IR 05000219/1980016
| ML19330C238 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1980 |
| From: | Blumberg N, Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19330C237 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-219-80-16, NUDOCS 8008080114 | |
| Download: ML19330C238 (13) | |
Text
.
.
U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'
0FFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT O
REG 10N 1
.
Report No.
50-219/80-16 Docket No.
50-219 License No.
OPR-16 Priority Category C
--
Licensee:
Jersey Central Power and Light Company Madison Avenue at Punch Bowl Road Morristown, New Jersey 07960 Facility Name:
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station Inspection At:
Forked River, New Jersey Inspection Conducted:
May 5-9, 1980 Inspectors:
bk-
=/h d- / 7-20 N. J. Blumberg, React ~r Inspector date o
date date Approved by:
4-/1 Fo E. Greenman, Chief, Nuclear Support Section date No. 2, RO&NS Branch Inspection Summary:
Inspection on May 5-9,1980(ReportNo. 50-219/80-16)
Areas Inspected:
Routine, unannounced inspection by one region be, sed inspec-ter of-licensee action on previous inspection findings; administrative controls for facility procedures; conformance to Technical Specifications; temporary and permanent changes in conformance to Technical Specifications and licensee proce-
dures; changes in procedures to 10 CFR 50.59(a) and (b) requirements; checklists and related forms for currency to latest changes; and, Control Room tour.
The-inspection involved 37 inspector-hours onsite by one region based NRC-inspector.
Results:
No items of noncompliance were observed.
'
L Region I Form 12-(Rev. April.1977)
8008080//T
-
-
-.
.
- -.
_ _. - -.
_. - _
-
-
_ __ -
___
__ _
_ _ _
_
.
.
.
DETAILS
_
1.
Persons Contacted R. Baran, Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) Secretary J. Carroll, Station Manager K. Eichenlaub, Acting Fire Protection Specialist
- E. Growney, Assistant to Station Manager T. Johnson, Station Supervisor, Instrument and Electrical Maintenance A. Lewis, Administrative Services Supervisor
- J. Maloney, Supervisor Station Operations W. Stewart, Management Control Supervisor
- J. Sullivan, Unit Superintendent USNRC
- L. Briggs, Resident Reactor Inspector The inspector also interviewed other licensee employees including members of the technical and engineering staff, clerical personnel, reactor opera-tors, and Control Room supervisory personnel.
- Denotes those present at the exit interview.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Unresolved Item (219/79-16-03):
Retests of components which had previously failed operability tests were documented in the Control Room log book rather than on surveillance test procedures.
Based on a random selection of maintenance performed following failure of a surveillance tests, the inspector verified that retests are being documented per the surveillance procedure.
(Closed)UnresolvedItem(219/78-16-01):
Several inconsistencies were observed with respect to the implementation aspects of procedural require-mehts, or of the procedures themselves:
Procedure 305, Shutdown Cooling System, requires that the system iso-
--
lation valves (from a recirculation loop) V-17-19 and V-17-54, be open per the pre-startup check-off list (COL).
However, the system startup procedure delineates steps to control the opening of these
.
_
_
.-
-
_.
-_
.
.
.
valves. The inspector verified that procedure 305 and check-off list (COL) 305-1 now require material shutting of valves V-17-19 and V-17-54.
Procedure 310, Containment Spray System, requires that the chlorina-
--
tion system isolation valves for Emergency Service Water, V-33-11,
_
12, V-3-137, 138, be open per the pre-startup COL.
However, a review of completed COLs for these systems indicated that these valves are usually closed and only opened as required for chlorination system use.
The inspector verified that COL 310 now shuts valves V-33-11, V-33-12, V-3-137, and V-3-138.
Precritical check-off, Form 201.1-3, requires that the Transversing
--
In-Core Probe (TIP) Ball Valve, 11F, be open on a plant startup.
However, a review of completed COLs for this form indicated that the valve is usually kept closed.
The inspector verified that COL 201.1-3 now closes TIP valve 11F.
Annunciator Procedure, Panel 1F/2F "B", Rows 1-25, 2-26, 3-27, 4-28,
--
which annunciate Trouble Alarms for Emergency Service Water (ESW)
Pumas A, B, C and D, respectively, do not specify the setpoint for Higi Bearing Temperature.
