IR 05000341/1987007

Special Safety Insp Rept 50-341/87-07 on 870126-0318.No Violations or Deviations Identified.Major Areas Inspected: Previous Insp Findings,Allegations,Routine Control Room Operations & Startup Testing

ML20214M778
Person / Time
Site:	Fermi
Issue date:	05/14/1987
From:	Greenman E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:
Shared Package
ML20214M708	List: IR 05000341/1987007 ML20214M704
References
50-341-87-07, 50-341-87-7, NUDOCS 8706010425
Download: ML20214M778 (19)

Text

,

Ofllb U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

REGION III

Report No. 50-341/87007(DRP)

Docket No. 50-341 License No. NPF-43 Licensee: Detroit Edison Company 2000 Second Avenue Detroit, MI 48224 Facility Name: Fermi 2 Inspection At: Fermi Site, Newport, Michigan Inspection Conducted: January 26 through March 18, 1987 Inspectors: M. J. Farber D. S. Brinkman R. A. Becker P. R. Pelke

[ -

Approved By: Edward G. Greenman, Deputy Director d-J $/ -8 7 Division of Reactor Projects Date Inspection Summary Inspection on January 26 through March 18, 1987 (Report No. 50-341/87007(DRP))

Areas Inspected: Announced special safety inspection by the Augmented Restart T5spection Team of licensee action on previous inspection findings, allegations, routine control room operations, and startup testin Results: No violations or deviations were identifie ^

8706010425 870514 l PDR ADOCK 05000341 O PDR 7- q.,; g tl ,

. .

,

DETAILS 1. Persons Contacted F. E. Agosti, Vice President, Nuclear Operations L. P. Bregni, Compliance Engineer, Licensing S. G. Catola, Chairman, Nuclear Safety Review Group S. J. Frost, Licensing Supervisor

• S. Lenart, Plant Manager R. A. May, Superintendent, Maintenance / Modifications

• T. Randazzo, Director, Regulatory Affairs

• F. H. Sondgeroth, Region III Engineer, Licensing B. R. Sylvia, Group Vice President

• M. Tucker, Acting Superintendent, Operations

• Denotes those who attended the exit meeting on March 18, 1987

The inspectors also contacted other licensee administrative and technical personnel during the course of the inspectio . Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings (Closed) Violation (50-341/86026-05(DRP)): Failure to ensure Health Physics review of a revision to a work order. The inspector reviewed "PN-21 (Work Order) Processing," Procedure 12.000.015, Revision 20 and Revision 21 and confirmed that they required proper reviews and that no revisions were needed to ensure that necessary reviews occurred. The inspector reviewed the corrective action outlined by the licensee in their December 3, 1986 response to the Notice of Violation and determined that it provided direction for i all groups involved. The inspector confirmed that the required l reading for Operation Support Engineers and the training of General l Maintenance Journeymen was completed. The inspector reviewed in progress and completed PN-21s which had been revised and l interviewed Operations and Health Physics personnel and determined l that this problem had not recurre This violation is close (Closed) Open Item (50-341/86026-06(DRP)): Permanent corrective action for review of work order process. This item is closed based on the findings from the followup of a. abov (Closed)OpenItem(50-341/86033-01(DRP)): Review of revised rod pull sheets and INP0 evaluation result The inspector reviewed the INP0 Human Performance Evaluation Study results from the two day INP0 visit regarding the control rod manipulation errors of October 31, 198 The study indicated that from a procedure and management aspect, little else could be done to prevent errors of this nature. The inspector reviewed the revised rod pull sheets, compared them to the previous format, and determined that the new format was easier to use and less likely to cause errors. This item is close '

. .

