ML17034A356

November 15, 2016, Enforcement Petition Regarding Exelon'S Byron and Braidwood Station

ML17034A356
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood
Issue date:	02/02/2017
From:	Miranda S - No Known Affiliation
To:	Joel Wiebe Plant Licensing Branch III
References
2.206
Download: ML17034A356 (1)

Text

Wiebe, Joel From: Samuel Miranda <sm0973@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 10:44 AM To: Wiebe, Joel

Subject:

- [External_Sender] Re: RE: Re: November 15, 2016, Enfo~cement Petition Regarding Exelon's*Byron and Braidwood Stations Attachments: Byron-Ch-15-ML14363A495-IOECCS.pdf; P-2206-mtg.docx .

Joel, Thank you for the opportunity to present my petition, yesterday. *1 could have go on much longer; but I didn't want to put everyone to sleep. I think the petition is robust, and full of references, for those who wish to read it. For your reference, and distribution, I have attached a copy of my presentation, including the-two handouts. I think you will see that the presentation supplements the petition.

I have also attached a copy of the Byron & Braidwood UFSAR chapter regarding the IOECCS. Page 15.5-2 lists the three requirement~ that the analyses must meet, and page 15.5-8 (reference 5) points to the water relief test report that states the tests that Byron & Braidwood relies upon to "qualify" their PSVs were not done (Section 4.2.3, in.the report). I think these will establish the Licensee's written commitment, and its failure to meet it. This information pertains to Sara Kirkwood's questions.

My position, in one sentence, is that _qualifying the PSVs for water relief, will do nothing to show that the non-escalation requirement is satisfied. * * *- *

Regards, Sam Miranda

__. /; '>-:-_,___ -- --

• '  ;,.*::-~,,_-. -- --

'