ML20080P138
| ML20080P138 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Calhoun  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1983 |
| From: | Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Seidle W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080M806 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310060317 | |
| Download: ML20080P138 (4) | |
Text
,
k
} { tog [b UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
{
g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C
E
\\*****/
SEP 2 81983 MEMORANDUM FOR:
William C. Seidle /
Reactor Project Branch 2 Division of Resident Reactor Projects and Engineering Programs, RIV FROM:
Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
EVALUATION OF LERs FOR FORT CALHOUN-1 FOR THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 1,1982 TO AUGUST 31, 1983 -
AE0D INPUT TO SALP REVIEW In support of the ongoing SALP reviews, AEOD has reviewed the LERs for Fort Calhoun Station. This is our second review for Fort Calhoun. Last year, we thought that the licensees submittals were well above average, certainly among the very best that we reviewed.
In this review, we could not c'etermine any changes from last years submittals, either in improvements or in newly identified deficiencies. Consequently, our opinion is the same; we think that their LERs are among the very best that we have reviewed. As we continue to participate in the SALP reviews and examine other licensee submittals we have become even more impressed with the extent of the meaningful information typically supplied by the licensee in the safety analysis. On the negative side, we noted that overrunning narratives still occur in the LER Form. The other items that we commented on last year did not have opportunity to recur in this assessment period so no comments are offered.
The enclosure provides additional observations from our review of the LERs.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact either myself or Ted Cintula of my staff.
SMzs f 'N
/
L Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief
/
Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosure:
M Opy blos Been knl to M As stated cc w/ enclosure:
E. Tourigny, NRR L. Yandell, RIV f310%0317 n
AE0D SALP REVIEW FOR FORT CALHOUN The licensee submitted only 11 LERs in the assessment period from September 1, 1982 to August 31, 1983. Our review included the following LER numbers:
82-018 through 82-021 83-001 through 83-007 The LERs were consecutively numbered so there were no missing, unsequentially numbered or cancelled LERs in this review.
tb special reports were submitted in the assessment period. The LER review followed the general instructions and procedures of NUREG-0161.
1.
Review of LERs for Completeness a)
Is the information sufficient to provide a good understanding of the event?
The information in the two free-form narrative sections of the LER Form was consistently informative, complete and meaningful.
- However, the abstracts were typically not short enough to fit the number of computer spaces available in each section (LERs82-018, 021 and 83-005).
Overrunning narratives were mentioned as a problem in the previous SALP review, and in the case of Fort Calhoun, they are unnecessary because the attachments are so complete.
b) Review of Coded Information We checked the codes the licensee selected against the narrative i~
sections for accuracy. We agreed with the licensee in all coded fields.
In addition,.each coded entry was tyned and centered within the coded boxes.
There were no typos or omissions.
The form was neat in appearance.
c) Do the reports contain supplementary information when needed?
l Every report contained additional supplementary information in the form of attachments.
The attachments were titled and consistently arrangsd with attachment No.1 always the safety analysis, attachment No. 2 the corrective action, and attachment No. 3 the failure data.
We thought that the safety analysis was as good as any reviewed.
The specific detail and the organization of the attachments greatly contributed to the usefulness of the report.
d)
Follow-up Reports The licensee did not promise to update any reports, and none were received in this assessment period. We checked the data base and found the last updated report was82-017.
The previous update reports were 82-002 and 003, so the licensee is apparently updating a normal proportion of reports.
e) Were'similar occurrences properly referenced?
The licensee stated the judgement criteria used to define a similar event, the number of times the similar event occurred, and the previous LER numbers.
In addition, when thern have been no previous events, the licensee positively makes the statement that this is the first reportable occurrence of this type. LER 83-004, failed to reference the previous LER number (this was the second reportable failure).
We consider this to be a unique omission rather than indicative of a trend.
2.
Is component failure or other appropriate information being reported to NPRDS?
The licensee apparently did not begin reporting to NPRDS until LER 82-004 (6/29/83). Most of the remaining LERs indicated an NPRD24 Form had been submitted.
o 3.
Multiple event reporting in a single LER.
The licensee did not. report any multiple events in this assessment period.
4.
Relationship between PNs and LERs.
Only two PNs were issued for Fort Calhoun in this assessment period; a leaking steam generator handhole on 10/25/82 and two damaged turbine
' journal bearings on 12/6/82.
In our opinion neither of these events were reportable, and no reports were submitted. Because of the lack of PNs issued in the assessment period, it is impossible-to make a informed judgement as.to whether the licensee is reporting all events that should
. be reported.
c i
4 1'
t.
I
.