ML20210E847
Text
.
' PRODUCTION SHEET PROCEDURE COVER OlSCO V
~
- 256-3
~
Revision No.
Dated Procedure No.,
VE EXTENSION INSTALLATION OF A BISCO PENETRATION S TITLE:
UTILIZING BISCOSEAL ION UTILIZING INSTALLING A PENETRATION SLEEVE EXTENS
SUBJECT:
BISCOSEAL
' SCOPE OF CURRENT REVISION:
REWRITTEN FOR CLARIFICATION 4
d' Industri~ol Services, Inc.,
This document contains information proprietary to BranBrand Ind The ssed purpose for which and shall be surrendered upon request from contents are not to be used for other than the expre i l Services, Inc.
loaned without written permission of Brand Industr a SIGNATURES BISCO APPROVAL Rev. 5 Rev. 6 Original issue ' Rev. I Rev. E' Rev. 3 ' Rev. 4' I
It p 2 g J.
E Author
~
[
/
A 0.C. Approval
~
W pprovo G603280342 860123 oge i of 3 =
pkhId8 PDR 744
o bisco PRooucTioN
' PROCEDURE D'
T-(t TITLE: INSTALLATION OF A BISCO PENETRATION SLEEVE EXTENSION UTILIZING BISCOSEAL (POURABLE OR SP-805-1 TROWELABLE).
1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This procedure describes the design and construction cri-teria for installation of a BISCO penetration sleeve exten-sion utilizing BISCOSEAL (pourable or trowelable).
2.0 SCOPE 2.1 To provide the general method of installation of a' BISCO sleeve extension utilizing DISCOSEAL (pourable or trowelable).
3.0 RESPONSIBILITY
, 3.1 The BISCO Project Manager is responsible for identifying and scheduling the work.
3.2 The BISCO Supervisor or'other individuals designated by the
[#g4, BISCO Project Manager is responsible for the orderly pro-j V"
gression and pr.oper construction of the work.
The BISCO designated Technician (s) 3.3 are responsible for the installation of the BISCO sleeve extension and BISCOSEAL materials.
3.4 The BISCO Quality Control Inspector (s) are responsible for performing the various inspections of the work,.in accor-dance with applicable Quality Control procedures.
4.0 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 4.1 The BISCO sleeve extension shall be constructed from 18 gauge galvanized steel sheet rolled to a tubular' configuration.
4.2 The dimensions of the sleeve extension shall be determined by the size of the opening to receive the sleeve in each construction situation.
4.3 The BISCO sleeve extension shall be equipped with a set of slotted holes.
The sleeve shall be pop-riveted to a.
rigid diameter determined by the size of the opening.
4.4 BISCOSEAL material should NOT be stored in areas where
(,
temperatures are likely to exceed 100 degrees fahrenheit.
Date 12/20/82 Rev.3 POge 2 Of 4
PROCEDURE PRODUCTION SCO ENETRATION SLEEVE SP-805-1 INSTALLATION OF A BISCO POSEAL (POURABL EXTENSION UTILIZING BISC requires temperatures
~
TITLE:
TROWELABLE,)
ditions.
of BISCOSEALheit for ideal curing con n,
The insta'11ationabe.t 55 degrees fahren approximately six (6)
~
hours 4.5 of BISCOSEAL isapproximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at The pot life achieved in 4.6 and ruring is room temperature (720F).
j ive the PP.E-INSTALLATION of the opening to receshall be n
sleeve extensionnsure a positive bond be The over-lapping surfaces 5 ~. 0 and the sleeve extensionroughened with sandpaper to efaces an 5.1 sleeve and the the aforementioned sur extension petroleum products sleeve The opening to receive the ld build-up, dust and dirt.with solvent an of rust, shall be free 5.2 Sealing surfaces must be(greases, oils, etc.), we extension l
prior to installation.
4 i
opening'and/or the BISCOBISCO INSTALLATION overlapping surfaces of tcoated with sufficientairtight he 6.0 shall beto ensure ed $o the an 6.1' The extension sleeve or trowelable) i I
extension shall be posit onimately 3" of slee (pourable ~
seal -
The BISCO sleeve surface-opening.
proper.dep'th7 so.that approx shall be fixed
~
the 6.2
- inserted and exposed from extensionof several methods, f
of the BISCO sleeveion by any one application, Some The diameter to its proper dimenseach individual design 6.3 thods are:
shall be pop -riveted to depending ontypical installation me steel tilizing stainlessof sleeve in extension opening.
The BISCO sleeve a rigid configuration, urivets, prior to inst ion 6.3.1 Pa g e _2_ Of._i__
R e v._1_.
[r.
12/20/82 L
Date
(
[:1 PRODUCTION PROCEDURE DISCO
<D>,
1 q
=
EVE EXTENSION UTILIZING BISCOSEAL E OR sp-sos-1 T ITLE' TROWELABLE) shall be riveted, the a
front rivet The back hole in the sleevesleeve inserted in the ope 6.3.2 then put into place.
material is spread around the open-oth bead of The excess BISCOSEALing - sleeve extension interfaces t 6.4 1
material.
material is then removed.
~
Additional excess BISCOSEAL ld be all' owed 4
6.5 h
The completed BISCO sleeve extension s ouconsistent with i
to cure in-place for a period of t me 6.6
~
ditions.
operating temperature and humidity con s
7.0 HOUSE CLEANING material, spills' and scrap, shall be All excess BISCOSEAL removed from the production area.shall be disposed of u 7.1 g
Scrap materials, rags,.etc.,
7.2 proper containers.
shall be properly cleaned'and stored All equipment used, 7.3 for future use.
END OF TEXT i
Da t e __12/20/82 Rev.3__
Pa g e _a Of _,
(-
Task:
Allegation or Concern No.128 r"n g r.
F* l ?
LQ I L
'i r, ~y f/
b
'f IJ ATS No:
RV83A081 BN No:
Characterization Pullman did not properly accept problem reports.
Implied Sinnificance to Plant Desian, Construction, or Operation Assessment of Safety Sinnificance Staff Position Sensitive Action Required t
e 5
b-N '
N$t:;
I F/N4l, Note: This writing contains sensitive information.
I-= F;: 6 r
g~ur-f p' [D W
]
3 (,,g Y Task: Allegation No. 128 A
6 u w.
gv l
ATS No.
RV83A081 BN No.
N/A Characterization A site contractor, Pullman Power Products (Pullman) is alleged to:
(1) not allow Pullman Quality Control Inspectors to write Nonconformance Reports, (2) improperly disposition or void Nonconformance Reports, and (3) have a nonconformance reporting system which is cumbersome and inhibits the expedient resolution of identified discrepancies.
Implied Significance to Design, Construction, or Operations The failure of the Pullman Quality Assurance Program to function as intended may affect the ability of the program to identify and resolve issues important to safety.
I 1
l l
Assessment of Safety Significance l
l In determining the validity of this allegation the staff examined the Pullman l
procedures for documenting nonconformances, reviewed Deficient Condition Notices (DCN), and Discrepancy Reports (DR), and conducted private interviews with inspectors. The staff noted that the Pullman Quality Program uses DCNs to document identified discrepancies that can be corrected within the scope of 1
i
work of the applicable specifications and can be handled within the Pullman organization. Discrepancy Reports are used to handle discrepancies which might affect performance or reliability of a component and require review.and I
concurrence from PG&E.
a 1.
A11esation: Pullman Power Products did not allow Quality Control i
Inspectors to write Nonconformance Reports.
The staff determined that, ESD No. 240 states, in part in paragraph 3.4 that, " Field Quality Assurance / Quality Control Inspectors and/or Field Engineers shall generate all Nonconformance Reports." Though, ESD No. 240 is entitled, " Field Procedure for Nonconformance Reporting," the Pullman documents used to report nonconformances are entitled
_" Discrepancy Reports." There is no document entitled "Nonconformance Report". The words or meanings are synonymous. Discussions with the alleger on February 6,1984 indicated he was not aware of this fact. A
" review of the alleger's Discrepancy Report file indicated that he had written many Discrepancy Reports.
Therefore, based on the foregoing the staff concludes that Pullman Quality Control Inspectors were allowed to write reports on discrepant conditions when needed. The alleger was apparently confused with the document titles.
2.
