ML19306E642
| ML19306E642 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1987 |
| From: | Rosa F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Thomas C Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| GL-83-28, TAC-53689, NUDOCS 8705270430 | |
| Download: ML19306E642 (9) | |
Text
-.
' doc [cY Y b?
570W MM 211987
{
Docket No.:
50-245 MEMORANDUM FOR:
C. Thomas, Jr., Project Director Integrated Safety Assessment Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, V & Special Projects 3
FROM:
Faust Rosa, Chief Electrical Systems Branch Division of Engineering & Systems Technology
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR ITEM 2.2 (PART 2) 0F-i GENERIC LETTER 83-28,' VENDOR INTERFACE (PROGRAM FOR ALL SAFETY-RELATED COMP 0NENTS), MILLSTONE. NUCLEAR POWERSTATION, UNIT 1(SRPSECTIONS7.5AND17.2)'
Plant Name:
Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Utility:
Northeast Utilities Docket E :
50-245 TAC No.:
53689 Licensing Status:
OR Resp. Directorate: PDISA Project Manager:
J. J. Shea Review Branch:
SELB/ DEST l
Review Status:
Complete for this Item Part
^
i Item 2.2 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28 requires licensees to establish, imple-ment and maintain a continuing program to ensure that vendor information for safety-related components is complete, current and controlled _throughout the life i
of the plant, and appropriately referenced or incorporated in plant. instructions' 1
and procedures. The licensee for the' Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, responded to Item 2.2 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28 by submittals' dated-November 8, 1983; March 16, 1984; May 9, 1985; September 5, 1985; and January 16,.
1 1987. The review of the responses, as evaluated in the enclosed contractor's re-port (EG&G-NTA-7584), finds the licensee's responses acceptable.-
l The enclosed SER documents our concurrence with the contractor's finding, with the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program includes the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services,"
)
described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC report, and includes the enhance-ments described in Section 3.2 of the report to the extent that the licensee can control or influence such enhancements.
In addition, the licensee should establish a program to periodically contact the vendors of key components for.the exchange of technical information.
For the diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a formal interface such as that with the NSSS vendor should be established
Contact:
A. Toalston, SELB/ DEST l
X29481 8705270430 870521 CF ADOCK 05000213 P MC
~,.
.m.
t 4
C. Thomas, Jr.
-P-if practicable. The Project Manager, in consultation with the licensee, should develop an implementation schedule for these items.
This completes our review for Part 2 of Item 2.2.
However, the TAC No. should be kept open pending completion of Part 1 of Item 2.2.
SALP input for the review is also enclosed.
voriginti sign aEtt IaustF.oSats<'
Faust Rosa, Chief Electrical Systems Branch Division of Engineering & Systems Technology
Enclosures:
As stated
)
cc:
A. Thadar.i G. Holahan J. J. Shea D. Lasher Distribution:
Docket File No. 50-245 SELB Rdg.
A. Toalston (PF)
J. E. Knight F. Rosa Millstone S/F i
i 0FC :SELB/ DEST
- SL DEST:
.__.:..ha_J.r!....:__/SELB/ DEST:BC/SEL
^
NAME :AT lS(on:ct:JEKnight@f L : FRosa
.....:____._______:_......_C...:.__..__.................. __......___. ___________:........___.
DATE :5/.2#'/87
- 5/4;' /87
- 5/ 2 / /87 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
i SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DOCKET NO. 50-245 MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 GE_NERIC L.EllER 83-28, ITEM 2.2 (PART 2)
VENDOR INTERFACE (PROGRAMS FOR ALL SAFETY RELATED COMPONENTel, l
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
\\
Generic Letter 83-28 was issued by the NRC on July 8,1983, indicating actions to be taken by applicants and licensees based on the generic implications of l
)
the Salem ATWS events.
