 |

Project Ketch: Project Plowshare in Pennsylvania
J.B. Krygier
Published in 1998 in Ecumene 5:3, pp. 311-322. A shorter version
of this paper, "Spectacular Ideas in Marginal Landscapes," is
available.
ABSTRACT:Project Ketch, part of the the Atomic Energy Commission's
(AEC) Plowshare initiative, proposed the detonation of a 24 kiloton atomic bomb
3300 feet underground in a State Forest in north-central Pennsylvania. The
resulting sub-surface cavity was to be used to store natural gas for distribution
in Pennsylvania and other north-eastern states. Proponents of Project Ketch, the
AEC and Columbia Gas Corporation, engaged the discourses of geographic
engineering (planetary-scale landscape modification with atomic explosives),
economic development, and marginality to justify the project, to enable the blast
to take place. Public debate disputed and resisted these discourses, recasting
the selected ground zero in different and sometimes contradictory ways, leading
to the cancellation of Project Ketch. This paper examines how a particular
"marginal" landscape was contentiously made and remade to suit different
intentions and motivations, focusing on the relations between the spectacular and
the marginal as they played out in a quiet woods in
Pennsylvania.
A brash headline in the Pittsburgh Press on St. Valentine's day 1967
announced to its unsuspecting readership that an underground nuclear blast was
being studied for a central Pennsylvania location.(note 1) The announcement,
based on secret information uncovered by a Pittsburgh Press reporter,
initiated a direct relation between the spectacular and the spatially and
socially 'marginal.' Pennsylvania State University nuclear engineer Nunzio
Palladino recalls his initial reaction to the news: 'My God, right here in
Pennsylvania.'(note 2) The newspaper article pithily noted that 'the site...must
be rather remote.'
The spectacular here was the Atomic Energy Commission's Project Plowshare, an
applied exercise in large-scale landscape and subsurface manipulation by means of
nuclear explosives, part of the search for 'peaceful' uses of atomic energy.(note
3) The ideas behind Plowshare were 'engineer's dreams,' speculative discourses
about nuclear modifications of the physical environment at a planetary scale.
They drew upon a long cultural history of engineering reverie.(note 4) As with
previous engineer's dreams, Plowshare was carefully constructed as a spectacle -
a means of realizing the project and its entangled practical and political
goals.(note 5) Conversely, the marginal was a landscape in north-central
Pennsylvania where the blast was to take place (figure 1), and this too, in terms
of both landscape and people, was also carefully constructed. In this case, it
needed to be an empty landscape with few people, engaged in minimal economic
activity, cast as a negative space, a forgotten periphery to some disinterested
core, a hole in the map.

Figure 1) Map showing location of proposed Project Ketch site
in Pennsylvania (map by J.B. Krygier).
In the case of Plowshare and its application in Project Ketch, as the
Pennsylvania plan was called, the elaborately constructed spectacular and the
systematically produced marginal were brought together by necessity. The
strategy behind Ketch was shaped and implemented by the Atomic Energy Commission
(AEC) together with the Columbia Gas Corporation, the latter interested in
storing natural gas in chambers created by thousands of underground nuclear
blasts in the north-eastern United States. Plowshare concepts, worked out in the
private spaces of Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) laboratories in California and
nuclear test sites in Nevada, needed to be transferred to and demonstrated in a
public space in a particular landscape. The Pennsylvania location would allow
the AEC to demonstrate the purported scientific and practical feasibility of
Plowshare ideas. Importantly, such a location needed to be marginal: marginality
of the place and its people was a necessary condition for Project Ketch to be
realized. A discourse of economic development was significant for constructing
marginality: a human and physical landscape could be made worthy of a nuclear
blast by configuring the selected ground zero and its people as economically
needy and socially underdeveloped. Marginality, therefore, must be produced
before it can be utilized; a 'social mapping' of marginality needs to be
engineered before the manipulation of physical space can be undertaken. Social
mapping and actual mapping are inextricably interwoven in this story: official
Pennsylvania state road maps from the 1960s show a distinctive 'hole' around the
Ketch site. By choosing to map certain things, and not others, such 'holes,' and
the speculative and imagined geographies which they can contain, are engendered.
The story of Project Ketch in Pennsylvania provides a means of examining the
discourses of nuclear engineering, the marginal, and economic development as
produced and applied to a particular landscape and people. The creation of a
particular experimental space through a process of actual and social mapping
facilitated the AEC's goals for Plowshare. The story of Project Ketch also
reveals the process by which the social mapping of the AEC's experimental space
in north-central Pennsylvania was contested, resisted, and breached. Once in the
public sphere these discourses were not accepted uncritically. Focused on a
landscape in north central Pennsylvania, they raised contentious debates in both
image and word (figure 2). Local voices questioned and resisted official
discourses, offering alternative discourses and different, sometimes
contradictory mappings of the ground zero landscape. The demise of Ketch and
eventually of Plowshare, their return to the spaces of engineer's dreams, find
their origins in disputes focused on particular landscapes which necessarily had
to be marginalized if the Plowshare experiments were to take place.

Figure 2) Illustration from letter to editor opposing Project
Ketch (Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, February 19,
1967).
Mapping Project Ketch: 'An Orderly Process'
In the words of its coordinators, the news leak about Project Ketch 'upset an
orderly process.'(note 6) Recently unclassified correspondence between the AEC
and Columbia Gas reveals this 'orderly process,' its discourses of nuclear
engineering and economic development, and the emergence of a discourse of
marginality as a 'suitable ground-zero' was sought.(note 7) Having convinced
itself in the abstract that Plowshare was possible and necessary, at least within
the boundaries of its experimental space in Nevada, the AEC set out to publicly
demonstrate the idea's feasibility. One means to this end was to promote the
Project to U.S. commercial companies as an economical solution to a myriad of
civil engineering and landscape manipulation problems.(note 8) Initial meetings
between the AEC and Columbia Gas took place in late 1964, approximately three
years before the newspaper leak.(note 9)
In their field work, the AEC and Columbia Gas focused on a location south of
Renovo, Pennsylvania, moulding it into a marginal hole in the map with marginal
people, through the process of actual (figure 3) and social mapping necessary for
Ketch to take place.(note 10) Social mappings were established by field reports
from AEC employees, which used the language and techniques of exploration. For
example, the AEC explorers investigated the 'hunting conditions and practices' of
the 'natives,' photographing the 'rickety' dwellings in the region, while peeping
in windows to assess furnishings. The intrepid explorers even experienced
something akin to the sublime when they got lost on the 'multitude of backwoods
trails' in the area. One report concludes that '[f]rom very limited contact, the
native populations would appear somewhat resistant to change or progress and may
take some convincing.'(note 11) At no point in these reports do the voices of
local people find expression.

Figure 3) Project Ketch Ground Zero (manuscript planning map,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Harrisburg PA). This map
locates the proposed and alternative sites for Project Ketch (shown with the dark
dot). Concentric circles are distances from the proposed site, and radiating
lines point to villages, towns, and cities which surround the site.
Contact with Pennsylvania State officials began in early 1966.(note 12) AEC and
Columbia Gas emphasized how Pennsylvania itself needed the blast for the sake of
local economic development. In early 1967 the AEC, Columbia Gas, and
Pennsylvania officials met to discuss how to present Project Ketch to the public,
and they concluded that the proposal was 'closely related to straightforward
economic considerations.' However, the same document notes that 'major emphasis
be placed on the technical feasibility aspects rather than the economic aspects'
in dealing with the public.(note 13) When the time came to present Ketch to the
public, the technology, and not its possible economic benefits, would be
emphasized.
