ML20195B551
| ML20195B551 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1988 |
| From: | Ernst M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811020069 | |
| Download: ML20195B551 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000369/1988013
Text
_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ -
__
_ . _ _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_________ _ -
__
_,
g
..
00T 191888
.
. .
Oyke Power Company
p(TTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice Presiden?
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
Charlotte, NC 28242
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: REPORT NOS. 50-369/88-13 AND 50-370/88-13
This refers to ycur Sepumber 2,1988 ietter, which was a supplemental reply to
J
the Notice of Violation contained in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-269,
370/88-13 and addresses the inspector's conclusion about responsiveness stated
in the results section of the Inspection Report. The conclusion was that your
"Perfomance Group was relatively unresponsive to NRC ' inspector identified
'
concerns," in that "repeated Questioning was required to obtain information
needed to determine that procedures and hardware performed satisfactorily."
,
As you are aware, we have recently started requiring that inspectors expand the
conclusion section of the report sumary from a. sirrole statement about
compliance to a brief capsule about licensee performance in SALP terms.
The
conclusion that you were addressi'1g in your September 2 letter is a result of
this new requirement.
As Mr. Edward Girard stated in the details of Report
No. 50-369, 370/88-13, his concerns about the responsiveness of the McGuire
Performance Group were the result of trying to resolve long-standing issues
regarding the preparation and issue of procedures for the work being done in
l
the inservice testing of pumps and valves.
In reviewing the chronology of the issues, we find that your actions to resolve
problems identified during an inspection in August 1986 (See Report No. 50-369,
j
370/86-26) were not yet ready for review when the inspector returned in
September 1987 (as discussed in Report No. 50-369,370/87-37). At that time, a
verbal comitment by the Performance Group to have the matter resolved by the
end of December 1987, was documented in the report.
In January 1988, during
the inspection documented in Report No. 50-369, 370/88-01, Mr. Girard recorded
the fact that the lack of progress was discussed during the exit meeting and
that the Plant Manager directed the Performance Group to resolve the issues
within two months.
In May 1988, Mr. Girard again asked for the information
necessary to resolve his concerns and was
shown a draft copy of a procedure
that had not been issued.
This is the situation which prompted Mr. Girard to conclude that the
Perfomance Group at McGuire was not responding to our concerns in the manner
that we have come to expect from Duke.
It appears that some mis-communication
occurred.
Please note that we have not concluded that there is a problem with
McGuire's overall performance in maintaining an open, productive and responsive
relationship with the NRC.
What we have pointed out is that one of the many
groups that we interface with during the course of our inspection activities
is not perfoming up to the level that we have come to expect. We feel that
G811020069 es1019
POR
ADOCK 05000369
i
O
pdc
0
.EEcl
00T 191988
- . ,,, o
-
'
Duk'e Power Company
2
the examples cited in the details of Mr. Girard's report fully substantiate
his conclusion that the Performance Group was, in the examples cited, not
up to the standards expected.
Sincerely,
M 5. hihCA'
Malcolm Ernst
Acting Regional Administrator
cc:
L. McConnell, Station Man.tger
nior Resident inspector - Catawba
tate of South Carolina
e
bec: NRC Resident Inspector
Docunent Control Desk
DRS. Technical /.sitant
vD'. Hood, NRR
RI
rid
RI
RIl
1
At
s%r;"
Aseret
Acid n
'iPe'4bl es g\\ l LReyes
'[. [(
e
9'7bh
-
i 9/ /8
/88
gD/1 /88
10{ /88
/S/ //
7
,4// P