ML20027E146

Requests Show Cause Proceeding to Suspend & Revoke Any License Allowing Unit 1 Reactor Operation at or Above Criticality,To Halt All OL Proceedings & Hold Open Public Hearings Re QC Problems & Const Flaws

ML20027E146
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	07/28/1982
From:	Gogol E CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER
To:
Shared Package
ML20027A786	List: ML20027A790 ML20027A796 ML20027A808 ML20027A816 ML20027A817 ML20027E090 ML20027E102 ML20027E107 ML20027E109 ML20027E110 ML20027E133 ML20027E146
References
FOIA-82-328 4916A, NUDOCS 8211120140
Download: ML20027E146 (7)

Text

}

O UNITED STATES OF AMERIf.A V NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

In the Matter of - -

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPAhY LaSalle County Atomic Power Plant Dacket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 Units 1 and 2 .

REQUEST TO INSTITUTE A SHOW CAUSE PRCCIEDING AND FOR OTHE I.

RELIEF REQUESTED ~

CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER (CANP) , an Illinois organization with more Eban 500 members, a substantial part of whom reside within 10' miles of the LaSalle County Atomic Power Plant, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and 10 C.F.R. 2.206, hereby. requests the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, e and/or the Director of Nuclear Reacter Regulation, to institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202:

a.

to suspend and revoke any lice,nse allowing Unit I reactor operation at or above criticality; '

b. '. \

to immediately halt all operating license proceedings for Units 1 and 2;

, c.

to hold full and open public hearings into the evidence described in this petition, and to admit CANP as a party thereto.

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION '

over the years of construction, a variety of information related to cons truction flaws at the LaSalle reactors has accumulated. This information includes:

• o two sworn af fidavits obtained by the State of Illinois - one from 1 6 a LaSalle construction worker, and one, from the eminent nuclear engineer Dale Bridenbaugh, which assesses the significance of the

, conditions described by - a These affidavits were presented to the Nuclea'r Regula tory Commission on March 24, 1982; o four sworn affidavits from LaSalle construction workers obtained by the Government Accountability Project, and provided to the Nuclear Regulatory t

Commission on April 28, 1982; -

l o evidence presented to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by former Quality i Assurance employees of the zack Co. , which has been described by WMAQ-TV in a two-part series on July 23 and 24, 1982; l '\~f 0 4916A 8211120140 920917 ,

_1_

i PDR FOIA l STEPTOE82-328 PDR . '

/ .

4,-

• • r .

_*C' o ,msteriel which h:s be2n obtainsd by CANP at tha NRC Public Documtnt Roon -

v 'GO

.-Q , in'R gion III Headquartcrd; cnd -

o material which has been obtained from the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor

'~

Regulation in response to a _ Freedom of Informatihn Act Request dated March 11, 1982 (FOIA 82-168) .

More than one investigation into these construc, tion deficiencies has been undertaken by the NRC, and at least one such investigation is currently ongoing. Since July 21, 1982 (the date of Unit 1 initial criticality), these investigations have been carried out during periods of Unit 1 reactor operation. -

Besides this petition, two requests to institute a show-cause proceeding with respect to LaSalle Units 1 and 2 are currently pending before the Nuclear

. Regulatory Commission - one by the State of Illinois and one by the Illinois chapter of Friends of the Earth.

. There are no compelling reasons to rush the LaSalle plant into

iQ,f

' H1,3 operation. The power that the plant would produce is not currently needed, as -

a;y iti ?pf Commonwealth Edison has dras,tically overestimated real power needs. Indeed, m ...

-:d j keeping LaSalle closed until and unless the construction defects are -

I corrected, will actually result in 16wer electric bills for Commonwealth Edison ratepayers because it will have the effect of keeping the $2.5 billion already spent on LaSalle out of the " rate base".

Despite the evidence of construction defects described above, despite the ongoing investigations of these defects by the NRC, despite the pending petitions requesting the NRC to prohibit operation of either LaSalle reactor, and despite the absence of any compelling reasons to rush the LaSalle reactors into operation, the NRC has, in turn, authorized Edison (1) to load f.uel into IaSalle Unit 1, (2) to operate Unit 1 at "zero power" (actually about it of rated thermal power), and (3) to operate Unit 1 at up to 5% of full power.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS l

l The evidence which has accumulated in the last several years, especially that obtained as sworn affidavits from LaSalle construction workers, indicates the presence of widespread and severe construction flaws and defects in both l " safety-related" and "non-safety-related" structures throughout the plant, including the primary containment structures for both reactors. This evidence indicates that many of these construction- flaws were the result of willful and conscious mi.sconduct on the part of supervisory personnel.

4916A l

L

• 'Exrmplbs 'Constructio "worksra dageribed widaspread and massiva hontycombing of concrete and mtseiva and indigeriminate severing of reinforcing rods.

" Removing the panel revealed a giant void in the concrete, so large that a man could climb right in and lie-down. ..I wond' e red how many other spots on the pedestal were hon'eycomEbd with holes. The construction crews did not remove all the steel plates to check."

...it was the usual practice, upon contacting metal reinforcement or '

rebar during core drilling, to drill through the metal rebar. . I was instructed to follow this practice, and to the best of my knowledge it was the general practice among the other core drillers...On one occasion I drilled a 6" diameter hole through rebar in the reactor building of Unit 1. It was at a place where all the steel tied together, and I removed about 25-40 pounds of steel. It took me 2 or 3 days to drill this hole. [the forem,an) instructed me to keep drilling the hole, and he added, "If you can' t do it, we?ll get someone who can." .

. " Construction crews core drilled right through the reinforcement bars.

Part of the reason for the damage was that there were internal voids in the concrete of the pedestal itself. When the jackhammers chipped into the concrete, the voids caused the jackhammers to jump. The jackhammers

. .. took off and both cut through reinforcement bars,and increased the

~], honeycombing already inside the concrete." -

~

i Concerning the overall status of the quality control program at LaSalle, the picture is the same.

Evidence obtained from LaSalle construction workers indicates that widespread violations of quality-control procedures. and standards occurred throughout the period of construction, involving structures and components in both " safety-related" and "non-safety-related" structures throughout the plant. Many of these quality control violations occurred as a

~

result of willful and conscious misconduct on the part of supervisory-personnel. '.

Example:

"The quality control inspectors did not seem to care. Quality control was more like a joke at LaSalle than anything else." ..

"The construction crews would pack the outer two or three blocks in with mortar and just shove the rest in without any binding. When I complained

~

to a foreman' he said that Quality Control did not care.

"Even when mortar was used, it was shoddy quality. There was too much sand in the mortar... Around a third of the time my superintendent was present and ordered me to add extra sand...There were mortar tests, but the superintendent always knew when the tests were scheduled and let me do it right then."

"Sometimes Morrison project management says to accept some things tha t are not according to our standard operation procedures. For example, welders may be certified to a weld procedure after the weld is made.

Sometimes, if a welder is not qualified on a weld he has made, the management says, 'We will call it another kind of weld. '"

4916A

- c, . hi ! -

~

?Tha fdramsnt' dsn't appear to know what walding procedures -apply.'..Of tsn j tha forsman say sloppy work is okay because it la in some placa hard to

, see. The foremen say they will never see it; it is okay."

"Many times .I have overheard a quality control inspector tell construction that something was done wrong hnd that he would be back.

4 Soon the inspector would come back and say .the defect was OK after all."

, Although primary blame for these quality control violations and ' ,

construction defects must lie with' Commonwealth Edison, the Nuclear Regulatorp Commission must also take some responsibility. Evidence obtained from LaSalle construction workers and from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission indicates that the NRC's quality oversight duties were in many respects not performed at all 3 or performed in an extremely flawed manner.

