ML20245K207
Text
- _ - _ _
NW 011985 MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks Office of Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Robert D. Martin Regional Administrator
SUBJECT:
THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT REVIEW 0F LITIGATION RECORDS (SECY M851001)
During my presentation on October 1,1985, the Commissioners indicated an 1
interest in the review of the Brown and Root (B&R) vs. Houston Lighting and
)
Power Company (HL&P) litigation record.
I was requested to provide information with respect to Region IV plans to audit the HL&P review of these documents.
The NRC Region IV office instruction is enclosed for your infonnation.
Attached to that instruction is the HL&P program and a detailed schedule.
To preserve the unannounced nature of our inspection program, I would prefer that this NRC Region IV instruction not be made public. A general overview of our planned effort is outlined below.
The HL&P review will focus on the identification of pctential safety-related deficiencies in construction and design work by B&R during it-tenure on the i
job (1972-1981) which may not have been identified during the 1980-1982 check of the quality of safety-related construction and design work + + the STP.
This formal review effort is to be conducted by S. Levy Inc. (SLI) of Campbell, California. The review is to be conducted as a safety-related activity in that i
HL&P and SLI QA coverage of the activity is incorporated into the program.
i Their program is expected to consume about 16 man-years of engineering effort, j
including approximately 40 experienced SLI engineers assisted by a select group i
of HL&P engineers. The following general schedule summarized the major milestones of the HL&P review effort.
Identify Assertions Through December 1985 Complete Open Assertions January 1986 List Close Remaining Open March 1986 Assertions Issue Final Report April 1986 AI 85-536 rah RIV fC RPB DRSPT6 RC GLC table /1k LEM57 tin EHJohnson WBrown RDMartin d / ; /85
/// / /85 n/ g /85
/ /85 il/s/85 8905040357 890425 PDR FOIA BAUMAN87-535 PDR
l
..~ -
.w-
_m
.e u"
I t
l \\
.I have instructed my staff to monitor'this effort.
In addition to meetings with HL&P, we have reviewed their program and have found it to be adequate to do the job if properly implemented. We have conducted one inspection on September 11, 1985, of their initial training activities with no adverse findings. We plan to conduct two to three team inspections to provide confidence that the proper litigation documents are being reviewed, that the reviews have been thorough, and that assertions are being properly identified and resolved. The NRC Region IV effort is expected to involve a total of approximately 15 to 20 man-weeks of effort including in-office review and report writing, assuming' that the review goes smoothly.
It appears that HL&P is taking this matter seriously and that they plan to conduct an appropriate review of the litigation record.
If you would like, I would be pleased to arrange a briefing for you or members of your staff on this issue.
If you have any questions, please call.
OltlGINAL SIGNED BY ROBERT D. MART N Robert D. N rtin Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
'As stated bec:
W. Brown G. L. Constable RPB Reading File R. Pirfo, ELD RIV Docket File
m m
I)
'2ornj(ke1 al~ h et f p,p.+ n h
&x)Ikal<uhwWr>.rr<-)
n, war (a n.
its i.. sat desw a/<~.y v Lya
, w.w L
LY kk JJ.h-4 ~ ~
nn,sJ u j,, )
n s.,...
i, L
/-
2) th.)<< L ro ste
}~1.~///uvL~
h card-'
- /}
h
)
&& q~//< d J ooibeJ c& %
m
< ~ Il
/> <k d.
//
n u d'
&~ p )
wX Slllgpf po ta La./ w n <& /am u )/taue &
e bc' wse j' %< /
n by sea /,/
7' W ______.
,/ 4 Ca,re h cm Mi in-L
'7 C~dh./ A> f Us ll,LL m sf% a r ng4J
/wh o K
/
Vc sx
/
N"N so L*$ Vt so kyl Im<0 L nyee' d.,
n y
$l
- "ym ns Ic-St+y le< }m
/ k Q 7L t 7 4,,/d efh en s.% J w 14/A i
Y Cows wtthQ n
re. tx f 4.w 7)&&y W ks GIf asn+~
~ u.
H s S.4 imo
% c,,4~d" ce4 n.
t /..t
\\
' utf *l 11 v A.4..>/
/ /k 4
1
[M dh k
__ ______ _____- ____________ _ _ - _ _ n
.- y--
.mmesm memmmmmmwamewnwanness=smecmouse:mssww,matmenenaes f
~
~
NOV 011985 Regional Office Policy Guide j
No. 0606, Revision 0 NRC REGION IV TECHNICAL REVIEW PROGRAM FOR HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY VERSUS BROWN & ROOT LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW A.
