ML20134D821
| ML20134D821 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1985 |
| From: | Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134D818 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-85-11, 50-374-85-11, NUDOCS 8508190399 | |
| Download: ML20134D821 (2) | |
Text
-
I Appendix NOTICE OF VIOLATION Commonwealth Edison Company Docket No. 50-373 LaSalle County Nuclear Generating Docket No. 50-374 Station, Units 1 and 2 As a result of the inspection conducted on July 10-12, 1985, and in accordance with the General Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions, (10 CFR Part 2, Appendix C), the following violation was identified:
10 CFR 50.54(q) states in part that a licensee authorized to possess and/or operate a nuclear power reactor shall follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards in 50.47(b) of this Part and the requirements in Appendix E to this Part.
10 CFR 50, Appendix E, Section F states in part that each licensee shall exercise at least annually the emergency plan for each site at which it has one or more power reactors licensed for operation.
Section F further states...(the) exercises shall provide for formal critiques in order to identify weak areas that need corrections.
Any weaknesses that are identified shall be corrected.
Contrary to the above, two exercise weaknesses were identified by the NRC l
during the exercise conducted on October 9-11, 1984 and reported in Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/84-18; 50-374/84-24 which were not corrected as required:
1.
During the 1984 exercise, the overall performance of the technical spokespersons in the JPIC were poor.
Press releases were inadequately detailed.
During the 1985 exercise, the JPIC spokesman presented a briefing which was sufficiently technical in nature but not in detail.
Again the spokesman was not prepared to satisfactorily give the briefing.
For instance, he was unaware of contaminated workers who had been transported off station for decontamination; he was unable to adequately describe the significance of the " Alert" emergency classification; and he incorrectly described the " General Emergency" classification as " General Area."
2.
During the 1984 exercise, personnel assigned to the dedicated GSEP van were unfamiliar with operating some of its equipment.
During the 1985 exercise, Team #2 was assigned to the dedicated GSEP van.
Again the team members were unfamiliar with the location of supplies, had difficulty in using the van's radio, and could not operate the built-in voltage converter.
This is a Severity Leeel V violation (Supplement VIII) which will be tracked as Open Items 373/85011-01 and 374/85011-01.
O P
PG
Appendix 2
Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.201, you are required to submit to this office within thirty days of the date of this Notice a written statement or explanation in reply, including for each item of noncompliance:
(1) cor-rective action taken and the results achieved; (2) corrective action to be taken to avoid further noncompliance;-and (3) the date when full compliance will be achieved.
Consideration may be given to extending your response time for good cause shown.
b' Ilated-W. D. Shafer, Chief Emergency Preparedness and Radiological Protection Branch i
1 h
.