ML17355A561

Ltr. 12/21/17 Response to Disputed Non-Cited Violation Documented in Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 - Evaluations of Changes, Tests, and Experiments Baseline Inspection Report 05000454/2017009; 05000455/2017009 (DRS-N.Feliz-Adorno)

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

EA-17-138

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;

05000455/2017009

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

License Nos. NPF-37; NPF-66

Enclosure:

NRC Staff Assessment of Disputed

NCV 05000454/2017009-01;

NCV 05000455/2017009-01

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;

05000455/2017009

DISTRIBUTION:

Jeremy Bowen

RidsNrrDorlLpl3

RidsNrrPMByron Resource

RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource

Cynthia Pederson

Steven West

Kenneth OBrien

Richard Skokowski

Allan Barker

Carole Ariano

Linda Linn

DRPIII

DRSIII

ADAMS Accession Number ML17355A561

OFFICE

RIII

RIII

RIII

RIII

NAME

MJeffers for

NFeliz-Adorno:cl

MJeffers

JGeisner for

RSkokowski

KOBrien

DATE

12/21/17

12/21/17

12/21/17

12/21/17

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Enclosure

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

2

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.

3

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

4

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

5

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.

6

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

7

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.

8

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.

9

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.

10

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.