ML20150E210

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re 781109 Submittal of Quality Assurance Prog for Subj Facil

ML20150E210
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	12/05/1978
From:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Pilant J NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
References
TAC-06531, TAC-6531, NUDOCS 7812110197
Download: ML20150E210 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - -

1. 2

'4 ,t UNITED STATES 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j,%.,(k.k , /

. _ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 1712!%[ j #

'%

• December 5, 1978 Docket No. 50-298 '

l Mr. J. M. Pilant, Director Licensing & Quality Assurance Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 Columbus, Nebraska 68601

Dear Mr. Pilant:

i We have been reviewing your submittal of November 9,1978 dealing with the quality assurance program of the Cooper Nuclear Station.

! As a result of our review, additional information is required.

This information is identified in Enclosure 1.

Your response to this letter is requested within 60 days of its receipt.

Sincerely, d2 -d Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors

Enclosure:

Request for Additional Information cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

?S12110I97

1

.. l December 5, 1978 l

Nebraska Public Power District l l

cc Mr. G. D. Watson, General Counsel Nebraska Public Power District P. O. Box 499 l Columbus, Nebraska 68601 Mr. Arthur C. Gehr, Attorney Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Cooper Nuclear Station ATTH: Mr. L. Lessor Station Superintendent P. O. Box 98 Brownville, Nebraska 68321 Auburn Public Library 118 - 15th Street Auburn, Nebraska 68305 b

e l

/

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Cooper Nuclear Station j QUALITY ASSURANCE SUBMITTAL OF NOVEMBER 9, 1978 6A. Item 6 was apparently not clear. The item was meant to question the l change from " audits and inspections" to " management overviews ," not to l question the organizations involved. Please clarify by either reverting l to " audits and inspections" or provide a description of " management overviews."

I 14A. It is the staff position that the TIP should be under the Appendix B quality assurance program because, among other things, proper operation of the TIP is required to assure that the CNS is operating within safety limits established by the Technical Specifications. Otherwise the l response to item 14 is acceptable. Please re. instate the TIP in Table 1 i or provide further justification for not doing so for our assessment.

15A. The response to item 15 is not clear. Please indicate the proposed wording for both the top of page D-9-52 and the bottom of page D-9-75 as questioned in the original item.

18A. The ultimate response to item 18 (that the language and comitments stated in approved Amendment 37 have been reinstated) is acceptable.

However, we disagree with the first paragraph of the response. It is the staff position that the CNS QA Program does include the QC activities-at CNS, based on the introduction to Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50. Please eliminate the first paragraph of the response or provide justification for not doing so for our assessment.

9 o

O E