Item 2.2 (Part 2) states a staff position which requires licensees and applicants to establish, implement and maintain a continuing program to ensure that vendor information for safety-related components is complete, cur-rent and controlled throughout the life of the plant, and appropriately referenced or incorporated in plant instructions and procedures.
i The licensee for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, submitted responses j
to Item 2.2 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28 by letters dated November 8, 1983; j
l March 16, 1984; May 9, 1985; September 5, 1985; and January 16, 1987. Our evalua-tion of these responses finds them to be acceptable.
EVALUATION 1
The licensee's program has been evaluated for three sub-items: (1) for equipment t
where vendor interfaces can be established, (2) for equipment where vendor inter-face cannot be practicably established, and (3) division of responsibilities between the licensee and vendor for servicing safety-related equipment.
The NRC Staff has developed guidelines for evaluating the licensee's responses for each sub-item.
]
\\
s.
i 1.
Program Where Vendor Interface Can Be Established
{
Guideline - The licensee or applicant response should describe their 1
program for establishing and maintaining interfaces with vendors of-j i
safety-related components which ensures that vendors are contacted on
)
a periodic basis and that receipt of vendor equipment technical informa-j l
tion (ETI) is acknowledged. or otherwise verified.
J The licensee describes an interface program with Westinghouse, General i
j Electric, and Combustion Engineering, the NSSS suppliers for Haddam Neck, Millstone 1 and Millstone 2, respectively. The General Electric Program consists of General Electric Service Information Letters, acknowledgement
)
of receipt and implementation as appropriate by the licensee.
1 The licensee also states that they actively participate in the Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) Vendor Equipment Technical Informa-l tion Program (VETIP)1.
One of the VETIP implementation responsibilities is to seek assistance and equipment technical information from safety-related equipment vendors other than the NSSS vendor when the utility's evaluation of an equipment or equipment technical information problem concludes that such interaction is necessary or would be beneficial.
i
1 I The licensee has not indicated that any formal interface program has been established with vendors other than their NSSS vendors. The licensee should establish a program to periodically contact vendors.of. key com-ponents (such as auxiliary feed pumps, safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange.of current technical information.
In the case of-the diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a formal interface such as that with i
the NSSS vendor should be established if practicable. The NRC' Pro.iect Manager, in consultation with the licensee, should develop an implementa-1 i
tion schedule for these items.
1 2.
Program Where Vendor Interface Cannot Be Practicably Established Guideline - The licensee / applicant should describe their program for compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an interface cannot be practicably established. This program may reference
]
the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INP0 84-010, issued in March 1984.
If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in l
Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report.
Through participation in the NPRDS program, electric utilities submit engineering information, failure reports and operating histories for review under the SEE-IN program. Thrbugh the SEE-IN program, the i
r
_4 a
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) reviews nuclear plant events that have been reported through the NPRDS programs, the Nuclear Network and NRC reports. Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the screening review, INPO issues a report to all utilities outlining the cause of the event and related problems, and recommends practical cor-rective actions. These reports are issued in Significant Event Reports, Significant Operating Experience Reports and as Operations and Maintenance i
Reminders. Upon receipt of these documents, electric. utilities evaluate the information to determine applicability to the facility. This evalua-tion is documented and corrective actions are taken as determined necessary, 2
i b
l j
The licensee references the NUTAC/VETIP program and states that plant instructions and procedures are now in place to review and evaluate in-l coming equipment technical information and to incorporate it into existing procedures.
3 2
We find that the licensee's response to this concern is adequate and accept-able, with the understanding that the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP program includes the implementation of the enhancements described i
in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP program to the extent that the licensee can control or influence the implementation of these recommendations.
Also, the lack of either a formal interface with each' vendor of safety -
j related equipment or a program to periodically contact each vendor of H
9 e
s 4 )
i i
safety-related equipment does not relieve the licensee of their respon-sibility to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information where necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system, or i
component will perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure adequate quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
i 3.
