ML20132D512

Forwards AEOD SALP Input for Jul 1984 - June 1985 Re Lers. LERs Inadequate Since Sufficient Descriptions of Events Not Present.Specific Observations Encl

ML20132D512
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	07/24/1985
From:	Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
To:	Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV)
Shared Package
ML20132D515	List: IR 05000313/1985018 ML20132D512 ML20133F054 ML20135A993
References
NUDOCS 8508010092
Download: ML20132D512 (3)

Text

Q r i *

+

[

• ~

t t P

{ i;* Attachment 2 "

\o UMTED STATES 5D - 313

.E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l,t -

! wasmoron. o.c.sesse

. *...+

JUL 2 4 W l

E MORANDUM FOR: Mr. Eric Johnson, Chief Reactor Projects Branch )

Division of Reactor Safety & Projects j Region IV Karl V. Seyfrit Chief l FROM:

Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation i of Operational Data

SUBJECT:

AE00 INPUT TO SALP REVIEW 0F ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, i UNIT 1 FROM JULY 1,1984 TO JUNE 30, 1985 1

In support of the ongoing SALP reviews, AE00 has reviewed LERs for ANO Unit I submitted during the assessment period. Ouf review focused on the clarity and completeness of the event descriptions. identification of root causes and long-tem corrective actions. We'also evaluated These LERs in view of proper coding of the LER foms. In our. data base, we ,

found six LERs for 1984 and five for 1985. Only two of the 1984 LERs fall within this assessment period. Thus, a total of seven LERs were used in our review. Generally, the LERs were found to be inadequate. Most LERs did not contain sufficient descriptions of the events. In the enclosure to this memo, we have provided specific observations made from our review of the AND-1 LERs.

i If you any questions, please :all me or Raji Tripathi of my staff on FTS 492-4435.

k ,__,_=- _

Karl V. Seyfrit Chief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data ,

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ enclosure G. Vissing N

6fblbfQ h

t . <

l

} ..o l

ENCLOSURE ,

u l 5 ALP REVIEW FOR ANO-1 In the assessment period, the licensee submitted two LERs for 1984 and six for 1985. LER 85-005-00 could not be found in our data base. Our LER review was conducted following the instructions and procedures of  ;

NUREG-1022. 8ased on our examination of these seven LERS, we have made the following observations:

1. The information in the narrative sections was barely sufficient to provide the reader with a good understanding of the events. With exception of LERs 84-006-00 and 85-001-00, generally, there was insuf-ficient information regarding the development of the event (information relating to when symptoms first appeared and how long they lasted were not always included in the LERs). We note that LERs 84-005-00, 85-002-00, 85-003-00 and 85-006-00 only contain the abstract of the )

relevant events without an accompanying text. We believe that appro- )

priate details should be included in the text to enable the reader to l fully understand the sequence of event (s). Submittal of an LER without j a text is acceptable (LER 85-006-00), however, such submittals should have abstracts which provide all information required by 10 CFR 50.73 and NUREG-1022, and still be limited to 1400 words. If limits on the abstract preclude complete description of the event as required, then the abstract should not be regarded as a substitute for the text.

2. There are no significant problems with the coded information on the LER forms provided by the licensee, however, the Energy Industry Identification System identifiers were not included (for example.

LERs 84-005-00 and 84-006-00).

3. In LER 85-002-00, it is the redundant flow instrument in the MFW train ' A' b that was isolated and not the redundant MFW train. We contacted the

! licensee about the confusion this had raised and we understand that a

! revision to this LER will be submitted to clarify this issue.

4. In some LERs, the initial plant conditions are not explicitly mentioned in the event description, for example, LERs 85-001-00 and 85-006-00. In other cases, the time of onset of an event and/or the duration of an event - from the discovery of the problem until the implementation of the corrective measures - are not addressed. Examples are: LERs 84-005-00, 85-002-00, 85-003-00, 85-004-00, and 85-006-00.

, 5. Root causes are not always identified, e.g., LER 84-006-00.

6. Safety significance of an event is not always included in the LER,

. e.g., LERs 84-005-00 and 85-004-00.

7. After discovery of human error, no effort seems to be mede by the licensee regarding personnel counseling, procedure modification, etc. to prevent recurrence, for example, LER 85-002-00.

J-y , e

, 1; f *

,, e.

p .

8. In some LERs, the time elapsed between the event date and the report date exceeded the 30-day limit, e.g., LERs 84-006-00, 85-001-00, and 85-004-00.

9. In some cases, the licensee did not indicate if there were any previous similar occurrences and/or did not provide long-tem corrective actions, e.g., LERs 85-002-00, 85-003-00 and 85-004-00.

10. There were no Preliminary Notifications issued during the SALP assess-ment period.,

Based on our review of these LERs, we find that the licensee does not pre-pare LERs in sufficient detail to meet the requirements of NUREG-1022.

Improvements are needed in the areas identified above.

e

'h e