ML13309A932
| ML13309A932 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 01/23/2014 |
| From: | Robinson L License Renewal Projects Branch 1 |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co |
| Robinson L, 415-4115 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF1879, TAC MF1880, TAC MF1881, TAC MF1882 | |
| Download: ML13309A932 (7) | |
Text
LICENSEE: Exelon Generation Company, LLC FACILITY: Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 31, 2013, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE BYRON STATION AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, SET 5 (TAC NOS. MF1879, MF1880, MF1881, MF1882)
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon or the applicant), held a telephone conference call on October 31, 2013, to discuss and clarify the staff's draft requests for additional information (O-RAls), Set 5, concerning the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's O-RAls. provides a listing of the participants and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the O-RAls discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
Lindsay Robinson, Project Manager Projects Branch 1 Division of License Renewal Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-454, 50-455, 50-456, and 50-457
Enclosures:
- 1. List of Participants
- 2. List of Draft Requests for Additional Information cc w/encls: Listserv
..* ML13309A932 *concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR BC:RPB1 :DLR PM:RPB1 :DLR NAME YEdmonds LRobinson JDaily IYDiaz-Sanabria LRobinson DATE 1/08/14 1/13/14 1/13/14 1/22/14 1/23/14
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON OCTOBER 31, 2013, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC, CONCERNING DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO THE BYRON STATION AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION, SET 5 (TAC NOS. MF1879, MF1880, MF1881, MF1882)
DISTRIBUTION EMAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDir Resource RidsNrrDirRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDirRasb Resource RidsOgcMaiiCenter LRobinson JDaily DMclntyre, OPA JWiebe, DORL EDuncan, Rill JBenjamin, Rill AGarmoe, Rill SR1, Byron Station, Rill JRobbins, Rill VMitlyng, Rill PChandrathil, Rill
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS October 31, 2013 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Lindsay Robinson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Billy Rogers NRC Angela Buford NRC John Hufnagel Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon)
AI Fulvio Exelon Donald Warfel Exelon Casey Muggleston Exelon Don Brindle Exelon Ralph Wolen Exelon Albert Piha Exelon ENCLOSURE 1
DRAFT REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION October31, 2013 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the staff) and representatives of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon or the applicant), held a telephone conference call on October 31, 2013, to discuss and clarify the following draft requests for additional information (O-RAls), Set 5, concerning the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA).
O-RAl 2.1-1 The staff requests that the applicant provide a basis for not including components identified as safety-related within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1 ).
Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of systems, structures, and components (SSCs) that should have included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Describe any additional seeping evaluations performed to address the 10 CFR 54.4(a) criteria. List any additional SSCs included within the scope of license renewal as a result of the review, and any structures and components (SCs) for which aging management reviews (AMR) are performed.
Discussion: The applicant noted a minor grammatical error in the second sentence. The staff agreed to revise the sentence as follows: Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have been included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). The revised question will be sent as a formal RAI titled "RA12.1-1".
O-RAl 2.1-2 The staff requests that the applicant provide a basis for not including safety-related SSCs, located in the turbine building within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1) and for not including nonsafety-related SSCs with the potential for spatial interaction within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have been included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Describe any additional seeping evaluations performed to address the 10 CFR 54.4(a) criteria. List any additional SSCs included within the scope of license renewal as a result of the review and any SCs for which AMRs are performed.
Discussion: The applicant stated that a similar question was formally requested in a previous RAI and did not warrant an additional request. The staff agreed and withdrew the question.
This question will not be sent as a formal RAI.
ENCLOSURE 2
D-RAI 2.1-3 The staff requests that the applicant provide a basis for not including abandoned equipment within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Describe any additional seeping evaluations performed to address the 10 CFR 54.4(a) criteria. List any additional SSCs included within the scope of license renewal as a result of the review, and any SCs for which AMRs are performed.
Discussion: The applicant noted a minor grammatical error in the second sentence. The staff agreed to revise the sentence as follows: Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have been included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). The revised question will be sent as a formal RAI titled "RAI 2.1-2".
D-RAI 2.1-4 The staff requests that the applicant provide a basis for not including portions of nonsafety-related piping and equipment to a point no longer in proximity to equipment performing a safety-related function. Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs which should have been included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have been included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Describe any additional seeping evaluations performed to address the 10 CFR 54.4(a) criteria. List any additional SSCs included within the scope of license renewal as a result of the review and any SCs for which AMRs are performed.
Discussion: The applicant stated that the requested information was identified in the LRA.
After further review of the LRA, the staff agreed and withdrew this question. A formal RAI will not be sent.
D-RAI2.1-5 The staff requests that the applicant provide a basis for not including the containment access facility hallway structure, which is located adjacent to containment extension structure (within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(1 )), within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a)(2). The staff requests that the applicant perform a review of this issue and indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). Describe any additional seeping evaluations performed to address the 10 CFR 54.4(a) criteria. List any additional SSCs included within the scope of license renewal as a result of the review and SCs for which AMRs are performed.
Discussion: The applicant noted a minor grammatical error in the second sentence. The staff agreed to revise the sentence as follows: The staff requests that the applicant perform a review of this issue and indicate if the review concludes that use of the seeping methodology precluded the identification of SSCs that should have been included within the scope of license renewal in accordance with 10 CFR 54.4(a). The revised question will be sent as a formal RAI titled "RAI 2.1-3".