Purpose:
The purpose of this instruction is to formalize and define the ongoing NRC review effort associated with the review of the Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) vs. Brown & Root (B&R) litigation record.
B.
Background:
In December 1981,' the owners of the South Texas Project (STP) filed suit against B&R and its parent Halliburton, Inc., based on nonperformance by B&R of its contractual obligations to provide architect / engineering and construction management services and its refusal to fulfill its obligations as constructor of the STP (HL&P vs. B&R). B&R was replaced by Bechtel as architect / engineer and construction manager in September 1981.
In preparation for the trial of the lawsuit in Matagorda County, Texas, the parties pursued extensive discovery including depositions, interrogatories, and the preparation of a number of expert reports. A record involving an estimated 32 million pages was generated in preparation for the lawsuit.
The litigation was settled out of court and the Matagorda County District Court Judge lifted his gag order which had sealed the litigation documents. On June 5,1985, HL&P notified NRC Region IV of their intent to conduct a review of the litigation record filed with the court to determine whether such materials identified safety-related deficiencies in the system, structures, or components of the STP or their associated design or quality documentation.
J. H. Goldberg, Group Vice President, Nuclear, of HL&P and his staff met with the NRC staff (R. Martin, RIV; J.
Taylor IE; E. Reis. ELD; and G. Knighton, NRR and other members of the staff)onJuly 31, 1985, to describe this program. Also present at this I
I meeting was a representative of the intervenor. A follow-on meeting was held on August 23, 1985, with the RA-RIV and members of the RIV staff.
In those meetings HL&P provided a conceptual overview of HL&P's program for review of the litigation record. Their formal review program was sent to NRC Region IV under cover of a letter dated August 30, 1985.
C.
HL&P Review Program:
The HL&P " South Texas Project Litigation Review Program" (attached),
i describes the details of the program.
In general, the review will focus on the identification of potential safety-rclated deficiencies in construction and design work by B&R during its tenure on the job (1972-1981) which may not have been identified during the 1980-1982 check of the quality of safety-related construction and design work at the STP.
l I
R : B/C RPB F
DRSP T GK,6nstable/lk LE n
EHJohnson WB n
RD r in 9 / t /85
- / / /85 il/t/85
/
85
/
85 i
o
?
n m-
- Regional Office Policy Guide No. 0606, Revision 0 This formal review effort is being conducted by S. Levy Inc. (SLI) of Campbell, California.
The review is being conducted as a safety-related activity in that HL&P and SLI QA coverage of the activity is incorporated into the program. The program is expected to consume about 16 man-years of engineering effort, including approximately 40 experienced SLI engineers assisted by a select group of HL&P engineers.
2 1
Certain records will be screened and not reviewed when it is determined
{
that it is not likely to contain safety-related information; examples include financial records or the depositions of nontechnical individuals j
on nontechnical matters. This will reduce the volume of material needing review to between 100,000 to 200,000 pages.
The initial effort after procedure preparation and training is to identify
. assertions in the litigation record and then to identify project documents that show that the issue has been properly addressed and resolved.
l A combined HL&P and NRC schedule is attached.
The effort is presently underway and is expected to be concluded by April 1986.
D.
NRC Review Program:
The NRC technical review of the HL&P Litigation Record Review Program began in July 1985. During subsequent meetings with HL&P et al. the NRC staff reviewed HL&P's plans for their review and formulated an outline of the NRC review effort.. These meetings were documented in letters to HL&P from NRC IV dated Sepi.cmber 5 and 13,1985. The attached NRC inspection schedule includes both the proposed NRC and HL&P schedule. The NRC review of the program documents was begun on receipt. This review included separate reviews'by NRC IV, IE, OELD and NRR staff. At the conclusion of this reYiew the NRC staff concluded that, if the HL&P program is implemented as described in the program, that an adequate review of the litigation record should result.
The first NRC inspection of early training activities and procedure preparation was conducted by NRC IV at Sol Levy, Inc. (SLI) offices in Campbell, California, on September 11, 1985.
The remaining NRC inspection effort is expected to involve three to four additional inspections at the work location, not including the in-office review of the HL&P program (completed) and the review of the final HL&P report. This is estimated to require 15-20 man-weeks of effort, including
^
report preparation, assuming the review goes smoothly.
