ML20210F613

Forwards Safety Insp Repts 50-254/86-11 & 50-265/86-10 on 860825-27.No Noncompliance or Deviations Noted.Weaknesses Identified in Encl App

ML20210F613
Person / Time
Site:	Quad Cities
Issue date:	09/22/1986
From:	Shafer W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20210F617	List: IR 05000254/1986011 ML20210F613
References
NUDOCS 8609250261
Download: ML20210F613 (4)

See also: IR 05000254/1986011

Text

r

'

.

.

SEP 22 886

Docket No. 50-254

Docket No. 50-265

Commonwealth Edison Company

ATTN: Mr. Cordell Reed

Vice President

Post Office Box 767

Chicago, IL 60690

Gentlemen:

This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. T. Ploski and

others of this office on August 25-27, 1986, of activities at the Quad Cities

Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, authorized by NRC Operating

Licenses No. DPR-29 and No. DPR-30, and to the discussion of our findings with

Messrs. T. Tamlyn, G. Spedl, G. Tietz and others of your staff at the

conclusion of the inspection.

The enclosed copy of our inspection report identifies areas examined during

the inspection. Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective

examination of procedures and representative records, observations, and

interviews with personnel.

No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this

inspection. However, certain weaknesses were identified during this inspection

which will require corrective actions. These weaknesses are identified in the

Appendix to this letter. As required by 10 CFR 50, Appendix E (IV.F), any

weaknesses that are identified must be corrected. Accordingly, you are

requested to submit a written statement within 30 days of the date of this

letter describing you planned actions for correcting the weaknesses identified

in the appendix.

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of

this letter, the enclosures, and your response to this letter will be placed

in the NRC Public Document Room.

The responses directed by this letter are not subject to the clearance

procedures of the Office of Management and Budget as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, PL 96-511.

8609250261 860922

{UR ADOCK 05000254

PDR

i ?.7

YQ

r

.

Comonwealth Edison Cornpany 2

g{p g 31986

We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.

Sincerely,

w0rfginal 81gned by T.D. Shafer"

W. D. Shafer, Chief

Emergency Preparedness and

Radiological Protection Branch

Enclosures:

1. Appendix, Exercise Weaknesses

2. Inspection Reports

No.50-254/86011(DRSS);and

No. 50-265/86010(DRSS)

See Attached Distribution

.

b l

RIII p R I, J RII 7 RI ,

P1 1/ls Williamsen Sne Bo d S fr

yes p, ,

c.

,

,

.

Connonwealth Edison Company 3

$(@ 22

l

Distribution

cc w/ enclosure:

D. L. Farrar, Director

of Nuclear Licensing ,

R. L. Bax, Plant Manager l

DCS/RSB (RIDS)

Licensing Fee Management Branch

Resident Inspector, RIII

Phyllis Dunton, Attorney

General's Office, Environmental

Control Division

D. Matthews, EPB, 0IE

W. Weaver, FEMA, RV

M. Carroll, FEMA, RVII

l

l

f

i

.- __. .

. . .

,

,

APPENDIX

EXERCISE WEAKNESSES ,

1. There were several examples of improper controller actions in the Control

Room (Paragraph 5.a). (50-254/86011-01 and 50-265/86010-01)

2. Internal breakdowns in communications within the TSC resulted in late

awareness of a radioactive release, late awareness of the cause of the

loss of secondary containment, and the late simulated evacuation of

non-essential onsite personnel (Paragraph 5.b). (50-254/86011-02 and

50-265/86010-02)

3. Technicians involved with post-accident sampling failed to follow

procedural guidance regarding handling of samples at the collection point

-

and to properly shield, label and log receipt of the samples at an

appropriately posted counting facility. (Paragraph 5.c).

(50-254/86011-03 and 50-265/86010-03) ,

4. An excessive amount of time was taken to have the E0F fully operational

from the time that the decision was made to activate this facility

(Paragraph 5.d). (50-254/86011-04 and 50-265/86010-04)

5. Late changes in the onsite scenario were inadequately coordinated with

the NRC evaluators and at least some offsite exercise controllers

(Paragraph 5.g). (50-254/86011-05 and 50-265/86010-05)

.

n

d

,

%

1

i

, ., _ _ . - , _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ . , , . _ , . _ _ _ - _ , _

- - , - -