ML20210A728

Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Alleged Transmittal or Delivery of Westinghouse Nsd Technical Bulletin 74-1.App a Documents Available in PDR & Forwarded. App B Documents Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 4)

ML20210A728
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
To:	Mirarchi S BISHOP, COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS
References
FOIA-86-808 NUDOCS 8705050150
Download: ML20210A728 (4)

Text

U.S. NUCLEAR REIULATORY COMMISSl*N ssc FoM f EQUEST NUMBE/ISi

, y ~w'+g r)p Fc1M -&EseouserveE 9e -&b ?

s i RESPONSE TO FREEDEM CF XI""

I l '^"'"

\e eeee

/' INFORMATION ACT (FOlA) REQUEST APR 3 0 1987 DOCKET NUM6ERtSi ur appereew REQUESTER O* W b W W. 9 PART l.-RECOROS RELEASED OR NOT LOCATED (See checkedbores)

No agency records subject to the request have been located.

No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

Agency records subsect to the request that are identrr.ed in Appendas are already avadable for public arspection and copying in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street. N.W., Washmgton, DC.

Agency records subject to the request that are identified in Apha M are bemg made available for public inspection and copying in the NRC Public Document X Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, in a folder under the FOIA number and requester name.

The nonproprietary version of the proposaHs) that you agreed to accept in a telephone conversation with a member of my staff is now being made avedeble for public inspection and coying at the NRC Public Document Room.1717 H Street. N W . Washmgton, DC. in a folder under this FOIA number and requester name.

Enclosed is information on how you may obtam access to and the charges for copying records placed in the NRC Puble Document Room 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC.

Agency records subject to the request are enclosed. Any apphcable charge for copees of the records provided and payment procedures are noted in the comments secton.

Records subject to the request have been referred to another Federal agencylies) for review and direct response to you.

In view of NRC's response to this request, no further action is bemg taken on appealletter dated PART ll.A-lNFORMATION WITHHELD FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE n-I Certain informaton in the requested records is being withheld from pubic disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions descnbod in and for the reasone stated in Part II, sec-tuns 8. C. and D. Any released portions of the documents for wh ch only part of the record is bemg withheld are being rnade available for pubGc inspection and copying in the NRC Pubhc Document Room.1717 H Street N.W., Wa:h noton, DC. in a folder under thrs FOIA number and requester name.

Cec ..nts e

O h slt C.M/y .DAL

~

ek., W D m Mn e W , " ~ ~Wg h g" eaai N .[UldM M 43 h_ Auel . W a AM M7 w q w u ww mm f 4" h 6 MM' -M b #

l l

l l

0 sicjtarytes. o,nEcro 4Au Wn o astong

/ z/ stas z ,., aso / _ niconos 8705050150 870430 PDR FOIA MIRARCH486-808 PDR NIC FCCM 464 iPet la et esi

l, F7EEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT RESPONSE FOIA NUMBER (S):

PANT lt.B- APPLICABLE FOfA EXEMPTIONS Fole- %-2 o F DATo A m, , n _ _ -

• " ' ' IUDI Records sub' ject to the request that are described in the enclosed Appendices are being withheld in their entirety or in part under FOIA Embmptions and for the reasons set forth below pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 10 CFR 9.5tal of NRC Regulations.

1. The wthheld information a property class #ed pursuant to Executive Order 12356 (EXEMPTION 11

2. The wthheld informatson relates solely to the mtemal personnet rules and procedures of NRC. (EXEMPTION 21

3. The wthheld informaton is specifically emer eted from public disclosure by statute indicated: (EXEMPTION 3) s Section 141145 of the Atomic Energy Act which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data'or Formetty Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 216121661.

Secten 147 of the Atomic Energy Act w*sch prohibits the disclosure of Unclassefied Safeguards Information 142 U.S C. 2167L

4. The wthheld informaten is a trade secret or commercial or financial siformation that is being withheld for the reasorts) indicated: (EXEMPTION 4)

The information is considered to be conhdential business (propretaryl informaten.

The informaten is considered to be propnetary informaton pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790fdH1).

The information was submitted and recerved en conr idence from a fore gn source pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790(dH2).

