ML17355A561
| ML17355A561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/2017 |
| From: | O'Brien K Region 3 Administrator |
| To: | Bryan Hanson Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| References | |
| EA-17-138 IR 2017009 | |
| Download: ML17355A561 (13) | |
See also: IR 05000454/2017009
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4352
December 21, 2017
Mr. Bryan C. Hanson
Senior VP, Exelon Generation Company, LLC
President and CNO, Exelon Nuclear
4300 Winfield Road
Warrenville, IL 60555
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DISPUTED NON-CITED VIOLATION DOCUMENTED IN BYRON
STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2EVALUATIONS OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND
EXPERIMENTS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000454/2017009;
Dear Mr. Hanson:
On July 31, 2017, Exelon Generation Company (EGC), LLC, provided a written response to
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000454/2017009;
05000455/2017009 issued on June 29, 2017, concerning an Evaluations of Changes, Tests,
and Experiments Inspection completed at Byron Station, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the
letter contested Non-Cited Violation (NCV)05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01
associated with the failure to perform an evaluation of a change to the facility as described in
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 50.59(d)(1). The letter explained that EGC concluded that a
10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) evaluation was not required because the UFSAR change satisfied the
10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) exemption.
The NRC carefully reviewed EGCs reply and determined that the original enforcement
decision to disposition this issue as a violation of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) was valid. Specifically,
the NRC-approved Surveillance Frequency Control Program recognizes 10 CFR 50.59 to be the
governing change control process for any proposed change to UFSAR commitments associated
with codes and standards. This handling of changes to UFSAR commitments is deliberately
distinct and separate from the Surveillance Frequency Control Program in order to maintain
sufficient safety margin by ensuring the proposed surveillance test frequency change is not in
conflict with approved industry codes and standards. In addition, the NRC staff noted that the
contrary to the above paragraph of the Enforcement Section of NCV 05000454/2017009-01;
05000455/2017009-01 included an explanatory statement that was open to interpretation.
Based on a review of licensee documents associated with the disputed NCV, the NRC staff
determined that the intended message of the explanatory statement was consistent with the
NRC staff conclusions derived during this review of the disputed NCV. The basis for the NRC
staff conclusion is enclosed.
B. Hanson -2-
This letter, its enclosure, EGCs July 31, 2017, response, and your response (if any) will be
made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html
and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections,
Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Kenneth G. OBrien
Deputy Regional Administrator
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Assessment of Disputed
cc: Distribution via LISTSERV
B. Hanson -3-
Letter to Byron C. Hanson from Kenneth G. OBrien dated December 21, 2017
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DISPUTED NON-CITED VIOLATION DOCUMENTED IN BYRON
STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2EVALUATIONS OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND
EXPERIMENTS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000454/2017009;
DISTRIBUTION:
RidsNrrDorlLpl3
RidsNrrPMByron Resource
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource
Cynthia Pederson
Kenneth OBrien
DRPIII
DRSIII
ADAMS Accession Number ML17355A561
OFFICE RIII RIII RIII RIII
NAME MJeffers for MJeffers JGeisner for KOBrien
NFeliz-Adorno:cl RSkokowski
DATE 12/21/17 12/21/17 12/21/17 12/21/17
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
NRC STAFF ASSESSMENT OF DISPUTED
NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviewed the information provided in
Exelon Generation Company (EGC) letter dated July 31, 2017, to determine whether Non-Cited
Violation (NCV)05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 was valid. This review was
performed by an NRC staff member having relevant regulatory knowledge and who did not
participate in the inspection documented in Inspection Report 05000454/2017009;
05000455/2017009, which dispositioned the disputed violation. The NRC staff referenced
several documents that are listed in the Reference Section of this Enclosure and consulted
with other NRC staff members that were independent from the original enforcement decision,
including members of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
1. BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2017, the NRC issued Inspection Report 05000454/2017009;
05000455/2017009 documenting the results of an Evaluations of Changes, Tests,
and Experiments Inspection at Byron Station, Units 1 and 2. The report included a
SL-IV violation of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50.59(d)(1) for
the failure to provide a written evaluation which provided the basis for the determination
that a change did not require a license amendment. The violation was associated with a
change to a Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) commitment related to the
emergency diesel generators (EDGs) made in support of surveillance frequency (SF)
changes evaluated under the Byron Station SF Control Program (SFCP). This violation
was dispositioned as NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01.
On July 31, 2017, EGC provided a written response to the NRC contesting the
enforcement decision associated with NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/
2017009-01. In the letter, EGC explained that a 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) evaluation
was not required because the associated change to the UFSAR satisfied the
10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) exemption.
2. ORIGINAL ENFORCEMENT DECISION
Inspection Report 05000454/2017009; 05000455/2017009 described the violation as:
Title 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments, Section (d)(1) requires
the licensee to maintain records of changes in the facility, of changes in
procedures, and of tests and experiments made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(c).
Title 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) requires that these records include a written evaluation
which provides the basis for the determination that a change, test, or experiment did
not require a license amendment. Title 10 CFR 50.59(c)(2) requires a licensee to
obtain a license amendment prior to implementing a proposed change, test, or
experiment if the change, test, or experiment would result in more than a minimal
increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of an SSC [structure,
system, or component] important to safety.
Contrary to the above, between February 14, 2014, and June 1, 2017, the licensee
failed to provide a written evaluation which provided the basis for determining that a
change, test, or experiment made pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59(c) did not require a
license amendment. Specifically, the licensee failed to provide a basis for why a
change to the surveillance frequencies of EDGs described in the Updated Final
Enclosure
Safety Analysis Report did not require prior NRC approval. The licensee did not
provide a basis for why the change would not result in more than a minimal increase
in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety.
3. LICENSEE POSITION
In letter dated July 31, 2017, EGC concluded that UFSAR changes associated with
SF changes performed in accordance with an NRC-approved SFCP are not subject to
10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) evaluations because these changes satisfy 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4),
which states that the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59 do not apply to changes to the
facility or procedures when the applicable regulations establish more specific criteria for
accomplishing such changes. In summary, the bases for EGCs position included:
1. The NRC-approved the use of Revision 1 of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Topical
Report 04-10, Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies, to
identify, assess, implement, and monitor changes to the SFs listed in Byron Station
SFCP.
2. The NEI 04-10 process became a regulatory requirement because it was
incorporated in the Administrative Controls section of Byron Station Technical
Specifications (TS).
3. The NEI 04-10 process applies more specific criteria than 10 CFR 50.59 to evaluate
SF changes.
4. The NEI 04-10 methodology evaluates all aspects of the current licensing basis
(CLB), including the UFSAR and industry codes/standards insights and compliance,
because TS requirements are inextricably linked to the rest of the CLB.
4. NRC STAFF REVIEW
The NRC staff carefully reviewed the EGC position as it applied to the specific
circumstances surrounding NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 as
follows:
1. NRC Approval of NEI 04-10, Revision 1
During this review, the NRC staff confirmed that Revision 1 of NEI 04-10
was approved by the NRC to revise SFs within a licensee-controlled SFCP.
Specifically, NRC Final Safety Evaluation (SE) for Revision 1 of NEI 04-10, dated
September 19, 2007, states The NRC staff has found that NEI 04-10, Revision 1, is
acceptable for referencing by licensees proposing to amend their TS to establish a
Surveillance Frequency Control Program, to the extent specified and under the
limitations delineated in NEI 04-10, Revision 1, and in the enclosed final SE.
In addition, the NRC staff confirmed that the NRC approved a TS amendment to
establish a SFCP based on the methodology contained in Revision 1 of NEI 04-10
for Byron Station. Specifically, NRC SE for Byron Station Amendment No. 171,
dated February 24, 2011, states This methodology supports relocating surveillance
frequencies from TS to a licensee-controlled document, provided those frequencies
are changed in accordance with NEI 04-10, Revision 1, which is specified in the
Administrative Controls of the TSs.
2
As a result of the above review, the NRC staff concluded that the NRC-approved
Byron Stations establishment of a licensee-controlled SFCP provided SF changes
are made in accordance with Revision 1 of NEI 04-10.
