ML20003G036
| ML20003G036 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1981 |
| From: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G037 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104280109 | |
| Download: ML20003G036 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000329/1980032
Text
,
~
j#
'o
UNITED STATES
g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
C a
o-
$
E
REGION ll1
D[
0,
%
,o
GLEN ELLYN, ILLINOIS 60137
kPR 14 1981
.co
e
(
.v-
Docket No. 50-329
Docket No. 50-330
9-
hp
[)
g20
es
-
4'
Consumers Power Company
'
-
ATTN:
Mr. James W. Cook
9
'
g
Vice President
7
Midland Project
.4
1945 West Parnall Road
w
to
Jackson, MI 49201
Gentlemen:
Thank you for your letter dated February 9,1981, informing us of the
action taken concerning the two items of noncompliance and the twc
unresolved items which we brought to your attention in Inspection Report
No. 50-329/80-32; 50-330/80-33 forwarded by our letter dated January 12,
1981.
With respect to item 1, our position remains that this is an item of non-
compliance and, as such, we do not consider the actions delineated in your
letter to be fully responsive. We concluded that you failed to promptly
document, distribute and implement an acceptable. corrective action
regarding your identification of inconsistencies and failure to follow
the instructions of your program regarding "FSAR re-review documentation"
in accordance with regulatory requirements. The identified documentation
inconsistencies and failures to consistently follow instructions of block
No. 8 (design document identification) seriously compromise the usefulness
of your review efforts.
It appears that your actions and statements to
remedy or mitigate this finding are inadequate to the extent that they are
either circumstantial, not documented, or too small in scope to address
the adequacy of the entire FSAR re-review program.
Therefore, we request that you submit a second letter to this office within
25 days of the date of this letter to respond to our concerns regarding
item 1.
Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmation and
should include (1) a description of additional measures you will take to
increase the confidence you place on the adequacy of this effort.and
(2) your plans to revise the related 50.54(f) response, as appropriate,
to reflect your actual efforts regarding "FSAR re-review documentation."
!810428O M
~
k
.
O
D
Consumers Power Company
-2-
APR l'4 198f
With respect to items 2b and 2c and the two unresolved items, your actions
will be reviewed during a subsequent inspection.
With respect to item 2a, the NRC inspector asked to review the appropriate ~
.
log as identified by your cognizant engineer. The log presented and
reviewed was identified as " Patties Log".
Your letter indicates that this
-
- was the wrong log. We will review this matter during.a subsequent inspec-
tion. The results of this review will be documented, and the status of
this item will be changed, if appropriate.
Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely,
)f
/ --
,/ James G; Keppler
Director
'
,
cc w/1tr dtd 2/9/81:
Central Files
Reproduction Unit NRC~20b
---
Local PDR
Ronald Callen, Michigan
Public Service Commission
Myron M. Cherry
I
.
l
'
.
'
!
.
j
,
. _. . , .-
--._m_
_ . _ .
. _ . _ . . . . . _ - . _ . . . _ _ . . - . . . _ - - , . , . - _ - _ _ . . - . . ~ , . . _ _ , . - . - . . . _ .
._ . - _ .,. ._.-.
_