Allegation: Pullman Power Products improperly dispositioned or voided Nonconformance Reports.
d To address the issue of whether nonconformance reports were being improperly dispositioned or voided the inspectors examined both closed and opened DCN's and DR's written by three Pullman Quality Control Inspectors. Two of these three inspectors have made allegations to the NRC on this issue. Approximately sixty reports were examined. All reports examined appeared to be properly dispositioned or were being processed in accordance with the Pullman procedures.
The inspector notes that although the Pullman procedures do not specifically provide guidance (procedural direction) for voiding Discrepancy Reports or Deficient Condition Notices all reports examined were found to be appropriately volded and available for review.
3.
Allenation: Pullman Power Products' procedure for nonconformance
. reporting is cumbersome and inhibits expedient resolution of identified discrepancies.
-To address the issue of whether the nonconformance reporting procedure is cumbersome and inhibits expedient resolution of identified discrepancies, the staff reviewed the applicable nonconformance procedures, the l
l documents presented by allegers, and interviewed ten Pullman Quality l
l Control Inspectors.
l Six Pullman Deficient Condition Notices (Nos. 1/1640-013, 015, 016, 020, l
021 and 022) had been previously presented to the NRC (by one of the allegers) as examples of an inability (by the Quality Control Inspector) l to obtain the procedurally required signatures. This, asserted the i
l
e allegers, was tantamount to voiding or blocking of the DCN. Discussions with Pullman's management indicated that though the DCN signatures were required by procedure, the signatures were utilized more for clarification and proper language, than to inhibit writing o,f the DCN.
Also, Pullman's management claimed that nothing in their program prevented Quality Control Inspectors from presenting their concerns directly to Pullman's management. Further examination of Pullman's file of Deficient Condition Notices indicated that a number of DCNs had been accepted and logged into the Pullman system, without the required signatures.
It should be noted that even these six were already in the DCN system and in process of resolution.
The staff, in order to determine the general opinion of the Pullman Quality Inspector on this subject conducted private interviews with ten inspectors. One of the ten Quality Control Inspectors interviewed included one of the two allegers known to the NRC, who is st'ill employed by Pullman. All inspectors interviewed, except for the alleger,
" indicated they had no problems writing either Deficient Condition Notices or Discrepancy Reports. The inspectors all stated that all their reports had been properly dispositioned, they received copies of the closed i
report, and that the signature requirements for Deficienty Condition Notices were not troublesome and in fact in some instances, helped in evaluating the discrepancy.
I In summary, the staff concluded that the Pullman nonconformance reporting I
system was not excessively cumbersome and did not inhibit the resolution of identified discrepancies. However, the staff felt that the Pullman l
~
Procedures should be revised to clarify who is required to sign the DCN, and how voiding of DCNs and DRs is to be accomplished.
Staff Position:
In view of the allegations brought forth on this subject, it is apparent that not all Pullman inspectors were satisfied with the workings of the Pullman nonconformance reporting system. However, as far as the staff was able to establish, all of the allegers' concerns were formally documented and Presented to the Pullman organization for resolution. The signature requirements of the DCN procedure were not found to be used by the Pullman organization to inhibit the writing of DCNs. In conclusion, no safety concern is believed to exist at Diablo Canyon as a result of present or past Pullman nonconformance reporting practices.
Action Required:
The resolution and closure of the open Deficient Condition Notices initiated
' by the allegers may be examined for their proper disposition during subsequent routine NRC inspections.
I i
l
[
i l
e
{
i s
~ _ -.
D'b7 Task:
Allegation or Concern No. 129 I*f ho
, 3 n-:
5
. Ee n t.a u ATS No.: RV-83A-081 BN No.:
' Characterization Improper activities related to Pullman Welding.
Staff Position The staff made a face value assessment of the several specific concerns identified by the alleger and made the judgement that several of these had already been dealt with during the evaluation of other allegations. The staff considered that there was a low potential that these concerns would identify any new management or significant quality performance issues. (
h
%iaAmAw+w).
Action Required These specific allegations will be turned over to the licensee for 4,. Vt'r90M98.
- :1 ;1vu.=
The licensee will be required to provide written response of their findings and necessary corrective actions.
4
/
- g. -o t k.