, (Closed) Open Item (50-341/86035-01(DRP)): Review of post-maintenance testing associated with modifications to the Hydraulic Control Units (HCU). As a result of the concerns expressed by the inspector, the licensee staff upgraded the post-maintenance testing to encompass all work performed on the HCUs: the installation of the modification and the corrective maintenance for the deficiencies identified while the modification was being installed. The-inspector reviewed the completed modification and testing package and determined that all affected circuits had been properly tested. This item is close (Closed) Open Item (50-341/86035-02(DRP)): Post-modification testing for Engineering Design Package (EDP) 170 The inspector met with licensee staff and reviewed the portions of the EDP and work order associated with the circuit modifications to the RHR valves. The inspector determined that the modification added a separate indication circuit and that no control circuits were determinated. The inspector noted that a scheme check of the new circuit was completed satisfactoril This item is close (0 pen) Open Item (50-341-86035-03(DRP)): Revision of discrepancies in I&C surveillance procedures. The inspector met with I&C supervisors and reviewed the revised ECCS - Reactor Vessel Water Level Channel Functional test procedures and determined that the steps needed to turn off the Calibration Unit power switches had been incorporated. Review of the procedures showed that an initial switch lineup was used; this resolves the concern for switches ~on the Testability Panel not being returned to initial positions after completing the surveillance test. The I&C staff indicated that the inconsistency between the procedure steps and~the corresponding step in the sign-off attachment would be corrected in a later revisio This item remains open pending review of the revised procedure . Allegations The inspector reviewed the following allegations: (Closed) Allegation No. RIII-85-A-16C Harassment of Firewatch Concern While assigned as a firewatch at Fermi 2, the alleger identified and reported a contractor employee smoking and eating in an unauthorized are He alleges that subsequently he was threatened by the reported employee, the employee's union representative, and a group of other contractor employees. He also stated that his car was vandalized, that he was demoted and reassigned, that he was harassed by other workers following his transfer, and that no action was taken against the person who was reported for smoking and eating in the unauthorized area. In addition to contacting the NRC, the alleger registered a concern regarding the incident and alleged subsequent harassment with the Fermi 2 SAFETEAM after he terminated his employment on September 29, 198 !

l

. .

-

a

,

SAFETEAM Review-Upon' receipt of the' concern, SAFETEAM, in accordance with their program,. submitted it.to Nuclear Security on October 4, 1985 for

~ investigation because it contained elements which suggested wrong-doin Nuclear Security Review Nuclear Security had been involved in the matter since May 29, 1985, following the filing of an Incident Report (IR 85-094) on " threats."

The investigator assigned to'the case interviewed the firewatch, the employee accused of smoking, the firewatch's sup'ervisor, the. union representative, and the' witness to the alleged death threat". The investigator also confiscated portions of a firewatch logbook ~ in, which. threats against the firewatch had allegedly been writte During this investigation, the following claims were reviewed:

• Threats by the contractor and his union representative

• Threats by a group of laborers

• No action had been taken against the reported individual During their interviews, both the accused contractor and the union representative stated that no threats were made against the _

firewatch. The union representative indicated that when he, the contractor, and the firewatch met, the discussion centered on ..

determining who was telling the truth. The representative said that-he had told both men that a polygraph [ lie detector] would be the only way to determine the truth about the incident. He restated that at no time were there any threats made against the alleger and that this particular meeting resulted in a meeting with Detroit Edison management (R. Lenart and E. Preston).

The investigator interviewed a purported witness to the alleged death threats by the group of laborers. The witness stated that although the group was upset that one of their members had been disciplined, no threats were made against the firewatch. The

" witness" deniad ever hearing any employee threaten the alleger, did not recall the contractor threatening the alleger with physical violence, and did not recall any threats in the logbook. The

.

investigator examined the confiscated firewatch logbook and noted

that it contained an exchange of_ obscenities between the firewatch i

and unidentified persons. Three pages had been torn from the book and efforts to recover them were unsuccessfu The investigator determined, that as a result of the meeting

involving Detroit Edison management, the contractor was disciplined in the form of a formal written notice of a Category 3 violatio This resulted in a six month probation such that another violation during the period would be cause for additional disciplinary action.

This action was standard for this type of violatio *

. .

,

Because of the uncertainties involved in the matter and because the alleger was clearly unpopular with his peers, licensee management directed that he be transferred to an assignment where he would be away from them. Further, a meeting was held with the laborers, warning them to stay away from the allege Upon receipt of the SAFETEAM concern, Nuclear Security reopened the investigation to examine the following claims:

• In his new position as a plant cleaner, he was sexually harassed by the women in the group and accused of making improper advance * He was harassed by a boyfriend of one of the wome * He was demoted and put on probation because of the May even * His car was vandalized in the Fermi parking lo On October 11, 1985, Nuclear Security reinterviewed the allege At this time he denied an earlier alleged confrontation with the four women over the " improper advances". He maintained that he had been harassed by a boyfriend of one of the women because of their claims of improper advances. He believed that his supervisor had harassed him and put him on probation because of the May firewatch even The Nuclear Security investigator reviewed the alleger's supervisor, the four women, and the boyfriend. The four women denied harassing the alleger and also denied the alleged confrontation. During his interview, the boy 1riend denied threatening the alleger. The alleger's supervisor denied any harassment and stated that the alleger had been placed on probation for poor job performance:

wasting time, talking too much, goofing of The investigator was unable to locate any reports of the September vandalism event. When the alleger was questioned regarding this claim he stated that he did not file a report because he knew it would not do any good. The investigator was able to verify, from a police report, that the alleger's car had been vandalized in front of his home in March of 198 i l

Nuclear Security Conclusions l

The investigator was unable to substantiate any of the claims of !

harassment during either of the two investigations. All parties l involved were interviewed and other than the alleger, denied j knowledge of any threats. The alleger's claim that no action was '

taken against the accused smoker was contrary to the record of the meeting with Detroit Edison management, where disciplinary action was directed. The record of that meeting clearly stated that due to the uncertainties of the situation, the alleger was to be transferred for his own safety. This is contrary to the alleger's claim that he was demoted for reporting the smoking cffens The investigator was unable to substantiate the vandalism of the alleger's car in September 198 .

SAFETEAM Review Upon completion of their investigation, Nuclear Security forwarded

'_ the reselts to SAFETEAM in a memorandum dated November 5, 1985. The conclusions in that memorandum are stated above. SAFETEAM reviewed the files of the investigation and responded on December 10, 1985 with a letter containing some questions and comments on some of the details of the investigation. Nuclear Security resolved thesa questions in a letter to SAFETEAM dated February 11, 198 NRC Review An NRC inspector reviewed the SAFETEAM records of the investigation into the incident and interviewed SAFETEAM personnel. The records consisted of investigator's file memos of interviews, meeting minutes, and correspondence between management, Nuclear Security, and SAFETEAM. The inspector noted that the file did not contain any verification of the disciplinary action against the accused. smoker nor did it contain any information on what was in the logbook. The information discussed above on logbook comments was obtained from Nuclear Security by SAFETEAM at the inspector's request. At the request of the inspector, SAFETEAM interviewed Bechtel supervision and on September 22, 1986 located and reviewed the formal written notice given to the accused smoke NRC Conclusion After review of the SAFETEAM file and the additional requested information, the inspector concluded that all personnel involved in the matter had been interviewed, and from the information developed, the allegations of harassment could not be substantiated. The inspector concluded that the claim of no action against the reported contractor was incorrect, that the alleger's transfer was not motivated by retribution for his reporting of the contractor, and that his probation was not related to the May firewatch inciden b. (Closed) Allegation No. RIII-86-A-0182: Workers were forced to remain in Radiation Controlled Area Concern The alleger publicly approached the inspector on November 6, 1986, at the Main Access Control Point for the Radiation Controlled Area (RCA) and stated that Detroit Edison and Bechtel management policy was forcing workers to remain in the RCA. He stated that the workers had no place to go after completing their work in the RCA and that supervisors were waiting outside the Main Access Control Point to record their numbers and get them fired. In order to protect their jobs, the workers had to stay in the RCA. He believed that the monitoring was being done because Detroit Edison wanted to reduce the number of contract employees on site. He concluded by stating that he wanted a meeting with the Maintenance Superintenden ~

. .

,

NRC Review The inspector met with the Health Physics Supervisor and confirmed that loitering in the RCA was contrary to the licensee's ALARA policy. The inspector met with the Maintenance Superintendent, a Detroit Edison Maintenance Supervisor, and a Bechtel Maintenance Supervisor and was informed that it was not the Maintenance Department's intention for workers to remain in the RCA after completing their work, that the workers had a gathering place in the Availability Improvement Building (AIB), and that although it was Detroit Edison's intention to reduce the number of contract workers on site, that goal was to be met through attrition and normal layoffs, not through the tactic described by the alleger. The Maintenance Superintendent agreed to a meeting with the alleger at a time and place agreeable to him. The inspector monitored the hall outside the Main Control Point and did not see any sign of supervisors waiting around, as described by the alleger. The inspector interviewed Bechtel workers, other than those from the alleger's work group, and they did not indicate that they felt threatened by management or that supervisors were waiting to fire them as they left their job site. On December 4, 1986 a meeting was held with the alleger, the Maintenance Superintendent, the Senior Resident Inspector, and the Restart Team Leader to discuss the alleger's concerns. The alleger stated that he no longer felt threatened and that working conditions had significantly improved during the previous mont Conclusion The alleger did not have an ALARA concern. He and his fellow workers had been staying in the RCA to avoid supervisors whom he felt were threatening his job. The inspector could not find any evidence of this practice either through monitoring the hall outside the Main Control Point or from interviews with other workers. At the meeting the alleger expressed satisfaction with conditions and indicated that he had no further concern . Routine Control Room Operations ,

