ML20212C765

Summary of 971007 Meeting W/Nei & Nuclear Utility Software Mtg Group in Rockville,Md Re Year 2000 Software Issues for Nuclear Power Plants.List of Attendees,Meeting Agenda & Jolicoeur Talking Points Attached

ML20212C765
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/20/1997
From:	Malloy M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Essig T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
PROJECT-689 NUDOCS 9710300171
Download: ML20212C765 (35)

Text

b one

• k 4

o p

t UNITED STATES s

}

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

WASHINGTON, D.C. nam "$1 j

I tt

• • • • • 4 October 20, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Thomas H. Essig, Acting Chief Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch k

)

Division of Reactor Program Management 9

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

./

/

G

/

4 FROM:

Melinda Malloy, Senior Reactor Engi Generic lasues and Environmental Projects Branch Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUMMARY

OF OCTOBER 7,1997, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) ON " YEAR 2000" SOFTWARE ISSUES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS On October 7,1997, representatives of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) met with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl) and the Nuclear Utility Software Management Group (NUSMG) at the NRC's offices in Rockville, Maryland. The list of meeting attendees is provided in Attachment 1.

In a letter from James Davis (NEI) to Hugh Thompson (NRC) dated September 15,1997, Mr. Davis provided an update on actions NEl was taking to help utilities to make their plants

" Year 2000 ready " In his letter, Mr. Davis recommended this meeting of industry representatives and interested NRC staff to share views and concems on industry plans and l

actions to address " Year 2000" (Y2K) computer software issues relating to nuclear power plants and plant systems necessary to support operations. The meeting agenda is provided in Attachment 2.

John Jolicoeur of the Offico for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data described the e* forts to update the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS) for the Year 2000. His presentation included some background on the ERDS and the importance of date fields to the system. He then detailed the main features of the NRC's EROS cQn plan and the current schedule. He is planning to complete testing of the NRC Operations Center ERDS in /

November 1998. He indicated that where licensees are planning to make software changes to their ERDS interfaces, he needs to know what ERDS software and the projected completion dates. This inicanation is necessary so that he

)]

can adequately plan and schedule testing of the NRC-licensee interfaces. Mr. Jolicoeur's talking points are included as Attachment 3.

Hugh Thompson, the NRC Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs, remarked that the NRC has a regulatory framework that if used correctly, will be appropriate for addressing the safety issues associated with the Y2K problem at nuclear power plants. Because of the heightened interest,in the Y2K issue, it is important for the NRC to be able to communicate M u e, ll ILl.lL I IH>ill ll J

r.

9710300171 971020

"% [y h ga. y w

PDR REVGP ERGtMMRC PDR

~-

i 3

Thomas H. Essig.

. ?..

October 20, 1997 l

4

[

the progress of the regulated community in sodressing the Y2K issue for its facilities. He stated tnat NRC is seeking to have a mechanism for periodic communication between the NRC and licensees regarding licensee progress in addressing Y2K issues, and he asked for input on what the industry considered to be appropriate in terms of periodic feedback from i

~

individual licensees to the NRC. He indicated that the NRC was considering whether a communication mechanism could provide sufficient oversight or whether a special NRC inspection activity would be needed. The NRC would expect each utility to identify a point of i

contact with whou the NRC could interface on Y2K matters.

?

Mr. Davis explained that the overall goals of the industry are to keep nuclear power plants 1

i safe and on line into the Year 2000. He stated that because of time limitations associ

[

' witis the Y2K problem, rather than trying to prepare a consensus document, NEl drew upor, talent L.hin NUSMG to prepare a framework document for utility use in approaching their 1

Y2K readiness efforts as a project. - He said that NEl was not offering the document as an initiative and as such, there was no assurance that all utilities would follow it. For the

{

purposes of discussion, he handed out copies of the draft document to all meeting attendees i

- (these were collected at the end of the meeting per NEl's request since NEl did not want to j

make the draft document publicly available at this time). He also said that NEl/NUSMG was not looking for the NRC's approval of the document, but was discussing it with the NRC as a I

courtesy and that they would consider the NRC's comments.

