ML17037B903

Letter Responding to a November 8, 1974 Letter Regarding Review of Inspection No. 74-01

ML17037B903
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	11/14/1974
From:	Robert Carlson US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
To:	Schneider R Niagara Mohawk Power Corp
References
IR 1974001
Download: ML17037B903 (4)

Text

(

Utt ITED STATt;S yg g~qg ATO'IIC EI'I. GY COi lI'l!SSI0'!

illtll C.'1 Oll A 1 l." Ol Ill l ill,Al Olt 9 Ol'I'llA1 IO "lS Ill.l lON l

~

l 631 PAttà XV!.ttUE

'C F ~V Kt;tG Ol 1 faUSSIA, 1 .ttNSYt VC ttlA 19:9 ll No 1'ocket Niagara !!oh' Power. Corporation No. 50-410 Attention: Hr. R. R. Schneider License No. CPPR-112 Vice President Insp. No. 74-01 300 Erie Boulevard, blest Syracuse, Nev York 13202

Reference:

Your letter dated November 8, 1974 In response to our letter dated October 16, 1974 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter informing us of your review of the doclmtents submitted vith the referenced letter.

In accordance vith Section 2.790 of the AEC's "Rules of Practice",

Part 2, Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of your letter and this letter vill be placed in the Public Document Room.

Please note that a typographical correction should be noted in the report Details, Paragraph 3.c, where PSAR section "R-D.7" should read'"R-D.8 "

Sincerely, p

-n Robert T. Carlson, Chief Facility Construction & Engineering Support Branch .

cc: Eugene B. Thomas, Jr., Esquire bcc: (1./Reference)

RO Chief, FC&ES Branch OQC RO:H t (5) State of Nev %orle DL (13)

D'.: Central Files RS (3)

PtDR I-cal PDR Rv Files NSIC

~~4 TIC

.~idliut.ilIER~w!Y, t.tnt; 'lK.~~

.0 IAGARA MOHAWK POWER COR ATION t4IAGARA <<'3 MOHAWK 300 EAIE OOULEvaAO wEST SVAACI ', k Y I3i~OZ November 8, 1974 Wr. Robert T, Carlson Facility Construction f< Engineering Support Branch United States Atomic Energy Commission Directorate of Regulatory Operations Region 1 631 Park Ave King of Prussia PA 19406

Dear fir. Carlson:

RE: Docket No. 50-410 License No. Cf PR-112 Inspection No. 74-01 l<e have revie>>ed the subject report and find no proprietary informa-tion which >>ould necessitate petitioning a separation from this document under- the rules of Section 2.790 of',tho AEC's "Rules of Practice", Part 2p Code of Fedoral Regulation.

lIte find one statement'n the report >>hich we feel is either mis-stated or misleading as stated. In the section titled "Details", paragraph 3-C, it is stated; "No design review meetings have yet been held in accordance >>ith PSAR section R-D.7 and Project Procedure No. 7". Since design revie>> IIIeotings have boon hold and we have documentary evidence of the same, we feel it >>ould be more accurate to state; "Design review meetings have been held but no sy""ems have completed the design revie>>

cycle in accordance >>ith PSAR section R-D.7 and Project Procedure No. 7".

lI'e request that you make an appropriate change in the final report.

Very truly yours, Vice President-Eloctric Operations JJB:RRS:ls