ML20195B716

Notice of Violation & Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty in Amount of $50,000.Noncompliance Noted:Lack of Environ Qualification for Certain Components of Electrical Equipment in Isolated Sys

ML20195B716
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	10/24/1988
From:	Ernst M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II)
To:
Shared Package
ML20195B713	List: IR 05000413/1988007 ML20195B716
References
EA-88-132, NUDOCS 8811020165
Download: ML20195B716 (6)

Text

4 a

f 1

NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND PROPOSED IMPOSITIDN OF CIVIL PENALTY-Duke Power Company Docket Nos. 50-413 and 50-414 Catawba Nuclear Station License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52 Units 1 and 2 EA 88-132 During the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) inspection conducted on February 1-5, 1988, violations of NRC requirements were identified. In accordance with the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants," contained in 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 violations and associated civil penalty are set forth below:

I, Violations Assessed a Civil Penalty-A. 10 CFR 50.49(d), (e), (f), (j), and (k) state in part that (1) the licensee shall have a list of electric equipment important to safety that addresses the environmental conditions, including temperature, mergence; (2)the pressure, humidity, qualification radiation, program chemicals, must include and beandbased sub-on submergence if subject to being submerged; (3) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing of, or experience with, identical or similar equipment, and the qualification shall include a supporting analysis to show the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; (4) a record of qualification must be maintained in an auditable form; and .

(5) electric equipment important to safety which was previously qualified in accordance with NUREG-0588 (for coment version),

"Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," need not be requalified to 10 CFR 50.49.

r NUREG-0588, Section 2.2(5) states that "equipment should be  !

located above flood level or protected against submergence by i locating the equipment in qualified watertight enclosures... Where equipment could be submerged, it should be identified and demon-strated to be qualified by test for the duration required." ,

1) Contrary to the above, from the initial operation of Unit I t under the full power license issued on January 17, 1985 until January 1988, the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) hot and cold leg wide range resistance temperature detectors (RTD), Model l

h G

_ _ . _ . ~ . . _ . _

^

Netice of Violation 2 RdF, were not qualified in that the junction boxes where the RTD pigtail wires were terminated could become suomerged and were not qualified for submergence; the RTD wires were not qualified for submergence in the installed configuration, that is, the hydrostatic hose assembly that was to encapsu-late the wires to prevent moisture intrusion had been removed during installation; and the qualification file did not t address the installed configuration as being different from the tested configurt. tion due to submergence.

2) Contrary to the above, from the initial operation of Unit 2 under the full power license issued on May 15, 1986, until January 1988, the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) hot and cold leg wide range resistance temperature detectors (RTD), Model l RdF, were not qualified in that the junction boxes where the RTD pigtail wires were terminated could become submerged and were not qualified for submergence; the wires were not qualified for submergence in the installed configuration, that is, the hydrostatic hose assembly that was to encapsu- ,

late the wires to prevent moisture intrusion had been removed

, during installation; and the qualification file did not address the installed configuration as being different from the tested configuration due to submergence.

B. 10 CFR 50.49(f), (j), and (k) state in part that (1) each item of electrical equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing of, or experience with, identical or similar equipment, and the qualification shall include a supporting analysis to show t the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; (2) a record of qualification mJst be maintained to verify that each item

,- important to safety is qualified for its application and meets its '

specified performance requirements; and (3) electric equipment important to safety which was previously qualified in accordance ,

with NUREG-0588 (for coment version), "Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equip- i ment," need not be requalified to 10 CFR 50.49.

Contrary to the above, from November 30, 1985, until the time of an inspection, which was completed on January 10, 1986, the t licensee's environmental qualification (EQ) files did not '

adequately document qualification for the two Limitorque motor operated valves installed in the Unit 1 Containment Air Return and Hydrogen Skimmer System (valve nos. IVX1A and IVX28). The installed valves were procured as non safety without test docu-

, mentation and the licensee's EQ files failed to establish similarity between the installed valves and a qualified tested configuration.

\_

. s.

Notice of Violation 3 p

C. 10 CFR 50.49(f), (j), and (k) state in part that (1) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing of, or experience with, identical or similar equipment, and the qualification shall include a supporting analysis to show the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; (2) a record of qualification must be maintained to verify that each item important to safety is qualified for its application and meets its specified performance requirements; and (3) electric equipment important to safety which was previously qualified in accordance with NUREG 0588 (for comment version), "Interim Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equip-ment," need not be requalified to 10 CFR 50.49.