V^'.y%%fu l
l l
\\
I i
l
r.-
@D f
Note: This writing contains sensitive information.
h 5
3 A.8 Y Task: Allegation No. 128 ATS No.
RV83A081 BN No.
N/A
~
Characterization A site contractor, Pullman Power Products (Pullman) is alleged to:
(1) not allow Pullman Quality Control Inspectors to write Nonconformance Reports, (2) improperly disposition or void Nonconformance Reports, and (3) have a nonconformance reporting system which is cumbersome and inhibits the expedient resolution of identified discrepancies.
Implied Significance to Design, Construction, or Operations The failure of the Pullman Quality Assurance Program to function as intended l
may affect the ability of the program to identify and resolve issues important to safety.
Assessment of Safety Sinnificance In determining the validity of this allegation the staff examined the Pullman procedures for documenting nonconformances, reviewed Deficient Condition Notices (DCN), and Discrepancy Reports (DR), and conducted private interviews-with inspectors. The staff noted that the Pullman' Quality Program uses DCNs to document identified discrepancies that can be corrected within the scope of lYk'
work cf the applie:blo specific tions and ces be hardisd eithin th2 Pullman organization. Discrepancy Reports are used to handle discrepancies which might affect performance or reliability of a component and require review and I
concurrence from PG&E.
e 1.
A11eastion: Pullman Power Products did not allow Quality control Inspectors to write Nonconformance Reports.
The staff determined that, ESD No. 240 states, in part in paragraph 3.4 that, " Field Quality Assurance / Quality Control Inspectors and/or Field Engineers shall generate all Nonconformance Reports." Though, ESD No. 240 is entitled, " Field Procedure for Nonconformance Reporting," the Pullman documents used to report nonconformances are entitled
" Discrepancy Reports." There is no document entitled "Nonconformance Report". The words or meanings are synonymous. Discussions with the alleger on February 6,1984 indicated he was not aware of this fact. A review of the alleger's Discrepancy Report file indicated that he had written many Discrepancy Reports.
Therefore, based on the foregoing the staff concludes that Pullman Quality Control Inspectors were allowed to write reports en discrepant conditions when needed. The alleger was apparently confused with the document titles.
2.
A11eastion: Pullman Power Products improperly dispositioned or voided Nonconformance Reports.
To address the issue of whether nonconformance reports were being improperly dispositioned or voided the inspectors examined both closed and opened DCN's and DR's written by three Pullman Quality Control Inspectors. Two of these three inspectors have made allegations to the ERC on this issue. Approminately sixty reports were examined: All' reports examined appeared to be properly dispositioned or were being processed in accordance with the Pullman procedures.
The inspector notes that although the Pullman procedures do not specifically provide guidance (procedural direction) for voiding Discrepancy Reports or Deficient Condition Notices all reports examined were found to be appropriately voided and available for review.
l 3.
A11esation: Pullman Power Products' procedure for nonconformance reportina is cumbersome and inhibits expedient resolution of identified discrepancies.
To address the issue of whether the nonconformance reporting procedure is cumbersone and inhibits expedient resolution of identified discrepancies, the staff reviewed the applicable nonconformance procedures, the documents presented by allegers, and interviewed ten Pullman Quality Control Inspectors.
l I
l Six Pullman Deficient Condition Notices (Nos. 1/1640-013, 015, 016, 020, 021 and 022) had been previously presented to the NRC (by one of the allegers) as examples of an inability (by the Quality Control Inspector) l to obtain the procedurally required signatures. This, seserted the
oll gero, was tantamount to voiding er blackits sf th2 DCN. Discussions with Pullman's management indicated that though the DCN signatures were required by procedure, the signatures were utilized more for clarification and proper language, than to inhibit writing of the DCN'.
Also, Pullman's management claimed that nothing in their program prevented Quality Control Inspectors from presenting their concerns directly to Pullman's management. Further examination of Pullman's file of Deficient Condition Notices indicated that a number of DCNs had been accepted and logged into the Pullman system, without the required signatures.
It should be noted that even these six were already in the DCN system and in process of resolution.
The staff, in order to determine the general opinion of the Pullman Quality Inspector on this subject conducted private interviews with ten 4
inspectors. One of the ten Quality Control Inspectors interviewed included one of the two allegers known to the NRC, who is still employed by Pullman. All inspectors interviewed, except for the alleger, indicated they had no problems writing either Deficient Condition Notices or Diacrepancy Reports. The inspectors all stated that all their reports had been properly dispositioned, they received copies of the closed report, and that the signature requirements for Deficienty Condition Notices were not troublesome and in fact in some instances, helped in evaluating the discrepancy.
In summary, the staff concluded that the Pullman nonconformance reporting system was not excessively cumbersome and did not inhibit the resolution of identified discrepancies. Iowever, the staff felt that the Pullman y
,--m-.
,.,,---,,,--w
,,,,.,-w.,-,,,,
,v.,,---,.,,,,--,,n.-,,,,,_-,m.------,-,--.,,.7.w,,-- - - -, --- -
--.y
+- ---
4 procedures should be revised to clarify who is required to sign the DCN, and how voiding of DCNs and DRs is to be accomplished.
Staff Position:
Ia tiew of the allegations brought forth on this subject, it is apparent that act all Pullman inspectors were satisfied with the workings of the Pullman monconformance reporting system. However, as far as the staff was able to establish, all of the allegers' concerns were formally documented and presented to the Pullman organization for resolution. The signature requirements of the DCN procedure were not found to be used by the Pullman organization to inhibit the writing of DCNs. In conclusion, no safety concern is believed to exist at Diablo Canyon as a result of present or past Pullman nonconformance reporting practices.
i Action Required:
i The resolution and closure of the open Deficient Condition Notices initiated -
by the allegers may be examined for their proper disposition during subsequent I
routine NRC inspections.
e a
l
.. -.. _ =,
Problem Statement Allegation #(s):.
\\7E)
ATS No.(s):
R'd S? A C'O \\
I-b Bh(s):
N/A This document lists (or directly references) each allegation or concern brought to the attention of NRC personnel. The purpose of this statement sheet is to assure that all points raised by the alleger are covered.
If the problem statement is not clear as to who, what, where, when, or why regarding the issue, the comentary section will amplify the statement.
- t h e comentary section will also be used if there is apparent conflicting information or if there is E or very little original information available which describes the concern (s).
(This can occur if, for example, a line concern was received in an interview).
Problem Statements (use extra sheets as necessary)
Allegation #
Verbatum Statement or Refe ence N
@6 Et (\\ om s t b.i s v U s cA l b C eu 4 'l no{-
a I ( e,.. s QueikLg D
o' 4 0 w itc.
N e o c e.,s h i.s.o c m P
t Commentary f
R ' - ( ' PA' t' )
.\\ht rc.tc t c o u c(.
A i: NJ s R v'M Ac>in d'c
- d' 4 t -
cL L le ge bt'X N !,
CJC4 W- -
. di sc uss Mui
.. a llege s !,
d u e lesect Nt.
C o-.,c c.m.
Ihe concc.gn n
d u c Al-g (c (c < c a c c ci os OJ T. O' Nc. ll hctuscript-of het g,geq{tejf
^
Date This Statement was Completed 3/g/s4e Technical Reviewer Signature hW usy $
__ y so.3,,,........
c.e.
CECEIVING Cf flCE D:cket Numb:r (if cpplictbl-)
- 1. Fec"tylle:) Involved:
IN:enel I
Dintro OM4xl //AMr/
o S~ o o o 2 1 5 a r. s s.
n e.renic, on.iie GENERIC) l}g)7 g n ( p p p 3 2, R II so
- 2. Functional Areals) Involved.
so.ch pp.op,;.re to.s 1) operations onsite healthand safety construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness other tspecityl l/ lA l/ l A lEl:D l
- l"7'lD l ldl0 hOl7lI k}_.]
3.
Description:
l7"l# lA lt l1ptl Al#l 5
. f '* '"* ** * *'""' "
191/171#I tidlplEldl.11jl *ldla lDIElsI_. IAl4lbl IPIEb,_]
.I Ic.l EI Dlu lclsl.cl fli IA.fl. lWl 6141Dli W IG-l 'Iftl RielM iL_I IIIIIIIIl l l l l l l l l 1 I I I I I l'l I
- 4. Source of Allegation:
sowch.ppropri.ie bo.3 contraetor employee security guard licerisee employ 2e news medie NRC employee private citizen f
organization tsp. city) other tsp.cstyl $2rnE2 ke N Re M [AfblW MM DD YY
- 5. Date A!!egation Received:
t
.2. 2 A y 3.
