ML20154Q723

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $75,000.Violations Noted:Qualification of Containment high-range Radiation Monitors Cable Connector Assembly Deficient

ML20154Q723
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	09/21/1988
From:	Russell W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:
Shared Package
ML20154Q717	List: ML20154Q711 ML20154Q723
References
EA-88-148, GL-88-07, GL-88-7, NUDOCS 8810040048
Download: ML20154Q723 (4)

Text

.- .

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITION OF CIVIL PENALTY Power Authority of the State of New York Docket No. 50-286 Indian Point 3 License No. OPR-64 EA 88-148 During several NRC inspections conducted between April 16, 1986 and September 25, 1987 of the licensee's program for environmental qualification (EQ) of equipment, NRC inspectors identified violations of NRC requirements and reviewed other violations identified by the licensee. In accordance with the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety of Nuclear Power Plants," contained in NRC Generic Letter 88-07, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to impose a civil penalty pursuant to Section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (Act), 42 U.S.C. 2282, and 10 CFR 2.205. The particular violation and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

I. VIOLATION ASSESSED A CIV!L PENALTY 10 CFR 50.49(d), (f), and (j), respectively, require, in part, that (1) a list of electric equipment important to safety be prepared, and information

, i concerning performanca specifications, electrical characteristics and '

postulated environmental conditions for this equipment be maintained in l

a qualification file; (2) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing and/or analysis of identical or similar equipment, and the qualification based on similarity shall include a supporting analysis to show that the equipment to be quali-fled is acceptable; and (3) a record of the qualification shall be  !

naintained in an auditable form to permit verification that each item j of electrical equipment important to safety is qualified and that the ,

equipment meets the specified performan:e requirements under postulated i environmental conditions.

Contrary to the above, from November 30, 1985 until certain dates specified herein, the following items were not demonstrated to be environmentally qualified,

a. As of September 2, 1986, qualification of the containment High Range Radiation Monitors (Nos. R-25 and R-26) cable connector assembly was deficient in that the cable / connector assembly was installed in a i

configuration different than tested in that the installed assembly was missing the environmental Raychem heat shrink tubing,

b. As of September 2, 1986, qualification of six series 200-300 Marathon

{ Terminal Blocks inside containment (used in safety related circuits '

for containment sump level indication, recirculation sump level indicator, and containment water level indication) was deficient. '

Specifically, these terminal blocks are not qualifiable for the OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG INDIAN POINT 3 9/16 - 0006.0.0 09/16/88 i 0810040048 980921 PDR ADOCK v5000286 i Q PDC '

Notice of Violation 2 particular inside containment application because of the potential for electrical shorting due to moisture buildup.

c. As of August 21, 1937, the qualification of 480 volt motor lead splices, used as power leads for twenty-nine motors in Engineered Safeguards, Auxiliary Feedwater and Auxiliary Coolant Systems, was deficient in that an evaluation had not been performed of differences between installed and tested configuration.

d. As of September 25, 1987, the qualification of Lewis Thermocouple cable used in Hydrogen Recombiners (for monitoring the temperature of the recombiner elements for control of the recombiner), was deficient. Specifically, the similarity analysis was inadequate in that it failed to adequate'y justify the acceptability of differences, such as insulation formulation, between the cable tested and installed cable,

, These violations constitute an EQ category B violation.

Civil penalty - $75,000 (These EQ violations existed in excess of 100 days of plant operation).

II. VIOLATION NOT ASSESSED A CIVIL PENALTY 10 CFR 50.49(d), (f), and (j), respectively, require, that (1) a list of electric equipment important to safety be prepared, and information concerning performance specifications, electrical characteristics and postulated environmental conditions for this equipment be maintained in a qualification file; (2) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing and/or analysis of identical or

] similar equipment, and the qualification b; sed on similarity shall include a supporting analysis to show that the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; and (3) a record of the qualification shall be maintained in an auditable form to permit verification that each item of electrical equipment important to safety is qualified and that the equipment meets the specified performance requirements under postulated environmental 4

conditions, i Contrary to the above, examples of the violation include:

a. From November 30, 1935 until September 25, 1987, thirteen items of ,

electrical equipment important to safety were not included on the '

EQ master list of electric equipment important to safety. The l I specific items not properly incorporated onto the EQ Master List {

are those 13 items specifically not required by Regulatory Guide  !

1.97 which are listed in licensee memorandum No. EQ-IP-87-301, dated l September 8, 1987. l l

l e_._

Notice of Violation 3

b. From November 30, 1985 until September 25, 1987, qualification for Silicon Rubber Insulated Cable was not established in that the cable had not been tested for submerged applications. A similarity analysis was performed based on test data for a cable with different insulating materials, but the effects of different chemical composition and the variation of the manufacturing process were not fully evaluated.

