ML20207D840
| ML20207D840 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1988 |
| From: | Burke D, Czech L, Watts R NEW YORK, STATE OF, RICHARD J. WATTS, INC., ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-3-A-004, OL-3-A-4, NUDOCS 8808160152 | |
| Download: ML20207D840 (15) | |
Text
.
h-t DOCKrTED USYRC O
ss nu3 33 es si
';;t,
~-
.i,.-
PRESENTATION ON R.
E.
GINNA INGESTION PATHWAY EXERCISE WEEK OF OCTOBER 25, 1987 e
?
David W.
Burke Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Lawrence A. Czech New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group Richard J. Watts Case No.
Official Exhibit th 4 Richard J.
Watts, Inc.
h 322-o L-3 utm _ R h_
(GC, Board, Partd Disposition:
Identified.-
Rejected __ ___
Received _
-_m-IN THE MATTER OF:
8808160152 080711 O
PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
PDR D3te:
Witness:
Reportert 7:ll DS No. Pages:
k*
Page 2-O Introduction l
l This paper is presented to summarize the key aspects of the 1987 Ginna Emergency Preparedness Exercise, held during the week of October 25.
This exercise was unique because of its very broad scope which included requirements for Ingestion Pathway Response, off-hours and unannounced exercise initiation, and NRC player participation.
Planning aspects, objectives, concept of operati-ons, preparation activities, conduct of the Exercise, and "lessons learned" will be discussed.
l l
The Robert E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant is a two-loop Westinghouse l
PWR 490 MWe unit that went into commercial operation in 1970.
Ginna is located on the south shore of Lake Ontario in upstate New York and we have about 250 permanent site employees.
The j
immediate area around the plant is primarily agricultural with apples and other fruit as the major produce.
j The TSC, OSC, and Emergency Survey Center are at the plant site l
and the EOF and Joint News Center are about 25 miles away in the basements of two of our Corporate buildings in downtown Rochester about half a block apart.
2.
PLANNING ASPECTS We have all heard of the previous field exercises and Ingestion Pathway events at St. Lucie, Zion, Trojan, Arkansas, and Millstone for example.
Seemed enoruous at the time.
It still does.
How long would such an Exercise last?
Days, weeks, months?
Plume portion now?
Ingestion Pathway later?
What would be the role of RG&E as the licensee?
How much would be expected of the Counties?
As the lead agency, what coordination would take place at the State level?
However, as we calmed down and extracted a promise from the State of New York that it was to be a cooperative effort all the way and would begin planning immediately, we considered what was at risk; Naw York State's six year requirement and the Ginna license.
Jim Baranski and Larry Czech of General Papile's staff became our main contacts at the State and Dr. Bob Bores of NRC Region I was to provide valuable input as we proceeded in developing a scenario.
FEMA would orchestrate the event via the objective pathway with their draft guidance memorandum IN-1 as the basis of discussion.
At RG&E, Wes Backus of the Ginna Operations Staff has developed the operational sections of most of our scenarios and Richard Watts, Inc. developed the radiological aspects of previous Ginna scenarios and especially this years' Ingestion Pathway event.
He is prasently working as a contractor for RG&E.
Page 3
O Planning efforts then turned towards identifying the specifics of the Ginna Exercise.
What were we going to set.as objectives?
What requirements did we have to meet?
What could be done out of sequence?
To make it more interesting, it developed that off-i site objectives that had to be addressed in 1987 included an off-hours Plume Exposure Pathway exercise that was to be unannounced.
With one county having nearly all volunteers this caused come concern.
Would the emergency workers show up in the wee hours?
Would it be a weekend?
Could they make the reporting time requirements?
What could be simulated?
FEMA would provide a list of objectives for discussion from their 34 core objectivos.
Then the State would argue the validity of what FEMA was to evaluate.
RG&E was invited to share in all such meetings and played an active role in resolving the scope of several objectives.
RGGE developed its own objectives that were agreed upon by NRC but as it turned out they did not stay to evaluate our Ingestion Pathway activities.
Tho:e objectives were:
On-Site Obiectives (EOF)
The major objective of the exercise is to demonstrate the response capabilities of the Ginna Station Emergency Responsa Organization.