The NRC effort will include the inspection of the following attributes of the program:
i n
n i
Regional Office Policy Guide No. 0606, Revision 0,
1 Training--Attend training session, review course material, and observe student / trainer interaction to insure that the material is understood and that the students have a proper understanding of what is expected of them. Review test results.
f Organization and Staffing--Review working organization, including interviews with a cross section of the organization. Review selected resumes and verify that workers understand their role in the review organization. While reviewing the implementation of the program, evaluate the effectiveness of the overall organization and the HL&P Quality Assurance audits of the review program.
Procedure Review and Implementation--review program implementing procedures to verify that, if properly implemented, the procedures will accomplish the goals of the overall program. Through discussions and by direct observation verify that the procedures are being properly implemented.
Independent NRC Review--Select a sample of litigation records that have been reviewed. Conduct an independent review and identify assertions. Review SLI review results to verify that all assertions have been properly identified and entered into the tracking system for resolution.
Assertion Resolution--Verify that assertions, when identified, are properly resolved.
Review selected assertion closure information to ensure the information adequately addresses the issue raised.
Followup--On assertions where adequate closure information was not available, review HL&P actions to evaluate and resolve the issue.
i Final HL&P Report--Review final report, including overall findings and conclusions, to verify that a sufficient confidence exists to conclude that an appropriate review of the litigation has been completed and that no significant additional deficiencies are likely to be discovered through additional review.
NRC Reports--NRC findings will be documented in NRC IV inspection reports.
Direct inspection effort will be coded as on the 766 form as 92705, Regional Office Request.
NRC Management Responsibilities--NRC IV will assume lead responsibility
{
for this review effort. The Director, Division of Reactor Safety and Projects will provide management oversite and coordination. Chief, Reactor Projects Section C is responsible for the implementation.
Enforcement--Enforcement actions will be in accordance with NRC enforcement policy.
Manpower Tracking--A special RITS cocs (TAC No. X00040) has been assigned to this activity.
Inspection hours will be recorded as reactive effort.
_..,n
==-n-
==~xeme m w m w i~-~ ~~++w"w m uw i
Regional Office Policy Guide No. 0606, Revision 0 E.
Effective Date:
This instruction is effective upon issuance through the completion of the review effort. Cancellation date.for administrative purposes is June 30, 1986.
g, g 1* U '
R. P. Denise, Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Distribution B Attachments:
1.
HL&P Program 2.
Review Schedule i
4:tc *0mm M8
.O S. NUCLEAR REGULATOAY COMMISSION PR=pNspECTommme a a,sr e,wwar.i INSPECTOR'S REPORT
[N" j "M
Office of Inspection and Enforcement g 4 g/j' 4, g Yb.CFM, tbA'fct Ata, 0asbefft LICENSEE VENDOR TRAN,5,ACTc4 DOCKf7 NO S eetal DR LICENSE REPORT NEXTses5PIC DATE p
N0 lev PRODUCTili3 eptal 8f0.
SEO MO YR hl%%94} $ 1Lhi 11Ef.2 f ADN
~
O '{ O O O Y$ W V $" 2 E
A fl.? A s.w 1100 '
- ~ *aa
h 12&, TM
~1 ~188/
O 5 0 0 0 4 9 9 Te
$~ A 0 e
D ~ DELETE C
R - REPLACE 4
0 1
2 M
N W
6 tRe00 08 sNVEST6GAfiososas&PECTON W5PECTION P.RFORMED $v ORGANIZATION CODE OF REGION #MO CONOUCT.
FAOM TO M
- 1. REG ONAL osFICE ST AFF
]OTMER y
MO DAY VR.
MO.
pp YR 2 - RESIDENT lesSPECTOR REGIODs DIVSION ERANCM 5/
],,,
),,,,,
~ ilY /l/ pl[ flJ g= g lg" 3 - PERFORMANCE AMRA$AL TEAM O
B 5
31 3,
38 84 m
REGa0NAL ACTON TYPE Of ACTivliY CONDuc110 (Cnsca seis nos emyp ICResa ere ses W N 02 - SArtTV 08 - MGMT Vit'T 10 - PLANT SEC.
M - INQUIRY
- 1. DeflC 80AM 991 03 - INCIDENT 07 - SPECIAL 11 - ArvtNT.vgR.
