ML110400035

Recommendations of the the Byron 2.206 PRB

ML110400035
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	02/08/2011
From:	Chuck Norton Plant Licensing Branch III
To:	Quigley B - No Known Affiliation
Norton, Charles, DORL -415-7818
References
2.206
Download: ML110400035 (1)

Text

From: Norton, Charles Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 4:58 PM To: Norton, Charles

Subject:

FW: Recommendations of the Byron 2.206 PRB From: Norton, Charles Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 11:03 AM To: 'QPIF@AOL.COM'

Subject:

Recommendations of the Byron 2.206 PRB

Barry, Per your request I am forwarding the talking points of our phone conversation this morning in regard to your request under 10CFR 2.206 for enforcement action for untimely corrective active actions and failure to follow procedures at Exelon Nuclears Byron Unit 2.

The Petition Review Board met on February 3, 2011 to make the initial recommendation and in accordance with the criteria provided in Management Directive 8.11, the PRB determined that your petition dated January 2, 2011 did not meet the criteria for review under 10 CFR.2.206.

In the petition you requested that the NRC issue the appropriate level of violation for failing to comply with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XVI as it applies to 2RY8010A leakage.

You also requested that the NRC issue the appropriate level of violation for failure to document operability for IR 1144179.

Both requests did not meet the criteria for review because, in accordance with MD 8.11, you raised issues that had already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation for which a resolution had been achieved and the issues resolved. In addition, the Petition Review Board found that the petition did not present significant new information to prompt the NRC staff to reconsider or reopen the staff decision not to initiate enforcement action.

The first issue for which you requested the NRC to issue a violation, failure to comply with 10 CFR 50 Appendix B Criterion XVI as it applies to Pressurizer Safety Valve 2RY8010A, had already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation as part of the Reactor Oversight Program before the petition was submitted on January 2, 2011. The NRC Resident Inspectors reviewed the Adverse Condition Monitoring and Contingency Plan for leakage past the Safety Valve while performing Inspection Procedure 71111.15, Operability Evaluations in June of 2010. This review was documented in The Byron Station 2nd quarter Integrated Inspection Report dated July 27, 2010. In addition as part of the NRC baseline inspection program, the NRC Resident Inspectors have continued to monitor and trend all Reactor Coolant System (RCS) leakage. They reviewed and evaluated all Issue Reports (IRs) related to leakage past the

Safety Valve during the 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters of 2010 and the 1st quarter of 2011. It is important to note that the conclusions that have been developed and documented in NRC inspection reports were based on reviews conducted by technical experts in both Region III and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The NRC Resident staff concluded that with the information available on October 29, 2010, it was appropriate for you to put a corrective action date of November 29, 2010 on the operability evaluation associated with IR 1130085. However, on November 9, 2010, before the corrective action date was reached, station personnel, following appropriate procedures, researched the issue and determined that corrective action could be condition based rather than time based and provided a trigger points for reassessment as documented on OP-AA-101-1006 Attachment A, Issue Resolution and Documentation Form. This action was in accordance with guidance found in Regulatory Guide 1.45, Guidance on Monitoring and Responding to Reactor Coolant System Leakage.

The second issue for which you asked the NRC to issue a violation, failure to document operability for IR 1144179, titled, Disagree with 2RY8010A Op Eval CA Extension, had already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation. As part of the NRC baseline inspection program to monitor plant status, the NRC Resident Inspectors had reviewed IR 1144179 shortly after it was written and determined that the IR documented an administrative issue. The IR neither identified a new degraded system, structure or component nor did it identify a physical change to an operable but degraded system, structure or component. The Resident Inspectors were satisfied that not performing an operability evaluation of IR 1144179 was consistent with the expectations of the Exelon Corrective Action Program.

The NRC Resident staff also considered the need to readdress the operability evaluation of IR 1130085 based upon the concerns raised in IR 1144179 and determined that operability had already been addressed by the Issue Resolution Documentation dated November 9, 2010.

Therefore, the issues for which you requested enforcement-related action have been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation. The staff determined that licensee actions, as related to these issues, were adequate. The issues were resolved and required no enforcement-related action. The petition presented no significant new information that warranted the NRC staff to reconsider or reopen these issues. However, the NRC staff continues to monitor licensee actions in response to changing plant conditions. If indications of increased valve degradation are identified, the NRC staff will re-engage the licensee and take appropriate regulatory action(s).

If you want the opportunity to provide new or additional information in support of your petition, the earliest the PRB will be available for a call or meeting is Feb. 17th (Monday) from 2-3 pm EST (1-2 pm CST).

Please call or email me by Friday February 11, 2011, either if you are satisfied with the PRB recommendations or if you want to address the PRB with new or additional information.

Thank you for bringing these issues to the attention of the NRC.

Chuck Norton US NRC Petition Manager 301 415 7818