l The inspectors monitored routine control operation on a periodic basis <

during the inspection period. The team was fully assembled to conduct the regulatory assessment at the 20 percent power hold point and to monitor the Loss of Turbine-Generator and Off-site Power Test. While monitoring control rcom operations the inspectors focused on communications among shift personnel, adherence to procedures, recognition of and response to annunciators, involvement of shift supervisors in plant operations, and congestion in the control roo .

Following room decorum the January which outage,ily evidenced by a high noise level and anthe was primar excessive number of people in the control room. This observation was passed to licensee management and the area subsecuently returned to its previous satisfactory leve This team expressec their concern that senior management intervention was necessary to correct the situation rather than action by the Shift Supervisors. Frequent monitoring of this area of operations by the team showed that it remained at a satisfactory leve . Startup Test Witnessing The inspectors witnessed portions of the following startup tests during this inspection period:

STUT.020.022, Pressure Regulator STUT.028.023, Feedwater System Level Setpoint Changes STVT.02A.029, Recirc Flow Control STUT.02A.030, Recirc System STUT.020.026, Safety Relief Valves STUT.020.031, Loss of Turbine-Generator and Off-site Power The inspectors witnessed test performance to assure that it was conducted in accordance with approved procedures, that test ecuipment was )roperly installed, that test data was collected and recordec properly, tlat the ability of licensee 3ersonnel conducting the test was adequate, and that deficiencies and pro)lems were documented. The inspectors noted the following with respect to the performance of:

STUT.020.031, Loss of Turbine-Generator and Off-site Power The purpose of the test is to demonstrate that the plant will respond per the design for concurrent loss of the turbine generator and all off-site power without operator assistance, as follows: (1) The Reactor Protection System (RPS) will automatically scram the reactor (2) the Emergency Diesel Generators (EDG) automatically starts and properly load the emergency busses (3) the turbine / generator protection system automatically initiate a trip and fast closure of the Main Turbine steam admission valves (4) the ability to maintain control of reactor vessel water level and pressure during transient conditions and (5) that required equipment and support systems operate satisfactorily without dependence on off-site power for the test duration of 30 minute The reactor was scrammed by the RPS, all EDGs started and loaded automatically within the Technical Specification required time and the reactor vessel water level and pressure were controlled without any operator assistance throughout the 30 minute test duratio The operators and test personnel were especially well prepared for this test. A specific crew was identified and spent approximately one month preparing for the test. Equipment locations were reviewed, the procedure

L

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.

.

~

. .

was walked through several times, test engineers and operators met to discuss the procedure and its intent, and contingency plans were developed-in case of abnormal occurrences. In addition, two Senior-Reactor Operators and the Lead Startup Phase Test Engineer visited the Hope Cree < plant to review the problems encountered when the test was first attempted there in October 1986. The-intensive preparation resulted in a test that was conducted exceptionally well, from both an operator and equipment performance perspettiv . Exit Interview The ins)ectors met with licensee representatives (denoted in Paragraph 1)

on Marc 1 18, 1987 and informally throughout the inspection period and summarized the scope and finding of the inspection activities. The inspectars also discussed the likely informational content of the inspection report with regard to documents or processes reviewed by the inspectors during the inspection. The licensee did not identify any such documents / processes as proprietar The licensee acknowledged the findings of the inspection.