Division of Responsibilities Between The Licensee and Vendor For Servicing Safety-Related Ecuipment Guideline - The licensee / applicant should verify that the responsibil-
\\
ities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable in-structions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment are provided..
l 4
i The licensee committed to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program. They further state that their present and planned future practices and activities ade-quately implement this program. The VETIP program includes implementation.
i precedures for the internt.1 handling of vendor services.
j a
)
We find the licensee's commitment to implement the VETIP program to be acceptable, with the understanding that the licensee's commitment 1
incluC3s the objective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services"
{
described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC Report.
i CONCLUSION Our review of the licensee's responses to Item 2.2 (Part 2) of Generic Letter 83-28 for the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, finds that the licensee's interface programs with its NSSS suppliers, plus the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program is acceptable, with the understanding that l
the licensee's commitment to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program includes the ob-3 jective for " Internal Handling of Vendor Services," described on page 23 of the March 1984 NUTAC report, and includes the enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the report to the extent that the licensee can control or influence such enhancements.
In addition, the licensee should establish a program to peri-odically contact vendors of key components (such as auxiliary feed pumps, i
a i
l safety-related batteries, ECCS pumps and safety-related valve operators) to facilitate the exchange of current technical information.
In the case of the j
1 diesel generator and safety-related switchgear vendors, a formal interface I
such as that with the NSSS vendor should be established if practicable. The Project Manager, in consultation with the licensee, should develop an imple-mentation schedule for these items.
l REFERENCE 1.
NUTAC, On Generic Letter 83-28, Section 2.2.2, Vendor Equipment Technical l
Information Program, March 1084, INP0 84-010 (NUTAC).
"~'
Enttubunti SELB SALP IllPU_T_,
Millstone Nuclear Power StationItem 2.2 (Part 2) of Generic Lette PLMT:
SUBJECT:
DASIS PERF01UtANCE EVALUATI0ff CATEGORY
~
CRITERIA No basis for assessment.
N/A Management involvement Responses adequately resolved the issues, 2
Approach to Resolution of..
Technical Issues Submittals were reasonably responsive to the Generic letter.
2
- . Responsiveness No basis for assessment.
N/A l.
Enforcement llistory No basis for assessment.
N/A 5.
Reportable Events No basis for assessment.
N/A 6.
Staffing No basis for assessm66t'.
- N/A..
'**daa
~
-$=3 i
EG3-NTA-7554 f
I f
a e
t t
1 TECHNICAL EVALUATIDN REPORT
'i l
(
l CONFORMANCE:TO GENERIC LETTER 53-25, ITEM 2.2.2---
.VENDCR INTERFACE FROGRAMS FOR ALL DTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPCNENTS-
~
.HADDAM NECK AND l
L MILLSTONE-1, -2'AND -3 l
+
c:
';. )
Docket No. 50-213/50-245/50-335/50-423-j i
l A
3 Alan C Udy 0
l i
l 1
1 1
]
Ii Published March 1987 i
i J
i Idahe National Engineering Laberatory
. g
- 1
- EG&a Idaho, Inc.
.\\
l Idaho Fa'ils, Idaho f 83415 d
-)
a
~
l.
er
. 'O oi l
(
Prepared for,the l'
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Washington,JD.C.
20555 i
Under' DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-761001570 i
FIN Nos. D5001 & D5002 l
,, r r ~i J o L!b@-. -
- ,y rJ l QU '1 J w r
au,
s t
ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report provides a review of the submittals from Northeast Utilities regarding conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.2.2, for the Haddam Neck Plant and for Units -1, -2 and -3 of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station.
Docket Nos. 50-213/50-245/50-336/50-473 TAC Nos. 53677/53689/53690/60395 ii a
1\\.
\\
F J
3 i
1 t
-l I
I 8
FOREWORD ~
This rep 0rt is supplied as part of the program for evaluating f
lice 1see/applicar.t conformance to Generic Letter 83-28, " Required Actions Based on Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events." This work is being
^
concutted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear I
Reactor Regulation,, Division of PWR Licensing-A, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR l
and I&E Support Branch.