However, the cable was considered qualifiable considering the large margin to failure,

c. From November 30, 1985 until August 24, 1987, the qualification for 14 AWG single conductor Amerlink cables was not established in that the qualification documents supporting cable qualification were not complete. Specifically, the qualification test results, although available, had not been incorporated in the qualification file.

l This is a Severity Level I\ violation. (Supplement I)

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Power Authority of the State of New York (Licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement of explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, within 30 days of the date of this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each allegec violation: (1) admission or denial of the alleged violation.

(2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that have been taken and the results achieved, (4) the corrective steps that will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance was or will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be issued to show cause why the license should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other action as may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to extending the response time for good cause shown. Under the authority of Section 182 of the Act 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affirmation.

Within the same time as provided for the response required above under 10 CFR 2.201, the licensee may pay the civil penalty by letter to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a check, draft, or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount of the civil penalties if more than one civil penalty is proposed, or may protest imposition of the civil penalty in whole or in part by a written answer addressed to the '

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Should the licensee f ail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the I civil penalty will be issued. Should the Licensee elect to file an answer in t accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part. l such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violatian" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) cemonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this NC tice, or l (4) show other reasons why the penalty should not be imposed, in addition to protesting the civil penalty, such answer may request remission or mitigation of the penalty.

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY CP PKG INDIAN POINT 3 9/16 - 0008.0.0 09/16/88 l

l l

Notice of Violation 4 l

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the mitigation factors in the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualifi-cation of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants,"

contained in Generic Letter 88-07, should be addressed. Any written answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 should be set forth separately from the statement or explanation in reply pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201, but may incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply by specific reference (e.g., citing page and paragraph numbers) to avoid repetition. The attention of the licensee is directed to the ,

other provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, regarding the procedure for imposing a civil penalty.

1 Upon failure to pay any civil penalty due which subsequently has been deter- '

mined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the penalty, unless compromised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to.Section

234c of the Act. 42 U.S.C. 2282c.

The responses to the Director, Office of Enfo cement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payeent of civil penalty, and answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforcement.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA,19406 and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Indian Point 3.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Oricinal Signed B7 t WILLI!.!A L LUSSELL William T. Russell Regional Administrator Dated at, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania ,

this4/ 5f day of Septe-ber 1988.

]

I i, j t

_ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _- _. -- . ~ _ .

1. "a NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,{ l r:Assiwotcm. o. c. rosss

(.....,/ April 7, 1988 Enclosure 2 TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS

SUBJECT:

M00lFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY RELATING TO 10 CFR 50.49, 'ENYlRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFE 1Y FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS' (GENERIC LETTER 88-07)

Background:

Generic Letters Bulletins and Information Nottees have been issued to pratde guidance regardlng the application and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.49, 'Envirormental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power flants.'

Generic Letter 85-15, issued August 6,1985, and Generic Letter 86-15, issued September 22, 1986, provided information related to the deadlines for s pliance ,

with 10 CFR 50.49 and possible civil penalties appitcable to licensees who were not in compliance with the rule as of the November 30, 1985 deadline. Upon review, the Comission founo that the EQ Enforcement Policy promulgated in Generic Letter 86-15, could result in imposition of civil penalties that did not properly reflect the safety significance of EQ violations with respect to civil penalties imposed in the past. In the interest of continuing a tough but fair enforcement policy, the Comission determined that the EQ Enforcement Policy should be revised. The purpose of this letter is to provide a modification to the NRC's enforcement policy, as approved by the Connission, for environmental qualification (EQ) violations. This letter replaces the guidance provided in Generic Letters 85-15 and 86-15.

Modified EQ Enforcement Policy  ;

The details of the modified EQ enforcement policy are provided in the enclosure. l Generally, the changes made to the policy are to: (1) aggregate significant i EQ violations together, rather than consider each separate item of unqualified <

for assessment of a civil penalty, (2) assess a base l electrical equipment civil penalty accord lng to the nurber of systems or components which are affected by the unqualified equipment in a graded approach by assignment of the aggregate l EQ problem into one of three categories, (3) establish a maximum EQ civi penalty of 5750 000 (4) maintain a minimum civil penalty of $50,000 for asignificantEQviolationfor most cases,in most cases, and (5) consider mitigation or escalation of the base civil penalty based on the factors of identification and reporting best efforts to coeplete EQ within the deadline, corrective actions, andduratlonoftheviolation.