,

. _- .. _ .-

. .t wie FORM 7es * U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PFetNCIPAL INSPECTOR (Name. Issf. Sist. arW r%1pe #rNfidQ INEcsa5 INSPECTOR'S REPORT QggSR' /71N4TIA!T

,,y,,,,,

Office of Inspection and Enforcement E 6. (#EEA//WPA/

'"*"***

p j BA'ic htr M Al 4. A. BecKe4 f 4 /EL KC LICENSEE / VENDOR TRANSACTION DOCKET NO (8 d gitsi OR LICENSE E POM W WK M TYPE

% $Y PRODUCTW dW w a m YR

' ~'"'

be~T40W E~bfSDAl C [ U - MODIFY 0 5 0 0 0 3 4 9 1 7tB 1 ^

g

~ ~ - -

-

D - DELETE C

-

R - REPLACE D c /*4 ? t vW&b R& M P%4r # # iP ~ , 14 10 ' - 'e.- 10 F EMOD OF INVESTIGATION /INSPECTON INSPECTION PERFORMED 8y ORGANIZATON CODE OF REGION /HQ CONDUCT-arpower Report-FWOM TO X 1 - REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF OTHER ING ggACTIVITYy, (Seeg, ffMC 0530 " i M DAY Y M DAY YR 2 - RES10ENT INSPECTOR -(GONR  : SON I IANCH B

I A fl9 Of3 ll[ Il7 3 - PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL TEAM

/W :,3 3; a v ': ;. 36

. 6 , 7,y%ySpu$MP?ST >4 NMA A g* ,

-

s b r33 ' : l' 35 REGONAL ACTION TYPE OF ACTIVITY CONDUCTED ICheck one boa orsyl (Check one bou orWy)

.

Y C2 - SAFETY 06 - MGMT. VISIT 10 - PLANT SE INQUIRY 1 - NRC FORM 591 03 - INCIDENT 07 - SPECIAL 11 - INVENT.VER, 15 - INVESTIGATON 9# 2 - REGIONAL OFFICE LETTER 04 - ENFORCEMENT 08 - VENDOR 12 - SHIPMENT / EXPORT d

r 05 - MGMT. AUDIT 09 - MAT. ACCT, 13-iMPOR T r

'

'3 "

>% 8 - 4 pt AM , Vff R M " '

- -%.hji&% *l*993: *

INSPECT *0g,vEyegTg FINDING 5 TOTAL NUMBER ENFORCEMENY CONFERENCE REPORT CONT A 2 790 LETTER OR REPORT TR ANSMtTT AL DATE OF YOLATIONS AND HELD 0 A 5 C D DEV1ATONS NRC FORM 591 REPO9fSENT

% 1-C@R ORRE TO HO. FOR LETTER IS SULD ACTION 2 - VIOLATION 3 - DEVIATION A B C D O 8 Al8 C A C D M DAY YR M DAY V VIOLATON & DEVIATON O,0 i e i l - YES 1 - YES l l l O[ / l3 hN x=u , .- w m- :W '

9 *w > x '- ,ia- -

C P * ~"

MODULE INFOaM ATION McDutE tNFORMATON j % MODULE NUMBER INS dg MODULE REO FOLLOWUP C

D MOOULE NUMBER INS g @ MODULE REO FOLLOWUP as a-r 58"~

<- ie r r sgN=-@@5 I8 7

- e - - s a- - as 8- ;e- #" a-s ; $!j$z !:3

. .

1. @@5 !

-

-

I ia s5 !5 25 si  !

"!'!'E 955 r i 6  ? i s c i i d $ $ U !i si e

'

! 55 s!i 5 d E .- r 8 ;' r,, I s5 :s!i 5 t 3 I s5 E9 $ 2 2 !!i r82  : I a5 t! $

e vV 3il7,0,3I o -

Oi o,2 , , , Ii,I e f firly,c,si *

o,f iz ,i ciilvizici

I I t i I ll l l Y g

I I I I I lt t l

1. # f i e i i !l i l C

, , , , , l,,l a

U U i t e I i !I 1 l i i e t I Ii l 42 Y 3il7:0,2l l,il 4 ( 7,1l7,s,5l 0 ^ ^

e Oi/ig , , , . ai.3i7 , , i li,I t,,,u f - 8 i , , i i liil #ssdadd 644*/ s i i , i i liiI Reen 9 Med pauld //ec C ei i , i liil Wemduws c i i i i i liil ii i . ,

I,,I o i , e i i I,il a

NY 9:Zl7 i 0,2l ^

0,c id ,, i l,,l . , il,il ^

i i , i i l,,l

R80e ar ii i i i liil '

i i i i ltil Visl4brnf C i I i i f I I , I i i i lI e !

ii . , , l,il o i , i i i I,,I

. 9 fi2l7id ill ^

0,/i4 i i 6,2 l70,3 l e i iliil ^

i , , i i liil

' *

1. M I I I t i l I i l l I i l i l r

fgf Y #

C I i i ll l C

t I I . I f I I I ll 1 l 0 CIRCLE SEQUENCE IF D  ! !

viot ATioN OR oEv ATON , , , i C  !

i i i i i i 1 , , i i I i I tl23b l$t - 10 v2 is m -tE 2 " i ts te a st W ,* n A at: 6 44'[8 ' - te la is - to te c - te lie si to 26

_ _ _ . _ _ _ -_ .