2. Byron Station SFCP Relationship with Regulatory Requirements
During this review, the NRC staff determined that the NRC-approved a TS
amendment to include Byron Station SFCP in their TS. Specifically, NRC SE for
Byron Station Amendment No. 171 states Byron Station has included the SFCP
and specific requirements into the TSs, Section 5.5.19, Administrative Controls,
Section 5.5.19, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, of Byron Station TS,
Amendment 171, was added to state:
This program provides controls for Surveillance Frequencies. The program shall
ensure that Surveillance Requirements specified in the Technical Specifications
are performed at intervals sufficient to assure the associated Limiting Conditions
for Operation are met.
a. The SFCP shall contain a list of Frequencies of those Surveillance
Requirements for which the Frequency is controlled by the program.
b. Changes to the Frequencies listed in the SFCP shall be made in
accordance with NEI 04-10, Risk-Informed Method for Control of
Surveillance Frequencies, Revision 1 [emphasis added].
c. The provisions of Surveillance Requirements 3.0.2 and 3.0.3 are applicable
to the Frequencies established in the SFCP.
Furthermore, the NRC staff determined that TS 5.5.19 is a legally binding
requirement because it was incorporated into the Administrative Controls
section of TS. Compliance to TS is required as a license condition. Specifically,
Section 2.C(2) of Byron Station Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-37
states The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the TS and the
Environmental Protection Plan. In addition, the NRC Enforcement Policy, dated
November 1, 2016, states Requirement, as used in this Policy, means a
legally binding requirement such as a statute, regulation, license condition,
TS [emphasis added], or Order. Similar definitions were found in the NRC
Enforcement Manual, Revision 10, and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations Office
Instruction LIC-105, Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by Licensees to the
NRC, Revision 7 (publicly available).
As a result of the above review, the NRC staff concluded that changing SFs listed in
the SFCP in accordance with Revision 1 of NEI 04-10 was compliant with Byron
Station TS 5.5.19, Amendment 171, which was a legally binding requirement.
3. NEI 04-10 Change Process and the 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) Exemption
During this review, the NRC staff noted that the scope of the 10 CFR 50.59
obligation, which is further clarified by the definitions included therein, is limited to
the facility and procedures as described in the UFSAR [emphasis added]. For
example, Paragraph (c)(1) of the obligation states A licensee may make changes
in the facility as described in the final FSAR [Final Safety Analysis Report] (as
3
updated) [emphasis added], make changes in the procedures as described in
the FSAR (as updated) [emphasis added], and conduct tests or experiments not
described in the FSAR (as updated) [emphasis added] The definition of
tests or experiments not described in the FSAR (as updated) [emphasis added]
contained in 10 CFR 50.59(a)(6) was based on design bases and safety analyses as
described in the FSAR (as updated) [emphasis added]. In the specific case of
NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01, the SF changes themselves
were not changes to the facility or procedures as described in the UFSAR. Thus, the
10 CFR 50.59 obligation did not apply, including the 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) exemption.
Instead, Byron Station TS 5.5.19, Amendment 171, requires Revision 1 of NEI 04-10
as the governing change process for the SF changes involved in the disputed
violation, consistent with the conclusion of Section 4.2 of this Enclosure.
However, the NRC staff noted that TS 5.5.19, Amendment 171, requires Revision 1
of NEI 04-10 as the governing change process only for SF changes [emphasis
added]. That is, this process is not specified as the governing change process to
evaluate changes to NRC commitments made in support of SF changes.
Specifically, Revision 1 of NEI 04-10, Step 1, requires checking for NRC
commitments related to the proposed SF change. When commitments are
identified, Steps 2 through 4 require changing the commitments using a method
acceptable to the NRC prior to changing the SF if the commitments could be
changed. Alternatively, these steps require canceling the proposed SF change if the
commitments could not be changed. The NRC staff further noted that these steps
were incorporated into the EGC SFCP procedures listed in the References Section
of this Enclosure.
