ML18204A144: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES | {{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES | ||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION | |||
REGION III | |||
2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210 | |||
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4352 | |||
EA-17-138 | July 23, 2018 | ||
Mr. Mark Kanavos | |||
Site VP, Byron Generating Station | |||
4450 North German Church Rd | EA-17-138 | ||
Byron, IL 61010-9794 | |||
SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF NON-CITED VIOLATION 05000454/2017009-01; | Mr. Mark Kanavos | ||
Site VP, Byron Generating Station | |||
Dear Mr. Kanavos: | 4450 North German Church Rd | ||
On July 31, 2017, Exelon Generation Company (EGC), LLC, provided a written response to | Byron, IL 61010-9794 | ||
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000454/2017009; | |||
05000455/2017009 issued on June 29, 2017, concerning an Evaluations of Changes, Tests, | SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF NON-CITED VIOLATION 05000454/2017009-01; | ||
and Experiments Inspection completed at Byron Station, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the | 05000455/2017009-01 | ||
letter contested Non-Cited Violation (NCV) 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 | Dear Mr. Kanavos: | ||
associated with the failure to perform an evaluation of a change to the facility as described in | On July 31, 2017, Exelon Generation Company (EGC), LLC, provided a written response to | ||
the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal | the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000454/2017009; | ||
Regulations (CFR), paragraph 50.59(d)(1). On December 21, 2017, the NRC responded to | 05000455/2017009 issued on June 29, 2017, concerning an Evaluations of Changes, Tests, | ||
your letter contesting the violation (Agency Documents Access and Management System | and Experiments Inspection completed at Byron Station, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the | ||
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML17355A561). In that letter the NRC determined that the violation | letter contested Non-Cited Violation (NCV) 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 | ||
was valid, but we articulated that the initially-documented NCV needed additional information to | associated with the failure to perform an evaluation of a change to the facility as described in | ||
justify the NCV. On February 8, 2018, in a letter from Exelon to the Director of the Office of | the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal | ||
Enforcement, you sought to appeal that decision, and provided additional information. In a letter | Regulations (CFR), paragraph 50.59(d)(1). On December 21, 2017, the NRC responded to | ||
to Exelon on April 8, 2018 (ADAMS ML18100A222), the NRC agreed to review the issue as an | your letter contesting the violation (Agency Documents Access and Management System | ||
initial appeal of Region IIIs December decision based on the change from the original violation | (ADAMS) Accession No. ML17355A561). In that letter the NRC determined that the violation | ||
and the new information Exelon provided. This letter provides the decision based on our | was valid, but we articulated that the initially-documented NCV needed additional information to | ||
review. | justify the NCV. On February 8, 2018, in a letter from Exelon to the Director of the Office of | ||
The review was conducted by an independent NRC panel, which considered relevant | Enforcement, you sought to appeal that decision, and provided additional information. In a letter | ||
information on this matter to date. The relevant information considered included: applicable | to Exelon on April 8, 2018 (ADAMS ML18100A222), the NRC agreed to review the issue as an | ||
guidance documents concerning the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP), | initial appeal of Region IIIs December decision based on the change from the original violation | ||
10 CFR 50.59 process, and the licensees commitment management process; all docketed | and the new information Exelon provided. This letter provides the decision based on our | ||
correspondence on the violation; input from NRC subject matter experts in various offices; | review. | ||
participation in the Category 2 public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding | |||
the SFCP on March 20, 2018; and interviews with the key NRC and Exelon staff involved in the | The review was conducted by an independent NRC panel, which considered relevant | ||
assessment of the violation, assessment of the disputed violation, and/or dispute of the | information on this matter to date. The relevant information considered included: applicable | ||
violation. | guidance documents concerning the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP), | ||