5. The wthheld informaton consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery dunng litgation. Doctosure of predecisional informaten would tend to inhibit the open and frank enchange of ideas essential to the dehberative process. Where records are wthheld in their entirety. the facts are inextricab8y intertwmed indirect mquirywith into the predecisonalinformaton.

tne predecisional There (EXEMPTION process of the agency. also are no reasonatQ)segregable o factual portions because the release of the facts would permit an

6. The withhold information is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearty unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. IEXEMPTION 61

7. The wthheld information conssts of investgatory records compted for taw enforcement purposes and is being ethheld for the reason (s) indicated. IEXEMPTION 7)

Desclosure would interfere with an enforcement proceedag because it could reveal the scope, directen, and focus of enforcement efforts. and thus could possibry allow them to take action to sneced potential wrongdomg or a violation of NRC requirements from investigators. (EXEMPTION 74AH Declosure would constitute en unwarranted invason of personal pnvacy (EXEMPTION 7tCH The informaton consists of names of indrviduals and other informaten the disclosure of which would reveal identities of confidentet sources. (EXEMPTION 7tDH PART 11 C-DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuont to 10 CFR 9 9 and/or 9.15 of the U.S. Nucteer Regulatory Commessen regulatens, it has been detemuned that the informaten withheld is exempt from production or disclosure.

and thct its production or disclosure is contrary to the pubhc interest. The persons responsible for the denial are those officials identifed below as denymg officials and the Director.

Omsson of Rules and Records. Office of Admmest aten, for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations stoon.

DENYlNG OFFICIAL TITLE / OFFICE RECORDS DENIED APPELLATE OFFIC91. 1 u

• 'tfL rW1b d M l/

o 0 ~ '

1 l

PART 11 D- APPEAL RIGHTS The denial by each denying official identifed in Part ll.C may be appealed to the Appellate Official identified in that section. Any such appeal must be in writing and must be made within 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals must be addressed as appropriate to the Executive Director for Operations or to ths Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20565, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

nac fonM es* IPart D as em U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOlA RESPONSE CONTINUATION 4

J

RE: F01A-86-808 APPENDIX A-RECORD MAINTAINED IN THE PDR UNDER THE ABOVE REQUEST NUMBER

1. 5/23/83 Memo from Richard Starostecki, to Roger Mattson, James Taylor, John Callen, subject: Generic Issue of Vendor Information Distribution. (2 pages)

2. undated Assist To Inspection Report, subject: Salem Unit I Nuclear.

4 Generating Station / Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS)

Event. Report: A-1-83-003. (5pages).

l 3. Undated AIR Status Record (1 page).

1 I

J

--c-- -.,~#. . . , . ,. .-,-.m._--,_ m_..y,-.,-,--,, , - - . _ . . , , , , , , , .,-,,,,..v-- - -

?.e : F01A-36-808 APPENDIX 8 RECORDS TOTALLY WITHHELD NUMBER DATE DESCRIPTION & EXEMPTION 6

1.

02/19/74 Attachment 1 to Assist to (3 pages) 4, entirety Inspection Report A-1-83-003 -

NSD Data Letter 74-2 with Attachment NSD Technical Bulletin 2* Undated Attachment 2 to Assist to (1page) 4, entirety Inspection Report A-1-83-003 Cover Sheet - Outage Planning Manual Volume 11 3.

Undated Attachment 3 to Assist to (1page) 4, entirety inspection Report A-1-83-003 .

' Outage Planning Manual -

Distribution List 4.

, 10/29/81 Attachment 4 to Assist to (3pages) 4, entirety Inspection Report A-1-83-003 Letter to Ward from Taylor with Enclosures - Revisions to Outage Planning Manual

! 5. Undated Attachment 5 to Assist to (1page) 4. entirety Inspection Report A-1-83-003 Section 8/ Plant Maintenance Recommendations

6. Undated Attachment 6 to Assist to (7pages) 4, entirety Inspection Report A-1-83-003 Appendix F W Data Letters /Index l

1 1

- - . , .- .7.,. ,_-.-c.-,.,_,n,.,, , , , _ _ . . - . . . . . . , -..n.,.,g,,,,n- . - ,- - -

c .