Revision 1 of NEI 04-10 emphasizes that Evaluating changes to the NRC
commitments is a separate activity based on a method acceptable to the NRC
for managing and changing regulatory commitments, e.g., NEI 99-04 [emphasis
added]. The potential need to perform separate change evaluations is also
recognized by Revision 1 of NEI 96-07, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59
Implementation, which was endorsed by the NRC as an acceptable method for
complying with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.187,
Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, Tests, and Experiments,
dated November 2000. For example, it states To the extent the UFSAR changes
are directly related to the activity implemented via another regulation, applying
10 CFR 50.59 is not required However, there may be certain activities for
which a licensee would need to apply both the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59
and that of another regulation [emphasis added].
Revision 1 of NEI 04-10 prompts the consideration for a separate 10 CFR 50.59
evaluation for NRC commitment changes associated with the proposed SF changes
by stating In Step 3, change the commitments using a method acceptable to the
NRC, e.g., NEI 99-04, such that the STI [surveillance test interval; aka., SFs] can
be revised using the SFCP process. Revision 0 of NEI 99-04, Guidelines for
Managing NRC Commitment Changes, states Commitments that are embodied
in the UFSAR as descriptions of the facility or procedures are changed by
applying the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 [emphasis added] to determine if a
change requiring prior NRC approval exists. NEI 99-04 defined commitment as
an explicit statement to take a specific action agreed to, or volunteered by, a
4
licensee and submitted in writing on the docket to the NRC. In addition, Revision 1
of EGC procedure ER-AA-425-1002, Step 4.5.2, states Examples of commitments
within Exelon include but are not limited to the following UFSAR.
In the specific case of NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01, the
licensee changed explicit statements embodied in the UFSAR in support of the
involved SF changes. For instance, the UFSAR stated that Byron Station complied
with Revision 3 of RG 1.9, Selection, Design, Qualification, and Testing of
Diesel-Generator Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear
Power Plants, which endorses Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
Standard 387-1984, IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied as
Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations. Because these
statements were embodied in the UFSAR, they were submitted in writing on the
docket to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.71, Maintenance of records,
making of reports. Therefore, the NRC staff determined that these explicit
statements were NRC commitments. In addition, the NRC staff noted that the
licensee recognized that these explicit statements were commitments in SFCP
evaluation BY-13-003, DG and Integrated Safeguards LOOP ESF Surveillance
Test Surveillance Frequency STI Evaluation, Revision 0. For example, Section C.7
states RG 1.9 to which Byron is committed to, with some exceptions, in the
UFSAR, Appendix A.
As a result of the above review, the NRC staff concluded that, in the case of
NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01, the NEI 04-10 process was
the governing change process for the subject SF changes while the 10 CFR 50.59
process was the governing change process for changing the UFSAR commitments
made in support of the involved SF changes.
4. NEI 04-10 Treatment of Codes and Standards Related to Proposed SF Changes
During this review, the NRC staff noted that the NRC SE for Byron Station
Amendment No. 171 states that Revision 1 of NEI 04-10 was acceptable because, in
part, it meets each key safety principle required for risk-informed changes to the TSs
identified in Revision 1 of RG 1.177, An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed
Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications. This RG describes an acceptable
approach for assessing the nature and impact of proposed TS changes in completion
times and SFs by considering engineering issues and applying risk insights. It states
that In implementing risk-informed decisionmaking, TS changes are expected to
meet a set of key principles. Revision 2 of RG 1.174, An Approach for Using
Probabilistic Risk Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes
to the Licensing Basis, which is referenced by RG 1.177, further clarified that One
aspect of the engineering evaluations [conducted to justify any proposed CLB
change] is to show that the fundamental safety principles on which the plant design
was based are not compromised by the proposed change. This risk-informed
approach to TS is consistent with the NRC general review guidance for TS
contained in Revision 1 of Section 16.1, Risk-Informed Decision Making: Technical
Specifications, of NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety
Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR EditionTechnical Specifications.