l Mr. Davis pointed out that the framework document makes a distinction in terminology i

' between'"Y2K reachess" (meaning devices or syriems will be able to function properly on i

and after January 1,2000) and "Y2K compliant" (meaning devices sind systems have been modified to use a four-digit year input correctly). NEl expects to issue the completed j

document to the industry (through the NUSMG representatives and NEl administrative points

. of contact) by the end of the month. At that time, the NRC staff will also be provided a copy and the document could be made publicly available. Mr. Davis plans to discuss the Y2K j

issue during his meetings with utility executives. NEl/NUSMG is planning to offer a full day of training on the framework document for all interested parties on November 14, igg 7, in San j;

Francisco. The NRC staff was invited to attend this training session.

i Morgan Ubby of the NUSMG task force provided an overview of the draft framework document (Attachment 4). He emphasized that the document espouses managing Y2K issues as a project, addressing all appropriate software and interfaces. Quality assurance is embedded in all aspects of the program. He stressed that there is a continuing commitment on the part of NEl and NUSMG to assist the utilities. NEl plans to establish an on-line information exchange mechanism for its members, which will be a fomm for the Y2K managers at each utility to share information and advice on their experiences in implementing

their Y2K programs. NEI expects that the training to be offered in November and this

. on-line information exchange will ensure consistent implementation. Other NUSMG task n

force members than discussed the content of each section of the framework document in more detall. Overall, the task force members believe there is sufficient time for all utilities to make their plants Y2K ready.

3 Thomas H. Essig 3-October 20, 1997 Jared Wermiel, Chief of the instrumentation and Controls Branch and the NRC's Y2K program manager for power reactors, provided feedback on behalf of the NRC staff to NEl and NUSMG on their presentation and the draft framework document. He commended NE and NUSMG on their development of a good reference document in such a short perio time and their plans to offer training to utilities. He expressed his view that alllicensees attend the training session NEl/NUSMG will be offering. He indicated that licensees should be addressing safety related systems first in their Y2K programs. He also indicated, however, that the NRC staff also recognizes that Y2K issues that do not directly im health and safety should not impede nuclear power plants staying on line.

i Mr. Wermlel remarked that the draft document did not provide as mu:h detail as was the NRC would like to see revisions to address and/or stress th

• The iterative nature of the Y2K prograrn efforts. Many steps of the process overlap an may need to be repeated.

The need for initial testing, remediation, and post-remedimion testing to ensure that problems have been adequately addressed.

The "living" nature of the project. A feedback loop should exist wherein utilities comp their progress to the established plan and make appropriate adjustments to the plan an schedule.

Mr. Wermlel explained that the staff was not yet in a position to say more about its future plans for ensuring that licensees address Y2K issues beyond what was said in SECY-g7-2

" Year 2000 Computer lasue," September 24,1997. He stated that the NRC needs confiderm that its licensees are doing the right things to become Y2K ready. In order to obtain that confidence, he indicated that the NRC may need certain information from licensees (perhaps via issuance of a letter to licensees pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), as discussed in SECY-g7-213). Information of interest would likely include licensee plans and schedules.

The relative merits of the NRC issuing a 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter were discussed, altho was clear that some industry representatives present were not supportive of this approach Some of the industry representatives suggested that an NRC bulletin on Y2K may be m appropriate. Mr. Wermiel indicated that the NRC may request, at some point in time, a licensee certification that their plant (s) are Y2K ready. He said that the NRC has not decided whether it should require periodic reports from licensees and whether it needs to perform follow-up inspections. However, the NRC does need to make sure that every licensee is on a path to meet its implementation schedules for addressing Y2K issues.

O 4

m.

a

~w~,

=.-:.=-

- =x;:;=.;. e,. u...,

e

. Thomas H. Essig

-4 October 20, 1997 Mr. Davis responded that NEl wants to keep open the lines of communication with the NRC on this topic, and it is important to NEl that it has a clear understanding of what concems the -

l NRC needs to address.

