IR 05000454/1997005
| ML20211G107 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1997 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Graesser K COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211G098 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-454-97-05, 50-454-97-5, 50-455-97-05, 50-455-97-5, EA-97-200, NUDOCS 9710020018 | |
| Download: ML20211G107 (1) | |
Text
SUBJECT:
NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-454/97005(DRP); 50-455/97005(DRP) AND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
.
Dear Mr. Graesser:
On May 1,1997, the NRC completed an inspection at your Byron 1 & 2 reactor faciiities.
The enclosed report presents the inspection results.
On March 15,1997, after a Unit 2 shutdown, you identified that the containment floor drains were plugged. On March 17,1997, the blockage in the flow control box was
!
cleared and the floor drain system declared operable after an operability assessment was performed to evaluate the missing or modified drain grates. Tnis operability assessment allowed Unit 2 to start-up with a known deficiency. We reviewed the actions of your
-
staff, including engineering, operations, and maintenance. We also reviewed the licensee event report (LER) you submitted documenting the event.
,
Based on the results of this inspection, four apparent violations of NRC requirements were-identified and are being considered for escalated enforcement action in accordance with the~" General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Poilcy), NUREG-1600.
The floor drain system was apparently inoperable for greater than 5 months, a significant.
.
deviation from technical spa-fication requirements and an apparent violation. Operators had an opportunity to ider., the inoperable floor drain system during periodic shifts of
'
the reactor containment fe, solers (RCFCs). The RCFCs cause a characteristic recorder trace due to condensation drainage, the absence of which could have been identified during periodic surveillances of the recorder trace and through inconsistencies in the
containment sump pump run times. The failure to identify this condition was identified as an apparent violation. Additionally, the original design of floor drain grates was identified as not being capable of being installed due to an apparent error in pouring the concrete during original construction. No safety evaluation was performed to document the acceptability of using a different design grate or no grate at all, an apparent violation of
,
'
-10 CFR 50.59. Further, one of the apparent violations involves the reporting of incomplete information in the LER that reported the inoperable floor drain system. The details pertaining to each apparent violation are described in the enclosed report.
t 9710020018 970916 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G
PDR i