ML20127L569
Text
., -
W lt.' ry
- .J . e ttAR 1 ES4 . . .
I;Ei'n TO FILE: Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Probabilistic Assessment of the Seismic Hazard of Eastern United States Power Plant Sites (FIN A0448) ,
FRCit: Harold E. Lefevre Branch Project Officer, Technical Assistance Programs Geosciences Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
POST-JANUARY. 10, 1984 C0l;TRACTURAL ACTIVITIES Since transmittal on January 10, 1984 of a request for proposal, the f61E wing events are noted:
Irpact on this Contract as a Result of Cost Over-Runs Associated with LLill's Seismic Hazard Characterization Study ( A0428)
Because of the inte'r-relationship dependency of this contract on another LLNL contract (FIN A0428) and the attendant costrover-r delayse-asscciated with FIN A0428, the DE proposal request for FIl f January 10, 1984 will require multiple modifications. The Statement of
, Vork modifications consist primarily of reductens in the levels of--
effort for the various FY 1984 tasks, with essentially proportional increases in the FY 1985' portions of the tasks. The level of effort for FY 1984 was reduced for two reasons: (1) decrease in the FY 1984 funding levels because of the need for these funds for the additional monies necessary for the FIN A0428 contract, and (2) the inability (because of the delays precipitated by the FIN A0428 contract) to physically perform the tasks requested during FY 1984.
Reductinn in the FY 1984 Level of Effort ,
The FY 1984 Budget has been reduced from $360K to $136.5K. At 'the same
, time the proposed FY 1985 budget request wiil be increased by an amount proportional to the decreased FY 1984 effort (from $120K to 5343.5K). ,
Transmittal of the Modifications Changes in the January 10, 1984 Proposal Request, resulting from FIN A0428 delays and resultino decrease in funding level for FIN A0448 for FY 1984 were provided to LLNL on February 9, 1984. LLNL's Form 189 and
. attendant proposal will reflect the modifications indicated in the February 9 transmittal to LLNL. Appropriate changes were made by revising the Pro,iect Identification Surmary (PIDS) for FIN A0428 and FII; -
8505230024 841002 kLh .
243 PDR L
^
- e. > ,
-p-In addition, one of the Tasks (#15) associated with another LLNL
[ A0448.
cortract (FIN A0406) was cancelled. The $35K essociated with Task 15 was shifted to FIN A0428 also. Appropriate changes were made in the fit' 10.06 PIDS as well.
bek. 2. hyru
~ ~
Harold E. Lefevre '
. Branch Project Officer Technical Assistance Programs Geosciences Branch, DE cc: R. Jackson S. Brocoum L. Reiter D. Corley E. Pentecost
- u. Money H. Lefevre G. Giese-Koch m
em e
em 4
O e
e e
iMT+:YFAHWM&SMEX MEW 3EMiEM@WBi?%?2)MMMtWMxWWWMMW q
2
.,i' Statement of Work
Title:
Probabilistic Assessment of the Seismic Hazard for Eastern ,
United States Nuclear Power Plant Sites l 1
FIN No: A0448 B&R No: 20-19-10-12-2 Project Manager: Harold Lefevre, NRR, FTS 492-7732 Technical Monitors: Leon Reiter, NRR, FTS 492-8443 Jeff Kimball, NRR, FTS 492-8999 BACKGROUND On November 18, 1982, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) forwarded a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission clarifying their past position with respect to the 1886 Charleston earthquake. This clarification stated that hn+h " deterministic anipr_cbah414s+4c evaluations of the seismic hazard should be made for individual sites in the eastern seaboard to establish the seismic engineering parameters for critical facilities". Part of the Division of Engineering plan to address the USGS letter is a short term probabilistic assessment of all nuclear power plants in the eastern United States.
OBJECTIVE The objective of this project is to expand the development of efficient and improved ways to propagate both the systematic and random error through the seismic hazard calculations and to calculate the seismic hazard spectra and historic hazard spectra for all nuclear power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains. Results will include an estimate of -
the probability of seismic ground motion exceedin_g the design level at each site using both the seismic hazard and historic hazard.
Calculations will also include sufficient sensitivity tests on input assumptions in such a manner as to allow the staff sufficient information to determine how the various input assumptions affect the probability results. .
