ML20133C224
Text
. _ _
'y p(
b' [.'
!p= ='%,[%,
UNITED STATES l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslON
'erl S aEcios m f
+
'g *,
f cLEN ELLys. itusois soo n June 17, 1985 l
n(-
1 W-
/
i MEMORANDUM FOR:
James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator FROM:
A. Bert Davis, Deputy Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
TELECON WITH RICHARD UDELL, JUNE 12, 1985 On June 12, 1985, Messrs. Greenman, Burgess, Wright, Combs and I had a 4,
discussion with Mr. Udell at his request to answer questions regarding the Davis Besse (08) incident of June 9,1985.
There was one item we answered incorrectly.
It dealt with whether DB was designed to maintain the core adequately cooled with sustained loss of feedwater.
We stated that it was, since ECCS systems (makeup or high pressure injection systems) would pump water from the RWST (and later the containment sump) to the RPV, then out the PORV or safety valves to the quench tank, i
Later in the day Joe Delmedico, OCA, called and said Udell wanted to discuss this matter further. A return call was set for 12:30 p.m., June 13.
I then discussed it with Mr. Reyes, former Senior Resident Inspector for 08. He agreed with our answer and told me of the DB procedure to establish such flow.
A return call was made to Mr. Udell on June 13, 1985.
Representatives from NRR, AE00 and Region III participated.
This and other questions were discussed in detail.
Mr. Bernero described the feed and bleed process.
He stated that in his view j
both feed (from the makeup system) and bleed and flow from the startup feedwater pump were required to assure that the core remained covered and adequately cooled.
Further evaluation would be necessary to determine how long the core l
would be protected with the makeup system only. Mr. Bernero stated that DB was j
the only U. S. pressurized water reactor which cannot be adequately protected with high pressure coolant injection alone. Mr. Udell asked, since this i
differed from information provided to him on June 12, 1985, if I agreed with Mr. Bernero.
I stated that I accepted Mr. Bernero's view since he is the NRC j
expert in such matters.
t A. Bert Davis l
Deputy Regional Administrator cc:
R. Bernero, NRR l
8510070273 e50717 PDR COP 9tB NRCC CORRESPOPOENCE PDR
1 06-15-85 Rev. O General Inspection Guidelines 1.
Review the' licensee's Guidelines to Action Item Lead Individuals.
I
{
2.
Review specific action plan assigned to you, i
i 3.
Determine if maintenance personnel have been' properly briefed.
4.
Confirm that the person assigned to do the work is qualified and is t
r at the job site.
I I
5.
Ensure that proper communications have been established between the 1
j person assigned and the individual having prime responsibility.
t l
6.
Confirm that the proper procedures are at the job site and are being i
j used.
i 7.
Ensure that the licensee is working within the guidelines specified in i
Item 1 above.
a.
Determine that MWO's have proper review and approval and are
[
i adequate to do work.
b.
Determine current drawings and controlled vendor manuals are used.
)
NOTE: To satisfy this item, document the drawing revision and i
vendor manual date or revision and compare them against the control copy.
j c.
Ensure all "as found" conditions are documented on the MWO.
~
{
d.
Ensure that all results of the investigation are clearly documented i
on the MWO.
Assure personnel work within the guidelines of the HWO.
e.
)
8.
Determine that the licensee has proper control of any equipment that is removed for shipment or replacement.
r j
a.
Properly identified such as tagging or marking, f
b.
Hold area.
j 4
i i
l 4
i
._& {.U%i' & 't h _'s.u, rg-r.%s.n-?.'.j k. o' 'C
., c L.A'd':Ce &+1-f&_.
. c a.nn.u, _.. ; n.
,1 I
.t
'..,'..t
%i
- n- ) n
- ;c !.. h.ii son Corrp iny
\\ !Ts.
'Ir - Ni<h.trd P C rtms e
\\ <. e Tresident
%.. le e r l',l 1 s. 'll P I.n et a 8 't) '* 3d t got3 Avehne Toi..d..
