ML20027E204
| ML20027E204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, San Onofre |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1977 |
| From: | Book H, North H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A625 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-394 PNO-770504, NUDOCS 8211120251 | |
| Download: ML20027E204 (2) | |
Text
'
f 0R LICLNM.L REPORTS of NON-HodIINE LVENTS (MC-acedures 907128 and 92700B) u3 IDENTIFICATION Name [ Facility or Licensee):
O.g low [L1 Docket No.: G - X[ License No.: ~T)/'(?-t% Event Date:
<///1/"/7 ( 9 M/w' )
Event Descript, ion: ~Lue t,4u.~/ d e A 4978 /d ccd.-4,,,7,</.4.2 m - </
" t(>()tli m//66 etu ' -(/&Cff2 c. :'cS(si z)).- Jo(gy. - A i, pa:.nga m', Yf'icat'ior/ Date:
e Not e/// 3/77 Time:
/.".3 r~/h Method:
W.ep4;v - rA Notified By: # 6'.. L A lr' u Notification Received By:
N,A,.-cra Regulation Requiring the Report
/O c 4 z o. 2 or (4//2)
PRELIMINARY RESPONSE 1.
Incident Severity Level per MC 1300:
I II
, III
,OtherA 2.
Immediate Site Insp/ Invest Required:
~Afy Report No.:.
3.
Immediate Notifications:
Individual Date & Time Notified NRC:HQ State Radiological Team other J E ; //
.4 Su2a w?up (b. EM5s%
4.
Press Release:
Issued by NRC (Date)-
Issued by Licensee (Date)
SCREENING
,j l.
Have reporting requirements been met?
Y63
~
is the form complete and do the responses If an LER was the initial report,d-2.
appear to be appropriate?
7).1'/
3.
Is the description adequate to assess the event?
%r.)
4.
Have corrective actions been identified?
44 -
//3u r ce3 o m i 5.
Do proposed corrective actions appear appropriate?
D /'IJ 6.
Is enforcement action by IE appropriate?
A4 7.
Should the event be classified as an Abnormal Occurrence?
c4 If so, has the Regional Coordinator been notified by telephone? 3Ad 8.
Is a written report due from Licensee? Yr/J If so, when? 1 % e,,, e M O s,
EVALUATION 1.
Date written report received?
O/.4/h7 2.
Has the cause been identified?
2ba q.., _ / ', am e-n t, m,.
3.
If not, has an investigation program been identified?.ZW#
4.
Have the safety implications been identified?
2).#/4 5.
Has the generic applicability within the facility been considered? #.1,6 6.
Do generic aspects warrant IE action?
,t/o 7.
Do the facts warrant other actions by the licensee?
4 /c 8.
Evaluation assistance requested:
Oc No.
9.
Recommended followup actions: f h g,./ 'Pur2/a t. s e s w M r e T-~
fL'5$4c 17sw REFERENCES l' U,' " f
, &,t / Wg f f hcic-mL-f W,~.,,nt %'
.b-?M & $ '
h CLOSURE Resolution of IE concerns identified above:
Completed By:
1 b Date: C U
Reviewed By:
v3ff-
=~0,
vu,/.-,
Date:
< /j/
7 y
7 IE:V Form 601 8211120251 820928 PDR FOIA RAPKIN82-394 PDR
- = = ~ ^ ~ '
=
_ - n.. w
.u umu= m- - -
l
i b
[I
- E I.,
C s*t [ fl ~[L*;6P[f,, " * *
- j{-*}-
s q..
DATE N C TI T 3 E:;r j_psc_._ ty J cf 7]
TIME SCT*FIE~t_
,/ M<- /
8 L d a w..
t
. e.. %.
r 7.;* e* *y
.e. t
~
t.e. t t y r.=.. atr.*
$s.
- ts%.o.t.*.*s*^.7
- t' -
- V. t'.*s* *.
w I
s o.
es.e s.
l DA 1 e. t..-... ~ n.c n... u
- t...3
.e... r a.
G,y
.h/
..,r......
.s.
w tu o s".I, 94576 T E L.*. F H C :: E 415-466-3141
/,7 7 E N T I CN : r. APP.Y NCP7H f ?ENT T'!Ei. CASX NUM E EP_ hj A.C. -- i fh FECI E*'EC F F.7 C llc.m N tic.lena Gaea,a, ell G...d q Cn r ie n e.
Gr.4EM-Eh EM-F.3 C COMPNWe Bei. 1NSWoAD, MGF i-Fe s
+
- tlIl NG i S d
AT Gj 3. @O,
- -f ~/*). 7 } J E AT D
/
(TIME) HAD THE FOLLOYING.CM EAP A EL E CON T/J*.1 N A*I 1 CN REA DI NG S G P.E A T E.R THAN 2 2, 0 0 0 EPM /10 0 CM.'
o LOCAT10M CONTI.MINAT5CN-DPP 100/1
'h Gt s.]
CE G < ~< S.
RIN h Y 5 sc.I.c.'
Ys'?, / 7 0 t
~
hl v
__W
_C# 4 E 7 I [ I
.' _~ I I E ] I*. 'd I l* I
{ AyJJ6.)
/
'/ - /3-77 9/// /7 7 Y Ud
} f-f. **f
- r.< v. s. e.
..s
> d)
/
f **-******'s
'.' **% 4*
- T M. *..: 'A *. s o a >.
L' *. *
!.*. l' e s
.ee -
a..
a
- t..e..
..,.e..*.e. m g... r.
.y..... *.g..
... =.
4 L.
e s...
C *. e
- s.
).e %:
t'* * *%
... "* gp y.* T. ? b e A1 9 -- e
- v e
. f, p s....i44 t%
s as N.
'7.W..e N
- . s L. t,
,,a_m_%m e+.
- ~
C hN * ""
~ ~ -
^~^
g--
- - - = = '. -