ML20245B559
| ML20245B559 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1989 |
| From: | Martin R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Trevors G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245B560 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906230224 | |
| Download: ML20245B559 (3) | |
See also: IR 05000298/1989012
Text
._
_ _ - - _ _
_ _ ____ _ -
In Reply Refer To:
JM 20 R
DocAet:
50-298/89-12
a
g
Nebr'aska-Public' Power District
ATTN:
George A..Trevors
Division Manager - Nuclear Support-
P.O. Box 499.
Columbus,.NE' 68602-0499
Gentlemen:
This forwards the report of the Systematic Assessment of Licensee
Performance (SALP) for Cooper Nuclear Station. .The.SALP Board met on May 25,
1989, to evaluate Cooper Nuclear' Station's performance for the period
. February 1, 1988, through April. 15,1989. The performance analysis and
- resulting evaluations are documented in the enclosed SALP Board report.
y
In accordance with NRC policy,.I have reviewed the.SALP Board assessment and
concur with their ratings. Because this assessment was conducted in accordance
with~the revised NRC Manual Chapter 0516 with restructured functional areas,
direct comparison of some of the performance ratings in this report.with those
of the past SALP report is not appropriate.
It is my view that your conduct of
nuclear activities 1n connection with Cooper Nuclear Station was acceptable.
'Overall, Is am pleased with the manatement and. continued high level of performance
at. Cooper Nuclear Station in the areas of plant' operations and radiological
,
' controls. -However, I draw your attention to the need to continue your
!
improvement programs,. particularly. in the areas that support site activities
'
and that provide information to' management on the overall performance of the
facility.
Your. system.for identifying to management areas where corrective
actions are needed should be improved.
Highlights of the report are set forth
below:
(1) The areas of Plant Operations and Radiological Controls maintained
Category I ratings indicating continued good performance in those
functional areas.
(2) The area of Security received a Category 2 rating during this SALP period.
This reflects an improvement from the Category 3 rating received during
the previous SALP period.
,
(3) The performance in the functional area of Engineering / Technical Support
was a Category 2.
Although programs have been started to reestablish
complete and accurate design documents and drawings, much work remains to
be completed.
In addition, engineering review of safety issues should be
more timely.
Your plan to install a simulator should continue to be a
high priority.
u,
- previously concurred
L.
- RIV:C:DRP/C
- D:DRP
- D:DRS
- D:DRSS
GLConstable
WRBennett
JLMilhoan
LJCallan
ABBeach
/ :/89
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89
/ /89
- NRR
- NRR
P0'Connor
FHebdon
RDMartin
]
r
/ /89
/ /89
b /g.0/89
'
8906230224 890620
ADOCK 05000298
L
_
._.
')
_ - - - -
. _ _ _
,,,,
}
. 7 ' . . ,' '
'
.
.
.
j. a
- .-
,
3
.i
.
- 3
'
Nebraska'Public. Power District-
-2-
1
1
4
I
(4) The SALP. Board debated,.at length,.before concluding that performance in the
.
- functional area of: Safety Assessment / Quality Verification.was a Category 3.
-
Although.the quality: assurance organization usually conducts effective
audits, the small size of the organiz'ation limits. effectiveness,in'the
self identification of problems in specialized areas. Peer quality
control has proven, effective .in some areas; however, . independent feedback-
E
to management is lacking. Oversight of nuclear activities appears to
suffer from a lack of current industry experience on oversight committees.
, >
'
This could lead to problems in. keeping up with current industry practices
as'was indicated by a lack.of timely evaluation of' safety issues and
reporting problems. associated with the safety system functional inspection
followup.
A management meeting will be scheduled with you arid your staff to review the
~l
results of this SALP. Within.30 days of this management meeting, you may
comment, in writing, to~ this office regarding any SALP rating. You are
.
.specifically requested'to' comment on areas which received a SALP Category 3
rating. Your comments, a summary of our meeting, and my disposition of your
comments will be issued'as.an appendix to the enclosed SALP Board report.
Comments-which you submit are not subject to the clearance procedures of the
- Office of Management' and Budget as . required. by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, PL 96511
Sincerely,
/s/
Robert D.' Martin
Regional Administrator
Enclosure:
SALP Board Report 50-298/89-12
cc w/ enclosure.:
Cooper Nuclear Station
ATTN: Guy Horn', Division Manager
of Nuclear Operations
P.O. Box 98
Brownville, Nebraska 68321
Kansas Radiation Control Program Director
Nebraska Radiation Control Program Director
-
_-_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - __ _
_ _
I
.,
.:
.
'
,
,
.
Nebraska Public Power District
-3-
H
l
bec to DMB (IE40)
bec-distrib. by RIV:
RRI
R. D. Martin, RA
Section Chief (DRP/C)
Lisa Shea, RM/ALF
RPB-DR;S
MIS System
,
'
RIV File
Project Engineer (DRP/C)
C. Hackney
P. O'Connor, NAR Project Manager (MS:
13-D-18)
Comm. T. M. Roberts (MS:
18-H-1)
RRIs at all sites
Comm. K. M. Carr (MS: . 16-H-3)
J. T. Gilliland, PA0
Comm. K. C. Rogers (MS:
16-H-3)
G. F. Sanborn, E0
Comm. J. R. Curtiss-(MS:
16-G-15)
DRP (2)
J. M. Taylor, DEDRO (MS:
17-G-21)
A. B. Beach. D/DRSS
- w/766
_-- _ _ - -
._