16 - INvtSTIGAT10se
~
~
5 - MAT. ACCT.
i3-tasPORT
~
5 - MGMT. AUDrf E
E3 1
sh 0F V g
70RenAT i
B C
D DEVIAfl0NS esRC PORM ts.
RGPORTSGNT 1 - CLEAR OR REG TOMQFOR ggyygR gggg0 ACTI0es 2 - VIOLATION 3 - DEVLAT10N A
B C
D A
B C
0 A
B C
D M0 DAv VR Mo.
DAY YR.
)
. - VIOLATION & OEVIATON 1 - YES
,. ygg Q;Qf l
l l
l
=
.04i
. As A.
no ne i
MODULE lesFORMATCN MOOutt 'N80AM ATch i
,'b MODULE NUM0ER hSP.
6 g MODULE REQ Followup c"I,c MODutt NUMBER ses5P.
6g M00uttREQ POLLOWUP lill 11t i l $g!!ll! ! ill 11n i ill 11t i l I!!g!!lli l i ll 11 n
i 7hJ /-4h liil
/ R LZhosi i
. i i liil ii i i i liil o, M '-4'8 liil l
liil i
ii s i i
l liil ii i n i liil j
c c
. i i,
i ii i liil l
liil
=
a i,
n i i
f 2 3,o l 7,ci2l o,ca I,,l l,,I
,i
, Ii,I A
A liil liil
- l. Q 3
i,
i n i
ii i
li,1 liil y'
c q
i i i,
i i,
i s i
I,,1 li.I i,
ii i,
i
{i liiI liil li l liiI ii i i i liil
^
i i i i
i j
liil ii i i i Iiil
=
i i i i i
liil liil c
c ii i.
i i i i
liil I,il a
ii i i i
i liil liil liiI ii i i i Iiil
^
i i
. i i
i i i,
i liil liil a
i, i,
i i,
i n i
liil liil c
c i i i i i
ii i,
i liil
'E:ci'Ta%"##AT N i i i i i
ii i i i liil a
a 1:31 1
=
u o
=
- i. =
ri
= ile =I. I.
i.
u n i.
M
- i... =
ri
=
9 O
PicKARD, t. OWE AND GARP.tCK,INC.
- 44. :.icrau 12001e*a STREET. N. W., su1TE 612 ot L *'"
- 8 '"'
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20o36 WAlmiN3f 04 0, c t#ueaowe t691o em
' ',',"['7,'['
- meo,t ene( cui,ensi,
,..ci,
... im,.i. w.c....
con..
.u
..r. a..
wi m i..
.. i i
.io i n i,,,,,..,,.., n,;
..uo.e.....
.,o,..i
........i.
Wi.414h 8 hl.L.4 Ag6(pC46,4 4 CIC1&l4 b 6CesyAlfj gAttf 8$b f ate.iet.&
..,u c..
.ii...m
..e.
. i.i m.
- .. m,..
>,,i c.in
.i..i..
w..n c. o.en
...mm,....
cou.. iwiit a uvi.....i u..iui
.,:.,u. v. c..,,,.
. 6
..e c.u,..
ui f AI4. WWNa.
JA C B.. g. mil
... A Lft d,. Af.f illt (A gien. pelshs..
,.. i,,,so
.a i. c....
Ttt$e 41 J..it6f L JA.il C. llst I. (Op.Jt M,vsvt sm.t.it c.....
- m. m
.m i.,ci,...m.
ca.
- n.. e,.
as s.,, is a
.,n.. sarse, es..s... w n 0 f 4. 8.tf ei sace#
&Jett.4. et 6A tene..A ft AFN.11Am*6t t
., > aa m,
.,n.. m.i.
,,c... w a March 18, 1956 Mr. Jeroce H. Goldberg Executive Vice President - Nuclear Houston Lighting & Power Company Post Office Box 1700 Houston, TX 77031
Dear Hr. Goldberg:
The Senior Advisory Panel has completed its oversight of the South Texas Project Litigetion Record Review Program including review of the Program final report prepared by S. Levy Incorporated. A statement of our con-clusions is appended.
We have concluded that the Program was successful in achieving its objectives. The Report fairly and accurately describes the Program and its results.
Please call me if there is anything you wish to. discuss.
