ML20117P802
Text
hos
, pnn.,4
- ' f'.
UNITED sT ATES
~[j NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISS10N g
non cso. o e rosss
\\..','.. /
err M, w I!LMORAN0tE f0R: William F. Kane. Director Division of Reactor Prc,iects. Region I FROM:
Mark P. Williams Chief Trends and Patterns Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data
SUBJECT:
LER QUALITY EVALUATION FOR CALVERT CLIFFS 1.2 The enclosure to this memorandum contains the analysis by our contractor.
DOE /INEL. of the quality of LERs for Calvert C11ffs 1.2 for the period from May 1.1986 to August 31. 1987 This evaluation provides an overview of the quality of the LERs. It compares a representative sample of the LERs to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.73(b), and the guidelines contatssed in NUREG-1022 and its Supplements No. I and No. 2.
However it does not attempt to make a deterinination or coament as to whether or not the regulation is met. Rather, it presents specific suggestions to improve the quality of the reports and, in that light, the entire evaluaticn report should be transmitted to the licensee, with a copy to the manager responsible for preparing LERs. L'c have received positive corrrnents f rorr licensees on the usefulness o' this rer' ort er.o have observed improvenents in LEE quality.
The sunmary to the report highlights the findings of the evaluation. As indicated, this is the second evaluation of Calvert Cliffs 1.2.
For buth tvaluations. the overall quality scores of the LERs are above the industry average, i.e.. secres of 8.2 ar.d 8.8 compared to the ir.dustry average score at the time of each evaluation of 7.7 and 8.5 respect'vely. For the current evaluation, the quality of discussions of root causes, corrective actions.
assessment of safety consequences, and operator actions are above the industry averages for these areas. Except for the quality of discussions of root causes, which remained about the same, the other four areas showed improve-ments in quality. Particularly. noteworthy was a significant improvement in the discussion of safety consequences; the quality improved from a level well below, to a level well above the industry average for this area. Areas which would benefit from added attention include the quality of discussions of personnel / procedural errors, components that failed, and safety system responses. Details of the findings are discussed in the body of the evalva-tion report.
Since the evaluation is based solely on the information that the licensee includes in its LERs. please notify us if your evaluations indicate that relevant facts on the nature or character of events are frequently missing i
from the ifcensee's 1.ERs. We could factor this input into our process.
If l
! can be of further assistance, please contact me on FT5 492-4480.
X4 E/4/96 Y
68
i i
4
= i Draf t copies of the enclosure were forwarded on September 8,1987 to Lowell Tripp. Region I and Scott McNeil. NRR Project Manager, by Paul Bobe of my office. The er.closeo
- copy is identical to the craft report.
Mark H. W 111tes, Chief Trends and Petterns Analysis Branch Office for Analysis ar.d Evaluation of Operational Data
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: Lowell Tripp, RI (w/o encl.)
- 5. A. McNeil. Project Mar ager. NRR (w/o encl.)
J. Roe, NRR (w/ encl.)
C. Miller. INEL (w/o encl.)
D. Limroth. RI (w/o encl.)
Distribution w/c enc 1.
TPAB Rf/CF PBobe (w/ orig. encl.)
.1 Crooks IWilliams TNovak EJorder CHeltemes JRosenthal (w/ encl.)
DCS 0F0 :TPAB,j(
- 1PA5,
- L/IPAB
.....:.....--...:....--.-:.--.p......:..........--:.......-----:------...--:--------...
MAME :P8obe'rnt
- JC s
Iuems
....:..---.--...-:- ---.---..: 9.
DATE :9/*1 /87
- 9/,e/87
- 9/p 7
OFFICIAL RECGRD COPY i
l l
l.