.w ,,

, MAY 2 31983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Roger J. Mattson, Director, Division of System Integration, NRR James M. Taylor, Director, Division of Reactor Program, OIE John T. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region IV FROM: Richard W. Starostecki, Director, Division of Project and Resident Programs, Region I

SUBJECT:

GENERIC ISSUE OF VENDOR INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION Because of the uncertainty of whether the licensee, Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G), had received certain information from Westinghouse Elec-tric Company pertinent to the maintenance of reactor trip breakers (D8-50) and relative to the recent failures at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, the OI Region I Field Office was requested to assist us in the matter. A copy of their Assist to Inspection Report is enclosed as Attachment 1. While their ef-fort resulted in no firm conclusions, it appears unlikely that the appropriate individual (s) in PSE&G received the information at the time of issuance or be-tween then and late February, 1983.

The issue of vendor information distribution and assurance of receipt and pro-per disposition by licensee's is one of great importance (as evidenced by the Salem ATWS events). It is also a large task that requires close initial and continuing interface between vendors and licensees and should receive scrutiny by periodic NRC inspection of both licensees' and vendors' program implementa-tion.

It is not clear from a reading of the recommended generic actions (Mattson memo to Denton et al, dated April 27,1983) that the required actions developed by the Salem Generic Implications Task Force will achieve the expected goal. The reason for this is the diversity of programs which probably will be established by licensees and vendors. Additionally, the requirement for lists of vendor technical information, and the technical information itself, to be available on site for NRC inspection will not provide assurance that the list is complete at all times and could involve considerable inspection time for comparison.

In light of this, we recommend that the following additional actions be consi-dered:

A. Intermediate Term Actions To Be Taken By Licensees (3) Vendor Interface Require licensee to implement a system of positive feedback with their vendors for mailings containing technical information.

This could be accomplished by licensee acknowledgement for re-ceipt of technical mailings and would require vendors to anno-tate receipt by licensees on the vendor's distribution list. '

Explore with INPO their role as a clearing house for distribu-tion of vendor technical information with a positive feedback mechanism to ensure licensee receipt. 2M

" f62 r' A*h,*

U 'S g% n/i

~ *

.. , MAY 2 31983 B. Staff Program Changes (6) Vendor Inspection Include in Vendor Inspection Program, review of vendor compli-ance to licensee required information handling systems.

Include in resident / regional inspection program, review of lic-ensee implementation of its information handling system.

If you have any questions on these recommendations, please call.

Origins 1515ned BYt Richard W. Starostecki, Directo Division of Project and Resident I

Programs

.I

Enclosure:

As Stated cc w/ enc 1:

1 D. Eisenhut, NRR E. Jordan, IE J. Gagliardo, RIV U. Potapovs, RIV bec w/ enc 1:

OPRP Branch Chiefs RI: P RI J P Ke g/meo St o'skecki 5 3/83 qqg 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l

l t

m. --- .- - - - - _ - - - , ~ _ . , , , - - - - - . -

, , , , - - - _ . - . . - - - - _ - - , - - . , -- .-. - r- , , .- , , . .-_3 -- -. _ , 7,, _ --,m-

UNITE] STATES g

[f*%44 NUCLEAR REZULATU.Y COMMISSION OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONJ FIELD OFFICE. REGloN I ,

% , , , , ,+D KING OF PR SSI ENNSYL ANIA 1N06 ASSIST TO INSPECTION REPORT

SUBJECT:

SALEM UNIT 1 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION / ANTICIPATED TRANSIENT WITHOUT SCRAM (ATWS) EVENT REPORT NUMBER: A-1-83-003

REFERENCE:

NUREG-0977 (NRC Fact-Finding Task Force Report on the ATWS Event at Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, on February 25, 1983)

On February 22, 1983, a trip demand condition without scram existed for about three seconds at the Salem Unit 1 Nuclear Generating Station, which is operated by Public Service Electric and Gas (licensee). The condition was not recognized l by the licensee untti after an anticipated scram without transient (ATWS) occurred on February 25, 1983, and the February 22, 1983 event was subsequently reevalu

• ated. The reevaluation determined that an ATWS had also existed for about three seconds on February 22, 1983.