Within this overall objective, numerous individual objectives are specified as follows:
Demonstrate ability to deploy and coordinate environmental sampling teams (0-10 miles). Teams will be simulated.
Demonstrate ability to evaluate laboratory data and/or field measurements and provide appropriate PAR's and interface to New York State.
Provide interface with New York State Post--Accident Assessment and in Public Information functions as needed.
The of fsite objectives finally agreed upon by all agencies were:
1.
Demonstrate the ability to make decisions and to coordinate emergency activities within the ingestion pathway exposure i
emergency planning zone.
2.
Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations, and field personnel; special M
emphasis will be on communications between fis1d monitoring U
and sampling teams and their control points.
l Page 4
O 3.
Demonstrate the ability to project dosage to the public i
ingestion pathway exposure, based on utility.and field data I
and to determine appropriate protective actions, based on I
the PAG's and other relevant factors.
4.
Demonstrate the ability to implement preventiv% and emergency protectivo actions for the t.ngestion exposure F4thway hazards.
5.
Demonstrate the ability to mobilize and deploy sample collection teams in a timely fashion.
l 6.
Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures for labor-l atory measurement and analysis of appropriate radioisotope deposition in food and environmental samples.
7.
Demonstrate the ability to estimate total population exposure.
l l
8.
Demonstrate the, ability to formulate and distribute appro-i priate instrue:1ons to the public in a timely manner.
l 9.
Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate l
locations, organizations and field personnel.
10.
Demonstrate the ability to mobilize and deploy sample collection teams in a timely fashion.
11.
Demonstrate appropriate equipment including personal dosimetry and procacures for the collection and transport of samples of soils, vegetation, snow, water and milk.
SEE APPENDIX I FOR GUIDELINES Then the other shoe dropped.
NRC notified us that they would send a contingent of nearly two docen personnel to co-locate in our various facilities and play in the plume exposure portion of the Exercise.
Where do we put them?
What kind of equipment or space would they need?
Add to that, NRC wanted to know if we were ready for an Emergency Response Facility Appraisal in conjunction with the Exercise.
We compromised that item into 1988.
At RG&E we have established a group known as the Emergency l
Milestone Planning Committee (EMPC).
The first meeting of this I
group takes place on the day of the NRC Critique for the currently I
completed Exercise.
This committee meets monthly, then bi-weekly as we approach the exercise date, to track a list of 35 40 tasks designed to culminate in a successful sxercise.
Siren tests, training schedules, public information distribution etc.
are all followed by the EMPC that is comprised of all the areas n
of expertise necessary to meet the needs of our Nuclear Emergency V
Response Plan.
They also remind me of budgets.
From the first hint of the scope of our 1987 drill / exercise activities, this was a major concern of my management.
Page 5
O Instead of the two Counties that we work with regularly the 50 mile Ingestion Pathway Zone encompassed all or part of 13 Counties and a portion of Ontario Canada on the north shore of Lake Ontario.
What equipment would they need to support the States Exercise?
How many people would need training?
How many counties have EP organizations?
The next several months raised as many questions as those we resolved.
To answer the more immediate questions of County Executives not normally involved in nuclear emergency planning, we hosted two meetings of various county departments at which New York State reviewed its plans and procedures.
A major concern was communi-cations.
The Counties wanted to be kept informed and it would be accomplished via the National Warning System (NAWAS).
3.
CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS In planning for the Ingestion Pathway Exercise, there was a naed to delineate the respective roles and responsibilities of all key organizations that would participate in emergency response.
This involved the preparation of a more detailed section of the New York State Plan addressing Ingestion P&thway Response.
Planning and informational meetings were also held with various state agencies, the licensee, the 13 counties in the 50 mile EP2, and Department of Energy representatives from Brookhaven National Laboratory.
A New York State Ingestion Pathway task force consisting of various State agency representatives was established to draft the State Ingestion Pathway Plan and to coordinate the operational details.
This was accomplished by pooling the expertise, procedures, and resources of each agency and outside organization.
Figure 1 is a summary of the overall concept of operations for Ingestion Pathway Response.
The main facility for evaluation and decision-making was the State Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in Albany, New York.
A total of 10 State sampling teams were trained and 5 were fielded during the actual exercise.