1) Contrary to the above, from initial plant operations until the time of the inspection which was completed on February 5, 1988, a total of three inside containment Limitorque motor operated valves in Unit I were not installed in accordance with the qualified tested configuration in that T-drains were painted over, plugged or not installed. Furthermore, the deficiencies were not evaluated in the environmental qualification file. The affected valves are identified as follows: 1KC3648, IKC394A, and INM2008.

2) Contrary to the above, from initial plant operation of Unit 2 under the full power license issued on May 15, 1986, until the time of the inspection which was completed on February 5, 1988, a total of 17 inside containment Limitorque motor operated valves were not installed in accordance with a qualified tested configuration in that T-drains were painted over, plugged or not installed. Furthermore, these defi-ciencies were not evaluated in the environmental qualifi-cation (EQ) file. The affected Unit 2 valves were: 2KC345A, 2KC394A, 2KC4138, 2KC429B, 2NC054A, 2NC250A, 2NC251B, 2NC2528, 2NC253A, 2NM187A. 2NM190A, 2NM1978, 2NM200B, 2NM207A, 2NM210A, 2NM025A, and 2WL450A.

This is an EQ Category C problem.

Civil Penalty - $50,000

!!. Violations Not Assessed a Civil Penalty t A. 10 CFR 50.49(f) and (k), state in part that (1) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing of, or experience with, identical or similar equipment, and the qualification shall include a supporting analysis to show the equipment to be qualified is acceptable; and (2) electric equipment important to safety which was previously qualified in

Notice of Violation 4 accordance with NUREG 0588 (for comment version), "Interim. Staff Position on Environmental Qualification of Safety-Related Electrical Equipment," need not be requalified to 10 CFR 50.49.

Contrary to the above, at the time of the inspection which was completed on February 5,1988, the Hydrogen Skimmer fan motors on Unit 2 were not installed in accordance with the tested configu-ration in that the breather drains were not installed and this deficiency was not addressed in the EQ file.

This is a Severity Level IV violation (Supplement I).

B. 10 CFR 50.49(f) and (j) state in part that (1) each item of electric equipment important to safety shall be qualified by testing of, or experience with, identical or similar equipment, and the qualification shall include a supporting analysis to show the equipnent to be qualified is acceptable; and (2) a record of qualification must be maintai' led to verify that each item important to safety is qualified nr its application and meets its specified performance requiremen's.

Contrary to the above, at the time of inspection which was completed on February 5,1988, the file for the Hydrogen Recombiner for Unit 1 did not contain a similarity analysis as required to show that the installed tape splice was similar to a tested, qualified configuration.

This is a Severity Level V violation (Supplement I).

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, Duke Power Company (licensee) is hereby required to submit a written statement or explanation to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, within 30 days of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice. This reply should be clearly marked as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation" and should include for each violation: (1) admission or denial of the violation, (2) the reasons for the violation if admitted, (3) the corrective steps that ,

have beeri taken and the results achieved (4) the corrective steps which l will be taken to avoid further violations, and (5) the date when full compliance will be achieved. If an adequate reply is not received within the time specified in this Notice, an order may be is:ued to show cause why the lice.1se should not be modified, suspended, or revoked or why such other

action Os may be proper should not be taken. Consideration may be given to ,

extending the response time for good cause st)wn. Under the authority of <

Section 182 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2232, this response shall be submitted under oath or affinnation.

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 addressed to ,

l the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. '

i i

Y 1

.t .

~

Notice of Violation 5 with a check, draf', or money order payable to the Treasurer of the United States in the amount of the civil penalty proposed above, or the cumulative amount 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 fail to answer within the time specified, an order imposing the civil penalty will be issued. Should the licensee elect to file an answer in accordance with 10 CFR 2.205 protesting the civil penalty, in whole or in part, such answer should be clearly marked as an "Answer to a Notice of Violation" and may: (1) deny the violations listed in this Notice in whole or in part, (2) demonstrate extenuating circumstances, (3) show error in this Notice, or (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.

In requesting mitigation of the proposed penalty, the factors addressed in the "Modified Enforcement Policy Relating to 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment Important to Safety for fluclear Powa-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 ma specific reference (y incorporate parts of the 10 CFR 2.201 reply bye.g., citing page an 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.

Upon failure to pay the penalty due, which has been subsequently determined in accordance with the applicable provisions of 10 CFR 2.205, this matter may be referred to the Attorney General, and the pensity, unless compro-mised, remitted, or mitigated, may be collected by civil action pursuant to Section 23.ic of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 2282.

