ML15029A704
| ML15029A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 02/24/2015 |
| From: | Robinson L License Renewal Projects Branch 1 |
| To: | Exelon Generation Co |
| Robinson L, DLR/RPB1, 301-415-4115 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF1879, TAC MF1880, TAC MF1881, TAC MF1882 | |
| Download: ML15029A704 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 February 24, 2015 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 JANUARY 27, 2015, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SET 47, PERTAINING TO THE BYRON STATION AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (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 January 27, 2015, to discuss and clarify the staffs draft request for additional information (DRAI), Set 47, concerning the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application.
The applicant proposed an alternate method of resolving the staffs concern. In lieu of the formal RAI, the applicant proposed submitting an amendment to the LRA, which would screen in the components listed in the Request above. The staff agreed not to issue the formal RAI and to evaluate the LRA amendment when it is submitted by the applicant on the docket to the staff.
provides a listing of the participants, and Enclosure 2 contains the DRAI that had been provided to the applicant.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
/RA/ (John Daily for)
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 Request for Additional Information cc w/encls: Listserv
- (John Daily for)
OFFICE LA:RPB1:DLR*
PM:RPB1:DLR BC:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR NAME YEdmonds LRobinson*
YDiazSanabria LRobinson*
DATE 2/12/15 2/19/15 2/19/15 2/2415
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JANUARY 27, 2015, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SET 47, PERTAINING TO THE BYRON STATION AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION (TAC NOS. MF1879, MF1880, MF1881, MF1882)
DISTRIBUTION EMAIL:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDlr Resource RidsNrrDlrRpb1 Resource RidsNrrDlrRarb Resource RidsNrrDlrRasb Resource RidsOgcMailCenter RidsNrrPMByron Resource RidsNrrPMBraidwood Resource LRobinson JDaily DMcIntyre, OPA EDuncan, RIII JBenjamin, RIII AGarmoe, RIII JMcGhee, RIII JRobbins, RIII VMitlyng, RIII PChandrathil, RIII
ENCLOSURE 1 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION LIST OF PARTICIPANTS January 27, 2015 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Lindsay Robinson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Allen Hiser NRC John Daily NRC Mark Yoo NRC John Hufnagel Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon)
Al Fulvio Exelon Don Warfel Exelon Albert Piha Exelon Tom Quintenz Exelon Don Brindle Exelon Ralph Wolen Exelon Charlie Meyer Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse)
Tom Meikle Westinghouse Mark Gray Westinghouse
ENCLOSURE 2 DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION January 27, 2015 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 January 27, 2015, to discuss and clarify the following draft request for additional information (DRAI), Set 47, concerning the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA).
DRAI 4.3.4-3c Applicability:
Byron Station and Braidwood Station (BBS), all units
Background:
By letter dated November 25, 2014, the applicant responded to request for additional information (RAI) 4.3.4-3b. In its response, the applicant provided its justification to not monitor locations specified by the NRC staff for the consideration of environmentally assisted fatigue (EAF). The applicant provided its basis for how monitoring leading locations within the transient sections would bound its evaluation for EAF of the components within the transient section. The applicant also provided its justification for removing components from EAF consideration for specific components with higher screening environmentally assisted cumulative usage factors (CUFen).
Issue:
In justification for removing the Lower Head at Heater Penetration (Pressurizer Transient Section), the Upper Shell (Pressurizer Transient Section), and the Inlet & Outlet Nozzle, Weld (Unit 1 RSG Transient Section) locations from consideration for EAF, the applicant stated that an equivalent refinement of the stress analysis basis between the removed component and leading component can be achieved. The applicant stated that the equivalent refinement would be achieved for: (a) the Lower Head at Heater Penetration with the use of explicit finite element modeling of component discontinuities, (b) the Upper Shell with the use of explicit finite element modeling of component discontinuities, reduction of conservative transient adjustments, and reduction of transient grouping, and (c) the Inlet & Outlet Nozzle, Weld with the reduction of transient grouping. The applicant stated that these methodologies would continue to result in the screening CUFen values for these components to be lower than the retained leading location.
However, the applicant did not provide sufficient justification or information in its response to ensure that the methodologies used will ensure that the refinement of the fatigue analyses for different materials is equivalent for the specific components. Without quantitative results of analyses, evaluations, or methodologies, the applicant does not have sufficient justification that the refinements of the fatigue analyses for the specific component locations are equivalent. The staff does not have reasonable assurance that the specified components will not need to be monitored for the effects of EAF throughout the period of extended operation.
Request:
For each of the component locations below, provide detailed, quantitative justification to assure that refinement of its stress analysis is equivalent to the leading location within the transient section. Provide results of analyses, evaluations, or methodologies that demonstrate that the refinements are equivalent and the locations below do not need to be monitored for EAF for the period of extended operation.
a) Lower Head at Heater Penetration (Pressurizer Transient Section) b) Upper Shell (Pressurizer Transient Section) c) Inlet & Outlet Nozzle, Weld (Unit 1 RSG Transient Section)