GH J. 6 i 2
!'s.t.1 I e ?! ell ;
D.t* refers to the managemene eroting held by.'!r. A. B. Dav i. epu t y kegional Administ ra6or and other NRC representat ives with 'tr H. P. Crwise,
Va e President. Nuclear and other representatives of the Toledo Ediwn Con piny on July 13, 1982, to review the results of the NRC's asses.s.?.ent of the utility > regulitary performance at the itivis-Besse St. clear Pcwer Station sa cenn*<tton wt'th NRC.'1anual Ch.spter Oile - Systematte As.essment ut Lt. ensee Per f orn:.ince (SALP) covering the period November 1, 1980 throtagh
't.irth 11, 1982.
A preliminary copy of the SALP Report was provided for your revie.- in
...h ance of our meetind. Dic final SALP Report including the SALP Board Chairman's let ter to you and your writ ten cocments, dated July 30, l'H 2,
is ent.losed.
t 4
In a.!dition to the assessments and recommendaticns m ade by the SALP % ird
..untain*d in the enclosed SALP Report, I wish to give you my ov. rall cherva-ttons ind assesa. ment re lat ive to the 'ut i l ity 's regulatory per forn. ant.o.t ir tr g the.issessm nt pertod:
1-iith respect to the SALP ratings. the Region.21 SALP Board view. the C at egory 2 r.st ing as the rating which it int is. t pat es most licensees w:l! te.h t ev e.
A Citegory I rating :. given only for suportor per-to man.
and there is reasonable expectattor. th.it tt w ill :.mt
.ae
\\ Cit. gory 3 ratisig is give: when the liu.nsee's performince :s
,e aadered innimi!ly.itteptable.ind. dent i! test.r.iine.scs. ir rar.t
-;... it !i.ensee m in igen ent ind %F it t er:t inn i
O0"nn-am 1o p,,,
WW ! P I ys"-
g y,
s
7)
)
.v.+
J
- he m. r.il l regulatory performinc.e of the Tole.t.
14ti.,n G r m.
t !.r D.svis-Besse.%c l ea r 1%
- r S t a t i on ha.s shi%n tonsuletable ieprovement during this SALP period.
I am p ar t soular ly ple-ise,!. :: -
the supernor performance in radiological controls and emerxency it.-
paredness, as well as the improvements in plant operattons and s ee.u r i t y.
Notwithstanding, I do share the SA!.P Board's concerns that
.sxxtessive correct ive act ion is warranted in procurement, maintenani.e.
.ind fire prevention practices.
In this regard I was pleased with your letter of July 30, 1982, describing actions being taken by the utility to alleviate these concerns. We will follow these matters during r utiste inspections.
Weg$rding your comments on " Review Committees" we agree that the non-u>=pliantes as stated on page 21 of the SALP Report could be misleading
.ind did not convey our real concern. We acknowledge that the Review Boards reviewed all known violations.
However,. hen several examples of missed violations were identified there was a concern about the sle picy of the methods used to ensure that all violations were iden-ttfied for review. We do believe the SALP Report properly conveyed the important point that you were responsive to the concerns and init 14t eel cor rect ive act ion.
In response to your comments for the large number of disagreements s
during the March 1982 confirmatory measurement inspection, we believe you have over emphasized the differences in analytical techniques and counting equipment. The March 1982, inspection showed that your two gassa spectrometer systems were calibrated about five years ago.
One q
detector was recalibrated af ter having been redrif ted.
Your staff stated that they felt that one of the two systems was giving results that they believed were conservative but too high.
Our inspection I
confirmed this belief.
We do not believe that counting statistics was a factor.
If a calibration is done properly analytical results w n !! agree regardless of counting geometry.
Differences in counting geometry may effect sensitivity but not accuracy. We will confirm your recalibration results in our next confirmatory measurement inspection.
In se.cordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2 Title ?O Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the S AI.P keport si!I he plai.ed in the NRC's Pubtic Document Room.
,I+
i I
I h
lh 6
s, bl.,
, s.
>1 s
N
. ;. f a, t.
! !. 's l e t t.' t is rs*'lia t r eil, htm e'. c r. s t.c.
t
'..s'-
1:
. c i.. i n i n.; 11..,.. m i t t e r s.
w.
w i l l t..
p l eas. il t o t i s..<.s s
!..>.;t Sincerely.
Original sir;ned by A. Bert Davis James G. Keppler Regional Administrator f.in losure:
SALP Report No. 50 %n/MJ-21 c a. w/ encl:
T. D. %:r t.sy. St it ton SsperintendenL 7
D'!B. Doc.necnt Control Desk (RIUS) kes s tent inspector. k!!!
Hirold W. Kohn. Ptmer Siting Ctamm i s s ion Helen W. Evans. State of Ohio j
Robert
't. Qui 11in. Ohto Dep.ir t eent o f lie.n l t h i
t J
4 4
1
?
H!lf R!l!
R!!!
H 11 R!
k!!!
- m. i. n <.
s,...',., d Jh m
jSi,i.,,,
- 7' gota ijuji.'
y> 'l ' -
o
1983 03/24/83 LETTER:
C. Norelius - TECo:
report of enforcement conference onTransmits Yeport 83-06 (attached),
03/09/83 discussing maintenanc drawing control and equipment operability.
(5 pgs.)
e 07/07/83 LETTER:
J. Hind - TECo:
presentation of SALP report. Confirms meeting date of 07/12/83 for (2 pgs.)
07/08/83 MEMO:
C. Norelius - R. Spessard:
Requests inspection of QA program at Davis-Besse Station.
(1 pg.)
07/18/83 LETTER:
R. Crouse - NRC (J. Stolz):
Station Integrated Living Schedule Program (ILSP)TEC se (4 pgs.)
10/17/83 LETTER:
V. Gilinsky - J. Williamson:
tour at Davis-Besse Station.
Discusses results of plant (1 pg.)
09/20/83 LETTER:
R. Crouse - NRC (J. Stol:):
submitting ILSP until October 1983.
Informs NRC of delay in (2 pgs.)
10/28/83 MEMO:
W. Schult: - J. Axelrad: ' Forwards documents to NRC HQ regarding proposed civil penalty on fire protection issues (24 pgs.)
10/28/83 LETTER:
J. Williamson - V. Gilinsky:
letter of Responds to Gilinsky 10/17/83 on plant tour.
(3 pgs.)
10/31/83 LETTER:
C. Norelius - TECo:
to discuss the Regulatory ImprovementConfirms a meeting date of 11/04/83 Station.
(1 pg.)
Progra= (RIP) at Davis-Besse 11/07/83 MEMO:
A. Davis - W. Shafer:
at Davis-Besse.
(2 pgs.)
Notes from 11/4/83 meeting on RIP 11/21/83 LETTER:
LRS consultants (C. Rice) - R. DeYoung:
Comments on V. Gilinsky site tour. safety performance of Davis-Besse Station in regard to (1 pg.)
11/23/83 MTG NOTICE:
Announces enforcement conference on 12/01/83 to discuss Appendix R inspection at Davis-Besse Station (confirmation letter to licensee attached)
(2 pgs.)
11/23/83 LETTER:
A. Davis - TECo:
discussing management meeting onTransmits report No. 83-23(DPRP) 11/04/83 with TECo (6 pgs.)
12/07/83 MEMO:
A. Davis - T. Rehm:
office to Commissioner Gilinsky.No 83-23 and copy of a dra I
r thru EDO (8 pgs.)
r 7
v 12/09/83 MEMO:
W. Schultz - J. Axelrad:
Requests review and concurrence on proposed enforcement action regarding one train of ECCS equipment.
(10 pgs.)
12/12/83 MEMO:
V. Dircks - Commissioner Gilinsky: Transmits copy of inspection report No. 83-23 to SMSN office (was in draft form in 12/07/83 memo above).
(1 pg.)
12/16/83 LETTER:
R. Crouse - J. Keppler: Transmits requested information from MTG on Appendix R (12/01/83) enforcement conference.
(23 pgs.)
12/23/83 LETTER:
C. Norelius - TEco:
Provides clarification of NRC views presented at 12/14/83 MTG with TECo on status of regulatory enhancement program.
(2 pgs.)
12/29/83 LETTIR:
J. Haverly - W. Little: Transmits information to supple-ment 12/16/83 submittal from TEco on Appendix R.
(49 pgs.)
09/06/83 MEMO:
R. Spessard - E. Pawlik: Recommends an OI investigation of Davis-Besse Appendix R inspection findings.
(2 pgs.)
8
h
. 33 j
h
- t L.
50- n c, Tolede Edison Company ATTN:
Mr. Richard P. Crouse Vice President l l Nuclear Edison Plaza 300 M.adison Avenue 4
Toledo, OH 43652 l'
Centlemen:
}
i This refers to the enforcement conference conducted by me and members of my j
staff en March 9, 1983, at the Davis-Besse site with you and members of your j
.j staff.
The enclosed copy of our report identifies topics discussed during the
~
conference. As indicate.' in the report, the purpose of this enforeccent 4
conference was to discuss I'RC concerns in the areas of maintenance, i
drawing control and equipment operability.
}
?
As we agreed, my staff will meet with your staff to further discuss the l
details of your comprehensive corrective action program in the areas of j
maintenance and drawing control. As we further agreed, following that
]
eeeting you will submit a sritten response to us describing corrective j
actions in this area.
'j in aeterdance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the j
cnc esure(s) will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room unless you l
notify *his office, by telephone, within ten days of the date of this 1
1' t ter and subr.st written application to withhold information contained j
e therein within thirty days of the date of this letter.
Such application rust be consistent with the requirements of 2.790(b)(1).
i Your cooperation with un is appreciated. We will gladly discuss any 3
questions you have concerning the enclosed report.
Sincerely, i
.. i *..,
C. E. Norelius, Director i
sag +tt0338-830324 Division of Project and PDR ADOCK 05000346 Resident Prograr.:,
[
O PDR i
F.nclosure:
Inspection e
Report 50-346/83-06 l
1 IEO/
m.o,) RI.I.I,. g,, aIJ g.,
R t,
- w.. > j 4c E...w./.R. ! S t..r,gg,t g r,,,,,,
@,m.,,11,47,,,
we >[. 3/22/83 11/. */83 3/ t.2/8 3
.............g........................,...........
. ex m.o., e.mv w QFFICIAL RECORD COPY e
3d
Y cc w/enel:
T. D. Murray, Station Superintendent DKB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)
Resident inspector, RIII Harold W. Kohn, Power Siting Cossaission Helen V. Evans, State of Ohio Robert M. Quillan, Director Ohio Dept. of Health (Rad. Health Program)
J 1
3 1
i 4
I
.i i
I o,, <.e p i e
p tw, g I
care p t
=:. :..w v.
...,.; u s. 2 OFFICIAL R ECORD COPY 4.-
'l t_
q.e., u m n w-H: ' l u '. I!!
'r.
50-146/83-06(DPRP)
~
h, er:
'i
- 1.w k e t 50-1*.6 1.icense 'o.
_icensee.
Toledo Editon Company Edison Plaza 100 Madison Avenue Toledo, OH 43652 aci1it. Na:c:
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station J
En:creement Conference At:
Toldeo Edison Company I!
Davis-Besse Administration Buildirg Davie-Besse Site v
Oak Harbor OH N
Y,,
Enforcement Conferene Conducted: March 9, 1983
- w 0
Prepared By:
W.
. Ro rs 3.2 3 3 3 4
f 7
N p
~'iv, Chief Approved By:
Jack Projects /Section 28 3'N '83 c
Enforce =ent Conference Summa v Enforcement Conference on March 9, 1983 (Report No. 50-346/83-06(DPRP))
r Areas Discussed:
NRC concerns regarding (1) the lack of Improvement of the licenser's maintenance program. (2) the adequacy of the licensee's corrective action in drawing control, (3) the licensee's corrective actions related to itees (1) and (2), and (4) the licensee's equipment " operability" philosophv.
l
)
q.
.; 7 d '; H A (, :, C w O3000']46 l
'A PDR
y DETAILS
. Meeting Attendees Toledo Edison Company (TECo)
[
R. Crouse, Nuclear Vice President T. Murray, Davis-Besse Station Superintendent T. Myers, Nuclear Services Director C. Daft, Quality Assurance Manager J. Shortt, Power Engineering and Construction General Superintendent j
- 8. Byer, Assistaat Statica Superintendent i
J. Helle, Pacility Engineering Manager 1
C. Calcamugio. Nuclear Engineering Manager Representative G. Novack, Corporate Nuclear Review Board Chairman i
L. Young Nuclear Licensing R. Peters, Nuclear Licensing D. Poage. Quality Assurance Auditor I
C. Meckbel, Drawing Control Task Force Head
-4 j)
P. Carr, Maintenanca Engineer J. Parris, Administrative Coordinator R. South, Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NBC) i C. Moreline, Director, Divisies of Project and Resident Programs
\\
N. Jack 1w, Qiief, Projects Section 2B I
L. Reyes, Chief, Test Programs Section J. Stela, Chief Operating Reactore Branch No. 4, NRR A. DeAnasio, Licensing Project Manager, NRR T. Peebles, Senior Besident inspector, Davis-Besse Site 1
W. Rogers, Reeldest Inspector, Davis-Besee Site
-v.
