IR 05000454/2011008

IR 05000454-11-008 & 05000455-11-008, on 08/15/2011 - 09/02/2011, Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, NRC Identification and Resolution of Problems

ML112910140
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	10/17/2011
From:	Duncan E R Region 3 Branch 3
To:	Pacilio M Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear
References
IR-11-008
Download: ML112910140 (39)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III 2443 WARRENVILLE ROAD, SUITE 210 LISLE, IL 60532

-4352 October 17, 2011 Mr. Michael Pacilio Senior Vice President, Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO), Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville IL 60555

SUBJECT: BYRON STATION, UNIT 1 & 2 NRC PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND RESOLUTION INSPECTION REPORT 05 000454/20 11008; 0500455/20 11 008

Dear Mr. Pacilio:

On September 2, 20 11, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed a n inspection at your Byron Station. The enclosed inspection report documents the inspection results, which were discussed on September 7, 2011, with Mr. B. Adams and other members of your staff.

The inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission

=s rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The inspectors reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities, and interviewed personnel.

On the basis of the sample s selected for review, the team concluded that in general, problems were properly identified, evaluated, and corrected. T wo NRC-identified finding s of very low safety significance (Green) associated with procedure adherence and untimely corrective actions were identified. The se finding s were determined to involve violation s of NRC requirement s. However, because of their very low safety significance and because the issues were entered into your corrective action program, the NRC is treating these violations as n on-cited violation s (NCV s) in accordance with Section 2.3.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

In addition, several examples of minor problems were identified, including weaknesses in the trending of procedural issues and long-standing open corrective action assignments

. If you contest the subject or severity of a n on-cited violation, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with a copy to the Regional Administrator, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Suite 210, Lisle, IL 60532

-4352; the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555

-0001; and the Resident Inspector Office at the Byron Station. In addition, if you disagree with the characterization of any finding in this report, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of this inspection report, with the basis for your disagreement, to the Regional Administrator, Region III, and the NRC Resident Inspector at the Byron Station. The information you provide will be considered in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter 0305. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC=s document system (ADAMS).

ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading

-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely,/RA/

Eric R. Duncan , Chie f Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Docket Nos. 50

-454; 50-455 License Nos. NPF

-37; NPF-66

Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 05000454/

20 11 008 and 05000455/

20 11 008

w/Attachment:

Supplemental Information cc w/encl:

Distribution via ListServ

Enclosure U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGION III Docket Nos:

50-454; 50-455 License Nos:

NPF-37; NPF-66 Report Nos:

05000454/20 11 00 8 and 05000455/

20 11 00 8 Licensee: Exelon Generation Company, LLC Facility: Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Location: Byron, IL Dates: August 1 5, 20 11 , through September 2, 20 11 Team Leader:

R. Ng, Project Engineer Inspectors:

J. Robbins, Resident Inspector C. Brown, Reactor Inspector D. Jones, Reactor Engineer C. Thompson , Resident Inspector, Illinois Emergency Management Agency Approved by:

E. Duncan , Chief Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects Enclosure

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

IR 05000454/20 11008; 05000455/20 11008; 08/15/2011 - 09/02/20 11; Byron Station, Units and 2; Identification and Resolution of Problems.

This inspection was performed by region-based inspectors, the Byron Resident Inspector, and the Byron Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) resident inspector.

Two NRC-i dentified Green findings with associated Non-Cited Violations (NCVs) of NRC requirements were identified. The significance of most findings is indicated by their color (Green, White, Yellow, Red) using Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 0609, "Significance Determination Process" (SDP). Assigned cross-cutting aspects were determined using IMC 0310, "Components Within the Cross-Cutting Areas." Findings for which the SDP does not apply may be Green or be assigned a severity level after NRC management review.

The NRC's program for overseeing the safe operation of commercial nuclear power reactors is described in NUREG

-1649, "Reactor Oversight Process," Revision 4, dated December 2006.

On the basis of the samples selected for review, t he team concluded that, overall, the corrective action program (CAP) at Byron Station was effective in identifying, evaluating and correcting issues. The licensee had a low threshold for identifying issues and entering them into the CAP.

Issue s entered in the CAP were properly prioritized and evaluated based on plant risk and uncertainty.

Corrective actions were generally implemented in a timely manner, commensurate with safety significance. Operating Experience (OPEX) was entered into the CAP and appropriately evaluated. The use of OPEX was integrated into daily activities and found to be effective in preventing similar issues at the plant. In addition, the licensee's self-assessments, audits , and effectiveness reviews were found to be conducted at appropriate frequencies for all departments. The assessments reviewed were thorough and effective in identifying site performance deficiencies, programmatic concerns

, and improvement opportunities. On the basis of the interviews conducted, the inspectors did not identify any issues that suggested conditions were not conducive to the establishment and existence of a Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) at Byron Station. The staff was aware of and generally familiar with the CAP and other station processes, including the Employee Concerns Program (ECP), through which concerns could be raised.

Identification and Resolution of Problems There were two Green findings, each with an associated NCV , identified by the team during this inspection. A Green finding with two examples was identified that concerned the licensee's failure to implement corrective actions in a timely manner to address previously identified NRC violation s. A second Green finding identified was related to the licensee's failure to initiate Issue Reports (IRs), as required by licensee procedures, to address potential equipment operability issue s. The team also identified several examples of minor issues, including weaknesses in the trending of procedural issues and long-standing open corrective action assignments

. A.

NRC-Identified

and Self-Revealed Findings Green: The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and an associated NCV of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," when licensee personnel failed to implement timely corrective actions to address two previously issued NCV s. The two NCVs were related to the lack of design analysis documentation associated with the Recycle Holdup Tank (RHUT); and tornado missile and seismic protection for the Diesel Oil Storage Tank (DOST) vent line s. Specifically, the licensee ha d not completed required design analyses for the se issue s at the conclusion of this inspection, although t h e violation associated with the RHUT was initially identified by NRC inspectors in June 2007 and the violation associated with the DOST vent line s was initially identified by NRC inspectors in February 2009.

The licensee entered this issue into their CAP as IR 1269928 and planned to complete the required analyses by April 2012.

This finding wa s of more than minor significance because the issue was associated with the Mitigating System s Cornerstone attribute of Equipment Performance and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage)

. The inspectors determined the finding could be evaluated using the SDP in accordance with IMC 0609, "Significance Determination Process," Attachment 4, "Phase I

- Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings," Table 4a for the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and answered "No" to all the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone questions. Specifically, the issue did not result in the actual loss of the operability or functionality of a safety system. Therefore, the finding screened as having very low safety significance (Green).

This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the Resources component of the Human Performance cross-cutting area (H.2(a)) because the licensee failed to maintain long-term plant safety through minimization of long-standing equipment issue s. (Section 4OA2.1.b.3.i) GreenThe finding was of more than minor significance because, if left uncorrected, the issu e would have the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern. The inspectors determined the finding could be evaluated using the SDP in accordance with IMC 0609, "Significance Determination Process," Attachment 4, "Phase I

- Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings," Table 4a for the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and answered "No" to all the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone questions. Specifically, the issue did not result in the actual loss of the operability or functionality of a safety system. Therefore, the finding screened as having very low safety significance (Green).

This finding had a cross-cutting aspect in the Operating Experience (OPEX) component of the Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) cross-cutting area (P.2(a)) because the licensee's procedures and guidance for OPEX did not ensure the systematic collection, evaluation, and communication to affected internal stakeholders, in a timely manner, of relevant internal and external OPEX. (Section 4OA2.2.c) . The inspectors identified a finding of very low safety significance and an associated NCV of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," when licensee personnel failed to initiate IRs during the review of OPEX in accordance with licensee procedures to ensure that immediate actions, operability determinations, and reportability concerns were addressed by shift management within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

The licensee entered this issue into the CAP as IR 1257548 and completed the required shift management review.

B. None. Licens ee-Identified Violations

4. OTHER ACTIVITIES

REPORT DETAILS

4OA2 Problem Identification and ResolutionThis inspection constituted one biennial sample of Problem Identification and Resolution (PI&R) as defined by Inspection Procedure 71152

, "Problem Identification and Resolution."

Documents reviewed are listed in the Attachment to this report.

(71152B)

.1 a. Assessment of the Corrective Action

Program Effectiveness The inspectors reviewed the procedures and processes that describe d Exelon's Corrective Action Program (CAP) at Byron Station to ensure, in part, that the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Corrective Action," were met. The inspectors observed and evaluated the effectiveness of meetings related to the CAP, such as Station Ownership Committee and Management Review Committee (MRC) meetings. Selected licensee personnel were interviewed to assess their understanding of and their involvement in the CAP. Inspection Scope The inspectors reviewed selected Issue Reports (IRs) across all seven Reactor Oversight Process (ROP)

Cornerstones to determine if problems were being properly identified and entered into the licensee's CAP. The majority of the risk

-informed sample s of IRs reviewed were issued since the last NRC biennial PI

&R inspection conducted in August of 200 9. The inspectors also reviewed selected issues that were more than 5 years old.

The inspectors assessed the licensee's characterization and evaluation of the issues and examined the assigned corrective actions. This review encompassed the full range of safety significance and evaluation class es , including root cause evaluations, apparent cause evaluations, and workgroup evaluations. The inspectors assessed the scope and depth of the licensee's evaluations. For significant condition s adverse to quality (SCAQ s), the inspectors evaluated the licensee's corrective actions to prevent recurrence and for less significan t issue s, the inspectors reviewed the corrective actions to determine if they were implemented in a timely manner commensurate with their safety significance

. The inspectors selected the auxiliary building ventilation (VA) system to review in detail since VA was a Maintenance Rule (a)(1) system. The primary purpose of this review w as to determine whether the licensee was properly monitoring and evaluating the performance of Maintenance Rule systems through effective implementation of station monitoring programs. The inspectors interviewed the VA system engineer, reviewed numerous VA-related IRs, and reviewed root cause evaluations associated with the VA system. A 5

-year review of VA issues was performed to assess the licensee's efforts in monitoring for system degradation due to aging

. The inspectors also performed walkdowns, as needed, to verify the resolution of issues.

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's CAP trend analysis and independently performed a 5-year review of human performance trend data focusing on CAP documents that identified, through trend codes, procedural issues as a contributing cause to determine if issues were adequately characterized to identify adverse trend s or repetitive issues.

The inspectors examined the results of self-assessments of the CAP completed during the review period. The results of the self-assessments were compared to self-revealed and NRC-identified findings. The inspectors also reviewed the corrective actions associated with previously identified NCVs and findings to determine whether the station properly evaluated and resolved those issues.

The inspectors performed walkdowns, as necessary, to verify the resolution of the issues.

The inspectors performed an in-depth review of the station's Measurement and Test Equipment (M&TE) program since systematic weakness of this program, if they existed, could potentially affect numerous mitigating systems.

b. (1) Assessment The inspectors concluded that , in general, the station continued to identify issues at a low threshold by entering them into the CAP. The inspectors determined that the station was appropriately screening issues from both NRC and industry Operating Experience (OPEX) at an appropriate level and entering them into the CAP when applicable to the station. The inspectors also noted that deficiencies were identified by external organizations (including the NRC) that had not been previously identified by licensee personnel.

Identification of Issues The inspectors determined that the station was generally effective at trending low level issues to prevent larger issues from developing. The licensee also used the CAP to document instances where previous corrective actions were ineffective or were inappropriately closed.

i) Observations

Overall, site performance contin ued to trend in a positive direction. The composite error rate trend data for errors per 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> worked was routinely below the site goal of three. The individual performance of the operations, maintenance, and engineering departments all contributed to an overall improvement in site performance.

Trend Analysis One of the methods utilized by the site to measure and identify plant performance wa s the trending of CAP data. Trend codes were assigned to each CAP document with a significance level between 1 and 4; 1 being issues of high significance or time sensitive and 4 being low significance or not time sensitive. The minimum set of trend codes include d data related to the method of discovery, event type, associated process, and department/organizational identifiers. This data was collected over time and subjected to various analyses.

Numerous analysis reports were available and routinely published facilitating identification of adverse performance trends. The nature of the analyses was such that much of it was automated. Software wa s used to determine if data had changed in a statistically significan t manner. The current reports supported the identification of trends, but were not identifying performance issues that were not changing. For example, if a given parameter was neither improving nor degrading, the current reports would not draw attention to this parameter. This wa s the case whether performance exceeded expectations and was steady or was below expectations and was steady. The licensee acknowledged this weakness and entered this issue into the CAP as IR 126 0159. The inspectors selected event codes associated with procedures for further assessment.

Due to changes in coding methodology, the inspectors focuse d on the last 11 quarters of data, dating back to January 2009. The three codes selected were "Procedure Adherence," "Procedure Inadequate," and "Process Inadequate.

" There were approximately 1700 CAP documents coded with these three codes over the 11 quarters reviewed. The inspectors held discussions wit h members of the licensee staff to understand the breadth of issues that were characterized under the "Procedure Inadequate

" and "Process Inadequate

" codes specifically.

The current coding categories did not provide a method for differentiating between items that one might characterize as editorial changes, items one might characterize as enhancements

, and items one might characterize as warrantin g placing the procedure on hold. Therefore, under the current methodology, data regarding the relative strength or weakness of procedures and their contribution to plant issues could be misleading. The licensee acknowledged this weakness and entered this coding issue into the CAP as IR 1268584. (2) The inspectors concluded that the station was generally effective at prioritizing and evaluating issues commensurate with the safety significance of the identified issue.

Prioritization and Evaluation of Issues The inspectors determined that the MRC CAP review meeting was generally thorough and maintained a high standard for evaluation quality. Members of the MRC discussed the issues presented in sufficient detail and challenged presenters regarding their conclusion s and recommendations.

The inspectors determined that the licensee was generally effective at evaluating equipment functionality requirements after a degraded or non

-conforming conditio n was identified. The inspectors reviewed Maintenance Rule action plans and issue reports associated with the VA system. A number of deficiencies were identified in the last 5 years, which resulted in the system entering into a Maintenance Rule (a)(1) status. The licensee developed an action plan to resolve the deficiencies and appropriately adjusted the actions when new issues were discovered.

i) ObservationsThe inspectors identified that there were a large number of open IR s at the time of the inspection. More than 12 percent of the open IRs were greater than 1000 days old. One IR originated in 2002 and still had incomplete actions. The inspectors reviewed a

sample of these open IRs and determined that most of the remaining actions were enhancements and the due date s for the actions had been extended a number of times due to resource limitations or other emergent issues. The inspectors verified that the sampled IRs were evaluated and actions assigned appropriately.

However, in one case, the inspe ctors identified that the licensee misclassified a corrective action as an enhancement. This issue was related to a design calculation error of a support for the non

-essential service water system. The inspectors determined that this issue was minor since it did not involve a safety-related system and the failure of the support would not affect other safety

-related system s.

The inspectors regarded this aging IR issue as an improvement opportunity since the outstanding actions, although being considered enhancements, could potentially affect the licensee's focus on more important safety issues and complicate trending analyse s and resource utilization.

(3) The inspectors concluded that corrective actions for identified deficiencies were generally timely and adequately implemented , commensurate with their safety significance. Problems identified using root or apparent cause methodologies were resolved in accordance with the CAP and applicable procedural requirements.

Corrective actions designed to prevent recurrence were generally comprehensive, thorough, and timely. The inspectors sampled corrective action assignments for selected NRC

-documented violations and determined that actions assigned were generally effective and timely. Effectiveness of Corrective Action However, the inspectors identified a relative ly large number of outstanding corrective action assignments. Prior to this inspection, the licensee also identified this negative trend and investigated the issue. Licensee personnel stated that the primary reasons for the large number of open corrective actions were resource limitations and the development of emergent issues warranting more immediate attention. The inspectors subsequently selected the open corrective actions that were over 1000 days old to review for timeliness. The inspectors concluded that most of these corrective actions were timely due to the relatively long lead time required for modification or for NRC approval.

However, the inspectors did identify two examples of untimely corrective actions that was the subject of a Green finding as described below.

i) Findings Untimely Corrective Actions for Previously Identified Non-Cited Violations Introduction

The inspectors identified a Green finding and an associated NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI, "Correcti ve Action," when licensee personnel failed to implement timely corrective actions to address two previously issued NCVs. Description

As documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000454/455/2008009, dated November 12, 2008, NCV 05000454/455/2008009-02 was issued when licensee personnel failed to adequately evaluate and maintain the required water volume in the Recycle Holdup Tank (RHUT) necessary to quench the design basis Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system relief valve discharge into the RHUT , incorporate appropriate minimum RHUT level requirements into the RHUT level control procedure, and evaluate the effect of dynamic water hammer loads on RHUT inlet piping resulting from relief valve discharges into the RHUT. This issue was initially identified by the NRC in June 2007. The licensee entered this issue into their CAP as IR 680626 and IR 622574. As part of the ir immediate corrective actions at that time, the licensee instituted administrative controls to provide an adequate quench volume for the RHUT and initiated an action to perform an analysis to investigate the magnitude of the potential water hammer loads on the RHUT inlet piping.

