ML20245L821

Forwards Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty in Amount of $75,000.Reduction of 50% of Proposed Civil Penalty Appropriate After Reconsideration of Escalation & Mitigation Factors

ML20245L821
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	05/03/1989
From:	Thompson H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Oconnor J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20246A002	List: ML20245L821 ML20246A009
References
EA-87-082, EA-87-82, NUDOCS 8905080141
Download: ML20245L821 (2)

Text

$

r. j

< e.sy )

4 UNITED STATES i

[ g- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y, p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655

• *.s / MAY 031989 .

l l

Docket Nos. 50-254 and 50-265 Licenses Nos. DPR-29 and DPR 30 EA 87-82 2 1 Commonwealth Edison Company j ATTN: Mr. James J. O'Connor J President  ;

Post Office Box 767 )

Chicago, Illinois 60690-0767

]

Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

ORDER IMPOSING A CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY (QUAD CITIES)

This refers to your letters dated November 21, 1988 and December 19, 1988 in response to the Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty (Notice).sent to you by our letter cated October 20, 1988. Our letter and i Notice describe one violation identified by the NRC at the Quad Cities Nuclear J Power Station.

To emphasize the importance of environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety, a civil penalty of One Hundred and Fif ty  !

Thousand Dollars ($150,000) was proposed.

In your response, you made a qualified aamission of a violation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements but you contended that Commonwealth Edison Company (Ceco) should not clearly have known of the violation. Additionally, you asserted that, should the NRC staff conclude that you clearly should have known of the violation, mitigation of the proposed civil penalty is appropriate. Finally, you claimed that the proposed penalty is inconsistent with the Modified Enforcement Policy because the NRC is penalizing CECO twice by issuing identical violations to Dresden and Quad Cities and the amount of the penalty is unfair because another  !

licensee received a lower penalty for the sane violation. '

i After consideration of your response, we have concluded, for the reasons given i' in the Appendix attached to the enclosed Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty, that you did not provide sufficient basis for withdrawal of the violation.

However, after reconsidering the escalation and mitigation factors, the NRC has concluoed that the escalation of the base civil penalty by 50% when considering the factor of identification and reporting, was inappropriate. Accordingly, we have concluded a 50% reduction of the proposed civil penalty to be appropriate and hereby serve the enclosed Order on Commonwealth Edison Company imposing a '

civil penalty in the amount of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000). We will review the effectiveness of your corrective actions during a subsequent inspection.

CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED l

i (

5080141 990503 g ADOCK 05000254 PDC [hl/t/ 7

1 Commonwealth Edison Company In accordance with Section 2.790 of the NRC's " Rules for Practice," Part 2, Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, a copy of this letter and the enclosures will be placed in the NRC's Public Document Room.

Sincerely, I

Hu .. Thompson j De Executive Direc for fluclear Materials Safety, Safeguards and Operations Support

Enclosure:

Order Imposing Civil Monetary Penalty with Appendix cc w/ enclosure:

Cordell Reed, Senior Vice President H. Bliss, Nuclear Licensing Manager R. L. Bax, Plant Manager Resident Inspector, RIII J. W. McCaffrey, Chief,-Public Utilities Division t

I I

l

- _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _