ML20043B650
| ML20043B650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1990 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Lyster M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| EA-89-253, NUDOCS 9005310057 | |
| Download: ML20043B650 (3) | |
Text
.
i a.
L* g * ' sf,,
UNITED STATES 4
g
-g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k *
- s * [j -
r,.
W ASHINGT ON, D. C. 20$$$
l gY2$1999 t
- Docket No. 50-440 EA 89-253-Cleveland Electric Illuminatirs Ccmpary ATTN: Mr. Nichael D. Lyster Vice President Nuclear - Perry Post Offict Cox 97 Perry, Ohio 44081 1
Gentlemen:
This will acknowleoge receipt of your letter dated April II,1990 and your check for $100,000 in payment for the civil _ pentity proposed by NRC in a letter dated March 12, 1990.
In ycur response, the Cleveland Illuminating Ccmpany (CEl) admitted the violations as cescribed in the Notice of Violation and Prcposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. However, CEI also requested that the NRC review the. escalation factors used in determining the amount of the civil penalty
. proposed for the Perry case in light of the civil penalties that the NRC has prcposed in other recent cases.
Normally, if_ a licensee chooses to pay-a civil penalty in full and in the accompanying letter, contests the full civil penalty or a portion of-it, the NRC does not further consider the' civil penalty _ issue. This is.because payn;ent 3
of a civil pencity terminates-the civil penalty procecding. However, the NRC i
has-reviewed the adjustr. tnt of the base -civil penalty cin this case as well as in the three cases referenced in-the CEI -response.
t Escalation of the base civil penalty by 10C% was appropriate in the-Perry case forsignificantpriornoticeof_similareventsbecause(1)fiveseparateNRC Information Notices have been issued concerning problens with ASCO solenoid t
valves and-(2) CEI received NRC Auscientec Inspection Team reports pertaining to the ASCO solenoid valve prcblems associated with nain steam isolation valves at the Perry Plant. Although none of the cited Inforn.ation Notices dealt specifically with air operated solenoid control rod scram pilot valves
..4 they did discuss the breakdown of the ASCO solenoid valves in various environ-s,ents. The degradation was normally nanifested in " sticky" valve action, l-which arecluded the valve from responding as designed. As a result of the l
AIT, tie NRC emphasized the nr.ea for accurate and timely root cause determina-l-
tion of surveillance failures and the unacceptability of retesting to obtain 4
acceptable results withcut a diagnostic effort to cett.rmine failure root cause.
In addition, escalaticn of the base civil penalty by 50% for multiple examples p
was considered appropriate because the July 30 and-November 25, 1989 test i
failures were each ir, themselves significant violations.
(These violations L
could have been cited as separate violaticns anc assessed separate civil penalties.)
4 i
a
'i e
The Cleveland Electric. Illuminating Company As CEI recognized in its response, the NRC must have considerable discretion and flexibility in applying the Enforcement Policy and proposing civil penalties because no two violations, or circumstar.ces surrounding thera, are the saree.
Such is the case with the three enforce.nient actions referenced in the CEI response and the perry enforcen.t.nt action. Specifically, the escalated enforcement cases cited in the CEI response involve different issues (emergency preparedness, quality of installed materials, anc f ailure to perform adequate safety reviews), such that specific comparisons are impractical.
In the case of Limerick, EA 09-126, the NRC letter that forwarded the enforcen.ent action to Limerick stated that it considered furtner escalation beyond the 50% assessed for prior notice, but did not escalate further due to the mitigating effect of the good overall licensee performance in other functional areas.
In the case of Trojan, EA 89-16, prior nctice wbs not considered an applicable factor in the circumstances. The prior 1985 violation that occurred at Trojan was not considered under the factor of prior notice because we6kness in a licensee's program to correct previots NRC violations is more appropriately consicered under the factor of past performance.
For the purpcses of assessing past performance, violations within tte past two years of the inspection at issue cr the period within the last two inspections, whichever is longer is normally considered. There-fore, the 1985 violation was not considered an escalating factor in the Trcjan case.
In the case of Sequoyah, EA 69-152, the NRC cited one example of prior notice (IE Inforinction hctiu U-01). The !$C concludeo that when this was considered with the licenset.'s poor past performance in the area of 10 CFR 50.59 reviews, that 50! escalation of the base civil penalty was appropriate. With respect to the escalation of the tase civil penalty by 25% for multiple examples, the hRC cited two examples in the Sequoyah cose of inadequate review of technical procedures. The cie example of the inadequate procedure revitu resulted in an inadequate procedure being used i
26 times. Although this resulted in the plant being operateo in an unanalync condition, this constituted one example of the violation of concern (inadequate procedure review) and not 26 ex6mples.
In terms of safety significance, as previously statec the twc exanples of test failures at Ferry were each in and of themselves significant violations such that each violation cculo have been cited separately.
Therefore, based on a review of CEI's response, inclucing the three cases referenced therein, the NRC maintains that the escalation of the base civil penalty was appropriate in this case.
Your corrective actions for the violations will be examined during future inspections.
Sincerely, q
l i Q Q2, James Lieberman, Director i
\\
Office of Enforcement p
1 l
cc:
A. B. Davis, RIII
I, K_'!
~
MY 2 51990:
x.
~..
.s
-~c The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company DISTRIBUTION:
PDR JLieberman, OE JHannon, NRR RPerfetti, OE
.TCalburn, NRR JGrobe, RIII Day File; Ea File DCS 4
- .j cS U-A l
E, GA % -
D:
-RPerfetti-JPartlgw ABDavis JL rman-
'5/>4/90 5g\\/90 5/04/90 5/ay90
[
t
,