In September 2000, the NRC endorsed NEI 99-04, Revision 0, Guidelines for Managing NRC | 10 CFR 50.59 process, and the licensees commitment management process; all docketed | ||
Commitment Changes (Regulatory Information Summary 00-017, Managing Regulatory | correspondence on the violation; input from NRC subject matter experts in various offices; | ||
Commitments Made by Power Reactor Licensees to the NRC Staff). In November 2000, the | participation in the Category 2 public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding | ||
the SFCP on March 20, 2018; and interviews with the key NRC and Exelon staff involved in the | |||
assessment of the violation, assessment of the disputed violation, and/or dispute of the | |||
violation. | |||
In September 2000, the NRC endorsed NEI 99-04, Revision 0, Guidelines for Managing NRC | |||
Commitment Changes (Regulatory Information Summary 00-017, Managing Regulatory | |||
Commitments Made by Power Reactor Licensees to the NRC Staff). In November 2000, the | |||
M. Kanavos | M. Kanavos | ||
NRC endorsed NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations (NRC | - 2 - | ||
Regulatory Guide 1.187). By letter dated September 19, 2007, the NRC found NEI 04-10, | |||
Revision 1, Risk-Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for | |||
Control of Surveillance Frequencies, acceptable for referencing by licensees proposing to | NRC endorsed NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations (NRC | ||
amend their Technical Specifications (TS) to establish a SFCP (ADAMS ML072570267). | Regulatory Guide 1.187). By letter dated September 19, 2007, the NRC found NEI 04-10, | ||
By letter dated February 24, 2011, the NRC issued Byron Amendment No. 171 which relocated | Revision 1, Risk-Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for | ||
specific surveillance frequencies in Byrons TS to a licensee-controlled program (i.e., the | Control of Surveillance Frequencies, acceptable for referencing by licensees proposing to | ||
SFCP). For these relocated surveillance frequencies, the TS were revised to state that the | amend their Technical Specifications (TS) to establish a SFCP (ADAMS ML072570267). | ||
surveillance will be performed in accordance with the surveillance frequency control program. | |||
As part of this amendment, Section 5.5.19, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, was | By letter dated February 24, 2011, the NRC issued Byron Amendment No. 171 which relocated | ||
added to the TS, which requires changes to the relocated surveillance frequencies to be made | specific surveillance frequencies in Byrons TS to a licensee-controlled program (i.e., the | ||
in accordance with NEI 04-10, Revision 1. | SFCP). For these relocated surveillance frequencies, the TS were revised to state that the | ||
As part of Byron Amendment No. 171, specific surveillance frequencies associated with the | surveillance will be performed in accordance with the surveillance frequency control program. | ||
testing of emergency diesel generators (EDGs) were relocated to the SFCP. In February 2014, | As part of this amendment, Section 5.5.19, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, was | ||
Byron used their NRC-approved SFCP, including the NEI 04-10 guidance, to evaluate and | added to the TS, which requires changes to the relocated surveillance frequencies to be made | ||
control a frequency change for performance of an EDG and integrated safeguards loss of offsite | in accordance with NEI 04-10, Revision 1. | ||
power/engineered safety features surveillance test from 18 months to 18 months on a | |||
staggered test basis. | As part of Byron Amendment No. 171, specific surveillance frequencies associated with the | ||
In assessing the new information provided for the disputed violation, the NRC independent | testing of emergency diesel generators (EDGs) were relocated to the SFCP. In February 2014, | ||
review panel noted one main point of disagreement between the NRC and Exelon. Specifically, | Byron used their NRC-approved SFCP, including the NEI 04-10 guidance, to evaluate and | ||
the main issue occurs in Step 2 of the NEI 04-10 process in assessing whether the frequency | control a frequency change for performance of an EDG and integrated safeguards loss of offsite | ||
change represents a change in a regulatory commitment. In particular, Byron Updated Final | power/engineered safety features surveillance test from 18 months to 18 months on a | ||
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix A, Application of NRC Regulatory Guides, | staggered test basis. | ||
originally stated that Byron complied with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers | |||
Standard 387-1984, IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel Generator Units Applied as Standby | In assessing the new information provided for the disputed violation, the NRC independent | ||
Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, and supplemental regulatory positions | review panel noted one main point of disagreement between the NRC and Exelon. Specifically, | ||
in Regulatory Guide 1.9, Application and Testing of Safety-Related Diesel Generators in | the main issue occurs in Step 2 of the NEI 04-10 process in assessing whether the frequency | ||
Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3, which require licensees to perform the EDG surveillances | change represents a change in a regulatory commitment. In particular, Byron Updated Final | ||
during every refueling outage. To resolve this apparent point of confusion, the review panel | Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix A, Application of NRC Regulatory Guides, | ||
stepped through the NEI 04-10 process and the related NRC-endorsed industry guidance | originally stated that Byron complied with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers | ||
documents (NEI 99-04 and NEI 96-07). | Standard 387-1984, IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel Generator Units Applied as Standby | ||
In NEI 04-10 Step 2, a check is made to determine if the applicable regulatory commitments to | Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, and supplemental regulatory positions | ||
the NRC can be changed. Evaluating changes to regulatory commitments is a separate activity | in Regulatory Guide 1.9, Application and Testing of Safety-Related Diesel Generators in | ||
based on a method acceptable to the NRC for managing and changing regulatory commitments | Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3, which require licensees to perform the EDG surveillances | ||
(e.g., NEI 99-04). NEI 99-04 Section 3.1, Definitions, defines a regulatory commitment as an | during every refueling outage. To resolve this apparent point of confusion, the review panel | ||
explicit statement to take a specific action agreed to, or volunteered by, a licensee and | stepped through the NEI 04-10 process and the related NRC-endorsed industry guidance | ||
submitted in writing on the docket to the NRC. A regulatory commitment is an intentional | documents (NEI 99-04 and NEI 96-07). | ||
undertaking by a licensee to (1) restore compliance with regulatory requirements, or | |||
(2) complete a specific action to address an NRC issue or concern (e.g., generic letter, bulletin, | In NEI 04-10 Step 2, a check is made to determine if the applicable regulatory commitments to | ||
order, etc.). The panel determined through review of NRR Office Instructions that Byrons | the NRC can be changed. Evaluating changes to regulatory commitments is a separate activity | ||
UFSAR Appendix A is part of a mandated licensing bases document and not a set of regulatory | based on a method acceptable to the NRC for managing and changing regulatory commitments | ||
commitments. In addition, the use of the SFCP to change surveillance frequencies was | (e.g., NEI 99-04). NEI 99-04 Section 3.1, Definitions, defines a regulatory commitment as an | ||
previously reviewed and approved by the NRC staff with Byron Amendment No. 171. Thus, | explicit statement to take a specific action agreed to, or volunteered by, a licensee and | ||
there was no associated regulatory commitment to change under NEI 04-10 Step 2, and it was | submitted in writing on the docket to the NRC. A regulatory commitment is an intentional | ||
appropriate for the licensee to continue to step through the NEI 04-10 process to evaluate an | undertaking by a licensee to (1) restore compliance with regulatory requirements, or | ||
EDG surveillance frequency change. The review panel noted that the licensee was addressing | (2) complete a specific action to address an NRC issue or concern (e.g., generic letter, bulletin, | ||
the associated EDG surveillance frequency change through an NRC approved change-control | order, etc.). The panel determined through review of NRR Office Instructions that Byrons | ||
process (SFCP) specifically intended for that purpose. | UFSAR Appendix A is part of a mandated licensing bases document and not a set of regulatory | ||
commitments. In addition, the use of the SFCP to change surveillance frequencies was | |||
previously reviewed and approved by the NRC staff with Byron Amendment No. 171. Thus, | |||
there was no associated regulatory commitment to change under NEI 04-10 Step 2, and it was | |||
appropriate for the licensee to continue to step through the NEI 04-10 process to evaluate an | |||
EDG surveillance frequency change. The review panel noted that the licensee was addressing | |||
the associated EDG surveillance frequency change through an NRC approved change-control | |||
process (SFCP) specifically intended for that purpose. | |||
M. Kanavos | M. Kanavos | ||
