ML20248B660
| ML20248B660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | McGuire, Mcguire  |
| Issue date: | 09/22/1989 |
| From: | Gibson A NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Tucker H DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248B665 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-88-14, NUDOCS 8910030260 | |
| Download: ML20248B660 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000369/1989015
Text
E
P
'
-
September 22, 1989
4
c
l
Q
Docket Nos. 50-369, 50-370
Duke Power Company
ATTN: Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President
Nuclear Production Department
422 South Church Street
i
Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Gentlemen:
l
SUBJECT: NRC INSPECTION REPORT NOS. 50-369/89-15 AND 50-370/89-15
This refers to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted by
B. R. Crowley.on June 5-9 and 19-23, 1989.
The inspection included a review of
activities authorized for your McGuire facility.
At the conclusion of the
inspection, the findings were discussed with those members of your staff
identified in the enclosed Inspection Report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
The
inspection was performance based, directed toward evaluation of equipment
conditions, observation of in-process maintenance activities, review of-
equipment histories, and evaluation of performance indicators, maintenance
control procedures, and the overall maintenance program.
The inspection findings are summarized in the Executive Summary of the report.
In general, the findings show' that you have developed a good maintenance
program with good implementation.
Particularly noteworthy in contributing to
an overall good program was a strong well staffed maintenance organization,
a good training program, a good data base and equipment records system, and
a strong QA/QC organization.
Your attention is invited to the weaknesses
identified in the report.
In particular, wcaknesses relative to. the PM
program for molded case circuit breakers, quality of completed work requests,
and deficiency tagging should receive attention.
In addition, we are' concerned
with the lack of attention to detail displayed in your submittal made in
response to Generic Letter 88-14 and in Licensee Event Report 88-36.
Inade-
quate coordination between licensing. Engineering, and plant staff was apparent
and resulted in several errors.- Please provide a written response indicating
actions you will or have taken to ensure the quality of future submittals.
Within the scope of the inspection, no violations or deviations were
identified.
In accordance with Section 2.790- of the NRC's " Rules of Practice," Part 2
Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and its enclosure
wili se placed in the NRC Public Document Room.
8910030260 ScO922
FDR
ADOCK 05000369
u
FDC
1(
-
_ - - - - - - - - - - -
-
. - - -
h/ .
-
,
J
-
l
j
Duke Power Company
2
September 22, 1989
'
The responses directed by this letter and its enclosure are not subject to the
clearance procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, Pub. L. No.96-511.
l
Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Original Signed by
l
Ellis W. Merschoff
1'
I
Albert F. Gibson, Director
Division of Reactor Safety
Enclosure:
NRC Inspection Report
cc w/ encl:
T. L. McConnell, Station Manager
Senior Resident Inspector - Catawba
State of Morth Carolina
bec w/ encl:
NRC Resident Inspector
,
D. Hood, NRR
l
Document Control Desk
I
B. Crowley
J. Blake
C. Julian
!
M. Shymlock
!
E. Merschoff
j
1
'
i
i
1
-
'
R I:DRS
-
- ' RS
RII:
S
RII:DRP
RII:DRS
l
b
C ..'
Sh[ymlock
b
6 fM
BCrowley:er
J ake
CJulian
EMerschoff
09/ 7 /89
97[/89
09/]/89
09/71/89
07/2%89
2
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
- _ _ _ _