ML20128H426

Forwards Response to NUREG-0828 Dtd May 1984 Re Integrated Plant Safety Assessment of SEP Topic III-6, Seismic Design Considerations. Calculation CA 0540-064-001, Emergency Condenser Encl

ML20128H426
Person / Time
Site:	Big Rock Point File:Consumers Energy icon.png
Issue date:	02/03/1993
From:	Beckman W CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20128H430	List: ML20128H426
References
RTR-NUREG-0828, RTR-NUREG-828, TASK-03-06, TASK-3-6, TASK-RR NUDOCS 9302170036
Download: ML20128H426 (16)

Text

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

s. l lL .

LConsumers William L Beckman -

.1%nt Manager

- MKNNiAN5 PROGRE55 Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant,10269 US 31 North, Charlevoix, MI 49720 February 3, 1993 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control-Desk '

, Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET-50-155 - LICENSE DPR BIG ROCK-POINT PLANT--

SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC III-6, SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS The Systematic Evaluation . Program was initiated ir February:1977 by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) to review the designs of older operating nuclear. reactor plants to reconfirm and document their . safety. .In NUREG-0828, dated May 1984, the USNRC issued the Integrated Plant Safety Assessment -- -

Systematic Evaluation Program ' Big-Rock Point Plant, final Report.

In regards to-SEP Topic III-6, Seismic 1 Design Considerations, the Staff < _. .

concluded that the approach by the. Licensee (i.e.,-to selectively upgrade the d

" weak links" in the systems and structures necessary to mitigate accidents that would be expected to result from seismic events) was reasonable hnd, if.

properly-executed, would provide sufficient seismic resistanca so that the health and safety of the public could be ensured., .The Staff required that:the Licensee's evaluation address the issues: raised regarding the analysis methods in the topic- evaluation and-the. potential for failure of masonry walls L wherever they apply. The Staff would continue-to review the Licensee's: u implementation of' this approach and will describe the results'in;a supplement to this~ final report.

j To-assist the' Staff in their review, a-request form additional information'has; been made by the Office of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation. (NRR) Big. Rock -Point -

Project Manager.. This information-has been attached-to this21etter.

yy n _ -

William L Beckman '!

Plant Manager CC: Administrator, Region III,-USNRC ,

NRC Resident Inspector - Big Rock Point "  !'

ATTACHMENT 080072 -

1 9302170036 930203 I j I

gDR.

ADOCK O g5 -.

g A GISENERGYCOMPANY= -

. . ~

p s

-To GCWithrow

(): Trem TSikav as CONSUMERS s_,/ - POWER Date April 10, 1991 COMPANY Subject CLOSE0UT OP PROJECT NO. 847 Internal BIG ROCK POINT PLANT Correspondence CC REBarnhart __Q@$0WR? TS91-002 DEMoeggenberg 4 CMMoeggenberg 8 .

PRC Chairman .. APRIS1991 b TRG Chairman 740*22*45*04 DCC:

740*50*99*01 DCC -

Project

Title:

Emergency Condenser Shell and Support Evaluation TRG Issue No.: BN-014A Project

Description:

The scope of Integrated Plan Issue BN-014A, Resolution of Seismic Weak Links, was to perform an evaluation to determine the seismic capacity of the emergency condenser shell and supports to comply with a seismic criteria / demand at the A established Safe Shutdown Earthquake-SSE. The response spectra used for this SSE evaluation ie the " site specific" spectra as described in the conclusion statement of the Updated FHSR, Section 2.5.2.1..

• The emergency condenser shell support failure causes the failure of the emergency condenser. This failure not only causes loss of primary heat-removal source during a loss of station power, but it also could cause a loss of the RDS valves, and the loss of the fire water supply tot e core spray system either through fire water make-up line to the EC, rupture or the EC shell falling off the ECS level and rupturing the surrounding enclosure spray and the core spray piping.-

Project Status:

By upgrading the identified weak link to a level greater than the SSE, core damage can further be reduced. The proposed upgrade for the Emergency Condenser was submitted to a consultant for a seismic capacity analysis and a modification necessity determination.

The analysis has been completed by the consultant (ABB Impell) and has been independently reviewed in detail by CPCO ESS Engineering (IOM RBJ 27-91) for support of documented results.

The emergency condenser has been evaluated in a manner consistent with other systems and equipment at the Big Rock Point Plant. The analysis concludes (q)

'v that the shell meets code allowable stresses (i.e. , ASME B&PV CODE NB-3200) for the faulted condition and that the supporte remain elastic.

OOOO O ci; c:; 8 0157 IC0491-0054A-BT01- ,

Y

,f

j'

+ -

-[p:  ;

The recentJanalyses submitted'bylthe consultants have essentially upgraded the

- eme'rgency condenser for. seismic capacity- and have indicated. that no modifications -

are required.; Therefore, the evaluation ~ of the; emergency condenser is considered:

-l complete.-

- ~'

Alse ' since no' modifications are required to be performed on the'. emergency; condenser, reserved. Facility Change Number-FC-661 should be cancelled or

. reassigned to a different project.

' PJ ease -concur with project closeout:

Approved Date 4 10 l Return to CHMoeggenberg O

d.'

O 9

IC0491-0054A-BT01-

)

T3 GCWithrow _

,, Pros TSikavitsas CONSUMERS i T POWER C/ Date April 10,1991 COMPANY Subject CLOSEOUT OF PROJECT NO. 847 Internal BIC ROCK POINT PLANT Correspondence CC REBarnhart TS 91-002-DEMoeggenberg CMMoeggenberg PRC Chairman TRG Chairman DCC: 740*22d45*04 740*50*99*01 Project Titlet Emergency Condenser Shell and Support Evaluation TRG Issue No. BN-014A Project

Description:

The scope of Integrated Plan Issue BN-014A, Resolution of Seismic Weak 1. inks, was to perform an evaluation to determine the seismic capacity of the emergency condenser shell and supports to comply with a seismic criteria / demand at the establiched Safe Shutdown Earthquake-SSE. The response spectra used for this SSE evaluation is the " site specific" spectra as described in the conclusion

{V statement of the Updated FHSR, Section 2.5.2.1..

• The emergency condenser shell support f ailure causes the failure of the emergency condenser. This failure not only causes loss of primary h'est removal source during a loss of station power, but it alsc, could cause a loss of the RDS valves, and the loss of the fire water supply tote core' spray system either through fire water make-up line to _the EC, rupture or the EC shell falling off the ECS level and rupturing the surrounding '

enclosure spray and the core spray piping.

Project Statust By upgrading the identified weak link to a level greater than the SSE, core damage can further be reduced. The proposed upgrade for the Emergency Condenser was submitted to a consultant for a seismic capacity analysis and a modification necessity determination.

The analysis has been completed by the consultant (ABB Impell) and has been independently reviewed in detail by CPCO ESS Engineering (IOM RBJ 27-91) for support of documented results.

The emergency condenser has been evaluated in a manner consistent with other systems and equipment at the Big Rock Point Plant. 'Ihe analysis concludes A that the_ shell meets code allowable stresses (i.e., ASME BliPV CODE NB-3200) for lj the faulted condition and that the supports remain elastic.

IC0491-0050 4 N10 tit 6 6 IEt G461 i

. 2 --

- , 1he rec'ent analyses. submitted by. the: consultants have essentially upgraded the -

-: = emergency condenser for seismic capacity and have indicated that no nodifications:

are required. -Therefore..the evaluation of the emergency.condenner is considered ,

comp 1~e t e.

'Also,'since no modifications are required to be'parformed on'the emergency-condenser, reserved Tacility Change Number-FC-661 should be cancelled or-.

reassigned to a different project.

Please concur with project closeout:

Approved Date 4 10 Yl 4

Return to CMMoeggenberg a

d u"

)

Ic0491-0054htT91 e c; m; e r o .5 e;:a ,

E a wd- ~ -- TT (

To TSikavitsap ' Big Rock Point RBJ 27-91 QCn h._-

[X I From RBJenkhs, IF13 223A CONSllHERS -

POWER'

-Date- April 2, 1991L COMPANY-

-Subject B1G ROCK POINT Internal  ;

EMERCENCY CONDENSER ANALYSIS -Correspondence-CC Ref. 1 Letter from Robert D Campbell (SMA) to R B Jenkins (CPCo), transmittal of SMA Calculation No. 13703.01, " Big Rock Emergency Condenser Tank" dated December 4, 1981. j i

Ref. 2 Letter from Donald A Wesley (ABB Impell) to R B Jenkins.(CPCo), dated October 11, 1990.