The responses to the Director, Office of Enforcement, noted above (Reply to a Notice of Violation, letter with payment of civil penalty, and Answer to a Notice of Violation) should be addressed to: Director, Office of Enforce-ment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region II and a copy to the NRC Resident Inspector, Catawba Nuclear Plant.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORIGINAL SIGNED BY M. L. ERNST Malcolm L. Ernst Acting Regional Administrator Dated at Atlanta, Georgia, this$qddayofOctober1988

e . 9 C,49

, /*5  %, UNITED STATES

[

i NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. I usmorew, o. c. mss April 7, 1988 Enclosure 2

• ?4....',/

TO ALL POWER REACTOR LICENSELS AND APPLICANTS

SUBJECT:

MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT FOLICY RELATlHG TO 10 CFR 50.49, ' ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION OF ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IMPORTANT TO SAFETY FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" (GENERICLETTER88-07)

Background:

Generic Letters, Bulletins, and Information Notices have been issued to provide guidance regarding the application and enforcement of 10 CFR 50.49, "Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants."

Generic Letter 85-15, issued August 6,1985, and Generic Letter 86-15, issur.d September 22, 1986, provided information related to the deadlines for compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 and possible civil penalties applicable to licensees who were not in compliance with the rule as of the November 30, 1985 deadline. Upon review, the Comission found that the EQ Enforcement Pelley 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 Connission 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.

Generally, the changes made to the policy are to: (1) aggregate significant EQ violations togetner, rather than consider each separate item of unqualified electrical equipment, for assessment of a civil penalty, (2) assess a base civil penalty according to the nurter of systems or components which are affected by the unqualified equipment in a graded approach by assignment of the aggregate EQ problem into one of three categories, (3) establish a maximum EQ civil penalty of $750 0C0 for most cases, (4) mainta'in a minimum civil penalty of $50,000 for asignificantEQviolationinmostcases,and(5)considermitigationor escalation of the base civil penalty based on the factors of identification and reporting, best efforts to complete EQ within the deadline, corrective actions, and duration of the violation.

This modified policy should not be interpreted as a lessening of the NRC's intention to assure that all plants comply with EQ requirements. The modified policy is intended to give a significant civil penalty to those licensees with significant EQ violations. The NRC's view is that the modified policy more 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 environmental qualification of equipment (i.e., a licensee does not have an

SNOM #l'l'

April 7, 1988 Generi'c !.etter 88-07 adequate basis to establish qualification), the licensee is expected to make a prompt determination of performing its intendedof operability (i.e.,)the design function , takesystem innediateor steps component is capable to establish a plan with a reasonable schedule to correct the deficiency, and have written justification for continued operation, which will be v. ilable for NRC review.

The licensee may be able to make a finding of operabiluy using analysis and partial test data to provide reasonable assurance that the equipment 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 any safety function or provide misleading information to the operator.

The following actions are to be taker. if a licensee 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

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

The licensee must also evalt ste whether the findings are reportable under 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73, 10 L T Part 21, the Technical Specifications or any other pertinent reporting requirements, including 10 CFR 50.9(b), particularly if equipment is determined to t,e inoperable.

This letter does not require any response and therefore does not need approval of the Office of Management and Budget. Connents on burden and duplication may be directed to the Office of Manageinentt and Budget, Reports Management Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503. Should you have questions He can on this letter, the staff contact is Howard Wong, Office of Enforcement.

bereachon(301)492-3281.

kXk .

Frank J. M6aglia Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated 4

9 T

ENCLOSURE MODIFIED ENFORCEMENT POLICY FOR EQ REQUIREMENTS This enclosure provides the details of the modified enforcement 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. Scope of the Enforcement Policy for EQ Requirements If violations of the EQ rule identified at plants opert Ing 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 III and IV. If the licensee does not meet the "clearly knew or should have known" test, no enfcreement action wil? be taken.

This enforcement policy applies to viclations of the EQ rule identified after November 30, 1985 which relate back to action or lack of action before the deadline. 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-round inspection,1/ approximately mid-1988, will also be considered under the normal Enforcement Policy.

II. Application of the "Clearly Knew. or Should Have Known' Test Licensees who ' clearly knew" they had equipment for which qualification could not be established may have comitted a deliberate violation 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-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 a'dequate receiving and/or field verification inspection to determine that the configuration of the installed 4

equipment matched the configuration of the equipment that was qualified by the vendor? I:

3. Did the licensee have prior notice that equipment qualification '

deficiencies might exist?