As part of their long

-term corrective actions, the licensee generated an action to determine how to resolve the RHUT issues with agreement from Braidwood Station. The agreement was reached with Braidwood in March 2008 and a revised corrective action was generated to track the final resolution of the issue.

The revised corrective action included the performance of a water hammer analysis; and a RHUT piping and accident analysis, including an offsite dose analysis. Funding for the se evaluation s was approved for 2009, and the revised corrective action had an initial due date of December 2009.

In November 2009, the water hammer analysis was received from the vendor for owner review and acceptance. The RHUT pressure analysis was completed by the vendor and approved by the licensee in February 2010. However, the licensee decided to have a third party review the water hammer analysis before the result could be used for the piping analysis. In addition, the offsite dose analysis needed to be re-performed due to a non-qualified vendor being used and the inability of the licensee to qualify the vendor's work. Contracts for all these analyses were issued between April and June 2011

, and were scheduled to be completed by December 2011.

At the end of this inspection, the licensee had not completed the actions to address the original NCV issued on November 12, 2008. As documented in NRC Inspection Report 05000454/455/2009004

, dated November 5, 2009, NCV 05000454/455/2009004

-02 was issued when licensee personnel failed to seismically support and protect the emergency diesel generator (EDG) Diesel Oil Storage Tank (DOST) vent lines from tornado generated missiles. This issue was initially identified by the NRC in February 2009. The licensee entered this issue into their CAP as IR 877430. As part of their immediate corrective actions at that time , the licensee performed an operability determination and concluded that even with the vent lines significantly degraded (crimped) or in the event that a seismic event caused the lines to fail completely, sufficient air would enter the DOSTs to replace the approximately one cubic foot per minute of fuel required to support EDG operation. As part of the ir long-term corrective actions, the licensee planned to formalize design basis documentation to justify the existing condition.

In August 2009, the licensee determined that the existing condition could not be justified and a physical modification was needed to restore regulatory compliance

. In March 2010, the licensee determined that a vacuum breaker would be installed to resolve the issue. Due to other emergent issues and the complexity of the vacuum breaker modification and supporting analyses, the due date for resolving this issue was extended twice to December 2010. In December 2010, the licensee determined that the maximum allowable external pressure that the DOST could withstand was needed to design the vacuum breaker. An external vendor was contracted to calculate this maximum allowable external pressure; however , funding was not available until 2011. In May 2011, the licensee received the draft vendor analysis for the maximum allowable external pressure of the DOST. These results invalidated the licensee's original plans to install a vacuum breaker.

In July 2011, the licensee concluded that a new modification was needed to resolve the issue. At the end of this inspection, the licensee wa s in the process of evaluating whether to re-rout e the vent line or to install a vacuum breaker and loop seal combination.

This action had a due date of April 2012 with the actual modification installation not expected to be completed before the end of 2012.

Analysis The issue was determined to be more than minor in accordance with IMC 0612, Appendix B, "Issue Disposition Screening," because it was associated with the Mitigating System s Cornerstone attribute of Equipment Performance and adversely affected the cornerstone objective of ensuring the availability, reliability, and capability of systems that respond to initiating events to prevent undesirable consequences (i.e., core damage). Specifically, the RHUT was designed to support operation of the RHR system and the DOST vent line was designed to support operation of the EDGs; both of which were adversely affected by the issues identified and discussed above. The inspectors determined the finding could be evaluated using the SDP in accordance with IMC 0609, "Significance Determination Process," Attachment 4, "Phase I

- Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings," Table 4a for the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and answered "No" to all the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone questions. Specifically, the issue did not result in the actual loss of the operability or functionality of a safety system. Therefore, the finding screened as having very low safety significance (Green).

The inspectors determined that the licensee's failure to correct , in a timely manner , design issues identified in NRC Inspection Report 05000454/455/2008009, dated November 12, 2008, associated with NCV 05000454/455/2008009

-02, and NRC Inspection Report 05000454/455/2009004

, dated November 5, 2009, associated with NCV 05000454/455/2009004

-02 , w as a performance deficiency that warranted a significance determination.

This finding had a cross

-cutting aspect in the Resources component of the Human Performance cross

-cutting area (H.2(a)) because the licensee failed to maintain long-term plant safety by the minimization of long

-standing equipment issues.

EnforcementContrary to the above, as of September 2, 2011, the licensee failed to promptly correct two conditions adverse to quality as previously described in NCV 05000454/455/200800 9-02 and NCV 05000454/455/2009004-02. Specifically, the design control deficiencies related to these issues had not been corrected since the NCVs were initially issue d in November 2008 and November 2009

, respectively. Because this violation was of very low safety significance and because it was entered into the licensee's CAP as IR 1269928, this violation is being treated as a NCV, consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.  : 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI

, "Corrective Action," requires, in part, that measures shall be established to ensure that conditions adverse to quality are promptly identified and correct ed.

(NCV 05000454/2011008

-01; 05000455/2011008

-01: Untimely Corrective Actions for Previously Identified Non-Cited Violations

)

.2 a. Assessment of the Use of Operating Experience

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's implementation of the Operating Experience (OPEX) program. Specifically, the inspectors reviewed the OPEX program implementing procedures, and completed evaluations of OPEX issues and events

. The inspectors determine d whether the licensee was effectively integrating OPEX experience into the performance of daily activities, whether evaluations of issues were proper and conducted by qualified personnel, whether the licensee's program was sufficient to prevent future occurrences of previous industry events, and whether the licensee effectively used the OPEX information in developing departmental assessments and facility audits. The inspectors also assessed if corrective actions, as a result of OPEX experience, were identified and implemented in an effective and timely manner. Inspection Scope b. In general, OPEX was effectively used at the station. The inspectors observed that OPEX was discussed as part of the daily station and pre

-job briefings. Industry OPEX was effectively disseminated across plant departments and no issues were identified during the inspectors' review of licensee OPEX evaluations. During interviews, several licensee personnel commented favorably on the use of OPEX in their daily activities.

Assessment

c. Findings

Failure to Initiate Issue Reports

Introduction:

The inspectors identified a Green finding and an associated NCV of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," when during the review of OPEX , licensee personnel failed to initiate IRs in accordance with licensee procedures to ensure that immediate actions, operability determinations, and reportability concerns were addressed by shift management within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

Description

The inspectors reviewed OPEX 1173590, "Part 21 ENS 46545 ABB Potential Defect Overcurrent Relays," dated February 10, 2011, and determined that the OPEX evaluation was complete d and approved on April 21, 2011 , following issuance of the associated 10 CFR Part 21 Notification on January 14, 2011. The inspectors noted that the subject matter expert in the Byron procurement engineering staff completed the OPEX evaluation using Attachment 1 of the OPEX evaluation template, LS-AA-115-1003, "Processing of Significance Level 3 OPEX Evaluations," Revision 1.

Block I, "Event Summary," of the completed OPEX evaluation identified that the subject of the 10 CFR Part 21 Notification involved the seismic qualification of overcurrent relays installed in 4.16 kV and 6.9 kV switchgear at Byron and Braidwood Station.

Block II, "Operability Concerns," specifically directed the OPEX evaluator to perform the following action

"Evaluate the component(s)-- to determine if similar deficiencies are present that could represent potential operability issues. Provide sufficient justification to support whether potential operability concerns may exist. If an operability concern is established, provide the associated IR number. IR # ___________

" The inspectors noted that the OPEX evaluator had not identified a potential operability concern despite having identified in Block I that the relays identified in the 10 CFR Part 21 Notification were installed in the plant. Instead, the evaluator documented the following

"It is not possible to make an Operability Determination at this time. There is inadequate information from ABB and Westinghouse to determine the affect the de-rated seismic qualification test levels for the COM overcurrent protection relays has on Byron Station. Since we do not have definitive information available to perform a detailed technical evaluation at this time, there is no need to evaluate the potential impact on operability, i.e. this issue is not in operability space at this time. When technical data is available, operability will be addressed in accordance with the appropriate technical reviews and evaluation process." Block III, "Applicability to Fleet or Station," requested, in part, "Based on your review, is the issue applicable to station ... components? Yes or No." The OPEX evaluator correctly determined, "Yes, Byron Station has COM

-5 and COM-11 overcurrent protection relays installed in the plant in the Reactor Coolant Pump (RCP) motor control circuits." However, the OPEX evaluator had not noted that the relays were safety-related and protected the containment electric cable penetrations for the RCPs from failing due to an overcurrent condition. Block VI, "Actions," noted that, "An IR must be initiated for any/all conditions adverse to quality that were identified in this evaluation." The OPEX evaluator did not identify the potentially suspect seismic qualification of the safety

-related relays as a condition adverse to quality (CAQ)and therefore, an IR was not initiated

.