WORK R'EQUIREMENTS Task 1 Expand Development of Efficient and Improved Ways to Propacate Uncertainty i
Estimated Level of Effort: 0.20 professional staff years (psy)
Projected Completion Date: Three months from start of contract ,
l Restructure the computer program as developed in the Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States Project to calculate the seismic hazard spectra for about 65 to 70 sites. A list of the specific sites that the seismic and historic hazard spectra will be calculated for'is included. Examine simplified ways of propagating systematic error to reduce the number of computations that must be made to define the best estimate curve and its uncertainty. Completion of this task should be concurrent with the completion of internal computer code validation being undertaken as part of the Seismic Hazard Characterization Program.
7:- :wm mmz:mmrmv.mmmmw w:nym.x w n w m -
a.
Task 2 Calculate the Seismic Hazard Spectra for all Sites East of the Rocky Mountains Estimated Level of Effort: 1.8 psy Project Completion Date: Four months after completion of Task 1
~
Provide an estimate of the probability of seismic ground motion exceeding the design level at each site, taking into account site conditions applicable at each site. Completion of this task should not precede final computer code validation undertaken as part of the Seismic Hazard Characterization Program.
. Subtasks 2.1 - Individual Panel Results at All Sites Perform the seismic hazard analysis of each site using each panel member's input from the Seismic Hazard Characterization of Eastern UiKted States PVojecT(simFly referred to as panellnembers hereafter)
~ ~ -
and compare this with the design level for each site.
Subtasks 2.2 - Synthesis of Results of All Sites Synthesize the seismic hazard results of all panel members into one Tic uic hazard curve (with its associated uncertainty) and compare this with zhe design level for each site.
Subtasks 2.3 - Identification of Significant Parameters which Contribute to Seismic Hazard .
Assess the significant contributors to the seismic hazard at each site -
including site condition factors, when appropriate.
Task 3 Feedback and Sensitivity Estimated Level of Effort: 0.45 psy .
Projected Completion Date: .Eight months after completion of Task 2 Assess ~the initial conc 1'usions regarding seismic hazard calculations at individual sites in light of feedback from panel members on original input provided as part of the Seismic Hazard Characterization of the Eastern United States project.
Subtasks 3.1 Sensitivity Studies using Feedback Results Assess the significance of experts feedback results on th.e original -
seismic hazard calculated for each site.
Subtask 3.2 Sensitivity Studies using USGS Report 83-1033 Perform sensitivity studies for all nuclear power plant sites utilizing the source zones and recurrence data contained in the U. S. Geological Survey document, Open File Report 82-1033 (Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rock in the Contiguous United States) using the ground motion mdoels developed as part of the Seismic Hazard Characterization of the EUS. This subtask is an expansion of the
i;$5%l5&% !G=~%6 ' tW?m WWWwi& 922?g+:ip.= ;b2;"~n?%:WZL=?'M :. =
i use of Report 82-1033 from that done in the Seismic Hazard Characterization of the EUS, to all sites.
Subtasks 3.3 Additional Sensitivity Studies Using Alternative Ways of Combining Expert Opinion
~
Perform sensitivity studies utilizing as a minimum two additional alternatives of combining expert opinion using subjective weighting and provide hazard results showing the effect of these alternatives.
Examine the sensitivity on the choice of the expert panel, possibly looking at a subset of experts, on the synthesis of hazard results.
Task 4 Historic Hazard at Each Site Estimated Level of Effort: 0.40 psy Projected Completion Date: One month after completion of Task 2 Perform a " historical" hazard analysis for each site and compare with the probabilistic hazard analysis.
Task 5 Interaction with Electric Power Research Institute Regarding their Indeoendent Hazard Assessment
. Estimated Level of Effort: 0.35 psy Projected Completion Date: Nineteen months from start of contract Interact with Electric Power Research Institute regarding the progress of the LLNL prcgram and utility sponsored seismic hazard program to exchange information and results as appropriate. -
Task 6 Alternative Forms of Seismic Inout Estimated Level of Effort: 0.20 psy Projected Completion Date: Nineteen months from start of contract Develop alternative ways of' representing the Uniform Hazard Spectra in terms of event-specific spectra and time histories and assess the sensitivity of the various assumptions made.
e
- a. =- =. = -
- m.y.