M-AN YAM E. Name of Individual trws: ewo inistet..nd s.. n.m.1 Receiving Allegation:
- 7. Of fice:
ACTION OFFICE AM
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
grus ew. Inii;.i..no.. n..
3 S. FTS Telephone Number:
7 y
~
- 10. Status:
t/
so wch onel
.fL Open,if fo!!owup actions are pending or in progress Closed,if followup actions are completed MM DD YY
- 11. Date Closed:
l
,l l
11.1 Documerit Nos.
'2. Remarks-lIIIIIIIlIIIIIIl l l l l l l l l l 1
) ny o so i...,,,.i
~
l I I l' l l I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 11III 155-2.ATIeg io $#
te D,,.
- y..,
...t.
u l
R t/
'd 3
-A-o o 3 7
o (1.9,19
Problem Statement Allegation #(s):.
I 2_ 6 ATS No.(s):
RN/ 61 A6 6\\
.h-c B$i(s):
N/A is document lists (or directly references) each allegation or concern brought to the attention of NRC personnel. The purpose of this statement sheet is to assure that all points raised by the alleger are covered.
If the problem statement is not clear as to who, what, where, when, or why regarding the issue, the comumentary section will amplify the statement. The commsentary section will also be used if there is apparent conflicting information or if there is no or very little original information available which describes the concern (s).
(This can occur if, for example, a line concern was received in an interview).
Problem Statements (use extra sheets as necessary)
Allegation #
Verbatum Statement or Reference g
hul{ 0 an
'obCN
"f'O C' )
otocs e oo i ded.
N. accu (c.moiu-chs ps iv i n, ed
$2[-cc ks a
Commentary
.ihC fC(Cif.tud An Ms. ME 28 t doc cF-4:-
3 b uJcJC')
C' Vc'k-f-v
cd t s cu n th is CL uc hdh.
duedig ik cLLLsoc c d ic c ioned 4 hit c ov us w,
T sc cyce,s.
re k,c,.<d. e o w w ueu a
% g. c m e 4. h z,,q 33 Date This Statement was Completed 3//o/a/
M d u, /n _
Te(chhidal Reviewer Signgre l
15 6 L
- p-
{
]
.a RECEIVIN3 CFFICE Dockct Numb:r lif cpplic bt:1 I
1 Fqllitylle )Involv:d:
12c mel a. -. s is. - u Dvem.o OnM>t] //Aln* /
o s~ o o 0 2 1 C p n.ric, own. GENER8C)
//js!))~2 O [ O O O A S R
- 2. Functional Areals) Involved:
~
toma.ppropri ie b. steell operations onsite health.and safety construction offsite health and safety
, safeguards emergency preparedness other tsp.cifyl 3.
Description:
l7'l Af lJ. lL l1Ml Al A l l/ lA l/ l/. l Kl} l
- l71D l ldlO h6 !? lI !/ ! -l P
.7" '* ** *"**'"' "
IW1/ Irl#1 tl4lrlEld!.51 il *lClo lDIEkl. IAl4lDI IPIRIDI IclElbluirIsisi !Iilxilil#1614lDli WIN'l&lRielM :I I 1
IlllIlll l l l l l l l l l l l l l IIIII
~
- 4. Source of Aftegatiun:
Ich.ch appropriate boul contractor employee security guard licerisee employee news media f
NRC employee private citizen orga nization (sp.cityl other (specify frnE 4 [aM8c74 [J//#8[
,i MM 00 vY
- 5. Date Aftegation Received:
- 5. Name of individual Ir.,a two Ini 1 1.
no s..: n.m.1 M-NMM Receiving A!iegation:
- 7. Of fice:
ACTION OFFICE MM
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
gr.,st ewo insit.i..no i..: n..:
S. FTS Telephone Number:
gl 7
~
- 10. Status:
t/
sch,c6 on.