The inspectors reviewed the licensee's procedures for evaluating 10 CFR Part 21 Notifications. The OPEX evaluation was completed in accordance with licensee procedure LS

-AA-115, "Operating Experience Program," Revision 17.

of this procedure classifie d 10 CFR Part 21 Reports as Significance Level 3 to be evaluated using Manual LS-AA-115-1003. The purpose of Manual LS-AA-115-1003 was, in part, "to provide guidance on the process to effectively conduct an OPEX Evaluation for -.. applicable Part 21 Notifications and other important OPEX." Paragraph 1.3 of LS

-AA-115 state d , in part, that "This manual is training and reference material, not a procedure." Attachment 1 to LS

-AA-115-1003 was an evaluation template that provided guidance for completing the OPEX evaluation. The inspectors noted that although Section 4.1.5 of Procedure LS

-AA-115 required a determination of whether the OPEX had the potential to impact Reactor Safety, Industrial Safety, or Generation for Level 2 OPEX documents, this determination was not technically required for Level 3 OPEX documents.

The inspectors reviewed LS

-BY-125, "Corrective Action Program (CAP) Procedure," Revision 3, and noted that this procedure stated, in part, that "The identification and initial screening of the undesirable conditions is performed in accordance with LS-AA-120, "Issue Identification and Screening Process." The inspectors noted that Section 4.1.2 of LS

-BY-125 required that an IR be initiated in accordance with LS-AA-120 "at any time (e.g., during an investigation, review of a corrective action closure, review of a previous IR) a SCAQ or condition adverse to quality (CAQ) or any question of either current or past Operability/Reportability arises." Procedure LS

-AA-120, "Issue Identification and Screening Process," required that all nuclear personnel and contractors identify any conditions that could have an undesirable effect on the performance of equipment, personnel, or organizations; ensure immediate actions are taken to place the situation in a safe condition; verbally report to a supervisor or the control room; and properly document the issue. Operations shift management was also required by LS

-AA-120 to ensure appropriate immediate actions were taken , including determining impact on operability and reportability, and that operations management should complete the se reviews within the same shift

, with the operability determination completed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

On April 6, 2011, IR 1198414, "West NSAL 03

-07 Supplement 1 Concerning ABB 1E Relays," was initiated on the same issue as OPEX 1173590 as related to the seismic qualification of the ABB COM

-5, -9, and -11 relays. The licensee's immediate action was to generate the IR "to determine any immediate potential operability impacts." However, IR 1198414 did not identify that the deficient relays were installed in the plant, the equipment the relays protected, and what could happen if the relays failed. Consequently, on April 7, 2011, the shift manager documented the following in IR 1198414: "No Specific equipment was identified in this IR to evaluate Operability/Reportability. Additional IRs need to be written for specific equipment affected and if Operability/Reportability is a concern. Shi ft review for Operability and Reportability complete."

I R 1198414 was then forwarded to the sam e OPEX evaluator that reviewed OPEX 117359 0. With this new information, the evaluator closed OPEX 1173590 and evaluated the seismic qualifications through I R 1198414. The OPEX evaluation documented that the relays remained qualified for use in the plant. With respect to the shift manager's remarks regarding new IRs being initiated if any specific equipment was affected, the OPEX evaluator concluded that n o new IRs needed to be initiated since Engineering personnel at Byron and Braidwood had both reviewed their equipment records and confirmed that the relays were only installed in the RCP circuit breakers. The i nspectors noted that the OPEX issue was subsequently reviewed, approved , and closed on April 19, 201 1, and that no IRs were initiated that communicated the relay issue to the Operations department for review. Therefore , an operability determination was not completed by the Operations staff.

When the inspectors discussed this issue with licensee personnel, two IRs were immediately initiated. The first, IR 1257458, "NRC PI&R Issues Identified with IR 1198414," dated August 30, 2011, was intended to communicate the issue to Operations for an immediate operability determination. The shift manager concluded the relays were operable based on the additional information provided regarding the seismic qualifications and requested a full operability evaluation from the engineering staff. The second, IR 1257444, "Clear Direction Is Not Provided in LS

-AA-115-1003," dated August 30, 2011, identified that the guidance in LS-AA-115-1003 could be misinterpreted to permit an OPEX evaluator to perform an operability determination and that the procedure was unclear as t o whether a n I R should be generated as an immediate action if potentially defective components were installed in the plant.

Overall, the inspectors concluded that despite identifying that the 10 CFR Part 21 Notification was applicable to the plant, recognizing that potentially defective relays that were the subject of the 10 CFR Part 21 Notification were installed in the plant, and clear direction in at least two blocks of the OPEX evaluation template to generate IRs , licensee personnel mistakenly conclu ded that engineering staff had the sole authority to determine whether an operability concern or CAQ existed. The inspectors also noted that an Engineering department manager had reviewed and approved the conclusions in the operability evaluation on April 21, 2011. Consequently, no IRs identifying the installation of potentially defective relays in the plant had been initiated, and therefore no operability determinations were performed for the installed potentially defective relays by the Operations department shift manager (the only person authorized to make an operability an d reportability determination) between February 10, 2011 and August 30, 2011.

On August 31, 2011, IR 1257920, "10 CFR Part 21 Notification of Deviation

- ABB KF Relay Seismic Ratings," was initiated identifying another instance of not generating an IR for an immediate operability determination after the identification of possibly deficient components installed in the plant.

In this case, the OPEX issue, which was received on July 27, 2011, was not entered into the licensee's CAP for review until an extent of condition review for the previous two issues discussed above was identified.

Analysis : The inspectors determined that the licensee's failure to follow station procedures to generate IRs to identify potentially defective components installed in the plant and obtain an immediate operability determination from the shift manager was a performance deficiency warranting a significance evaluation.

The issue was determined to be more than minor in accordance with IMC 0612, Appendix B, "Issue Disposition Screening," because the performance deficiency, if left uncorrected, would have the potential to lead to a more significant safety concern.

Specifically, the failure to initiate IRs to properly assess the operability of potentially affected equipment could result in the failure to identify inoperable plant equipment.

The inspectors determined the finding could be evaluated using the SDP in accordance with IMC 0609, "Significance Determination Process," Attachment 4, "Phase I

- Initial Screening and Characterization of Findings," Table 4a for the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone and answered "No" to all the Mitigating Systems Cornerstone questions. Specifically, the issue did not result in the actual loss of the operability or functionality of a safety system. Therefore, the finding screened as having very low safety significance (Green). The licensee entered this issue in their CAP as IR 1257548 and completed the required shift manager review.

This finding had a cross

-cutting aspect in the Operating Experience component of the Problem Identification and Resolution cross

-cutting area (P.2(a)) because the licensee's procedures and guidance for O PEX did not systematically collect, evaluate, and communicate to affected internal stakeholders, in a timely manner, relevant internal and external OPEX. EnforcementContrary to the above, licensee personnel failed to initiate IRs in accordance with LS-AA-125 following the receipt of OPEX 1173590, "Part 21 ENS 46545 ABB Potential Defect Overcurrent Relays," dated February 10, 2011; IR 1198414, "West NSAL 03

-07 Supplement 1 Concerning ABB 1E Relays," dated April 6, 2011; and OPEX "10 CFR Part 21 Notification of Deviation

- ABB KF Relay Seismic Ratings," dated July 27, 2011, to ensure that immediate actions, operability determination, and reportability concerns were addressed by shift management.

Because this violation was of very low safety significance and because it was entered into the licensee's CAP as IR 1257548, this violation is being treated as a NCV, consistent with Section 2.3.2 of the NRC Enforcement Policy.

(NCV 05000454/2011008

-02; 0500455/2011008

-02: Failure to Initiate Issue Reports

)  : 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, Criteria V, "Instructions, Procedures, and Drawings," requires, in part, that activities affecting quality shall be prescribed by documented instructions, procedures, or drawings, of a type appropriate to the circumstances and shall be accomplished in accordance with these instructions, procedures, or drawings. Licensee procedure LS

-AA-125, "Corrective Action Program Procedure," Step 4.1.2 stated: "If at any time (e.g., during an investigation, review of a CA closure, review of a previous CR)

, a SCAQ or CAQ or any question of either current or past Operability/Reportability arises, then initiate an Issue Report (IR) in accordance with LS-AA-120, "Issue Identification and Screening Process."