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

~1/ First-round inspections are special team inspections to review licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.49.

I

-- -- ---.---..---__,_m , _ , _ - , _ . _ _ . . _ , _ _

Enclosure In assessing whether the licensee clearly should have known of a deficiency, the information provided to the licensees by the NRC and the industry on specific deficiencies will be taken into consideration. This information, I and the timeliness of it being provided to licensees prior to the EQ deadline are relevant fsctors. If one licensee determined that a specific EQ deficiency existed, it would not be assumed that all licensees should nave also come to the sare conclusion unless information about the specific l 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.

111. EO Violations not Sufficiently Significant to Merit a Civil Penalty Under_

PeModifiedPolicy 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 not require, however, that all violations of the rule be considered for escalated enforcerent or be assessed a civil penalty. For exangle, 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.

However, although not in the qualification file, if sufficient data exists or is developed during the inspection to demonstrate qualification of the equipment or, based on other information available to the inspector, the specific equipment is qualifiable for the application in question, the qualification deficiency is not considered sufficiently significant for assessment of civil penalties. These violations would be considered to be Severity Level IV or Severity level Y violations based on a violation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements at the time of the inspection.

Programatic violations or problems that are identified as a result of 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 may be aggregated and evaluated for escalated enforcement action (generally Severity Level III) for the failure to satisfy applicable requirements of 10 CFR 50.49 and/or 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B. The civil penalties for these '

violations would be assessed under the normal Enforcement Policy of 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C (Supplement I).

IV. Basis for 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.

2/ For pur>oses of enforcement. ' unqualified equipeent" means equipment for which t1ere is not adequate documentation to establish that this equipment will pcrform its intended functions in the relevant environment.

8 G

4 Enclosure are to be considered together, in the aggregate, and the base civil penalty assessed in a graded approach based on the number of systems or cog onents affected. _3/

The base civil penalty would be determined as described below.

EQ Violation Category Base Civil Penalty A. Extensive; EQ violations affecting many $300,000 systems and many cog onents.

B. Moderate; EQ violations affecting some $150,000 systems and some components.

C. Isolated; EQ violations affecting a $ 75,000 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 considers violations of EQ requirements to be safety significant because the electrical eculpment required to be qualified were those which have importance to safety. The violation categories do not include those EQ violations which have been determined to be not sufficiently significant standing alone to be considered for escalated enforcement and which will be normally considered as Severity 1.evel IV or V violaticos, as described in Section !!!. As stated in Section !!!, however, programmatic problems may be the subject of escalated enforcement action under the NRC's normal Enforcement Policy.

The significance of the EQ violations is considered when the NRC evaluates the number of systems affected by the EQ violations and determines the EQ violation category. The NRC will assume, for escalated enforcement cases, that the unqualif ted equipment could affect operability of the associated system. The NRC will not consider refinements on the operability arguments such as ti,e actual time the equipment is required to be operable, admini-

- strative measures or controls available to ensure the safety function is accomplished, the degree to which the operability of a system is affected, or, that through additional analyses or testing, the equipment may be demonstrated to be qualified or qualifiable. This assugtion is made for enforcement purposes in order to reduce the resources anticipated to be spent by licensees and the NRC to evaluate in detail whether system operability was in question.

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.

The base civil penalty for the violations will be applied consistent with  !

the statutory limits on civil penalties under Section 234 of the Atemic Energy Act.

Enclosure Because the NRC is considering enforcement action rather than a justifica-tion for continued operation and the EQ deficiencies

• ve been corrected in most instances, the NRC will make a conservative judgment as to the overall safety significance of the EQ violations based on the nunter 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 E0 violations.

Cases involving deliberate violations or very serious EQ violations (more safety significant than considered in this modified enforcement policy such as widespread breakdowns or clearly inoperable systems) 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 senalty 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 prospt reporting, if required, t 50%

of the EQ violations (including opportunities to identify and correct the defic'encies).

2. Best efforts to complete EQ within the deadline. t 50%

3. Correct he actions to result in full compliance 505 (including the time taken to make an operability or qualification detenninatton, the quality of any supporting analysis, and the nature and extent of the licensee's efforts to.come into compliance).

4 Duration of violation which is significantly below - 50%

100 days.

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 compliance, civil penalties generally should not be less than $50,000 to emphasize that a significa..c environmental qualification failure is unacceptable.