A Region I Fact-Finding Task Force determined that the two events may have been a result of improper maintenance on the Westinghouse's 08-50 circuit breakers.

l The licensee determined that the reactor trip breakers failed to open automatically due to mechanical binding of the latch mechanism in the under voltage trip attachments on the breakers. During both the February 22 and February 25, 1983 evaluations, Salem Unit I had to be manually tripped after the automatic system failed to function as intended.

6 In January of 1974 a Westinghouse Technical Bulletin (NSD-74-1) was issued l which described a reactor trip breaker failure caused by excessive friction of the latch mechanism and recommended that the reactor trip breaker be given regularly scheduled periodic inspections / maintenance. In addition, the l Technical Bulletin recommended lubricating the under voltage device occasionally with a molybdenum disulfide lubricant. In February of 1974, a Westinghouse NSD Data letter (NSD-74-2) was issued providing further guidance relating to the maintenance of the Westinghouse 08-50 circuit breakers. Attachment (1) contains both of the above mentioned Westinghouse documents.

The NRC Task Force reviewed and determined that the reactor trip breakers had not been included in a licensee preventive maintenance program and a lubricant different from that recommended in the Westinghouse Data Letter l (NSD-74-2) had been applied to the breakers in as late as January 1983.

1 I The purpose of this Assist to Inspection Report was to determine the circum-l stances surrounding the Westinghouse transmittal and the licensee receipt of the two aforementioned documents (Attachment (1) pertains).

(o fe2.6- 86 a o f fV l

2 On March 17, 1983 Robert A. STOKES, Manager Project Logistics, Westinghouse's Nuclear Service Integration Department (NSID) was interviewed by Peter J.

CONNOLLY at Westinghouse's Monroeville, PA, Nuclear Center. ST0KES advised that Technical Bulletin, NSD-78-74-1 was issued on January 11, 1974. However, he commented that the Nuclear Service Division (NSD) data letter, dated February 19, 1974, canceled the forementioned technical bulletin. He noted that the technical bulletin had contained incorrect information regarding the type of lubricant for maintenance of the Reactor Trip Breaker and that the data letter provided the correct type of lubricant to be used.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Nuclear Service Division is now called Nuclear Service Integration Department.

Mr. STOKES explained that in 1974 there was no formal system to determine if the customer, in this case Public Service Electric and Gas, received the forementioned documents. He noted that at the time, according to to Westinghouse policy, the two directives were sent to the Westinghouse construction site staff. He explained that these two documents in 1974 would have been forwarded to the construction site manager, Jim DOLAN, and Westinghouse's two site electrical engineers, Jim NADZAN and Howard MASQUELIER. He said that each - ,

individual would have received a copy of both documents and that they should have discussed the documents with the customer so as to insure that the documents were implemented and that the required action was taken. He reiterated that at construction sites there was no formal procedure to distribute the

! documents directly to the customer from Westinghouse.

STOKES advised that he had contacted DOLAN, NADIAN and NASQUELIER concerning i this incident. According to STOKES, DOLAN, who is currently the construction j site manager for Millstone, could not recall discussing the technical bulletin or data letter with Public Service Electric and Gas personnel. He said DOLAN reported that, in cases such as this, the briefing would have been assigned to the respective field engineers with the understanding that they would work with the customer's counterparts. According to ST0KES, DOLAN said that NADZAN or MASQUELIER should have discussed the documents with the appropriate customer personnel. ST0KES added that he contacted NADZAN who is currently working at

. the Angra Nuclear Power Plant Construction Site in Angra, Brazil. He said NADZAN remembered the documents; however, he said NADZAN could not recall anything additional except that the documents fell into MASQUELIER's area

and he should have implemented them. STOKES said he contacted MASQUELIER l (who is retired) and MASQUELIER recalled,that he talked to a Public Service 1

Electric and Gas maintenance man by the name of Harry with a Polish surname,

which he could not recall, concerning the documents; however STOKES commented that MASQUELIER said he could not recall specifics of the brief but that 2

MASQUELIER assumed that the licensee was provided copies of the documents.

According to ST0KES, MASQUELIER currently lives on the West Coast.

i

___ , . . _ _ . . . _ ~

ST0KES explained that in 1974, 30 nuclear power plants had DB-50 breakers and should have received the forementioned NSD data letter via the site manager and electrical engineers. He said Westinghouse inquiries with the 30 plants disclosed that only Salem 1 and 2 and Indian Point 3 did not have the documents.

He noted that in 1974, Indian Point 3 belonged to Con Edison and was subsequently sold to the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY). He noted that Con Edison's Indian Point 2, which was under construction in 1974 with Indian Point 3, had the documents on file. He said in all probability, the Indian Point 3 documents were lost when Indian Point 3 was transferred to PASNY's ownership.

STOKES also commented that in October 1981. Public Service Electric and Gas was provided with an Outage Planning Manual for its Salem Plants. He noted that this was a revised issue after results of meetings with Public Service Electric and Gas. He said the manual was issued on October 29, 1982, and he provided Attachment (2), a cover sheet of the manual; Attachment (3), the Salem Unit 1 distribution list; and Attachment (4), a memo implementing the manual. STOKES advised that in Section 8 of the manual, subtitle 8.1 para-

• graph 31, aletters house data copy were of which is Attachment included in Appendix(5),

F. it STOKES was documented that Westing-(6) ,

released Attachment I

which is a copy of Appendix F which indexes the Reactor Trip Breaker Mainten-ance Data Letter; however, he said the Outage Planning Manual did not contain the data letter but only indexes it. It was noted that the Westinghouse distribution list for the data letters listed DOLAN, NADZAN and MASQUELIER as recipient.

In conclusion, STOKES summarized that in 1974, the data letters and technical

! bulletins were sent from Westinghouse's Nuclear Service Department (NSD) directly to the site manager and the engineers and not to the licensee. He said it was the responsibility of the site managers and the engineers to discuss the documents with the licensee and provide them with copies, i

On March 21, 1983, Howard MASQUELIER, former Westinghouse Electrical Engineer at the Salem Unit 1 Nuclear Generating Station from August 1973 to June 1976 (now retired and living in California), was telephonically interviewed by Investigator Richard A. MATAKAS. MASQUELIER did recall receiving the documents in Attachment (1) during the time he worked at Salem Unit 1. He said he was sure that he discussed both the data letter and technical bulletin with a Public Service Electric and Gas maintenance supervisor identified as Harry CH0MIAK, He said that he thought that they (the Westinghouse site representa-tives) provided the documents to Public Service Electric and Gas with a letter of transmittal; however, he could not recall the Public Service Electric and Gas reply but believes that they agreed to some type of corrective action.

MASQUELIER did not provide any additional pertinent information.

INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Contact with John MCADOO, Westinghouse Assistant Manager of Nuclear Safety on April 13, 1983 failed to confirm the existance of a Westinghouse letter of transmittal and/or Public Service Electric and Gas's response relating to the data letter and technical bulletin contained in Attachment (1).

i

4 On April 5,1983, Harry CH0MIAK, former Public Service and Gas Maintenance Supervisor at Salem Unit 1. now retired, was interviewed at his residence by Investigator Richard A. MATAKAS. CH0MIAK viewed both the technical bulletin and data letter contained in Attachment (1) and advised that to the best of his memore he had never seen them before nor had he discussed their contents with anyone. He did not recall either Howard MASQUELIER or the names of any other Wes+'t.ghouse site representatives during the time he worked at Salem Unit 1 as d e Salem Unit 1 maintenance supervisor. He did not provide any additional pertinent information.

On Mt.rch 23, 1983, Edward WATJEN, current Westinghouse Site Service Manager since December 1980, was interviewed by Investigator Richard A. MATAKAS at Salem Unit 1. WATJEN said that subsequent to the Salem Unit 1 February 1983 events, he did locate the Westinghouse Data Letter (72-2) in "an old Westinghouse volume of data letters"; however, he said he was not familiar with the fore-mentioned data letter prior to the February events and had not had an occasion to discuss its contents with anyone prior to the events.

Regarding the " Outage Planning Manual" that Westinghouse provided to Public Service Electric and Gas in 1981, WATJEN stated that the original purpose of the manual was to assist the licensee in planning for outages; however, the

• manual did not appear to have been used that much. He said that the manuals were brought to the site in 1981 by home office personnel and distributed per the distribution list (Attachment (3) pertains) to the licensee for comment.