This modified policy should not be interpreted as a lessening of the NRC's intention to assure that all plants comply with EQ requirements. 1he modified policy is intended to give a significant civil penalty to those licensees with significant EQ violations. The NRC's view is tiat the modified policy inore closely reflects the relative safety importance of EQ violations with other enforcement issues.

Safety Issues When a potential deficiency has been identified by the NRC or licensee in the environmentalqualificationofequipment(i.e.,alicenseedoesnothavean

~

il l t ,

i 4.p-

i

, Generic l.etter 88-07 o2- April 7, 1988 adequate basis to establish qualification), the licensee is expected to uke a r

prompt determination of operability (i.e.,)the n function , takesystem or component innediate steps to establish is capable

• andthe havedeficiency,le written 4 ofplan a performing with a reasonableits schedu intended desig;e justification for continued operation, which will be availab to correct for NR The licensee may be able to make a findirig of Lperability using analysis and partial Hst data to provide reasonable assurance that the equ'pment will perform its safety function when called upon. In this connection, it must also be shown that subsequent failure of the equipment, if likely under accident conditions, will not result in significant degradation of ar.y safety -

function or provide misleading information to the neerator.

The following actions are to be taken if a Itcensee is unable to demonstrate equipment operability:

a. For inoperable equipment which is in a system covered by plant technical specifications, the licensee shall follow the appropriate action statements. This could require the plant to shut down or remain shut down,

b. For inoperable equipment not covered by the plant technical specifications, the licensee may continue reactor operation:

1. If the safety function can be accomplished by other designated equipment that is qualified, or

5. If limited administrative controls can be used to ensure the safety function is performed.

The licensee must also evaluate whether the findings are reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, 10 CFR Part 21, the Technical Specifications or any ,

other pertinent reporting requirements, including 10 CFR 50.9(b), particularly if equipment is deterr.hed to be inoperable.

I l This letter does not require any response and therefore does not neec approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Conraents on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Reports Management Ro;;a 3208 New Executive Office Building Washington, DC 20503. Should you have questions on this letter, the staff contact is Howard Wong, Office of Enforcement. He can bereachon(301)492-3281.

X Frank J. Mkaglia' Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated i

lJ

', ENCLOSURE MODIFIED ENTORCENENT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIRENENTS This enclosure provides the details of the modified enforcernent policy for EQ '

requirements for those licensees who were not in coepliance with 10 CFR 50.49 as of the November 30, 1985 deadline.

I. $ cope of the Enforcement Policy for EQ Requirements If violations of the EQ rule identified at plants operating after  ;

.! November 30, 1985 existed before the deadline and the licensee ' clearly knew or should have known* of the lack of proper environmental qualifi- '

cation, then enforcement action may be taken as described in Sections !!!

l and IV. If the licensee does not meet the "clearly knew or should have knwn' test, no enforcement action will be taken.

This enforcement policy applies to violations of the EQ rule identified -

after November 30, 1985 which relate back to action er lack of action before the dead 11ne. Violations which occurred after McVember 30, 1985 (either as a result of plant modifications or because the plant was  ;

licensed after November 30,1985) will be considered for enforcement action under the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.

In addition. EQ violations which are identified after the NRC's last first-roundinspection,J/approximatelymid1988,willalsobeconsidered i under the normal Enforcement Policy.

!!. Application of the ' Clearly Knew, or Should Have Known' Test i Licensees who ' clearly knew' they had equipment for which quellfication could not be established may have comitted a deliberate vi'lation of NRC requirements. This situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The NRC will examine the circumstances in each case to determine whether

! the licensee "clearly should have known" that its equipment was not quali-j fled. The factors the NRC will examine include:

1. Did the licensee have vendor-supplied documentation that demonstrated that the equipment was qualified?

) 2. Did the licensee perform adequate receiving and/or field verification

inspection to determine that the configuration of the installed equiment matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualified j by tis vedor?

! 3. Did the licensee have i

deficienciesmightex1!riornoticethatequipmentqualification t?

I j 4. Did other licensees identify similar problems and correct them j before the deadline?

! ~

1/ First-round inspections are special team inspections to review lb m ees' i compliance with 10 CFR 50.49.

i i

i l i

Enclosure In assessing whether the licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency, the information provided to the licensees by the NRC and the Thisindustry on information, specific deficiencies will be taken into consideration.

and the timeliness of it being provided to licensees prior to the EQ acific deadline are relevant factors. If one licensee determined that a s EQ deficiency existed. It would not be assumed that all licensees siould have also come to the same conclusion unless information about the specific deficiency had been widely disseminated within the industry or by the NRC.

