NLS9000217, Submits Followup Response to Insp Rept 50-298/89-34 Re Physical Security Program.Util Completed Safeguards Info Audit of Each Contractor Holding Safeguards Info.Contractor Surrendered All Safeguards Info Documents on Plant to Util

Submits Followup Response to Insp Rept 50-298/89-34 Re Physical Security Program.Util Completed Safeguards Info Audit of Each Contractor Holding Safeguards Info.Contractor Surrendered All Safeguards Info Documents on Plant to Util

ML20055C812
Person / Time
Site:	Cooper
Issue date:	06/19/1990
From:	Trevors G NEBRASKA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NLS9000217, NUDOCS 9006250198
Download: ML20055C812 (3)

Text

. . . . _ . _ . _ . . . . _ _ _ . . _ .

s f ,

e GENERAL OFFICE Nebraska Public Power District

. , - . n - .

• ""J2Nn*40'at""*' ...

NLS9000217-June 19, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

. Subjects- Followup Response to Inspection Report 50-298/89-34 Cooper Nuclear Station NRC Docket No. 50-298, DPR-46

References:

1) Letter from S. J. Collins (NRC-Region IV) to G. A. Trevors (NPPD) dated Maf 10, 1990

2) NRC Inspection Report No. 50-298/89-34, dated December 15, 1989

3) Letter from G. A. Trevors (NPPD) to NRC dated January 22, 1990, " Response to NRC Inspection Report 50-298/89-34"

4) Letter from G. A. Trevors (NPPD) to NRC dated April 6,1990,

" Followup Response to Inspection Report 50-298/89-34"

5) Letter from S. J. Collins (NRC-Region IV) to G. A. Trevors (NPPD), dated April 5, 1990 Gentlemen:

In accordance with your May 10, 1990 request (Reference 1), the Nebraska Public Power District hereby provides: 1) a summary of the Nebraska Public Power District's (District's) completed audit of the Safeguards Information (SGI) control outside the Dis >&.rict, and 2) a description of actions being taken to ensure expedient resolb. ion of future District Quality Assurance (QA) audit observations and findings.

Background

O During the period of October 16 - 19, 1989, the NRC performed an inspection of

@ the District's physical security program for CNS. This inspection addressed,

'Qos o in part, the District's " ? protection program. The results of this inspection are documented it odC Inspection Report 89-34 (Reference 2).

- (O M

$@ In Inspection Report 89-34 the NRC stated that, contrary to the District's

.oo Nuclear Power Group (NPG) Directive 4.2 " Protection of Safeguards 7 Information," the District had not conducted random, periodic inspections of g SGI control. By letter dated January 22, 1990 (Reference 3), the District oc provided its response to Inspection Report 89-34. That response indicated 2N that the District's QA Department had identified, in March, 1989, a weakness in the implementation of NPG Directive 4.2, and had begun taking steps to /O (

f\0 _ _ _

=. - --

'U.S. Nu;1 ear Regultt:ry Commission 4 *yJune 19, 1990-

pag)-2 I

i t .

address this issue. In Reference 3, the District also consnitted to complete its first round of random, periodic inspections of SGI protection by March, i 1990.

On March 30, 1990, the District contacted the NRC-Region IV to request an I extension to its earlier commitment to complete its audit of SGI protection by >

N. March, 1990. The District had, by this time, completed its audit of SGI  ;

control within the District, but requested an extension to complete the audit of SGI control for District contractors. During these discussions, the NRC-Region - IV granted a 60 day extension and requested the District to document those discussions with a followup letter to NRC-Region IV.

By letter dated April 6, 1990 (Reference 4), the District documented these discussions, and committed to complete its audits of SGI protection outside the District by May 31,.1990.  ;

By letter dated April 5, 1990 (Reference 5), the NRC provided its followup  :

response to the District's January 22, 1990 response to Inspection Report 89-34. That letter indicated the District's reply was responsive to the NRC's ^

Notice of Violation. However, the letter indicated that the findings of the District's March, 1989 QA audit of NPG Directive 4.2 implementation had not been made available to the NRC Inspector during his inspection, and that the District's response raised concerns regarding the timeliness of its corrective actions with respect to this issue.

The NRC, by letter dated May 10, 1990 (Reference 1), confirmed the approval of ,

the extension for completing SGI audits outside the District until May 31, 1990, and requested the District to provide a synopsis of .this audit when completed. The NRC also reiterated the concern expressed in their April 5, i 1990 letter regarding the timeliness of completing corrective actions for this matter, and requested that the District provide its actions planned to shorten the schedule for correction of future District identified violations. The i I

following discussion provides the information requerted above.

Sunsnary of Contractor SGI Audit The District has completed its SGI audit of each of its four contractors i holding . SGI . During these audits, the District identified two findings.

These findings involve the failure to perform criminal history checks- for all '

individuals with "need to know" access and the failure to revise their safeguards manual to comply.with 10CFR73 versus NUREG-0794. Both findings ' j were with the same contractor. As a result, the contractor has surrendered all SGI documents associated with Cooper Nuclear Station to the District until:- 1) they receive the District's approval of their SGI program, or 2) they determine that these documents are no longer needed and may be destroyed.

- In addition, four observations were identified during the SGI audits which would clarify or enhance the respective SGI control programs. None of these observations were considered to effect the integrity of the SGI control programs evaluated.

U;S, Nuilcar I; alitory Commi:sion a June 39, 1990

,Page 3 J

Timeliness of Ouality Assurance correctivo Actions In response to this concern, the District has begun placing Quality Assurance .

Findings and Observations on the Nuclear Action Item Tracking (NAIT) system.

Accordingly, status of corrective actions will become part of the District's weekly management meetings, and therefore, receive appropriate management attention through closecut of the concern. It is expected that all open 9A findings / observations will be input into the system by August, 1990.

Please call if you have any questions.

Sincerely, G. . Trevors Division Manager Nuclear Support

/$w cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Office r Region IV NRC Resident Inspector '

Cooper Nuclear Station