1 i
1 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded this work under the
]
authorization B&R Nos. 20-19-10-11-3 and 20-19-40-41-3, FIN Nos. D6001 j
and D6002.
I 1
. a i
a i
)
i 4
i l
l 1
4 Docket Nos. 50-213/50-245/50-336/50-423 TAC Nos. 53677/53689/53690/60395t 4
1 iii 9
1 1
1 CONTENTS-
. i
'1!
i 1
3 Ac.qanAr.T...............................................................
i i
l-3 FOREWORD............................................................
i i i-l J
1.
INTRODUCTION:......................................................
1~
j 2.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT.........................................
2
'J a
...M 4.4.c PhwanmM..raava-*md s
e % 3
..n.
AtL veaun.e:2u J.
3.1 Guideline...................................................
3.
l 1
g.
4.2 tValuation..................................................
-- l 3.3' Conclusion.................................................-
A i
4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT PRACTICABLY BE I
i E S T AB LI S H E D......................................................
5
)
'l 4.1 Guideline..................................................
5 J
5 1
4.2 Evaluation................................................. -
4.3 Conclusion.................................................
6 1
i 1
5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDORS T. HAT PROVIDE
. 7-SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT...............................
5.1 Guideline........................................ '.........
7 5.2 Evaluation.................................................
7 5.3 Conclusion.................................................
7 6.
C0NCLUSION'.......................................................
8 7.
REFERENCES........................................................
9 t
l 4'
d j
3 1
3 d
iv t
I k
N re y
.gp
CONFORMANCE TO GENERXC LETTER 83-28, ITEM 2.2.2--
VENDOR INTERFACE PROGRAMS FOR ALL OTHER SAFETY-RELATED COMPONENTS:
HADDAM NECK AND i
1 MILLSTONE-1, -2 AND -3 j
1.
INTRODUCTION-On February 25, 1983, both of the scram circuit breakers at Unit 1 of the Salem Nuclear Power Plant failed to open upon an automatic reactor trip signal from the reactor protection system. This incident was terminated manually by the operator about 30 seconds after the initiation of the tutomatic trip signal. The failure of the circuit breakers was determined I
to be related to the sticking of the undervoltage trip attachment.
Prior to this incident, on February 22, 1501, at Unit 1 of th'e Salem Nuclear Power Plant, an automatic trip signal was generated based on steam _
j generator low-low level during plant startup.
In this use, the reactor was tripped manually by the operator almost coincidentally with the automatic trip.
Following these incidents, on February 28, 1983, the NRC Executive l'
Director for Operations (EDO), directed the NRC staff to investigate and report on the generic implicstions of these occurrences at Unit 1 of.the -
Salem Nuclear Power Plant. The results of the staff's inquiry into the generic implications of the Salem unit incidents are reported in NURE3-1000, " Generic Implications of the ATWS Events at the Salem Nuclear.
)
Power Plant." As a result of this investigation, the Commissien (hRC) l rec,uested (by Generic Letter 83-28 dated July 8,1983 ) a11 11censees of.
I cperating reactors, applicants for an operating license, and holderr of
.l construction permits to respond to the generic issues raised by the j
analyses of then two ATWS events.
This report is an evaluation of the responses submitted by the l
Northeast Utilities, the licensee for the Haddam Neck Flant and for Units -1, -2 and -3 of the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, for Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28. The documents reviewed as a part of this evaluation are listed in the references at the end of this report'.
I
)
1 1
1 I
~.
-i 2.
REVIEW CONTENT AND FORMAT.
i i
Item 2.2.2 of Generic Letter 83-28 requests the licensee or applicant
~j to submit, for the staff review, a description of their programs for interfacing with the vendors of all safety-related components including supporting information, in considerable detail, as indicated in the cuideline section for each case within this report.
~
-f These guidelines treat cases wnere direct vendo-contact programs are i
pursued, treat cases where such contact cannot practically be established, and establish -espcnsibilities of licensees / applicants and vendors that provide service on safety-related components or equipment.
l l
2 As previously indicateo, the cases of Item 2.2.2 are evaluated in a separate section in which the guideline is presented; an evaluation.of the -
j licensee's/ applicant's response is made; and conclusions about the programs
' of the licensee or applicant for their vendor interface program for.
j I
safety-related components and equipment are drawn.
1 d
l i
4 4
~ l l
4 2
l
3.
ITEM 2.2.2 - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION f
3.1 Guideline i
i The licensee or applicant respense should describe their program for establishing and maintaining interfaces with vendcrs of safety-related components which ensures that vendors are contacted on a periodic basis and-that receipt of vendor equipment technical information (ETI) is acknowledged or otherwise verified.
This program description should establish that such interfaces are established with their N555 vendor, as nll as with the vendors of key safety-related components such as diesel generators, electrical switchgear, auxiliary feedpumps, emergency core cooling system (ECCS) pumps, batteries, i
battery chargers, and valve operators, to facilitate the exchange of current technical information. The description should verify that controlled procedures edst for handling this vender technical information which ensure that it is kept current and complete and that it is incorporated into plant eperating, maintenance and test procedures as is appropriate.
c 3.2 Evaluation The licensee for the Haddam Neck Plant and the Millstone Nuclear Power Station respended to these requirements with submittals dated November 8, 1983,2 March 16, 1984,3 May 9, 1985,4 September 5,1985 5
]
and January 16, 1987.6 These submittals include information that describes their past and current vendor interface programs.' In the review of the i
licensee's response to this item, it was assumed that the'information and documentation supporting this program is available for audit upon request.
l We have reviewed this information and note the following, d
e The licensee's response states that they actively participate in the a
Nuclear Utility Task Action Committee (NUTAC) program. The Vendor Equipment F
3
i s:
Technical Information Program (VETIP) was developed by NUTAC. VETIP includes _
j interaction with the N555 vendor and with other electric utilities. Typical I
L.55 vendor contact with the licensee includes:
i I.
General Electric Service Information Letters j
i 2.
Combustion Engineering Availability Data Program 3.
Westinghouse Nuclear Service Information Division Technical Bulletins and Data Letters Also, the licensee reviews I&E Bulletins, Circulars and.Information Notices to avoid the procurement of defective components.
Further, the licensee reviews both their and industry events to evauate-their significance' under NEO Procedure 2.06.
The licensee's Production Maintenance Management System (PMMS) data base also provides information to assist with vendor interfaces. The licensee also states that new or revised procedures to implement the NUTAC/VETIP~ program are now in place.
3.3 Conclusion We conclude that the licensee's response regarding program description-is complete and, therefore, acceptable.
1 f
d 4
4.
PROGRAM WHERE VENDOR INTERFACE CANNOT j
PRACTICABLY BE ESTABLISHED I
4.I Guideline i
4 The licensee / applicant response should describe their program for compensating for the lack of a formal vendor interface where such an interface cannet-be practicably established.
This program may reference
)
the NUTAC/VETIP program, as described in INPO 84-010, issued in March 1984 If the NUTAC/VETIP program is referenced, the response should describe how procedures were revised to properly control and implement this program and to incorporate the program enhancements described in Section 3.2 of the NUTAC/VETIP report.
It should also be noted that the lack of either a formal interface with each vendor of safety-related equipment or a program to periodically contact each vendor of safety-related equipment will not relieve the licensee / applicant of his responsibility to obtain appropriate vendor instructions and information where necessary to provide adequate confidence that a structure, system or component will perform satisfactorily in service and to ensure adequate quality assurance in accordance with Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50.
4.2 Evaluation In their responses, the licensee provided a brief description of the l
vendor interface program.