Attachments:

1. List of Attendees

' 2. Meeting Agends for 10/7

3. NRC's Talking Points on Updating ERDS for Y2K

4. NEl's/NUSMG's Briefing Slides Project No. 689 cc w/atts:. See next page Distribution:

Hard Coov Central Files pygtg -

PGEB r/f.

HICB r/f MMalloy.

SM6gre -

JWermiel-

[

E-Mail HThompson, DEDR MChiramal WDean, DEDR

, SCollins/FMiraglia DSpaulding Regional Administrators JRoe RZimmerman ACRS l

DMatthews AHansen L

TEssig FGillespie l

FAkstulewicz CPapierello, NMSS l

MMalloy GPurdy, NMSS BSheron TTMartin, AEOD -

RSpessard/COThomas -

JJolicoeur, AEOD JWermiel-Alevin, IRM JMauck.

JVoglewede, IRM Document Name: g:\\mxm\\MSUM1007.97

[a

• See Previous Concurrences OFFICE PGEB:DRPM C:HjC,B:DfCH hh DRPM (A)C:PGER:DRPM 7

NAME Mw JWe Jh kstulewicz TEssig ((

DATE 10/Jd97 10/lb /97~

10/$97 10/ % /97 OFFICIAL R ECORD COPY

~

m i

Thomas H. Essig 4

October 20, 1997 I

Mr. Davis responded that NEl wants to keep open the lines of communication with the NRC on this topic, and it is important to NEl that it has a clear understanding of what con: erns the NRC needs to address.

Attachments:

1. List of Attendees

2. Meeting Agenda for 10/7

3. NRC's TalHng Points on Updating ERDS for Y2K

4. NEl's/NUSMG's Briefing Slides Project No. 689 l

cc w/atts: See next paga b. _.

NRC-NE! MEETING ON YEAR 2000 SOFTWARE ISSUES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS October 7,1997 List of Attendees Name OraanizatlOn William F. Asen NUSMG Program Manager Terry M. Baxter*

• NEl/ Unio i Electric Co.

George W. Busch*

• GPU Nuclear, Inc.

Rick Cowles Self Sidney C:awford Self James W. Davis Nuclear Energy institute Patrick E. Fitch Self & SEMA, Inc.

H. M. Fontecilla Virginia Power, Arizona Public Service Wayne H. Glidden*

• Duquesne Light Allen Hansen NRC/NRR/PD3 3 Anne P. Houck'*

Duke Energy John Jolicoeur NRC/AEOD Debbie LaPay Westinghouse Arnold E. (Moe) Levin' NRC/lRM Morgan D. Libby NUSMG Richard H. Lomax*

• Nebraska Public Power District Melinda Malloy NRC/NRR/DRPM/PGEB Jerry L. Mauck NRC/NRR/DRCH/HICB Steve Mixon NUS Information Services William Olsen*

• Quality Systems, Inc.

Gary Purdy NRC/NMSS/INMS Judith H. Schulte*

• Duke Energy Deirdre Spaulding NRC/NRR/DRCH/HICB R. Lee Spessard NRC/NRR/DRCH Hugh L. Thompson

• NRC/DEDR

' Partial attendance John Voglewede NRC/lRM

• *NUSMG task force Jared S. Wermiel NRC/NRR/DRCH/HICB Abbreviations AEOD Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data DEDR Deputy Executive Director for Regulatory Programs DRCH Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors DRPM Division of Reactor Program Management HICB instrumentation and Controls Branch IMNS Division of Industria! and Medic.:: Nuclear Safety IRM Office of information Resources Management NEl Nuclear Energy Institute NMSS Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards NRC U.S. Nuclear Regt.latory Commission

~,

NRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUSMG Nuclear Utility Software Management Group PD project directorate PGEB Generic issues and Environmental Projects Branch SEMA Systems Engineering and Management Associates

I NRC NEl MEETING ON " YEAR 2000" SOFTWARE ISSUES Rockville, MD October 7,1997 Aaenda

1. Introduction of Attendees All

2. Purpose of Meeting NRC Staff

3. Description of Update to ERDS AEOD

4. Description of NEl/NUSMG Year 2000 Task Force Efforts NEl/NUSMG

5. NRC Plans for Confidence in Licensee Year 2000 Efforts NRC Staff

6. Summary and Future Actions NRC Staff /NEl i

.= _.. - -_

UPDATING THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE DATA SYSTEM FOR THE YEAR 2000 i

t i

I I

PRESENTED BY:

JOHN R. JOLICOEUR AEOD/lRD OCTOBER 7,1997 t

94

I BACKGROUNQ ERDS is a near-real time data link from licensee site computers to the NRC e

Operations Center 5

Requirements in 10CFR50 Appendix E.

e 1

Link is licensee initiated within one hour of declaration of an Emergency e

Classification of Alert or higher Send preselected data point information at update rates between 15 and 60 e

seconds

)

f f

e' a

~

WHY IS THE DATE IMPORTANT TO ERDS?

All intercomputer messages contain date/ time fields e

s e

Date / time information used to establish database size and indexing Data displays depend on correct processing of date / time information to access data Failure to properly handle date / time issues could cause various system e

problems ranging from inaccurate data storage / retrieval to total system failures associated with operating system processing errors.

ERDS currently uses a 2 digit year field.

__________._m..________

t ERDS ACTION PLAN Evaluate the impact of year 2000 on the operating environment e

Review Operating System Vendors' literature, notices, reported problems, and customer complaints Focus on products like TPCWARE, DEC network products, DEC server software, cluster software, etc.

Hardware products impacted?

l Software impact on ERDS / ADACS Identify testing requirements i

e Perform code review of all ERDS / ADACS code Contact ADACS manufacturer for already identified problems l

Identify potential software modification requirements Identify testing requirements l

Migrate the ERDS man-machine interface to R* Time / WIN version 2.x including e

support for 4 digit dates on all displays i

Perform all required hardware and software updates. Include modification to e

accept 4 digit years in the data stream Ensure that the need to change licensee ERDS interface is not driven by ERDS updates, but by licensee leeds.

l Include edits to allow existing 2 digit year data streams Make necessary mods to parse and validate 4 digit year data streams i

l I

i t

]

e YEAR 2000 TESTING

.l Testing of all ERDS data and system functions around the following dates:

e End of year 1998 End of year 1999 February 28,2000 End of year 2000 Daylight Savings Time adjustments in spring and fall of 2000 Testing oflicensee ERDS interfaces ~

o

~

SCHEDULE Complete all software / hardware mods - September 1998 e

Complete testing and resolve all testing issues - November 1998 Year 2000 compliant in the Operations Center - December 1998 e

' Schedule could be accelerated by up to six months with additional funding e

i l

t j

CONTACTS NRC ERDS PROJECT MANAGER John R. Jolicoeur AEOD/lRD Phone: (301) 415-6383 E-mail: JRJ1@NRC. GOV ERDS CONTRACTOR (SCIENTECH, INC)

PROJECT MANAGER Ms. K. Lynne Saul

~

Phone: (208) 524-9371 E-mail: LSAUL@if.scientech.com LEAD SOFTWARE ENGINEER Ms. JoAnne Roberts Phone: (208) 524-9368 E-mail: JROBERTS@if.scientech.com

m m

n Year 2000 and Xuclear Utilities' fe and On-Line A contribution to th glear Utility Industry Q

by the Nuclear Spik., Software 1

Management Group an'

i-ar Energy

~ik:fg Institu 1

[

10/7/97 p.

[2]ffi s

t3 a w a" ~~ e

n n.:

n Setting the Stage l

+ Fall 96 - Y2K made a : SUS MG Issue by l

- Steering Committee

+ May 97 - Y2K takes center stageIt i

SUSMG meeting but more is neede c

July 97 - Special 2 day Y2K meeting f

+

+ significant progress and capability by utiliti

[.

+ opportunity for :SUSMG to communicate it i

3

+ :SEI desire to facilitate

+ committed resources to this Task Force L"!-

.[(

l0/7/97 Page 2 c1h 2

^

n:.j n

n Producing the Document N

+ Aug. 25th - first Task Force N(eeting

+ Sept.12th - first draft issued y

w!