The teams were deployed from one of the State Emergency Management Office, district facilities, located approximately 20 miles from the Ginna plant.
Liaisons from both the utility and the Department of Energy were also present at the State district facility to coordinate the field activities of their own sampling teams (which were simulated).
Transportation was provided by the State Department of Transport-
- ation, using large dump trucks, each capable of carrying the entire survey crew, equipment and collected samples.
Provisions were also made for the transfer of team samples to other vehicles which they would transport them to the State Laboratory in Albany.
Page 6-O Radio communications were assisted by the State Disaster Prepare-dness Commission van manned by the State Police,. in addition to mobile chase vans operated by the State Emergency llanagement Office.
Each State sampling team consisted of 3-4 members.
These included a:
o Radiation Health Specialist o
Staff member from Agriculture and Markets o
A Department of Transportation driver and communicator The State sampling efforts were supplemented by tho simulated presence of DOE RAP teams and utility environmental monitoring teams who performed additional simulated ground surveys and environmental sample collections.
DOE fly-over data was made available (simulated) during the second and third day of the Exercise.
Although advised on recommended protective actions, the surroundkng counties were not required to take an active response role during the exercise.
However, during an actual large-scala emergency, the Counties would have been requested to provide the following types of support:
o Monitor Public water supplies (e.g. open reservoirs) o Provide information on local agricultural activities o
Guiding State and Federal responders o
support State Ingestion Pathway response as required 4.
Conduct of the Exercise and Precaration Activities The 1987 Ginna Evaluated Exercise, as mentioned earlier, had to be structured to satisfy the key requirements -- that is, a full-
- scale, off-hours, unannounced Plume Exposure Pathway Exercise with NRC player participation, followed by an Ingestion Pathway Exercise which encompassed sample collection, transport, laboratory handling, assessment and protective action decision-making.
The final Exercise format that was agreed upon spannnd three consec-utive days.
These were as follows:
DAY l o
Plume Exercise (State, Counties, Utility) o Begin Ingestion Pathway Exercise (State, Utility, DOE) o Initial Survey Team Missions Established o
Preliminary PAR's for Ingestion Pathway DAY 2 O
o Conduct of Field Sampling (State, Utility, DOE) o Sample Transport, and o
Laboratory Aspects
Page 7-O DAY 3 o
Evaluation of Sample Analysis Results (State, Utility, DOE) o PAR Decision Making TIME WARP to DAY 6 o
Reevaluate PAR's o
Total Population Exposure Several pre-exercise practice sessions were held for various prospective Exercise participants.
In early September, an Ingestion Pathway tabletop session was conducted for approximately 70 State and Utility participants at the State EOC in Albany.
A complete scenario and data package were prepared for the tabletop, to allow participants to practice their procedures and skills in the areas of interagency response actions and responsibilities, accident assessment, protective action recommendations and public information.
Prior to the Dress Rehearsal, State sampling team members were provided both classroom instruction and field practice in drilling proper sampling techniques, radiological controls and radio communications.
The Exercise Dress Rehearsal was conducted in a manner almost identical to the later graded Exercise itself.
Although the date for the Dress Rehearsal was announced beforehand, the starting time was not.
We began the Dress Rehearsal (Plume Pathway phase) at 3:00 a.m.,
and continued on with the Ingestion Pathway activi-ties during the following two days.
Since NRC players were not present at the Dress Rehearsal, we recruited various utility people with EP experience to serve as NRC stand-ins.
This gave the RG&E players a better feeling for the types of questions and interactions to be expected in the Exercise.
No major technical problems were observed in the Dress Rehearsal,
)
- however, several ideas surfaced on how to better streamline controller activities over the three-day Exercise, as well as i
I polishing player drillsmanship.
Less than a month later, on Tuesday, October 27, 1987 we began the graded Exercise.
O r
Page 8
O DAY 1:
Around midnight, a Control Room Training Shift was briefed by Exercise Controllers on the initial plant scenario conditions prior to reporting to the Ginna control Room.
The Control Room Training Shift had not been informed about the Exercise start date and time until the previous day.
The Exercise began with ti.e NUE being declared at 1:00 a.m.
