ML19323B124
| ML19323B124 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 03/07/1980 |
| From: | Essig T, Oestmann M NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19323B121 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-373-80-08, 50-373-80-8, 50-374-80-04, 50-374-80-4, NUDOCS 8005090471 | |
| Download: ML19323B124 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000373/1980008
Text
80 On a g n yy,
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCMENT
REGION III
Report Nos. 50-373/80-08; 50-374/80-04
Docket Nos. 50-373; 50-374
License Nos. CPPR-99; CPPR-100
Licensee:
Commonwealth Edison Company
P.O. Box 767
Chicago, IL 60690
Facility Name:
LaSalle County Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2
Inspection At: LaSalle Site, Seneca, IL (January 30-31, February 1, 7, 1980)
Commonwealth Edison Company Corporate Office (February 4, 1980)
Inspection Conducted: January 30-31, February 1, 4, and 7, 1980
'fN.C.CA b w w
-,
Inspector:
M. J. Oestmann
h-
wW
Approved By:
T. H. Essig, Chief
k7[So
Environmental and Special
Projects Section
Inspection Summary
Inspection on January 30-31, and February 1, 4, 7, 1980 (Report
Nos. 50-373/80-08; 50-374/80-04)
Areas Inspected: Routine, announced inspection of environmental pro-
tection for Units 1 and 2, including implementation of construction
permit requirements; nonradiological environmental monitoring programs;
status of item of noncompliance and open items identified in previous
inspections; an investigation of cooling lake blowdown line rupture and
subsequent environmental impact. of blowdown corridor and adjacent farm-
land. The inspection involved 35 inspector-hours on site by one NRC
inspector.
Results: Of the areas inspected, no apparent items of noncompliance or
l
deviations were identified in two areas; one apparent deviation was
identified in one area (failure to revegetate the affected area of the
'
east face of the east dike in a timely manner - Paragraph 2a).
l
l
1
i
r
,
.
DETAILS
,
.
1.
Persons Contacted
i
Principal Licensee Personnel
.
.
- C. McDonough, Assistant to the Director of the Environmental
l
-
Affairs Department (EAD), CECO
- R. Montzingo, Staff Biologist (EAD), CECO
J. Golden, Administrator, Radiological and Envircnmental Monitoring
Program, Production and Systems Analysis Department (PSAD), CECO
j
L. Burke, Site Project Superintendent, LaSalle County Nuclear
Station (LSCS)
J. Gutierrez, Environmental Site Coordinator, LSCS
B. Wood, Quality Assurance Engineer, LSCS
- R. Holyoak, Plant Superintendent, LSCS
- G. Reardanz, Quality Assurance Engineer, LSCS
J. Ullrich, Engineering Assistant, LSCS
F. Lawless, Rad / Chem Supervisor, LSCS
- J. Bruciak, Engineering Assistant. LSCS
Other Personnel
D. Bedeker, tenant farmer of adjacent farmland owned by
Mr. H. Killelea and Mrs. F. Nessinger
R. Engel, owner of farmland adjacent to blowdown corridor.
- Denotes those present at the corporate exit interview on February 4,
1980.
- Denotes those present at the plant exit interview on February 7,
1980.
The inspector also interviewed several other licensee employees
during the course of the inspection, including health physics and
chemistry technicians, members of the construction and security
force, and general office personnel.
2.
Licensee Action on Previous Inspection Findings
(0 pen) Noncompliance (50-373/78-05, 78-22, 79-05, 79-20;
a.
50-374/78-05, 78-16, 79-03, 79-14): Failure to minimize
erosion of the east dike of the cooling lake. The inspector
discussed with licensee representatives the status of the
environmental monitoring program regarding vegetative cover
of the dikes and the dredging and seeding of the Armstrong
-2-
r
.
Run, described as part of the five requirements on page 4-6
.
in the FES-OL. The licensee committed to meeting these fiv
requirements as discussed in a previous inspection report. gj
The inspector reviewed the 1979 environmental inspection re-
ports of the cooling lake dike conducted by the licensee's
contractor, Sargent and Lundy, in accordance with requirement
2.
In January 1979, the contractor recommended re-seeding the
-
exterior dike from approximately the station 140 to 156; in
May 1979, the contractor found little or no vegetation at Sta-
tion 76; in August 1979, an area on the east dike between Sta-
tion 154 and Station 170 had little or no crown vetch, rather
it contained weeds, clover, and rye grass.