- ._
LEVEL OF EFFORT AND PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE The level of effort for this proposal is estimated at 3.4 professional
, staff years (psy) over a period of 19 months distributed in the following manner:
FY 1984 FY 1985 _
Task 1 0.20 psy 0.0 psy Task 2 Subtask 2.1 0.70 psy 0.0 psy Subtask 2.2 0.70 psy 0.0 psy Subtask 2.3 0.40 psy 0.0 psy Task 3 Subtask 3.1 0.03 psy 0.22 psy Subtask 3.2 0.02 psy 0.08 psy Subtask 3.3 _ _ _ _
0.02 psy _
0.08_psy Task 4 0.40 psy 0.00 psy Task 5 0.08 psy 0.27 psy Task 6 0.0 psy 0.20 psy Total 2.55 psy 0.85 psy REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Task 1 Exoand Develooment of Efficient and Imoroved Ways to Procacate Uncertainty After comoletion of Task 1 prepare and submit to the NRC Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson a letter report (5 copies) that contains what
- improvements were made to the computer code. In addition provide a copy of the computer code (1 copy) along with a users manual (5 copies).
l l
Task 2 Calculate the Seismic Hazard Spectra for all Sites East of the Rocky Mountains l
After completion of Task 2 prepare and submit to the NRC Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson a draft report (5 copies) providing the l results of Subtasks 2.1 and 2.2 and a brief written assessment of these results identified in Subtask-2.3. This draft report is due six weeks l
prior to Task 2 completion. Staff comments will be returned to the contractors within two weeks of receipt of the draft report. The contractor shall submit a final. report (5 copies) within four weeks of receipt of the staff's coments.
Task 3. Feedback and Sensitivity' After completion of Task 3 prepare and submit to the NRC Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson a draft report (5 copies) providing the results of sensitivity studies using feedback results (Subtask 3.1),
.?.c;, ,_tw ~ x. x v.
- w .-1 _.nrm a -.-. a. x < m - nu ncs ::> .'.+m.y t - ~ ,1- ._ =:-~w_r .w.mm.cx n.. .u:y . . s;;m.
- . .._,~.v- x. m. : . ,
- e..
. x _.,
..~.. -
USGS Report 83-1033 (Subtask 3.2), and alternative ways of combining expert input (Subtask 3.3). This draft report is due eight weeks prior to Task 3 completion. Staff comments will be returned to the contractor within two to three weeks of receipt of the draft report. Final report (5 copies) is to be submitted to the NRC Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson within five to six weeks of receipt of the staff's. comments.
Task 4 Historic Hazard at Each Site After completion of Task 4 prepare and submit to the NRC Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson a draft report (5 copies) providing the results of this task along with on assessment of the differences between the historic hazard and seismic hazard results where significant differences are noted. This draft report is due six weeks prior to task 4 completion. NRC staff comments will be returned to the contractor wi thin-two -weeks-of-receipt-of-the-draft-repr-t r Final report (5 copies) is to be submitted to the NRC Project Manager within four weeks of receipt of the NRC staff's comments.
Task 5 Interaction with Electric Power Research Institute Regarding Their Incependent Hazard Assessment After each meeting with EPRI members or their consultants submit a letter report to the NRC Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson (5 copies) outlined the topics discussed at that meeting. This report is due within three weeks after each meeting.
Task 6 Alternative Forms of Seismic Inout -
After completion of Task 6 prepare and submit to the Project Manager and Dr. Robert E. Jackson a draft report (5 copies) providing these results along with a discussion of any sensitivity tests that were undertaken.
This draft report is due eight weeks prior to Task 6 completion. Staff comments will be returned within two to three weeks and.a final report (5 copies) is due within three to five weeks of that time.
