ML15099A748: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Subject:== | ==Subject:== | ||
Importance: | Importance: | ||
ADAMSAccessionNumber: | ADAMSAccessionNumber: | ||
| Line 29: | Line 28: | ||
Peach Bottom Unit 2 -Power Ascension Hold at 104% of 3514 MWt High ML15099A748 | Peach Bottom Unit 2 -Power Ascension Hold at 104% of 3514 MWt High ML15099A748 | ||
{82EA6544-DS FE-4D67-AC67-B06FAB424E95} | {82EA6544-DS FE-4D67-AC67-B06FAB424E95} | ||
The NRC's letter dated March 27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15033A489), | The NRC's letter dated March 27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15033A489), approved the power ascension of Peach Bottom Unit 2 from 100% of 3514 MWt to 104% of 3514 MWt. As discussed in that letter, further power ascension beyond 104% of 3514 MWt will be contingent upon continued demonstration of the structural integrity of the steam dryer in accordance with the provisions in license condition 2.C(15). In addition, the staff's letter stated that additional information (detailed in the enclosure to the letter) needs to be provided to help inform the staff's decision on the acceptability of power ascension beyond 104% of 3514 MWt. This request for additional information (RAl-10) was provided in draft form to Exelon on March 19, 2015. In addition, the RAI was discussed during a meeting between Exelon and the NRC on March 26, 2015. The RAI pertained to Exelon's request for NRC approval of a proposed change in the steam dryer analysis methodology as described in Exelon's letter February 3, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 24, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 15034A573 and ML 15083A559, respectively). | ||
approved the power ascension of Peach Bottom Unit 2 from 100% of 3514 MWt to 104% of 3514 MWt. As discussed in that letter, further power ascension beyond 104% of 3514 MWt will be contingent upon continued demonstration of the structural integrity of the steam dryer in accordance with the provisions in license condition 2.C(15). | |||
In addition, the staff's letter stated that additional information (detailed in the enclosure to the letter) needs to be provided to help inform the staff's decision on the acceptability of power ascension beyond 104% of 3514 MWt. This request for additional information (RAl-10) was provided in draft form to Exelon on March 19, 2015. In addition, the RAI was discussed during a meeting between Exelon and the NRC on March 26, 2015. The RAI pertained to Exelon's request for NRC approval of a proposed change in the steam dryer analysis methodology as described in Exelon's letter February 3, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 24, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 15034A573 and ML 15083A559, respectively). | |||
The request for NRC approval of the change in methodology is required in accordance with license condition 2.C(15)(d). | The request for NRC approval of the change in methodology is required in accordance with license condition 2.C(15)(d). | ||
In my email dated April 6, 2015, at 8:02 am, I confirmed receipt of Exelon's evaluations for the 104% of 3514 MWt hold point for the Peach Bottom Unit 2 power ascension. | In my email dated April 6, 2015, at 8:02 am, I confirmed receipt of Exelon's evaluations for the 104% of 3514 MWt hold point for the Peach Bottom Unit 2 power ascension. | ||
That email also confirmed receipt of Exelon's letter dated April 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15096A007), | That email also confirmed receipt of Exelon's letter dated April 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15096A007), which provided a response to RAl-10 associated with the proposed change in the steam dryer analysis methodology dated February 3, 2015. The April 6, 2015 email started a 96 hour period for NRC review of the 104% evaluations in accordance with license condition 2.C(15)(a).4.g. | ||
which provided a response to RAl-10 associated with the proposed change in the steam dryer analysis methodology dated February 3, 2015. The April 6, 2015 email started a 96 hour period for NRC review of the 104% evaluations in accordance with license condition 2.C(15)(a).4.g. | |||
On April 7, 2015, the NRC staff sent Exelon questions regarding the steam dryer evaluation at 104% as well as on the response to RAl-1 O contained in Exelon's April 5, 2015, letter. A call to clarify the staff's questions was held with Exelon on April 8, 2015. During the call, the staff expressed concerns regarding the response to RAl-1 O. These concerns relate to issues discussed in detail during the meeting with Exelon on March 26, 2015. In order to address these concerns, the staff indicated that it needed Exelon to formally docket a response to a supplemental RAI question designated as RAI 10-S 1. Given that Exelon's response to RAl-10 did not provide sufficient information to provide the NRC with reasonable assurance regarding the structural integrity of the steam dryer at higher power levels, the staff has determined that power ascension above 104% of 3514 MWt is not warranted at this time. The staff will reconsider this determination following