.

MPOR7 MODULE NUMBER : ;;c; KE7 NO. (8 9 its)OR UC =

,

oO.C.O.<ay rRoodctnia. ,E,,N,SE iE uc mas ,,. ,,,.

) l ) l a

INSPECTOR'S REPORT =^'oa $ man omT.ca 40,0 e

(Continuation) , , , , , , .c Office of Inspection and Enforcement C

.

] eo

.

VOLATCN OR DEvtATCN (Enter up to 2400 cherectors Mr sech etem. W the test esc 00ds thos number, et eritt be necessary to paraphrase. Limit lines to 50 characters each. ) .

1 I . .

1 .

1 .

11 1 .

1 .

20.

21.

.

2 ?

26

28

30.

32

34

l2 ,.

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. . . . _ _ . .- . . _ -

-

.

,- .

MODULE NUMHR E,7 "" * ^ ~ cocxEiNoas a+m om ucgN3g NO. (8V PROJUCT)(13 digits)

REPORT

-

-

IE MC C536 INSPECTOR'S REPORT ^ **'^'**S"'"

a oEY'8'*" ,,5,o e

(Continuation) , , 3 , , , .c Office of Inspection and Enforcement C

.

] ao

, ,

1 YCLATION OR DEVIATON (Enter up to 2400 characters 16e each stem. If the test escoeds thns number, at mII be necessary to paraphrase. Lomit lines to 50 characters esen.} . .

5 . .

1 .

e i 1 .

1 .

1 .

2 .

2 *

i

21

2s l m

31 ,

32

1

'

. 35 t  %'

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.. . _ . . .-- - . . _ . . . , . . _ _ - . . ,

,

,

e i NRC FORM 708 A

" COCKET NO.18 otte)OR UCENSE REPORT- MODULE NUMSEA * j.gf;.y E h's NO. tBY Ph00UCT} 03 dets) N SE l l l~ [ l l 5IS

' INSPECTOR'S REPORT ^ *'*"5"'"'"

"'?s'.** nd#co (Continuation) * i e 3 . . . u !

Office of Inspection and Enforcement C ao~

D ,

] ,

VDLATCN OR DE vsATION tenter up to 2400 cherecters tar eacn stem It the test onceeds inns number, tt wm be necessary to perephrase Umst nnes to 50 enerectors eachJ . >

' >

'

5f .

a

10

1 !

I

.

1 ;

i ;

a  !

i I 18 .l T3

21

i n

i'

I

.

2s 26 [

v '

i as -l

,

n i

i

'

3, I

l

l

34

4

.. ,

A At

"o '" n ' U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

l

!

i

. ... _ . . . - - . - - . - - - .

A

-

REGION 3 - TRACKING SYSTEM TYPE -

NEW ENTRY INPUT CODE

~

K MODIFY PERSON WHO FOLLOWUP AE0'S A-ITEM N TYPE IDENTIFIED ITEM DUE DATE STA_TUS DEVIATIONS D CODE gd _ 50.55(E) E DKT YYXXX XX X 10 CFR 20 F d 'N

' 2M y' ALLEGATION G l S Q l / f 4 o2 4 -l5 f i i

-

0 5 y,y Y M M o a Igt 1

[

,

/ -

l -l ORDERS TO LICENSEE K y, LER LICENSE DSG. g LER L LER LER REPORT LER CONFIRMATORY ACTION LTR. N EVENT DATE REPORT DATE TYPE REVISION ll l ll OPEN ITEM O

'/84 PART 21 P

$I I E F. L' I lllll MlY Y M M D D{ 1YO

]

,kB s

SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FIND. S CLOSE0UT UNRESOLVED ITEM U PERSON ASSIGNED REPORT N WITHDRAWN W MODULE N D DATE VIOLATION - SEV. LEVEL 1, 2, 3 l (A 17 d e 7 4, 5

, )(,.Y Y M M D D 5/g M BRIEF DESCRIPTION  !'*n YSI INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR gd fe t * e t

'

m ,

Shc -

2A %

U 5 4/g INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR h

I '

_ M -

%

,

34/g INTERIM REPORT NO.' INSPECTOR pl ,

-

y */.a

-

a f '

_

7 ^>/a SUBMITTED BY:

ysyA -

Re /85 g

- . _ - - - _ _ _ . . - -..- _ -

A

-

REGION 3 TRACKTNG SYSTEM TYPE '[

-

,,,,,, INPUT CODE p J

,-

MODIFY ,

PERSON WHO FOLLOWUP AEO'S A-ITEM N TYPE IDENTIFIED7 ITEM DUE DATE STA_TUS DEVIATIONS D ,!

