ML20029E126
| ML20029E126 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1994 |
| From: | Wright G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Graesser K COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029E127 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405170011 | |
| Download: ML20029E126 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000454/1994006
Text
-
,
,
.
May 9,1994
i
.
k
Docket No. 50-454
Docket No. 50-455
Commonwealth Edison Company
ATTN:
Mr. K. Graesser
Site Vice President
Byron Station
4450 North German Church Road
Byron, IL
61010
Dear Mr. Graesser:
This refers to the routine safety inspection conducted by Mr. M. P. Huber and
others of this office from March 28 through April 14, 1994.
The inspection
included a roview of activities.at your Byron Station, Units 1 and 2.
At the
conclusion of the inspection, the findings were discussed with those members
of your staff identified in.the enclosed report.
Areas examined during the inspection are identified in the report.
These
areas consisted primarily of a review of the Byron Station program
implementation for motor operated valves (MOV) established in response to
Generic Letter (GL) 89-10, " Safety-Related M0V Testing and Surveillance."
Within these areas, the inspection consisted of a selective examination of
procedures and representative records, observations, and interviews with
personnel.
The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether activities
authorized by the licenses were conducted safely and in accordance with NRC
requirements.
The MOV program at Byron Station was progressing on schedule with respect to
rising stem valves.
However, the attention and resources devoted to butterfly
valves was limited. Although you have plans to address the testing of
'
butterfly valves, the delay in implementing those plans was considered a
weakness.
Some MOVs were exceeding the manufacturer's allowable torque rating
and may warrant more immediate action to correct the situation.
Discussions
were continuing between your staff and NRC to resolve this issue.
Justification of the methodologies for linear extrapolation of test data,
periodic verification of MOV capability, use of other than vendor recommended
power factors in motor terminal voltage equations, and increasing M0V
capability beyond the established standards were not yet complete. These
items will be reviewed by PRC prior to closure of your GL 89-10 program.
During the inspection, your staff indicated that your ongoing motor test
program results would be used to justify some GL 89-10 program positions.
Please notify Region III when the testing' program is complete.
No violations of NRC requirements were identified during the course of this
inspection.
'O
9405170011 940509
)
ADOCK 05000454
Q
lbOLUt
. _
..
_
._
_.
_
_ - .
_._
.
._
2
.
,
Commonwealth Edison Company
2
May 9, 1994
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the Commission's regulations, a copy of
this letter and the enclosed inspection report will be placed in the NRC
Public Document Room.
We will gladly discuss any questions you have concerning this inspection.
Sincerely,
/s/ W. D. Sbafer
Geoffrey C. Wright, Chief
Engineering Branch
Enclosure:
Inspection Reports
No. 50-454/94006(DRS);
No. 50-455/94006(DRS)
cc w/ enclosure:
L
O. DelGeorge, Vice President
Nuclear Oversight and Regulatory Services
G. Schwartz, Station Manager
D. Brindle, Regulatory Assurance
Supervisor
D. Farrar, Nuclear Regulatory
,
Services Manager
OC/LFDCB
Resident Inspectors, Byron,
Braidwood, Zion
Richard Hubbard
Nathan Schloss, Economist, Public
Utilities Division
Licensing Project Manager, NRR
State liaison Officer, Wisconsin
State Liaison Officer
Chairman, Illinois Commerce Commission
S. Stein, SRS
T. Scarbrough, NRR/EMEB
E. Kelly RI
C. Casto, Ril
T. Westarman, RIV
bcc:
PUBLIC IE-01
,
3
g
k
/
/
n
_
'
RIII _
RIII
RI
RIII
PI I
nnilM
W*?
\\
QC'
Ws)
.
Huberymh/kjc
Pegg
Ja'tobs
Jorgensen
WFight
5B
5/(,/94
5/6/94
5/{/94
5/6/94
5/ p/ 4
5/q94
w
t