ML19219A070
| ML19219A070 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/2019 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19219A087 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2017-000292 | |
| Download: ML19219A070 (156) | |
Text
September 2016 October 2016 September 4, 2016 - Su Mo Tu W e Th l
Fr 2
Sa 3
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa l
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 1S September 10, 2016 18 2S 19 26 20 27 21 28 22 29 23 30 24 16 23 30 17 24 31 18 2S 19 26 20 27 21 28 22 29 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I labor Day 1Non-K espons1ve Kecora Non-Responsive Record I li"on-Kespons1ve Record I 7 AM Non-Responsive Record 8 Non-Kesponsive K ecord Non-Responsive Record Non-Responsive Record 9 1Non-Kespons1ve Kecora 10 Non-r<esponsive r<ecord Non-r<espons1ve r<ecord ll'"on-r<espons1ve r<ecord I Exelon Office Director Drop*ln ll'"on-r<esponsive r<ecord 11 0 l3*D20; Dea"- Bill Non-r<espons1ve r<ecora 12PM - -
Non-Responsive Record Drop-In W/ fxefon 1 NRR-OWFN- 13D20-1Sp; De Non-Responsive Record Non-Responsive Record
- Non-Responsive Record 2 NOn-r<espons1ve r<ecord
!Non-Responsive Record 1'1on-r<espons1ve r<ecord 3
Non-Responsive Record 4
5 6
Non-Responsive Record I
l
~ I Dean, Bill 02/27/2017 11:03 AM
September 2016 October 2016 September 11, 2016 - Su 4
Mo 5
Tu We 6 7 Th l
8 Fr 2
9 Sa 3
10 Su 2
Mo 3
Tu We 4 5 Th 6
Fr 7
Sa l
8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 September 17, 2016 18 25 19 26 20 27 21 28 22 29 23 30 24 16 23 30 17 24 31 18 25 19 26 20 27 2l.
28 22 29 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Acting for M ike Noon on Acting for M ike 7 AM
~
8 l -=-=--
DiSCUS! ET Partici~
Meetin 013 Dl Backfit '
appeal ET Coo H'f 401 High Threat Security o,.,erseas Seminar Course r 01*;::;-
0-138(
Openir Badtfit in the Dean, E with 01 ... ""~ ilearn Tra,ru~g Ed OECal<
Rer* - -' - xpan - - - - 01302( ET Star ET Star ~ 0e: * \
Hold 8.abcoc 01 ' ~ - (Tim) E EDD M, c Commission Briefing on Fee 9 __]W 0-1380* _Dean. 8 &
NSIR .-...,,
NRf .- for CRGR ET Alig De, \...:
Wilcox ET Alig De, ~.... 0-1784 Mc(ree 0486 Rod~u Process Comm1ss1on Hearing Room KM HT401
-- Public - OL' ~-
~ Briefin!
~ Fuel -, or~* - -- -- - - -- - - -- 1 10 Event: Meetin, De, facility De, '
60 High on 0-1784 Exercis, I 11 Years of ileam T Decom
- llackfot<
T2 Bl
- Mc__Cre_:e HQ Operat,.
t---- -- Blocked Auditor NSIR FC~
13020 OORlC Blocke ACRS Room Center Grant, Hold for Oro l NRR*OWFN-: I--=-_;..- ~
Jeffery 12 PM D ._Dean, Bill /
DSSAII
~
Hands ct -- - - - -- - - -- --t ET length Hold for New Supervisors' Me Hold for Fla.sh Social 1 End of Exercis, Comm, NRR-OWFN-13020* 15p i
TSO FW: All Summe OPM T Pi,ni, Pre- Bri1 NRR_O: Dean. Sill EMPLOVUS C
/lnstruc '-ll--=-=~ Tele<or - - - - , - -- - - - -- - - --1 DEOR/ODW, Mallory Exelon I 37th Annual Awards AJM Action 19 - licensing BPI 2 MEETING 0-17Hl0 Squ* HQOp< 0*1'"' ' . .
Richard Ceremony E()O-OWFN-17Hl4* 14p (Public)
Marriott Bethf Johnso~! "'- ~ oss Grant.Ji U£h ~~ lWFN Auditorium Dean, 8111 Johnson. Michael 3 Comm1sSt0nC Digital l&C - Agen;~ " ~ Bac k fit'lf HT 401 High Threat Security T
~ Operational T-6t; * -'-" Ol.l02( overseas Seminar Course ET Strategic Planning Meeting Dean. 8 3WFN 02A18 Mc<
- 1 ,Learn Training NRR-0 WFN-l3D20*l5p .;. - - -- ....;:c.. ------<,
00~/NE Qu*rte,ly S*<~b,\ri " Si!:hmlt.PR.A tll\l\JH511\ ti*
4 Dean. Sill HIGH PRIORITY: Exelon Backf 017F22 Sums, Stephen O*lOHl DRACAL Resc Blocked 013 018 Dean. Bill Send Off for Personnel/Ft 013018
-,~------------1-------------1 I 5 0
- 17Hl (301*415-1700) Russell Felts
.J>ean,_Bill M ccree. Victor Paladar 6 Watch Max.Jack and Finn l
I I
I Dean, Bill 1 02/ 27/ 2017 11:04 AM
Subject:
Drop -In w/ Exelon Location: NRR-0WFN -13D20-1Sp Start: Wed 09/07/2016 1:00 PM End: Wed 09/07/20161:30 PM Recurrence: (none}
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Dean. Bill Required Attendees: Dean, Bill; Miller, Chris; Helton, Sh ana; Boland, Anne; Wilson, George; Benner, Eric; Giitter, Joseph; Lee, Samson; Anderson, Joseph; Norris, Michael Optional Attendees: DORLCAL Resource; Felts, Russell; Schmitt, Ronald Resources: NRR-OWFN-13020-l Sp Categories: Yellow Category This is to confirm a drop-in meeting between the Exelon executives listed below and the Director, NRR at 1:00 on September 7th. The Exelon attendees for the meeting will be:
- Bryan Hanson - Senior Vice President Exelon Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer
- Bradley Fewell - Senior Vice President regulatory Affairs and General Counsel The discussion topics for the meeting will be :
- Status of Exelon Decommissioning Activities o Clinton o Quad Cities
- Fitzpatrick license transfer o Current status o Rema ining actions
- ROP Ini tiatives o Streamlining SOP o Pl&R Initiative Contact me with any question regarding the meet ing.