The staff will carefully consider these criteria when evaluating whether a licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency prior to the deadline, i

!!!. EQ Yiolations net Sufficiently Significant to Merit a Civil Penalty Under_

the Modified Policy Any failure to adequately list and demonstrate qualification of equipment required by 10 CFR 50.49 may constitute a violation of the rule. This does i not re;utre, however, that all violations of the rule be considered for escalated enforcement or be assessed a civil penalty. For exagle, if the qualification file presented to the inspector during an inspection did not demonstrate or support qualification of equipment, the equipment would be considered unqualified 2/ and 10 CFR 50.49 requirements would be violated.

4 However, although not in the qualification file, if sufficient data exists or is developed during the inspection to demonstrate quellfication of the equipment or, based on other information available to the inspector, the

- specific equipment is qualifiable for the application in question, the quellfication deficiency is not considered sufficiently significant for assessment of civil penalties. These violations would be considered to be Severity Level !Y or Severity Level Y violations based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection.

Programmatic violations or problems that are identified as a result of t the EQ inspections that involve several EQ violations which themselves would not be considered sufficiently significant to merit a civil penalty under the modified EQ enforcement policy nonetheless my be aggregated and evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally Severity Level !!!) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements cf 10 CFR 50.49 and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The civil penalties for these 4 violations would be assessed under the normal Enforcement Policy of

10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (Supplement !).

I

!Y. Basis fer Determining Civil Penalties A. Base Civil Penalty

- Significant EQ violations, for which the licensee clearly should have known that they had equipment for which qualification had not been established, i

I 2/ For purases of enforcement. ' unqualified equipeent" means equipment for which tiere is not adeceste documentation to establish that this equipment will perform its intenced functions in the relevant environment.

9 b

- . _ , . _ . - . , - - ,_..-_..___._.,__,m_.. _ , . , _ _ _ _ , _,,_____._,m_ , _ _ _ . _ _ . , - _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ m,,_, ,, _ ,,., ,_

Enclosure -3 I

are to be considered together, in the aggregate, and the base civil penalty assessed in a graded approach based or, the nunter of systems or cogonents affected. _3/

The base civil penalty would be determined as described below.

1 EO Y1olation Cateoory Base Civil Penalty Extensives EQ violations affecting many $300,000 A.

systems and many conponents. ,

Moderates EQ violations affecting some $150,000 ,

8. '

systems and some components. ,

Isolated EQ violations affecting a $ 75,000 C.

limited nunter of systems and components.

) The three EQ violation categories reflect the overall pervasiveness and

the general safety significance of significant EQ violations. The NRC consddars violations of EQ requirements to be safety significant because the electrical eculpment required to be qualified were those which have i

importance to safety. The violation categories do not include those EQ violations which have been determined to be not sufficiently significant i standing alone to be considered for escalated enforcement and which will be normally considertd as Severity Level !Y or Y violettens, as described ,

in Section !!!. As stated in Section !!!, however, programatic problems

' may be the subject of escalated enforcement action under the NRC's normal Enforcement Policy.

1 The significance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluates ,

l

- the number of systees affected by the EQ violations and determines the EQ violationcategory. The NRC will assume, for escalated enforcement cases, that the unqua ified equipment could affect operability of the associated system. The NRC will not consider refinements on the operability arguments l

j such as the actual tim 7ee equipment is required to be operable, admini-strative measures or controls available to ensure the safety function is accoglished, the degree to which the operability of a system is affected, ,

the equipment may be

. or, demonstrated to be qualified or qualifiable. Th assumption is made for that through additional analyses or testing,is enforcement purposes in order to reduce the resources anticipated to be spent by Itcensees and the NRC to evaluate in detail whether system operability was in question.

1

'I J 3/ The EQ violation categories (A-C) will be used rather than the severity

~

levels in the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C.

l The base civil penalty for the violations will be applied consistent with the statutory limits on civil penalties under Section 234 of the Atomic 1 Energy Act.

I l -

i

{ -

~

Enclosure Because the NRC is considering enforcement - .lon

' rather than a justifica-tion for continued operation and the EQ deficiencies . ve been corrected in most instances, tie NRC will make a conservative judgment as to the overall safety significance of the EQ violations based on the nuder of safety systems affected. This approach has the benefits of a relatively quick, though conservative, view on the safety consequences of unqualified equipment and will focus on the underlying cause of the EQ violations.

