ML16341C744
| ML16341C744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/09/1984 |
| From: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Bishop T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION V) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8408220067 | |
| Download: ML16341C744 (6) | |
Text
~8 RECy~
Vp O~
Op C0 C
O g g
~O
+p*y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 hut; 9 1984 Rg'g/ lpga
<<Ru l9B4 gg(0 t< pgg.
ApQ/og,) p (p MEMORANDUM FOR:
T. W. Bishop, Director Division of Resident, Reactor Projects and Engineering Inspections NRC Region V
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data SALP INPUT FOR DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1983 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1984 AEOD reviewed 51 LERs for the Diablo Canyon site in support of the ongoing SALP review.
Our review concentrated on completeness,
- accuracy, and consistency of the submitted information.
We found no major deficiencies.
No LERs were submitted for Unit 2 since it is still under construction.
A summary of the criteria used and the findings subject to those cr iteria is attached for your information. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact either myself or Dorothy Zukor of my staff.
Ms. Zukor can be reached at FTS 492-4431.
Attachment:
As Stated Karl V. Seyfri, hief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for'Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data 8408220067 8408p9'DR.ADOCK pgppppy+
R R
R It 4
d d ~
Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 AEOD found 51 LERs and six revisions in the NRC Document Control System for the January 1,
1983 to June 30, 1984 assessment period.
Fifty-two percent of the events were attributed to personnel errors.
.Four percent were due to design, manufacturing, or construction errors.
Twelve percent were a result of deficient or erroneous procedures, and twenty-p'ercent were due to component fai-lure.
Twelve percent were placed in the "other" category and none were due to external causes.
Twenty-six preliminary notification of occurrence reports (PNOs) were submitted and four special reports were found.
Based on our review of the available reports, our findings are as follows:
1.
~LER C
a.
Was the information given sufficient to provide a good understanding of the event?
- Yes, enough information was given to clearly and adequately describe each event.
b.
Were the LERs coded correctly?
Yes, all of the entries reviewed appeared to be. correct.
No discrepancies or inconsistencies were found.
c.
Was supplementary jnformation provided when needed?
Thirty-seven of the fifty-one LERs submitted included supplemental informa-tion.
In each
- case, the additional information added to the clarity and completeness of the LER.
d.
When follow-up reports are promised, are they delivered?
'I Follow-up information was promised for three events and in each case it was delivered.
e.
Were 'similar. occurrences adequately referenced?
Yes, similar occurrences were always referenced.
1'.
Multiple Event Reportin in a Sin le LER
=-No cases of reporting multiple occurrences in an LER when separate reports should have been submitted were found.
3.
Prompt Notification Follow-up Reports No Prompt Notification reports were found.
Twenty-six PNOs were found and three were followed-up by LERs.
It does not appear that follow-up reports were required for the others.
0 t
Diablo Can on Unit 2.
AEOD found seven PNOs applicable to Unit 2 and no LERs.
Unit 2 is still under construction.'n conclusion, our review indicates that, based on the stated criteria, the licensee provided adequate event reports during the assessment period.
Although the licensee reported a very large percentage of events due to personnel errors
'ompared to other plants, no specific areas which required improvement were found.
e
~
~
7 C