ML15205A356

Draft Request for Additional Information

ML15205A356
Person / Time
Site:	Peach Bottom
Issue date:	07/24/2015
From:	Richard Ennis Plant Licensing Branch 1
To:	Doug Broaddus Plant Licensing Branch 1
Ennis R, NRR/DORL/LPLI-2, 415-1420
References
TAC MF6169
Download: ML15205A356 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 24, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Douglas A. Broaddus, Chief Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Richard B. Ennis, Senior Project Manager /RA/

Plant Licensing Branch I-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT 3, DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. MF6169)

The attached draft request for additional information (RAI) was transmitted on July 23, 2015, to Mr. David Neff of Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee). This information was transmitted to clarify the licensees amendment request for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3, dated April 30, 2015. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) related to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs). The proposed changes result from a cycle-specific analysis performed to support the operation of PBAPS, Unit 3, in the upcoming Cycle 21. The re-analysis was performed to accommodate operation in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+)

operating domain based on a separate license amendment request dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503).

The draft RAI was sent to Exelon to ensure that the questions are understandable, the regulatory basis for the questions is clear, and to determine if the information was previously docketed. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensee's request.

On July 24, 2015, Mr. Neff indicated that a conference call was not required and that a response to the RAI would be provided by August 14, 2015.

Docket No. 50-278

Attachment:

Draft RAI

ML14247A503).

The draft RAI was sent to Exelon to ensure that the questions are understandable, the regulatory basis for the questions is clear, and to determine if the information was previously docketed. This memorandum and the attachment do not convey or represent an NRC staff position regarding the licensee's request.

On July 24, 2015, Mr. Neff indicated that a conference call was not required and that a response to the RAI would be provided by August 14, 2015.

Docket No. 50-278

Attachment:

Draft RAI DISTRIBUTION PUBLIC FForsaty, NRR/DSSA/SRXB LPL1-2 R/F RidsNrrDorlLpl1-2 Resource RidsNrrDorlDpr Resource RidsNrrPMPeachBottom Resource ACCESSION NO.: ML15205A356 OFFICE LPL1-2/PM NAME REnnis DATE 7/24/15

DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT SAFETY LIMIT MINIMUM CRITICAL POWER RATIO CHANGE EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION - UNIT 3 DOCKET NO. 50-278 By letter dated April 30, 2015 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15120A290), Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request for Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3. The proposed amendment would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) related to the Safety Limit Minimum Critical Power Ratios (SLMCPRs). The proposed changes result from a cycle-specific analysis performed to support the operation of PBAPS, Unit 3, in the upcoming Cycle 21. The re-analysis was performed to accommodate operation in the Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Analysis Plus (MELLLA+) operating domain based on a separate license amendment request dated September 4, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14247A503).

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information the licensee provided that supports the proposed amendment and would like to discuss the following issues to clarify the submittal.

RAI-1

Provide the differences in design and geometrical considerations between GNF2 and GE14 fuel.

RAI-2

a) Discuss the methodology and the scheme used for the PBAPS Unit 3 Cycles 20 and 21 core reloads. Is there a noticeable change in the core radial and axial power shapes between the Cycles 20 and 21 reloads?

b) For the initial core loadings of Cycles 20 and 21, specify the fuel type, number of fresh, once burned, twice and thrice burned fuel.

Attachment