The construction flaws and quality control violations which have come to

~

light in the.last several months should have been discovered by the NRC years earlier, when the faulty construction work was done. Material obtained from

, , .j: ., . the NRC via a Freedom of Information Act request indicates that many of these

~}p]gggy,}

. .: ~ --, e m defects were unknown to the NRC until the State of Illinois and the Government 7- M *M Accountability Project presented the NRC with sworn affidavits from

• b'35!5 construction workers detailing them!'

'd Example:

CANP's Freedom of Information Act Request (mailed March 30, 1982) req'uested'any and all information related t'o, among other things,.

! " concrete defects, including honeycombing, especially honeycombing of the Units 1 and 2 reactor pedestals and primary containment structures; l' improper pouring procedures; improper procedures for vibrating of concrete; improper procedures during concrete setting, especially 1

concrete setting too fast; improper mixing of concrete."

Despite this request, however, the NRC's response (dated one and one-thi,rd months later') included only one incomplete reference to a concrete void, and contained no references whatsoever to.the v' o ids in the Unit 1 reactor pedestal which were apparently common knowledge to a greats many construction workers. (Copies of CANP's request and the NRC's i response are appended hereto.)

l Furthermore, some evidence of construction defects and quality control violations that was brought to the NRC's attention as early as 1978 was either ignored, or not seriously investigated.

Example: *

• In 1978 a General Accounting Office investigation at LaSalle resulted in workers making detailed statements describing construction defects. An NRC memorandur (dated 2/2/78, from C. E. Norelius to R. F.

Beishmann) specifies that the NRC will " conduct a detailed investigatio'n

, in,to the GAO findings" and will " prepare two inspection reports".

Nevertheless, no written results of any such NRC investigation were included in the NRC response to the FOIA request.

~

4916A

7 . - .-

.. . Attached to Morelius' memo was a document,

" Statements concbrning

- and given to tha NRC so that tha NRC could follow up. Q and phone numbers of the work,ers who described the construction flawsIt inc .

Also attached was a photocopy of 12 pages of wfitten notes photocopied and essentially illegible. , poorly Apparently this gibberish was the sumbytotal out the of the NRC's " detailed investigation" into the evidence brought GAO.

nothing else in any NRC document since then alludes to it.Alth ' ' '

example. A 1/31/78 memo to R.F. Beishmann from D.W. Hayes is a similar This memo notes that Hayes, of RIII, received call from an electrician concernad about unsafethe , poor Ch quality welding on electrical cable tray supports within Unit 1 containment.

else in the NRC response alludes, to it.Although this material was broug completely unresolved. The allegation appears to be

~ .

~

~

Certain aspects of the NRC's current investigation (s) into these matters indicates that the NRC is accepting as truth reassurances from Commonwealth Edison Company while ignoring the sworn affidavits from construction work i

{ ,

which contradict these reassurances. Such practices by the NRC are at best ers highly questionable. -'

Example: . c

. The 3/29/82 "OFF-GAS BUILDING ROOF REPORT" by Daniel Shamblin concludes inches thickcategorically that "The Off-Gas Building roof concrete is 12 per specifications.

due to concrete equipment. expansion anchors and/or the former electricalThere is n The roof will serve its intended function."

reveals that Mr. Shamblin's only bases for this conclusion area close reading reassurances by personnel of the Walsh Construction Co. and Commonwealth Edison.

Mr. Shamblin made no tests himself, despite a construction worker's statement, referred to in the memo by J. Foster, that " holes drilled for expansion anchors in the ceiling of the off-gas building (725 foot elevation) penetrated the concrete and asphalt roof covering."

The NRC's " Report No. 50-373/83-35 (DETP); 50-374/82-06 (DETP) " .

(hereinaf ter referred to as the " July 11 NRC report"), which alleges that .

"there are no remaining technical issues to preclude the licensee from operating Unit 1 above zero percent power", indicates that the NRC

~

" investigation" of this evidence has not been objective; rather, that this

" investigation" has been severely biased; and that this " investigation ~" is .

based on paper assurances and not real objective data.

l Example:

In the July 11 report (page 8), the NRC states that they consider Sargent & Lundy's " estimate" of 5 to 6 pounds of steel cut and removed by during the drilling of one hole to be valid (and

~

4916A' .

j - .

t ^

e i -

A

*: * ~

h i d.'. ,Y ~ C first'-hn d knowledg2 tha t ha removed 2 tN40pounda 7 2 .' .I

.~'

' ~invclid). "Calculhtions* can.cas'ily ba wrong; esphcially when parform:d

~~' by persons with a vested interest in covering up their mistakes.

. ~ '

NRC unquestioningly , accepts Sargent & Lundy's assertion as truth. Yet thG

.. ..~.

In the Juiy ll-report, the NRC attempts to maintain the' fiction thaQ rebar severing was neither indiscriminate nor unreported: " Drawings on which the specifics of any damaged or ' cut reinforcing steel were designated, were continuously maintained and updated by Sargent & pundy as information of damaged steel was received from the field contractors." The report con'tradicts itself, however, one page further:

"The site contractors are not required to report reinforcing steel which has been cut or damaged during the coring operation."

Incontrovertible proof Obat the NRC has not been carrying out an unbiased investigation of all the evidence is provided by the fact, referred to by Mr.

Bridenbaugh in his affidavit, that the operation of the reactor at any power level above criticality precludes full access to all structures and components J.. . .

This sad spectacle of an NRC unwilling to carry out its responsibility to

.. ling;p protect the public health and safety, highlights the necessity of evaluating c' .0 -@.-u:y# !I. .

' the evidence in open, public hearings. The State r of Illinois has r,etained the

f. .5,T4 iES.MW]

- : q t;i.

eminent nuclear engineer Dale G. Bridenbaugh (formerly employed by General

.NM

- - Ilec tric) as a consultant on this ca.'.\ se

and the eminent nuclear scientist D .

Robert Pollard (formerly employe.d by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and now with the Union of Concerned Scientists) has also ' commented. The participation of such independent and eminent authorities can only help the NRC in the proper evaluation of this evidence.

Fur thermore , there is no compelling reason not to hold such hearings, since the power from the LaSalle reactors 'is

. not currently needed and since any delay in bringing LaSalle "on-line" will help to hold down electric bills to Commonwealth Edison ratepayers.

IV. EMERGENCY NATURE OF REQUEST -

CANP requests that the NRC suspend any operating license for LaSalle Unit I reactor immediately, or, failing that, within the shortest possible time span - certainly within one week from receipt of this document.

Sech rapid action is necessitated by the extreme and unacceptable dangers posed by the LaSalle Unit 1 reactor. Even operating at only a few percent of l

i full power, the reactor produces very large quantities of long-lasting and extremely toxic radioactive poisons. Even if the plant had been built exactly l

to specifications, a devastating accident involving the release of this' radioactive garbage to the environment cannot be ruled out. Given the severe

(

construction defects and quality control violations described herein, the risk i

4916A

of su[h n.catastrepha'is incressed to an unknown but uniccaptable dIgree.

Eliminating this rick, esptcially in tha clear lack of any countervailing benefits from operation of the LaSalle plant, is a public health responsibility of the highest degree, and $' responsibility which the. NRC should clearly take on. LaSalle Unit l's operating license should be revoked immediately.

Edward Gogol V Coordinator July 28, 1982 CITIZENS AGAINST NUCLEAR POWER Y

g ----

r .

