ML17139C313
| ML17139C313 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1984 |
| From: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404120346 | |
| Download: ML17139C313 (8) | |
Text
r a
Jl/AR L 8 )8~
HElIORANDUH FOR:
Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Projects and Resident Programs
'"ROAB RF SSalah SRubin TAIppo 1 ito CJHeltemes KVSeyfrit FROtl:
SUBJECT-Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief Reactor Operations.:> Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data EVALUATION OF SUSQUEHANNA STENi ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 1 FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 1983 TO JANUARY 31, 1984 The Office for Analysis and Evaluation, of Operational Data has assessed the Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted under Docket No. 50-387 during the subject period.
This has been done in support of the ongoing SALP review of the Pennsylvania Power and Light Company, with regard to their performance as licensee of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Unit 1.
Our perspective would be indicative of that of a BHR system safety engineer who, although knowledgeable, is not intimately familiar with the detailed site-specific equip-ment arrangements and operations.
Our review focused on the technical
- accuracy, completeness, and intelligibilityof the LERs.
Our review covered all of the LERs submitted during the assessment period.
In general all of the LERs submitted were adequate in each important respect with few exceptions.
The LERs typically provided clear descriptions of the cause and nature of the events as well as adequate explanations of the effects on both system function and public safety.
In some LERs supplemental infomation was provided in attachments to the LER forms.
This enabled the LER reviewer to better understand the nature of the events encountered, thereby facilitating evaluation of the safety significance of the event.
In most caees the described corrective actions taken or planned by the licensee were considered to be commensurate with the nature, seriousness, and frequency of the problems found.
The enclosure provides additional observations from our review of the LERs.
In summary, our review of the licensee's LERs indicates. that in most cases the licensee provided adequate descriptions of the events.
In general, none of the LERs we reviewed involved what we would consider to be an especially signi-ficant event or serious challenge to plant safety.
If you have any questions please contact either myself or Sal Salah of my staff on FTS-492-4432.
"',8404120346.8403i9' PDR'-"ADOCK'8000387
Enclosure:
Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief Reactor Operations~ Analysi s Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data OFFICE
= SURNAME DATE cc:
Ro
~
~ I I
~
~
~
Jo ert L. Perch,
~ G~ Rbeads" n HcCann, Ri NRR Ri ROAB ssalah/cj.I 3/gP/84 ROAB
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
SRubin 3gka/84 ROAB KVSeyfrit 3/~/84 i'4th'0 NA 4 tcA NRC FORM 318C (2.82) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
i->
1 C
~ )'I
." l,'
ENCLOSURE
- SALP REVIEW FOR SUSQUEHANNA The licensee submitted 235 LERs (includes revisions) in the assessment period of February 1,
1983 to January 31, 1984.
Our review included the following LER numbers:
83-010 through 83-172 84-001 through 84-004 The LER review covered the following subjects and the general instructions of NUREG-0161.
The SALP review is presented with the topic reviewed followed by comments on that topic.
g>>
1.
Review of LER for Completeness=--
a)
Is the information sufficient to provide a good understanding of the event?
. Me found that the LERs provided sufficient data to give clear and adequate descriptiore of the occurrences, their direct consequences, and the corrective actions taken.
b)
Mere the LERs coded correctly?
All coded entries reviewed appeared to be correct.
Where applicable, the codes utilized agreed with the narrative descriptions.
c)
Was supplementary information provided when needed?
Of the 235 LERs reviewed, 85 contained supplementary attachments.
The information provided in these 85 attachments was clear, concise, and adequate.
Lack of supplementary attachments to the remaining 150 LERs did not hinder the reviewer's understanding of the event.
d)
Were follow-up reports promised and submitted?
The licensee submitted a follow-up report in every case where such a commitment was made.
A total of 11 follow-up LER reports were submitted.
These LER reports were:
LER 83-35, 83-36, 83-43, 83-59, 83-88, 83-93,83-109, 83-116,83-131, 83-139, and 83-166.
e)
Were similar occurrences properly referenced?
The licensee appropriately referrenced similar prior occurrences as necessary.