Very truly yours,
/h Mt William W. Lowe cc: Dr. Salomon Levy Mr. Cloin G. Robertson pou1E Hr. Mark R. Wisenburg RECEIVED Mr. Charles B. Johnson Ms. Janet E.B. Ecker Ms. Frostie A. White g' 1bTd0 Mr. William E. Beer, Jr.
yg g,80'.11M APF6lf D 8C'INiitT5
- M AN A$jM{Nt CONjg;[TA4 tj tND) Milli
^
n C
STATEMENT OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY PANEL FOR THE SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT LITIGATION RECORD REVIEW PROGRAM I.
Introduction In September 1985 Mr. Jerome H. Goldberg, Group Vice Pres-ident-Nuclear of ELEP, appointed Mr. William W. Lowe founder r
and Chairman of Pickard, Lowe & Garrick, Inc.
(PLG); Mr. Cloin Robertson, Gentril Manager of Nuclear Engineering, Ecuston Light-ing & Power Company (ELEP): and Dr. Salomon Levy, President of S. Levy Incorporated (SLI) to the Senior Advisory Panel for the South Texas Project Litigation Record ReviRW.
'The purposes of the Senior Advisory Panel are: (1) to meet periodically to 1
overview directly the progress of the litigation record review and ensure that the program keeps faith with applicable written objectives and procedures including the selection of the types of record to be reviewed; (2) to provide timely written reports to SLI and ELEP Litigation Record Review Program Hanagers and the Group Vice President-Nuc' lear of EL&Pt and (3) to provide a report or statement at the end of the program containing final conclusions relative to aer.ievement of review objectives or other relevant observations.
II.
Summary Based on its observations and inquiries made during the course of the review, the Panel concludes that the objectives of the Litigation Record Review Program have been successfully achieved.
The Program identified over 5000, assertions of defi-ciency in the litigation record, and demonstrated that all of l
those which were safety-related had alrehdy been recognized by the South Texas Project.
In the Panel's opinion, this result demonstrates thtt the litigation record contains no previously unrecognized safety issues.
This result is reasonable: it is
'most probable that such issues would have.been identified in the earlier substantial and comprehensive reviews of South Texas Project.
O O
~2-III.
Means of Panel Oversicht The Panel's oversight of the-Program was conducted primar-ily through a series of four meetings held during the review at the SLI offices in San Jose, California, and a fifth meeting held at tne conclusion or the review ai NL&P's offices in Houston, Texas.
At these meetings, the Panel heard presentations and held discussions with representatives of the organizations par-ticipating in the Program, including SLI management for the review, SLI and ML&P Quality Assurance (QA), HLEP Nuclear Licen-s ir%, and HL&P's counsel.
Topics examined are reflected in I
the Panel's meeting minutes.
Members of the Panel also examined doccments generated during the review, including the review Procedures and Plan, monthly QA reports, monthly progress reports, and examples of forms used to docament results of the screening process and SLI's detailed review of record docam=....
The Panel also examined the SLI facilities at which the bulk of the review was conducted including the Records Center, the Computations Center, and the work areas in which substan-tive review work was performed to ensure their adequacy for purposes of the Program.
At its fine.1 meeting in Houston, the Panel examined the documents recording the results of the screen-ing process used to identify decaments for detailed review.
IV.
Panel Oversight Activities at ite end through its discussions and review of documents, the Panel examined the significant aspects of the structure and performance of the Program, as follows:
1)
The Panel heard presentations explaining the methodel-ogy and procedures for both the screening process and the de-tailed review of record documents.
Each Panel rember received a copy of the litigation review Procedures and Plan, as well as a copy of HL&P's letter to the NRC describing the purpose, secpe, methodology and background for the review.
O O
A 2)
The SLI Team Leader gave a progress report at each Panel meeting describing the stage of completion and results of each step in the performance of the review process as well as significant review events occurring in the period since the last Panel meeting.
3)
The Panel heard presentations and examined the results of the screening performed by HL&P to identify documents requir-ing detailed review, including the results of the checking per-formed to ensure the accuracy of the initial screening.
Dr.
Levy, representing the Panel, examined in detail each instance in which the checking process yielded a result different from the initial screening.
4)
The Panel reviewed the NRC's written comments on the Program doeurent and NL&P's responses to those comments.
The Panel believes that HL&P's responses to these comments are satis-factory.
5)
The Panel examined the performance of Reviewers in recording assertions appearing in record decaments.
Early in the review, ELI management had found instances in which some Reviewers had failed to properly record all assertions of defi-ciency appearing in the record documents assigned te them.
In order to assure that this issue was satisfactorily resolved, Mr. Robertson conducted a review of several such instances, and the Panel requested specific presentations on the issue and actions taken to resolve it.
After considering the corree-tive actions taken, as well as results of evaluations of work performed subsequent to these corrective actions, the Panel concludes that the issue was promptly addressed and satisf actor-11y corrected by SLI management.
6)
The Panel reviewed the results of evaluations performed to determine whether dispositions of assertions identified dur-ing the reviev were correct.
The Panel noted that while a few j
individual dispositions referenced inappropriate Project docu-ments, these were corrected.
Furthermore, in each instance where an incorrect disposition was found, the substance of the
{
um-____________.___________
l n
n 4
underlying assertion had already been identified by the South Texas Project.
In the Panel's opinion, the dispositioning pro-cess functioned satisfactorily, 7)
The Panel heard reports at each meeting from represen-i tatives of the RL&P and SLI QA organizations ear.marizing th;;;
l activities and significant findings.
The QA representatives also gave their opinions as to the acceptability of the review work they.had examined.
In addition, Mr. Robertson examined most of the QA surveillance reports generated during the Program, including reports prepared by outside auditors, and reported I
to the Panel that the QA program was adequate and comprehensive.
6)
The Panel reviewed information presented to it on the level of time and effort expended during the Program and the qualifications of the individuals performing Program work.
9)
The Panel was informed of the conduct and results of the two NRC inspections of the performanc'e of litigation record review work.
The Panel was present at the exit interview held
.cn1 December 19, 1985 following the second NRC inspection and discussed the results of this inspection with the NRC inspectors.
The NRC inspectors expressed reasonable satisfaction with the performance of review work.
j 10)
The Panel made recommendations on the overall form and content of SLI's Report for the Litigation Record Review Program to ensure that it was sufficiently comprehensive and focused on the important aspects of the Program.
The Panel reviewed the Report for the Litigation Record Review Program l
issued in February 1986.
i V.
Conclusions _of the Senior Advisory Panel The Panel has examined the significant aspects of the Pro-including detailed examinations of the overall methodology
- gram, and the important steps in the performance of the Program.
The Panel concludes that the Program encompassed the record l
doccments likely to contain assertions of deficiency in South Texas Project systems, structures and components and that the
l o
a 4.
review of these documents was carried out under a well-structured program by qualified individuals who perforr.ed their tasks sys-tematica11y, deliberately and consistently.
The Panel has examined a number of particular issues in depth, most notably issues related to whether assertions of deficiency were recorded and disposed of properly.
These issues were satisfactorily resolved by Program management and QA organ-izations in a rapid and effectiv> fashion.
The Panel also con-cludes that quality assurance efforts for the review were sub-stantial and comprehensive and that the results of these efforts demonstrate that the work performed during the review was satis-factory.
The Panel concludes that the Program's methodoler/ and performance were successful in generating complete and accurate results and that Program procedures were followed.
The Panel is satisfied that the Program would have detected any previously unidentified safety-related deficiencies described in the litiga-tion record and that the results of the Program are supperted by documents organized in a retrievable and auditable fashion.
The Panel further concludes that the Reoert for the Litigation Record Review Progr_am presents a fair and comprehensive descrip-tien of the Program and its results.
([/} f ; f M J) )//h b'alliam W.
Love (Chairman)
$ll?!$d thV a
Dr. Salomon Levy ff I
ja f k /k/A d a,:
Cloin G. Robertson l
l l
MAR 24 Iger
- n S W CE
- gygyggg, S. MART 15 REC 10NAL ADMINISTRATOR P. CutCR, DEFINY RIC10NAL ADMINISTRATOR W. BROWN, REC 10NAL CDU"SEL D. POWERS, ENFORCDENT 9FFICBt C. WISNER, FUSLIC AFFAIRS OFFICER
~
R. 9024, CBIEF, S6G&S C/, SAN 30RN, REC 10NAL STATE LIAISON OFFICER
~
/
. JOHNSON DIRECTOR,'DRS&S fg
/ R. RANGART, DIRECTOR, Dr.S&S W. POSTER, DIRECTOR, DRMA R. RERR, 01-RIY D. SMITE URPO -
RIV Files (LAST)
Q,
[/$
g./,f-y-Comments and Assigtunents H2 V1. h,.G desu ap.< t 1"h* F Y'"
' ^ '
} < ; ),/ ' /'W ire.ed
[ar N"
y
,, ls fl
- p [,. //,s"t
, f a'~ I p.1 Do Y' q TyIn yui*d ril
pc, e tM d p/> c t 11 '
\\
g,,.#
1 p,c. h WM
- t. le s
s (g#
4 l
aw->
(pa.D lG59 "'
I d
N O
O
desc pORDMS
,0.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PRiNgNsPECTOR<Name est a,,sr e,iomecia.e.e9
~
l,"
INSPECTOR'S REPORT Office of Inspection and Enforcement
"'R L lw J
TRANSA TION REPORT NEXT M Pg M LICENSEt VENDOR No tav PRODUCTitt3apist L uln LuLni,w f % vf,.