Following satisfactory completion of the SFCP evaluation process to approve the EDG | - 3 - | ||
surveillance frequency change, Exelon performed a 10 CFR 50.59 screening using its internal | |||
guidance. Specifically, in February 2014, Exelons 50.59 screening (No. 6E-14-017) | |||
determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required. The review panel did not identify | Following satisfactory completion of the SFCP evaluation process to approve the EDG | ||
any regulatory obligations, additional mandated licensing bases documents, commitments, | surveillance frequency change, Exelon performed a 10 CFR 50.59 screening using its internal | ||
and/or UFSAR wording changes evaluated under this 10 CFR 50.59 screening that was not | guidance. Specifically, in February 2014, Exelons 50.59 screening (No. 6E-14-017) | ||
covered by the SFCP process. The review panel determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation | determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required. The review panel did not identify | ||
was not required, because the NRC staff had previously granted the licensee authority, through | any regulatory obligations, additional mandated licensing bases documents, commitments, | ||
Byron Amendment No. 171, to change the specific EDG surveillance frequencies in accordance | and/or UFSAR wording changes evaluated under this 10 CFR 50.59 screening that was not | ||
with the SFCP. | covered by the SFCP process. The review panel determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation | ||
Based on the independent panels thorough review of the issue, the NRC has concluded that | was not required, because the NRC staff had previously granted the licensee authority, through | ||
the 50.59 violation as written cannot be supported. Therefore, the NCV is hereby withdrawn, | Byron Amendment No. 171, to change the specific EDG surveillance frequencies in accordance | ||
and we will modify our records accordingly. | with the SFCP. | ||
This letter will be made available electronically for public inspection and copying from ADAMS | |||
available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and in the NRC Public Document Room | Based on the independent panels thorough review of the issue, the NRC has concluded that | ||
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding. | the 50.59 violation as written cannot be supported. Therefore, the NCV is hereby withdrawn, | ||
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. John Giessner at | and we will modify our records accordingly. | ||
(630) 829-9800. | |||
This letter will be made available electronically for public inspection and copying from ADAMS | |||
available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and in the NRC Public Document Room | |||
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding. | |||
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 | If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. John Giessner at | ||
License Nos. NPF-37; NPF-66 | (630) 829-9800. | ||
cc: Distribution via LISTSERV | |||
Sincerely, | |||
/RA/ | |||
K. Steven West | |||
Regional Administrator | |||
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455 | |||
License Nos. NPF-37; NPF-66 | |||
cc: Distribution via LISTSERV | |||
M. Kanavos | |||
- 4 - | |||
Letter to M. Kanavos from K. Steven West dated July 23, 2018 | |||
SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF NON-CITED VIOLATION 05000454/2017009-01; | |||
05000455/2017009-01 | |||
OFC | |||
NAME | |||
DATE | |||
DISTRIBUTION: | |||
Jeremy Bowen | |||
Juan Peralta | |||
RidsNrrDorlLpl3 | |||
RidsNrrPMByron Resource | |||
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource | |||
Steven West | |||
Darrell Roberts | |||
Jack Giessner | |||
Richard Skokowski | |||
Allan Barker | |||
DRPIII | |||
DRSIII | |||
ADAMS Accession Number ML18204A144 | |||
OFC | |||
RIII-ORA | |||
RI | |||
RIII-DNMS | |||
NRR | |||
OE | |||
OGC | |||
RIII/EICS | |||
RIII/ORA | |||
NAME | |||
JHeck:jc | |||
JSchoppy | |||
JGiessner | |||
BHolian1 | |||
ABoland2 | |||
MZobler3 | |||
RSkokowski | |||
KJL for | |||
KSWest | |||
DATE | |||
05/14/18 | |||
5/14/18 | |||
05/16/18 | |||
7/13/18 | |||
7/17/18 | |||
7/13/18 | |||
07/19/18 | |||
7/23/18 | |||
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY | |||
1 NRR concurrence provided via e-mail from M. Miller on July 13, 2018 | |||
2 OE concurrence provided via e-mail from M. Marshfield on July 17, 2018 | |||
3 OGC NLO provided via email from Sara Kirkwood on July 13, 2018 | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:13, 5 January 2025
| ML18204A144 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron |
| Issue date: | 07/23/2018 |
| From: | Khadijah West NRC/RGN-III |
| To: | Kanavos M Exelon Generation Co |
| Giessner J | |
| References | |
| EA-17-138 IR 2017009, IR 2017009-01 | |
| Download: ML18204A144 (4) | |
See also: IR 05000454/2017009
Text
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION III
2443 WARRENVILLE RD. SUITE 210
LISLE, ILLINOIS 60532-4352
July 23, 2018
Mr. Mark Kanavos
Site VP, Byron Generating Station
4450 North German Church Rd
Byron, IL 61010-9794
SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF NON-CITED VIOLATION 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01
Dear Mr. Kanavos:
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), paragraph 50.59(d)(1). On December 21, 2017, the NRC responded to
your letter contesting the violation (Agency Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No. ML17355A561). In that letter the NRC determined that the violation
was valid, but we articulated that the initially-documented NCV needed additional information to
justify the NCV. On February 8, 2018, in a letter from Exelon to the Director of the Office of
Enforcement, you sought to appeal that decision, and provided additional information. In a letter
to Exelon on April 8, 2018 (ADAMS ML18100A222), the NRC agreed to review the issue as an
initial appeal of Region IIIs December decision based on the change from the original violation
and the new information Exelon provided. This letter provides the decision based on our
review.
The review was conducted by an independent NRC panel, which considered relevant
information on this matter to date. The relevant information considered included: applicable
guidance documents concerning the Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP),
10 CFR 50.59 process, and the licensees commitment management process; all docketed
correspondence on the violation; input from NRC subject matter experts in various offices;
participation in the Category 2 public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding
the SFCP on March 20, 2018; and interviews with the key NRC and Exelon staff involved in the
assessment of the violation, assessment of the disputed violation, and/or dispute of the
violation.
In September 2000, the NRC endorsed NEI 99-04, Revision 0, Guidelines for Managing NRC
Commitment Changes (Regulatory Information Summary 00-017, Managing Regulatory
Commitments Made by Power Reactor Licensees to the NRC Staff). In November 2000, the
M. Kanavos
- 2 -
NRC endorsed NEI 96-07, Revision 1, Guidelines for 10 CFR 50.59 Evaluations (NRC
Regulatory Guide 1.187). By letter dated September 19, 2007, the NRC found NEI 04-10,
Revision 1, Risk-Informed Technical Specification Initiative 5b, Risk-Informed Method for
Control of Surveillance Frequencies, acceptable for referencing by licensees proposing to
amend their Technical Specifications (TS) to establish a SFCP (ADAMS ML072570267).
By letter dated February 24, 2011, the NRC issued Byron Amendment No. 171 which relocated
specific surveillance frequencies in Byrons TS to a licensee-controlled program (i.e., the
SFCP). For these relocated surveillance frequencies, the TS were revised to state that the
surveillance will be performed in accordance with the surveillance frequency control program.
As part of this amendment, Section 5.5.19, Surveillance Frequency Control Program, was
added to the TS, which requires changes to the relocated surveillance frequencies to be made
in accordance with NEI 04-10, Revision 1.
As part of Byron Amendment No. 171, specific surveillance frequencies associated with the
testing of emergency diesel generators (EDGs) were relocated to the SFCP. In February 2014,
Byron used their NRC-approved SFCP, including the NEI 04-10 guidance, to evaluate and
control a frequency change for performance of an EDG and integrated safeguards loss of offsite
power/engineered safety features surveillance test from 18 months to 18 months on a
staggered test basis.
In assessing the new information provided for the disputed violation, the NRC independent
review panel noted one main point of disagreement between the NRC and Exelon. Specifically,
the main issue occurs in Step 2 of the NEI 04-10 process in assessing whether the frequency
change represents a change in a regulatory commitment. In particular, Byron Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Appendix A, Application of NRC Regulatory Guides,
originally stated that Byron complied with Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Standard 387-1984, IEEE Standard Criteria for Diesel Generator Units Applied as Standby
Power Supplies for Nuclear Power Generating Stations, and supplemental regulatory positions
in Regulatory Guide 1.9, Application and Testing of Safety-Related Diesel Generators in
Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3, which require licensees to perform the EDG surveillances
during every refueling outage. To resolve this apparent point of confusion, the review panel
stepped through the NEI 04-10 process and the related NRC-endorsed industry guidance
documents (NEI 99-04 and NEI 96-07).
In NEI 04-10 Step 2, a check is made to determine if the applicable regulatory commitments to
the NRC can be changed. Evaluating changes to regulatory commitments is a separate activity
based on a method acceptable to the NRC for managing and changing regulatory commitments
(e.g., NEI 99-04). NEI 99-04 Section 3.1, Definitions, defines a regulatory commitment as an
explicit statement to take a specific action agreed to, or volunteered by, a licensee and
submitted in writing on the docket to the NRC. A regulatory commitment is an intentional
undertaking by a licensee to (1) restore compliance with regulatory requirements, or
(2) complete a specific action to address an NRC issue or concern (e.g., generic letter, bulletin,
order, etc.). The panel determined through review of NRR Office Instructions that Byrons
UFSAR Appendix A is part of a mandated licensing bases document and not a set of regulatory
commitments. In addition, the use of the SFCP to change surveillance frequencies was
previously reviewed and approved by the NRC staff with Byron Amendment No. 171. Thus,
there was no associated regulatory commitment to change under NEI 04-10 Step 2, and it was
appropriate for the licensee to continue to step through the NEI 04-10 process to evaluate an
EDG surveillance frequency change. The review panel noted that the licensee was addressing
the associated EDG surveillance frequency change through an NRC approved change-control
process (SFCP) specifically intended for that purpose.
M. Kanavos
- 3 -
Following satisfactory completion of the SFCP evaluation process to approve the EDG
surveillance frequency change, Exelon performed a 10 CFR 50.59 screening using its internal
guidance. Specifically, in February 2014, Exelons 50.59 screening (No. 6E-14-017)
determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation was not required. The review panel did not identify
any regulatory obligations, additional mandated licensing bases documents, commitments,
and/or UFSAR wording changes evaluated under this 10 CFR 50.59 screening that was not
covered by the SFCP process. The review panel determined that a 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation
was not required, because the NRC staff had previously granted the licensee authority, through
Byron Amendment No. 171, to change the specific EDG surveillance frequencies in accordance
with the SFCP.
Based on the independent panels thorough review of the issue, the NRC has concluded that
the 50.59 violation as written cannot be supported. Therefore, the NCV is hereby withdrawn,
and we will modify our records accordingly.
This letter will be made available electronically for public inspection and copying from ADAMS
available at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and in the NRC Public Document Room
in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public Inspections, Exemptions, Requests for Withholding.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Mr. John Giessner at
(630) 829-9800.
Sincerely,
/RA/
K. Steven West
Regional Administrator
Docket Nos. 50-454; 50-455
cc: Distribution via LISTSERV
M. Kanavos
- 4 -
Letter to M. Kanavos from K. Steven West dated July 23, 2018
SUBJECT: WITHDRAWAL OF NON-CITED VIOLATION 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01
DISTRIBUTION:
RidsNrrDorlLpl3
RidsNrrPMByron Resource
RidsNrrDirsIrib Resource
DRPIII
DRSIII
ADAMS Accession Number ML18204A144
OFC
RIII-ORA
RI
RIII-DNMS
RIII/EICS
RIII/ORA
NAME
JHeck:jc
JSchoppy
JGiessner
BHolian1
ABoland2
MZobler3
RSkokowski
KJL for
KSWest
DATE
05/14/18
5/14/18
05/16/18
7/13/18
7/17/18
7/13/18
07/19/18
7/23/18
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
1 NRR concurrence provided via e-mail from M. Miller on July 13, 2018
2 OE concurrence provided via e-mail from M. Marshfield on July 17, 2018
3 OGC NLO provided via email from Sara Kirkwood on July 13, 2018