CODE

'

g d _ 50.55(E) E ,

_D R T YYIXX XX X 10 CFR 20 F d 'A6 24l ALLEGATION G 3 WI / 1 4_ DK4 0 4 *l0 ~

,

y'  ;

y,x T M K E H IAL I .

f / -

[ -l LER ORDERS TO LICENSEE LER K

L

!

y, LICENSE DSG. #  :

LER LER REPORT LER CONFIRMATORY ACTION LTR. M l EVENT DATE REPORT DATE TYPE REVISION l l l OPEN ITEM O j

- ~

'/s q PART 21 P j lllll s SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FIND. S

$a Y Y FI F L' I' hlYYMMDD { s/]

RESPONSE PERSON ASSIGNED REPORT N WITHDRAWN W N NO* DUE DATE 1. 2. 3 ;

VIOLATION - SEV. LEVEL '

N f7do ? 4, 5 QTTMMDD */g M  !

BRIEF DESCRIPTION '!' * * ,

11 1, I YS4 INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR Id y FA A J E k l l\ ,

$

3Ac -

• Aw, i

!

l 3-1/3 INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR

sd ,

I '

>

1. %

!

. ,

54/g INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR g i

,

N

'

%

.

I

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ b_ _ _ _ - -

A

-

REGION 3 -

TRACKING SYSTEM TYPE -

NEW ENTRY

_ INPUT CODE

~

X MODIFY PERSON WHO FOLLOWUP AE0'S A-IDENTIFIED ITEM STATUS ITEM N TYPE DUE DATE _ DEVIATIONS D

,

pl 50.55(E)

'

CODE E DKT YYXXX XX X

,56 10 CFR 20 F d 2M i y' ALLEGATION G

SV / / 5 4 _e 1 3 -

6/ -

,O y,r T M M D D IAt I -

[ / -

l

-

LER ORDERS TO LICENSEE K y, LICENSE DSC. p LER L LER LER REPORT LER CONFIRMATORY ACTION LTR. M EVENT DATE REPORT DATE TYPE

-

REVISION

~

ll l l ll_ OPEN ITEM O L l, ,

l Va4 PART 21 s P

fp Y Y M P, D I' hlYYMMDD Y'b ,bB CLOSE0UT SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FIND. S UNRESOLVED ITEM U PERSON ASSIGNED REPORT N WITHDRAWN W H0DULE N D DATE VIOLATION - SEV. LEVEL 1, 2, 3 l NS 76 S7 4, 5

, )(,.Y Y M M D D y,, g pA BRIEF DESCRIPTION ***

II4 l

@ 58 INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR

F4 g b e g

,

y ),

% -

2A s 3-4/g INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR

-

l M-  %

-

,

U-6/3g INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR pl -

-

vf  %

-

-

_

~

7  !

Q f6fJgL

-

M ms ____ _ _ _ _ - _ _____ _ _ _ __W_ _60fM _ _ _ _ :'_

A

-

NEW ENTRY RECION 3 -

TRACKING SYSTEM TYPE *

,,., INPUT CODE

~

X MODIFY PERSON WHO FOLLOWUP AE0'S A IDENTIFIED-ITEM STATUS ITEM N TYPE DUE DATE _ DEVIATIONS D ,

CODE pt _ 50.55(E) E DKT YYXXX XX X 10 CFR 20 F

'N 2M d K ALLEGATION G

,

I 8 Y / / I 4 83- f -

N /

~

O ygYYMMDD IAL I h / i

-

l

-

LER LICENSE DSG. p ORDERS TO LICENSEE LER

K L

y, LER LER REPORT LER CONFIRMATORY ACTION LTR. M EVENT DATE REPORT DATE TYPE REVISION ll l l OPEN ITEN O

~ ~

l Yg4 PART 21 P ll s

$ T T a. r, I I' MlYYMMpp -

SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FIND. S

{O .bB CLOSE0UT UNRESOLVED ITEM U PERSON ASSIGNED REPORT N WITHDRAWN W MDULE N DATE VIOLATION - SEV. LEVEL 1, 2, 3

.