From the record, Pennsylvania officials, including Governor Shafer, come across
as entranced spectators. An invitation to witness an underground blast at the
Nevada Test Site was proffered, and the state officials who went to Nevada
declared themselves impressed, seduced by the spectacular as concocted by the
AEC.(note 14) The AEC, however, was not satisfied with immersing the
Pennsylvanians in the Western experimental nuclear landscape and waiting for the
desired effect: state approval of Project Ketch. In a meeting with a state legal
assistant, the AEC made its position and authority clear. As the assistant
noted, 'The AEC desired no restrictions upon their operations ... save what they
themselves would impose,' while the 'AEC ... seemed reluctant to assume any
responsibility for damages' ... 'Their basic position was that they desired to
proceed by themselves without any qualifications or restrictions and let the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania rely solely on their sincerity and
good-will....'(note 15)
The news leak about Ketch upset this 'orderly' process. The AEC, Columbia Gas,
and the State of Pennsylvania scrambled to justify the project, to maintain the
social mapping of ground-zero constructed over the previous two years, along with
the discourses of nuclear engineering, economic development, and marginality. The
official report on Ketch, published by the AEC and Columbia Gas a few months
after the newspaper leak, detailed how the existing geography of the region was
ill-suited to the needs of Columbia Gas. Allegedly, there were few economically
viable natural gas storage sites in areas close enough to Eastern US markets:
'...underground formations suited for [natural gas] storage are not present in
all parts of the United States and very few are near the gas markets.' Nuclear
explosions could remedy this problem.(note 16) The report on Ketch was heavily
illustrated with representations of how the geography and geology of the site
could easily be modified (figure 4). Further support came from a local newspaper
which argued, with impeccable logic, in favor of the blast (probably borrowing
from AEC public relations materials): 'If the development of nuclear power is to
benefit mankind...people must be willing to give it a try. As long as all
responsible precautions are taken and as long as everything is done to prevent
any undesirable effects, the layman is not in a very strong position to protest
such peaceful uses of nuclear power.'(note 17)

Figure 4) Ketch Storage Reservoir (Columbia Gas System et
al., Project Ketch. p. 12)
Questioning the Mappings of Ground Zero and Project Ketch
When it came to nuclear blasts, many central Pennsylvanians were not sure if they
wanted to 'give it a try.' Letters sent to the editors of local newspapers
raised questions about the effects of the blast. When asked about the
possibilities of groundwater contamination, property damage, and the escape of
radiation, the AEC and Columbia Gas first issued assurances that none of these
problems would occur. The Nevada office of the AEC 'would be responsible for
public safety...it has conducted more than 200 underground nuclear explosions in
Nevada, Mississippi, and New Mexico.'(note 18) Yet they followed these
assurances with statements re-emphasizing the marginality and emptiness of the
Ketch site, just in case problems should arise: the marginality of the site thus
became fundamental. The AEC and Columbia Gas continually reiterated that the
site was 'heavily wooded and sparsely populated,' it was 'in close proximity to
the heavy gas use area and is remote enough from population centers to minimize
any hazards,' and that it was a 'sparsely settled wilderness.'(note 19)
While the possibilities of nuclear explosives were being heralded, and while the
Ketch site was being shaped as a negative space in which such an experiment could
safely be conducted, the discourse of economic development was woven into the
narrative. The AEC and Columbia Gas publicly stated that Project Ketch would
itself not be economically viable, following the plan previously
formulated with Pennsylvania state officials. Ketch was a test of
technical feasibility - an experiment - and would impart few, if any,
economic benefits to the region.(note 20) However, when local critics asked how
the blast would therefore benefit central Pennsylvania, the AEC and Columbia Gas
reversed the story: the project would be economically beneficial to the
region, it would create permanent jobs and spur economic development, the
availability of cheap natural gas would provide 'an exponential benefit' to the
regional economy. The site was close to large natural gas markets in population
centers of the Eastern US and thousands of similar blasts were planned for the
future.(note 21) A different objection was then voiced by certain residents:
they did not want economic development. If the test was successful (and they
thought it would be) then this would open the region to undesirable changes: many
more blasts, access roads, and pipeline development.(note 22) The AEC and
Columbia Gas responded to this particular objection by yet again reversing their
story: 'Ketch is too far away from heavy population centers. It is located in a
remote area solely for greater safety. Other such chambers would be located much
closer to heavy populated areas.'(note 23) Thus Ketch could be represented as a
test site, the area was too marginal for economic development, and no further
development would occur.
Questions from local critics of Ketch thus led to frenzied remappings by the AEC
and Columbia Gas. The ground-zero landscape - the experimental space - was
simultaneously configured as marginal and thus worthy of significant economic
development, and as too marginal for economic development. It was worthy of a
nuclear experiment because it was near population centers, but at the same time a
nuclear blast there would be safe because it was not near population centers.