submittal of the response to RAI 10-S 1. Please let me know if you have any questions. | On April 7, 2015, the NRC staff sent Exelon questions regarding the steam dryer evaluation at 104% as well as on the response to RAl-1 O contained in Exelon's April 5, 2015, letter. A call to clarify the staff's questions was held with Exelon on April 8, 2015. During the call, the staff expressed concerns regarding the response to RAl-1 O. These concerns relate to issues discussed in detail during the meeting with Exelon on March 26, 2015. In order to address these concerns, the staff indicated that it needed Exelon to formally docket a response to a supplemental RAI question designated as RAI 10-S 1. Given that Exelon's response to RAl-10 did not provide sufficient information to provide the NRC with reasonable assurance regarding the structural integrity of the steam dryer at higher power levels, the staff has determined that power ascension above 104% of 3514 MWt is not warranted at this time. The staff will reconsider this determination following submittal of the response to RAI 10-S 1. Please let me know if you have any questions. | ||
1 Th.an ks, Rick 2}} | 1 Th.an ks, Rick 2}} | ||
Revision as of 05:57, 9 July 2018
| ML15099A748 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/2015 |
| From: | Richard Ennis Plant Licensing Branch 1 |
| To: | Ainger K A Exelon Generation Co |
| Ennis R B, NRR/DORL/LPLI-2, 415-1420 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF4792 | |
| Download: ML15099A748 (2) | |
Text
Ennis, Rick From: Sent: To: Cc:
Subject:
Importance:
ADAMSAccessionNumber:
ADAMSVersionSeriesld:
Ken, Ennis, Rick Thursday, April 09, 2015 4:14 PM Ken Ainger Uhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; Lund, Louise; Wilson, George; Broaddus, Doug; Lubinski, John; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Breach, Michael; Basavaraju, Chakrapani; Vik Shah; Stephen Hambric; Samir Ziada; Bower, Fred; Barber, Scott; Hansell, Samuel; Smith, Brian; Modes, Michael; David Neff; Rommel, John C.:(GenCo-Nuc);
Kevin Borton (kevin.borton@exeloncorp.com)
Peach Bottom Unit 2 -Power Ascension Hold at 104% of 3514 MWt High ML15099A748
{82EA6544-DS FE-4D67-AC67-B06FAB424E95}
The NRC's letter dated March 27, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15033A489), approved the power ascension of Peach Bottom Unit 2 from 100% of 3514 MWt to 104% of 3514 MWt. As discussed in that letter, further power ascension beyond 104% of 3514 MWt will be contingent upon continued demonstration of the structural integrity of the steam dryer in accordance with the provisions in license condition 2.C(15). In addition, the staff's letter stated that additional information (detailed in the enclosure to the letter) needs to be provided to help inform the staff's decision on the acceptability of power ascension beyond 104% of 3514 MWt. This request for additional information (RAl-10) was provided in draft form to Exelon on March 19, 2015. In addition, the RAI was discussed during a meeting between Exelon and the NRC on March 26, 2015. The RAI pertained to Exelon's request for NRC approval of a proposed change in the steam dryer analysis methodology as described in Exelon's letter February 3, 2015, as supplemented by letter dated March 24, 2015 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML 15034A573 and ML 15083A559, respectively).
The request for NRC approval of the change in methodology is required in accordance with license condition 2.C(15)(d).
In my email dated April 6, 2015, at 8:02 am, I confirmed receipt of Exelon's evaluations for the 104% of 3514 MWt hold point for the Peach Bottom Unit 2 power ascension.
That email also confirmed receipt of Exelon's letter dated April 5, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 15096A007), which provided a response to RAl-10 associated with the proposed change in the steam dryer analysis methodology dated February 3, 2015. The April 6, 2015 email started a 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> period for NRC review of the 104% evaluations in accordance with license condition 2.C(15)(a).4.g.
On April 7, 2015, the NRC staff sent Exelon questions regarding the steam dryer evaluation at 104% as well as on the response to RAl-1 O contained in Exelon's April 5, 2015, letter. A call to clarify the staff's questions was held with Exelon on April 8, 2015. During the call, the staff expressed concerns regarding the response to RAl-1 O. These concerns relate to issues discussed in detail during the meeting with Exelon on March 26, 2015. In order to address these concerns, the staff indicated that it needed Exelon to formally docket a response to a supplemental RAI question designated as RAI 10-S 1. Given that Exelon's response to RAl-10 did not provide sufficient information to provide the NRC with reasonable assurance regarding the structural integrity of the steam dryer at higher power levels, the staff has determined that power ascension above 104% of 3514 MWt is not warranted at this time. The staff will reconsider this determination following submittal of the response to RAI 10-S 1. Please let me know if you have any questions.
1 Th.an ks, Rick 2