The NRC will, however, consider full mitigation (no civil penalty) for those EQ '<io?stions which satisfy all of the five following criteria:

(1) violations which are isolated and affect a limited number of systems and components, (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 tire, and (5) violations for which the licensee has demonstrated best efforts to cwplete EQ within the deadline.

Enclosure The intent of full mitigation 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 Y1olation for violations which meet all these criteria.

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

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

e 4

1 s-s

9 LIST ,OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENERIC LETTERS Date of G:neric Issuance Issued To

.LCtter No. Subject ALL POWER SL 88-06 REMOVAL OF ORGANIZATION CHARTS 03/22/88 REACTOR FROM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION LICENSEES AND ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL APPLICANTS REQUIREMENTS ALL LICENSEES SL 88-05 BORIC ACID CORROS!ON OF CAR 8ON 03/17/88 OF OPERATING STEEL REACTOR PRESSURE PWRS AND BOUNDARY COMPONENTS IN HOLDERS OF PWR PLANTS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PWRS a

02/23/88 ALL NON-POWER CL 88-04 DISTRIBUTION OF GEMS REACTOR 1RRADIATED IN RESEARCH LICENSEES REACTORS 02/17/88 ALL LICENSEES.

SL 88-03 RESOLUTION OF GENERIC SAFETY APPLICANTS FOR I TSSUE 93, "STEAM SINDING OF OPERATING AUXILIARY FEEDWATER PUMPS" LICENSES, AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR PRESSURIZED

!l WATER REACTORS 01/20/88 ALL POWER GL 88-02 "!NTEGRATED SEFETY ASSESSMENT REACTOR l

PROGRAM !! (! SAP !!)" LICENSEES "NRC POSITION ON IGSCC IN BWR 01/25/88 ALL LICENSEES 4 GL 88-01 OF OPERATING AUSTEN! TIC STAINLESS STEEL' DO! LING WATER P! PING" REACTORS AND HOLDERS OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS FOR i SWRS NUREG-1762, "ANSWERS TO 11/12/87 ALL POWER AND DL 87-16 NONPOWER l 9UESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS REACTOR i RE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55 LICENSEES AND ON OPERATGAS

{' APPLICANTS FOR LICENSES LICENSES 11/04/87 ALL HOLDERS OF SL 87-15 POLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERRED CONSTRUCTION i PLANTS PERMITS FOR A r NUCLEAR POWER PLANT I

SL 87-14 REQUEST FOR OPERATOR LICENSE 08/04/87 ALL POWER

• nOY'YWLDD .

REAC7OR

c .

/f ...,%c UNITED STATES

{ i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

\ ,,,,,/!/

, Office of Gowemmental and Pub 5c Affairs neoeon n 101 Meiette Sweet. N.W., an.ama,enemma aceos II-88-47 FOR DMDIATE RELEASE Ocotact: Kenneth M. Clark (Tuesday, October 25, 1988)

Telephone 404-331-4503 NRC STAFF PROPOSES $50,000 CIVIL PENALTY AGAINST DUKE POWER COMPANY FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF NRC REQUIREMENTS AT THE CATAWBA NUCLEAR PLANT The Nuclear Regulatory Comission staff has proposed a $50,000 civil penalty against Duke Power Company for alleged violation of NRC requirements at the Catawba nuclear power plant, located near Charlotte, North Carolina.

The NRC action follows an inspection February 1-5, 1988, at the Catawba plant and at Duke's corporate design offices in Charlotte. NRC inspectors reviewed the company's program for the environmental qualification of electrical equipment as required by NRC regulations and identified violations involving the lack of envircamental qualification for certain components of electrical equipment in isolated systems in both reactor units at the plant.

They also reviewed circumstances surrounding Duke's identification and reporting to the NRC that temperature detectors in parts of the reactor coolant systems of both units were not properly environmentally qualified, because they were not installed in accordance with the tested configuration, and identified violations in that area.

While the NRC said that Duke Power Company clearly should have known about the environmental qualification deficiencies, the agency said the company has taken an overall aggressive approach to environmental qualification and that considerable corporate-wide effort has been applied to the program. The agency added that the prompt corrective action which addressed the specific problems identified as violations in this case was quickly applied to other company nuclear power stations, indicating active management involvement in this area.

l NRC officials also said the base civil penalty for the violations was

$75,000 but that it was reduced to $50,000 in this case because of Duke's prompt corrective action.

The company has 30 days in which to either pay the civil penalty or to protest its imposition, in whole or in part.

i i l

l i