(A $ 70 0 1 4, 5 QTTMMDD yg pg BRIEF DESCRIPTION Y'* n I

YSI INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR id y f$ $ 8 dk ,

$

% h 5- *l/j, INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR Id 1

1. h

'

--

l 04/3g INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR tal vW  %

.

maawm _-_ - - _ - - wm _

A

-

RECION 3 -

TRACK 7NC SYSTEM TYPE-

NEW ENTRY INPUT CODE MODIFY PERSON WHO FOLLOWUP AE0'S A IDENTIFIED ITEM DUE DATE STATUS ITEM N TYPE _ DEVIATIONS D

,

CODE pt _

50.55(E) E YYXXX XX X 10 CFR 20 F

,b 2M I.4J_D M IK/ 8T5 '88 I i

~

N 2 ~

i O

g ALLEGATION G

'/gYYMMDD IAL I ,

h / -

l

- ,

LER ORDERS TO LICENSEE K y, LICENSE DSG. p LER L LER LER REPORT LER CONFIRMATORY ACTION LTR. M EVENT DATE REPORT DATE TYPE

-

REVISION

~

llll! ll OPEN ITEN O

'/g 4 PART 21 P Mly'Y

' lllll MMDD

,,

$Y Y tt t 00 6 ,kB SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FIND. S CLOSE0UT UNRESOLVED ITEM U PERSON ASSIGNED REPORT N WITHDRAWN W MODULE N D E DATE VIOLATION - SEV. LEVEL 1, 2, 3 V$70 0 7 _

4, 5 t/g QYYMMDD t/3,g pg BRIEF DESCRIPTION  !' * *

I

@ 51 INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR pi '

m _

FN s B E d ]

% /p INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR Id 1 s

w l l s

U-'/Sg INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR

-

W .

V _

"/. o r,

, -

7-L/

/ &A .

maavim W- - -----f' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - _ _ _ h --- M OSS--- - 9

_ _ _.__._.._.._. _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ - . . - . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _.-._ ___

.

. _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ A  !

~

RECION 3 -

TRACKINC SYSTE TYPE -

'

'!

a-NEW N Y INPUT CODE

"

[ MODIFY

, PERSON WHO FOLLOWUP AE0'S A'

ITEM N TYPE IDENTIFIED ITEM DUE DATE STA_TUS DEVIATIONS D

'

CODE gd _ 50.55(E) E .

,ll I

YYXXX XX 10 CFR 20

_

-F gpKT ,-

X ,A6 24 g# ALLEGATION C

!

I 8 M..-/ / I 4 8 8- i ,8,N

-

O '/gYYMMDD IAL I *

[ / - -

LER LICENSE DSG. g ORDERS TO LICENSEE LER K

L y,

LER LER REPORT LER CONFIRMApRY ACTION LTR. M -

EVENT DATE REPORT DATE TYPE

~

REVISION

~

llll lll l OPEN ITEM O ll '/a q PART 21 P jlyqlY YM ll M D D ,,

$Y Y n F. O It b ,Ib8 SIGNIFICANT SAFETY FIND. S CLOSEOUT UNRESOLVED ITEM U PERSON ASSIGNED REPORT N WITHDRAWN W MODULE NO* DUE DATE VIOLATION - SEV. LEVEL 1, 2, 3 l Vf 70 0 7 _

4, 5 .

QYYMMDD '/g M BRIEF DESCRIPTION  !'"t lclo f tlr c r i s c C M s e S r c uc s E s $ Erw c e nt t A c c cb u t t 4 A rrn cg onc u rs i n 14 c YSI INTERIM REPORT N INSPECTOR

~

77 0 0 7 F g gg g g '

, }

%  %

$ W $ Y [ 1 L L A WC C f $ C C E D E d CS 5-44/g INTERIM REPORT N INSPEL"r0R IE I '

- r B 4/51 INTERIM REPORT NO.- INSPECTOR pl --

i I' ,

k _

%.

.

m _a m mra m - _ _ _ - --- - -- -- - --- - .

- - m m -