However, setpoints for other parameters, which input to the " trouble alarm", are specified.
These parameters,
'for which setpoints are specified, are Motor Overload Current and Low Lube Oil level.
The inspector verified that the setpoint for hi bearing temperature is now specified in procedures for Panel 1F/gh 2F
"B", Rows 1-25, 2-26, 3-27, and 4-28.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (219/79-18-03):
Administrative procedures did not establish controls for mechanical jumpers or bypasses.
The inspector verified that Procedure 108, " Equipment Control", has been revised to establish a procedure for control of mechanical jumpers.
(Closed) Unresolved Item (219/79-18-02):
Station procedure 106 to be revised to give authority to the Control Room operator to shutdown the reactor in a situation where in the operator's judgement continued opera-tionwouldjeopardizepublicorplantsafetywhenevertheGroupShift Supervisor is not present in the control room.
The inspector verified that procedure 106, " Conduct of Operations", has been revised to give the latter authority to the reactor operator.
(Closed) Infraction (219/79-16/04):
Standby Gas Treatment System (SGTS)
'No. 2 was not considered inoperable although SGTS No. 2 filter differential pressure (D/P) was observed to be in excess of that required by Technical Specifications during performance of surveillance test 651.4.005.
This would have made both SGTS systems inoperable and, hence, should have required a reactor shutdown.
This incident occurred April 27, 1978 and the inoperability of SGTS No.1 was reported to the Nuclear Regulatory l
.
.
.
_
-
.
.. - -
-
.
.
-.
-
-
.
.
' ~
Commission per Report No. 50-219/78-32-0 on May 26, 1978 although, at the time, the licensee did not recognize that SGTS No. 2 was also inoperable
'
as a result of high filter D/P.
As a result of this finding, operating staff personnel were reinstructed as to what factors determine the inoper-ability of the SGTS system.
To preclude recurrence of the high filter D/P, Procedure 651.4.001 was revised June 8, 1978 to perform SGTS filter D/P-tests monthly rather than every 18 months.
The inspector verified that Procedure 651.4.001 had been revised to include a monthly test of
'SGTS filter D/P.
(0 pen) Unresolved Item (219/78-19-02):
Improper delta pressure maintained across the Containment Spray Heat Exchanger.
The licensee performed an engineering evaluation and will install a flowmeter to determine the ori-
fice size necessary to further increase service water pressure in the heat i
exchanger in order to produce the required delta pressure.
The components i
have been ordered and the licensee anticipates installation of the flow-meter during the next maintenance outage scheduled for the fall of 1980.
,
In addition, titanium tubes have been installed in the heat exchanger to
'
.further reduces the possibility of heat exchanger tube leakage.
This item remains open pending completion of the modification and issuance of any required changes to surveillance procedure 607.4.001 " Containment Spray and Emergency Service Center Operability Test."
(0 pen) Deficiency (219/77-24-05):
Failure to properly control and document traceability of parts used for safety related maintenance.
The only remain-ingitemrequiredtocompletecorrectiveactionislicensescommitmentto
.
build "QASL' material control cages in the Reactor Building.
The original date of-January 1, 1980 to build the caged area has been delayed due to
'
the current refueling outage and delay in receiving materials.
A licensee
representative stated that the material for the cages has br 1 received
'
and the cages should be completed by October 31, 1980.
,
I (0 pen) Unresolved Item (219/79-16-02):
Method of control and identifica-tion to be established for stopwatches utilized to verify surveillance tests.
Discussions between the inspector and a licensee representative determined that no action had been taken as there had been a misunderstand-ing as to the degree of control required.
The inspector informed the
<
licensee that the degree of control required should be identification of i-stopwatch (es) to be used; ensuring only that controlled stopwatch (es) be used on surveillance tests; and traceability of-stopwatch use to specific procedures performed.
The licensee representative acknowledged the inspec-i tor's comments and stated that stopwatch controls would be established by July 30., 1980.
