ML20245B559

Forwards SALP Board Rept 50-298/89-12 for 880201-890415.NRC Pleased Overall,Although Sys for Identifying to Mgt Areas Where Corrective Actions Needed Should Be Improved

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: IR 05000298/1989012 ML20245B559
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

y ;resulting evaluations are documented in the enclosed SALP Board report.

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 * SRI *D:DRP *D:DRS *D:DRSS

GLConstable WRBennett JLMilhoan LJCallan ABBeach

/ :/89 / /89 / /89 / /89 / /89

• NRR *NRR RA

P0'Connor FHebdon RDMartin ]

r / /89 / /89 b /g.0/89 '

8906230224 890620

PDR ADOCK 05000298

L _ ._. ')

_ - - - - . _ _ _

,,,,

'

}j. a

. 7 ' . . ,' '

.

.-

.

.

,

3

.i '

.

1. 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

.,

'

.:

.

, ,

.

H *

Nebraska Public Power District -3-

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)

DRS 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

_-- _ _ - - ._