IR 05000373/1981048

Ack Receipt of Informing NRC of Steps Taken to Correct Violations Noted in IE Insp Rept 50-373/81-48

ML20055B573
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	07/19/1982
From:	Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III)
To:	Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
Shared Package
ML20055B574	List: IR 05000373/1981048
References
NUDOCS 8207220510
Download: ML20055B573 (2)

Text

r

• ,

.

~JUL 19 E2:

Docket No. 50-373 Commonwealth Edison Company ATIN: Mr. Cordell Reed Vice President Post Office Box 767 Chicago, IL 60690 Gentlemen:

Thank you for your letter dated April 26, 1982, informing us of the steps you have taken to correct the items of noncompliance which we brought to your attention in Inspection Report No. 50-373/81-48, forwarded by our letter dated March 22, 198 With respect to noncompliance Items la, lb, ic, 4a, and 5, your actions will be reviewed during a subsequent inspectio With respect to Item 2b (noncompliance 81-48-04B), we still consider this matter as a valid item of noncompliance, in that you failed to document in the FSAR high strength bolting practices actually implemented in the fiel We disagree with your statement on Page 6 (fifth paragraph) of your response that Section 3.8.3.1.6 of the FSAR identifies the bolts which are not torqued to your identified AISC requirements. The section only addresses the fact that the beams are provided with connections that allow for free i

'

thermal expansion. It does not document the actual bolting practices used to provide this free movement. As such, the FSAR is not correct.

Section 4.2.1 of Appendix E of the FSAR should be amended to accurately l reflect the bolting practices used. With respect to Item 3 (noncompliance

! G1-48-02), as discussed by Mr. Dan Shamblin of your staff in a telephone conversation with Mr. Ross Landsman of my staff on June 18, 1982, we i understand that you will continue inspecting all of the accessibla safety-

'

related structural steel outside of the containment drywell which cas been affected by changes to determine that such steel is consistent with final i design package With respect to Item 4 (noncomplaince 81-48-03), also discussed by

, Mr. Shamblim and Mr. Landsman, we understand that you will conduct tensile

' tests of specimens obtained from the four pieces in question listed on Table 1 of your submittal (Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 12).

l l

[8872s o188% 30/

<

a Commonwealth Edison Company 2 9 G82

.

We request that you submit a second letter to this office within 25 days of the date of this letter confirming your intentions regarding noncompliance Items 2b, 3 and 4. Your response should be submitted under oath or affirmatio Your cooperation with us is appreciate

Sincerely,

/s/p W) & &

.

. E. Norelius, Director

~ Division of Engineering and Technical Programs cc: Louis 0. DelGeorge, Director of Nuclear Licensing R. Cosaro, Site Construction Superintendent T. E. Quaka, Quality Assurance Supervisor R. H. Holyoak, Station Superintendent B. B. Stephenson Project Manager cc w/ltr dtd 4/26/82:

DMB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

Resident Inspector, RIII Karen Borgstadt, Office of Assistant Attorney General l

,

RIII RIII RIII RI RII RII g[ RIII I R Wes$

0 Oa RW f 0 q i

\

cot /sv Neisler Gardner L n Walker Knop Li lius 7/9/82 111/p- f/I