2.
Opeataa Reesrks
[,
~
l Mr. Morelius acted that this was an enforcement conference which is the l
first step in escalating enforcement action.
He outlined the history l
ef NBC's concerns (SALP 11 Report, IE Report 50-346/82-05 and IE Repcre
$0-346/83-01) with regard to maintenance and drawing control and stated these areas woes not acceptable at this time, and licensee attention i
is needed to preclude further escalated enforcement action.
q l
3.
Maintenance / Drawing Control Discussion
[
A Mr. Peebles cited the areas of concern. These weres (1) failure of I
the maintenance administrative system to assure actual work performance was not being adequately documented, (2) fragmented equipment maintenance history, (3) marginal acceptable procedural guidance, (4) nonconfomance reports (NCRs) not being issued against improper maintenance activities when a maintenance work order (MWO) was outstanding on that activity..-
a
(5) dettetent NCR t rack ing system, and' (6) d rawings n t re f lec t itc-tb as-built. condition of the plant.
Mr. Rogers stated that the new drawing control syster2 has the ability to adequately function; hcwever, an administrative mechanism needs te be installed to assure drawing change notices (DCNs)/ facility chan.;e notices (FCNs) are incorporated into drawing revisions in a timely manner. He further stated that, if facility change request (FCR) supplements are not reduced, the amount of DCNs/FCNs superceded and new DCNs/TCNs generated at the end of plant outages had the capability to averload the distribution system. He concluded by stating that the I
11censee's corrective: action should at least address the current status of FCRs, schedules for corrective action implementation, training, when drawings would be revised, and QA involvement..
z
-J-Mr. Crouse opened the licensee's presentation by indicating that they would be presenting a comprehensive program to correct their maintenance i
problems. Mr. Murray provided the elements of the program. The elements included changes in organisation/ work scope responsibility in facility j
modification, maintenance planning, and electrical maintenance areas.
other elements included abolishment of the work request system, providing more worker involvement to ensure quality performance, additional main-
]
tenance training (technical, administrative, management), more management field observatiote, a change in philosophy to require NCRs to be written j
on improper work activities even if a mfd was outstanding on the activity, y
and establishment of a drawing control task force reporting monthly to
.I the Vice President-Muclear on its progress.
1
~.
i e
The licensee agreed to delineate specifics of the comprehensive corrective action in response to this report.
.i f
4.
Operability Discussion l
Mr. Feebles discussed the NRC requirements for determining operability e
of equipment. NRC concerns relating to valve testing methods versus safety function to assure operability were also discussed.
Mr. Murray stated that the check valve testing program would be reviewed by the licensee.
5.
Summary j
The NRC requested and the licensee agreed to provide a written response delineating the licensee's corrective actions in the areas of maintenance and drawing control. Mr. Crouse requested that Region III meet with the licensee to discuss the details of their proposed comprehensive corrective I
action program prior to the licensee's written response to this report.
1 Mr. Crouse stated that this would assure that all areas of NRC concerns j
were addressed in the program.
Mr. Norelius agreed to such a meeting and it win agreed that the licensee would initiate the request for this meeting.
2-
./ %)
- ' Qi
&.d f('t A
V8tf71D STATIS 9
NtX:1. EAR REGULATORY COMMIS$20N M
O REGJomst ih.I
? - W*
- _
798 shC062VELT INMD D
OLSA: I;Lt.Yst, y t annan og g37
%.e*
h%N JDL 0 7. B83
-2 s
1 w: w,....
4
-n 1
l
..' Doc '.. Ne..' _. 50. 346
+
~,
.f..I..
s
[..M
.. ~
d [
. q,
% x..,.
.p~...
,c
> 701 ado Edison;Caspacy ~-
p. g.-:'.. >
e f
,, [ $ [sY - ?.,;,'.