+

e 4

i 1 -

4916A

[J-23 . . a To

( (i:/ s ' '

e a ,

March 30, 1982

~ ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Director, Division of Rules and Records

.j Office of Administrat. ion

. 2]

Washington, DE 20555

2. y. . -

gi.sg] Gentlemen: .

c. p . .

r - MI '

Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, as amended, 5 USC '552, and the Privacy Act of 1974,.SiUSC 55EA, I hereby request a copy of any and all documents relative to the Commonwealth Edison construc-

, tion of two nuclear power plants in LaSalle, Illinois, Docket Nos.

50373 and 50374, as hereinafter specified. .

Construction struction codesproblems, defects, or standards , relating lack of adherence to, but notto government limited to, thecon following: '

1. Concrete defects, including honeycombing, especially i honeycombing of the Units 1 and 2 reactor pedestals and

! primary containment structures; improper pouring' pro-l cedures; improper procedures for vibrating of concrete; j improper procedures during-concrete setting, especially ~

I concrete setting too fast; improper mixing of concrete; l

2. Failure to remove debris from forms before pouring concrete, debris including wood , barrels , metal, plas-tic -tarps , etc.

3. Improper assembly of steel rod reinforcing structures, especially ind&s&ciminate or excessive cutting of. ,

assembled structures.

4. Poor quality welding of pipe.s and other structures,

. including failure to seat pipe ends prior to welding, visible pipe leaks, welds with open gaps containing only weld material, lack of adherence to pipefitting or weld-ing codes, poor quality control, lack of inspec, tion or radiography of welds.

g7 pme; cv .

36.r. .

y m-s u .= 5 -

' 1.,fri -

.h:r ,i

i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Page 2 Division of Rules _ add Records . .._.

March 30, 1982 ~

• e .

5.

Improper or incomplete mortaring of 1.igh-density concrete block structures, including ase of poor quality mortar or mortar with improper proportions of ingredients.

6.

Covering up with concrete of ends of pipe inserted into.

main cable reactorto be passed containment through.structures for strengthening 7.

u .u -

Cracks for the stack. or other defects in the stack or the steel supports l" 8. Any and all explosions, i ncluding, but not limited'to, c t:

I$jT7 25EEh which blew off either the reactor lid'or~the lid the re actor refueling pit

3DT9 explosions which blew a hole in the

'OSEE reactor building roo;f; explosions resulting from purging

$p  ;

pressurization ment structures.or depressurization tests of the contain-

- i i

9. Sabotage by construction workers.

10.

Fraud by cointruction personnel. companies or Commonwealth Edison 11.

Deaths or maining injuries to construction workers; If you determine exempt: that some portions 6f the requested information are 1.

Please file; provide me with. a copy of the remainder of the - _

2. '

Advise of the specific exemptions which you think' justi-fies your refusal to release the information; and 3.

Infora me of your agencies appeal procedures.

As if that you know, the amended act permits you to waive or reduce the fees can that be considered as primarily benefitting the public"."is I believe in quest this thatrequest you wiive plainly any fees. fits this category; and, accordingly , re-said fees, please advise of the costs involved.If your agency elects not to waive -

,_-m w--r- ,-,,,--------,r,a-, - - - - ---,-,c -,n- . - ,-.--r--- -w, -, e- w v wwn w- w-m-,,w r,, -w,-,---- - - - , + - ---w -r-m---r-- -

s -

es . .

. . ,Jr ' .

7

. 1- .. - -

U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Commission ----

• *~ ~

Director, Division of Rules a dn Records Pgge: 3.

March 30, 1982 .

As provided within ten (10) forworking in the amanded act, I shall expect days. Thank you for your cooperation.to receive a reply Very truly yours, .

Jan L. Kodner Attorney for Citizens Against Nuclear Power, Inc. ,

JLK/vl. -

w &

f e

i ' .

e l .

l

- ~

l .

s e

• e S

~

4 ., . .

' ' muRE

~~

.o.

• UNIT ED STATES . ,

NUL .AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6, @

, ;., ,Y..n., ...y.j q"( h WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 b/

MAY 191982 Occket Nos.: 50-373/374 .

_r 4

Ms. Bridget Little Rorem -

Illinoi5 Friends of the Earth

- 117 North Linden Street '

Essex, Illinois 60935

Dear Ms. Rorem:

This letter is sent to acknowledge receipt of the Reg'uest to I.nstitute a Show Cause Proceeding dated April 28,1982 (Petit'on) filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on behalf of yourself and Illinois Friends of the Earth.

The Petition principally seeks institution of a show cause proceeding pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202 to examine certain allegations contained in the Petition and its accompanying affidavits concerning improper construction practices at the La Salle County Station, Units 1 and 2 of the Commonwealth Edison Company. .

Pending an investigation of these allegations, the Petition also seeks an immediate halt to further loading of nuclear fuel at La Salle Unit 1.

Your Petition has been referred to me by the Commission for consideration pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206, and appropriate action will be taken on your '

Petition within a reasonable time. The NRC Region III is investigating the allegations contained in your Petition and the affidavits attached thereto. */

I have also considered your request at page 3 of the Petition for an imrediate halt to further loading of nuclear fuel at la Salle Unit 1.

On April 17, 1982, I issued a license to the Commanwealth Edison Company ,

l to pennit the loading of nuclear fuel assemblies into La Salle Unit 1 and also permitting initial criticality and low power physics testing. The license allows power levels up to and including 5 percent of rated power; however, ,i.t.requi.tes_NRClappr_ oval prior to going beyond zero pogrJesting.

l

'Such approval requires resolution of~dainaged rebar andadeq'uacy of off-gas building roof allegations raised by the Attorney General of Illinois in its l<

Request to Institute a Show Cause Proceeding"and " ~for Other Relief dated Mar.ch 24, 1982.

~

i

• / The Petition notes that Mr. Thomas Devine,' who tooic ihe affidavits,- was i

of the assured by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the identity! is the workers who gave the affidavits would remain confidential. 11 policy of the NRC staff to honor requests for confidentiality to the extent accorded by law. However, while 'the NRC staff endeavarrs to maintain the confidentiality of those Who request it," it cannot guarantee

~

or " assure" that such confidentiality will be maintained.

k

[hV y

g;m%: = =O r

~

. d. . -

Ms.*Bridget Little Rc. ua The status of the activities at the facility is as foll'ows: Fuel loading was -

completed on April 28, 1982, and the current schedule calls for completion of zero power testing by about June 23, 1982. During this time, there will be preliminary startup activities going on; however, there will be no significant

. buil d- of fission products (residual core activity). Therefore, continued -

integr ty of the stnsctures and piping associated with the allegatio'ns in your Petiti n is not essential because, even for the most severe incident which could lib postulated, the radioactive releases would be insubstantial. I have examine'd the allegations raised in your Petition in light of the activities which are currently authorized to be conducted under license at the la Salli Unit 1 facility, and have concluded that an immediate suspension of -these activities is not warranted.