The inspector
found that re-seeding of the dike between Stations 96 to 99,
140 to 141, and 174 to 176 had been completed in August 1979
by the Walsh Construction Company, a licensee contractor.
In
October 1979, the inspector toured the cooling lake and noted
that certain sections of the east face of the dike required
additional seeding. This was co
spection conducted in May 1979. g rved during a previous in-
At that time, the licensee
informed the inspector that he had planned to re-seed the dike
wherever it was needed during June 1979.
In reference to re-
quirement 3, the licensee did not re-vegetate, particularly
with crown vetch, the affected area along stations approxim-
ately 145 to 200 in a timely manner, in 1979. This is a de-
viation from the licensee commitment.
In reference to requirements 4 and 5, the inspector determined
the Armstrong Run had been dredged last fall in 1979, by the
landowner's contractor, T. T. K. Enterprises. The inspector
discussed the seeding of banks of the run with the tenant
farmer, Mr. Bedeker. He plans to seed the banks in April and
May 1980.
Thisitem[87ainsopen,pendingcompletionofthelicenseecom-
3
mitments
to take actions discussed in Items 3, 4, and 5 of
the FES-OL.
The above areas will be reviewed during a future
inspection.
b.
(0 pen) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/78-26, 79-05, 79-20):
Complet on of emergency planning implementing procedures (LZP's).
Several LZP's identified in Inspection Report No. 50-373/79-20
remain to be completed prior to the licensee receiving a fuel
load license. The licensee's emergency plan, the Generating
Station Emergency Plan, and Annexes and LPZ's are being revised
1/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/79-05; 50-374/79-03.
2/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/79-20; 50-374/79-14.
3_/ Letter, M. Turbak (CECO) to V. A. Moore (NRC), dated March 16, 1978.
4_/ Letter, C. Reed (CECO) to V. A. Moore (NRC), dated May 25, 1978.
-3-
__
.
in light of changes in emergency planning requirements by NRC.
This item remains open, pending approval of the revised GSEP,
Annexes and LPZ's by NRC.
(0 pen) Significant Inspection Finding (50-373/79-05; 50-374/79-03):
c.
Completion of the licensee's quality assurance and qual,ity con-
trol of analytical measurements and measurements capability test
-
for confirmatory measurements inspection program. The inspector
discussed the status of the chemistry and radiochemistry program
with licensee representatives. A tour of these facilities was
made during this inspection. The facilities are being equipped
with counting equipment. Once the equipment is calibrated the
licensee will be ready to accept radioactive samples for count-
ing and to test his analytical capability within the next several
months pursuant to the NRC's Confirmatory Measurements Program.
His analytical procedures also should be completed at that time.
This item remains open, pending completion of the Confirmatory
Measurements Program prior to fuel load license.
3.
Management Controls
The inspector examined the licensee's management of the preopera-
tional nonradiological environtental monitoring programs and im-
plementation of environmental protection practices to assure com-
pliance with Construction Permit requirements. The management
control aspects, including organizational responsibilities, de-
legation of authority, and adminstrative procedures, have remain
thesameasdescribedinthepreviousenvironmentalinspection.gp
-
The inspector reviewed a site quality instruction prepared by the
licensee's Quality Assurance Department, to assure that the con-
struction management sign-off the daily, monthly, and bi-monthly
environmental protection check sheets in compliance with their
Construction Permit environmental procedure. This directive, dated
June 4, 1979
inspection. 6/w s in response to an item discussed in a previous
The inspector has no further questions regarding
this matter.
The inspector discussed with licensee representatives the adminis-
trative controls which the licensee needs to implement in order to
meet the five licensee commitments discussed on page 4-6 of the
Final Environmental Statement and in References 3 and 4 in this
inspection report. The licensee agreed to prepare management in-
structions to implement and comply with the commitments in the
FES-OL. This remains as an open item and will be examined during
a subsequent inspection.
5/ IE Inspection Report No. 50-373/79-20; 50-374/29-14.
6/ Ibid.
l
-4-
.
The inspector reviewed licensee internal documentation which re-
ported the management of the Haileton contract for the aquatic and
terrestial monitoring program by the Environmental Affairs Depart-
ment.