Cases involving deliberate violations or very serious EQ violations (more safety significant than considered in this modified enforcement policy such as w'despread breakdowns or clearly. Inoperable systens) will be evaluated on a case-by case basis and may be subject to more severe sanctions than those described in this policy. '

B. Mitigation / Escalation Factors Mitigation and escalation of the base civil penalty determined in Section IV.A will be considered in the determination of the civil penalty amount.

The NRC will consider the EQ violations in aggregate, not >ased on individual violations. Adjustment of the base civil penalty will be considered as described below:

Mitigation / Escalation Factors Maximum Mitigation /

Escalation Amount (from base civil penalty)

1. Identification and prorpt reporting, if required, t 505 of the EQ violations (including opportunities to identify and correct the deficiencies).

2. Best efforts to coglete E0 within the deadline. t 505

3. Corrective actions to result in full compliance t 505 (including the time taken to make an operability or qualification determination, the quality of any supporting analysis, and the nature and extent of the licensee's efforts to come into cogliance).

4. Duration of violation which is significantly below - 505 100 days.

l In order to be fair and equitable to those licensees who took appropriate actions prior to November 30, 1985 or shut down prior to this date to be in com:11ance, civil penalties generally should not be less than $50,000 to empsasize that a significant environmental qualification failure is unacceptable. ,

The NRC will, however, consider full mitigation (no civil penalty) for l those EQ violations which satisfy all of the five following criteria:

(1) violations which are isolated and affect a limited number of systems and cornponents. (2) violations which are identified by the licensee.

(3) violations which are promptly reported to the NRC if required.

(4) violations which are corrected and actions taken will result in full compliance within a reasonable time, and (5) violations for which the licensee has demonstrated best efforts to cunplete EQ within the deadline.

F

. Enclosure

• 5-The intent of full citigation of the civil penalty for EQ violations which meet all five criteria is to increase the incentive for self-identification of EQ deficiencies which might not otherwise be found by NRC. The NRC will generally issue only a Notice of Ytolation for violations which meet all these criteria.

l If the licensee is able to convincingly demonstrate at the time of the i inspection, or shortly thereafter, that en item is not required to be on the EQ Iist, then the item would not be considered for enforcement action.

The NRC does not intend to consider for enforcement purmses the results of a licensee's after the-fact testing for mitigation wiere the Ifcensee clearly should have known that its documentation was not sufficient.

9 4

e k

l

~

LIST OF GECENTLY ISSUED GENEO!C LETTECS

• Doto c4 0 noric Issuance Issued To Lotter No. Subject ALL POWER GL 88-06 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS 03/22/88 REACTOR FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LICENSEES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL APPLICANTS REQUIREMENTS i

ALL LICENSEES SL 88-05 BORIC ACID CORROS!ON OF CARBON 03/17/88 OF OPERATING

< STEEL REACTOR PRESSURE PWRS AND BOUNDARY COMPONENTS IN ,

HOLDERS OF PWR PLANTS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR ,

PWR$

02/23/88 ALL NON-POWER GL 88-04 DISTR 18UTION OF GEMS REACTOR 1RRADIATED IN RESEARCH LICENSEES REACTORS c,NERIC SAFETY 02/17/88 ALL LICENSEES. ,

GL 88-03 RESOLUTION L APPLICANTS FOR l

ISSUE 93, 'Wi,ii BINDING OF OPERATING i AUXILI ARY P E ' N 'ER PUMPS" LICENSES, AND HOLDERS OF l 1

CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PRESSURI ZED WATER REACTORS

"!NTEGRATED SEFETY ASSESSMENT 04/20/88 ALL POWER GL 88-02 REACTOR PROGRAM !! (ISAP !!)"

LICENSEES "NRC POSITION ON !GSCC IN SWR 01/25/88 ALL LICENSEES

GL 88-01 OF OPERATING AUSTEN! TIC STAINLESS STEEL P!P!NG" 80! LING WATER l 4

REACTOR $ AND l HOLDERS OF  ;

CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR SWRS 11/12/87 NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TO ALL POWER AND GL 87-16 NONPOWER QUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS REACTOR

- RE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55 ON OPERATORS - LICENSEES AND LICENSES APPLICANTS FOR LICENSES l

- l POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERRED 11/04/87 ALL HOLDERS OF I 1

GL 87-15 l PLANTS CONSTRUCTION 3 PERMITS FOR A  !

l NUCLEAR POWER ,

l PLANT l l

08/04/87 ALL POWER GL 87-14 REQUEST FOR OPERATOR LICENSE REACTOR l SCHEDULES LICENSEES

. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ __- - . _ _ -.