.3 a. Assessment of Self

-Assessments and Audits The inspectors reviewed selected focused area self

-assessments (FASAs), check-in self assessments, root cause effectiveness reviews, and Nuclear Oversight (NOS) audits. The inspectors evaluated whether these audits and self-assessments were effectively managed, adequately covered the subject areas, and properly captured identified issues in the CAP. In addition, the inspectors interviewed licensee personnel regarding the implementation of the audit and self

-assessment programs.

Inspection Scope b. The inspectors concluded that self

-assessment s and audits were typically accurate , thorough, and effective at identifying issues and enhancement opportunities at an appropriate threshold

. The inspectors concluded that these audits and self

-assessments were completed by personnel knowledgeable in the subject area. In many cases, these self-assessments and audits had identified numerous issues that were not previously recognized by the station. For example, NOS identified a n issue in the control of transient combustible material

, which led to a comprehensive review of the combustible material control program and generated a number of corrective actions.

Assessment c. No findings were identified.

Findings

.4 a. Assessment of Safety Conscious Work Environment

The inspectors interviewed selected Byron Station personnel to determine if there were any indications that licensee personnel were reluctant to raise safety concerns, both to their management and the NRC, due to fear of retaliation. In addition, the inspectors discussed the implementation of the Employee Concerns Program (ECP) with the ECP coordinators, and reviewed ECP activities to identify any emergent issues or potential trend s. The inspectors also assessed the licensee's Safety Conscious Work Environment (SCWE) through a review of ECP implementing procedures, discussions with ECP coordinators, interviews with personnel from various departments, and reviews of I Rs. The licensee's programs to publicize the CAP and ECP programs were also reviewed. The inspectors review ed the licensee's semi

-annua l safety cultur e survey to assess if there were any organization al issues or trends that could impact the licensee's safety performance

. Inspection Scope b. The inspectors did not identify any issues that suggested conditions were not conducive to the establishment and existence of a SCWE at Byron Station. Licensee staff was aware of and generally familiar with the CAP and other station processes, including the ECP, through which concerns could be raised.

In addition, a review of the types of issues in the ECP indicated that site personnel were appropriately using the CAP and ECP to identify issues.

Assessment The staff also expressed a willingness to challenge actions or decision s that they believed were unsafe.

In fact, several employees had stated that they had written IRs repeatedly for issues that were not corrected to their satisfaction. All employees interviewed noted that any safety issue could be freely communicated to supervision and safety significant issues were being corrected. Although some employees indicated a small degree of frustration related to low level items not being corrected in a timely manner, the inspectors determined that the timeliness of the planned corrective actions for the examples given were commensurate with their safety significance.

A number of employees stated that due to limited resources, they had to prioritize their work and work overtime, which resulted in a delay in the resolution of some of the less significant issues. This feedback aligned the inspectors' observation s in the assessment of the corrective action program as discussed above.

c. No findings were identified.

Findings

4OA6 a. Management Meetings

On September 7, 20 11, the inspectors presented the inspection results to Mr. B. Adams , and other members of the licensee staff. The licensee acknowledged the issues presented. The inspectors confirmed that none of the potential report input discussed was considered proprietary.

Exit Meeting Summary

ATTACHMENT:

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

KEY POINTS OF CONTACT

B. Adams, Plant Manager

Licensee

B. Barton, Radiation Protection Manager

E. Blondin, Plant Engineering Senior Manager

D. Coltman, Operations Support Manager

D. Gudger, Regulatory Assurance Manager

S. Kerr, Work Management Director

B. Spahr, Maintenance Director

S. Swanson, Nuclear Oversight Manager

P. Woessner, Site Correction Action Program Manager

NRC

E. Duncan, Branch Chief

LIST OF ITEMS

OPENED, CLOSED , AND DISCUSSED

Opened

05000454/2011 008-01;

05000455/2011

008-01 NCV Untimely Corrective Action for Previously Identified Non-Cited Violation

s (Section 4OA2.1.b.3.i)

05000454/20

008-02;

05000455/2011008

-02 NCV Failure to Initiate Issue Reports

(Section 4OA2.2.c)

Closed

05000454/2011008

-01;

05000455/FIN-2011008-01 NCV Untimely Corrective Action for Previously Identified Non-Cited Violation

s (Section 4OA2.1.b.3.i)

05000454/20

008-02;

05000455/2011008

-02 NCV Failure to Initiate Issue Reports

(Section 4OA2.2.c)

Attachment

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REVIEWED

The following is a list of documents reviewed during the inspection.

Inclusion on this list does not imply that the NRC inspectors reviewed the documents in their entirety, but rather, that selected sections or portions of the documents were evaluated as part of the overall inspection effort.

Inclusion of a document on this list does not imply NRC acceptance of the document or any part of it, unless this is stated in the body of the inspection report.

IR 100950 Issue Report

s CC Pump Min Flow Concerns Not Adequately Addressed by CAs March 25, 2002

IR 167461 Calculation Errors July 14, 2003

IR 268375 Mechanical Seals October 29, 2004

IR 300149 SSDPC SX168 Controlled b

y Non-SR Thermostat February 10, 2005

IR 494743 Loss of CRDM Booster Fan Complicates EOP and TS Compliance May 30, 2006

IR 510234 All 4 WR RCS Cold Leg Temp Channels Failed July 17, 2006

IR 562375 CDBI Calculation BYR04

-016 Assumptions November 27, 2006

IR 564182 NOS Finding on App J Surveillance Implementation December 1, 2006

IR 574418 Vortexing Review of CS Additive Tank January 2, 2007

IR 644073 Need to Determine if Common Cause Failure June 25, 2007

IR 653093 The AF Tunnel Covers Do Not Meet Expected Safety Factors

July 24, 2007

IR 661984 Unexpected Annun c iators and Partial Loss of IA

August 18, 2007

IR 663338 Resolution of 2005 NRC SSDI Unresolved Item on UHS

August 22, 2007

IR 680626 NRC Potential Green Finding and NCV on HUT Level October 4, 2007

IR 741054 DG Frequency Variation Not Address ed in Calcs February 26, 2008

IR 753012 1B AFW Pump Oil Leak Resulted in Flames March 21, 2008

IR 754582 U-2 Loss of Power March 25, 2008

IR 838568 OPEX Needs Review by Plant and Program Engineering August 27, 2008

IR 841317 CBDI FASA:

AF Diesel Exhaust Calc Issue November 6, 2008

IR 855717 1VD27Y Damper Found Dropped Down December 12, 2008

Attachment

IR 867387 Active Leak Appears to be Body to Bonnet January 15, 2009

IR 877430 NRC Identified Tornado Missile Protection of DOST Vent Line

February 6, 2009

IR 8851 24 Probable CCF Due to Down Power for 1RC8037A Leak February 21, 2009

IR 885186 Engineering Unable to Support CDBI FASA Action Closure

February 2, 2009

IR 913745 Revise 0BRSR 7.c.1

-2 August 14, 2009

IR 916586 0A VC Supply Fan Damper Broken May 6, 2009

IR 916586 0A VC Supply Fan Discharge Damper Linkage is Broken

May 6, 2009

IR 924875 Concern With CC Train Split Due to Postulated Passive Failure

May 28, 2009

IR 933083 PI&R FASA Deficiency 5.1

June 19, 2009

IR 933096 PI&R FASA Deficiency 7.1

June 19, 2009

IR 933712 NRC Concerns with Design of the Diesel Oil Storage Tank Vent

June 22, 2009

IR 936773 Compliance Issues When Purchasing Sealed Sources June 26, 2009

IR 940534 Probable Dispute of Potential NRC Violation June 24, 2009

IR 940748 Check-In Deficiency #3:

Incorrect Instrument for Leak Test

July 10, 2009

IR 940752 Check-In Deficiency #4:

Evaluation for Extent of Condition Not Adequate July 10, 2009

IR 940755 Check-In Deficiency #5:

Source Inventory Documentation Gap July 10, 2009

IR 940757 Check-In Deficiency #6:

Predefine Documentation Incomplete July 10, 2009

IR 940758 Check-In Deficiency #7:

Source Placard has Wrong Activity

July 10, 2009

IR 944525 Informal Benchmarking - Maintenance, M&TE Audit a

t Kewaunee

July 22, 2009

IR 945746 Lack of Documentation for Some UFSAR Statements July 24, 2009

Attachment

IR 947076 Thru Wall Crack on Nuts on 2B SX PP Removed from Plant

July 29, 2009

IR 950082 Radioactive Waste Shipments Characterized Using the Wrong SC

August 5, 2009

IR 950541 Byron 2009 WANO Mid

-Cycle Gap

- AFI

OR.2-1 August 6, 2009

IR 950562 Byron 2009 WANO Mid

-Cycle Gap

- PD

OR.3-1 August 6, 2009

IR 957014 Compliance with NOG

-1 Rules for Single Failure Proof Crane

August 24, 2009

IR 957945 NRC Questions on Design Analysis No. 2.4.3 - BYR08-027

August 26, 2009

IR 966184 Compliance with NOG

-1 Rules for Single Failure Proof Crane

September 17, 2009

IR 974710 1CV8119 Leaking Out of Weep Hole on Side of Relief October 5, 2009

IR 974759 1CV8119 Leak Requires Corporate RPM Notification October 5, 2009

IR 975422 Work Hour Rule Violations

- Operations October 6, 2009

IR 975669 1/2 BOSR ES

-R1 and

ES-R-2 Methodology Needs Revision

October 6, 2009

IR 975669 1/2BOSR ES

-R1 and

ES-R2 Methodology Needs to be Reviewed

October 6, 2009

IR 979727 Perform CCA for Byron WANO Mid

-Cycle "OR" Issue October 15, 2009

IR 982412 NRC Finding Documented in PI&R Inspection Report (Scaffold)

October 21, 2009

IR 985151 Draining RH System Without a Clearance Order October 28, 2009

IR 988981 Potential Non-Conservative DO Tech Spec 3.8.3

November 4, 2009

IR 995845 NRC Finding Documented in 2Q2009 Report

- FHB Crane Trolley November 19, 2009

IR 999645 2DG01KB-C Impeller Upgrade/IEE

November 30, 2009

IR 999861 2B DG SpIRe Impeller Test Failure December 1, 2009 IR 1000198

Conditional Release of 2B DG JW Pump Impeller December 1, 2009

IR 1000315

2B DG JW Pump Impeller Cracked December 2, 2009

IR 1010577

NRC NCV Documented in Insp Rept (No PA Barrier Periodic Checks)

December 30, 2009

Attachment

IR 1021565

NOS ID: Weaknesses in Line Responses to Significant OPEX

January 25, 2010

IR 1025593

NRC Walkdown Questions Potential Hole in Fire Barrier February 3, 2010

IR 1028506

NOS ID:

Inadequate Control of Quality Parts February 10, 2010

IR 1035940

FME Root Cause Investigation Requested February 26, 2010

IR 1038795

Procedure

Challenge of FME Procedures

- Maintenance March 4, 2010

IR 1040393

NOS ID:

Inadequate Fuel Pool FME Controls March 9, 2010

IR 1046794

1BOA ELECT

-7 Entry Due to Water Instrusion in AEER

March 24, 2010

IR 1053700

ANSI Standard Potentially Not Being Met April 7, 2010

IR 1056779

Valve Stem Spins Free when Valve Fully Open April 14, 2010

IR 1058304

NRC Identifies Transient Material Inside Containment April 19, 2010

IR 1060177

Reportability Decision Revised After NRC Feedback April 22, 2010

IR 1061204

Foreign Material Found in Reactor Cavity April 25, 2010

IR 1061778

Possible Pressure Sensing Line Pluggage April 27, 2010

IR 1062519

High Vibration on 0VA02A

April 28, 2010

IR 1063395

Unplanned LCOAR Entry

- 0FP03PB April 29, 2010

IR 1068066

NRC Questioned the Design of SG Lateral Support Shim Pack

May 11, 2010

IR 1070282

Continue VA Fan Problems Requires Causal Analysis May 17, 2010

IR 1074261

Oiler Vent Line Issue Causing Oil Feed Interruption to Bearing s

May 27, 2010

IR 1079729

FASA Deficiency

-Incorrect Source Jig Used June 11, 2010

IR 1079731

FASA Deficiency

-Calibration Report Delay from Vendor June 11, 2010

IR 1079732

FASA Deficiency

-Calibration Date Not Correct June 11, 2010

IR 1

080746 Part 21 Needed for 2B DG Failed PT Fuse June 15, 2010

IR 1082167

M&TE Equipment Not Returned Before Calibration Due Dates

June 18, 2010

IR 1091453

Lost M&TE July 16, 2010

IR 1093594

Storm Water Runoff Basin Overflows-Unplanned LCOIR Entry

July 23, 2010

Attachment

IR 1094527

Storm Water Runoff Basin Overflows

-Unplanned LCOIR Entry July 26, 2010

IR 1101382

NOS Identified Independent Inspection Plan Issues August 13, 2010

IR 1102835

NRC Concerns with Byron ISFSI Pad Structural Qualification August 18, 20

IR 1103555

CC Actions Assigned Without Required Support August 17, 2010

IR 1106850

Hold Point Clarification for Non Shrink Grout Routine Maint

August 27, 2010

IR 1107151

Annulus Chiller Unit Tripped Overnight August 29, 2010

IR 1110180

1A Station Air Compressor Problems September 6, 2010

IR 1112263

0A Jockey Fire Pump Shaft Separation September 12, 2010

IR 1117296

NRC Exited Green NCV for RHUT Analysis September 24, 2010

IR 1119001

Review Braidwood Potential NCV for RHUT Analysis September 28, 20

IR 1134544

1B DG Governor Not Compensated After Oil Change November 2, 2010

IR 1138019

FME Good Catch in Spent Fuel Pool Area During DCS OPS

November 9, 2010

IR 1139597

Continuation of Root Cause Actions for IR 1107151

November 12, 2010

IR 1147124

NRC

GL 08-01 - Missed Opportunity on Review of BWD

EC 379707

December 1, 2010

IR 1148711

Potential Licensee ID'd

NCV for Lack of CS Vortexing Calc

December 6, 2010

IR 1149417

Inconsistent SX Piping Conf for 1B AF PP Lube Oil Cooler

December 7, 2010

IR 1153873 Division 22 Ventilation Fan Tripped December 17, 2010

IR 1155831

1FWA-D Pneumatic Pressure Margin December 26, 2010

IR 1160075

Replace VA Supply/Exhaust Fan Oilers January 7, 2011

IR 1161844

WR Required To Verify No loop Seals in 0VA02CB Oiler System

January 12, 2011 IR 1167589

Reduced Margin Identified in CSAT Cal culation January 27, 2011

IR 1179083

NOS ID:

Deficiencies in Storage and Combustible Commodities February 23, 2011

Attachment

IR 1182038

Missed QV Hold Point During SX Linestop Support TWR Build

March 1, 2011

IR 1182295

Tech Spec Bases 3.7.7 at Byron and Braidwood Appears to be Incorrect March 2, 2011

IR 1184864

NRC Heat Sink Insp Green NCV

- Inadequate Instructions March 8, 2011

IR 1186129

Chainfall Damaging Piping March 10, 2011

IR 1186130 NOS ID:

Scaffold Violates NEIL Requirements March 10, 2011

IR 1188984

FME Found In West Side Of Cavity March 17, 2011

IR 1189220

FME Found in Transfer Canal Near Gate Grating March 18, 2011

IR 1189229

B1R17 CRDM Inspection

- Volumetric Ultrasonic Indications March 18, 2011

IR 1198319

1B AFW Pump Significant Oil Leak from Valve Cover April 6, 2011

IR 1198414

West NSAL 03

-07 Supplement 1 Concerning ABB 1E Relays

April 6, 2011

IR 1204521

Standard Deficiency

- SOER 10-2 REC 1B FASA

- CAP Timeliness

April 19, 2011

IR 1204746

Increased Temperature Trend on 2B FW Pump INBD Journal Bearing April 19, 2011 IR 1208878

Site Hydraulic Torque Wrench Calibration Not In Labigator

April 28, 2011

IR 1213429

Byron Design Engineering Owns 32 of the 67

Corrective Actions May 9, 2011

IR 1214470

1AF004A Failed to Open During Testing May 11, 2011

IR 1215669

NRC 1Q2011 NCV

- Self-Revealed Low Flow to RCFC

May 13, 2011

IR 1218406

2011 NRC

MOD 50.59 Inspection

- Missing QV Hold Points

May 20, 2011

IR 12259 07 M&TE Overdue for Calibration June 7, 2011

IR 1226616

Engineering Review of CA's June 9, 2011

IR 1226961

2011 NRC

MOD 50.59 Inspection

- Missing QV Hold Points

June 9, 2011

IR 1230805

Placing VA Fan At Risk When Changing Out Oilers June 20, 2011

Attachment

IR 1233988 Work Order and C/O Tie Delays 0C VA Supply Fan Work Window June 28, 2011

IR 1239039

Corrective Action Did Not Address Issue July 12, 2011

IR 1239039

NOS ID:

Corrective Action Did Not Address NOS Identified Issue July 12, 2011

IR 1239157

FASA

1145944 Deficiency 2.1

July 12, 2011

IR 1239157

FASA

1145944 Deficiency 2.1

July 12, 2011

IR 1239162

PI&R FASA Deficiency 3.1

July 12, 2011

IR 1239165

PI&R FASA Deficiency 3.2

July 12, 2011

IR 1239165

PI&R FASA Deficiency 3.2

July 12, 2011

IR 1239169

PI&R FASA Deficiency 3.3

July 12, 2011

IR 1239173

PI&R FASA Deficiency 3.4

July 12, 2011

IR 1239317

PI&R FASA Deficiency 7.1

July 13, 2011

IR 1249717

NRC Mod/50.59 Insp NCV

- QV Hold Point Inspection Not Performed August 10, 2011

IR 1249719

NRC Mod/50.59 Insp NCV

- Temp Scaffolds Over 90 Days Old

August 10, 2011

IR 1249721

NRC Mod/50.59 Insp NCV

- EDG Fuel Calc Didn't Consider Freq Vari August 10, 2011

IR 1249731

NRC 2Q2011 NCV

- AF Piping Subject to Voiding After Seismic EV

August 10, 2011

ACE 938581

Apparent Cause Evaluation Unqualified Individuals Assigned to Shift August 28, 2009

ACE 944177

0VC182Y Damper is Broken July 21, 2009

ACE 952902

Clearance Performance Indicators Chronically Do Not Meet Expectations November 5, 2009

ACE 953448

Modification of Scaffold in 1A Diesel Oil Storage Tank Room Without Documentation October 5, 2009

ACE 977162

Byron Unit 1 Cycle 17 Power Ascension ReMA Critical Parameter Exceeded at Low Reactor Powers November 19, 2009

ACE 1057786

Unacceptable Surface Indications on a Safety Injection Penetration P

-66 Weld

May 27, 2010

Attachment

ACE 1058304

NRC Identifies Transient Material Inside Containment May 26, 2010

ACE 1060177

Reportability Decision Revised After NRC Feedback June 10, 2010

ACE 1062510

0VA02CA Exhaust Fan Inboard Bearing Failure November 10, 2010

ACE 1065109

2C SG Upper Lateral Support Shim Pack/Bearing Plate Bolting was Found Sheared O

ff

July 20, 2010

ACE 1070440

Radiation Protection Emergency Response Equipment Out of Calibration July 8, 2010

ACE 10 91242

REM-Ball Source Check Failures

- Neutron Shepherd Suspect

August 24, 2010

ACE 1101382

Work Packages Did Not Contain Required Quality Verification (QV) Hold Points November 24, 2010

ACE 1114313

Security Officer Suffered OSHA/ISAR Injury to Left Knee While Performing a Timeline Drill November 4, 2010

ACE 1175392

Byron Unit 1 FAC CHECWORKS Model Errors March 29, 2011

CCA 961843

Common Cause Evaluation Errors Identified in Vendor Calculations for Byron ISFSI

October 5, 2009

CCA 1016804

2009 ALARA

IR Review March 8, 2010

CCA 1032131

IR's Generated at Byron Station Containing Environmental Concerns April 22, 2010

CCA 1070589

CCA of Maintenance Planning IRs to Determine Actions Necessary to Arrest Lower Level Issues June 23, 2010

CCA 1072543

CAP Trending to Evaluate for CCA on ECCS Check Valve

July 22, 2010

CCA 1093619

Site Wide Trending Identifies Potential Trend in Procedure Adherence September 22, 2010

CCA 1097717

To Identify the Most Significant, Common Problems Asso c iated with the Steam Generator Blowdown (SD) System

September 7, 2010

CCA 1098446

Adverse Trend In Measurement and Testing Equipment (M&TE) Procedure Usage and Adherence September 20, 2010

CCA 1098446

Adverse Trend in M&TE Procedure Usage and Adherence

September 1, 2010

Attachment

CCA 1156577

FMS - Personal Responsibi lity Trend January 20, 2011

CCA 1215659

Adverse Trend in Later Request for Unescorted Access June 10, 2011

CCA 1238644

Evaluate Deficiencies Identified During the CAP NOS Audit at Byron Station August 5, 2011

IR 808265 Audit, Assessment and Self

-Assessments Check-In Self Assessment

- SOER Effectiveness Reviews

August 18, 2008

IR 831683 Check-In Self Assessment

- NPDES Program September 18, 2009

IR 842841 Check-in Self Assessment

- RP Source Control November 10, 20

IR 850915 FASA Self Assessment

- Pre-NRC Inspection Modules 71130.04, 71130.09 and Performance Indicators October 21, 2009

IR 888969 Check-In Self Assessment

- Byron Thermography Program

July 9, 2009

IR 940118 Check-In Self Assessment

- Chemistry Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP

)

August 31, 2009

IR 981690 Check-In Self Assessment

-

LS-AA-115 Implementation Assessment January 27, 2010

IR 1006770

FASA Self Assessment

- Radiation Instrumentation Per IP 71124.05

July 8, 2010

IR 1012562 FASA Self Assessment

- Appendix J Program Standards Compliance June 30, 2010

IR 1012611

Check-In Self Assessment

- Review of Current and Historical ACMP

July 31, 2010

IR 1012632

FASA Self Assessment

- Byron Station FAC (Flow Accelerated Corrosi on)

October 14, 2010

IR 1127709

FASA Self Assessment

- Security NEI 08

-07 Assessment February 21, 2011

IR 1130832

FASA Self Assessment

- PWR Reactivity Management Equipment Reliability July 15, 2011

IR 1130874

NOS Audit

- Corrective Action Programs Audit Report May 12, 2011

IR 1145944

FASA Self Assessment

- Corrective Action Program Preparation for NRC Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection June 15, 2011

Attachment

IR 1145944

FASA Self Assessment

- Preparation for NRC Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection June 29, 2011

IR 1149198

Check-In Self Assessment

- Byron Station Reactivity Management Performance January 31, 2011

BYR-56531 Miscellaneous Failure Analysis of Casing Nuts from the Byron Station 2B SX Pump October 15, 2009

BYR-5653 6 Byron Line 2PS01BB Coupling Weld Leak July 30, 2009

BYR-67029 Field Inspection of the Byron 1CV8119 Relief Valve October 16, 2009

BYR-72867 Evaluation of Cracks in a Byron 2B EDG Jacket Cooling Pump Impeller January 27, 2010

BYR-94741 Evaluation of Skid Plate Mounting Bolts from the Byron 2C Steam Generator Upper Lateral Support May 25, 2010

BY-EO-CY11 Cycle Topics 11

-1 Revision 0

Drawing M-97 Diagram of Diesel Generator Room 1A & 1B Ventilation System

Revision P

Drawing M-65 Diagram of Boric Acid Processing, Sheet 2C

Revision AO

Drawing M-61 Diagram of Safety Injection, Sheet 1B

Revision AX

Drawing M-136 Diagram of Safety Injection, Sheet 1

Revision AY

EC 367824 Add Automatic Drain Valves and Bypass Lines on 12 Service Air and Instrument Air Lines

Revisions 2

EC 368211 Replace Valves 0SA320 and 0SA042 with Full Port Ball Valves

Revisions 0

Op Eval 11-008 Seismic Qualification of ABB 1E Relays for RCP Overcurrent Protection Revision 0

Op Eval 09-001 Diesel Oil Storage Tank (DOST) and Diesel Generator (DG) Crankcase Ventilation Lines Crimp Verses Break Analysis

Revision 7

Standing Order

09-059 Awareness of Definition of Reactor Coolant System Pressure Boundary December 23, 2009

Training Request 10-010

NRC Interpretation of Reactor Coolant System Pressure Bound August 20, 2010

Attachment Engineering Policy Memo

2009-03

Improvement in Owners Review Revision 2

CFR 72.212 Evaluation Report Revision 2

Byron Maintenance (M&TE) Due For Calibration August 30, 2011

- September 29, 2011

Causing Organization Trend Report

1/2011 - 3/2011 Event Trend Report:

Byron Station

1/2011 - 3/2011 Event Trend Report:

Operation

- Procedure Related January 2009

- August 2011

Event Trend Report:

Security

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Event Trend Repo rt:

Engineering

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Event Trend Report:

Chemistry

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Event Trend Report:

Radiation Protection

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Event Trend Report:

Maintenance

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Event Trend Report:

Engineering

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Event Trend Report:

Byron Station

- Procedure Related

1/2009 - 8/2011 Process Trend Report:

Byron Station

1/2011 - 3/2011 Plant Health Committee Meeting Handout August 8, 2011 Operation Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 6/2010

