ML20153G315
| ML20153G315 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1988 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE) |
| To: | Kaplan A CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| EA-87-206, NUDOCS 8805110203 | |
| Download: ML20153G315 (2) | |
Text
[
D&DlO A c ua 8
'o,%
UNITED STATES (jQ / T) $
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k
WASHINGTON, D. C,20555 1
o
%,...../
APR 20 W Docket No. 50-440 License No. NPF-58 EA 87-206 The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company ATTN: Mr. Alvin Kaplan, Vice President Nuclear Group 10 Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Gentlemen:
This will acknewledge receipt of your letter dated March 11, 1988 and your check fer $25,000 in payment for the civil penalty proposed by NRC in its letter to you dated February 11, 1988.
In your letter, you paid the proposed civil penalty in full and stated you were in agreement with trany of the identified examples of violations described in the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. However, you also requested re-classification of the violations from a Severity Level III to a Severity Level IV problem and stated that full rather than partial mitigation of the civil penalty was warranted.
We have carefully considered your response and have concluded that persuasive arguments have not been presented which would cause us either to reduce the severity level classification or fully mitigate the civil penalty. As we indicated in our February 11, 1988 letter to you, we recognize that the EQ ceficiencies individually may not have been so extensive that system function could not have been achieved. However, the EQ deficiencies were of a program-matic nature and reflected weaknesses in the areas of the original qualification of equipment, installation activities, and equi: cent maintenance, and so was considered a significant regulatory concern.
Tierefore, t'e NRC continues to consider these violation as a Severity Level III problem.
The NRC still considers it appropriate to mitigste the base civil penalty by 50 percent based on your unusually prompt and extensive corrective actions.
l However, you stated that full mitigation is warranted based on your past performance in the EQ area. Because this inspection was the first EQ inspection done by the Region III office and because the previcus NRR site audit was a review of your overall programatic controls for the EQ program rather than a detailed review of the implementation cf the pr6F am as conducted by Region III, there was not a sufficient basis to judge ycur cast performance in this area. Therefore, neither elitigation ner escalation was considered appropriate based on your past p M orma re.
\\O
!! b $D$$ $$$$$$40 W /O O
i APR 201999
~.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company The corrective actions described in your letter will be examined during future inspections.
Sincerely,
} EMS %
v 4
James Lieberman, Director Office of Enforcement cc:
A. Bert Davis, RIII F. R. Stead, Manager Perry Plant Technical Department M. D. Lyster, Manager, Perry Plant Operations Department Ms. E. M. Buzzelli, General Supervising Engineer, licensing and Com)11ance Section 4
-DCD/DCB (RI)S)'
Licensing Fee Management Branch Resident Inspector, RIII Harold W. Kr.in Ohio EPA Terry J. L'dge, Esq.
James W. Harris, State of Ohio Robert M. Quillin, Ohio Department of Health State of Ohio, Public Utilities Commission i
.-