The NRC staff expects to ccraplete its ongoing investigation er the allegations

~

raised in your Petition prior to any HRC approval permitting activities beyond zero power testing at the La Salle Unit 1 facility, and we will make our findings at that time. Consequently, I will consider your Petition in any future licensing actions I take with respect to the La Salle facility.

l I enc 1ose for your information a copy of the Notice that is being filed l for publication with the Office of the Federal Register Notice.

t l

Sincerely, .

g,pfd -

Harold R. Denton, Director -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

y Federal Registe'r Notice j k cc: See next 'page I

i -

i

• t

'I .

l 1 --

$3 e "# -

eO O e

g e

,A 3

ccmm:nw=ic idis:n Oru Fast National a. Chicago. Ithnois 9/pdu" Address Reply to: Post Office Box 767 f

Chicago. Ittinois 60690 . INCIPAL STAFF- /

y t . -1)$pIS\ /b -

v M@ Io M May 18, 1982 W .0 v SitLL

[E&TI

( File u Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director / -P&Of U Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U .'S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Report on Additional Allegations Regarding Rebar Damage NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a): Byron Lee, Jr. letter to H. R. Denton dated May 7, 1982, " Final Report on Allegations Regarding Rebar Damage and Of f Gas Building Roof Thickness."

(b): Filing by Judith S. Goodie dated May 3, 1982, " Amendment to Request for Show Cause Proceeding."

Dear Mr. Denton:

The purpose of this letter is to provide you with additional information regarding rebar damage at LaSalle County Station.

On May 7, 1982, Reference (a) provided you with a report which addressed concerns regarding rebar damage and of f gas building roof thickness.

On May 10, 1982, Commonwealth Edison Company received a copy of Reference (b), in which the Attorney General of Illinois requested "that the NRC and the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation . . . investigate thoroughly the extent of the rebar damage in all safety-related structures, and particularly the l primary containment, prior to granting to Edison the authority to I conduct low power testing beyond initial criticality and up to five l percent power."

1 Attached for your information is a supplemental report on rebar damage in the suppression pool basemat, the suppression pool walls, and the reactor pedestal.  ;

If there are any further questions in this matter, please contact C. W. Schroeder, Nuclear Licensing Administrator for LaSalle County Station.

I

~

E 519Q f -?=\C S &

\

v 7

., ,' 46 H. R. Denton May 18, 1982 Enclosed for your use are one (1) signed original and thirty-nine (39) copies of this letter and attachment. # ,

i V'ery truly yours, f.

0W f .

Byron Lee , Jr. (

Executive Vice-President CWS/lm Attachment cc: Tyrone C. Fahner, Esq.

J. G. Keppler - Region IIr

/

NRC Resident Inspector - LaSalle P. P. Steptoe - IL&B 4132N

)

~

2 l

l l

. a C;mmonwe h Edisin 'bmW 7 one First Nate) Pir.ra. Chicag), lilino'3 *

<,[srh

/7 Addr1ss R; ply to: P st Office B:x 767

' Chic go, Illinois 60690 May 7, 1982 Mr! Harold R. Denton, Director Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Final Report on Allegations Regarding Rebar Damage and Off Gas Roof Building

. Thickness NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 References (a): Petition by The People of the State of

-' Illinois by Tyrone C. Fahner pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, dated March 24, 1982.

(b): Transcript, United States o f America Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, Room P-422, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, MD, Wednesday, March 31, 1982.

(c): Philip P. Steptoe letter to H. R. Denton dated April 12, 1982,- regarding Mr.

Bridenbaugh's testimony before the Illinois Commerce Commission.

(d): Tyrone C. Fahner (Judith S. Goodie) letter dated April 14, 198 2, t o H. R .

Denton, regarding Mr. Bridenbaugh's testimony before the Illinois Commerce Commissio n.

(e): Tyrone C. Fahner (Judith S. Goodie) filing dated April 13, 1982, " Comments of the Peop]e of Illinois on Commonwealth Edison Company 's Presentation of March 31, 1982."

(f): C. W. Schroeder letter to A. Schwencer dated i April 22,1982, " Comments and Clarifications

on Meeting Transcript, March 31, 1982."

? (.g ) :

D. G. Eisenhut letter to Cordell Reid dated April 7, 1981, " Issuance of Facility Operating License." -

1(h): H. R. Denton letter to Tyrone Fahner dated April 17,1982.

, ys m -

~

.s .

(1): C. E. Norelius letter to Cordell Reed dated April 27, 1982, transmitting I&E Inspection Report 50-373/82-21.

~

Deap Mr. Denton: .

2 The purpose of this letter is to summarize the events of the'past six weeks and to provide you with a report regarding the allegations made in Reference (a). ,

! Commonwealth Edison Company first learned of the allega-tions from the news media on the a f ternoon of Thursday, March 25, 1982, and then recelsed a copy of the allegations (Reference (a))

from our lawyers.

On Monday, March 29, 1982, Commonwealth Edison was contacted by your office and a meeting was scheduled for 1:00 p.m. ,

Wednesday, March 31, 1982. That meeting was recorded and a tra'nscript was produced (Reference (b)).

On Thursday, April 8,1982, Mr. Bridenbaugh (who provided

, an affidavit for Reference (a)) testified before the Illinois l Commerce Commission. As was noted by letter from the attorneys for Commonwealth Edison Company (Reference (c)), Mr. Bridenbaugh

" admitted that his affidavit dit not justify deferring startup testing for LaSalle." On April 14, the Attorney General of Illinois responded with Reference (d), attempting to clarify what Mr.

Bridenbaugh had clearly stated in testiaony before the Illinois Commerce Commission.

On Tuesday, April 13, 1982, the Attorney General filed -

Reference (e), which provided comments on the March 31, 1982, transcript (Reference (b)). Commonwealth Edison Company submitted clarifications and corrections to the March 31, 1982, transcript by l letter dated April 22,1982 (Reference (f)).

l l On Saturday, April 17, 1982, the NRC granted Commonwealth l Edison Company License NPF-11 (Reference (g)). On the same date,

, the NRC sent Reference (h) to the Illinois Attorney General l describing the extensive investigation that the NRC has performed

and providing justification for issuance of NPF-11, conditioned to require prior NRC staff approval for any power operation following initpalcriticalityandzeropowerphysicstesting. .

k On April 27, 1982, NRC Inspection and Enforcement Region III transmitted 'their Inspection Report 50-373/82-21 (Re f.erence (1))

! to Commonwealth Edison Company. That report documented their review of the contention regarding damage to reinforcing steel during drilling / coring activities and stated that:

1 l

l 1

. 1 H. R. Denton May 7, 1982

" Based on the results of our review, we have concluded that (1) adequate procedures to control concrete drilling / coring are and have been in place at LaSalle; (2) these procedures sre being ,

successfully implemented; (3) the engineering disposition of idamaged reinforcing steel by S&L was proper and complete; and f (4) the completed drilling / coring represents no compromise to

> the structural integrity of the LaSalle plant structures. This issue is considered closed."

Commonwealth Edison Company and its Architect / Engineer, Sargent & Lundy, have completed our review of the subject allega-tions. Enclosed please find the " Final Report in Response to Petition Made by the Of fice o f the Attorney General, State of Illinois, In the Matter of Reinforcing Steel Damaged During the Installation of Cored and Drilled Holes and the Matter of the Of f Gas Building Roof for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2."

With respect to the contentions regarding rebar damage, as was discussed during the meeting in Bethesda, on March 31, 1982, engineering judgment had always been used in determining that design n.argins were not reduced below 1.0. The enclosed report (page 33) explains that:

k[h' ,

( /" Subsequent to this meeting, detailed structural calculations

' d were performed on all structural elements in all Unit 1 areas

,f and in those Unit 2 areas required for Unit 1 operation where

, damaged reinforcing bars were identifled during coring or drilling operation. . . . This evaluation verified that in no area have the design margins been reduced to a value less than 1.0, further substantiating that the engineering judgment used originally throughout the project was appropriate."

With respect to the contentions regarding the Off Gas Building Roof, the enclosed report (page 37) reiterates that:

" Commonwealth Edison Company presented data at the conference held in Bethesda, Maryland, on March 31, 1982, substantiating that the roof was, in f act, poured to a nominal 12" thickness, and that the cracking which was observed was surficial in nature, and not due to reinforcing steel damage due to the installation of concrete expansion anchors."

i In conclusion, Commonwealth Edison Company regrets that dirept contact was not made with us by the Attorney General when thes;e allegations were formulated because we feel they could have been easily dispositioned without formal proceedings. Gi!ven that this situation did occur in the time frame of Unit 1 license issuance, we must commend the NRC for their prompt attentlon in all aspects of this matter during the past six weeks.

H. R. Denton May 7, 1982 Enclosed for your use are one (1) signed ori thirty-nine (39) copies of this letter and enclosure.ginal and -

i If there are any further qu'estions in this matter, please contact C. W. Schroeder, Nuclear Licensing Administrator for LaSalle Couhty Station.

Very truly yours, f-c OM Byron Lee JrG Executive Vice,-President im - '

Enclosure cc: Tyrone C. Fahner, Esq.

James G. Keppler - Region II-NRC Resident Inspector - LaSalle Philip P. Steptoe - IL&B

'l 0

40llN

?

-_.m ,

c

. "ED?o, '"

UNITED STATES V

)

- I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

go, - .}g> ,*!a f , .,.a

,,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%$ V=...

/ . _.

~

May 11, 1982 Jan L. Kodner, Esquire '

Tutt and Kodner - Suite 1004 173 West Madison Street IN RESPONSE REFER Chicago, IL 60602 TO F0IA-82-168

Dear Mr. Kodner:

This is in response to your letter dated March 30, 1982, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, copies of all-

. documents relative to the Commonwealth Edison construction of two nuclear puer plants in LaSalle, Illinois, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, and concerning the eleven categories defined in your' letter.

T[i? In response to your request, copies of the documents listed on Appendix A hereto are enclosed.

g% m 4.

g _ _

UN.]

'D H Portions of the documents listed on Appendix A hereto, which have been .

have been deleted in order to withhold

~

identified the names of individuals and the personal identifiers so as to protect with an asterisk (*)',ir the confidentiality of these sources. Because disclosure of .this informatio:

would constitute a violation of a pledge of confidentiality, it is being withheld from public disclosure pursuant to Exemption (7)(D) of the Freedom of Infortnation Act (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(D)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7)(iv) of the Commission's regulations. .

Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.9 of the Commission's regulations, it has been determined that the information is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest.

The persons responsible for this denial are the undersigned and Mr.

James G. Keppler, Regional Administrator, Region III.

This denial may be. appealed to the Commission's Executive Directe r for ' '

Operations within 30 days from the receipt of this letter. As provided-in 10 CFR 9.11, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the litter that it is an " Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

Finally, in addition to the documents identified on Appendix A, approximatel, 90 drawings, each measuring 3 feet by 4 feet in size were brou~ght to the March 31, 1982 meeting with Commonwealth Edison personnel at the NRC..

Only this one set of drawings is available in the NRC. We estimate that the charge to reproduce a copy of each drawing for your use would be approximately $18.00 per drawing (i.e. 3 feet x 4 feet x approximately-

$1.50 per square foot = S18.00 per drawing). a N lbeu luo ll

> *./ . P .

Jan L. Kodner, Esquire '

Please advise us if you want copies of the drawings reproduced for your use. If so, the NRC will bill you for the actual cost of reproduction as set forth in the Comission's regulation,10 CFR Part 9.14(b)(2). -

Sincerely,

~ - ~

. \.b .. , }. 4 + , . .

. L.'

J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration '

Enclosures:

As stated 8

+

O e

.e 9

e

, , _.-c. -

b ' *, 5 Ra: F01A-82-168

., c v

• Appendix A -

Documents relative to Items 1 and 3 .

/

1. 2/2/78 Memo to: Norelius from: Heishman w/ attachments (2 paces) -

• a. St'atements Concerning Quality of Plant Construction (3pages)

~

• b. Notes from GA0 (13 pages) 12/12/77 Letter from GAO is not in RIII files.

• 2. 1/31/78 Memo to: Heishman from: Hayes (1 page) ,

• Attachment was a handwritten note with several references to the " electrician" and the references could not be bracketed. . . .

3 - 3. 3/18/82 Letter to: Anthony Bournia, NRR, from: J. 5. Goodie, -

3 .

Assistant. Attorney General (2 pages)

, 4 3/25/82 Memo to: Norelius.gfrom: Warnick w/ attachments (2 pages)

• a. 3/13/82 Memo'from: James Foster to RIII files thru R. Warnick (2 pages) .

• b. 1/28/82 Memo from: Warnick to: RIII files (2 pages)

• c. 2/10/82 Memo from: Foster to: RIII files (2 pages)

• d. 2/26/82 Memo from: Warnick to: RIII files (2 pages) 5.

3/30/82 Memo from: Keppler to: DeYoung (1 page)

6. -3/29/82 Notes "Off-Gas Building Roof Report" (2 pages) -

• 7. 3/31/82 Memo from: Foster to: RIII files Thru: R. Warnick-(1 page)

. *8. Partial LaSalle Chronology (11/7/75 thru 4/2/82) (2 pages)'

~

' 9. 10/10/74 GC Nonconformaoce Report for Construction and Test (6 pages)

10. 8/25/77 A&H Engineering Corporation, Report of Concrete Placenient (3 page*.)

11. Walsh Construction Company instructions entitled, " General" (8 pages)

• 12. 3/8-9/78 Request for documents from Morrison Construction Co. , I'nc.

.. (4 pages) 13, 3/8/78 Request for documents' from Mr. Kranz signed by Foster g (1 page)

,. Re: 20]A-82-168 .

e

. Appendix A Documents relative to Items 1 and 3

, *14. 10/18/77 Morrison Construction Company,. Report of Risdiographic '

Examination (2 pages) -

15. 4/76 Morrison Construction Company - Standard Operating Procedure (8 pages)

- 16. Key Plan - LaShlle Site (1 page)

/ 17. Business card - Tom W. Miller, P. E. (1 page)

' *18*. Undated Action' Plan (1 page)

• 19. Undated Items to be inspected (after interviews) (1 page)

~

Documents relative to Items 1 and 2 -

• 20.

IndividualIdentifierCode-Reports

(~1 page) .

50-373/78-06 and 50-374/78-05

• 21. 2/27/78 Interview (3 pages)

• 22 2/27/78 Interview (4 pages)

• 23. 2/28/78 Interview (3 pages)

• 24. 3/1/78 Interview (1 page)

• 25. 3/2/78 Interview (2 pages)

• 26, 3/6/78 Interview (1 page) -

• 27. 3/6/78 Interview (1 page) i *28.'-

3/7'/78 Interview (3 pages) l _

29. 3/7/78 Interview (1 page)

• 30. -3/8/78 Inte'rview (1 page) -

31. 3/8/78 Interview (1 page)

• 32. 3/8/78 Interview (1 page) .

• 33. 3/8/78 Interview (1 page)

• 34. 3/13/78 Interview (1 page)

35. Undated Interview (1 page)

• 36. 2/4/87

~

P .,~

Appendix A 1

• 37. 3/8/82 Interview (1 page)

• 38. 3/8/82 Interview (1 page) -

F

• 39. 3/26/82 Interview (1 page) '

• Names and personal identifiers of individuals have been deleted and withheld to protect confidential sources.

Documents relative to Item.9

40. 4/15/81 Daily Reports (1 page)

• 41. 4/21/81 Daily Reports (1 page)

• 42. 4/24/81 Daily Reports (1 page) .

• 431 4/27/81 Daily Reports (1 page) -

444 4/30/81 Daily Report (1 page)

. 's

• 45. 5/7/81 Daily Reports (1 page)

Documents relative to Item 3

( 4 6. . 9/23/76 Exhibit 4A - Sargent & Lundy Engineers, Chicago -

I Specification for Concrete Expansion Anchor Work, Lasalle County Station - Units 1 and 2 (214 pages)

47. 3/24/82 Letter To: Secretary, U.S. NRC, Form: J. S. Goodie

/ re: Request to Institute A Show Cause Proceeding and for Other Relief - Commonwealth Edison Companys Docket Nos. 50-373, 50-374 w/ attached affidavits (29 pages)

F 48. 3/31/82 Transcript

COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY, LaSalle County i

Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 and Unit 2, Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374, Pages 1-- 77 1

I

.e a

'4.L! M Q 41.\0TJ J'J CATION OF EVENT CR USUSUAT, OCCliRRT.NCE--yNo.j f l .82- 70 ' DuleJuly 29.'1982 Tr.15 prell .inary twtification constitutnri yt:bl i c n t e. c.s t s i gn i t d c.nn c e . The information T.ARLY notir** of Went s -df POSSTfl'chidty or is as ini t i al ly, rer.nivati without vori '

!!c at io.. or evaluat ion , mal is basically all that ic known by the. ntnff no thh dat e.

• I Commonwealth Edison Company . Licenseu Emergency C1:ensifinnLion-1.050lle Nuclear T'ower Station .

Notificat don of Unusual Event .

Docket No: 50--373 Alert. '

liarseilles, IL 61341 Site Area E:nergency f , f

_ General E:ser;;ency - ,_

xxx Not Applicable . 'V .

'ud, ject:

i 2.206 PETITION TO REVOKE LA SALLE UNIT 1 OPERAIING. LICENSE-

h

~

Region III (Chicego) received copies of u letter dated July, 2,8, 1982;, add,r,e s's[d s ~j to " .htU the Docketing and service Section, requesting the NRC toa. institute a proceedWg to -

,s suspend:

in en attached and revoke 2.206 the Uni t 1. operating .l icanse and hold. hearings on issues raised petition. -6 The petition contains infortnation from af f.idavits previously provided to the NRC .by fik -

the Illinois Attorney. General and the Government Accountability Project;. documents - -

on Zack Cornpany quality accurance proble:5.s provided by a former empInyce; ond NHC docunentr. In t he pul:1 in dnnin: tent Act Request. ** room nr provided in response to a Freedom-of Information.

I

.This Pk is being issued for information only.

News media interest is expected because of previous news-interect in the I.aSalle Statinnt The State of Illinois will be notifind. -

. .. og . . . , . .

the letter and petition w.ere received on the af ternoon of July 28, 1982. Th h informnion is current as of 9 a.m. July 29, 1982 -

I .

I

, /, .i -

Contact:

,Rrklini

$ * $[,Mnk R'Ckpessard 324-256'S ., 384-2547 384-2552

.- , /c U k Fa l LJ l, i .C . r. . n . l .'A* :

p: a / v' ,

St. 'Mshr l'hi llips . E/V

,c 2 : r... ?,. '. h d i n u

?.DO OR V i h te,__

1E NMSS

- . G i '. a s ky PA 0 D. R.G

. .'.r.cs u.c MPA ASOU

.:. hie:ts L L ". Air Hir,his

e. A:, w h t i ne M'$IL:

SP J N70 ATi BMK CY gp TAI DCC 74 ant, Cnly l

=.E __

l 1

_ __ - ___________ _ )

f } -b Z h

~

, ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE - - -

COUNSELORS AT LAW THRE E FINST N ATIONAL PLAZA CHICAGO. ILUNOtS 6a602 fDWARD S ISHAW. 1872 1902 0" ## "

E Tt ,

M2W WASHINGTON OFFICE 1120 CONNE AVE NU E. N ,W WASHINGTON D C. 20036 mm m APPEAL OE INITIAL FOIA DECISION Ju y 21, 1982 Q f;/3B Q0,a pj Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission p

n.ac y 7-J6 -#2.

Washington D.C. 20555 Re: Appeal From An Initial FOIA Decision FOIA 248 -

Dear Sir:

On May 12, 1982 on behalf of Commonwealth Edison Company, I requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, four affidavits which referred to allegations of improper construction practices at Commonwealth Edison's LaSalle Plant. These affidavits had been referred to in a petition filed by the Illinois Attorney General pursuant to 10 CFR S2.206, seeking to delay startup of the LaSalle Plant.

In my letter I specifically suggested that the NRC could make whatever deletions necessary to protect the confidentiality of its informants.

On June 23, 1982, Mr. Felton, Director of the NRC's Division of Rules & Records, Office of Administration wrote me denying my request. The stated grounds were that disclosure would interfere with an ongoing enforcement action. s This is an appeal from that initial FOIA decision.

There are two bases for this appeal. First, I am informed that NRC has completed its investigation of alleged improper construction activities at LaSalle. Therefore, there is no longer any question of interference with an ongoing investi-gation.

Second, I was surprised to receive recently a letter dated July 12, 1982 from Mr. Felton to Mr. Abel of Commonwealth Edison, informing him that on May 11, 1982, the NRC had provided to Jan Kodner (an attorney associated with an anti-nuclear citizens group in Illinois) extensive documentation relating to the same allegations which were

_n n/ 1 i l A5 '

(

a

... ... l Executive Director for Operations July 21, 1982 Page 2

- the subject of my request six days later, on May 17. (See attached correspondence relating to FOIA-82-168) . I do not ',

understand how the NRC can apparently " play favorites" in responding to FOIA requests on the same issues. While I recognize, of course, that Commonwealth Edison was the subject of the NRC's investigation at that time, it is difficult to understand why information sensitive enough to interfere with an ongoing investigation could be given to the general public.

How could the NRC be sure that Mr. Kodner's use of such in-formation would not interfere with the investigat. ion? For example, he could have transmitted it to Edison, either directly or by publishing it in the paper.

In view of the above, I request the following re. lief:

(1) I would like to receive the four affidavits originally requested on May 17, 1982.

(2) I hereby broaden my FOIA request to include EREEDOM OF INFORMATION all documents relating to the NRC's 1982 ACI REQUEST investigation of allegations of improper construction practices at LaSalle Plant, FOM-E2-32P including, but not limitea to, those allegations submitted to the NRC by the g i g Government Accountability Project of the Institute For Policy Studies, the Illinois Attorney General's Office, and Illinois Friends of the Earth (Mrs. Bridget Little Rorem). Documents already identified in response to Mr. Kodner's FOIA-82-168 request need not be provided.

(3) Because this situation seems capable of repeatihg itself (infact, GAP has filed allegations with respect to another utility client of mine) , I would like a clear explanation of why the NRC responded favorably to Mr. Kodner's FOIA request and unfavorably to mine.

Sin rely, 1 -

'< ' szq PPS:es Philip P. tept e Enc.

cc James Keppler, Region III J. M. Felton , U.S . N . R.C.

J

}

Re: F01A-82-328 1

Appendix A

• A1. 1/28/82 Memo for Region III Files - LaSalle, from R. F. Warnick,

Subject:

TELEPHONE CALL FROM DOUG LONGENIE OF CHANNEL 5 ,

TV ALLEGATIONS AT LA SALLE (2 pages)

• A2. 2/10/82 Memo for Region III Files, from J. E. Foster,

Subject:

TELEPHONE CONTRACT RE: LA SALLE ALLEGATIONS (Ref. Warnick Memo of 1/28/82) (2 pages)

• A3. 2/26/82 Memo for Region III Files - LaSalle, from G. A. Phillips,

Subject:

TELEPHONE CONTRACT FROM MRS. JUDITH GOODE, ATTORNEY, ILLIN0IS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. (2 pages)

• A4. 3/13/82 Memo for Region III Files, from James E. Foster,

Subject:

ALLEGATION RE: REBAR CUTTING AT LA SALLE, Docket No. 50-373 (Ref. Phillips memo of 2/26/82) (2 pages)

A5. 3/18/82 Letter to A. Bournia from J. S. Goodie (2 pages)

A6. 3/24/82 Letter to Secretary, USNRC from J. S. Goodie (1 page)

• A6/1.

Enclosure:

REQUEST TO INSTITUTE A SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING AND FOR OTHER RELIEF (10 pages)

• A6/2. Exhibit 1: Affidavit - [Name' deleted] (5 pages)

• A6/3. Exhibit 2: Affidavit - Dale Bridenbaugh (14 pages)

A7. 3/25/82 Memo for C. E. Norelius, from R. F. Warnick,

Subject:

ALLEGATIONS RE: REBAR CUTTING AT LA SALLE - Docket No. 50-373; 50-374 (1 page)

A8. 3/30/82 Memo for R. Cs DeYoung, from J. G. Keppler,

Subject:

LA SALLE COUNTY NUCLEAR STATION - PETITION FROM ILLIN0IS ATTORNEY GENERAL (1 page)

• A9. 3/31/82 Memo for Region III Files, from J. E. Foster

Subject:

Contact with Judith Goodie (1 page)

M10. 3/31/82 From Commonwealth Edison Company - RESPONSE TO PETITION MADE BY THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ILLIN0IS, IN THE MATTER OF REINFORCING STEEL DAMAGED DURING THE INSTALLATION OF CORED H0LES AND CONCRETE EXPANSION ANCHORS - LASALLE COUNTY, UNITS 1 AND 2 (13 pages)

A10/1. 3/30/82 Exhibit A - Off-Gas Building Roof Report (2 pages)

A10/2. Undated Exhibit 1 - Types of Cored Holes (1 page)

• = Documents with names and personal identifiers deleted pursuant to Exemption 7 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7).

Re: F01A-82-328 Appendix A A10/3. Undated Exhibit 2 & 3 Summary of Engineering Review of Cored Holes (2 pages)

A10/4. Undated Exhibit 4 - Summary of Engineering Review of Drilled Holes For Concrete Expansion Anchors (1 page)

A10/5. 7/20/79 Exhibit 5 (Revision 3), Figure 38-7, (1 page)

A10/6. Undated Exhibit 6 - III Final Engineering Review and Disposition of Damaged Reinforcing Steel (1 page)

A10/7. Undated Exhibit 7 & 8 Table 3-1, Margins in Sample Areas with Congested Rebar Hits for LaSalle County, Unit 1 (2 pages)

• All. 3/31/82 Transcript of Meeting (79 pages)

A12. 4/2/82 Memo for H. R. Denton from J. P. Murray,

Subject:

2.206 PETITION OF THE STATE OF ILLIN0IS REQUESTING THAT A SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING BE INSTITUTED AND FOR OTHER RELIEF BASED ON ALLEGED SAFETY DEFICIENCIES AT LA SALLE UNITS 1 AND 2 (2 pages)

A12/l. Enclosure 1: Draft letter to T. C. Fahner (5 pages)

A12/2. Enclosure 2: Draft Notice of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2 pages)

A13. 4/7/82 Memo for.D. Eisenhut, from R. L. Spessard

Subject:

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE ON LA SALLE DRILLING INVESTIGATION (1 page)

A14. 4/8/82 Transcript (Selected pages) - Proposed general increase in electric rates - No. 82-0026 (6 pages)

• A15. 4/12/82 Letter to H. R. Denton from P. P. Steptoe (2 pages)

A16. 4/13/82 Notice of Filing by J. S. Goodie (1 page)

• A16/1,

Attachment:

4/13/82 - Coments of the People of Illinois on Commonwealth Edison Company's Presentation of 3/31/82 (11 pages)

A17. 4/14/82 Letter to H. R. Denton from T. C. Fahner (by J. S. Goodie)

(2 pages)

• =N:uments with names and personal identifiers deleted pursuant to Exemption 7 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7).

Re: Fogg gg_3,8 Appendix A A18. 4/15/82 Memo for H. R. Denton from R. C. DeYoung,

Subject:

RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF ALLEGATIONS BY T. FAHNER, ESQUIRE, REGAllDING THE LA SALLE STATION OFF-GAS FILTER ~ BUILDING (3 pages)

A18/1. Enclosure 2: April 8-9,1982 Report by R. E.

Shewmaker, P.E. , " ASSESSMENT OF THE OFF-GAS FILTER <

BUILDING AT LA SALLE NUCLEAR STATION" (8 pages)

A18/1/1. Attachment 1 - 3/30/82 Memo for R. C.

DeYoung, from J. G. Keppler, Subject LaSalle County ~

Nuclear Station - Petition from Illinois Attcrney General (1 page)

A18/1/2 Attachment 2 - LSCS - FSAR, pages: 3.2-1; 3.2-2; 3.2-10; 3.2-16; 3.2-17; 3.2-18; and 3.2-24 (7 pages)

A18/1/3 Attachment 3 - 3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS, pages:

3-1; 3-2; and 11-16. (3 pages)

A18/1/4 Attachment 4 - Transcript - Selected pages:

9; 15; 16; 17; 18; 21; and 22. (8 pages)

A19. 4/17/82 Letter to T. C. Fahner from H. R. Denton (4 pages)

A19/1. Enclosure 1: 4/14/82 Memo for F. P. Schauer from R. E. Lipinski and S. P. Chan,

Subject:

TRIP REPORT -

VISIT.10 LA SALLE PLANT AND MEETING ON H0LE-DRILLING AND CUT REBAR3 IN CONCRETE (2 pages)

A19/2. Enclosure 2: 4/9/82 Attendance List-Meeting in Chicago, IL (1 page)

A20. 4/17/82 Notice to FEDERAL REGISTER, Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206(2pages)

( A21. 4/17/82 Letter to C. Reed from D. G. Eisenhut,

Subject:

LaSalle County Station, Unit 1 - Issuance of Facility Operating License (2 pages)

A21/1.

Enclosures:

License No. NPF-11, Commonwealth Edison

Company, Docket No. 50-373, LaSalle County Station, l Unit 1, Facility Operating License, (17 pages)

I l

l

Re: F01A-82-328 ,;

Appendix A A22. 4/20/82 Memo to H. R. Denton from R. C. DeYoung

Subject:

RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OF ALLEGATIONS BY T. FAHNER, ,

ESQUIRE, REGARDING THE LA ,SALLE STATION OFF-GAS FILTER 8UILDING (1 page)

• A22/1. Enclosure 1:.4/16/82 - Report by E. C. Gilbert -

ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPONSE BY REGION III TO ALLEGATIONS

' CONJERNING THE OFF-GAS FILTER BUILDING AT THE LA SALLE -

NUCLEAR STATION (18 pages)

• A22/2. 3/24/82 Petition by T. C. Fahner etc. (30 pages)

'A22/3. 3/30/82 Memorandum from J. G. Keppler (1 page)

• A22/4. 1/28/82 Memorandum from R. F. Warnick (2 pages)

• A22/5. 2/10/82 Memorandum from J. E. Foster (2 pages)

• A22/6. 2/26/82 Memorandum from G. A. Phillip (2 pages)

• A22/7. 3/13/82 Memorandum from J. E. Foster (2 pages)

A22/8. 3/25/82 Memorandum from R. F. Warnick (2 pages)

• A22/9. 3/31/82 Memorandum from J. E. Foster (1 page)

A22/10. 3/29/82 Report by D. L. Shamblin (2 pages)

A22/11. 3/18/82 Letter from Mrs. J. S. Goodie (2 pages)

• A22/12. Undated Chronology of pertinent events (2 pages)

A22/13. 3/28/82 Article from Chicago Tribune (not available)

A22/14. Undated Memorandum from R. Walker (1 page)

A23. 4/21/82 Letter to C. E. Norelius from J. S. Goodie - Re: IE Bulletin

! 82-01 (1 page)

A24. 4/22/82 Letter to A. Schwencer from C. W. Schroeder

Subject:

LsSalle l County Station Units 1 and 2 Comments and Clarifications on t

Meeting Transcript, March 31, 1982, NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 (6 pages)

A25. 4/27/82 Letter to C. Reed from C. E. Norelius (2 pages) i A25/1.

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 50-373/82-21 (DETP) l (5 pages)

• = Documents with names and personal identifiers deleted pursuant to Exemption 7 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) .and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7).

R3: F01A-82-328  ;

Appendix A Ag6. 4/28/82 Petition by Bridget Little Rorem - Request To Institute A Show Cause Proceeding (3 pages) ,

A27. 5/3/82 Notice of Filing (1 page)'

A27/1.

Attachment:

5/3/82 Amendment to Request For Show Cause Proceeding (7 pages)

A28. 5/3/82 Memo for R. F. Warnick from' C. H. Weil,

Subject:

ALLEGATION OF IMPROPER CONCRETE REPAIRS AT THE LA SALLE COUNTY STATION (2 pages)

A29. 5/4/82 Letter to J. S. Goodie from C. E. Norelius (1 oage)

A30. 5/7/82 Letter to H. R. Denton from B. Lee, Jr.,

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Final Report On Allegations Regarding Rebar Damage and Off Gas Roof Building Thickness, NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 (4 pages)

• A30/1.

Enclosure:

5/7/82 - Final Report In Response To Petition Made By The Office of the Attorney Ceneral, State of Illinois, In The Matter of Reinforcing Steel Damaged During The Installation of Cored and Drilled Holes And The Matter Of The Off-Gas Building Roof For LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2 (72 pages)

A31. 5/12/82 Memo for H. R. Denton from J. P. Murray

Subject:

2.206 PETITION OF BRIDGET LITTLE ROREM AND ILLIN0IS FRIENDS OF THE EARTH REQUESTING THAT A SHOW CAUSE PROCEEDING BE INSTITUTED TO EXAMINE CERTAIN ALLEGED SAFETY PROBLEMS AT LA SALLE UNITS 1 AND 2 AND FURTHER REQUESTING.AN;IMMEDIATE HALT TO FUEL LOADING AT LA SALLE UNIT 1. (.2 pages) t A31/1. Enclosure 1: Draft letter to B. L. Rorem from H. R. Denton j (3 pages)

A31/2. Enclosure 2: Draft Notice of Request for Action Under 10 CFR 2.206 (2 pages)

A32. 5/14/82 Memo for D. G. Eisenhut from R. H. Vollmer

Subject:

SEB Report l On The Attorney General of Illinois Allegations For LaSalle 1 (1 page) l *A32/1.

Enclosure:

Undated -Evaluation Report On The Attorney i

General of Illinois Allegations For LaSalle Plant -

Structural Engineering Branch (4 pages)

• = Documents with names and personal identifiers deleted pursuant to Exemption 7 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7).

R3: F01A-82-328 ,

Appendix A

• A33. 5/14/82 Letter to J. S. Goodie from C. E. Norelius (1 page)

A33/1. En:losure 1: 4/27/82 Letter to C. Reed from C. E. Norelius (2' pages) w/ enclosure: (A25/1) 4/19/82 Inspection Report No. 50-373/82-21 (DETP).(5 pages)

A34. 5/18/82 Letter to H. R. Denton from B. Lee, Jr.,

Subject:

LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2 Report On Additional Allegations Regarding Rebar Damage NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374 (2 pages)

A34/1.

Attachment:

5/18/82 Report In Response To Amended petition dated 5/3/82, Made By The Office of the Attorney General, State of Illinois, In the Matter of Reinforcing Steel Damaged During the Installation of Cored and Drilled Holes For LaSalle County, Units 1 and 2 (35 pages)

A35. 5/19/82 Letter to B. L. Rorem from H. R. Denton acknowledges receipt of Petition: filed by the Illinois Friends of the Earth (2 pages)

A36. 5/24/82 . Memo to I. N. Jackiw from C. E. Norelius

Subject:

LaSalle Investigation (1 page)

• A37. 5/26/82 Letter to H. Denton from J. S. Goodie (6 pages)

A37/1. Enclosure 1: 4/18/77 Memorandum for The Files by D. Smith and T. Tubergen

Subject:

Interview with Mr. Jerry Harlow, Administrative Supervisor, Station Construction (3 pages)

A37/2. Enclosure 2: 4/19//7 Memorandum for The Files by T. Tubergen,

Subject:

Interview with Mr. Les Bird, Mechanical Coordinating Engineer, Station Construction (2 pages)

A37/3. Enclosure 3: 4/22/77 Memorandum for The Files by J. Knoll, A. Burgess, and M. Thran,

Subject:

Interview with Al Kief, Administrative Assistant, LaSalle County l Station (3 pages)

A37/4. Enclosure 4: 4/25/77 Memorandum for The Files by l

J. McAnally and M. Thran,

Subject:

Interview with Mr. Leo Burke, Site Project Superintendent, LaSalle County Station (2 pages)

A37/5. Enclosure 5: 10/7/77 Letter to W. B. Behnke from J. H. Knoll (3 pages)

• = Documents with names and personal identifiers deleted pursuant to Exemption 7 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7).

1

Re: F01A-82-328 .

Appendix A

• A38. 5/26/82 Letter to H. Denton from J. S. Goodie (6 pages)

A39. 6/2/82 Letter to T. C. Fahner from H. R. Denton (1 page)

A40. 7/19/82 Memo for H. R. Denton from J. G. Keppler,

Subject:

COMMONWEALTHEDIS0NCOMPANY(LASALLEil)-INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGATIONS DOCKET NO. 50-373 (1 page)

A41. 7/26/82 Memo for Commissioners from C. Kammerer, Sub BRIEFING 0F CONGRESSIONAL STAFF ON LA SALLE (1 page) ject:

A42. 7/28/82 Letter to Secretary, USNRC, from E. M. Gogol, w/ enclosure

• A42/1. Re: Request to Institute A Show Cause Proceeding and for Other Relief. (8pages)

A42/2. Attachments: 3/30/82 Letter to USNRC-DRR from J. L. Kodner, F0IA request (3 pages)

A42/3. Attachments: 5/11/82 Letter to J. L. Kodner from J. M. Felton, Response to F0IA-82-168 (5 pages)

A43. 7/29/82 Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual Occurrance -

PN0-III-82-70 (1 page)

~

i i

t

• = Documents with names and personal identifiers deleted pursuant to Exemption 7 of the F0IA (5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)) and 10 CFR 9.5(a)(7).

{

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