..h AT3h Hr2 11 chard P. Crouse'
'.d,g,4
- 20. r.-
.. Vice Paesident.il Yf.I;h,pg% n Q -7
.i
~
- ? Epelses> Q t
Q W Q l' M k;' P'fi'
~~
141snaPlaanAfh.;m~
T b
- sco nas1saa sneen,~3%
- :${,.hf.)q',ap';g,y;$N('Y;' A Gj,,.
fij 4
{
I. i y
www
.-py.gm,;* ',_
TCledes M ' 436$2 Q'..'. "t ;P:y;J;.Q*b4
.-: a2 f-lU *.a
d ;i;
... i y'x ' T.O
- -4
- x. ; ;,y. A q.;, q,[:.\\w.,w.rg;Q. - my, 'tyq, ;',
t :,'
, Castlenes,'T W
' 3.-
4 s
q.
qr. n n
- %.. e,6%,.ws E..cM,;'si.A+r,yrJ..S,g+h#
.t-t
~
u.. m b..
N 4M': 1
~
- t. : 7'N s m, y
s
- an.m,. -
7, vy> 73,-,.. y y g y-s. p;w,
..g3 o
. ~v-
. r.
a.
Thi3 :::f=73 to 442 SA*
- dd aneL4Ag;em7 elp 11 'l943 at 20:00 a.a; to d
dicem the Ms.9fstematief13sissas4~WJ,itenees Performa. ace (SALP) for "E!.M 4
7f 5
- Dats-Betse Feeleer Statten'f' kW zh&A I Uf E M. 0 $ M @y n ;&::" W 2 % K G W T W M W W
'.W~.A$
,gy3 e
-~
asy p a M'.
s:y :.M gr.
g,+g.pnh egs998Mg'l HT3ppi",5 yM c: hk,, -
. -7 blij cM M
M Q4 Observe 5.~
C$
!tions and m attaa N
- W aise m.
I Q $ me' tssarte.nem%w F ~,
, w i
i f i m 4 W e z e, 4 m pf t f in % 1 s M' li s t a a #
appht
" sene ~ yed;3217 RaperiisicK
.. S-8=eumontobuWir@scconc oshe.sF "
W ebthe i.Sc 10 istfuuC.W_ ',4siUM YW.,AN8.FddiS.}P34 6. saresosia ??, -
~..
2 M d.
,g [&&,f!!P:.;G~' ' 'm.L_y,P.a, u.h. a,Mp!h?fe y4 M' n
- Simos thia.geodf.agg act'asM N M aadisg ' '
/ ~ ~~1,W. p%iwM " :, f ' 4 icf.esfiatus(' aid.,4$aeissaK ' ' ' ~ ~ ' apyr4 C l1 ~ pm.fiin@y.ynettinggd f "
- 24. stat tis and ily
.. y!Tt;DJpd.w. ' - w - 4 p,. 4 --w .n gg 4y ggg g u. 4m neeertW;istuissaw ' wevat,%g' ,y 4.g 6iaWat:aiirmeet14. n e 8 f. M 2 u. ns$ s.
- d. w w.
^ .r es,. n..,.y.n 1. ~w.,.,,. 'a.. m-n, ~ n. h ) iip. N% 5 h '- f ameleeed sges,t,. S g73ig ,spiesimisg)he,repeirt. I'previdef M* JZ g I appespriate. L.2 M,tak h. 1 7" C# Z A mgM @(ie%)eirfoguescainlang with any.. ' e i 2 spea 7 ~Ge9s
- ?,+.m W WM9W Liti:rM@nsMm<.gv%. port. 3 W' '
eu -a d lJh u .w -i ~ 2' A J. W.y4.s.?e j;en'4;f;f w q y* : n ,'1 s'. -. 'Y V.....m... h. PyJ..h 7,.,,y. ,. ~ %.,p .G m,e +**4 - a'm., yA ~%, '.m.. d g 4 MIIh9d, h O}y., f e, .r n . J,. g. n .,.n.) 1 MOO 14 Y o. J '; kgccg 4.;;W... ;: M-- l -.: n ~ y] x. m-J ~ } O a . h.9 - - v
- c.