X
' - ~5
o g e s o y9 9 g g, 3 a
a M-Mwn o g g, o n q 4 D - DELETE C
R - R[PLAC{
Q 1
2 14 16 10 Pfuo0 08 mvtSTIGAfl0N'INSPECTON sN5PECTeON PIRs0RME D ev ORGANIZATION CODE OF REGON/HO CONDUCT.
,Y
.Y
]OTMER y,
FAOM TO X
1 - RIG'DN AL DsFICE STAFF t!JO Day YR MO DAY YR 2 - RE$tDENT INSPECTOR RE GiON D' /f 5aON BRANCH 1
1 sli il> ilz ol7 Ilr flt
' - a'oav^~cr ^=^f5^' Tsau 10 2
2.
31 32 33 34 35 RIGONAL ACTION TYPE OF ACTiviTV CONDUCT 6DICneca one coz onivi N
02 - SA8ETY 06 - MGMT,Vi%iT 10 - PLANT SEC.
14 - INoulRV g=hnssa gb - WIC FORM tot 03 - INCIDENT 07 - SPECIAL 11 - mVENT, VER.
16 - INVESTIGATION 2 - f.EGIONAL OFFICE LETTf p 08 - ENFORCEMENT 08 - vtNDOR 12 - $HIPM(NT/ EXPORT 06 - MGMT. AUDIT 09 - M AT. ACCT.
- 13. sMPORT as 37 as
- W M @ d $^. $"" "
OF v AND HEL 4
s C
D DEvsATONS NRCFORMael REPORT sENT
{
1(
1 - CLEAR OR REG TOMO FOR LETTER issutD ACTcN 2 - VIOLAfiON 3 - OfVIAT80N A
B C
D A
B C
D A
B C
D MO.
DAY YR.
M0 DAY YR.
4 - VIOLATON & OEvtATON g,g g,g t - ygs
- - ygg l
l l
l l
l 5
4041 42 43 44 49 50 65 MODULE mf 0RMATION Mooutt eNsonMatroN gg M0Dutt REO FOLL0wuP
"'[g MODutt NUMeER tNsp
$gf MODULE NuMsER msp.
C
!!g! !!
6g MODutt REO 70LL0wup
!!g egsg!!!=
e
$e ks s-sa!
sge i ! Ie g
- ! I-
!5 8g s a t in g=g e s s
j j
918 j
a!= ll g
s~
=
mp a
s ng :s:
2 L..:
f ru f a5 2=
- : f I a5 5
f a5 roe I
f s
s e l A fi3ldfill a c,o /ioia c liil f) Jidl7idi.51 oi/ io ii i liil
^
i i
e liil ii i i i liil i t e i i
liiI Iii1 c
c ii i i i
i i i i i
I i!
, i i !ii!
0 U
i,
i i M ilio / idio 6 1iiI d I 9iA l7iM [
daftA ii i
A A d i.'pM liil
^
^
i e
Iiil I,iI owa ii i
, i i
liiI liil c
c i i i,
i i i i i i
1,,1 i
l o
o i,
i
. i 5 1 /i3loi s75T lii1 lii!
ii i i i
/i/ if
/,o io c i
IiiI
^
^
i i
liil i i i i i liil i i
, i i
/
j,,l i,,;
C c
liil
', i i liil o
c I i i
i i c r, 1 9,fl7 e o l oi M ii i I,iI liiI i
i i i i i i IiiI a
^
no#
liil Iiii a
a i,
i i i
, i i
[
liil liil e
c i
i i i
i i e i i
ll l
G C8RCLI SE0utNCE IF o
l l 3 j l l l l, jl l D
'"s0LATION OR Of viAfiON l l
.0 i.
i.
4 i.
20 o q,,i. i s 40
,0
..)