ML20027E196

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pno:On 760527,facility Received Spent Fuel Cask NAC-1A from GE W/Contamination Greater than 22,000 Dpm Per 100 Square Centimeters
ML20027E196
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, San Onofre
Issue date: 06/03/1976
From: North H
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V)
To:
Shared Package
ML20027A625 List:
References
FOIA-82-394 PNO-760603-01, PNO-760603-1, NUDOCS 8211120233
Download: ML20027E196 (1)


Text

.....- - _.

2

~..

n*

... l.

- a -.

SCREENING / EVALUATION SHEET FOR LICENSEE REPORTS OF NON-ROUTINE EVENTS IDENTIFICATION 64Ndwor4Edc.zsM6xruseerde. 8eur-3 Name (Facility or Licensee):_

"P PP- / 3 Event Date:.5-/ 2 7/76 Pc ccNT c t: 8pwrFM carx N'AC-/A Hay l

Docket No: 0.CD-oO 2c6 License No:

Se w?/Sc Ettersk //sp/t.e Jat.,- 2cnon,ewl%rmtwr:ovy 7z Event

Description:

i 7'stecM - (suX Nottfication Date :.3/27/74. -S/'zf/7& Ti=e:23S2 - /et.C 2tethod :Aw Notification Received B

/PC.F/2 Z o. 2 OS [b)[7,)y :

Notified By: Fl / W4&/oc R Regulation Requiring the Report Importaace Category and Response Level:

_, II

, III X, Other _

. PRELIMINARY RESPONSE _

I

)VO

_ Report No:_

Immediate Site Insp/ Invest Required:

Date and Time Notified Individual Ic=ediace Notifications:

4 NRC:HQ S'are T

Radiological Team f/3/M

/03O Other

.TE:2^

-[ Fr nu Issued by Licensee '(Date)

/VOA/E Press Release:

A/ Ar.c Issued by NRC (Date)

O E,5 SCREENING Have reporting requirements been met?(LER) Form complete and do respo 1.

2.

Is the Licensee Event Report /E8 Fc,cw No /- #d Gv//2do _

appear to be appropriate?

>'E S Is the description adequate to assess the event?

//o

,3.

Have corrective actions been identified?

l Do proposed corrective actions appear appropriate?

,4.

//o a.Is enforcement action by IF appropriate?

_ Date received? -

S.

Date written report due from Licensee? _ --- -

6.

o/84 EVALUATION To Be Completed (yes/no):

ES _ Evaluation Assigned To:

4.5 Has the cause been identified?

//o If not, has an investigation program been identified?

~

1.

-)/Sc 2.

Have the safety implications been identified?

within the facility been 3.

Has the generic applicability,W did 4.

considered?

N O 7* 4l/ /LrC

/[O

/

Do generic aspects warrant IE action?Do the facts warran A'o 5.

Evaluation assistance requested:

/^/o

_ No.

6.

7.

B.

Recommended followup actions:

2/Ox/d_

REFERENCES' 8211120233 820928

+i PDR FOIA l

R APKIN82-394 PDR CLOSURE Resolution of IE concerns identified above:

3 S

/, _

8M

_Date:

Date: /- / ? / ~7 D Completed By:

~ ' ' ' ^