ML17159A480
| ML17159A480 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/2017 |
| From: | Bhalchandra Vaidya Plant Licensing Branch III |
| To: | Bryan Hanson Exelon Generation Co, Exelon Nuclear |
| Vaidya B K/415-3308 | |
| References | |
| CAC MF9708, CAC MF9709 | |
| Download: ML17159A480 (3) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 8, 2017 Mr. Bryan C. Hanson Senior Vice President Exelon Generation Company, LLC President and Chief Nuclear Officer (CNO)
Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555
SUBJECT:
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, ACCEPTANCE FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO UTILIZE CODE CASE N-513-4, "EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TEMPORARY ACCEPTANCE OF FLAWS IN MODERATE ENERGY CLASS 2 OR 3 PIPING SECTION XI, DIVISION 1" (CAC NOS. MF9708 AND MF9709)
Dear Mr. Hanson:
By letter dated May 17, 2017, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) submitted a request for the Proposed Alternative, a relief request (RR) 14R-10 to Utilize Code Case N-513-4, "Evaluation Criteria for Temporary Acceptance of Flaws in Moderate Energy Class 2 or 3 Piping Section XI, Division 1," for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2. The proposed alternative to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)
Section XI, "Rules for lnservice Inspection of Nuclear Power Plant Components," on the basis that compliance with the specified requirements of this section would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality and safety. Specifically, EGC is requesting in RR 14R-10 to apply the evaluation methods of ASME Code Case N-513-4 to Class 2 and 3 moderate energy piping including elbows, bent pipe, reducers, expanders, and branch tees.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's acceptance review of this RR. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the application has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the plant.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(z)(2), the applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed alternatives would provide an acceptable level of quality and safety, or that compliance with the specified requirements of Section 50.55a would result in hardship or unusual difficulty without a compensating increase in the level of quality or safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it does provide technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Given the lesser scope and depth of the acceptance review as compared to the detailed technical review, there may be instances in which issues that impact the staff's ability to complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate
B. Hanson complete the detailed technical review are identified despite completion of an adequate acceptance review. You will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
Based on the information provided in your submittal, the NRC staff has estimated that this licensing request will take approximately 240 hours10 days <br />1.429 weeks <br />0.329 months <br /> to complete. The NRC staff expects to complete this review by the requested date of September 30, 2017. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates will be communicated, during the routine interactions with the assigned project manager.
These estimates are based on the NRC staff's initial review of the application and they could change due to several factors including requests for additional information, unanticipated addition of scope to the review, and review by NRC advisory committees or hearing-related activities. Additional delay may occur if the submittal is provided to the NRC in advance or in parallel with industry program initiatives or pilot applications.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-3308.
Sincerely, Bhalchandra Vaidya, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 111 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-37 4 cc: Distribution via ListServ
B. Hanson
SUBJECT:
LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, ACCEPTANCE FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE TO UTILIZE CODE CASE N-513-4, "EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR TEMPORARY ACCEPTANCE OF FLAWS IN MODERATE ENERGY CLASS 2 OR 3 PIPING SECTION XI, DIVISION 1" DATED JUNE 8, 2017 DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDorlLpl3 Resource RidsNrrPMLaSalle Resource RidsNrrDeEpnb Resource LPL3 R/F RidsNrrLASRohrer Resource RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource RidsAcrs_MailCTR Resource RidsOgcRp Resource RDavis, NRR/EPNB ADAMS A ccess1on: ML17159A480 *N o c hange f rom t he ema1*1 from RD
. av1s OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL3/PM NRR/DORL/LPL3/LA NRR/DE/EPNB/BC NAME BVaidya SRohrer DAiiey*
DATE 06/08/17 06/08/17 06/06/17 OFFICE NRR/DORL/LPL3/BC NRR/DORL/LPL3/PM NAME DWrona BVaidya DATE 06/08/17 06/08/17 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY