ML20062B553

Responds to 820324 Show Cause Petition & 820503 Amend on Behalf of State of Il.Parts of Petition & Amend Pertaining to Unit 1 Denied.Response Deferred for Unit 2.Decision Will Be Issued Upon Completion of Evaluation

ML20062B553
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	07/19/1982
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fahner T ILLINOIS, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8208040575
Download: ML20062B553 (2)

Text

P e

4 DISTRIBUTION:

ydL 1 1IS2 See attached page Docket t'os: 5n-373/374 Tyrone C. Fahner, Esquire

• Attorney General State of Illinois 160 t! orth La Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601

Dear Mr. Fahner:

This letter is in response to your petition of fiarch ?4,1982 (Petition) and Amendnent dated l'ay 3,1982, on behalf of the State of Illinois. The Petition and the Anendnent have been considered under 10 CFP 2.?06 of the Comission's regulations. For the reasons stated in the enclosed " Director's Decision under 10 CFR 2.206," the parts of the Detition and Anendnent pertainino to La Salle Unit I have been denied. Those portions of the Petition and trendnent pertainino only to La Salle County Station, Unit 2, have been deferred and the !TC uill continue to review these natters. I will issue a decision with renard to those natters as soon as our evaluation is connleted, and in any case prior to a decision regarding an operating license for La Salle Unit 2.

A copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Comission's review in accordance with 10 CFP. 2.206(c). As provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c), this decision will bccone the final action of the Comission in 25 days, unless the Comission deternines to review the decision within that tire. I also enclose a copy of a notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Reqister for noblication.

Sincerely, f

3 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of finclear teactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Director's Decision

2. Federal Reoister Notice cc: See next page NRP 8208040575 820719 HR on PDR ADOCK 05000373 o PDR 7 /82 8/ (KEN \\

omcr > 0.L . .A. ,

,0.(;.(B h2],P,M,. .D L. ,f@f,B C,, ,,

F L,D,, . ,$3[Nkg,I ,, f,M.

ABournia ,RL sunscus) EHylton:kw ,

AS t, encer

, .  ;,, .esco DhE(sjnhut. EGQase, oam , WS/82 ,, 7/fi/s2 ,

7/,g/s2 ,, 7 (, se 7/jy/a2 ,

7/,(ga2 7/. /s2 Nnc ronu ais oo-em sncu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY \ use nu-mw

t,/

La Salle Mr. Louis 0. De1 George Director of Nuclear Licensing

• Commonwealth Edison Company '

P. O. Box 767 .

Chicago, Illinois 60690 - -

cc: Philip P. Steptoe, Esquire ,

Suite 4200 -

One First National Plaza  !

Chicago, Illinois 60603 Dean Hansell, Esquire .

Assistant Attorney General 188 West Randolph Street Suite 2315 Chicago, Illinois 60601 William G. Guldemond, Resident Inspector

.'

• La Salle, NPS, U.S.N.R.C.

P. O. Box 224

- Marseilles, Illinois 61364 .

Chairnan La Salle County Board of Supervisors La Salle County Courthouse Ottawa, Illinois 61350 Attorney General

• 500 South 2nd Street Springfield, Illinois 62701 .

Department of Public Health i Attn: Chief, Division of Nuclear Safety l 535 West Jef ferson

. Springfield, Illinois 62761 The Honorable Tom Corcoran United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.' 20515 Chairman Illinois Commerce Commission' Leland Building 527 East Capitol Avenue Springfield, Illinois 62706 . ..

9 0

4 e

G

w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DD-82-9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION HAROLD R. DENTON, DIRECTOR In the Matter of )

)

COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY ) Docket Nos: 50-373

) 50-374 La Salle County Station )

(La Salle, Units 1 and 2) ) (10 CFR 2.206)

DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 2.206 Attorney General Tyrone C. Fahner, Esquire, on behalf of the State of Illinois, has filed a petition pursuant to 2.206, dated March 24, 1982, and an amendment thereto, dated May 3,1982, requesting institution of a show cause proceeding on Commonwealth Edison Company's, La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The petition and amendment set forth allegations of poor construction. In addition, Ms. Bridget Little Rorem, on behalf of the Illinois Friends of the Earth, Essex, Illinois has also filed a petition, dated April 28, 1982, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, requesting institution of show cause proceedings on the basis of certain allegations concerning improper construction practices at the La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2, and further, sought to halt immediately further loading of nuclear fuel at La Salle Unit 1. Ms. Rorem's petition enclosed four affidavits from construction workers setting forth allegations of various improper practices. The NRC staff denied the petitioners' requests for immediate relief by letters dated April 17,1982, May 19,1982 and June 2,1982. In connection with its review of the Attorney General's petition, the NRC staff met with representatives of Commonwealth Edison Company, Sargent and Lundy, and the Attorney General h>W rr 7otroy'058R

on March 31, 1982, in Bethesda, Maryland. On April 13, 1982, the Attorney General submitted coaments on Commonwealth Edison Company's presentation at the March 31st meeting. Commonwealth Edison Company has responded to the Attorney General's petition in submittals dated March 31, May 7, and May 18, 1982. The Attorney General provided additional comments in a letter dated May 26, 1982.

A license was issued on April 17, 1982 to the Commonwealth Edison Company to permit the loading of nuclear fuel assemblies into La Salle Unit I and also permitting initial criticality and low power physics testing. The April 17, 1982 license authorized power levels up to and including 5 percent of rated power; however, it requires NRC staff approval prior to going beyond zero power testing. Specifically, the license contained a license condition which stated:

"The licensee shall complete its assessment of the rebar damaged due to drilling and coring in concrete and the structural adequacy of the off-gas building roof. The results shall be reported to the NRC staff for review and approval, prior to operation following initial criticality and zero power physics testing."

The NRC staff has completed its special inspection into those allegations identified in the above petitions required in order to proceed with licensing of La Salle, Unit 1. The enclosed Region III special inspection report addresses the HRC findings with respect to these allegations as expanded following interviews held with allegers. As indicated in the report, we have grouped the allegations as expanded into three categories:

(1) Category 1 - those allegations requiring satisfactory resolution in

order to proceed with the licensing process of La Salle Unit 1; l (2) Category 2 - those allegations that were judged to require a followup on i a longer time frame which relate to only La Salle Unit 2, personnel

concerns, and activities not having immediate safety impact; and l

l l

(3) Category 3 - those allegaticns which range from the too general and unsubstantiated to pursue to those which are subject to regulatory jurisdiction of other agencies, or for which no further action is required by the NRC staff.

As indicated by the report, there were 20 Category 1 allegations of which some were not able to be substantiated by the NRC investigation.

For several others, the factual allegations were correct; however, these conditions were found to be acceptable when the entire system of controls was examined. One allegation relating to improper site security matters resulted in finding violations of the licensee's security requirements.

When these were brought to the licensee's attention, prompt corrective actions were taken. One allegation of falsification of torque wrench calibration records by a site contractor was substantiated. In a related area, although separate in its cause, a few loose bolts were found on some valves.

To provide greater assurance of the adequacy of the bolt tightness, the license of La Salle Unit 1 is being amended to include a license condition requiring that prior to January 15, 1983, the licensee check the torque on all non-pressure boundary bolts (bolts whose failure will affect the operability of the valve) on each safety-related valve located outside the containment. For non-pressure boundary bolts on safety-related valves located inside containment, a similar program was successfully completed by the licensee prior to the conclusion of this inspection period. For the remainder of the safety-related valve bolting, namely those at the reactor coolant pressure boundary, such a check is not being required on the basis that this bolting has been functionally checked during a preoperational hydro test on the reactor coolant boundary.

f j

.a, The items included in Category 2 concerned matters regarding La Salle -

+

Unit 2 and other matters requiring further NRC attention. These matters arose primarily out of allegations contained in the affidavits submitted to i the NRC and in statements made by persons interviewed by the NRC staff in the course of investigating the allegations. The allegations concern installation activities, a fire, and the condition of the basemat at La Salle Unit 2. The NRC staff will consider these matters further through review of prior inspection reports, additional inspections, and interviews of plant personnel. On the a

basis of this additional review, the NRC staff intends to issue an additional decision prior to taking licensing actions on La Salle Unit 2.

Other Category 2 items included allegations in the affidavits of instal-i lation of damaged equipment, communication problems with representatives of the architect-engineer and poor attitude on the part of management and supervisory personnel. In addition, further assurance that this problem does not exist will be obtained during pre-operational testing, since testing should reveal any problems attributable to damaged or defective equipment. The NRC staff will perform follow-up investigation of allegations directed toward Commonwealth Edison's management and the architect-engineer. On the basis of our review of the allegations, no immediate and substantial safety issue has been identified 1 that would warrant enforcement action or further restrictions of authorized l

power level .

1- The affidavits contain some general allegations of inadequate NRC l

inspection coverage and improper inspector conduct toward plant workers.

t In the absence of a demonstrable link to specific safety problems or' licensee 1

I I

.- . , - - - ,, .-,. < . ~ . . -.

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

misconduct, improper conduct or inadequate inspections by NRC inspectors would not warrant initiation of show cause proceedings against the licensee to rectify what would be essentially an internal Commission problem. The NRC staff has thoroughly reviewed and pursued the allegations in the petitions and the affidavits and has not found to date a substantial safety hazard warranting initiation of show cause proceedings.

The NRC staff has included in Category 3 allegations derived from the affidavits and additional statements made by persons interviewed by the NRC for which insufficient information could be developed to warrant further NRC action or for which NRC would not take action. Allegations in the affidavits that piping was improperly installed and that equipment was not installed in 1

accordance with blueprints could not be addressed owing to the lack of specific information that could be developed on the basis of pursuing the allegations with the allegers. During the course of the NRC's investigation of the matters raised in the petitions and affidavits, a general allegation was made that drug and alcohol abuse had occurred at the site, but the alleger was unable to provide any specific information. In view of the lack of specific information and in view of the results of the remainder of the NRC staff's t investigation of the allegations, no further action is contemplated and no 1 basis for enforcement action exists on the basis of the foregoing allegations at this time.

j Allegations were made by the affiants and during further interviews that the circulating water pipe was defective, a bulge existed in the concrete l

l

wall of the condenser pit, and there were loose bolts on beams in the Unit 2 turbine buildings. No further URC action is planned with respect to these allegations because the allegations do not concern safety-related structures ,

and equipment. These matters have been identified to Commonwealth Edison Company for its action as appropriate. Similarly, no further action is contemplated by the NRC with respect to alleged " gross waste" and cost increases that have no apparent bearing on the NRC's health and safety responsibilities. The allegations concerning poor working conditions and inadequate worker safety have been referred to appropriate governmental authorities with jurisdiction over occupational health and safety matters.

It should be noted that neither the Attorney General nor Bridget Little Rorem rely specifically in their petitions on the foregoing aspects of the afff-davits as a basis for initiating show cause proceedings and halting further licensing of the La Salle facilities.

For the reasons set forth in this decision and in my interim responses to the petitioners, the requests of the Attorney General and Bridget Little Rorem for initiation of show cause proceedings have been de_ni_ed_ with respect

, to La Salle Unit 1.

l j In view of the above, I have concluded that for La Salle Unit 1 the public health and safety is not jeopardized, and does not warrant issuance of an order to show cause. However, for La Salle Unit 2, further investigations will be j performed with respect to those outstanding allegations pertaining only to La Salle Unit 2, and the HRC staff will continue to review these matters and issue a further decision prior to taking licensing actions on Unit 2. As provided I

K T

in 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206(c). , .

'8l Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of July 1982

(-

9 v

7590-01 -

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY

-)

LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 -

ISSUANCE OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, has denied .the petitions and amendment under 10 CFR 2.206 filed by the Attorney General of Illinois and Illinois Friends of the Earth for La Salle County Station, Unit 1. With respect to La Salle County Station, Unit 2, the Director has indicated further investigations. A supplemental decision must be made with respect to those allegations pertaining only to Unit 2.

The two petitions addressed numerous allegations of poor construction, falsification of records, inadequate quality control, etc. These allegations were categorized into three categories; whereby the NRC staff concluded that only Category 1 allegations required resolution to proceed with the La Salle Unit 1 licensing process. For La Salle Unit 2, the Category 2 allegations were deferred and the NRC will continue to investigate these matters for a decision in the reasonably near future. Category 3 allegations are those not under NRC jurisdiction or are too general to pursue and no further action i

is required by the NRC staff.

The reasons for the above conclusions are fully described in a " Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206," which is available for public inspection .in the Commission's Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.

20555, and at the Public Library of Illinois Valley Community College, Rural Route No.1, Oglesby, Illinois 61348. A copy of the decision will be filed with

7590-01 t,

2-

~ ~ "

the Secretary for the Comission's. review in accordance wit'h 10 CFR 2.206(c). . .

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 19th day of July 1982.

• FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/ AW Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9

m b

1 S

0

. , . - - . - - , . - ~ _ , ,e_._ _ _ _ _ .

,..a DISTRIB UTION: (GREEN TICKET #11706 - 2.206 PETITION DENIAL)

Document Control (50-373) w/ incoming :.,c NRC PDR w/ incoming L PDR w/ incoming NSIC w/ incoming PRC w/ incoming LB#2 Reading ASchwencer ABournia EHyl ton HDenton/ECase CWoodhead, OELD RHoefling, OELD CMiles, OPA SCavanaugh (EDO# 11706)

MBridgers (ED0# 11706)

I&E DEisenhut/RPurple MJambor RLTedesco/LBerry ASLAP ASLBP ACRS (16)

JPKnight CNorelius, Region III SECY (5) Blue Bag w/ incoming Schilk Blue Bag w/ incoming .

PPAS SHHanauer RJMattson RHVollmer RSCheck BJSnyder LBickwit Blue Bag w/ incoming JMurray, OELD Blue Bag w/ incoming AShepard, DRR (3) Blue Bag w/ incoming Y