Operation Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 9/2010

Operation Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 12/2010

Operation Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 3/2011

Operation Performance Summary Quarter Ending 7/2011

Operation Performance Summary Quarter Ending 12/2010

Security Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 6/2010

Attachment Security Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 9/2010

Security Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 12/2010

Security Department Trend Review Quarter Ending 3/2011

Semi-Annual Safety Culture Review July 10, 2009

Semi-Annual Safety Culture Review February 10, 2010

Semi-Annual Safety Culture Review July 30, 2010

Semi-Annual Safety Culture Review January 25, 2011

System Health Report:

VA

-Auxiliary Building HVAC

Q1-2011 Trending Guide

- CAP Process Help Revision 15

Operating Experience

IR 939664 OE29202 - Large Motor Maintenance Lessons Learned (Columbia)

July 8, 2009

IR 995253 Maintenance OPEX Review

- Welding Gas Issue a

t McGuire

November 18, 2009

IR 995321 Maintenance OPEX Review

- Braidwood AFW CAL Left Unattended November 18, 2009 IR 1046441

Maintenance OPEX Review

- Oyster Creek Shorted Motor

March 23, 2010

IR 1109244

OE31554 - 4kV Breaker Failure Due to Improper Lubrication September 2, 2010

IR 1110739

SOER 10-2 Response September 8, 2010

IR 1129652

Maintenance OPEX Review

-

OE 32145 Applies t

o BYR/BRW

October 22, 2010

IR 1130840

IN 2010-20 Turbine Driven Feed Pump Repetitive Failures

October 26, 2010

IR 1165423

Part 21

ENS 46545 ABB Potential Defect Overcurrent Relay

January 21, 2011

IR 1166492

IN 2010-26 Submerged Electrical Cables January 25, 2011

Attachment

IR 1173590

Part 21 ENS46545 ABB Potential Defect Overcurrent Relays

February 10, 2011

IR 1198414

West NSAL 03

-07 Supplement 1 Concer ning ABB 1E Relay April 6, 2011

0BMSR

SX-5 Procedures Inspection of River Screen House and Essential Service Water Cooling Tower Basins Revision 4

0BOA

SEC-4 Loss of Instrument Air Revision 105 1BOA

SEC-4 Loss of Instrument Air Revision 106

2BOA

SEC-4 Loss of Instrument Air Revision 104

AD-AA-101 Processing of Procedures and T&TMs Revision 23

BFP

FH-65 Spent Fuel Cask Site Transportation Revision 9

CC-AA-103-1003 Owner's Acceptance Review of External Engineering Technical Products Revision 6

LS-AA-1012 Safety Culture Monitoring Revision 0

LS-AA-115 Operating Experience Revision 10

LS-AA-115-1001 Processing of Level 1 OPEX Evaluations Revision 4

LS-AA-115-1002 Processing of Level 2 OPEX Evaluations Revision 3

LS-AA-115-1003 Processing of Significance Level 3 OPEX Evaluations Revision 1

LS-AA-118-1002 Exelon Nuclear Midcycle Assessment Revision 1

LS-AA-120 Issue Identification and Screening Process Revision 13

LS-AA-125 Corrective Action Program (CAP) Procedure Revision 12

LS-AA-125-1001 Root Cause Analysis Manual Revision 7

LS-AA-125-1003 Apparent Cause Evaluation Manual Revision 8

LS-AA-125-1004 Effectiveness Review Manual Revision 5

LS-AA-125-1005 Coding and Analysis Manual Revision 8

LS-AA-126-1001 Focused Area Self

-Assessments Revision 5

LS-BY-120 Issue Identification and Screening Process Revision 0

LS-BY-125 Corrective Action Program Procedure Revision 3

LS-BY-125-1005 Coding and Analysis Manual Revision 6A

Attachment

MA-AA-716-0 06 Control of Lubricants Program Revision 8

MA-AA-716-008 Foreign Material Exclusion Program Revision 6

MA-AA-716-010-1103 Fluid Sealing Technology Program Revision 1

MA-AA-716-040 Control of Portable Measurement and Test Equipment Program

Revision 7

MA-AA-716-060 Compression Fittings Inspection, Installation, Remake and Repair

Revision 2

MA-AA-725-560 Hydramotor Actuator

- Model AH91, NH91, and HN92 Preventive Maintenance Revision 6

MA-AP-734-418 Joy Model 72

-36-1770 VA Supply Fan Maintenance Revision 3

MA-AP-734-419 Joy Model 72

-30-1770 VA Exhaust Fan Maintenance Revision 2

OP-AA-108-115 Operability Determinations (CM

-1) Revision 10

OP-AA-108-115-1001 Operability Evaluation Passport Engineering Change Desktop Guide Revision 1

OP-AA-108-115-10 02 Supplemental Consideration for On

-Shift Immediate Operability Determinations (CM

-1)

Revision 2

WC-AA-106 Work Screening and Processing Revision 12

Root Cause Evaluations

RCE 985151

Draining RH System Without a Clearance Order October 28, 2009

RCE 1035940 Adverse Trend in Byron Station Foreign Material Exclusion (FME) Events June 1, 2010

RCE 1139610

Potential Non

-Conservative Tech Specs for Component Cooling

November 12, 2010

RCE 1189229

B1R17 CRDM Inspection

- Volumetric Ultrasonic Indications June 29, 2011

IR 1252952

Issue Reports Generated As a Result of the NRC Inspection Previously Identified Equipment Issue Not Given Adequate Priority August 18, 2011

IR 1253321

Question Asked During NRC PI&R Inspection August 19, 2011

IR 1253377

Interpretation Issue Identified with Assignment Closure August 19, 2011

Attachment

IR 1257444

NRC PI&R Clear Direction is Not Provided in LS

-AA-115-1003

August 30, 2011

IR 1257458

NRC PI&R Issues Identified with IR 1198414

August 30, 2011

IR 1257920

NRC PI&R 10

CFR Part 21 Notification of Deviation

- ABB KF Relay August 30, 2011

IR 1258804

NRC PI&R MA

-AA-725-560 Procedure References Require Updating September 2, 2011

IR 1260159

Trending Process Enhancements September 7, 2011

IR 1261219

Process Improvement

- 10CFR21 Notification of Deviation

September 9, 2011

IR 1269928

Potential NCV Identified During NRC PI&R Inspection September 29, 2011

Attachment

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

CAP Corrective Action Program

CAQ Condition Adverse to Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DOST Diesel Oil Storage Tank

EDG Emergency Diesel Generator

ECP Employee Concerns Program

FASA Focused Area Self Assessment

IEMA Illinois Emergency Management Agency

IMC Inspection Manual Chapter

IR Inspection Report

IR Issue Report

MRC Management Review Committee

M&TE Measurement & Test Equipment

NCV Non-Cited Violation

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NOS Nuclear Oversight

OPEX Operating Experience

PI&R Problem Identification & Resolution

RHUT Recycle Holdup Tank

ROP Reactor Oversight Process

SCAQ Significant Condition Adverse to Quality

SCWE Safety Conscious Work Environment

SDP Significance Determination Process

TS Technical Specifications

VA Auxiliary Building Ventilation

M. Pacilio

-2- In accordance with

CFR 2.390 of the

NRC 's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter, its enclosure, and your response (if any) will be available electronically for public inspection in the

NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (

PARS) component of the

NRC =s document system (ADAMS).

ADAMS is accessible from the

NRC Website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading

-rm/adams.html

(the Public Electronic Reading Room).

Sincerely, /RA/

Eric R. Duncan

, Chie f Branch 3 Division of Reactor Projects

Docket Nos. 50

-454; 50-455 License Nos.

NPF -37;

NPF-66 Enclosure:

Inspection Report No. 05000454/

2011008 and 05000455/

2011008 w/Attachment: Supplemental Information

cc w/encl:

Distribution via ListServ

DOCUMENT NAME:

G:\DRPIII\BYRO\Byron PI&R 2011 008.docx

Publicly Available

Non-Publicly Available

Sensitive No n-Sensitive To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the concurrence box "C" = Copy without attach/encl "E" = Copy with attach/encl "N" = No copy

OFFICE [[]]

RIII [[]]

RIII [[]]

NAME RNg:dtp EDuncan

DATE 10/13/11 10/17/11

OFFICI AL

RECORD [[]]

COPY

Letter to M. Pacilio from E. Duncan dated

October 17, 2011.

SUBJEC T:

BYRON [[]]

STATIO N,

UNIT 1 & 2

NRC PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

AND [[]]

RESOLU TION INSPECTION REPORT 05000454/2011008; 0500455/20110