Public objections to Ketch were initially voiced by residents of the town of
Renovo, 12 miles from the Ketch site. Opposition spread to the State College
area, 30 miles south of the site. Letters to state officials and to local
newspapers challenged the discourses developed by Ketch promoters. Some focused
on the nuclear explosion itself and the discourses of nuclear engineering,
doubting assurances from the AEC and Columbia Gas about the safety of the project
and expressing concerns about the release of radiation, the contamination of
ground water, and property damage from the blast. There was also resistance to
the economic development discourse, challenging claims that jobs would be
created, that the project would lead to lower gas costs, or that the explosion of
a nuclear bomb would impart economic advantages for the region. And finally
there were challenges to the definitions of marginality produced through the
social mapping of the Ketch site.
Re-Mapping Ground-Zero and Marginality
Ground-zero could be reconfigured as anything but empty and marginal. Opponents
noted that the population density of the region was ten times greater than that
of areas around nuclear test sites in Nevada and New Mexico. Others noted there
were three hundred hunting cabins adjacent to the site and that it was heavily
used by hikers, hunters, and campers.(note 24) Indeed, from the perspective of
some local residents and their own social mapping of the area, ground-zero was
swarming with people and activities. Alternatively, the ground zero could be
mapped into the ecological system, not as a margin but as the core and source of
the abundant underground water supplies in Pennsylvania. A nuclear blast in such
a central location could disrupt and contaminate this entire system.(note 25)
Ground-zero could also be re-mapped as indeed marginal, but the kind of marginal
landscape that needed to be preserved rather than developed. AEC Chairman
Seaborg had argued that Plowshare could help 'mankind' reshape the earth into a
'Garden of Eden' by overcoming the forces of nature.(note 26) Ketch opponents
appealed to hunters, sportsmen, naturalists, and conservationists.(note 27) The
Ketch Site did not need to be remade into a Garden of Eden by means of nuclear
explosives - it was already such a garden. Letters to the editors of local
newspapers thus reconfigured ground-zero as 'unspoiled mountain land,' 'a patch
of forest untouched,' and 'an undisturbed forest reserve.'(note 28) The Ketch
site was thus remapped into a different kind of marginal landscape than that
produced by the AEC and Columbia Gas. An alternative discourse of marginality -
of the virgin wilderness and its violation by nuclear bombs - was a powerful
means by which to attack the Ketch proposal.
The Ketch site was, however, neither 'unspoiled,' 'untouched,' nor 'undisturbed.'
While the alternative discourse of marginality sustained and empowered attacks on
Ketch, it too depended on strategic remappings of the Ketch ground-zero. Before
the 1920s much of north-central Pennsylvania had been clearcut, abandoned, and
burned-over by logging companies (figure 5). The 'virgin' wilderness mapped by
Ketch's opponents was in fact a product of the 1930s when young men in Civilian
Conservation Corps camp S-76, a segregated 'negro' camp, restored the damaged
landscape (figure 6).(note 29) This landscape, remade by poor black teenagers
from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, became the 'untouched' wilderness used to
counter the discourse of empty, hole in the map marginality deployed by the AEC
and Columbia Gas in order to support Project Ketch.

Figure 5) Near Ketch Ground Zero, ca. 1920 (photo reproduced
from S. Crocco, History of Jay and Benezette Townships in Bennett's Valley,
Elk County Pennsylvania, Benezette PA: Bennett's Valley News, 1966).

Figure 6) CCC Camp S-76, Renovo, PA, ca. 1936 (photo
reproduced from Civilian Conservation Corps Official Annual for 1936, District
No. 2, Third Corps Area, Baton Rouge LA: Direct Advertising Company, 1936, p.
112).
The counter discourses were effective: thousands of central Pennsylvanians signed
anti-Ketch petitions; hundreds of letters opposing Ketch were sent to the AEC,
Columbia Gas, and Pennsylvania officials. Finally, even the media and local
politicians turned against the project. On July 4 1968 Columbia Gas withdrew its
plan for a nuclear excavation.
Re-Mapping as 'Mystical Hostility': the Defeat of Project Ketch
Sy Orlofski, head of Columbia Gas, later reflected 'I don't know where we went
wrong. We tried to sell Ketch to the people, but there was something mystical
about the hostility it brought out.'(note 30) The opponents of Ketch had sensed
what AEC Commissioner and Plowshare supporter Lewis Strauss had argued early in
the life of Operation Plowshare, that it was meant to 'highlight the peaceful
applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world
opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests.'(note 31) The
political impetus for Plowshare: a shill in the Cold War and a means of
comforting a public anxious about nuclear destruction, had worked its way out
during the process of applying Plowshare to a particular imaginative geography, a
geography that had to to be mapped into a specific location before any physical
manipulation of the environment or social manipulation of 'world opinion' could
take place. This social mapping and creation of an experimental space was
achieved, contested, and eventually defeated discursively through word and
image.
Isolated from any public involvement, scientists at the AEC had constructed a
performance of the spectacular in Project Plowshare. Yet Plowshare required
marginal landscapes and people if it was to be realized, and marginality proved
difficult to achieve when mapped onto specific locations. The eventual defeat of
Project Ketch, and the demise of Plowshare, came about in the process of
contested discourses, redrawing the boundaries and the social cartographies of
the AEC's proposed experimental space. Plowshare could be recast as a
technological nightmare, cracking open the earth, fouling nature, and endangering
human life. A line had been drawn which marginalized Plowshare itself, the AEC's
vision resisted and countered by alternative mappings. Economic development
could be recast as a threat to place and people, wrongly mapped as needy,
deficient, and underdeveloped, who understood themselves and their place in very
much the opposite way. Again, the AEC's vision was resisted and countered by
alternative mappings. The discourse of marginality which rendered the Ketch site
a blank, non-place could be countered by an alternative discourse of marginality,
mapping the site as untouched virgin wilderness, worthy of preservation and
veneration. It could even be discarded altogether in favor of a vision of the
ground-zero landscape as teeming with people and activities, the hub of a vast,
interconnected ecosystem, not marginal by any estimation. A line had been drawn
with marginality, the AEC's vision resisted and countered by alternative
mappings.
Although Project Ketch never took place in the tangible sense of an actual
explosion, the Project made place - resulting in disputed constructions of
landscape and people (figure 7). The story of Project Ketch reveals the
struggles through which Project Plowshare was returned to the status of
engineer's dreams, through public disputes focused upon social mappings of
particular landscapes.

Figure 7) Gate and road to Ketch ground-zero, 1995 (photo by
J.B. Krygier)
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Denis Cosgrove, Scott Kirsch, and Patricia O'Toole for insightful
comments on this paper. Thanks to John Walker for assistance with the manuscript
materials upon which this work is based.
Notes
note 1 Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, February 14, 1967, p.
1.
note 2 Washington Post, Washington DC., July 6, 1968, p. A4.
note 3 T. Findlay, Nuclear Dynamite: The Peaceful Nuclear Explosives
Fiasco (Sydney: Brassey's Australia, 1990).
note 4 W. Ley, Engineer's Dreams (New York: The Viking Press, 1959). D.
Nye, American Technological Sublime (Cambridge MA: The MIT Press,
1994).
note 5 S. Kirsch. "Experiments in Progress: Edward Teller's Controversial
Geographies." In this issue. D. O'Neill, The Firecracker Boys (New
York: St. Martin's Press, 1994).
note 6 Centre Daily Times, State College, Pennsylvania, February 15,
1967, p. 1.
note 7 Report from R. Darrow (Columbia Gas) to M. Nordyke (Lawrence Livermore
Radiation Laboratory) dated April 11, 1966 (CIC Manuscript). Manuscript memos,
letters, and reports about Project Ketch are from two primary sources. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, formerly the Pennsylvania
Department of Forests and Waters, houses 2 cubic feet of materials. Documents
from this source are referred to as PAFW. Other manuscript materials are from
the Coordination and Information Center (Bechtel Nevada). Documents from this
source are referred to as CIC.
note 8 P. Witherspoon, "Economics of Nuclear Explosives in Developing
Underground Gas Storage," Lawrence Radiation Laboratory, report UCRL-14877 (July
1966).
note 9 Letter from R. Darrow (Columbia Gas) to T. Fox (Scientific Advisor to
Pennsylvania Governor Shafer), dated May 6 1966, Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection, Harrisburg PA.
note 10 A "microworld" had been created upon which the AEC scientists, back in
California, could operate. D. Livingstone, "Towards a Historical Geography of
Science," Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13 (1995), p. 26.