l<on Gaston Rej!ulator~* Affairs Manager
- - Exelon Worls
- 630-652-3359 Cell~(b)(6) I Ronald.Gaston @exeloncorp.com
Subject:
H[GH PRIORITY: Exelon Backfit Appeal Decision location: 0-17Hl (301-415-1700)
Start: Mon 09/ 12/2016 5:00 PM End: Mon 09/ 12/2016 6:00 PM Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: Mccree, Victor Required Attendees: Dean, Bill; Johnson, Michael Importance: High 9/12/16 - moved from 9/15 to TODAY at Vic's request. PBurbank x1705 9 / 8 / 16 - requested by Vic. PBurbank x 1705
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Panel review Location: 013020 Start: Tue 09/13/ 2016 8:30 AM End: Tue 09/ 13/2016 9:30 AM Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Dean, Bill Required Attendees: Dean, Bill; Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; McGinty, Tim; Boland, Anne; Wilson, George; Benner, Eric; M cDermott. Brian; Evans. M ichele Optional Attendees: DORLCAL Resource
Subject:
Exelon Drop In location: 0-1784 Start: Wed 09/ 14/ 2016 2:00 PM End: Wed 09/ 14/2016 2:30 PM Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: Johnson, Michael Required Attendees: Dean, Bill; Clark, Theresa; Evans, Michele; McDermott, Brian; ConferenceRoom0l 7B4 Resource Categories: Yellow Category Exelon Attendees
- Bryan Hanson: Senior Vice President Exelon Generation, President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Exelon Nuclear
- Scot Greenlee: Senior Vice President Engineering and Technical Services
- Keith Jury: Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Proposed Discussion Topics Risk-fnfonned Decision-Making
- NRC culture on risk-informed approaches
- Treatrnenl of low-risk issues
- Risk-informed licensing actions ( 10 CFR 50.69)ffSTF-505 Stable and Predictable Regul atory Framework
- Security
- Changes to the ROP
- Fee development process
- Backfits Planl Status
- Fitzpatrick license transfer
- Decommissioning transition (Clinton & Quad Cities)
.~Decommissirnr , J
- rulemaking
~T~he~
t h-re_e_e_m~b-e~dd~e~d~em
-- a~
ils~fo~
llo_w_ th~is - ~
~ document
, ~ * * ( 1 ~, j11 , , , 1 ** , , 1 1 l
- 1 .. *
- j Ir , 1 I..* u I, I, I.. , J t I' .. ** : h I I 1 .. I i 11 111 1
- 1 t I r ..
I Scheduled by Psprogeris 8/25/16 Briefing package requested 8/25/1 6
From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Wednesday. August 24. 2016 12:16 PM To: Sprogeris, Patricia
Subject:
FW: Action: Briefing Book request for Exelon on 9.14.16 Did we get a request too?
From: Blake, Kathleen Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:53 AM To: EDOBriefingPkgRequest Resource <EDOBrie fingPkgRequest.Resource@nrc.gov>; EDO_TCCM Distribution
<EDO_TCCMDistribution@nrc.gov>
Cc: Valliere, Nanette <Nanette.Valliere@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Action: Briefing Book request for Exelon on 9.14.16 Please ask staff to prepare a briefing package for Chairman Burns' drop in that has been scheduled for:
DATE: Wednesday, 9/14/16 TIME: 2:30 p.m.
ORGANIZATION: Exelon ATTENDEES:
- Bryan Hanson: Senior Vice President Exelon Generation, President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Exelon Nuclear
- Scot Greenlee: Senior Vice President Engineering and Technical Services
- Keith Jury: Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs SUBJECT MATTER:
Risk-Informed Decision-Making
- NRC culture on risk-informed approaches
- Treatment of low-risk issues
- Risk-informed licensing actions (10 CFR 50.69)/TSTF-505 Stable and Predictable Regulatory Framework
- Security
- Changes to the ROP
- Fee development process
- Backfits Plant Status
- Fitzpatrick license transfer
- Decommissioning transition (Clinton & Quad Cities) o Decommissioning rulemaking
BFS1' AVAIIAIILE COPY Please Provide Briefing Book One Week Prior to the Drop In.
CONTACT:
Darani Reddick Regulatory Affai rs Manager &
Assistant General Counsel
- F.xeton ,.
101 Cor: s!ltut,or, Av~.. NW S11rtc 400 ( ast W5sn11~gl:*r:. DC 2000 1 Offr;e: 202 637 0339 q*.~r cn1.r~c*~11{,".h r~:e.xclon<;or1,.cor~
FURTHER INFORMATION:
- TA(s) and Coordinators have been notified of visit.
" 2 copies of briefing package is requested from staff.
OCM/SGB
Contact:
Kathleen Blake 415-1820 Thank you.
Administrative Assistant to Chairman Stephen G. Burns Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1820 Kathleen. 8 lake@nrc.gov JU.S.NRC\~r'UH ..,~1,-. , ' hA.".1 * .,,,*'l;,rhj~O"I\
.,.,..,_,... ....1.,..,._..,
~
2
From: Reddick, Darani M :(GenCo) < Darani.Reddick@exeloncorp.com >
Sent: Thursday, August 25. 2016 2:26 PM To: Sprogeris, Patricia
Subject:
[External_Sender] Exelon drop-in
- Patty, Thanks for your call this morning. Please do schedule the drop-in between Mike Johnson and the Exelon executives on 9/14, 2:00-2:30pm. Here are the Exelon attendees and the topics they'll be discussing with the Commissioners. let me know if you need anything else.
Exelon Attendees
- Bryan Hanson: Senior Vice President Exelon Generation. President and Chief Nuclear Officer.
Exelon Nuclear
- Scot Greenlee: Senior Vice President Engineering and Technical Services
- Keith Jury: Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Proposed Discussion Topics Risk-Informed Decision-Making
- NRC culture on risk-informed approaches
- Treatment of low-risk issues
- Risk-informeu licensi ng actions ( 10 CFR 50.69)/fSTF-505 Stable and Predictable Regulatory Framework
- Security
- Changes to the ROP
- Fee development process
- Backfits Plant Status
- Fitzpatrick license transfer
- Decommissioning transition (Clinion & Quad Cities) o Decommissioning rulemaking Thanks!
Darani Reddick Regulatory Affairs Manager &
Assistant General Counsel
- ** Exelon *,**:
- r. , ,:.'
101 Const.tut,011 A,t., NW Su,te: 4f)0 East Wa~inngton. DC 20001 Offic.0: 202*637,0339 Q!2.@!}l,rcdd1ck@e~eloncq1.Q.&.om
2 From: Sprogeris, Patricia Sent: Thursday, August 25. 2016 4:44 PM To: EOOBriefingPkgRequest Resource; EDO_TCCM Distr"1bution Cc: Clark, Theresa
Subject:
FW: Action: Briefing Book request for Exelon on 9.14.16 Good Afternoon, TVA will also be meeting with the OEDO, Mike Johnson on Sept 14*hat 2:00 PM in 0 -1784. Please have the briefing package updated.
Sorry for the late addition.
Thanks Patti From: Blake, Kathleen Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:53 AM To: EDOBriefingPkgRequest Resource <EDOBriefing PkgRc guest .Resource@nrc.gov>; EDO_ TCCM Distribution
<EDO TCCMDi ~tribution@nrc.gov>
Cc: Valliere, Nanette <Nanette.Va llierc(1,.i>nrc.gov>
Subject:
Action: Briefing Book reque st for Exelon on 9.14.16 Please ask staff to prepare a briefing package for Chairman Bums' drop in that has been scheduled for:
DATE: Wednesday, 9/14/16 TIME: 2:30 p.m.
ORGANIZATION: Exelon ATIENDEES:
- Bryan Hanson: Senior Vice President Exelon Generation, President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Exelon Nuclear
- Scot Greenlee: Senior Vice President Engineering and Technical Services
- Keith Jury: Vice President, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs SUBJECT MATIER:
Risk-Informed Decision-Making
- NRG culture on risk-informed approaches
- Treatment of low-risk issues
- Risk-informed licensing actions (10 CFA 50.69)/TSTF-505 Stable and Predictable Regulatory Framework
- Security
- Changes to the ROP
- Fee development process
- Backfits Plant Status
- Fitzpatrick license transfer
- Decommissioning transition (Clinton & Quad Cities) o Decommissioning rulemaking Please Provide Briefing Book One Week Prior to the Drop In.
CONTACT:
Darani Reddick Regulatory Affairs Manager &
Assistant General Counsel
~- Exe:o:i* **
101. Const,1u11on Ave .. NW Su,te 400 Er.1st Wai;111rigton_ DC 20001 Off:ce: 202 637 0339 il{3.Lci~!.:.l'E::-;Jj :-c.Y:@~),e ~q_~,c~,;c111 FURTHER INFORMATION:
.. TA(s) and Coordinators have been notified of visit.
.. 2 copies of briefing package is requested from staff.
OCM/SGB
Contact:
Kathleen Blake 415-1820 Thank you.
Administrative A~sistant to Chairman Stephen G. Bums Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1820 Kathleen.8lake@nrc.gov 2
Subject:
Back fit Appeal Location: 013D20 Start: Wed 09/14/2016 3:00 PM End: Wed 09/14/2016 4:00 PM Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Dean, Bill Required Attendees: Dean, Bill; Timothy McGinty (Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov); Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Benner, Eric; McDermott, Brian Optional Attendees: DORLCAL Resource; DE_Calendar Resource; Ross-Lee, MaryJane Resources: NRR-OWFN-13D20-l5p This meeting was requested by Bill Dean Scheduled by Shari Cohen x 1270 on 9/13/ 16
Subject:
Backfit appeal with EDO Start: Thu 09/ 15/2016 8:00 AM End: Thu 09/15/2016 8:30 AM Recurrence: (none)
Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: Bill.Dean@nrc.gov
From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: 31 Aug 2016 08:33:39 -0400 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
FW: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Roger Rihm called me about revising the one-pager on Exelon backfit appeal. He mentioned revising to reflect the fact that the EDO would have already signed the document related to the issue, and should be written as such.
Thanks Mike From : Rihm, Roger Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:30 AM To: Mahoney, Michael Cc: Wertz, Trent
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Mike, just left you a voice mail about revisions.
From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:50 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Roger, Attached is the one-pager.
Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:30 PM To: Mahoney, Michael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: FW: Talking point s on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High Mike, la'm sorry, but now OCA says it needs a one pager on the Exelon backfit appeal rather than the Q&A we discussed yesterday! Can we re-tool and get a one pager by COB tomorrow?
What OCA came to me with is attached.
From : Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:27 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>; Calgary, James <James.Colgary@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Jim believes a One-Pager is needed that will explain the timelines and the process for the Exelon backfit appeal.
From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:16 PM To: Adams, Darrell <Darrell.Adams@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
Yesterday we discussed this being a Q&A, which is what la've tasked the staff to prepare. Do you really need more?
From : Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:14 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Roger: Not sure if you generated the attached. OCA is requesting a one pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly. lta's another issue that may come up at the hearing.
Thanks
From: Mizuno, Geary Sent: 23 Jun 2016 11:10:27 -0400 To: Clark, Theresa Cc: Garmoe, Alex;Gendelman, Adam
Subject:
Public availability of EDO Backfit Appeal Charter-Bryon-Braidwood Attachments: FW: Memorandum From: V. McCree to G. Holahan re: Charter for Backfit Appeal Review Panel Associated with Byron and Braidwood Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(8), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and the Licensing Basis The attachment is publicly available in ADAMS as ML16173A311 Theresa:
Left you a phone message on this.
Following the link in the attached e-mail announcing the Charter of the EDO-level backfit appeal, the document is profiled as non-public in ADAMS . Why is this? When will it be profiled publicly-available?
Geary
From: RidsOgcMailCenter Resource Sent: 23 Jun 2016 10:25:03 -0400 To: Spencer, Mary;Gendelman, Adam;Mizuno, Geary;Scott, Catherine;Mizuno, Beth
Subject:
FW: Memorandum From: V. M ccree to G. Holahan re: Charter for Backfit Appeal Review Panel Associat ed with Byron and Braidwood Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(8), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and the Licensing Basis Fyi Leslie From: Royer, Deanna Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 10:01 AM To: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.Scarbrough@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael <Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>
Cc: RidsNroMailCenter Resour ce <RidsNroMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNrrOd Resource
<RidsNrrOd.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn3MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource
<RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsEdoMailCenter Resource
<RidsEdoMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Memorandum From: V. Mccree to G. Holahan re: Charter for Backfit Appeal Review Panel Associated with Byron and Braidwood Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(8), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and the Licensing Basis Dated: June 22, 2016 From: V. McCree This document is publicly available in ADAMS.
View ADAMS P8 Properties MLl 6 l 73A3 l l Open ADAMS P8 Document (Charter fo r Backfit Appeal Review Panel Associated With Byron and Braidwood Compliance w ith 10 CFR 50.34{8), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and the Licensing Basis)
- Thanks, Deanna Royer Administrative Assistant to Fred Miller, Acting Director Samuel Lee, Acting Deputy Director Division of Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis (301) 415-1207 T-06/Fl 1 Mai lstop: T-06/F 15
From: GODY, TonyT Sent: 27 Jun 2016 08:12:59 -0400 To: GARMOE, Alex D;BAILEY, MARISSA G;GENDELMAN, ADAMS
Subject:
RE: Nuclear Energy Institute Comments in Support of Exelon Generation Company Second-Level Backfit Appeal Thanks!
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:11 AM To: Bailey, M arissa; Gody, Tony; Gendelman, Adam
Subject:
RE: Nuclear Energy Institute Comments in Support of Exelon Generation Company Second-Level Backfit Appeal If interested, the EDO's backfit appeal panel charter is linked below.
View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16 173A31 l Open ADAMS P8 Document (Charter for Backfit Appeal Review Panel Associated With Byron and Braidwood Compliance with IO CFR 50.34(8), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and the Licensing Basis)
A lex From: Bailey, Marissa Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 5:36 PM To: Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>;
Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Nuclear Energy Institute Comments in Support of Exelon Generation Company Second-Level Backfit Appeal FYI From: Dean, Bill Se nt: Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:11 PM To: Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bailey@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>
Cc: McDermott, Brian <Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <M ichele.Evans@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Fwd: Nuclear Energy Institute Comments in Support of Exelon Generation Company Second-Level Backfit Appeal Fyi Bill Dean Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC
From: "P IETRANGELO , Tony" <arp@nei.org>
Subject:
[External_Sender] Nuclear Energy Institute Comments in Support of Exelon Generation Company Second-Level Backfit Appeal Date: 16 June 2016 15:01 To: "McCree, Victor" < Victor.McCree@nrc.gov>
Cc: "Doane, Margaret" < Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>, "NRCExecSec Resource"
<NRCExecSec.Resource@nrc.gov>, "Dean, Bill" <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>
June 16, 2016 Mr. V ictor M. McCree Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Subject:
Nuclear Energy fnstitute Comments in Support of Exelon Generation Company Second-Level Backfit Appeal Project Number: 689
Dear Mr. McCree:
I am writing to express the Nuclear Energy fnstitute's (NE[) 1support for the backfitting appeal fi led by Exelon Generation Company (EGC) on June 2, 2016,2 as well as to express our continuing concern regarding the generic implications of NRC staffs application of the "compliance exception" to the backfitting rule. 3 As you know, NEI submitted a letter4 supporting EGC's First-Level Appeal5 earlier this year. That letter also expressed our policy concerns regarding use of the compliance exception. Unfortunately, the agency's May Response6 to EGC's First-Level appeal did not adequately address those concerns.
Over the past 18 months, we have stressed that the lynchpin to appropriate application of the compliance exception is distinguishing between: (1) situations in which a "licensee has fa iled to meet known and established standards of the Commission because of omission or mistake of fact," and (2) situations in which the staff seeks to impose a "new or modified interpretation[] of what constitutes compl iance." 7The Commission has made it clear that use of the exception is appropriate in the case of the former, but that a
backfitting analysis pursuant to IO CFR 50.109(a)(3) and (c) is required in the case of the latter.8 THE LETTER IN ITS ENTIRETY IS ATTACHED Anthony R. Pietrangelo Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW, Suite I 100 Washington, DC 20004 www.nei.org NEI is responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including regulatory, financial, technical and legislative issues. NEI members include all companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.
"Appeal of Imposition of Backfit Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 2 L, GDC 29, and Licensing Basis," June 2, 2016 ("Second-Level Appeal").
See 10 C.F.R. § 50.109(a)(4)(i).
"Nuclear Energy Institute Conunents in Support of Exelon Generating Company Backfit Appeal," January 20, 2015 ("NEl January Letter").
Letter from J.B. Fewell, Exelon Generati ng Company, to W.M. Dean, NRC, "Appeal of Imposition ofBackfit Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR § 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and Licensing Basis," (Dec. 8, 2015)(ML15342Al 12)("First-Level Appeal").
"U.S. N uclear Regulatory Commission Response to Backfit Appeal-Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, and Byron Station, Units 1 and 2," May 3, 2016 (ML16095A204)("May Response").
See NEI January Lette r; Letter from E.C. Ginsberg, NEJ, to M. Doane, NRC (Nov. 7, 20 14)(describing backfitting concerns related to a requirement for cet1ain Part 70 licensees to develop quantitative exposure standards for dermal and ocular chemical exposures); Letter from E.C. Ginsberg, NEl, to the 88888888
Hon. S.G. Burns, NRC, "Industry Backfit Concerns Regarding Generic Letter (GL) 2015-01, Treatment of Natural Phenomena Hazards (NPH) in Fuel Cycle Facilities, "(April 24, 20 J5). Although it has come to the fore recently, misuse of the compliance exception is not a new concern for the indust1y. See , e.g.,
"Nuclear Energy Institute Comments in Support of Southern Company Backfit Appeal," Nov. 14, 20 11 (arguing, in part that "[i]ntcrprcting the compliance exception in a manner that would allow imposition of unanalyzed backfits in the form of virtua lly any new or different interpretation-even in the face of an explicit NRC approval to the contrary-would undermine stability, efficiency and safety focus provided by the backfit rule."); "Summary of July 11, 2000, Meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute and N uclear Utility Backfilling & Reform Group Regarding the Compliance Backfit Provision Issues (describing a meeting during which NEI presented views regarding the appropriate application of the compliance exception and to identify what it viewed as inappropriate use of the exception).
"Revisions ofBackfitting Process for Power Reactors, " 50 Fed. Reg. 38,097, 38, 103 (Sept. 20, 1985).
TAKE THE NE/ FUTURE OF ENERGY QUIZ, www.NEl.org/whynuclear FOLLOW US ON This electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy lnstitvte, Inc. The Information is in tended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by any ,other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you hove received this communication In error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you hove received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic moil and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of /i/ avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or /ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Sent through www.intermedia.com
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 29 Aug 2016 20:21:38 +0000 To: Whitman, Jennifer;Woodyatt, Diana
Subject:
FW: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Attachments: Backfit Appeal One Pager.docx Diana and Jen, I just received a request through our Division TA to provide a one-pager on the Exelon backfit appeal for the Commissiona's use during upcoming Senate hearings. I have attached a draft and would appreciate your review and comment. My deadline to get this back to my TA is COB Tuesday so if I could get feedback by lunch Tuesday it would be much appreciated.
- Thanks, Alex From : Mahoney, Michael Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:19 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon ; Garmoe, Alex; Mensah, Tanya
Subject:
Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exe lon Backfit Appeal I received a call from Roger Rihm asking for an additional one-pager to support the upcoming EPW hearing on the Exelon Backfit Appeal. Due COB tomorrow, August 30.
Thanks Mike Michael Mahoney Technical Assistant, Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Desk: (301)415-3867 Email: M ichael.M ahoney@NRC.GOV
Exelon Appeal of Compliance Backfit Key Messages
- The Backfit Rule for power reactors (10 CFR 50.109) allows the imposition of new regulatory requirements after prior NRC approval (e.g., issuance of a license), if an analysis is prepared demonstrating that the backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, when the NRC demonstrates in a documented evaluation that a proposed backfit involves adequate protection or compliance with an established NRC requirement or licensee commitment, the NRC does not need to prepare a backfit analysis. The compliance exception can be used when NRC approved something that should not have been approved as a result of omitted information or a mistake of fact.
- NRC imposed a backfit using the compliance exception on Exelon's Braidwood and Byron plants by letter dated October 9, 2015. Exelon appealed the compliance backfit claiming it did not meet the requirements of the compliance exception and a backfit analysis should be conducted.
Facts Backfit Imposed on the Braidwood and Byron Plants
- Certain events can occur that result in the reactor coolant system over-filling with water, which pushes pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) open. Once the excess water addition is stopped, the PSVs must re-close to prevent an uncontrolled leak.
- Failure of a PSV to reclose would result in a Condition II event becoming a Condition Ill event (small break LOCA), which is prohibited by the Braidwood and Byron UFSARs.
- During review of a recent power uprate request, the NRC staff (staff) determined that Exelon did not provide sufficient information to show that the relief valves would re-close after relieving water and, thus , compliance with the UFSAR.
- In 2001 and 2004 the NRC approved license amendment requests that predicted the PSVs would relieve water and re-close, even though the staff determined in hindsight that Exelon did not, at the time, provide sufficient information to show that the PSVs would re-close.
- The NRC issued a backfit in October 2015 (ML14225A871) since Exelon's safety analyses predict the PSVs will relieve water in certain events and Exelon had not shown that the PSVs would re-close to prevent escalation from a Condition II to Condition Ill event.
Exelon 's Appeal of the Compliance Backfit
- Exelon appealed the NRC's use of the compliance exception to the backfit rule (ML15342A112), stating the NRC needed to perform a backfit analysis because the NRC had not shown the 2001 and 2004 approvals to be a result of omission or a mistake of fact.
- The NRR Office Director appointed an independent three member backfit review panel to review Exelon's backfit appeal. The panel reviewed documentation, interviewed staff, and held a public meeting with the licensee (ML16070A362). The NRR Office Director accepted the panel's recommended to deny the appeal, which was communicated to the licensee by letter dated May 3, 2016 (ML16095A204).
- The licensee then appea led the NRC's decision to the EDO (ML16154A254).
- As of August 2016 the appeal to the EDO remained under review by a second independent review panel.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 31 Aug 2016 15:47:14 +0000 To: Mahoney, Michael
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal I suggest asking Theresa Clark for that information. I only know from a high level what the panel recommended to the EDO but I have not read their document and do not know if the EDO accepted their recommendation. Also, I am not a good one to articulate the basis for the panela's conclusion because I would have arrived at a different outcome.
From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:34 AM To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
FW: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Roger Rihm called me about revising the one-pager on Exelon backfit appeal. He mentioned revising to reflect the fact that the EDO would have already signed the document related to the issue, and should be written as such.
Thanks Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:30 AM To: Mahoney, Michael <Micha,el.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Mike, just left you a voice mail about revisions.
From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:50 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Roger, Attached is t he one-pager.
Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:30 PM To: Mahoney, M ichael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High Mike, la'm sorry, but now OCA says it needs a one pager on the Exelon backfit appeal rather than the Q&A we discussed yesterday! Can we re-tool and get a one pager by COB tomorrow?
What OCA came to me with is attached.
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:27 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf @nrc.gov>; Calgary, James <James.Colgary@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
Jim believes a One-Pager is needed that will explain the timelines and the process for the Exelon backfit appeal.
From : Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:16 PM To: Adams, Darrell <Darrell.Adams@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Yesterday we discussed this being a Q&A, which is what lar"'ve tasked the staff to prepare. Do you really need more?
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:14 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Roger: Not sure if you generated the attached. OCA is requesting a one pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly. lta's another issue that may come up at the hearing.
Thanks
From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: 31 Aug 2016 11:55:35 -0400 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Can you provide some information on what the panela's recommendation was (at a high-level)? Denying the appeal? Etc. I am not familiar at all really, and Roger wanted some additional information and will circle back with Theresa or someone on the panel (even we did not agree with the panel). I have to run out for an appointment and will return, but call me to discuss (415-3867), I stopped by your desk.
Thanks Mike From : Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:47 AM To: Mahoney, Michael Subje ct: RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal I suggest asking Theresa Clark for that information. I only know from a high level what the panel recommended to the EDO but I have not read their document and do not know if the EDO accepted their recommendation. Also, I am not a good one to articulate the basis for the panela's conclusion because I would have arrived at a different outcome.
From : Mahoney, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:34 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Roger Rihm called me about revising the one-pager on Exelon backfit appeal. He mentioned revising to reflect the fact that the EDO would have already signed the document related to the issue, and should be written as such.
Thanks Mike From : Rihm, Roger Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:30 AM To: Mahoney, M ichael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Mike, just left you a voice mail about revisions.
From : Mahoney, Michael Se nt: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:50 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Roger, Attached is the one-pager.
Mike From : Rihm, Roger Se nt: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:30 PM To: Mahoney, Michael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High Mike, la'm sorry, but now OCA says it needs a one pager on the Exelon backfit appeal rather than the Q&A we discussed yesterday! Can we re-tool and get a one pager by COB tomorrow?
What OCA came to me with is attached.
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:27 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>; Colgary, James <James.Colgary@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Jim believes a One-Pager is needed that will explain the timelines and the process for the Exelon backfit appeal.
From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:16 PM To: Adams, Darrell <Darrell.Adams@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE : Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Yesterday we discussed this being a Q&A, which is what la've tasked the staff to prepare. Do you really need more?
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:14 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Roger: Not sure if you generated the attached. OCA is requesting a one pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly. lta's another issue that may come up at the hearing.
Thanks
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 19 Aug 2016 15:30:43 +0000 To: Drake, Jason Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background Materials for Upcoming Hearing - Due August 19 Attachme nts: Compliance Backfit One Pager Rev 3 updated.docx, Compliance Backfit Questions and Answers Rev 3 updated.docx
- Jason, Herea's the compliance backfit information with Mirelaa's edits incorporated.
- Thanks, Alex From: Drake, Jason Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:59 PM To: Garmoe, Alex Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background Materials for Upcoming Hearing - Due August 19
- Alex, The expectation is unclear since I do not have the full pedigree of emails from Mike. If you can throw together the Q&A one-pager as a backup I would appreciate it.
- Thanks, Jason From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:57 PM To: Drake, Jason <Jason.Drake@nrc.gov>
Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background Materials for Upcoming Hearing - Due August 19 We had done a compliance backfit Q&A a while back for a separate request a" I heard nothing about the Q&A for this request, though I did use the Q&A as a starting point for the one pager.
My understanding was they were only looking for a one pager this time. I can update the Q&As and get them to you by morning so youa're ready with both.
Alex From: Drake, Jason Se nt: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 4:53 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background Materials for Upcoming Hearing - Due August 19
- Alex, Mike had these two one-pagers listed on his turnover for PGCB:
91* Compliance Exception to Backfit Rule a" PGCB (this is a new one-pager) 91* Q&A on compliance backfit - PGCB Are these being treated as separate one-page requests or did you combine the content? Seems redundant.
- Thanks, Jason
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:32 PM To: Mahoney, Michael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>; Drake, Jason <Jason.Drake@nrc.gov>
Cc: Lund, Louise <Louise.Lund@nrc.gov>; Gavrilas, Mirela <M i rela.Gavrilas@nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena
<Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background Materials for Upcoming Hearing - Due August 19
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Alex From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 9:18 AM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Khanna, Meena <Meena.Khanna@nrc.gov>
Cc: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Lund, Louise <Lou1ise.Lund@nrc.gov>; Gavrilas, M irela
<Mirela.Gavrilas@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION : Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background Materials for Upcoming Hearing - Due August 19 Importance: High Meena/Sheldon, To support an upcoming EPW hearing, DPR has been assigned a couple one-pagers to update/create new. The assignments are as follows:
~H* Compliance Exception to Backfit Rule a" DPR/PGCB (this is a new one-pager request)
~H* Improving Cost Estimating for Implementing New Regulations a" DPR/PRMB (can be found on page 36 of the file titled areCombined Senate EPWa:.al 1) 9?* Use of Qualitative Factors in Regulatory Analysis and Backfit Analysis a" DPR/PRMB (can be found on page 29 of the file titled areCombined Senate EPWa:.a )
91* Decommissioning Ru lemaking a" DPR/ PRMB (can be found on page 3 of the file titled are0ther One Pagersa~ )
These are due back to me by August 17 (gives me 2 days to work with Louise/Mirela to review).lnstructions regarding format of one-pagers is also attached.Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks Mike From: Wertz, Trent Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 8:25 AM To: Proffitt, Andrew <Andrew.Proffitt@nrc.gov>; Lamb, Taylor <Taylor.Lamb@nrc.gov>; Rankin, Jennivine <Jennivine.Rankin@nrc.gov>; Schmitt, Ronald <Ronald.Schmitt@nrc.gov>; Ruffin, Steve
<Steve.Ruffin@nrc.gov>; Chaz,ell, Russell <Russell.Chazell@nrc.gov>; Mahoney, M ichael
<Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Davidson, Evan
<Evan.Davidson@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background M aterials for Upcoming Hearing Importance: High
- All, See below. Here are the assignments:
QandA JLD a" 2,5,18, 20, 21, 44
DORL a" 3, 22, 25, 43, 48, 49 (Diablo Canyon)
DIRS a" 4, 12 DLR a" 30, 31 ORA a" 24 One Pagers:
Backfit rule a" DPR FOCD a" DIRS Risk informed decision making a" DSS (Rob Elliot)
Reactor closings a" DORL Decommission Exemptions a" DORL NAS study a" JLD Cost Estimating a" DPR Qualitative factors a" DPR Fukushima a" JLD Completed Fukushima actions a" JLD Fukushima LL a" JLD Decommissioning Rule a" DPR Indian Pt LR a" DLR Baffle Bolt a" DE Changes to ROP a" DIRS Diablo Canyon seismic a" JLD West Coast hazards a" JLD Pilgrim a" DORL Seabrook ASR a" DORL/DLR Make sure to read the instructions and use the template. For the existing one pagers be sure to search the 2 attached Word documents for them.
Let me know if la've assigned something incorrectly. la.PMve already called Roger about assigning all things SONGS to NMSS.
Trent From : Rihm, Roger Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:28 PM To: EDO_ACS Distribution <EDO ACSDistribution@nrc.gov>
Cc: Crane, Samantha <Samantha.Crane@nrc.gov>; Suber, Gregory <Gregory.Suber@nrc.gov>;
Cuadrado, Leira Y <Leira.Cuadrado@nrc.gov>; Cai, June <June .Cai@nrc.gov>; Bavol, Rochelle
<Rochelle.Bavol@nrc.gov>; Allwein, Russell <Russell.Allwein@nrc.gov>; Green, Jamie
<Jamie.Green@nrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>; Bauer, Laurel
<Laurel.Bauer@nrc.gov>; Arribas-Colon, Maria D <Maria.Arribas-Colon@nrc.gov>; Khan, Char line
<Charline.Khan@nrc.gov>; Difrancesco, Nicholas <Nicholas.DiFrancesco@nrc.gov>; Ammon, Bernice
<Bernice.Ammon@nrc.gov>; Clark, Michael <M ichael.Clark@nrc.gov>; Bellosi, Susan
<Susan.Bellosi@nrc.gov>; Bladey, Cindy <Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov>; Astwood, Heather
<Heather.Astwood@nrc.gov>; Rasouli, Houman <Houman.Rasouli@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: Issue Ticket for Preparation of Commission Background M aterials for Upcoming Hearing Importance: High ACS: Please Issue ticket for hearing prep materials. Tickets instructions and mult iple ticket attachments are attached. Due Date is AUGUST 19.
Ticket attachments:
List of one pagers wit h office assignments 2 documents containing one pagers t hat need to be updat ed
List of Qs & As with office assignments One pager format Q&A format TAs:
Let me know ASAP if you think I have incorrectly assigned something to you or you have any questions. There is a lot of stuff here and I may have missed something/messed something up, so call me if you have any confusion!
RE: one pagers a" only do those on the list; the 2 documents with source material contain more one pagers than those requested.
RE: Qs and As a" Some of the aceexistingal!I Qs and As for updating are really not Qs and As you prepared, but rather pulled (by OCA) from QFRs and associated responses. That means they may not be in the brief,. bulleted format that Qs and As need to follow. Therefore they need to be updated AND reformatted.
For all materials, please continue to try to a(cetighten them upa(!il and provide brief, focused key messages.
Thanks in advance for your support!
Compliance Exception to the Backfit Rule Key Messages
- The Backfit Rule for power reactors (10 CFR 50.109) allows the imposition of new regulatory requirements after prior NRC approval (e.g., issuance of a license), if an analysis is prepared demonstrating that the backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security, and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, when the NRC demonstrates in a documented evaluation that a proposed backfit involves adequate protection or compliance with an established NRC requirement or licensee commitment, the NRC does not need to prepare a backfit analysis.
Industry has been increasingly raising concerns that NRC is invoking the compliance exception without a sufficient documented basis, and one licensee recently appealed a compliance backfit to the EDO.
Facts The Backfit Rule for Power Reactors (10 CFR 50.109)
- A backfit is the imposition of a new or changed interpretation of an NRC regulatory requirement on a licensee or other regulated entity after prior NRC approval (e.g., issuance of a license).
- The Backfit Rule requires the NRC to prepare an analysis demonstrating that the proposed backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, the NRC does not need to prepare the backfit analysis when the NRC demonstrates, in a documented evaluation, that the backfit involves either:
o reasonable assurance of adequate protection to safety or security o compliance with an established NRC requi rement or a licensee commitment
- NRC's backfitting guidance is contained in NUREG-1409, "Backfitting Guidelines,"
Management Directive 8.4, "Management of Facility-specific Backfitting and Information Collection," and Office-level implementing instructions.
