ML20247G631

Ack Receipt of & $75,000 Payment for Civil Penalty Proposed by NRC .Nrc Maintains That Violations Cited Grouped Appropriately & Indicated Problems to Ensure Qualification of Equipment

ML20247G631
Person / Time
Site:	Braidwood
Issue date:	03/30/1989
From:	Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT (OE)
To:	Oconnor J COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
EA-88-198, NUDOCS 8904040283
Download: ML20247G631 (2)

Text

- - - - - _ - _ - - _ _ - _ - _ .

M c ux 3

/  %, UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n j wa sHINGTON, D. C. 20666

\*****/ MAR 301989 Docket No. 50-456 and 50-457 License No. NPF-72 andsNPF-77 EA 88-198 Commonwealth Edison Company ATTN: Mr. James J. O' Conner i President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 Gentlemen:

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 15, 1989 and your check for $75,000 in payment for the civil penalty proposed by NRC in a letter dated November 23, 1988. In your response, you stated that Commonwealth Edison Company (CECO) believed the facts did not support the NRC's 50 percent escala-tion of the civil penalty and requested that.the NRC review its application of the escalation and mitigation factors, Your letter supported this request by stating that CECO acted aggressively to address any possible EQ concerns as soon as they were raised. In addition, Ceco argued, that no programmatic problems existed and that the EQ violations should not be grouped together. 1 The NRC maintains that the violations cited in the November 23, 1988 Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty were appropriately grouped together and indicated programmatic problems to ensure the qualification of equipment. It is still the NkC's position that these concerns would not have been independently ident1 fled and address by Ceco in a timely manner. That conclusion is supported by the fact that several lengthy meetings and d1>cus-sions with the CECO staff were necessary to discuss the inadequate technical responses received from CECO subsequent to the NRC findings.

The January 25, 1989 letter states that it is CECO's interpretation of NRC requirements that a licensee must either contest the full civil penalty or pay the penalty in full. That is in fact not the case, a licensee may contest a civil penalty in full or in part. Payment of a civil penalty terminates the civil penalty proceeding. Therefore, if a licensee chooses to pay a civil penalty in full and in the accompanying letter contest the full civil penalty or a portion of it, the NRC does not normally further consider the penalty issue. Should you have any questions on this matter, please call me.

Your corrective actions for the violations will be examined during future l inspections.

Sincerely, pg 0i040 h PN ames Lieberman, Direc or M

o Office cf Enforcement 1 i D cc: A. Bert Davis, RIII

1 c

MAR 301989 1

Commonwealth Edison Company DISTRIBUTION: )

UETEermon,OE l JLuehman, OE  !

JGrobe, RIII I i

Day File EA File DCS 1 i

I i

i M

OE D:0E Ac JLue man JLieberman 3/g'//89 3g,/89