Ref. 3 Letter from David K Nakaki. (ABB Impc11) to R 8 Jenkins (CPCo),

" Big Rock Point Emergency Condenser", dated November 21, 1990.

Ref. 4 Letter from David K Nakaki (ABB Impell) to R B Jenkins (CPCo), Transmittal of Big Rock Point Emergency Condenser Calculation,. dated November 28, 1990.

D Ref. 5 D'Appolonia Consulting Engineers, " Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation,

V Reactor Building Primary Coolant-Loop, Big-Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant", Rev. 1, prepared for Consumers Power Company, August, 1981.

Ref. 6 D' Appolonia Consulting Engineers, " Derivation of Site-Specific Seismic Floor Response Spectra, Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation', Big Rock-Point Nuclear Power Plant", prepared for Consumers Power Company August, 1983.

Ref. 7 " Nuclear Reactors. and Earthquakes", TID-7024',: prepared by Lockheed '

Aircraf t Corp and Holmes & Narver,11963.

Ref. 8 Wichman, K R, ET AL, " Local-Stresses in Spherical and. Cylindrical Shells Due to External Loadings", Welding Research Council Bulletin.107, March, 1979.

Ref.1 is the original analysis for the Big Rock Point emergency condenser tank. That analysis used the analysis . guidelines of Ref. 8 and the response spectra of Ref. 5 to conclude that modifications would-be required on the built-in emergency condenser support.

Ref. 2 consisted of a proposal;to take a more detailed look at the emergency

~

condenser. That proposal contained a brief review of the Ref. 'l calculation and indicated where conservatism could be removed. Specifically, it'was .

suggested in Ref. 2 that the never " site specific" spectra from Ref. 6 could

.p be employed to reduce the spectral load input. In addittor., it. was suggested Q  : that employing sloshing per Ref.- 7 would take a significant body of emergency-.

condenser' fluid and relegate it to a very low frequency motion where the low O #

IC0491-0288A-b0k l

a; , ,

y s

O spectra 1 ' ordinate would result-in small shell and: support loads with respect

~to thelloads computed-in-Ref.11.

s Ref. 3 transmits the result of the analysis. =Ref.-4-provides:the' calculation itself which supports the results documented in Ref. 3.

~

The calculation-of Ref. 3 has been reviewed in detail with Impe11. The-relationship ~ of Ref.- 3 and Ref.1 has been reviewed with~ Impe11 as _well.-

Ref. 3' builds on Ref. 1. It is not complete of itself. _ Support: loads based upon spectra results determined from Ref.'1 can be scaled as can shell stresses.;

The spectra change in going from Ref. $ to-Ref. 6 has the most_significant impact in making the shell stresses _and support loads' acceptable. The sloshing (hydrodynamic effect) is a lesser influence.-

The analysis- concludes that the shell meets ASME Code-like NB-3200 allowable-E stresses for the faulted condition. -The support is simplyLcalculatedLto:

remain elastic. The idea of the support simply remaining _ elastic is not'a, very precise characterization of-an allowable. However,'it does;do'two=

things. First, an elastic support suggests-that all of theLelestically-computed loads and stresses are reasonably accurate. Secondly, an' elastic- .

3 support-implies that the' bolt. loads and concrete loads are not-limiting.- The? ,i

-bolt / pedestal arrangement is; characterized in Dwg C-114.;.The. bolts'are111ke-dowels-from the pedestal into the steam drum enclosure. -The' arrangement has Lnot been analyzed explicitly-in the_ work that has been,done byESMA.(Ref. 1) or:

s ' Impell'(Ref. 4). fit is' understood that'an elastic support' implies'adequatel anchorage by inspection.. This would appear to be afreasonableLconclusion.

The emergency condenser has;now been evaluated in a manner consistent with-other. systems aad. equipment. The recent analyses have essentially upgraded the condenser.- The analyses have been reviewed and are considered' adequate.

' The conclusions imply that no modifications areJeequired.