(0 pen) Deficiency (219/79-18-01):
Procedure 108, " Control of Tagging, Electrical Jumpers, Lifted Electrical Leads, Keys and Locked Valves, did
not provide for independent verification to ensure that placement / removal i
L oftags,jumpersand.liftedleadshadbeenperformedcorrectly.
The licensee response dated March 17, 1980 stated the following:
=
I l
<
-
=
--
- - - - -
- - -,. -. - - _
.-
. -
- - -
.
.
. Procedure 108 was revised on December 6,1979, to recuire independent
--
verification of tags on electrical jumpers and liftec leads.
The procedure (108) will be revised prior to May 1, 1980, to specify,
--
as appropriate verification of tags placed on or removed from valves,
.
switches, and breakers.
Applicable procedures will be audited to assure compliance with this
--
section using checklists.
This will be completed by January 1, 1981.
Future arocedure development and revision will be accomplished by
--
using c1ecklists to assure compliance with Technical Specification 6-8.1.
This will be completed by January 7, 1981.
The inspector verified that procedure 108 has been revised to provide for independent verification for installation and removal of electrical leads and jumpers and also mechanical jumpers.
The remaining items of the licensee's response remain to be accomplished.
3.
Facility Administrative Control Procedures a.
The inspector performed a review, on a sampling basis, of the below listed administrative procedures for conformance with Technical Speci-fications, Section 6; ANSI 18.7; and Regulatory Guide 1.33:
The following documents were reviewed:
101, Organization and Responsibility, Revision 9, February 1,
--
1980.
103, Station Document Control, Revision 6, December 31, 1979.
--
107, Procedure Control, Revision 12, Octaver 25, 1979.
--
115, Standing Order Control, Revision 7, October 25, 1979.
--
116.3, Technical Support Center, Revision 0, February 8, 1980.
--
108, Control of Tagging, Electrical Jumpers, Lifted Electrical
--
,
'
Leads, Keys and Locked Valves, Revision 17, February 15, 1980.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
4.
Review of Facility Procedures i
a.
The inspector reviewed facility procedures and temporary changes, on
'
,
l a sampling basis, to verify the following:
{
l l
.
.
'
Procedures, plus any changes, were reviewed and approved in
--
accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications and the licensee's administrative controls.
The overall procedure format and content were in conformance
--
with the reguirements of the Technical Specifications and ANSI N18.7, " Administrative Controls for Nuclear Power Plants."
'
Checklists, where applicable, were compatible with step-wise
--
instructions in the procedures.
Appropriate Technical Specification limitations had been included
--
in the procedures.
Temporary changes were made in conformance with Technical Specifi-
--
cation requirements and the licensee's administrative controls.
b.
The following procedures were reviewed:
General Plant Operating Procedures
- --
201.3, Plant Startup From Hot Standby to Rated Power, Revision 3, December 10, 1979.
218, Operation Below 10% Rateu Power With Rod Worth Minimizer
--
Bypassed or Inoperable, Revision 0, April 14, 1975.
201.1, Approach to Critical, Revision 15, January 10, 1980.
--
Plant System Procedures 303, Reactor Cleanup Demineralizer System, Revision 5, April 6,
--
1980.
307, Isolation Condenser System, Revision 9, January 14, 1980.
--
- --
312, Reactor Containment Integrity and Atmosphere Control, Revi-sion 13, August 29, 1979.
316, Main Condensate System, Revision 2, January 14, 1980.
--
323, Main Condenser Circulating Water System, Revision 7, March 18,
--
1980.
- --
333, Fire Protection System, Revision 6, February 9, 1979.
337, 4160 Volt Electrical System, Revision 8, March 18, 1980.
--
- Reviewed for Technical Adequacy
.
,n
. -.
.
--_
.
.
343, Communication, Revision 0, May 24, 1977.
--
402.2, IRM Operation During Startup, Revision 4, April 12, 1979.
--
Plant Abnormalities and Emergercy Procedures
- --
503, Instrument Air Failure, Revision 7, December 6, 1979.
- --
508, Loss of Vacuum, Revision 4, June 26, 1978.
526.1, Fire in Plant Areas Other Than Control Room, Revision 1,
--
September 13, l'J78.
506.5, Scram System Failure, Revision 1, May 10, 1979.