5
The third key safety principle identified by the RGs is that the proposed TS change
maintains sufficient safety margin. The RG 1.177 states that sufficient safety margin
is maintained when, in part, Codes and standards (e.g., American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)) or
alternatives approved for use by the NRC are met, (e.g., the proposed TS
completion time or SF change is not in conflict with approved codes and
standards relevant to the subject system [emphasis added]). Accordingly, the
NRC SE for Byron Station Amendment No. 171 states that an engineering evaluation
will be conducted by the licensee under the SFCP that will assess the impact of the
proposed SF change with the principle that sufficient safety margin is maintained. It
further states that The guidelines used for making that assessment will include
ensuring the proposed surveillance test frequency change is not in conflict
with approved industry codes and standards [emphasis added]... The SE also
states Thus, safety margins are maintained by the proposed methodology, and the
third key safety principle of RG 1.177 is satisfied. The NRC staff found similar
statements in relevant Statements of Considerations published by the NRC in
73 FR 74202 (December 5, 2008) and 74 FR 31996 (July 6, 2009).
In the case of NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01, the SF changes
were in conflict with the UFSAR commitment to comply with Revision 3 of RG 1.9,
which endorses IEEE Standard 387-1984, and the licensee did not resolve this
conflict in accordance with the NRC risk-informed philosophy as incorporated into
Revision 1 of NEI 04-10. Specifically, Steps 1 through 4 of NEI 04-10 include
guidelines for checking for NRC commitments related to the proposed SF change
and, when commitments are identified, changing the commitments using a method
acceptable to the NRC prior to changing the SF or canceling the proposed SF
change if the commitments cannot be changed. However, the licensee did not
identify the UFSAR commitment to comply with Revision 3 of RG 1.9 when
performing these steps. Their UFSAR review only consisted of a search of the
key-words test (and all its word forms), surveillance, frequency, interval,
refueling, and outage as documented in Byron Station SFCP evaluation
BY-13-003. Despite the deficient implementation of Steps 1 through 4, the licensee
identified the UFSAR commitment while performing Step 7 of NEI 04-10, which
prompted the licensee to update the UFSAR in support of the SF changes via
DRP 15-073, Revise Diesel Generator and Integrated Safeguards LOOP/ESF
Surveillance Test Frequency from 18 Months to 18 Months on a Staggered Test
Basis, Revision 0. This UFSAR revision package included a 10 CFR 50.59
screening for the UFSAR commitment change to determine if an evaluation pursuant
to 10 CFR 50.59 was required.
However, the licensees 10 CFR 50.59 screening incorrectly concluded that a
10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required by, in relevant part, crediting SFCP
evaluation BY-13-003, which was performed in accordance with the NEI 04-10
process instead. Specifically, Step 2 of the SFCP change process from Revision 1
of NEI 04-10 emphasizes that Evaluating changes to the NRC commitments is a
separate activity based on a method acceptable to the NRC for managing and
changing regulatory commitments, e.g., NEI 99-04. Step 1 of Revision 0 of
NEI 99-04 for handling regulatory commitments states Commitments that are
embodied in the UFSAR as descriptions of the facility or procedures are changed by
applying the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 to determine if a change requiring prior
NRC approval exists. However, instead of performing the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation
6
as identified by NEI 99-4, the licensee incorrectly applied the 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4)
exemption crediting the SFCP to provide more specific criteria to accomplish the
change. This created a circular logic as stated in the Description Section of
NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01.
As a result of the above review, the NRC staff concluded that evaluations performed
in accordance with Byron Station SFCP, as approved by the NRC, must ensure that
the proposed SF changes are not in conflict with approved industry codes and
standards. In the case of NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01, the
SF changes were in conflict with a UFSAR commitment to comply with an approved
industry standard and the licensee addressed this conflict by changing the
commitment without applying the 10 CFR 50.59 process, which was the governing
change process for this UFSAR commitment change as discussed in Section 4.3 of
this Enclosure. Specifically, the NRC-approved SFCP recognizes 10 CFR 50.59 to
be the governing change control process for any proposed change to UFSAR
commitments associated with codes and standards, in order to maintain sufficient
safety margin by ensuring the proposed surveillance test frequency change is not in
conflict with approved industry codes and standards. Code-required surveillance
requirements reside within codes outside the technical specifications framework, and
may be relied upon for other allowances within those codes, and therefore are
appropriately treated differently from technical specification surveillance
requirements.
