ML20136F977

Discusses Evaluation of LERs Submitted During Feb 1984 - Apr 1985,in Support of Ongoing SALP Review.Lers Adequate. Corrective Actions Commensurate W/Problems.Lers Did Not Involve Significant Event or Serious Challenge to Safety

ML20136F977
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna, 05000000
Issue date:	05/01/1985
From:	Seyfrit K NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD)
To:	Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML20136E841	List: IR 05000117/2004015 ML20136E837 ML20136E964 ML20136F664 ML20136F774 ML20136F970 ML20136F977 ML20136G052 ML20137A749 ML20137A929 ML20137A955 ML20137B013 ML20137B042 ML20137B092 ML20137B105 ML20137B123
References
FOIA-85-668 NUDOCS 8505070516
Download: ML20136F977 (4)

Text

,

y,% A UNITED STATES

• 8  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%[**CM/ ***

MAY 'O 1 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W.'Starostecki, Director Division of Projects and Resident Programs Region I FROM: Karl V. Seyfrit, Chief . -

Reactor Operations Analysis Branch

.0ffice for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data

SUBJECT:

EVALUATION OF LERs FOR SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 FOR THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 1, 1984 TO APRIL 30, 1985 The Office for. Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data has assessed the Licensee Event Reports (LERs) submitted under Docket Nos. 50-387 and 50-388 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 Units 1 and 2. Our perspective would be indicative of that of a BWR system safety engineer who, although knowledgeable, is not intimately familiar with the detailed site-specific equipment arrangements and opera-tions. Our review covered a majority of the LERs submitted during the assessment period.

The LERs submitted were adequate in each important respect with few excep-tions. All the LERs provided an abstract followed by: 1) a description oftheevent,2) the consequence of the event, 3) the cause of the event and 4) the corrective actions. The LERs 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. 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 the licensee ,

provided adequate descriptions of the events. None of the LERs we reviewed

. involved what we would consider to be a significant event or serious chal-lenge to plant safety.

)

ME l

l~ l o

2-1 If you have any questions please contact either myself or Sal Salah of my staff on FTS 492-4432. -

ik!

r1 V. Seyfrit, Chief Reactor Operations Analysis Branch Office for Analysis and Evaluation _

of Operational Data

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ enclosure

%5Ert'L.' Perch, NR$

E7Fy G. Rhoads, SRI John McCann, RI ,

89 e

O 0

W e

e w

ATTACHMENT SALP Review for Susquehanna Units 1 and 2 The licensee submitted 51 LERs for Suquehanna Unit 1 and 37 LERs for Susquehanna Unit 2 in the assessmet period from February 1,1984 to April 30, 1985. Our res' tw included the following LER numbers:

. For Susquehanna 1: 1-007 through 84-049

. 001 through 85-008 . -

For Susquehanna 2: - 84-001 through 84-027 85-001 through 85-010 i

The LER review covered the following subjects and the general instructions of NUREG-1022. The SALP review is presented with the topic reviewed followed by comments on that topic.

1. Review of LERs for Completeness.

a) Is the information sufficient to provide a good understanding of the event? .

We found that the LERs provided sufficient data to give clear and

' adequate descr'iptions of the occurrences, their direct consequences, root causes, and where known, corrective actions needed to prevent recurrence.

• b) Were the LERs coded correctly?

All coded entries reviewed appeared to be correct. Where appli-cable, the codes utilized agreed with the narrative descriptions.

j c) Nas supplementary information provided when ~needed? -,

Most of the LERs reviewed contained supplementary information.

The supplementary information provided was clear, concise and -

, adequate. _

3 d) Were follow-up reports promised and submitted? .

The licensee submitted a follow-up report in every case reviewed l , where such a commitment was made.

e) Were similar occurrences properly referenced?  !

The licensee appropriately referenced similar prior occurrences as necessary.

i l

v.-

4 4 2-

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 and four supplementary PNs for Susquehanna 1 and five PNs for Susquehanna 2. Four of the PNs issued should be

- followed by an LER. Our review indicates that the licer.see did issue -

LERs84-013, 84-044 and 84-045 for Susquehanna 1 and LER 84-013 for Susquehanna 2 for the occurrences discussed in the four PNs.

In summary, our review indicates that based on the stated criteria, the licensee provided clear and adequate event reports during the assessment period. No significant deficiencies were found in the LERs reviewed.

-  : . i. ; ..-

s

• 4 1

I

l e

k e

e 1

9 4 .-9 --- y- -- -

--ny,-g my =-w -

y- -

r ye--m+-