This start time was chosen to allow sufficient time for the mobil-ization of response organizations within the 6:00 p.m. - 4:00 a.m.
off-hours requirement imposed by FEMA.
The scenario was based upon a seismic event which ultimately lead to a major radiological. release from Containment and out through the Plant Ventilation system to the environment.
The Plume Pathway phase was drivan by whole body dose projections based upon a noble gas release rate of 400 Curies per second.
However, suf ficient radiciodine activity was also assumed releaped (0.12 curies /second), to exceed the Emergency Ingestion Pathkay PAG's out to 12 miles, and the Preventive PAG's out to 30 miles.
Deposition levels were assumed detectable out to 40 miles.
Light to heavy rain and Pasquill stability "F" conditions were assumed in the scenario.
O The NRC players who participated were pre-staged in Rochester prior to the Exercise.
However, they did not report to the RG&E response facilities (TSC, EOF) until a Site Area Emergency declara-tion had been made.
We provided extra space and telephone communications in all facilities.
Wo were pleasantly surprised how smoothly and effectively the NRC and RG&E players worked together.
We attribute the successful cooperation in part to the positive, professional attitude displayed by all participants, and to the joint emergency response orientations that were held beforehand.
These orientations, held at NRC Region I and RG&E, allowed both to become better familiarized with each other's organizations and response procedures.
We made special efforts to keep all RG&E and offsite agency personnel continuously briefed on plant and radiological condi-tions.
This was done at regular intervals by the EOF / Recovery Manager, EOF Dose Assessment Manager and Offsite Liaison per-sonnel.
In addition, we dispatched RG&E liaison personnel to the EOC's of both surrounding counties and the State.
These liaisons are former plant operators who assist offsite agencies in the interpretation of technical information regarding plant emergency conditions.
At the EOF, we have also designated a
special technical liaison who serves as an interface with offsite agency representatives on radiological and meteorological condi-O
- tions, including weather forecasts.
This position has greatly eased the time burden on the EOF Dose Assessment Manager, who can now better focus on accident response details.
Page 9
O The Plume Exposure portion of the Exercise was highly successful.
Our objectives for of f-hours notification and mobilization were achieved with no major dif ficulties.
After interviewing several Exercise participants, FEMA was also satisfied that the confiden-tiality of the Exercise start time had been maintained to satisfy the unannounced Exercise objective.
One of the PAR's involving sheltering of the germral public beyond 10 miles will undoubtedly be a discussion iten. in FEMA's post-exercise evaluation, and was a concern to both counties and the State.
However, NRC had no problems with the technical basis for the recommendation during the Exercise.
Following the termination af the Plume Exposure Exarcisa, play was resumed one-half hour later for all parties continuing on with the Ingestion Pathway phase.
Accident assessment staffs at the State EOC in Albany and at ths RG&E EOF reviewed the basis and extent of initial preventive Ingestion Pathway recommendations involving placing milk anim31s and livestock on stored feed out to 10 miles downwind.
Post-plume deposition survey and environmental sampling missions were established for State, RG&E and DOE monitoring teams for the remainder of DAY l and DAY 2.
^
The utility took the lead on dispatching several teams to conduct extr.nsive ground deposition surveys (using micro-R meters) out to 40 miles on DAY l in order to establish a preliminary "foot print."
OOE representatives also discussed the initiation of the FRMAP
- response, including arrangements to conduct simulated aerial survey missionc.
The New York Power Authcrity environmental laboratory ir. Fulton, New York was contacted by RG&E to assist in the analysis of environmental samples.
The lead RG&E Dose Assessment Manager was also designated to personally assist the State at their facilities over the course of the next two days.
Once initial survey plans had been established at the State and the RG&E EOF, DAY l activities were terminated.
DAY 2:
Exercise play resumed'the next morning.
Reduced accident assess-ment staffs were maintained at the State EOC and RG&E EOF to provide Exercisa continuity and direction.
However, the primary focus on DAY 2 involved the evaluation of State sampling teams and sample handling activities at the State Laboratory.
State sampling teams were first briefed by the State Department of O'
Health team coordinator and by the RG&E Dose Assessment Manager.
Preliminary off-site radiological levels associated with the deposition "footprint" were reviewed, and specific survey missions were detailed.
Page 10 0
Teams were then deployed after equipment assembly and check-out.
DOE Rap Team personnel were also present at the team staging area to coordinate the monitoring activities of 5 simulated DOE teams and aerial surveillance that would be performed by Eastern Measurements Systems.
All monitoring actions Vere closely coordinated among participating organizations throughout DAY 2.
The locations of various environmental samples and measurements were noted so that controllers could prepara associated isotopic analysis results to Exercise participants the following day (DAY 3).
Because of time constraints.,
Stata Laboratory activities in Albany were performed and avs1.uated concurrently with ongoing sampling activities on DAY 2.
A truck laden with various environ-mental samples (having simulated contamination) was driven to the State Laboratory.
FEMA then observed the unlosding,
- surveys,
=-
sorting and analysis preparation of samples.
Isotopic results were then provided by Exercise controllers according to analytipal
. sensitivities associated with the counting proced'tras used by the Laboratory.
DAY 3:
Exercise play again resumed the next morning.
All State, DOE and O
utitiev 91 v r= v r cir== bri r a oa ta v at= aa a t sea r tea throughout the course of the previous two days.
At the State EOC, a detailed discussion was conducted throughout the morning regarding the duties and responsibilities of each participating State agency with respect to Ingestion Pathway response.
The Department of Health, Agriculture and Markets and State Emergency Management Office personnel continued their evaluation of field sampling results and formulation of additional protective actions.
A DOE representative was also present to assict in technical
'ssessment efforts, and performance of dose calcu-lations.
RG&E was on hand to observe these activities and provide any assistance needed.
Also on hand at the State EOC were the RG&E Dose Assessment Manager and RG&E Governmental Aff airs liaison to closely coordinate i
radiological assessment support efforts at the EOF.
RG&E maintained partial staf fing of the EOF on DAY 3',
comprised of Dose Assessment personnel, certain key managers, government liaisons and public information staff.
Regular telephone conference calls were conducted between the EOF and RG&E represen-tatives at the State EOC.
Two controllers were on hand to guide 0
ena vatu t en zor activitta -
o
,m-.
v w
r-
,-w 4
m
,w m-
1 Page 11 (2)
All public information activities for the Ingestion Pathway were coordinated through the State's Public Information Officer at the l
State EOC.
The Joint Emergency News Center in Rochester was not utilized during the Ingestion Pathway phase of the Exercise.
Also present at the State EOC was an insurance representative from Marsh McClennon, the brokerage firm that provides RG&E's nuclear liability coverage.
This action was planned in anticipation of the obvious questions which arise from a major accident, and was viewed very favorably by FEMA.
During the afternoon of DAY 3, the scenario provided for a "time warp" three days ahead to allow further consideration (and relaxation) of protective actions.
A FEMA exercise objective also included a discussion of total population dose.
Although a detailed numerical evaluation was not required, participants were required to identify the methods and resources available for the assessment of total population dose.
It was recognized that such an assessment would continue over many weeks or months.
5.
Lessons Learned We are assessing the general and specific observations made O
during our recent exercise.
However, here are a few of the key preliminary "lessons learned."
o Dedicate a full year to planning, including NRC and FEMA in scenario development, o
Get agreement on objectives as early as possible.
o Establish scope of the exercise as a consensus.
o Importance of local Cooperative Extension people on land use and harvest crop availability.
o Recovery / Reentry aspects go hand-in-hand with Ingestion Pathway.
We have not yet received a formal written FEMA evaluation, but we were delighted to hear very positive indications from FEMA during their verbal critique.
The key benefit from this, of ocurse, is to maintain a favorable perception that the State,
- counties, utility and other response organizations can work together effectively to assure the public's health and safety.
O
,w q- - - ~.,
O O
O Couunand FEMA Public and Information Control i
4 State EOC L^*
^"*Lv5'5 assuars Assessment State [0C l
and s
Operations Evalua tion s s N
N 0011 Radiological N
USDOE RAP ras 4
g ^ ",^ 'y
',5 Laboratory-Albany Liaison a
local field Analysis Goveranent or National Lab I
{
h Sample USDOE Team Collec tior.
