ML20151D438
| ML20151D438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Calvert Cliffs  |
| Issue date: | 07/18/1988 |
| From: | Tiernan J BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| EA-87-077, EA-87-77, NUDOCS 8807250116 | |
| Download: ML20151D438 (3) | |
Text
L
,,w.
BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC CHARLES CENTER R O. BOX 1475 BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 JOSEPH A.TIERNAN Vect PassiotNT NUCLEAR ENERGY July 18,1988 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION:
Document Control Desk
SUBJECT:
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Reolv and Answer to Notice of Violation. EA 87-77
REFERENCE:
(a) Letter from hir. J. A. Tiernan (BG&E) to hir. J. Lieberman (NRC),
dated July 12, 1988, same subject Gentlemen:
4 There is a typographical error in Attachment B to Reference (a) in that four lines that should be on page 8 are at the end of page 9.
Please replace pages 8 and 9 of Attachment B to Reference (a) with the two pages that are attached.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Very truly yours, (fjbstn JAT/ WPM / dim Attachment ec:
D. A. Brune, Esquire J. E.
Silberg, Esquire R. A.Capra, NRC S. A. McNeil, NRC y
W. T. Russell, NRC D. C. Trimble/V. L. Pritchett, NRC pkj T. Magette, DNR Document Control Desk, NRC l{ j i
8807250116 880718 PDR ADOCK 05000317 Q
r ATTACIIMENT B ANSWER to NOTICE of VIOLATION, and REQUEST for ADDITIONAL MITIGATION B.
Additional Mitination Should be Allowed The new Enforcement Policy, in Subpart IV B, discusses Mitigation / Escalation Factors.
' reads as follows:
Maximum Mitigation /
Escalation Amount (from base civil Mitization/ Escalation Factors penalty)
Itentification and prompt reporting, if
+/- 50%
r: quired of the EQ violations (including c pportunities to identify and correct the deficiencies).
2.
3est efforts to complete EQ within the deadline.
+/- 50%
3.
Corrective actions to result in full compliance
+/- 50%
(including the time taken to make an operability or qualification determination, the quality of any suppcrting analysis, and the nature and extent of i
the licensee's efforts to come into compliance).
4.
Duration of violation which is significantly below
- 50%
100 days.
I As had already been emphasized, extensive corrective actions were taken in order to I
achieve full compliance, including (among other things) shutting down an operating l
reactor for a period of two months, extensive analysis and testing of equipment, hiring I
of outside experts and, in general, focusing considerable Company attention on the I
scope and nature of the problem. In short, it is difficult to conceive of any corrective activity or measure which could have been taken by BG&E that was not taken in this case. Nor is it reasonable to claim that, once the violations were discovered, that corrective action could have been more prompt. It is noted with interest, however, that in applying the above mitigation / escalation factors to this particular case, the NRC, instead of allowing the full 50% mitigation under Factor No. 3, only allowed BG&E 25%. Tb reason stated for not granting the full 50% mitigation is that l
BG&E's corrective action should have been initiated soorter. The wording of Factor i
No. 3, however, can only be interpreted to encompass an evaluation of the licensee's coirective actions. The promptness or delay in identifying the underlying deficiencies which led to the corrective actions is more properly within the scope of Mitigation / Escalation Factor No.1.
8 L
)
ATTACilMENT B ANSWER to NOTICE of VIOLATION, and i
REQUEST for ADDITIONAL MITIGATION In ' this instance, BG&E has in essence been penalized three times for the same offense.
First, NRC determined that BG&E "should have known" of the existence of a violation.
This conclusion nec:ssarily assumes a delay in recognizing the underlying deficiency.
Second, BG&E's penalty was escalated 25% pursuant to Factor No. I because it failed to discover the vio!ations soon enough. Third, the mitigation available under Factor No. 3,was reduced by 25%, again because the violations were not discovered promptly enough. We believe this "triple-counting" was erroneous and, in fact, it tends to provide a disincentive for other licensees to follow BG&E's example upon the discovery of similar problems in the future. It is suggested that, not only for the fair application of the Enforcement Policy in BG&E's case, but, in fact, for the more efficient and appropriate application to the industry as a whole, this type of precedent is ill advised.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons, BG&E requests that:
1.
the vichtions be re-classified as Severity Level IV or V, and/or 2.
additional mitigation be granted, thereby reducing or eliminating the proposed civil penalty.
9