ML20204G654

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards SALP Input for 830101 - 840430.Licensee Provided Adequate Description of Events
ML20204G654
Person / Time
Site: LaSalle, 05000000
Issue date: 05/24/1984
From: Seyfrit K
NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
To: Norelius C
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
Shared Package
ML20204G617 List:
References
FOIA-85-668 NUDOCS 8406020447
Download: ML20204G654 (4)
v • d • e


Text

_ -- - --

?

2 E 2 4 E34 -

1:E '.0?JCDU:1 FX.: Charlas E. :!crolius, Director Division of Projects and Resident Prograas itegion III FMi: Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data SU3 JECT:

EVALUATIO!! 0F LA SALLE COU:lTY STATIGil UNITS 1 AfD 2 LERS FOR Tr!E PERIOD JANUARY 1,1983 TO APRIL 30, 1984 l

l i

The Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data has assessed l l

the Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted under Docket i:os. 50-373 and 50-374 durino the subject period. This has been done in support of the l ongoing SALP review of the Comonwealth Edison Coapany with regard to l i

their2.performnce as a licensee of the La Salle County Station Units 1 and Our perspective vauld be indicative of that of a SilR systea safety enginear who, although knowledgeable, is not intiaately familiar with the htailed site-specific equipment arrangeaents and operations.

Our esic-gibilicy of focused the LERs. on the technical accuracy, conpleteness, and intelli-during the assessaent period.Our reviea covered a raajority of the LERs sunnitted The LERs submitted ucre adequate in each important respect with few exceptions.

The LERs provided clear descriptions of the cause and nature of the events as t. ell as adequate explanations of the effects on both systen function and public safety.

inforaation in attac!uents to the LER foras.P.ost of the LERs provided supplemental This enabled the LER reviewar to better understand the nature of the events encountered, thereby facili-tating evaluation of the safety significance of.the event. Tne described corrective actions taken or planned by the licensee were considered to be cauensurata found. with the nature, seriousness and frequency of the problins the LERs. The enclosura provides additional observations froa our review of In sunnary, our review of the licensee's LERs indicates that the ifcensee provided adequate descriptions of the events.

Jone of the LERs we received involved what us uculd consider to be a significant event or serious challenge to plant safety.

~

~

's

{,,,_

gm*w , __.,

8d-C,2 S

. _ _ . . . . - = - - - - ~ - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Charles E. ilorelius .

If you have any questions please contact either nyself or Sal Salah of ny staff on FTS 492-4432.

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

Attachment:

As stated cc: Anthony Bournia, ilRR

- - Hike Jordan SR R I Steve Guthrie, R Insp Tho:aas 11. Tambling, R-III ,

I l

)

l l

I I

l 1

- . - _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ - _ . , ~_ _ -_. __ - . __

a.  :==- -

.c s 2 ,

SALP REVIEW FOR LA SALLE COUNTY UNITS 1 AND 2 The licensee submitted 173 LERs for-La Salle 1 and 10 LERs for La Salle 2 in the assessment period from January 1,1983 to April 30, 1984. Our review included the following LER numbers:

For La Salle 1 -

i 83-001 through 83-155 84-001 through 84-018 l

For La Salle 2 -

84-001 through 84-010 The SALP review is presented with the topic reviewed followed by comments on that topic.

1. Review of LER for Completeness

{_

J

- a) Is the information sufficient to provide a good understanding of -

1 the event?

i We found that the.LERs provided sufficient data to give clear and adequate descriptions of the occurrences, their direct consequences, and the corrective actions taken.

i ,

b) Were the LERs coded correctly?

1 All coded entries reviewed appeared to be correct. Where applicable, l the codes utilized agreed with the narrative descriptions.

j c) Was supplementary information provided when needed?

s '

Most of the LERs reviewed contained supplementary attachnents. The information provided in these attachments was clear, concise and i adequate.

l d) Were follow-up reports promised and submitted?

The licensee submitted ll-follow-up LERs for la Salle 1.

i

e) Were similar occurrences properly referenced?

a

! The licensee appropriately referenced 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.

t

+

3. Preliminary Hott'fication Follow-up Reports The region issued twelve PNs during this review period. Three of the PNs which were issued should have been followed by LERs.. Our review ,

indicates that the licensee did issue LER 83-158,84-005 and 84-011 for these PNs.

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.

O g

9 O

1 9

-. ., - , - , . - - _ - . _ , , , , - , , , -, - -- ---o,-

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20204G654&oldid=3329293"