A review of WATJEN's WestingFouse Planning Manual revealed that the manual did not contain the 74-2 Data Letter in Appendix F and that Appendix F was void of all documents including Attachment (6), the Appendix F index listing.

WATJEN did not provide my additional pertinent information.

On March 22 and 23, 1983, the Outage Planning Manuals assigned to the following individuals were reviewed by Investigator Richard A. MATAKAS and none of the manuals were found to contain the Westinghouse Data Letter 74-2 contained in Attachment (1):

Donald WARD - Outage Planning Coordinator, Public Service Electric and Gas John GALLAGHER - Public Service Electric and Gas Maintenance fianager John DRISCOLL - Assistant Plant Manager, Public Service Electric and Gas All of the above mentioned individuals advised that they were not aware of the Westinghouse Data Letter (74-2) prior to February 25, 1983. In addition.

John DRISCOLL stated that the Planning Manual was never used as an operating document and that an exhaustive search subsequent to the february 25, 1983 event, failed to surface the document in any Public Service Electric and Gas file.

He added that all Public Service Electric and Gas Planning Manuals on station that were provided to Public Service Electric and Gas by Westinghouse were reviewed and none of the manuals were found to contain the document.

l 1

On March 22, 1983 a review of the following documents in the Salem Unit 1 Technical Document Room (TDR) by Investigator Richard A. MATAKAS failed to surface either of the Westinghouse's documents contained in Attachment (1):

Manual for " Replacement of Undervoltage Attachment on Breakers in Reactor Trip Switchgear" Manual for " Instructions for Types DB-50 DBF-16 and DBL-50 Air Circuit Breakers" Prepared by:

fM83 Richard A. Matakas, Investigator Office of Investigations Field Office, Region I Approved by:

R Ku.t) fax 34-}uv4/5h'-

R. Ketti Christopher, D11'ector Office of Invesgiations .

Field Office, Region I l

I l

l l

mac tones sus ( u.s wuctran neoutafony comunesson cmi AIR (ASSIST TO INSPECTION) STATUS RECORD INSTRucil'ONs; Th.s form o to tie completed whenever s.yuf. cent activety e occurred rotative to e esse er et least every 30 devs If no cheap has securred durene the 30 doy reporting peread, endete *Wo Change" en the status block. Keep the cripnel weth the cose file and send one cor.y to Headquarter ,

( on. Of in.e.i. .on..

CCst asuneetR CAttGony O* * *C E w

[ O . OPERAT19eG M( ACion 1 #NDevlOUAL LlCt8sSEE

1. $5IaUcEEE" ""'""'"u 01:RI R-1-83-003 -

V +Vt400m a . orpegm

^"*'D 'o Sumect Salem Nuc eir Generattoa Sta Unit l Anticipa '

Richard A. Matakas g tpansient w'thout scram (ATWS) tion,t even at Safem

TaTus tsoec,riaere. ,=r mute e er.r morre,,.ns March 14, 1983: On February 22, 1983, a trip demand condition without scram existed for about (3) seconds at Salem Unit 1. The condition was not recognized by the licensee until a similar event occurred on February 25, 1983, and a subsequent reevaluation of the February 22,1983 event. A Region I fact finding task force determined that ATWS may have been a result of a lack of maintenance on the Westinghouse 00-50 circuit breakers.

Westinghouse allegedly sent a technical bulletin to the licensee in 1974 addressing correctis maintenance procedures on the breakers; however, the licensee claimed to have never formally "9C9!Y9d the b"lletin The nnennen nf th{e AfD (e tn Antnrmlnn uhat hapnnnnd tn thn Westinghouse TB addressing the DB circuit breaker maintenance issue.

! March 31, 1983: To date, interviews indicate that the licensee never formally received the aforementioned technical bulletin. Investigation is continuing.  !

l

( i.pril 1, 1983: To date, interviews indicate that the licensee never formally received I the a forementio+ cd technical bulletin. Investigation continuing.

l l

April 13, 1933: Investigation indicates that the licensee never formally received the aforementioned tecMical bulletin / data letter from Westinghouse. Report typed 4/u and )

)

is being reviewed.

l l r

l April 15, 1983: Closed i

l f03h*AGa*8#S nja