--
Annunciator / Alarm Procedures 501, Annunciators and Alarms, Revision 33, December 6, 1979.
--
Parel 1F/2F "C".
--
Alarm 3-3, Emergency Condenser "A" Isolation Off Normal, Revi-sion 11, April 1, 1977.
Alarm 3-21, Emergency Condenser "A" Rupture, Revision 25, April 10, 1979.
-
Panel 3F-D
--
Alarm 2-14, Cleanup RCP "A" Tripped, Revision 27, May 22, 1979.
Alarm 2-26, Non-Regenerative Heat Exchanger High Discharge Pres-sure, Revision 27, May 22, 1979.
- --
Panel SF/6F "H" Alarm 4-4, IRM High or Inoperative, Revision 31, August 14, 1979.
Alarm 2-26, IRM Downscale, Revision 11, April 1, 1977.
Alarm 3-9, Cor. denser Low Vacuum, Revision 31, August 14, 1979.
Alarm 6-12, Condenser Low Vacuum Turbine Trip, Revision 31, August 14, 1979.
-
- --
Panel 5F/6F "J"
- Reviewed for Technical Adequacy
_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _
_--_ _ ____________
..
.
Alarm 3-15, High Drywell Pressure, Revision 31, August 14, 1979.
Panel SF/6F "X"
--
Alarm 3-27, Circulation Water Pump 1-1 and 1-2 Trip, Revision 11, April 1, 1977.
Alarm 4-28, Circulation Water Pump 1-1 and 1-2 Overload Panel 8F/9F "T"
--
.
Alarm 1-7, 4160 Volt Startup Breaker S/A Trip, Revision 33, December 6, 1979.
Alarm 3-3, 4/60 Volt Bus 1A Undervoltage, Revision 33, December 6,
'1979.
Panel 12 X R "FF"
--
Alarm 1-1, Drywell Torus High Oxygen, Revision 11, April 1,1977.
Alarm 1-13, Liquid N Tank Low Level, Revision 11, April 1, 1977.
Panel 08-1 "A"
--
Alarm 6-30, Heat or Smoke Alarm Pawn Failure / Circuit Trouble, Revision 16, May 11, 1978.
Panel 7F "N"
--
Alarm 5-29, Fire Pump 1-1 Running, Revision 11, April 1, 1977.
Alarm 6-30, Fire Pump 1-1, Malfunction, Revision 11, April 1,1977.
Maintenance Procedures
- --
706.1.004, Cleanup Recirculation Pump Maintenance, Revision 3, December 13, 1979.
--
709.1.005, Isolation Con' denser Valve Repairing, Revision 1, March 18, 1980.
720.3.012, SRM and IRM Signal Cable Replacement, Revision 1,
--
November 24, 1978.
- --
729.1.002, Condensate Pump Remove and Replace, Revision 0, March 12, 1976.
- Reviewed for Technical Adequacy
'
.
-
.
. _ - -.
-
__
._.
.
.
.
.
732.2.001, 4160 Volt Breaker Preventive Maintenance, Revision 1,
--
January 22, 1980.
c.
Findings (1) Procedure 343, " Communication", was issued May 24, 1977 and has not been revised since initial issue.
The inspector informed the licensee that Regulatory Guide 1.33, Paragraph D.31 requires ope-rating procedures for communications systems.
Recently estab-lished communications system should be provided operating proce-dures.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector's comments and stated that Procedure 343 would be revised by September 30, 1980 to include operation of new plant communications systems.
This item is unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI review (219/80-16-01).
(2) The inspector observed that procedure 333, " Plant Fire Protection System", provided instructions for operations of fire protection systems well in excess of that required by the Technical Specifi-cations.
A licensee representative stated that fire protection systems had been significantly upgraded since issuance of the initial fire protection Technical Specifications and that empha-sis had been placed on revising plant procedures.
The licensee representative also stated that a Technical Specification change had been prepared and was'in internal review.
The inspector acknowledged the licensee's comments and stated that a Technical Specification Change request should be submitted as soon as prac-ticable.
The licensee stated that change request would be sub-mitted by June 30, 1980.