+ Oct. 7th - draft discussion with XR ?jf.

l End of Oct. - distribute to NUSMG Re I

~

+

and XEI Administrative Points of Conta L

Xov.14th - provide full day training for a l

~

+

interested parties i

n Provide continuing support as requested

+

10/7/97 Page 3

n n

nn Which brings us to today

+ This discussion:

, Present an overview of the draft 0:h l

document

%gg

+ Discuss the content and answer ques:iohd

[j'

+ Provide an opportunit:y for dirther k[

understanding of concerns and issues (g!

t.

After the discussion - reflect on the t

+

4 discussions and determine any appropriate jj additions or changes Si i

10/7/97 Page 4 s

u--

Features of the Document

+ Pooled resources means the%

t of the best:

k

+ Awareness - Management and sta %g

+ Commitment - to the Project: cad StaYdDh ers

+ Ownership

+ Participation i

+ Manage as a Project e

+ Address appropriate software and Interfaces tg

+ Quality Assure products and processes

?,

F1

+ Document activities and decisions 10/7/97 Pcge ;

1

~

r.

m n..

I b

.j

1. Introduction

'i This is an Awareness statem%t to senior

+

management of utilities and ther ect reports.

Qg It expresses the commitment of both kf

' g

+

?

XL SMG and NEI to assist nuclear utili l4 with an important and complex problem %E in kfy

~[

L 10/7/97 Page 6 m

f A

A p

2. Purpose and Scope

+ Our Purpose is to recomme methods to l

address the Y2K problem.

l sw The Scope is broad 9i! x

+

+ It fully encompasses safety and all licen requirements and commit:ments 1

+ It emphasizes the need for nuclear generatin ].,'

units to be on-line through the date rollover ig,

.a g

10/7/97 Page 7 L '_,

!9i

i

^

g.:

n

3. Definitions

+ We have used standard Y2h inology

+ We have used common nuclear fe, ;,inology (g'lgf.j[

Y2K Ready Validation Y2K Compliant Objective EvidencI6 l

l l[

Remediation Interfaces J

e 10/7/97 Page 8

A n:

4. Management Plan I

+ This is more than an IT prohgt - it must be managed as the business woul b,ajor component replacement or remedlig ;.,

i

, hen The Project must establish interfaces idfi *~

+

y It must receive oversight from managent

+

5 1Om97 Page 9

n o

n

'. l,' '

4. Management Plan i

Awareness Project R

,rts j

Sponsorship Interfaces %,%g3 f

Project Leadership Resources

{S

=';,

v

{

"1 Project Objectives Oversight if

(

Project Management Team Quality Assuran Management Plan Implementati,, 9 1:

ion /97 Page 10 n

y. : :..

n n

5. Implementation Plan l

+ In the Initial Assessment we.

l

+ Ensure Awareness g

i

+ Establish the inventory kN(.$gns i

+ Categorize according to " type"

.ly! ',

2

+ Classify according to "importance"

'f

+ Prioritize the detailed evaluations

+ Revise estimates and plans

$! !W Mj

-g

?

I0/7/97 PageII t

o m

n....

5. Implementation Plan

+ In the Detailed Assessment'he:

l

+ Establish vendor responsibility 1,.

kjijphfi

+ Evaluate utility-responsible softwar

+ Evaluate interfaces w

+ Plan the Remediation ef" ort 5

xr e

+ Xotify affected parties 4

1 i

m s;1,

pf 10/7/97 N

Page 12 $

n

,I n

n....

5. Implementation Plan J

Awareness Initial Assessment

~,

i l

Detailed Assessment khih ki i,~

Remediation w$; l mm 1

i q:

q Validation 14J jI y

8 5 h Notification t

4 Q

0 b,

}

-,i i

10/7/97 h

Page 13 J

Eb!$5

a a

a o

n

.... y g

I p.

5.2 Initial Assessment Inventory Categorization h:

%qg%.y z

w wt

.j u t z h;6@gi.

Classification T!!

nejs f h

%,jjfjf

~

4 4ve 2

Prioritization WM V?

m rjWis--

k;f s

Adjust Plans

- 134

.#r:

y, --

.pg.

f?!

d il 10/7/97 Page 14 lfini 5?b aw?w

.-4 o

m n

)i 5.3 Detailed Assessment s

i Vendor Evaluation - Testing Utility-Owned Evaluation - Testin 4

l lu.

gq.

iq e

Interface Evaluation - Testing I;E.l,

~

3, we W;

m Remediation Planning

.?

T

,1 Ion /97 Page 15 1

_D

n

. :.. -1

~

o n

i

..j

6. Quality Assurance

+ Quality Assurance measurehe an integral part of the process l

QA provides a barrier that prevent kb Baare

+

1 w:

from compromising safety or operablJ g

Existing QA processes are acceptable

+

$~

ag

'2 reseis h io,7,g7

O O

Qs l

7. Regulatory Considerations l

10 CFR 50.59

+

l NRC Safety Evaluations

\\

+

k?

cjls.

l Reportability Evaluations

%wJ 4

+

Qlg ;p

+ Part 21,50.72,50.73 j

$g$

operability Evaluations

+

i a

Changes to Safety Analysis Report

%g

+

y Emergency Response Systems

+

Financial and Legal Evaluations

+

10/7/97 Page 17

n n

c, 4

b 1,

8. Documentation j

l

+ Imparts expectations

+ Provides Objective Evidence A.

+ Facilitates oversight and managem%

+ Records the bases of management andR$b-technical decisions made y-v 1;

p. !!

(

10/7/97 Page 18

t

.t n

n n

....}

8. Documentation Establishes Requirements

+

s Captures Management Records

[

Captures Vendor Records

'33@b.,

Rsym.s yt.

s@iii;a!

IE Inventory Information nt~

agem % -

-e,y!

.A$i N

Checklists yy 4-i Certificates of Completior'; "y'i s

y

' 'l Retains Records i

2 g

.c 10/7/97

!~l!

EM.I Page 19 itifi2#

. :.. j

~

n n

The continuing commitment of

^

XEI and:SUSMG J

~ TEI will provide on-line inh nation

+

exchange mechanism for nuclea _;ilities

+ :SUSMG will provide training and $e.

g consultation services to nuclear utilith1,ly,y;

+ Both will ensure consistent information ik9 i

Ni communicated to all nuclear utilities i

d Both will encourage utility implementatio E

+

of the Y2K Document II lh h${

I0/7/97 Page 20

t Q

NEl Project No. 689 1

I cc:

Mr. Ralph Beedle Senior Vice President William F. Olsen, Vice President Operations and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Quality Systems, Inc.

P.O. Box 415 Suite 400 Birdsboro, PA 19508 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. Alex Marion, Director Programs Mr. Jim Davis, Director Operations Nuclear Energy institute Suite 400 Nuclear Energy institute Sune 400 l

1776 l Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006 3708 Mr. David Modeen, Director Engineering Ms. L, nnette Hendricks, Director Plant Support Nuc!aar Energy Instituto Suite 400 Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director Licensing Mr. Tony M. Baxter P.O. Box B20 Nuclear Energy Institute Fulton, MO 65251 Suite 400 1776 i Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708 Mr. Nicholas J. Liparuto, Manager Mr. Rick Cowles Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Activities 129 W. Main Street Nuclear and Advanced Technology Div.

Penns Grove, NJ 0806g Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Fittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Patrick E. Fitch, Director Product Development SEMA, Inc.

2000 N. Beauregard Street Suite 600 Alexandris, VA 22311 1(""

P !

l o

NEl Project No. 689 i

Ms. Anne P. Houck, Project Manager cc:

Yeer 2000 Program information Management Duke Energy 400 South Tryon Street /WC11A P.O. Box 1007 Charlotte, NC 28201 1007 Ms. Deborah L. LaPay, Manager Software Technology & Development Nuclear Services Division 1

Westinghouse Electric Corporation P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Mr. Morgan D. Libby, Manager Quality Software Program Northeast Utilities Service Company P.O. Box 270 Hartford, CT 06141-0270 i

O

" ; 7 L~ ~; ~ ~~ -~~~ -

-- -~

, ~ - -

-