1 , k.4 ~ a m As e y I 44' q l [ F""]s [v -- w Ms, ~ m fedF'--^ m, 4 -m ' ' ' ' 40
-- Liedc. Edisco Cgany 2 j,d,L, U l In accordamee with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules of Practice" Part 2, Title 10 Code of Federal.Begolattees, a copy of this letter the SALP Report, and your -*=, if any,. will be places in the NRC's Public ), S l Desument Been uhes that MP Report is taseed. I m.. .w,; If yen have an..-.....r.,... ~ . q,m. e 2: n. y genetians. eeessenias the,SEP Esport we will be happy to ~ discuss them with yes' ;. %' Q[fie ty:-@/p.., ~~;- i
- . i..,;.g F.. Xln
- ..:g' 'i 4.
b.:'
F r.e.M..,.;p -; c., -': #., 3 W 7,~asmaa ely, 4.y,' y j
.. s '.
v,-
q v - y..
M.
,k.'
6,s 4,te.:, ;.. ! "w'.. * *,' q~ e N' ~-
.a,y.2; w.a
- n. _, t r
,y 4.-,.,p a e- %i
,u.. r.,
- c.,. m...
Q c.,. D ;7.s. v m m,...y..%,y. %... h. u'# ';f * ,r*.g. W1, W 9 y ! v' A~
- p*'
yg.' ; ) . w y l-wr + 4 + .t 1 O P, + .a.v ; ~ Ngk;#y,31'v.p. .e ' f);? % sV W 5' , Chelsenen y' ~ i y ;i.:.: - ~ ~ ~. III s u r-seerd
- 7c.. &.,1,'.5,2 r,.sA;Jy',;n21:octori Divisiae'of Radiological j
M t.. S .4-w r,am,e..me.terials s fety Fr. ara. J. -. ~ p . 1 ('s't 'r p.
- r..?:,.
~ P yf,M ; ~l~ D. g * &,*,:.;C'. Q.b.lj.3: MW: A
- 2., Freumsansy,5fiCSRC'IAM, f W, 3
. f. i t, -!* y ',t C d 1. h1ry. Sf O CPS) ~ 4 .L 1 ansa an
- s3:p!W %yone. O, eye),.~.f: W-
$.::L'e'e,:WesilaisIsND's Q4WI.W.nq$@Fr%: an w t.. M,.: 7 9.: ).h.4 e 2 :a; crnessessf asincescrza M. ril.'a. V;o.sP ' 1 l )r ~ asoddsat'asapector, RIII,.. 'D - j 4 -e ,w -:ame-
- n 4r/..
~ ' n- ] %.,o_&n,.,;~., >w,,'$s.;D I;N 'b ?.\\f Q, o .?', ; .q r+.x, W.,. 2 <.4 .v,... A N '..Y$)h'r" : -f..,a... .. ** *[ e. *.s-A .>..s,. . ~ g?k. 'g?..e? "I
- d 'eQ*, l- '.y ' O of'_ *.?
- [y.';; i g / Y ** r..I!r., d' 'f.,'c' ~ t 3R*. --o, e' ... =, p - S e. ,c:!.. 9; y y a Q..,~ y. ~,+
- Q>..p...
,4 e. g 8, -7 S, I 1 P- ','* ~~ v..: ;4 i g. fe.e, r -.,.e e. g N ..,} f ) g'. g g p d , 4+p., V. 3, l r. w. fp',r.._) ;#,,:.,.y; ~, ?; f .t~ _ m .,c,. 4 ...* r. tvj ~. N.g,, (. p-l',' :,, ,, ;. ~ 'f', q- -.2 1 = < s 4 s 1e .s., ' ^ &' d g yL. v,-i' g;* e y + - .M # %,j ? ' m..,; A).._ ~ & 'a y< ^s. .x %,9 s-J 4(, [ J, i.e, ~ ', Y. **,... ~ r~- ,
- c*
' ' &s, u: g..,... <.l- $} .L...,*
- L
.,*-,6 , e'f - ~ s", k ^v *<..ig. d'.. ',f lg . y& *'* '. ,e n* t d , *y u .n c. .A. ( . u.,s. 4* n .g a s4.g - p j ' ', G I c _ ^?* t o a 4**** ' h e%. p .e,,..,,% N wg gump eg e es, - - e. 5 i I i l I I' il I I ] N-m1-mim.- _.}}