B. Latour, Science in Action: How to Follow Engineers and Scientists Through
Society (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987), B. Latour, "Drawing
Things Together," in Michael Lynch and Steven Woolgar Representation in
Scientific Practice (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990), pp. 19-68.
note 11 Report from W. Moore and J. Coogan (Southwestern Radiological Health
Lab) to J. McBride (Southwestern Radiological Health Lab), dated June 19, 1968
(CIC Manuscript).
note 12 Memo from J. van Zandt (Representative for Pennsylvania Governor
Scranton) to Governor Scranton, dated January 10, 1966 (PAFW Manuscript).
Governor Shafer took office soon after this contact.
note 13 Report from W. Underwood (Pennsylvania Department of Commerce), dated
February 16, 1967 (PAFW Manuscript).
note 14 Report by E. Tarr (PA Dept. of Forests and Waters) to M. Goddard (State
Secretary of PA Dept. of Forests and Waters), dated July 6, 1967 (PAFW
Manuscript).
note 15 Report from W. Wilt (Legal Assistant, PA Dept. of Forests and Waters) to
E. Tarr (PA Dept. of Forests and Waters), dated July 31, 1967 (PAFW
Manuscript).
note 16 Columbia Gas System Service Corporation, the San Francisco Operations
Office of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, University of California Lawrence
Radiation Laboratory, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines, Project Ketch (San Francisco:
no publisher, 1967).
note 17 Centre Daily Times, State College, Pennsylvania, May 24, 1967, p.
4. John Kelly (Director of the Division of Peaceful Nuclear Explosives at the
AEC) met with local newspaper editors in State College, PA a few days before this
editorial appeared.
note 18 Atomic Energy Commission Press Release, June 6 1967. (PAFW
Manuscript)
note 19 Columbia Gas System et al., Project Ketch, p. 21. Centre Daily
Times, State College, Pennsylvania, Oct. 12, 1967, p. 1, and June 9, 1967, p.
1.
note 20 Centre Daily Times,State College, Pennsylvania, February 17,
1967, p. 1, and February 19, 1967, p. 1.
note 21 This argument came to a head in a speech given by Sy Orlofski, head of
Columbia Gas, on February 16, 1968 and reported in the Centre Daily Times,
State College, Pennsylvania, February 17, 1968, p. 1.
note 22 Centre Daily Times, State College, Pennsylvania, September 22,
1967, p. 1.
note 23 Centre Daily Times, State College, Pennsylvania, October 31,
1967, p. 4.
note 24 Centre Daily Times, State College, Pennsylvania, March 6, 1968,
p. 36.
note 25 One of many examples is a letter of protest from J. Woods to Secretary
of Forests and Water Goddard, dated March 21, 1968 (PAFW Manuscript).
note 26 G. Seaborg and W. Corliss, Man and Atom (New York: Dutton, 1971),
p. 174.
note 27 Centre Daily Times,State College, Pennsylvania, May 10, 1968, p.
23.
note 28 Centre Daily Times,State College, Pennsylvania, Sept 22, 1967, p.
1, February 20, 1968, p. 4, and March 6, 1968, p. 36.
note 29 The Civilian Conservation Corps is discussed in J. Salmond, The
Civilian Conservation Corps, 1933-1942: A New Deal Case Study (Durham: Duke
University Press, 1967). Details about CCC camps in the Ketch ground-zero region
are from the Civilian Conservation Corps Official Annual for 1936, District
No. 2, Third Corps Area (Baton Rouge LA: Direct Advertising Company, 1936).
Camp S-76, nearest to the Ketch ground zero, was a segregated black camp.
note 30 Washington Post, Washington DC, July 6, 1968, p. A4.
note 31 Strauss quoted in R. Hewlett and F. Duncan, Atoms for Peace and
War (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), p. 529.
E-mail: jbkrygie@cc.owu.edu
...back to krygier top page. ...to krygier research page.
OWU Home OWU
Geology and Geography Home
|