ML20154C701
| ML20154C701 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1988 |
| From: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8809140458 | |
| Download: ML20154C701 (3) | |
Text
Il I
Dake Ibute Company Hu B Thss PO Rca33198 hce Prendent Charlotte, N C 28242 helrar Product;M i70411?]-4111 DUKEPOWER September 2, 1988 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
McGuire Nuclear Station Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 NRC/0!E Inspection Report Nos. 50-369. -370/88-13 Supplemental Reply to a Notics of Violation Gentlemen:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, please find attached Duke Power Company's supplemental response to the violation identified in the subject inspection report. Duke's initial response was transmitted to the NRC by my letter dated July 8, 1988.
Should there be any questions concerning this matter, contact S.E. LeRoy at (704) 373-6233.
Very truly yours.
Abh Hal B. Tucker SEL/323/mmf Attachment xc Dr. J. Nelson Crace. Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U-mission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta Georgia 30323 Mr. Darl Hood Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. W.T. Orders NRC Resident Inspector 14cCuire Nuclear Station f
)
G
s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission September 2, 1988 Page 2 bx A.V. Carr R.C. Futrell S.A. Gewehr R.L. Gill R.M. Clover G.W. Graves G.W. Hallman C.L. Harlin A.R. Hollins S.S. K11 horn W
~
P.B. Nardoci R.P. Ruth R.O. Sharpe QA technical Services NRC Coordinator (EC-1255)
File: MC-815.01 (15) l l
l
4 44
- e Duke Power Company McGuire Nucleae Station Supplemental Reply to hotice of Violation d
Inspection Report Nos. 50-369/88-13 and 50-370/88-13 1
i Violation 369, 370/88-13-01 In Duke Power's earlier response to Inspection Report 50-369/88-13 and 50-370/88-13 the technical issues of that report were addressed.
After j
additional consideration, a supplemental response is being provided to address j
the programmatic issues of the report.
4
]
McGuire Nuclear Station has a proven track record of maintaining an open.
productive and responsive relationship with the NRC. This philosophy has been j
strongly supported and encouraged by McGuire management. In light of this, we were surprised and disappointed to see Mr. Girard's comments concerning the
)
McGuire staff's lack of responsiveness to his concerns during this inspection.
?
We were surprised because he did not make station management aware of his concerns during his visit and did not mention them during his exit.
We were
{
disappointed because our reviews cause us ta conclude that his concerns are i
not well founded.
While we flatly deny any lack of responsiveness, we do scknowledge that enhanced communications between the licensee and the inspector can minimize misunderstandings of this kind.
On our part, we will endeavor to improve our communication with Mr. Girard and other NRC inspectors in the future.
i i
L I
1 l
J J
l 4
1 l
i i
i i
f
_ _ _, _.