U L

4

=

3 O ** d 4

'IC0491-0288A N b O ~

x; . .

i+r -n,n- - , . , . ~, . , - ..- . , .v ,

4 To TSikavitsgs, Big Rock Point RBJ 93-90 p p . _ u_ s _

From RBJentlins, P-13-223A ' CONSUMERS (V Date November 30, 1990 POWER COMPANY Subject BIC ROCK POINT Internal EMERGENCY CONDENSER EVALUATION Correspondence CC Attached please find three records of corresponden::e from ABB Impe11 with regard to the analysis recently conducted en the condenser. These records consist of the; proposal, summary of the calculations and the calculations themselves.

We have not reviewed the calculations in detail at this time. However, we do know how they were performed. We will review the details shortly.

We believe that most everything which was rated for seismic fragility at Big Rock was evaluated to the site 'pecific spectra. Therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate the need for moditication of any system or component at Big Rock based upon those spectra. Anything that meets any code design standard based upon those spectra should be judged as adequate and not in need of repair.

Therefore, the condenser and support are not viewed as re-quiring modification.

Q)

)

v IC1190-0959A M I[ 'Id #5 I I ' d " '5 -

..AB.B ..

ABB tmpen Corporation Dr. Rolfe B. Jenkins October 11,1990 Senior Staff Engineer Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 -

Dear Rolfe:

In accordance with your request, I have conducted a very brief review of the NTS seismic analysis of the Big Rock Point emergency condenser. There appear to be several sourceo of conservatism in the existing analysis.

• First, tne computed elastic frequenc/ nI the axial (E-W) direction is a little too high-since the shear deforma'lon in the support saddle was neglected.- Any recalculation in response frequency will reduce the seismic load since the elastic frequency is on the low -

frequency side of the floor response spectrum peak.-

Second, no reduction in frequency, and hence in the response loads was includ9d to account for the inelastic effects such as sliding of the support within the anchor plate bolt hole clearances, yleiding in the support, etc.

Third, the response moment in the lateral direction is too high since the center of

_in) mass was assumed at the tank center line, while in the normal operating condition, the free surface of the water is only 15 inches above the centerline _and the center of mass of the tube <

bundles is located 21 1nches below the tank centerline. Both these effects will tower the moment arm of the lateral response load, and hence the support saddle stresses.-

In order to evaluate the above effects and develop more realistic seismic loads, a simple inelastic response spectra analysis in the axial direction, using the spectral averaging approach is proposed. The response analysis will be based on SEP (NUREG/CR 0098) criteria, but the resulting seismic stresses can be compared with other criteria if desired. The cost of J ~

such and ' evaluation will not exceed $10,000.

,if you have any questions or if I can provide any additional information, please do

- not hesitata to call.

Finally, use of the site specific floor response spectra (D' appolonia, Auguet 1983) '

will further significcntly reduce the selsmic response _ loads.

Very truly yours,

^-

Donald A. Wesley -

Staff Consultant

' ABB 1mpell Corporation b.m 0000 8 d; 68 - O it 6 d; y

=

~

- []

ABB ASEA BROWN eoVERI p

November 21,1990 0540M41359 Dr. Rotfe B. Jenkins Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnali Road Jackson, Michigan 49201 c

Subject:

Big Rock Point Emergency Condenser

Dear Rotfe:

The seismic evaluation of the Big Rock Point emergency condenser has been completed.

The evaluation included some refinement in the previous analysis by accounting for the hydrodynamic effects of the water in the tank. The previous analysis by Structural Mechanics Associates, Inc. conservativety considered only the inertial effects of the water by treating it as a rigid mass.

The current evaluation included the convective (sloshing) and impulsive response of the -

fluid using Housner's method for liquid storage tanks subjected to horizontal ground accel-eration. To evaluate the sloshing and impulsive responses, the emergency condenser was .

Idealized as a rectangular tank. The dimensions of the equivalent rectangular tank were based .

on the dimensions of the free surface of the water and the equivalent depth of water was determined such that the total fluid volume was equal to that for the actual tank. . The support conditions for the condenser are such that the vertical and transysrse (NS) natural frequencies are greater than 33 Hz. Thus, for the hydrodynamic response in the transverse direction, the condenser was treated as a rigidly supported tank. However, in the longitudinal direction -

(EW), the condenser was treated as a tiexibly supported, elevated tank due to the sliding s  : support, shell flexibility, and the support flexibility.

< The maximum base shear, overturr'ng moment, and fluid pressure were evaluated for both the transverse and longitudinal hydnx!ynamic responses for the most recent site-specific SSE floor spectra developed by D'Appolonia (Derivation of Site-Specific Seismic Floor -

i Response Spectra, Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power-Plant, Project No.78-435, prepared for Consumers Power Company,- August,1983). The sloshing and impulsive responses were combined by the SRSS method. The verticai response '

was evaluated by treating the fiuld as a rigid inertial mass.

3

.(d ABB Impell Corporation, o o o o % % % % .:i. ca; 7 M .' N SE E I

O A stress evaluation was performed to calculate the shell membrane stresses resulting V from the combined normal and seismic loading. The critical location for the shell stresses is at the horn of the saddle of the fixed support in addition, the stress in the saddle support gusset plate was also evaluated. These two locations were evaluated because they were found to be the most criticalin the previous analysis. The results of the analysis showed that the stresses in the tank shell and the saddle support were substantially reduced from the previous analysis. This occurred for two reasons. First, by including the hydrodynamic effects, the effectivo base shears and overturning moments were reduced. With part of the fluid mass responding in a sloshing mode, the net effective acceleration was reduced because the sloshing mode has a very low natural frequency where the spectral accehrations are lower than at the ZPA frequency. Second, the newer floor spectra typically show smaller spectral accelerations than tne earlier SSE floor spectra developed by D'Appolonia (Seismic Safety Margin Evaluation, Reactor Building Primary Coolant Loop, Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, D'Appolonia Project No. 78-40, Rev.1 August,1981) which were used in the previous analysis.

The final results show that, with the most recent floor spectra and by including the hydrodynamic effects, both the tank shell and the saddle support remain elastic and meet the allowable stress lim'rts. Table 1 shcws the resulting stress components for the tank shell using the newer 1983 spectra and including the hydrodynamic effects. The maximum stress intensity based on the membrane stresses resulted in a margin of safety of 0.56, i.e., the maximum stress intensity was found to be 56% below the allowable in which the allowablo stress was taken as 2.4S, where S = 16,300 psl. For the saddle support, the margin of safety was found to be 0.35, in which the allowable stress for the support gusset plate was taken as 2.25S, with S = 16,300 psi. For comparison, Table 2 shows the resulting stress components for the tank sheit using the older 1981 spectra and including the hydrodynamic effects. By accounting for the hydrodynamic effects, the tank shell meets the allowable stress criterion with loads based on the higher 1981 spectra. In addition, if the fluid is treated as a rigid inertial mass (l.e.,

neglecting the hydrodynamic effects) and using the newer 1983 spectra, the tank shell and the saddle support will still remain elastic and meet the allowable stress criteria.

If you should have any questions, please don 4 hesitate to contact either Don Wesley or myself.

Sincerely, i ABB IMPELL CORPORATION l

i l

lChhd David K Nakaki Lead Senior Engineer cc: Don Wesley l

OOOO 8 c$ es 8 O 1 c:, 8

a

,q TABLE 1. SHELL STRESS COMBINATION AT THE SADDLE HORN (1983 SPECTRA)-

L/ (INCL HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS)

Loading o, o, t,,

(psi) (psi) (psi)

Dead Load (beam bending) -17 0 625 Hydrostatic Pressure 219 438 0 Local Membrane at Hom 0 -2367 0 Total Normal Stress 202 -1929 625 Vertical Seismic (beam bending) -2 0 94 Vertical Seismic (pressure stress) 33 66 0 Vertical Seismic (local membrane at horn) 0 -355 0 Total Vertical Seismic 31 -289 94 1 O

V Lateral Seismic (beam bending) *4 0 *112 y Lateral Seismic (pressure stress) *40 *80 0 Lateral Seismic (local membrane at horn) +5264 +2022 0 Total Lateral Seismic +5220 +1942 *112 Long. Seismic (pressure stress) *S8 *116- 0 Long. Seismic (local membrane at horn) *6176 *13473 0 Long. Seismic (shear flow) 0 0 *2932 Total Long. Seismic *6234 *13589 *2932 SRSS d Seismic *8131 *13730 +2936 Normal + SSE -7929 -15659 3561

.j O Principal Stresses: S1 = -17,049 psi, S2 = -6,539 psi, S3 = 0 psi l

OOOO 8 es e5 8 O it if; 9

i~ ,.

