ML14162A369: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
==Enclosures:== | ==Enclosures:== | ||
: 1. List of Participants | : 1. List of Participants | ||
: 2. List of Draft Request for Additional Information cc w/encls: Listserv | : 2. List of Draft Request for Additional Information cc w/encls: Listserv | ||
| Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
LRA Table 3.4.2-5. Discussion | LRA Table 3.4.2-5. Discussion | ||
: The applicant requested clarification on the staff's request. The staff discussed the basis for the DRAI, which was the apparent disparity between aging management activities for flow devices in several different systems. During the telephone conference, the applicant provided the following information: | : The applicant requested clarification on the staff's request. The staff discussed the basis for the DRAI, which was the apparent disparity between aging management activities for flow devices in several different systems. During the telephone conference, the applicant provided the following information: | ||
: 1. The AMR item in the table for the main turbine and auxiliaries system is associated with four flow devices (two per site) that see low quality extraction steam. During a previous inspection, the applicant identified loss of material on one of these flow devices. Consequently, the applicant included these flow devices in the Inspection of Internal Surfaces of Miscellaneous Piping and Ducting program to manage loss of material. | : 1. The AMR item in the table for the main turbine and auxiliaries system is associated with four flow devices (two per site) that see low quality extraction steam. During a previous inspection, the applicant identified loss of material on one of these flow devices. Consequently, the applicant included these flow devices in the Inspection of Internal Surfaces of Miscellaneous Piping and Ducting program to manage loss of material. | ||
: 2. The applicant determined that the loss of material was due to erosion caused by a combination of the low quality steam in the main turbine and auxiliaries system and the unique geometry of the probes within these particular flow devices. | : 2. The applicant determined that the loss of material was due to erosion caused by a combination of the low quality steam in the main turbine and auxiliaries system and the unique geometry of the probes within these particular flow devices. | ||
: 3. The applicant performed an extent of condition review and concluded that the erosion problem only applied to these 16 devices in the main turbine and auxiliaries system. | : 3. The applicant performed an extent of condition review and concluded that the erosion problem only applied to these 16 devices in the main turbine and auxiliaries system. | ||
The applicant confirmed that there was no evidence of erosion in the condensate and feedwater system by performing an ultrasonic test examination of the flow devices. | The applicant confirmed that there was no evidence of erosion in the condensate and feedwater system by performing an ultrasonic test examination of the flow devices. | ||
: 4. The applicant stated that the flow devices in the radiation monitoring system have a completely different geometry and use a different technology for measuring flow. | : 4. The applicant stated that the flow devices in the radiation monitoring system have a completely different geometry and use a different technology for measuring flow. | ||
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the staff concluded the applicant had sufficient bases to not require the addition aging management activities for the flow devices in the condensate and feedwater auxiliaries system and the radiation monitoring system. As a result, the staff concluded that this DRAI and its associated set identifier, Set 32, will not be formally issued to the applicant.}} | Based on the information provided by the applicant, the staff concluded the applicant had sufficient bases to not require the addition aging management activities for the flow devices in the condensate and feedwater auxiliaries system and the radiation monitoring system. As a result, the staff concluded that this DRAI and its associated set identifier, Set 32, will not be formally issued to the applicant.}} | ||
Revision as of 07:01, 28 April 2019
| ML14162A369 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron, Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/2014 |
| From: | Robinson L R License Renewal Projects Branch 1 |
| To: | |
| Robinson L R, 415-4115 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF1879, TAC MF1880, TAC MF1881, TAC MF1882 | |
| Download: ML14162A369 (6) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 24, 2014 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 JUNE 4, 2014, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND EXELON
GENERATION COMPANY, LLC CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SET 32, 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 June 4, 2014, to discuss and clarify the staff's draft request for additional information (DRAI), Set 32, concerning the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application. The telephone conference call was useful in clarifying the intent of the staff's DRAIs.
provides a listing of the participants, and Enclosure 2 contains a listing of the DRAIs discussed with the applicant, including a brief description on the status of the items.
The applicant had an opportunity to comment on this summary.
/RA/ 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
ML14162A369 *concurred via email OFFICE LA:DLR:RPB2 PM:RPB1:DLR BC:RPB1:DLR PM:RPB1:DLR NAME YEdmonds LRobinson YDiazSanabria LRobinson DATE 6/23/14 6/23/14 6/23/14 6/24/14
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL HELD ON JUNE 4, 2014, BETWEEN THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AND EXELON GENERATION COMPANY, LLC CONCERNING DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, SET 32, 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 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 June 4, 2014 PARTICIPANTS AFFILIATIONS Lindsay Robinson U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) John Wise NRC John Hufnagel Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon) Al Fulvio Exelon Don Warfel Exelon Albert Piha Exelon Don Brindle Exelon Ralph Wolen Exelon Paul Weyhmuller Exelon
ENCLOSURE 2 DRAFT REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, AND BRAIDWOOD STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION June 4, 2014
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 June 4, 2014, to discuss and clarify the following draft request for additional information (DRAI), Set 32, concerning the Byron Station, Units 1 and 2, and the Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, license renewal application (LRA).
DRAI 3.4.2.2-1 Applicability
- Byron Station (Byron) and Braidwood Station (Braidwood), all units
=
Background===
- License renewal application (LRA) Table 3.4.2-5, "Main Turbine and Auxiliaries System," includes an aging management review (AMR) item for carbon steel flow devices in a treated water environment that are being managed for loss of material by the Inspection of Internal Surfaces In Miscellaneous Piping and Ducting program. The item cites Generic Note H, and the associated-plant specific note states that the aging effects for carbon steel in treated water environment include loss of material due to erosion. During its reviews, the staff noted that LRA Table 3.4.2-2, "Condensate and Feedwater Auxiliaries System," and Table 3.3.2-18, "Radiation Monitor System," also include AMR items for carbon steel flow devices in a treated water environment that are being managed for loss of material. However, the associated items in those tables only cite the Water Chemistry and the One-Time Inspection programs as the applicable aging management programs (AMPs).
Issue:
For all other flow devices in a variety of water environments, the LRA cites a periodic condition monitoring program (i.e., Open-Cycle Cooling Water System, Closed-Treated Water System, or Inspection of Internal Surfaces). However, it appears that the only AMR items that are not managed by a periodic condition monitoring AMP are the two items discussed above. It is not clear to the staff why some carbon steel flow devices in a treated water environment are being managed for loss of material due to erosion, whereas other carbon steel flow devices in the same environment are not being managed for loss of material due to erosion.
Request:
Provide the bases to show that the carbon steel flow devices exposed to treated water in LRA Tables 3.3.2-18 and 3.4.2-2 will be adequately managed by only the Water Chemistry and One-Time Inspection programs and do not require management for loss of material due to erosion. Include information that addresses the apparent inconsistency between the aging management activities for these flow devices and the carbon steel flow devices exposed to treated water in
LRA Table 3.4.2-5. Discussion
- The applicant requested clarification on the staff's request. The staff discussed the basis for the DRAI, which was the apparent disparity between aging management activities for flow devices in several different systems. During the telephone conference, the applicant provided the following information:
- 1. The AMR item in the table for the main turbine and auxiliaries system is associated with four flow devices (two per site) that see low quality extraction steam. During a previous inspection, the applicant identified loss of material on one of these flow devices. Consequently, the applicant included these flow devices in the Inspection of Internal Surfaces of Miscellaneous Piping and Ducting program to manage loss of material.
- 2. The applicant determined that the loss of material was due to erosion caused by a combination of the low quality steam in the main turbine and auxiliaries system and the unique geometry of the probes within these particular flow devices.
- 3. The applicant performed an extent of condition review and concluded that the erosion problem only applied to these 16 devices in the main turbine and auxiliaries system.
The applicant confirmed that there was no evidence of erosion in the condensate and feedwater system by performing an ultrasonic test examination of the flow devices.
- 4. The applicant stated that the flow devices in the radiation monitoring system have a completely different geometry and use a different technology for measuring flow.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the staff concluded the applicant had sufficient bases to not require the addition aging management activities for the flow devices in the condensate and feedwater auxiliaries system and the radiation monitoring system. As a result, the staff concluded that this DRAI and its associated set identifier, Set 32, will not be formally issued to the applicant.