9 9. 2 10. 5 11. 6 11. 3 9. 0

. 9. 2 9. 0 10. 5 11. 5 

### Measure d

Refuelin g Emission' s 

### (gram/gal ) 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 6 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 0P. 7



### Attachmen t 2 Phas e 2 . T o determin e th e effec t o f unplugging th e 0.05 0 inch

orific e i nth e sending unit . Vapor s from th e orific e route d t o th e canister . Afour lite r caniste r wa s employe d i nphas e 2 testing . Th e result s o f thi s testing ar e show nbelow .

Phas e 2 Tes t Result s Fueling Rat e (gal/min ) 5 1 0 Dispense d

Volume (gal ) 13. 6 13. 7 Measure d

RVP (psi ) 9. 3 9. 3 Measure d

Refueling Emission s (gram/gal ) 0.0 1 0.0 1P. 8



### Attachmen t 3 Phas e 3 . T o determin e the effec t o f tan k positionin g during refueling onsystem' performance . Fou r tank positions , t o simulat e refueling o n10 ° angle , ar e investigated . Th e position s ar e a s follows : Tank Positio nA : Tan k Positio nB : Tan k Positio nC : Tan k Positio nD : "Vehicle " facing up grad e

"Vehicle " acros s grade , righ t sid e high "Vehicle " facing downgrad e "Vehicle " acros s grade , lef t sid e high(fue l fille r o n lef t sid e o f "vehicle") . A s i nthe previou s tes t phases , a 4 lite r caniste r wa s employed . Th e tes t result s ar e show nbelow .

Phas e 3 Tes t Result s Tank Positio n

A A A B C C D D Fueling

Rat e (gal/min ) 5 5 5 5 5 1 0 5 1 0 Dispense d

Volume (gal ) 9. 1 7. 8 8. 0 11. 3 17. 5 17. 2 15. 4 14. 5 Measure d

RVP (psi ) 8. 9 9. 0 9. 0

- 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 Measure d

Refueling Emission s (gram/gal ) 0.0 1 0.0 5 0.0 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 1

0386 XP. 9

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5

OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## DE C 

## f 3 198 8

MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : Result s Fro mPhase s 4 and 5 o f Tes t Pla nfo r Passiv e

Onboar d Refuelin g Contro l Syste m FROM : 

### To : F . Pete r Hutchins yMechanica l Enginee r

Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc h Charle s L . Gray , Jr. , Directo r Emissio nContro l Technolog yDivisio n Thi s mem o i s a follo wu p o nth e mem o date d Augus t 16 , 1988 . I t summarize s th e result s o f Phas e 4 and Phas e 5 testin g performe d b

yE& D i nrespons e t o a Jun e 14 , 198 8 mem o fro mSDSB . Phas e 4 Th e objectiv e o f thi s tes t phas e wa s t o evaluat e th e fue l tank fil l characteristic s o f a stoc k tank and o f th e EP A passive

- onboar d refuelin g tank unde r dissimila r dispense d fuel/tan k temperatures . Th e desire d dispense d fue l temperatur e and 1 0 percen t tank fue l temperatur e wer e 70° F and 100° F respectively . Fue l wit ha nRV P o f 1 1 1/ 2 ps i wa s require d t o b e used . Th e specifie d fue l dispensin g rat e wa s 1 0 gpm . An OP WH Anozzl e wa s use d i nphas e 4 testing . Fuelin g wa s requeste d t o b e performe d from1 0 percen t tank volum e t o a t leas t 9 5 percen t tank volume . Fo r th e stoc k tank test , a stoc k tank , fue l fille r pip e assembl yand tank sendin g uni t wer e use d (G Mcomponents) . Th e stoc k sendin g uni t incorporate d th e vapo r picku p and orifice . Astoc k 1. 5 lite r caniste r wa s used . Fo r tes t purpose s th e stoc k caniste r wa s connecte d t o th e fue l tank b yapproximatel y 1 1 fee t o f 5/16 " diamete r tubing .P.1 0