.m ., m . s m _. _-. _ - - -- ---m,~m. _. - - - . _ - - -
+
~
- Monthlv Business Letter Reoort A monthly business letter report will be submitted by the 15th of the month to the NRR Project Officer with copies provided to the Centracting Officer, the Director, Division of r~, < n =H no , ATTN : E. Pentecost, Robert E. Jackson, DE and B. L. Grenier,~NRR. Tnese reports will identify the title of 'the pro]ect, the FIN, the contract number, the Prin.cipal Investigator, the period of performance, and the reporting period and will contain 2 sections as follows: -
Project Status Section 4
- 1. A' listing of the efforts ccmpleted during the period; milestones
' reached, or if missed, an explanation pr,,ovided,. ,
- 2. Any problems or delays encountered or anticipated and recc=endatiens forresolution.J/ -
- 3. A summary of progress to date (this may be expressed in terms of percentage completion for each task).
- 4. Plans for the next reporting period.
~
~
Financial Status Section -
- 1. Provide the total cost (value) of the project as reflected by the .
contract, the total amount of funds obligated to date, and the balance cf funds required to complete the work b2 fiscal year as follcws:
~
Total Funds Balance of Fur.ds -
Projected Obligated By Fiscal Year -
Project Cost To Date FY- FY- ?Y-
- 2. Pr' ovide the total amount of funds expended (costed) during the period and cumulative to date in the following categories:
i
~
Period Curolative -
- a. Direct labor .
b.- Indirect labor'
- c. ADP. Support
- d. Travel
- e. Subcontracts ,
- f. Equipment & Materials l g. Overhead (G&A)
( *,7 2/
Total 1/ If the recommsnded resolution involves a contract m:dification, e.g.,
change in work requirements, level of effort (costs), or period of l performance, a separate le-ter should be prepared ar.d submitted to. the Contracting Officer, DC, with ccpies provided to the Director, I Division of , ATTN: E. Pentecost , -he NRC Project Officer, and S. L. Grenier, NRR.
. ,; ; ._ . . -- e . . = ., ,- -x .n_ , . . . . . . ,; . _=
Meetings and Travel The contractor should plan and budget the following meetings in FY 1984 and FY 1985. These meetings will usually be of one or two days duration, but some may be longer if conditions warrant. The NRC Project Manager will provide a written request specifying the nature of the task arJ the anticipated level of effort prior to initiation of the contractors travel. -
FY 1984 Two people will attend one meeting with the ACRS Extreme External Events Subcommittee, place to be determined.
One person will attend three meetings with the Electric Power Research Institute and their consultants, place to be determined.
Two people will attend two meetings with the NRC staff in Bethesda, MD.
The first meeting is to discuss the results of Tasks 2 and 4 and will be held within one month from the completion of Task 4. The second meeting will be held in September of 1984 and is to discuss overall project progress.
FY 1985 Two people will attend one meeting with the ACRS Extreme External Events Sub-Committee, place to be determined.
One person will attend one to two meetings with the Electric Power Research Institute and their consultants, place to be determined.
Two people will attend two meetings with the NRC staff in Bethesda, MD.
The first meeting is to discuss the results of Task 3 and will be held within one month from the completion of Task 3. The second meeting will be held at the completion of the contract.
NRC Furnished Material The following is a list of all the facilities east of the Rocky Mountains for which the seismic and historic hazard should be calculated. The contractor should request any other information that is necessary to complete this project.
4 7 .
T5T ?WT:' * -YL:'&X W M FE:2 2 H!:~:J??P ; ;::1 " 2 .. :T 3:; - . .
Facility Docket Number Arkansas 1 50-313 Arkansas 2 50-368 Beaver Valley 1 50-334 Beaver Valley 2 50-412 .
Bellefonte 1 50-438 ,
- Bellefonte 2 50-439 Big Rock Point 50-155 Browns Ferry 1 50-259 Browns Ferry 2 50-260 Browns Ferry 3 50-296 Brunswick 1 50-325 Brunswick 2 50-324 Byron 1 50-454 Byron 2 50-455 Callaway 1 50-483 Calvert Cliffs 1 50-317 Calvert Cliffs 2 50-318
-Catawba 1 50-413 Catawba 2 50-414 Cherokee 1 50-491 Cherokee 2 50-492 Cherokee 3 50-493 Clinch River 50-537 Clinton'1 50-461 Comanche Peak 1 50-445 Comanche Peak 2 50-446 -
Cook 1 50-315 Cook 2 50-316 Cooper 50-298 Crystal River 50-302 Davis Besse 1 50-346 Dresden 2 50-237 .
