ML20027E226
| ML20027E226 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, San Onofre |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1977 |
| From: | North H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027A625 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-82-394 PNO-770804, NUDOCS 8211120279 | |
| Download: ML20027E226 (1) | |
Text
- mcmcau-KrcA1s-w
.~.r wuna r.o12 -
Nu (MCPrh.;edures90712 Band 92700B)D k#
.DENTIFICATI0t V hr Name7 Facility or Licensee):
bM hN LMC O 1
- NFS, Docket No.:.fb -24 6
_ License fio. : 97 E- #3 Event Date: G / n -r1/ 77 Ev,ent
Description:
y ri u s Y A Lv6 S oo Tbt.t cD) Met m.&4u. c nw.s te rm Srcui F o n u, % r V @ 'D %f. heCd w /cr HooMl5 En in vis ' on2H
$g?ai Notification Date: 54 Y /2,77 Time: A7,1, L Method:
(,r_rr,r e Q'
Notified By: 3 C.g_
Notification Received By:,va y A. 2 fi> ce x" 7 /, r /
g Regulation Requiring the Report r
PRELIMINARY RESPONSE 1.
Incident Severity Level per MC 1300:
I
, II
, III
, Other /
2.
Immediate site Insp/ Invest Required:
A7o_
Report No.:
/
3.
Immediate Notifications:
Individual Date & Time Notified
'f[
NRC:HQ
/
W State Y/
9*..
Radiological Team
/ uff) A//d.
N Other
/~
E 4.
Presslielease:
Issued by NRC (Date) /VOMTIssued by Licensee (Date)46*E
}
fi SCREENING v
1 1.
Have reporting requirements been met?
@vs
$oc/h T't$
2.
If an LER was the initial 1 report,-is theWorm: complete and 'do the_ responses-.
g(
i
~
A/o7-b.T 4 appear to be appropriate?~-
g 3.
'Is the' description adequate to assess :the event?> ' ' s/c s M
4.
Have corrective actions been-identified?
4ID j$-
5.
Do proposed corrective actions appear appropri' ate?
t{ ris Sci 6.
Is enforcement action by IE appropriate?
k)o J
$.T 7.
Should the event be classified as an Abnormal Occurrence?
Oc If so, has the Regional Coordinator been notified by telephone? W/4 FC-8.
Is a written report due froh Licensee? %5 If so, when?
7//> -z7/77 8
h[Q i
EVALUATION p
l.
Date written report received?
7/2c/r7
/c/g -
7[z gyy /2 f hj 2.
Has the cause been identified?
Dir/S M@k 3.
If not, has an investigation progrant'been identified?
d/t/A}-
U 4.
Have the safety implications been identified?
L/fLs
,I 5.
Has the generic applicability within the fapility been considered? #MJ 9.
6.
Do generic aspects warrant IE action?
No 7.
Do the facts warrant other actions by $he licensee?
Ne>
}.,
8.
Evaluation assistance requested:
/VO fio.
9.
Recommended followup actions:
FC/OM/v Sv/C/ //6 Njs2 7-MJ/7t /7cu
- e. -
REFERENCES s
[h' CLOSURE _
y Resolution of IE concerns identified above:
y
[M77
[b<
Completed By:
Date:
P-Reviewed By:
Date:
W gl '
gf IE:V Form 601 Ib b
8211120279 820928 4'
%1 R APKIN82-394 PDR 1_J
__