2.
Multiple Event Reporting in a Single LER The licensee did not report any multiple events in a single LER.
3.
Prompt Notification Follow-up Reports The region issued six PNs during this review period.
Only one of the PNs which was issued should have been followed by an LER.
Our review indicates that the licensee did issue LER 83-92 for this PN.
In summary, our review indicates that based on the stated criteria, the licensee provided clear and fully adequate event reports during the assessment period.
No significant deficiencies were found in the LERs reviewed.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMIS'I REACTOR FACILITYFEE DETERMINATION INSTRUCTIONS. Fii< in items 1 throvgh ta,as spphcabie.and sehdihe orlginatcopy Io the Licchsc Fee Management Branch, DOCKET NUMBER)9) 5Q $87 /3&8 LICENSEE p~~g~~gp,~) p,
~'~EQ IL I-LEoHT C O hEP4 4
- 1. FEE FORM TYPE(CheCk onel PRELIMINARY FtitAL AMENDED
- 3. ACCESSIONNUMBER 5
PI.ANT NAMEANDUNITISI 505QOE'HPPQA, SL)~ 5) 'EczQ)E'b,)+Ttt A, VOLT~
I I3&D w 6
DATE OF APPLICATION I0/2ic) /ey
- 7. FEE REMITTED YES NO CLASSI 8, UCENSEE FEE DETERMINATION CLASS V CLASS VI I,LASSii CLASSIII CLASSIV EXEMST HONE 9
SUBJECT Ic'G L)~-.
Fcbf API-'ReLJAL OF CetOK C f35=
- 10. TACNUMBERASSIGNEDfrravarrabret
- 1) ~ APPROVAL LETIER Ortbt II AMEHOMENTNUMB)HIS)
DATE OF ISSUANCE 1I /1 7 /83
)2, NRCFEEOETERMINATION The above application has been reviewed in accordance with section 170 22 ot part 170 and is properly categori2ed."
The above a pplicalion has been reviewed ln accordance with section 1 7022 ol Part 170 and is incorrectly classified.
Fee should be classlesi:
JUSTIFICATION FOR CL SSIFICATION OR RECLASSIFICATI N
is appiicatio a Class typeset action and is exempt from fees because lt is:
Filed by a nonprofit educational institution.
Filed by a Government agency and is-not for a power reactor For a Ciass l. II. or lllamendment which resultslrom an NRC request dated for the application and the amendmenl is to simplify or clarity License or Technical Specifications: has only minor safety significance: and ts being issued for the convenience ot NRC fmusl meet ell of the criterief.
Other (State reason thereiorl
)3 s)GIIATUR sncncnrerr C-H
~~Cx R C.)t)KF t )Cg~~<C>
M13WCA +(
ts FINALGERTlxlcATIDN The prciirrlinsryicedctermihstioh ties beehrcassesscdshdishcrribysttrrmcd.
G GRRTGRE R I. Qlf t
~~C P.
~
WSk PRE aeCW HA,~EHt M LLOYD<)QC. SIWWC.LA QC
~ 2.
FoR LlcENsE FEE MANAGEMENTBRANCH USE ONt Y lAllothers do nol wrile beld~ this linel Tne above cxemptiOn rebueSt naS been revievved>>no is hereby accepted as being exempt, SIG ATU E ICh FMBI DATE
. s/is/IM DATE PCCOIOS Ser vice a BranCh DL Branch Cmet DISTRIBUTIONBY LFMB LfMBExemption File LFMBReactor C>>e
S <<AS AEGy y
Vp,i pW~
0 rg O
O
+n +a**+
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 March 22, 1984 50-387/388 Susquehanna MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chief, Document Management
- Branch, TIDC FROM:
SUBJECT:
Director, Divison of Rules and Records, ADM REVIEW.OF UTILITY EMERGENCY PLAN DOCUMENTATION The submitter of the attached document has expressed no desire to withhold any information contained therein.
Therefore, this material may now be made publicly available.
J.
M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Recor Office of Administration
Attachment:
As stated
4