This item is unresolved pending licens-ee action and subsequent NRC:RI review (219/80-16-02).
(3) ANSI N18.7-1972, Paragraph 4.2.5 states, in part, that the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) meeting minutes shall be approved and issued in a timely manner; and Technical Specifica-tions 6.5.1.3 and 6.5.2.8 require that PORC safety analysis and PORC meeting minutes be forwarded to the Independent Safety Review Groups (ISRG) Coordinator and the Chairman of the General Office Review Board (G0RB).
The inspector observed that licens-ee was not in compliance with the above requirements, in that minutes of PORC meetings since December 1979 were still handwrit-ten rough notes and had not yet been approved or issued.
The licensee gave the inspector a copy of Jersey Central Power and Light Company Audit No. 79-37 dated April 9,1980 which included a finding concerning late issue of PORC meeting minutes.
The licensee stated that the PORC Secretary had been heavily involved with the current refueling outage and that insufficient attention had been given to PORC minutes.
The licensee also l
l l
l
.
__. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _
.
.
stated that a person would be assigned to provide full time and attention to issuing PORC minutes and the backlog should be completed by November 30, 1980.
This is a licensee identified item of noncompliance and is considered unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI review (219/80-16-03).
"
(4)
Worth Minimizer (peration Below 10% Rated Power With the Rod Procedure 218, "O RWM) Bypassed or Inoperable", was issued on April 14, 1975 and has not been subsequently updated.
This procedure does not comply with current Technical Specifications concerning operation below 10% rated power with the RWM bypassed or inoperable.
However, the inspector observed that procedure 201.1, " Approach to Critical", does contain instructions which are in conformance to the Technical Specifications.
The licensee stated that procedure 218 would be deleted by June 14, 1980.
This item'is unresolved pending licensee action and subsequent NRC:RI review (219/80-16-04).
(5) The inspector observed that the following procedures did not appear to have had an annual periodic review as required by
,
Procedure 107:
202.1.2, Power Operation,
--
218-0, Operation at less Than 10% Rated Power With Rod Worth
--
,
Minimizer Bypassed or Inoperative, 302.2-5, CRD Manual Control System,
--
315.2-0, Turbine Lube Oil,
--
322-3, Service Water System,
--
340.2-0, 24 V.D.C. Distribution System,
--
409-1, Operation of Rod Worth Minimizer.
--
T.S. 6.8.2 states, in part, that procedures be periodically reviewed as specified in the administrative procedures; and procedure 107, paragraph 3.2, states, in part, "This review is to be defined as either documented performance of the procedure to achieve its purpose or documented reading of the procedure to assureitcontinuestosatisfyitsobjectiveinamannerconsis-tent with plant requirements".
The licensee stated that each of the above system were operated within the last year; hence a review was conducted.
This operation was not documented, but the inspector concurred that the above systems would have to have
,
l been operated within the past year.
(Except Procedure 218-0 l
SeeParagraph4.((4).)
r
.
.
'
The inspector expressed a concern that system operation, in itself, may not constitute an adequate review.
The licensee did not concur and stated that this method would continue to be used as an alternative method of review.
The licensee did agree, however, that all periodic procedure reviews whether by reading or by system operation will be formally documented and that a system for documenting such a review will be established by August 30, 1980.
Subsequent to the inspection NRC:RI determined that further NRC management review is required concerning the adequacy using procedure operation as a means of review.
This item is unresolved pending licensee action, completion of NRC:RI management review and subsequent NRC:RI review of licensee action (219/80-16-06).
5.
Technical Content of Facility Procedures The inspector conducted a review of facility procedures, on a sampling basis, using FSAR system descriptions, piping and instrument diagrams, and Technical Specifications, where necessary, to verify that procedures were sufficiently detailed to control the operation or evolution described within Technical Specification requirements.
The procedures reviewed with respect to this are marked with an asterisk (*) in Paragraph 4.b (Review of Facility Procedures) of this report.
No icems of noncompliance were identified.
6.
Procedure Changes Resulting From Licensee Amendments The inspector reviewed license amendments (Amendments 33 through 45),
which included Technical Specification changes, issued during the past twenty-one month period and. verified that applicable procedures were revised as necessary to reflect these changes.