Thi was in response to an item discussed in a previous in-
spection. 9j A five year environmental program was completed in
1978 and the fifth annual report was issued in 1979. The inspector
i
.
has no further questions regarding this matter.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
4.
Licensee Internal Audits
The inspector examined the check sheets for calendar year 1979,
used to comply with the Construction Permit environmental pro-
tection requirements. This sheet is completed by the Environmental
Site Coordinator, either on a daily, monthly, or bi-monthly basis.
The check sheets were found to be reviewed by the licensee's Quality
Assurance Department and construction management, in accordance with
an established environmental protection procedure. The Environmental
Affaf:s Department also reviewed the monthly and bi-monthly check
sheets in accordance with the same procedure. This review and audit
of the check sheets by site management and the Environmental Affairs
Departmentarein7esponsetoanitemdiscussedinapreviousin-
spection report. 8 The inspector has no further questions regard-
ing this matter.
No apparent items of noncompliance or deviations were identified.
5.
Implementation of the Preoperational Monitoring Program for Environ-
mental Protection
a.
Implementation of the Ecological Monitoring Program
The licensee issued its fifth annual report in 1979 for the
five year aquatic and terrestial ecological monitoring program
completed in 1978.
This program was conducted by the licensee's
contractor, Hazleton Laboratory from 1974 to 1978. The licen-
see's contractor conducted studies of phytoplankton, and its
physiology, periphyton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and
fisheries in the aquatic program. No apparent construction
effects were evidenced on aquatic life in the Illinois River and
the South Kickapoo Creek. The terrestial program showed that
minor effects such as avian breeding resulted from construction.
The cooling lake attracted large numbers of water fowl. This is
the most significant plant construction - related effect on local
7/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/78-05; 50-374/78-04.
8/ IE Inspection Report Nos. 50-373/79-20; 50-374/79-14.
!
-5-
1
!
!
.
wildlife populations noted,during the study. The study also show-
ed that revegetation of the blowdown corridor, particularly slop-
ing areas crassing the bluff, was proceeding slowly.
Seeding of the make-up and blowdown corridor, using a grass legume
seed mixture was completed on October 13, 1979. The inspector ex-
amined the blowdown corridor on October 18, 1979, and found the area
had been seeded and hay laid down to hold the seed. Fences were
installed to restrict recreational traffic.
No significant problems
.
were identified at this time.
b.
Rupture of Blowdown Pipe
On January 25, 1980, during adjustment of the Howell-Bunger
valve on the cooling lake blowdown pipe, the 66-inch blowdown
pipe ruptured upstream of the valve. A hole in the ground
40 x 60 feet resulted. Water from the pipe flowed down ravines
on the licensee's property along the blowdown corridor and into
the Illinois River. Some of the water flowed into a ditch which
overflowed onto a driveway of farmland owned by Mr. Engel, caus-
ing some erosion of his property. The licensee has offered to
pay for any property damage.
On January 30, 1980, the inspector observed a bulldozer remov-
ing and excavating earth on top of the blowdown pipe.
Photo-
graphs of the excavation operation were taken. The inspector
also contacted the farmland owner, Mr. Engei, and discussed the
damage to his property. The licensee plans to dredge the ditch
and repair the driveway and farmland in early spring. This
item will be examined during a future inspection.
The licensee is conducting an investigation of the cause of
the rupture, believed to result from a water hammer effect.
The licensee is to sutmit to the NRC, a copy of the investi-
gation report and a pian of action to be taken to eliminate
or significantly reduce the detrimental effects or damage,
in accordance with Section 3.E(2) of the Construction Permit.
This item was discussed at the exit interview and will be ex-
amined during a subsequent inspection.
The inspector also discussed with licensee representatives,
,
'
the licensee's capability to isolate the cooling lake in the
event of a future rupture. During this particular pipe rupture,
the cooling lake was isolated by closing the butterfly valves
on the blowdown line in the valve house near the north side of
the cooling lake dike. The licensee can also regulate and iso-
late the blowdown flow, normally 45,000 gpm, from the cooling
lake by means of the Armco gates located on the blowdown channel,
at a point before the blowdown line goes under the cooling lake
service spillway. The inspector has no further questions re-
garding this matter.
i
-6-
.
s
c.
Fog Monitoring Program
.
The licensee has initiated a fog monitoring program described
in a letter to the NRC from the licensee, on January 2, 1980.