Local Gaverrunent SDIO District Coordinator Point Technical Staff n
DIC/SEMO Van (s)
RAP field ColhcYon Teams samets:
f and Dispatch n
State Ingestion Sampling Teams
...,oes I!
l INFORMATION FLOW FOR INGESTION PATHWAY RESPONSE
Page 12 O
1 I
APPENDIX I OBJECTIVES AND GUIDELINES The offsite objectives finally agreed upon by all agencies were:
1.
Demonstrate the ability to make decisions and to coordinate emergency activities within the ingestion pathway exposure emergency planning zone.
Guidelines:
Command and control decisions based on inputs from various sources.
All factors will be carefully analyzed before a decision is made.
=.
2.
Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations, and field personnel; special emphasis will b'e on communications between field monitoring dnd sampling teams and their control points.
Guidelines:
Communications include
- radio, telefax and commercial lines.
)
3.
Demonstrate the ability to project dosage to the public via l
ingestion pathway exposure, based on utility and field data and to determine appropriate protective actions, based en the PAG's and other relevant factors.
Guidelines:
Dose assessment and accident evaluation personnel will provide these recommendations to decision makers.
4.
Demonstrate the ability to implement preventive and emergency protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway hazards.
G_uidelines:
Command and Control will analyze situation including staff input and issue a decision to the respectivo agencies for implamentation.
Q
t Page 13 O
5.
Demonstrate the ability to mobilize and deploy sample collection teams in a timely fashion.
Guidelines:
5 State ingestion team members will be notified during the inhalation portion of the exercise and then pre-positioned at one of the appropriate SEMO district offices at the beginning of the ingestion phase.
Equ hment checkout, team briefings and the current status and dispatch-
)
ing to field monitoring sample points will be conducted.
The 5 teams will actually be deployed in the 50-mile EPZ. Dose i
assessment will be done solely with State input.
Other State agency teams may simulate activity.
Brookhaven National Laboratory / DOE will assist per the Federal Radio-logical Monitoring and Assessment Plan.
G.
Demonstrate appropriate equipment and procedures for labor-atory measurement and analysis of appropriate radioisotope deposition in food and environmental samples.
Guidelines:
Selected field samples will be delivered to the DOH labs, Albany.
The lab techniques will not be evaluated.
Data for the samples will be provided by a controller to the appropriate exercise participants.
Upon C
arrival at the
- lab, sorting, diluting and labeling of samples, procedures for preventing laboratory contamination and cross contamination and some sample preparation will be evaluated.
Laboratory analytical capabilities will be documented by the NRC and provided to FEMA.
7.
Demonstrate the ability to estimate total population exposure.
Guidelines 1 The methodology and consultative processes used to determine total population exposure will be evaluated.
Actual calculations for determining population exposures will not be evaluated.
8.
Demonstrate the ability to formulate and distribute appro-priate instructions to the public in a timely manner.
Guideling.a.t.
The only portion of information that will be operational will be the State function responsible for the distribution of information to the public.
This objective will be demonstrated out of the SEOC for the purpose of this exercise.
No rumor control, media response nor issuance of EBS will be evaluated, however, the capability for these will be observed.
9.
Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations and field personnel.
O
- Guideline!
Communication with field sampling teams will be by use of radio.
-g
-,_y77,---
_ye p--,.m.,7-
.~_,m-,
,,,,,_,._.._,-,,,,,-w.,,._,
...,.,._w
.4-,,.,---.,,--w, n
~
Page 14 O
10.
Demonstrate the ability to mobilize and deploy sample collection teams in a timely fashion.
Guidelines:
5 State ingestion team members will b e' notified and pre-positioned at the district of fice. Equipment checkout, team briefing and the current status and dispatching to field monitoring sample points will be conducted.
11.
Demonstrate appropriate equipment including personal dosimetry and procedures for the collection and transport of samples of soils, vegetation, snow, water and milk.
Guidelines:
Selected samples will be delivered to DOH lab,
- Albany, from the area of potential impact.
Protective clothing will not be worn for the duration of the ingestion pathway exercise.
Supplies of protective clothing, including hand and foot covering can be worn for evaluation, then removed.
t O
l O
,e-
,.,m.
y-
,*w, y--
-