Their description references the NUTAC/VETIP program. The licensee states that plant instructions and procedures are currently in place to assure that the VETIP program is properly controlled and implemented.
i VETIP is comprised of two basic elements related to vender equipment problems; the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data System (NPRDS) and th'e Significant Event Evaluation and Information Network (SEE-IN) programs.
VETIP is -designed to ensure that vendor equipment problems are recognized, evaluated and corrective action taken.
}
5 1
1
t u
l Through participation in the NPRDS program, the licensee. submits I
engineering information, failure-reports and operating histories' for review under the SEE-IN program. Through the SEE-IN program, the Institute of Nuclear Power T)perations (INPO) reviews nuclear plant events that have.been reported through the NPRDS programs and Nuclear Network and NRC reports.
I Based on the significance of the event, as determined by the screening
. review,- INPD issues a report to a11' utilities outlining the cause of the event, related problems and recommends practical corrective actions. These i
reports are issued in Significant Event Reports, in Significant Operating Experience Reports and as Operations and Maintenance Reminders. Upon j
I receipt of these documents, the licensee evaluates the information to
~i determine applicability to the facility. This evaluation is documented and corrective actions are taken as determined necessary.
The licensee's response states that procedures now exist to review and t
evaluate incoming equipment technical information and to incorporate it i
into existing procedures.
l 4.3 Conclusion j
We find that the licensee's response to this concern is adequate and,
{
therefore, acceptable.
i i
f i
t s
6
5.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF LICENSEE / APPLICANT AND VENDOR THAT PROVIDE SERVICE ON SAFETY-RELATED EQUIDMENT I
5.I Guideline j
i i
The licensee / applicant response should verify that the l
responsibilities of the licensee or applicant and vendors that provide service on safety-related equipment are defined such that control of applicable ir.structions for maintenance work on safety-related equipment I
are provided.
Y I
5.2 Evaluation
)
The licensee's response commits to implement the NUTAC/VETIP program.
They further state that their present and revised programs and procedures adequately implement this program. The VETIP guidelines include f
implementation procedures for the internal handling of vendor services.
5.3 Conclusion
)
3 2
We find the licensee's commitment to implement and use the VETIP j
program acceptable.
i I
4 4
+
7 4
0 1
i d
6.
CONCLUSION Based On Our review of the licensee's respense to the specific requirements of Item 2.2.2, we find that the information proviced by the licensee te resolve the concerns of this program meet the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 and is acceptable.
i I
i i
l 1
1 i
8
~.
7.
REFERENCES j
1.
Letter, NRC (D. G. Eisenhut), to all Licensees of Operating Reactors,
' l Applicants for Operating License, and Holders of Construction Permite l
" Required Actions Based on Generic. Implications of Salem ATWS Events (Generic Letter 83-28)," July 8, 1983.
2.
Letter, Northeast Utilities (W. G. Courisil) to NRC (D. G. Eisenhut),
" Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Generic Implications of Salem ATWS
?
Events," November 8, 1953, A03381, Attachment 5.
3.
Letter, Northeast Utilities (W. G. Counsil) to NRC (D. G. Eiser. hut),
~
" Response to Generic Letter 83-28, Generic Implications'of Salem ATWS Events," Maren 16, 1984, BIl053, Attachment 5.
4.
Letter, Northeast Utilities (J. F. Opeka) to NRC (J. R. Miller and J. A. Zwolinski), " Generic Letter 83-28 Request for Additional j
Information," May 9, 1985, A04696/A04727/A04826.
5.
Letter, Northeast Utilities (J. F. Opeka) to NRC (B. J. Youngblood),
" Response to Recuest for Additional Information, Generic Letter 83-28, J
Generic Implications of Salem ATWS Events," September 5,1985, A04910.
}
6.
Letter, Northeast Utilities (E. J. Mroczka) to NRC, Generic Letter 83-28, Item 2.1.2, January 16, 1987, A06230, B12400.
i S
e I
i l
1 9
_