7; TABLE 2, SHELL STRESS COMBINATION AT THE SADDLE HORN (1981 SPECTRA)

(INCL HYDRODYNAMIC EFFECTS)

Loading o, o, t,,-

J (psi) (psi) (psi)  ;

Dead Load (beam bending) -17 0 625 Hydrostatic Pressure 219 438 0 Local Membrane at Horn 0 -2367 0 Total Normal Stress 202 -1929 625 Vertical Seismic (beam bending) -3 0 125 Vertical Seismic (pressure stress) 44 88 0-Vertical Selsmic (local membrane at hom) 0 -473 0 TotalVertical Seismic 41 -385 125

'/

Lateral Seismic (beam bending) *6 0 *180 .

Lateral Seismic (pressure stress) *58 *116 0 Lateral Seismic (local membrane at horn) 58207 v3153 0 Total Lateral Seismic +8143 *3037 *180 Long, Seismic (pressure stress) *110 *221 0 Long, Seismic (local membrane at horn) *12060 *26388 0 Long. Seismic (shear flow) 0 0 *5743 Total Long. Seismic *12170 *26609 *5743 SRSS of Seismic *14643 *26785 *5747 Normal + SSE -14441 -28714 6372 Principal Stresses: 1S = -31,145 psi, S 2 = -12010 psi, S 3 = 0 psi OOOO 8 e!; d 8 0 et 7 O

(}

ABB ASEA BROWN eoVERI v

November 28,1990 0540-064 1359 Dr. Rolfe B. Jenkins _

Consumers Power Company 1945 West Parnall Road Jackson, Michigan 49201

Subject:

Transmittal of Big Rock Point Emergency Condenset Oalculation 4

Dear Rolfe:

Per your request, e closed is a copy of the calculation for the seismic evaluation of the Big

( Rock Point emerm :y condenser. This calculation is the basis for the letter report previously

's transmitted to ) u. m November 21,1990, if you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact e,lther Don Wesley or myself.

Sincerely, i

ABB IMPELL CORPORATION huh h MH David K. Nakaki [

Lead Senior Engineer cc: Don Wesley f'T i.,,/

ABB Impell Corporation.

oooo ggypfgg,y 1 *~g g;;gg i

__2-__-__-__________._--.-_____ -

Certridge/ Frame No. /

RECORD INDEXING FORM Document Control No.

To De Completed by ORI Completed by uAA MA vi-r% AG Location BRP/n* U Date Completed ti/iclei!

SUBJECT INDEX NUMBERS-Area and a Systems and/or Administrative Num'ver MUST Be Coded Area Systems Administrative Equipment Equipment Administrative

-Area Unit System Classificaten Number Number (AREA) (UNIT) ($Y$ CODE) (EOUIPCL) (EOUIPNO) (ADMIN) 740 _g)J.3t'A. tMoo 14 Y c% Lt0* 4 0

• O fo

• RETENTION (REi EN) L (Ufe of the Plant (L), Life of the Company (LC) or Number of Years To Be Retained) is This Record of Safeguards,10CFR 2.790(d) or Confidential Information? - Yes No Following Descriptors To Be Indexed Where Applicable

/9 ~jjec t Name

(;(P ROJNAM)

Architect Engineer Number O 5 40- W /-13 5'l Personal File Number _

(BECHNO) (PERFIL)

Document Name C AL C Sequenco Number S A - o 54 o - O 6 4 -0 o /

(DOCNAM) (SEONO)

Ref rence bR.oSC(~t 2N7 (REF) .

Department E N fr-(DEPT)

Subject I ss o e Fon Re coma (FRETEXT)

D:te(s) '

.(DATE)

-Addressee (s) Organization _

QONAM) ,

(TOORG)

Originator (s) -- <- - -- -. s . Organization (FROMNAM) ' (FROMORG)