IR 05000454/2017009
| ML17355A561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/21/2017 |
| From: | O'Brien K G Region 3 Administrator |
| To: | Bryan Hanson Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| References | |
| EA-17-138 IR 2017009 | |
| Preceding documents: |
|
| Download: ML17355A561 (13) | |
Text
December 21, 2017
EA-17-138 Mr. Bryan Senior VP, Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and CNO, Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DISPUTED NON-CITED VIOLATION DOCUMENTED IN BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2EVALUATIONS OF CHANGES, TESTS, AND EXPERIMENTS BASELINE INSPECTION REPORT 05000454/2017009; 05000455/2017009
Dear Mr. Hanson:
On July 31, 2017, Exelon Generation Company (EGC), LLC, provided a written response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspection Report 05000454/2017009; 05000455/2017009 issued on June 29, 2017, concerning an Evaluations of Changes, Tests, and Experiments Inspection completed at Byron Station, Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the letter contested Non-Cited Violation (NCV)05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 associated with the failure to perform an evaluation of a change to the facility as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50.59(d)(1). The letter explained that EGC concluded that a 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) evaluation was not required because the UFSAR change satisfied the 10 CFR 50.59(c)(4) exemption. The NRC carefully reviewed reply and determined that the original enforcement decision to disposition this issue as a violation of 10 CFR 50.59(d)(1) was valid. Specifically, the NRC-approved Surveillance Frequency Control Program recognizes 10 CFR 50.59 to be the governing change control process for any proposed change to UFSAR commitments associated with codes and standards. This handling of changes to UFSAR commitments is deliberately distinct and separate from the Surveillance Frequency Control Program in order to maintain sufficient safety margin by ensuring the proposed surveillance test frequency change is not in conflict with approved industry codes and standards. In addition, the NRC staff noted that the paragraph of the Enforcement Section of NCV 05000454/2017009-01; 05000455/2017009-01 included an explanatory statement that was open to interpretation. Based on a review of licensee documents associated with the disputed NCV, the NRC staff determined that the intended message of the explanatory statement was consistent with the NRC staff conclusions derived during this review of the disputed NCV. The basis for the NRC staff conclusion is enclosed. This letter, its enclosure, , and your response (if any) will be made available for public inspection and copying at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and at the NRC Public Document Room in accordance with 10 CFR Exemptions, Requests
Sincerely,/RA/ Kenneth G. Deputy Regional Administrator Docket Nos. 50454; 50455 License Nos. NPF37; NPF66
Enclosure:
NRC Staff Assessment of Disputed NCV 05000454/2017009-01; NCV 05000455/2017009-01 cc: Distribution via LISTSERV