No items of noncompliance were identified.
7.
Checklists and Related Forms Operations Department procedures, including checklists and related forms in working files, were reviewed to see that current revisions and on-the-spot changes were posted.
One unresolved item was identified and is detailed in paragraph 9.b.
8.
Chances to Procedures as Detailed in the Safety Analysis Report (Pursuant to 1C CFR 50.59(a) and (b))
The inspector verified, on a sampling basis, that changes made to facility procedures during the past fifteen month period were in compliance with
-
.
-
.
10 CFR 50.59(a) requirements and that records of these changes were main-tained in compliance with 10 CFR 50.59(b).
For the procedures reviewed, the-licensee had determined that 10 CFR 50.59 safety evaluation documenta-tion was not required (no change in procedures as described in the FSAR).
The inspector had no questions in this area.
f 9.
Control Room Tour
.a.
The inspector observed Control Room operations on both day and even-ing shifts for Control Room manning, shift turnover, facility opera-
-tion in accordance with Administrative and Technical Specification requirecents.
The inspector reviewed logs for maintaining plant parameters, switching and tagging logs, and night orders.
In addi-tion, the inspector on a random basis compared fuel locations listed on the Control Room status board to the final fuel locations as entered in the 1980 Fuel Movement Log.
A plant refueling was in progress during this inspection.
b.
Findings During review of Control Room logs used for monitoring plant para-
.
meters required by Technical Specification surveillance requirements, the inspector observed that the required limits for these parameters were not listed on the log sheets.
A license representative stated
,
that plant parameter limits were not on the log sheets in that operators who logged the data and the supervisors who reviewed the data were familiar with the limits of parameters being logged and, in addition, the limits and setpoints were readily available to ope-rators since the Technical Specifications and Standing Order No. 1, which itemizes all T.S. limits and setpoints, were located in the control room.
The inspector acknowledged the licensee representa-tives coments and informed the licensee that ANSI N18.7 recommends that maximum and minimum limits for significant plant parameters should be identified on the log sheet.
The inspector also expressed the concern that relying on memory could lead to errors and that even if an error were discovered during a supervisor's review there could already be several hours delay.
.
,
The inspector also observed that T.S. logs were not procedurally controlled; had not been reviewed by the PORC; nor had they been approved by the station manager.
A licensee representative stated
'
that portions of procedure 106, " Conduct of Operations", which in
.part, covers use of logs represents an approved procedure concerning the use of logs.
The inspector informed the licensee that procedure 106 did not meet the intent of ANSI N18.7 in that actual log sheets are not issued ~by this procedure; hence, requirements such as logging frequency of parameter limits, and assurance that all required para-meters are logged are not reviewed or approved.
In addition, there is no controlled method for updating and periodically reviewing the i
.,,
-
.
.
logs.
Subsequent to the inspection the licensee provided to the inspector a licensee issued nonconformance report (80-003) dated January 2, 1980 which noted that T.S. logs were not controlled docu-ments as required by the Station Quality Assurance Plan.
The licensee stated that by August 30, 1980 action would be completed to assure T.S. logs are controlled as required and recommended by ANSI N18.7.
This item is unresolved pending licensee action and sub-sequent NRC:RI review (219/80-16-05).
~
10.
Unresolved-Items.
Unresolved items are matters about which more information is required in order to ascertain whether they are acceptable items, items of noncompli-ance, or deviations.
Several unresolved items are identified and are detailed in Paragraphs 4.c.(1), (2), (3), (4) and (5), and 9.b.
11.
Presentation of Preliminary Findings Licensee management (reference details paragraph 1) was informed of pre-liminary(5) pection findings detailed in paragraphs 4.c.(1), (2), (3),
ins (4)and and paragraph 9.b on May 7 and 8, 1980; and various discussions of findings with the inspector ensued.
A summary of inspector findings was provided to the senior licensee representative onsite and other licens-ee staff members at the conclusion of the inspection of May 9, 1980.
The licensee acknowledged the inspector findings.
On May 15, and June 10, 1980 telephone conversations concerning inspection findings were held between Mr. N. Blumberg and Mr. J. Sullivan.
e
,