The licensee's meteorological contractor, Murray and Trettle
Incorporated, has trained four plant personnel to condu.ct the
visual observations for the fog monitoring program. The in-
-
spector discussed with the licensee representatives whether a
plant procedure would be prepared to implement this program.
No decision was made regarding this matter.
This item will
be examined duriag a subsequent inspection.
d.
Cooling Lake Monitoring Program
This program, described in Section 6 of the FES-OL, will be
initiated in the summer or fall of 1980, when it is anticipated
that plant construction will be completed and pumping of the
water through the circulating water system will begin. This
item will be reviewed during a future inspection.
e.
Ground Water Monitoring
The inspector examined records for CY-1979 of ground water
level of 20 observation wells installed in the vicinity of
the cooling lake.
-
The licensee has prepared a cooling lake dike inspection pro-
cedure (LTS-1000-5) for checking the seepage from the lake and
assuring the integrity of the cooling lake dike. The inspector
also reviewed a report, dated November 1, 1979, from Harza
Engineering Corporation which discussed the results of water
elevations in the observation wells, settlement monitoring of
the dike, and dike integrity. No particular problems were
identified.
f.
Environmental Protection Requirements
The inspector reviewed the environmental protection program
which has been implemented by the licensee in accordance with
Construction Permit requirements. Review of the daily, month-
ly, and bi-monthly check sheets for CY 1979, completed by the
Environmental Site Coordinator, indicated a need for re-seeding
of the south end of the blowdown corridor on November 14, 1979.
The initial seeding of the makeup and blowdown corridor was com-
pleted on October 13, 1979. After the repairs of the blowdown
line rupture discussed above in Paragraph 5.b, the licer.see will
re-seed these sections requiring seeding. This item will be ex-
amined during a subsequent inspection.
l
-7-
l
l
L
.~
.
As discussed in Paragraph 2a above, the inspector reviewed the
status of the environmental monitoring program regarding veget-
ative cover of the dikes, and dredging and seedingof the Arm-
strong Run.
In reference to requirement 1, described on page
4-6 in the FES-OL, the licensee contractor, Hazleton Laboratory,
prepared a second annual report on November 15, 1979, i,n which
the contractor conducted a quantitative measurement of vegeta-
tive cover of the dikes. The results indicate average vegeta-
-
tive cover ranges from 75.7% in May to 73% in August 1979. The
predominant vegetative cover is crown vetch (up to 50%), follow-
ed by annual, biennual, perennial volunteer species, primarily
weeds. The inspector discussed, with licensee representatives,
her concern regarding the poor vegetative cover on the east face
of the east dike also discussed in Paragraph 2a above. These
items will be reviewed in a subsequent inspection.
g.
Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP)
The inspector discussed with licensee representatives, the
collection of fish for the REMP. The licensee has obtained
Ecological Analysts as a sub-contractor to collect and provide
fish samples to the Eberline Instrument Corporation, for radio-
analysis in accordance with the licensee
REMP. This item
wasdiscussedinapreviousinspection.j7 A review of data on
fish sampling and analysis for CY 1979 indicates all analyses
were completed. The inspector has no further questions regard-
ing this matter.
A licensee representative also reported that in the future the
licensee's Quality Assurance Department will conduct all quality
assurance audits of the REMP contractor performance rather than
the adminstrator of the REMP program and his associates in PSAD.
No apparent items of noncompliance were identified. One devia-
tion was identified in reference to the poor vegetative cover
on the east face of the east dike and discussed in Paragraph
2.a.
6.
Exit Interview
The inspector met with licensee representatives denoted in Paragraph
1 at the conclusion of the inspection on February 4,1980, at the
corporate headquarters, and February 7, 1980, at the plant. The in-
spector summarized the purpose and the scope of the inspection, and
the findings. The licensee representatives made the following re-
marks:
9/ Ibid.
.
-8-
,
a.
Acknowledged that additional seeding with crown vetch was
o
needed on the east face of-the east dike and agreed to reseed
this area during the planting season in the spring of 1980
(Paragraph 2.a.)
b.
Discussed and would prepare an investigation report per,taining
to the blowdown pipe rupture, and submit a copy of the report
-
to the NRC as soon as possible.
(Paragraph 5.b.)
.
1
e
a
-9-
.
.
.
-
.
.