ML20028C729
| ML20028C729 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1982 |
| From: | Jackie Cook CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | James Keppler NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028C725 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301140044 | |
| Download: ML20028C729 (3) | |
Text
._
+
-w..
u
~
'ConsumetsL Power'ny
~
James W Cook Compa v,,, -,- m y,, o.,.,,
med Cons,ru,, ion oeneral officesi 1946 West Porno 61 Road, Jackson, MI 49201 + (517) 7960463 1 December 10,-1982
--Mr J G Kcppler Regional Administrator US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region III~
799 Roosevelt' Road' Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 MIDLAND NUCLEAR C0 GENERATION PLANT INSPECTION REPORT NO 50-329/82-21 AND 50-330/82-21 FILE:
0.4.2 SERIAL
19107
Reference:
(1) R F Warnick letter to J W Cook, dated November 8, 1982 Inspection Report No 50-329/82-21 and 50-330/82-21 This letter, including Attachment 1, provides our response to Reference 1, which transmitted the subject Inspection Report and which requested our written response on the two examples of an item of noncompliance therein.
Consumers Power Company By James W Cook Sworn and subscribed to before me on this Oth day of December, 1982.
+ /+,a mu m.
Notary Public, Jackson County, It ch My commission expires September 8, 1984 JWC/WRB/ Dell /lr CC: RFWarnick, NRC Region III WDShafer, NRC Region III RNGardner, NRC Region III RJCook, NRC Resident Inspector, Midland Site
'RBLandsman, NRC Region III BLBurgess, NRC Region III OC1282-0003A-MP01 8301140044 830110 PDR ADOCK 05000329 DEC 161982 G
PDR L
4 4
4 '
T
.t.
I s
y' f
+
1 a
C 3.
7%
=
1 3
-y-
=,y 9
=
y<
r
,~
f j;f
' ?
~
=~
IAtticchmen' li
'Mi
.,,o t
k d
y
~
..i-
^
. CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO-s RUS NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION;-REGION III~
~
N INSPECTION. REPORT 'NO 50-329/82 -21,050-330/82-21
- AppendixD(Notice of Violation)1 to Inspection ' Report' No ~50-329/82--21 and.
- 330/82-21 provides.two examples ~of.an' item of noncompliance'to110 CFR 50,
{
dAppendix B., Our' response'to each, example:is given in turn, as'follows:-
URC STATEGNT
,q:
~s'10-CFR 50, Appendix B. Criterion VIh states.in part'that, ' Measures "HI!
( shall be established to control the -issuance of.documente. :.=. '-
~
Concumers Power. Company Quality Assurance Program Policy No 6, Revision
~
12,' dated April 2, 1982, states in part, that, ' Documents which prescribe n'
activities effecting qualith :..are.
. controlled.'..and distributed
.according-to'a controlled distribution.-..The assigned holders cf the
- document are responsible for maintaitiing the latest. revisions of the;
' documents.'
Contrary to the above, the ins'pectors determined the following two examples of noncompliance:
- 1..TheiQA Department was using a controlled copy of PQCI UP-C-1.013 to make up QC recertification' exam questions.~. This copy of-the PQCI was different from a controlled copy obtained from the QC reccrds vault.
Both documents were marked revision 0 and dated.8/20/82. There were
-two.pages that were different dealing with the same interface t-
-document UP-C-1.008.
Furthermore, during the inspection, the
. licensee could not produce the controlled distribution list for the referenced PQCI.
(50-329/82-21-1A; 50-330/82-21-1A) 2.
Two controlled copies, Manual numbers 1456 and 1369A, of the Bechtel-
' Quality Control Notices Manual, Procedure G-6.1, which controls PQCIs, were not of the latest. revision.
(50-329/82-21-OlB; 50-330/82-21-01B)
This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement II)."
CONSUMERS POWER. COMPANY RESPONSE
- 1..A copy of the controlled PQCIs relevant to the Soils work were obtained from the QC records vault and compared with the copies in the MPQAD Soils file..There were no differences found between these PQCIs except as noted above. Therefore, the current-PQCIs in use have had no effect on
' inspections and/or training /recertification that have been performed.
The root cause'of the discrepancy was that the PQCI used to generate the examination questions,was not checked against the controlled PQCI distributed from~the QC Records.VaultLafter its final approval and release.
?Al) current-working copies in MPQAD Quality Assurance Engineering of PQCIs have been marked " Reference Copy." A controlled PQCI file is now located in the. Soils QAE area and it is the responsibility of each QA
[.
OC1282-0003A-MP01:
3-
.-,-_____-,,-_m.,
N-S S
I e-
..g 4
e f
'I r
?
P f
+
k c,'
i ae ~ -
d '
3 g
(
2 f
a h
)
e I
I l
I e
I r
l
.)
E
3
. m.
n.,
A-w_'j js l ;~
%[m 1 Cf f[
i
- Att:chment=13 T~
1Page 2..
.. 7, J'
r x :v Engineer to-assure that he is using a reference.c.opy which'is the~ latest.'
.~
released revision.
O
~
The distribution.of controlled copies of Soils PQCIs'is nowc proceduralized by Soil's QC_ Administrative Instruction.No 601, Rev-1.
Correspondingly, QC Administrative Instruction No.602, Rev 2,; covers the-balance of plant PQCIs.
2.s All jobsite copies of the. QCNMs were reviewed' and updated 'to. the proper -
' revision status,-accordingly. ' Assigned individuals at the site hsve the' c
rerponsibility of maintaining the QCNMs in current revision status.'*
Tnese individuals are required to sign;off on a transmittal ~ sheet acknowledging receipt of material! to be placed and. removed from-the-QCNM. There will be ongcing independent checks by Site MPQAD Document'
~
i Control personnel to assure the manuals assigned to' the Midland jobsite are heing: properly maintained..
4 There will be further revisions to the document control' program in the Soils area'to accommodate'the physical relocation:of QC and.QAE in one
-trailer. complex which allows centralization of document control for these two groups. - It.is expected that this will be completed by February.1, 1983.
WRB/DEH/WLM/lr 4
4 t
i f
s 4.
J s
5'.
l OC1282-0003A-MP01
.,-m
.yw..
..-y.. - -- w et --
1,~+mem<-e-..w,r mr.~.-=
w2,.-r--
em,e.<-.e-t-,,
y--.-,m
--+--m.---..,,y w.,,.y y.w-,,-.-.y,wwyy-v.--
7,,,,.
x
-.y y.
(
.vC9-'fK,--
L oe, e %
1 3
i 1
4 e
s.
f n
2
=
f 2
e) i s
I U
i
.. _