.25 Open,if foffowup actions are pending or in progress Closed, if fo!!owup actions are completed MM DD YY
- 11. Date Closed:
l l,l 11.1 Document Hos.
[n"w'**.'*so*:...
IIIIIIIIl l l l l l l l l l l 1IIIIII I I I I"I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l I 12.1 Man-heurs Date otr.c.
Y..e w =6*'
~
- 13. Allegation Num er:
l
~
K, 1/
3 3
-A-d o 3 1
Ix 9siM y
Probles Statement Allegation f(s):.
l2,.b ATS No.(s):
P NJ UL AoSt
{
R$i(s):
N/A disdocumentlists(ordirectlyreferences)eachallegationorconcern brought to the attention of NRC personnel. The purpose of this statement sheet is to assure that all points raised by the alleger are covered.
If the probles statement is not clear as to who, what, where, when, or why regarding the issue, the commentary section will amplify the statement. The commentary section will also be used if there is apparent conflicting information or if there is no or very little original information available which describes the concern (s).
(This can occur if, for example, a line concern was received in an interview).
Probles Statements (use extra sheets as necessary)
Allegation #
Verbatus Statement or Referen:e,
_e bu Ma n
['cg*0,.
H. s :-lu e 4 '.'
b
- ~u
0'
- 4. cd c m i t.
C tua k, se. c w d.
M N 's ** g M
iib b}s th4
/vpe :C e - ?
i.,.
+
tcb &. 4 i r c(
& t c.u. pct o o e '.
Commentary C.haAOt4c*i 3cL4-M oh CR O EN No - I2D 0a
""M o %-(k.
TC th AT s N o.
FWB b Aost c4e es. doe owd
- r obedc
'~';
't
- ctLCI mo '.c v..
Nowc tu g po 3 of 41 4 alle 4 leo op. c. f. ca(,(t u
- Ev.Pressec. & Lu.,
c & c_c w,
~1h.. e & m o e a13a e sc p s,
,c1
't..
y cc m..
/....a )
Date This Statement was Completed D//0/8V
,Q hm Tefdplical Reviewek Signature
. <.I'lifi,E ~.'
""';;'";,';.';,.:;? ;;.- - -
RECEIVING CFFICE Drckct Numb:r (if cppfirshi-1
'I.
- 1. Facilitylles) Involved:
IN.mel Dow.o OAizh>tl //Ahr /
o r o o o 2
'? C u ~. w. = "
penanc, vaise GENERICI
//g)*f'2 O
fli"~ O O O 3 2-3
- 2. Functional Area (s) Involved:
sch.ch.pp,epet.ie best.s s operations onsite health and safety construction offsite health and safety safeguards emergency preparedness other tspecityl 3.
Description:
l"Pl At lA l4 lrrtl Al#l l)c:lA l1 l A l E l) l
- l71D l ldla IOl# l1If I l
.7" ' ''**'"* ' '
lui /171# I tIdirIEldl.51 il :lCl0 IDIEls I. I Al4lD l lP l eld _j Id.l EI Dlu lclelsi !Ii lejl'. lWl 614 lDli W IG.I l&l RielM il I l
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ
- 4. Source of A!!sgation:
echeck app,op,;.ie bod contractor employee security guard ficensee employee news medie 4 -f NRC employee private citizen organization tsp cityl
~
other tsp. city fine 4 ~ AaMBc74 [-,17//#184 MM 00 YY
- 5. Date Allegation Received:
I z 2 1 8 3.
E. Name of individual in,. tw 'iniit.i..no i.., n.,n.3 Ah VAM Receiving Allegation:
- 7. Of fice:
1 ACTION OFFICE AS6
- 8. Action Office
Contact:
Inn, tw. inist.i..nd t..i n...
3 S. FTS Telephone Number:
l y
7
- 10. Status:
t/
ZL Open, if fo!!owup actions are pending or in progress ecs.cg n.3 Closed,if fotfowup actions are completed i
I MM DD YY l
- 11. Date Closed:
l l
l l,l 11.1 Document Nos.
1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII t
/ fumiio so ch..ci.,e
~
ll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II l Man-hours /Date ome.
Y..e N u m b.,
- 13. A!!egation Number:
R y 9 3 -A-oo8i (1.9el M g
j
-.