Dresden 3 50-249 Duane Arnold 50-331 Farlef1 50-348 Farley 2 50-364 Fermi 2 50-341 Fitzpatrick 50-333 Fort Calhoun 50-285 e
t.:j: m:. :; ,:.; , _:7.: ~: . m . c , 9. . y ..
. .?g,:. , - :::-;n -x -
x -
Facility Docket Number Ginna 1 50-244
. Grand Gulf 1 50-416 Grand Gulf 2 50-417 Haddam Neck 50-213 '
Hartsville A1 50-518
- Hartsville A2 50-519 Hatch 1 50-321 Hatch 2 50-366
!! ope Creek 1 50-354 Indian Point 2 50-247 Inoian Point 3 50-286 Kewaunee 50-305 LaSalle 1 50-373 LaSalle 2 50-374 - - - - - ~ ~"~'
Marble Hill 1 50-546 ~-~ ~~~-
Marble Hill 2 50-547 McGuire 1 50-369 McGuire 2 50-370 Midland 1 50-329 Midland 2 50-330 Monticello 50-263 Nine Mile Pt. 1 50-220 Nine Mile Pt. 2 50-410 North Anna 1 50-338
' North Anna 2 50-339
' Oconee 1 50-269 -
Oconee 2 50-270 Oconee 3 50-287
. Oyster Creek 1 50-219 Palisades 1 50-255 Peach Bottom 2 50-277 Peach Bottom 3 50-278 .
Perkins 1 50-488 Perkins 2 50-489 Perkins 3 50-490 Perry 1 50-440 Pilgrim 1 50-293 Point Beach 1 50-266 Point Beach 2 50-301 Prairie Island 1 50-266 Prairie Island 2 50-306
, Quad Cities 1 50-254 Quad Cities 2 50-265 ,
P.obinson 2 50-261 '
Salem 1 50-272 Salem 2 50-311 Seabrook 1 50-443 Seabrook 2 50-444 Sequoyah 1 50-327 Sequoyah 2 50-328 Shoreham 1 .
50-322 South Texas. ,1 50-498 re aan
F ..
.: . 7;. ' ' , .:
Facility Docket Number St. Lucie 1 50-335 St. Lucie 2 50-389 Summer 1 50-395 Surry 1 50-280 Surry 2 50-281
. Susquehanna 1 50-387 Susquehanna 2 50-388 .
Three Mile 50-398 Island Turkey Point 3 50-250 Turkey Point 4 50-251 Vermont Yankee 1 50-271 Waterford 3 50-382 Yankee Rowe 1 50-029 Zimmer 1 50-358 Zion 1 50-295 Zion 2 50-304 O
4 e
9 e
4 9
6 e
L
y , 1g .. . .
- ~ '
0F: ICE OF.UU: LEAR REACTOR REGULATION PR3 JECT IDENTIFICATI0is Sut" ARY (PIDS)
~
Probabilistic Assessment of the Seismic Hazard for Eastern United FIN
- A0448 2;om=> T uom. Pim.: ...
CONTRACT t:U:GER (t cn-00E): BIR ?! UMBER: HRR 0?ERATII:3 PLAN II:DEX ;;0.: #'
DIVISION: .DE BRAf;CH: GSB PROJECT MANAGER: Harold Lefevre CONTRACTOR: Lawrence Livermore National Lab CCNTRACT METHOD: Non-Competetive CITY', STATE (f!on-DOE): Livermore, CA SMALL BUSINESS /MI! 0RITY CCt. TRACT (Non-:S ):
SUE-C0;; TRACTOR (S): Not yet identified YES / / AMOUNT S
!!O / X /
PR00ECTED4ERICD1F-PEF 0D:ANCE START: END:
Ortnhor 1Q97 8m 41 1 1ce:
FROJECTED FI::At:CIAL DATA (000's) FEE RECOVERABLE:/ /YES /,4 /ti0 PROJECT FY 19S3 TOTAL TOTAL- TOTAL CARRY FY 83 FY 84 ?Y 25 VALUE CELIG COSTED OVER EUCG BUDG BUDG S480K 0 0 0 0 5360K S120K A:PLICAT!O: (RELATE TSE PROJECT TO A SPECIFIC ?LAfC;ED ACCO:iPLISHMENT)
This project will provide the staff with seismic hazard results which will be used to assess regarding;the impact of the the Charleston United States Earthquake, and itsGeological affect on theSurveys seismicClarification Letter design adequacy of nuclear power plants in the Eastern United States.
