- Agency reverses earlier violation which could have set precedent contrary to established guidance
- 270 surveillance program changes would have had to go through licensee change control review
- Change would have increased paperwork with little discernible safety benefit
After months of review, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concurred with an industry position that nuclear plant licensees have the ability to determine the frequency of their own maintenance checks without being subject to NRC oversight. The decision averts significant extra administrative burden on the industry at a time when U.S. nuclear power plants are looking to make their operations more cost-effective.
In an exceptionally rare move, the NRC reversed an earlier decision in which it had given a violation to Exelon’s Byron Generating Station related to changes to the licensee-controlled Surveillance Frequency Control Program (SFCP).
In a July 20 letter to the Nuclear Energy Institute, the NRC admitted that the SFCP alterations did not rise to the level of a regulatory requirement requiring oversight under the 10 CFR 50.59 change control process, but could be made under the licensee-controlled program.
More than 80 percent of the operating fleet has implemented the SFCP, allowing nuclear power plants to determine the frequency of inspections of certain equipment. If Byron’s violation had stood, more than 270 program changes under the SFCP would have had to go through 50.59 change control reviews. Byron alone had made 14 technical specification changes through the SFCP and all of those would likely have been subject to the change control process.
“If the NRC’s initial violation had stood, Byron and many other nuclear power plants would have seen a sharp increase in paperwork and duplicative evaluations,” NEI Technical Advisor Anderson said.
“This would have added expense and reduced efficiency of operations with little, if any, measurable safety benefit. It would also have increased wear and tear on instruments and systems due to testing.”
The original NRC violation for Byron misinterpreted the NRC-endorsed regulatory guidance on SFCP and the change control process, Anderson noted. The agency’s Region III office upheld the violation, despite an appeal from Exelon.
In response to this escalating situation, NEI presented the industry’s point of view in a February 1 letter and at a March 20 NRC public meeting, outlining why SFCP changes are not subject to the NRC’s legal oversight and are not a regulatory requirement, but an industry guideline.
In its July 20 response letter, NRC staff acknowledged that its earlier position was erroneous and rescinded Byron’s violation, allowing the plant—and others—to continue to determine the frequency of their equipment inspections under the SFCP with their current programmatic controls.
“The developments with SFCP show how important it is that the NRC and industry maintain consistent interpretations of relevant NRC regulatory requirements and industry guidance,” Anderson said.
“This allows our industry to maintain the highest standard for safe and efficient operations at our nation’s nuclear power plants.”