### -2

- I n th e cas e o f the passiv e onboard system , th e EP A modifie d tank , fille r pip e assembl yan d "blue " ven t valv e wer e used . A4 lite r caniste r wa s connecte d t o th e ven t valv e b y approximatel y2 1/ 2 fee t o f 5/8 " diamete r tubing . Th e caniste r t o purg e contro l valv e line wa s simulate d b yapproximatel y1 1 fee t o f 5/16 " diamete r tubing connecte d t o th e 5/8 " tubing b ya T a t th e canister . Th e "engine " en d o f th e 5/16 " tubing wa s plugge d t o simulat e a close d purg e contro l valv e a s woul d exis t during fueling . Phas e 4 tes t result s ar e show ni nTabl e 1 . Bot htank s fuele d successfull yduring thes e two tests . Phas e 5 Phas e 5 o f th e testing requeste d t o b e performe d b yE & D focuse d onth e fueling performanc e o f thre e commercia l fue l nozzles . Informatio ncollecte d fro mnozzl e manufacturer s b y EPAove r approximatel yth e las t yea r indicate s tha t th e nozzle s selecte d fo r testing represen t betwee n8 0 t o 8 5 percen t o f th e ne wnozzl e market . Th e nozzle s t o b e evaluate d wer e anOP W 11A , anEmco-Wheato nA200 0 an d a Husk

y1+X . Th e performanc e o f th e OP WH Anozzl e wa s investigate d wit hbot hth e EP Asimpl e onboar d systeman

d a stoc k G

Msystemfro

mwhic hth e EPAsystem ha d bee nderived . Prematur e shut-offs , fina l shut-of f an d spi t bac k wer e t o b e evaluate d a t flowrate s o f 5 gpman d 1 0 gpm using th e EPApassiv e onboar d system . Refueling emissio n measurement s wer e no t t o b e performed . Al l fueling operation s wer e initiate d wit h1. 5 gallon s (approximatel y1 0 percent ) o f fue l i nth e tank . Th e reporte d result s ar e summarize d i nTabl e 2 . Fo r al l thre e nozzles , fueling int o th e simpl e onboar d systemwer e performe d withou t eithe r prematur e shut-offs , spitback , or spillag e o f fuel . Thre e o f th e four test s performe d o nth e stoc k system incurre d eithe r a prematur e shut-of f o r a spill . Attachments : Table s 1 an d 2

6431 WTabl e1 Phas e4 . Dissimila r Temperature s Configuratio n Fue l RV P Tan k (psi ) Temp.(°F ) Dispense d Fue l Temp(°F ) Volum e

Dispensed(gal ) Comment s Stoc k 11. 5

Passiv e System11. 5 100. 4

102. 0 71. 4

70. 0 16. 2

13. 9 N o prematur e

shut-off , spitback , o r spil l N o prematur e shut-off , spitback , o r spil lTabl e 2 Phas e 5 . Nozzl e Characteristic s Nozzle / Fuelin g Rat e RV P Dat e Tan k (gpm ) (psi ) Volum e Temperature s Dispense d (gal ) Tank ; Fuel(°F ) Comment s 8-18-8 8 OPW-llA/Mod . 5. 0 8-18-8 8 OPW-llA/Mod . 5. 0 8-18-8 8 OPW-llA/Mod . 10. 0 8-23-8 8 OPW-llA/Mod . 10. 0 8-24-8 8 OPW-llA/Mod . 10. 0 8-30-8 8 OPW-llA/Stoc k 5. 0 8-30-8 8 OPW-llA/Stoc k 5. 0 8-31-8 8 OPW-llA/Stoc k 10. 0 8-31-8 8 OPW-llA/Stoc k 10. 0 9. 0 8. 8 8. 8 8. 9 8. 9 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 9. 0 14. 9

14. 5 13. 8 13. 8 14. 5 15. 8 15. 3 15. 3 15. 2 81.5 ; 81. 1 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill .

80.5 ; 80. 2 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill . 80.0 ; 79. 9 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill . 80.2 ; 82. 2 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill . 80.2 ; 81. 7 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill . 80.5 ; 79. 3 Prematur e shut-of f @5. 4 gal . N o spil l 81.0 ; 81. 0 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill . 81.5 ; 82. 0 Prematur e shut-of f @ 0. 1 gal . (nozzl e

position) . N o spill . 81.5 ; 79. 7 N o prematur e shut-off . 1/ 2 cup spill .

8-25-8 8 Emco-Wheato n

A2000/Mod . 8-25-8 8 Emco-Wheato n

A2000/Mod . 8-26-8 8 Emco-Wheato n

A2000/Mod . 8-26-8 8 Emco-Wheato n

A2000/Mod . 5. 0

5. 0 10. 0 10. 0 9. 1

8. 9 8. 9 8. 9 15. 6

14. 6 14. 6 14. 3 80.5 ; 80. 1

81.5 ; 79. 9 81.0 ; 80. 4 81.9 ; 81. 2 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill .

N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill , N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill . N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill ,

9-7-8 8 9-7-8 8 9-7-8 8 Husky

Mod . Husky Mod . Husky Mod . 1+X / 1+X / 1+X / 5. 0

5. 0 10. 0 9. 0

9. 0 9. 0 14. 1

15. 0 14. 7 81.3 ; 81. 9 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill .

81.0 ; 80. 4 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill , 81.0 ; 81. 3 N o prematur e shut-off . N o spill ,P.1 3

^ t 0 STA > \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y 

# USE,

- AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N 

## DECI3

## -p q

MEMORANDU M SUBJECT : Refuelin g Emissio n- Partia l Fuelin g yi FROM : Pete r Hutchin s

Standard s Developmen t and Suppor t Branc h TO : Th e Recor d Th e result s o f nin e partia l fueling s and on e ful l fuelin g ar e showni nTabl e 1 . Thes e test s wer e performe d byEP A t o evaluat e refuelin g emission s durin g partia l fueling s o f th e EPA passiv e refuelin g emissio ncontro l system . Th e EP Apassiv e refuelin g emissio ncontro l syste muse d i n thi s dat a collectio nconsiste d o f a modifie d G Mfue l tank and fue l filler , a "blue " ven t valve , and a 4 lite r caniste r connecte d t o th e ven t valv e b e approximatel y3 fee t o f 5/8 " I D tubing . Th e RV P o f th e fue l use d i nthi s projec t wa s approximatel y9 ps i (measure d value s ar e show ni nTabl e 1) . Al l fuelin g operation s wer e performe d wit hth e fuelin g car t dispensin g flo wrat e se t a t 1 0 gpmand wit hth e tank and dispense d fue l temperature s withi nNPRMlimit s (measure d temperature s ar e give ni nTabl e 1) . Prio r t o eac hrefuelin g emissio nmeasurement , th e caniste r wa s purge d fo r approximatel y 1 1/ 2 hour s a t a flo wrat e o f 1 cfm . Thre e refuelin g emissio n measurement s wer e performe d fo r eac ho f thre e partia l fuelin g ranges . Th e partia l fuelin g range s were ; a ) fro mapproximatel y 10 % fue l tank volum e t o approximatel y1/ 2 fue l tank volume , b ) fro mapproximatel y1/ 2 fue l tank volum e t o ful l and c ) fro m approximatel y90 % fue l tank volum e t o full . Th e average s o f th e partia l refuelin g emissio n measurement s ar e a s fellows :

a ) 10 % t o 1/ 2 tank volum e ; 0.0 7 gram/gal . b ) 1/ 2 tank volum e t o full ; 0.0 1 gram/gal . c ) 90 % tank volum e t o full ; 0.1 2 gram/gal .P.1 4



### -2

- Th e highes t averag e refueling emission s rat e (gram/gallon ) occurre d during th e 9 0 percen t tank volume t o ful l tank fuelings ; Whil e thi s refueling emissio nrat e wa s highe r than the propose d standard (0.1 0 g/gal ) for ful l fuelings , th e actua l mas s o f hydrocarbo nemitte d wa s lo wan d represente d 9 5 percen t or greate r contro l o f refueling emissions . I t i s als o wort hnoting , tha t fueling s i nthi s range ; i.e. , fro m analmos t ful l tan

k t o a ful l tank , occur infrequently . Two o f thes e tes t had multipl e shutoff , simulating custome r topping off . Inspectio no f th e SHE D hydrocarbo nconcentratio nstri p chart s an d othe r dat a sheet s showe d tha t thes e shut-off s d o no t appea r t o hav e bee nmajo r contributor s t o the refueling emission s measure d i nth e SHED . Mos t o f th e emission s appea r t o hav e bee nassociate d wit hth e firs t shutof f i neac hcase . Attachment : Tabl e 1Dat e 9-9-8 8 9-13-8 8 9-14-8 8 9-9-8 8 9-13-8 8 9-15-8 8 9-12-8 8 9-14-8 8 9-15-8 8 9-13-8 8 Measure d

RV P (psi ) 9.0 5 9.0 0 8.9 5 8.9 5 9.0 0 9.0 0 8.9 5 8.9 5 9.0 5 8.9 5 Fue l Volum e

Initiall yi n tank (gal ) 1.5 1 1.5 0 1.5 0 7.5 1 7.5 2 7. 5 14. 2 14. 2 14. 2 1.5 0 Tabl e Refueling Emission s Fue l Volume Dispense d (gal ) 6. 0 6.0 1 6.0 2 8.8 3 8.8 5 8. 9 2.4 5 2.3 8 2.2 2 14.5 1 Nozzl e

Shu t Of f manua l manua l l,auto . +manua l l,auto . 2,auto . l,auto . 3,auto . 4,auto . l,auto . l,auto . Tan k

Temp . (»F ) 79. 7 79. 0 79. 7 79. 2 79. 3 80. 1 80. 0 80. 4 79. 9 81. 0 1

- Partia l Dispense d Fue l tem

p (°F ) 81. 1 81. 7 81. 3 81. 9 81. 0 81. 0 81. 7 81. 1 81. 3 81. 3 Fueling

Caniste r Initia l <9 > 4152. 1 4168. 2 4159. 7 4153. 0 4163. 7 4159. 8 4177. 1 4162. 6 4157. 3 4166. 9 Weight s

Fina l ( g ) 4187. 8 4210. 0 4199. 6 4207. 8 4222. 2 4217. 2 4192. 4 4178. 6 4171. 5 4266. 0 H C Collecte d

b ycaniste r (g ) 35. 7 41. 8 39. 3 54. 8 58. 5 57. 4 15. 3 16. 0 14. 2 99. 1 (g/gal )

5.9 5 6.9 7 6.6 5 6.2 3 6.6 5 6.4 5 6.1 2 6.6 7 6.4 5 6.8 3 Refu e ling

Emission s (g ) i 0.3 1 0.2 2 0.7 1 0.1 5 0.0 0 0.1 1 0.4 4 0.2 7 0.1 3 0.2 8 g/gal ) 0.0 5 0.0 4 0.1 2 0.0 2 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1 8 0.1 1 0.0 6 0.0 2

6544 WP.16

_

* , ' ccr( rfrf(

c c( ' ( c< < <

. i c * ' C < f(vl

; r-C-r —

i I • t- .._- , — /.. , 

# ^3i : "OI O yj.s yn

: •

' " i -_. .

--- - ——'— r

• o

— •" ~ c : C J ~ ._. . 

### J. :

•-