5. Evaluation of the Original Enforcement Action
The NRC staff noted that the contrary to the above paragraph of the Enforcement
Section of NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 included an
explanatory statement that was open to interpretation. The contrary to the above
paragraph is quoted below showing the explanatory statement in bold.
Contrary to the above, between February 14, 2014, and June 1, 2017, the
licensee failed to provide a written evaluation which provided the basis for
determining that a change, test, or experiment made pursuant to 10 CFR
50.59(c) did not require a license amendment. Specifically, the licensee failed
to provide a basis for why a change to the surveillance frequencies of
emergency diesel generators described in the Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report did not require prior NRC approval. The licensee did not
provide a basis for why the change would not result in more than a minimal
increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of an SSC important to
safety.
In the context of the information documented in the Description Section of
NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01, the explanatory statement
could be interpreted to convey, at least, the following messages:
1. The licensee failed to apply the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation change process to
EDG SF changes and the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation change process was
applicable because the SFs were described in the UFSAR; or
2. The licensee failed to apply the 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation change process to a
UFSAR commitment change made in support of EDG SF changes.
7
Based on a review of licensee documents associated with the disputed NCV, the
NRC staff determined that the second interpretation conveys the intended message
of the explanatory statement. Further, it was determined that this intended message
was consistent with the NRC staff conclusions derived during this review of the
disputed NCV.
As a result of the above review along with the reviews included in Sections 4.1
through 4.4 of this Enclosure, the NRC staff determined that the original enforcement
action of NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 was valid.
5. CONCLUSION
The NRC staff determined that the licensee performed two changes: (1) SF changes;
and (2) a UFSAR change to address a conflict between the SF changes and a standard
that the licensee was committed to. The licensee evaluated both changes using their
NRC-approved SFCP, which was based on Revision 1 of NEI 04-10. However, this
process was only approved for evaluating SF changes. Evaluating a UFSAR
commitment change involving an approved standard and accepting a conflict between
proposed SF changes and a committed standard using Byron Station SFCP was not in
accordance with: (1) the limitations delineated in Revision 1 of NEI 04-10; (2) the EGC
procedures established to implement the NEI 04-10 process; and (3) the NRC SE
approving Byron Stations SFCP.
Based on this review and after careful consideration of the information provided by
EGC in letter dated July 31, 2017, the NRC staff determined that the violation of
10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) occurred as stated in NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/
2017009-01. The NRC staff gave importance to the fact that the NRC SE approving
Byron Station SFCP accepted its methodology because, in relevant part, it would
ensure that the proposed SF changes would not be in conflict with approved industry
codes and standards to meet the NRC key safety principles for risk-informed changes
to the TSs and not compromise the fundamental safety principles on which the plant
design was based. The NRC staff also gave importance to the fact that Revision 1 of
NEI 04-10 explicitly recognized its limitation to evaluate NRC commitment changes.
In addition, the NRC staff determined that the Enforcement Section of NCV 05000454/
2017009-01;05000455/2017009-01 included an explanatory statement that was open
to interpretation. Based on a review of licensee documents associated with the disputed
NCV, the NRC staff determined that the intended message of the explanatory statement
was that the licensee failed to provide a basis for why a change to the UFSAR
commitment to comply with Revision 3 of RG 1.9 did not require prior NRC approval.
Further, it was determined that this intended message was consistent with the NRC
staff conclusions derived during this review of the disputed NCV.
6. REFERENCES
1. Letter from Robert C. Daley to Bryan C. Hanson; Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 -
Evaluation of Changes, Tests, and Experiments Baseline Inspection Report 05000454/2017009; 05000455/2017009; June 29, 2017.
2. Letter from Mark Kanavos to the NRC Document Control Desk; Response to NRC
Evaluation of Changes, Tests, and Experiments Baseline Inspection Report 05000454/2017009, 05000455/2017009; July 31, 2017.
