ML20027E217

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Pno:On 770502,Spent Fuel Cask NAC-1D Received W/Local Contamination of 88,320 100 Dpm Per 100 Square Centimeters. Leakage Found on Head of Cask at Joint.Incident Will Be Reviewed During Subsequent Insp
ML20027E217
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-770504-01, PNO-770504-1, NUDOCS 8211120267
Download: ML20027E217 (2)


Text

"

(MC Pro- 'dures 907128 and 92700B)

IdNTIFICATION inme (Facility or Licensee): N>4 > 6A./trr~f6 /

Docket No. :

'D -N L License No. : JV'/'-/3 Event Date: 6/2h f

//.' 7o /4 Event, Description; t th<dtif UP.TK (,4//IC ~ /D) /Mik Ocs.:;t:1:xuak; CC, a 'c

/

t /At//6f(W f/cM&c, h s*A6X2 ')

Notification Date: Sh/77 T.me:

// S4 />7 Method: m r//' *E-Avr Notified By: (2/6?r7/x/m' Hotification Received By: //,,Ufm Regulation Requiring the Report

/m/ /%, reg /3)(3,)

PRELIMINARY RESPONSE 1.

Incident Severity Level per MC 1300:

I

, II

, III

, Other X 2.

Immediate Site Insp/ Invest Required:

X/o Report No.:

3.

Immediate Notifications:

Individual Date & Time Notified NRC:HQ State Radiological Team Other J4'/ 2Zr 4.

Press Release:

Issued by NRC (Date) A c Issued by Licensee (Date) 4/c

/

SCREEHING 1.

Have reporting requirements been. met?

4[lv 2.

If an LER. was the' initial report, is the' form complete and-do the responsei appear to be appropriate?_

3.

Is the description adequate to assess the event?

4.

Have corrective actions been identified? /4

'/44Mus 5.

Do proposed corrective actions appear appropriate?

V&

6.

Is enforcement action by IE appropriate?

A 'e 7.

Should the event be classified as an Abnormal Occurrence?

//o If so, has the Regional Coordinator been notified by telep/S</ A hong?. =

n 8.

Is a written report due from Licensee? VL If so, when?

"t w.~<

EVALUATION 1.

Date written report received?

J-2M/7 3 d')

2.

Has the cause been identified?

% '- /% a<- <-< - u.u 3.

If not, has an investigation program been identified? A 7.- x % d 4.

Have the safety implications been identified? 2>/JW' 5.

Has the generic applicability within the facility been considered? JM#

6.

Do generic aspects warrant IE action?

A s-7.

Do the facts warrant other actions by,the licensee? A/o 8.

Evaluation assistance requested:, /Vo No.

9.

Recommended followup actions: i L/<4/u 444ru6 [ed.46V R E/'/ Je/6 REFERENCES he c-< de s

,5g Q

/ '"' ' '

N" V

g g, Q -l (c>.a op"4 %

/

CLOSURE Resolution of IE concerns identified above:

Completed By:

' 'S Date:

4/ ~' 7 Reviewed By:

'if,f-M.g__

Date: 5,/,d,/7. 7 IE:V Form 601 8211120267 820928

~

v/v L ' 3 7-PDR FOIA R APKINO2-394 PDR

r m

).

b 9Gl 1.',*.!E h* r.7 3 T : E *; t _S-3 7 7

.SN t.1it -

/.', T, r., Y. s.

/

. l.r.

,,c..r C a

.o J. :..

1 f..,...,.

... r s.s...,

~.......

s.. -

1...ev.

....6

.. 3.,.,. n..,, l,,*).

n..

.. ~..

~ 4,s,,,s 1

.o o,

.r.. s.... :

4 ) a 4.r.,.e. : I 41 r

...s

/....._.............:

l. t...,, s..

.., e..ti i

F r E:~7 T'J EL C /, FM N t 'M "-E F _ //A C,- / O

__r E t i r '.*E t F-M

('..t..* e* t* ?* A 1

.t 1. E C ay *:.9.C C,..f. p,,. g, o o-. 6.vg1.-c

,a..

o..

v.

. v is.e 3..*.T r.4.t e

! *.. g.. - l.c v.=

....u

^

2 c.>

. 5 7-77 ( I;AT E) A7. // '/'

(TIME) s.r THE 70LLm 1NG F M r / J A i::. r CONTM'.3 ??AT A CN PEADI NG S GI'EA7ER TH/N 2 7, 0 0 D DPM/10 (. CM /..

' OC;."1 1 ON C DN7 /$P. 3 N/,T DN-DPM I[*P/C

,I

't<5 ol C 4.'> L c *c.L j:].<.%

bT^fh' 2_ D_.---

y c. r s') */~~

j>

~

_s

.y,....

r 3.) :.

. _. _.s.

... t

/r;

.$ */c< /6*-

t

.,. -..... J,... ;, -];r s

/ __et f*

- p

.......,....),,

...i....-

e

5. f..

r,....

.......i..,.......

. u..... : c.-).

r.,..,,.

c.,.,..

.r r n..-

a

.n:..,.

a.

/,o

~

&"J,.:. u c.1)_

. '- _/J!.E-

'~

f l ' &.*.N ~. **..-

e e

6