~
6
1 a ,/ . *
.- . . .g.
k'ORK REOL'IREi*E!:TS (DESCRISE WHAT IS TO SE PERFOR!4ED)
A summary of the work is: 1) expand development of seismic hazard computer cede to incorporate more efficient and improved ways to propagate uncertainty, 2) calculate tde seismic hazard spectra for all power plant sites east of the Rocky Mountains,
- 3) incorporate feedback of any changes with time of hazard input parameters and ,
assess the impact of these changes, 4) compute historic hazard estimates at each powsr plant site and compare to probabilistic hazard, and 5) interact with other groups such as industry regarding alternative probabilistic hazard programs.
~
i
- 0DIFICI,TIO*S (DESCRISE I4AJOR CHANGES TO THE FROJECT) i A
- ~ ' '
I g f./I%
CC:9 TETE I.E a??LICASLE -
, ,j . .
Re::- .?ded: Endorsed: Endorsed: r gp 9:: ;;,,cjA. y::
I ,
l .iHLefevr _
sbr mq J n n ht RVollmer (I r.e -i a l s )
l V tijg fu ,.
l 7//f/83 7/lk/83 7/ /83 7/lX/83 .I/'//83 (Da:e) l
[
.' PROPOSAL CONTENT The following items are required to prepare DOE proposals (NRC Form 182).:
Prnject Title - The title should be a unique identifier of 'the project In most cases, the reflecting a general idea of the encompassed w:rk. ,
title on the NRC Statement of Work (SON 1 should be ,_used.
Date of Prooosal - Self explanatory; include revision num6er when applicable.
NRC Office - Indicate the NRC Office (s) supporting or requesting the work.
FIN Number and B&R Number - Indicate NRC's FIN- Number and B&R Number, as provided on the Statement of WorR.
DOE Contractor - Performing organizations name. , , , ,
^
Site - Indicate location (s) of organization that will perform the work.
Centractor Account and COE B&R Num5er - Provide the information for the hignest level feasible.
Ccenizant Personnel - NRC Project Manager and other NRC Technical Staff, if applicable; 00E Project Manager; and, the performing organization's key personnel; Project Manager and principal investigator (sl; and, FTS phone numbers for each; include resumes for centractor eersonnel.
Period of Performance - Provide proposed date of commencment of work and best-estimated completion date of the project.
Staff-Years of Effort and Costs - Estimate costs to be incurred by DOE .
c:ntractors and subcontractors. For consultar.ts, provide This the cost of the shall include services on a per staff-year of Technical Suppor: Basis.
direct salary, indirect expenses and other reimbursable amounts; the cost shall also be stated on a per-day 5asts.
List by fiscal year from start to completion of the projec't (FIN).. Cost estimate will be consistent with DOE 11anual 2200, the Pricing Manual, and shown in thousands of dollars.:
-- Staff-years of Effort (Laboratory personnel onlyl:
- Direct Scientific / Technical
- Other Direct (Graded) t
-- Costs:
- Direct Salaries (FTE'sl lf - Indirect Labor Costs I Other (specifyl
- Material and Services (Excl. ADPL - - General and Admin. Expense U l
_- ADP Support Subcontracts Total Operating Equip. (CostFIN Charged (_)
- Travel Expense - Capital
- Domestic - Total Project Cost
- Foreign 1 , - -
- . . eP #
.. 2- - .
!fonthlv Forecast Excense - Provide the planned monthly rate of cost for first year. If not known at time of proposal su5mittal, this may be provided in the first monthly Business letter report once the project is authorized.
. At the beginning of each subsequent year, include the planned monthly rate of costs for the ensuing year in the first nopthly.buginess letter report.
Forecast Milestone Chart - Complete as shown on NRC Form 183.
Aceroval- Authority - Proposal must Be signed by an appropriate labo'ratory or fiele activity representative. Note: This individual may or may not be the same person who signs the transmittal letter.
" ~ ~ ~
3 - 1/ See Item 3e under Project Descriptioh. .
O G
h
- O 4
o 6
!