8
3. Technical specifications; 10 CFR 50.36; 2017.
4. Changes, Tests, and Experiments; 10 CFR 50.59; 2017.
5. Maintenance of records, making of reports; 10 CFR 50.71; 2017.
6. Regulatory Guide 1.9; Rev. 3; Selection, Design, Qualification, and Testing of
Diesel-Generator Units Used as Class 1E Onsite Electric Power Systems at Nuclear
Power Plants; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.
7. Regulatory Guide 1.174; Rev. 2; An Approach for Using Probabilistic Risk
Assessment in Risk-Informed Decisions on Plant-Specific Changes to the Licensing
Basis; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, DC.
8. Regulatory Guide 1.177; Rev. 1; An Approach for Plant-Specific, Risk-Informed
Decisionmaking: Technical Specifications; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Washington, DC.
9. Regulatory Guide 1.187; Nov. 2000; A Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR
50.59, Changes, Test, and Experiments; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission;
Washington, DC.
10. NUREG-0800; Chapter 16; Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis
Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition - Technical Specifications,
Section 16.1; Rev. 1; Risk-Informed Decision Making: Technical Specifications.
11. 64 FR 53582; Changes, Tests, and Experiments; Federal Register; Volume 64;
p. 53582; Washington, DC; October 4, 1999.
12. 73 FR 74202; Notice of Opportunity to Comment on Model Safety Evaluation on
Technical Specification Improvement to Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to
Licensee Control-Risk-Informed Technical Specification Task Force (RITSTF)
Initiative 5b, Technical Specification Task Force-425, Revision 2; Federal Register;
Volume 73; p. 74202; Washington, DC; December 5, 2008.
13. 74 FR 31996; Notice of Availability of Technical Specification Improvement to
Relocate Surveillance Frequencies to Licensee Control-Risk-Informed Technical
Specification Task Force (RITSTF) Initiative 5b, Technical Specification Task
Force-425, Revision 3; Federal Register; Volume 74; p. 31996; Washington, DC;
July 6, 2009.
14. Final Safety Evaluation for Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Topical Report
(TR) 04-10, Revision 1, Risk-Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5B,
Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies; U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission; September 19, 2007.
15. Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Related to
Amendment No. 171 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-37 and Amendment No.
171 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-66; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission; February 24, 2011.
16. NRC Enforcement Manual; Revision 10.
9
17. NRC Enforcement Policy; November 1, 2016.
18. NRR Office Instruction LIC-105; Managing Regulatory Commitments Made by
Licensees to the NRC; Revision 7 (publicly available).
19. IEEE 387-1984; IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel-Generator Units Applied
as Standby Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations;
November 21, 1984.
20. NEI 96-07; Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Implementation; Revision 1.
21. NEI 99-04; Guidelines for Managing NRC Commitment Changes; Revision 0.
22. NEI 04-10; Risk-Informed Method for Control of Surveillance Frequencies;
Revision 1.
23. Byron/Braidwood Nuclear Stations Updated Final Safety Analysis Report;
Revision 14.
24. Byron/Braidwood Nuclear Stations Updated Final Safety Analysis Report;
Revision 15.
25. Byron Station Technical Specification 3.8.1; AC Sources - Operating;
Amendment 194.
26. Byron Station Technical Specification 5.5.19; Surveillance Frequency Control
Program; Amendment 171.
27. EGC Procedure ER-AA-425; Implementation of the Technical Specification
Surveillance Frequency Control Program; Revision 1.
28. EGC Procedure ER-AA-425-1000; Selecting a Candidate to be Evaluated for a
Proposed Surveillance Test Interval (STI) Change; Revision 1.
29. EGC Procedure ER-AA-425-1001; Surveillance Test Interval (STI) Evaluation
Form; Revision 1.
30. EGC Procedure ER-AA-425-1002; Engineering Evaluation of Proposed Surveillance
Test Interval Changes; Revision 1.
31. Byron Station Evaluation BY-13-003; DG and Integrated Safeguards LOOP ESF
Surveillance Test Surveillance Frequency STI Evaluation; Revision 0.
32. Byron Station UFSAR Change DRP 15-073; Revise Diesel Generator and
Integrated Safeguards LOOP/ESF Surveillance Test Frequency from 18 Months to
18 Months on a Staggered Test Basis; Revision 0.
10