NRC is Taking Steps to Address Stakeholder Concerns
- The NRC is taking steps to ensure the compliance exception continues to be invoked properly and consistent with the requirements of the Backfit Rule and NRC implementing guidance.
- The NRC has developed classroom and online training on backfitting, and continues to refine and expand this training. One area that will be expanded upon in the near future is to provide more detailed guidance on the key elements of the two exceptions and proper documentation to support use of the exceptions.
- The EDO has tasked the CRGR (ML16133A575) with assessing the adequacy of NRC's backfit implementing guidance, training, and knowledge management.
Recent Industry Appeal of a Compliance Backfit
- A compliance backfit imposed on Braidwood and Byron (ML14225A871) was appealed by Exelon first to the NRR Office Director (ML15342A112), who upheld the backfit (ML16095A204), then appealed to the EDO (ML16154A254), whose review is ongoing as of August 2016.
Compliance Backfit Questions and Answers QUESTION: What is a backfit?
ANSWER:
- A backfit is the imposition of a new regulatory requirement on a licensee or other regulated entity after prior NRC approval is provided (e.g., after issuance of a license).
QUESTION: What must the NRC do in order to impose a backfit?
ANSWER:
- The Backfit Rule ( 10 CFR 50.109) requires the NRC to prepare an analysis demonstrating that the backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security, and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, the NRC need not prepare the analysis when the NRC demonstrates, in a documented evaluation, that the backfit involves eithe r:
o reasonable assurance of adequate protection to safety or security o compliance with a known and established NRC requirement or licensee commitment QUESTION: What is NRC doing to address industry concerns about excessive use of backfits, particularly the compliance exception?
ANSWER:
- The NRC considers every potential backfit against the requirements of the Backfit Rule and the NRC's implementing guidance.
- The NRC has developed classroom and online training on backfitting, and continues to refine and expand this training. One area that will be expanded upon in the near future is to provide more detailed guidance on the key elements of the two exceptions and proper documentation to support use of the exceptions.
- The NRC is developing revised guidance on cost-benefit analysis and consideration of qualitative factors to improve the backfit analyses conducted by staff.
- The EDO tasked the CRGR (ML16133A575) with assessing the adequacy of NRC's backfit implementing guidance, t raining, and knowledge management.
QUESTION: Exelon recently appealed a compliance backfit. What is the NRC doing about that?
ANSWER:
- In October 2015, the NRC issued a compliance backfit that affected Exelon's Braidwood and Byron Stations because t he NRC became aware that the accident analyses predicted water relief out of relief valves that are not qualified per ASME code to relieve water. The NRC
had previously approved the analyses as part of license amendments in 2001 and 2004 under the belief that the valves were, in fact, water qualified.
- Exelon exercised their right to appeal a backfit decision to the NRR Office Director. The NRR Office Director upheld the backfit based in large part on input from a backfit appeal review panel. Exelon then further appealed the backflt to the EDO.
- A final decision on whether to grant the backfit appeal is expected in late August.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 6 Jul 2016 20:51:12 +0000 To: Clark, Theresa Cc: Holahan, Gary
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Appeal to EDO
- Theresa, I returned Davea's call and provided your name as a point of contact should he have any questions or concerns about the backfit appeal. For your information, Dave Gullott can be reached at 630-657-2807.
Alex From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:21 PM To: Garmoe, Alex Cc: Holahan, Gary
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Appeal to EDO The short answer is no, not right now. (Thata's what we told Brad Fewell in a call with Gary Holahan the other day.) Todd Keene is the appointed PM from NRR, but not much has been requested him Uust CAC, public meeting setup if needed). You could point Dave to me or Gary if he has any specific questions. Thanks!
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 1:16 PM To: Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Question: Backfit Appeal to EDO
- Theresa, I received a voicemail from Dave Gullott with Exelon asking if we needed any additional info or had any questions about the backfit appeal. Since I havena't been requested to provide PM support for this appeal, la'd like to provide him with an alternate point of contact. Could you let me know who that would be so I can direct Dave their way?
- Thanks, Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communi cati ons Br anch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 31 Aug 2016 16:15:53 +0000 To: Mahoney, Michael Cc: Whitman, Jennifer
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Mike, In reading the e-mail chain again below, I can only provide a small peek into what the EDO panel did, the recommended outcome, and what the final letter to the licensee will say.
However, I highly doubt the information I have will be sufficient to meet the request to generate a areone pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly.aLJ This really was an independent effort by them. We in NRR saw a 2 page summary of a (allegedly) 30 page document and rumor is the summary did not articulate all the points the panel considered and their conclusions.
What I know: The EDO panel recommended granting the appeal What I can speculate: While non-escalation from a Category II to a Category Ill was acknowledged to be a known and established standard, and part of the Braidwood and Byron licensing basis, the EDO panel did not believe there was a known and established standard for qualification of pressurizer safety valves that relieve water.
What I do not know: What the ED0a's final decision is, what the basis for the final decision is, or when the final decision will be issued.
It looks like Theresa is out this week but Tara Inverso or Jeremy Bowen are listed as backup contacts. I also copied Jennifer Whitman in case she had any more definitive information that could help.
Alex From : Mahoney, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:56 AM To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Can you provide some information on what the panela1Ms recommendation was (at a high-level)? Denying the appeal? Etc. I am not familiar at all really, and Roger wanted some additional information and will circle back with Theresa or someone on the panel (even we did not agree with the panel). I have to run out for an appointment and will return, but call me to discuss (415-3867), I stopped by your desk.
Thanks Mike From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:47 AM To: Mahoney, M ichael <M ichael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal I suggest asking Theresa Clark for that information. I only know from a high level what the panel recommended to the EDO but I have not read their document and do not know if the EDO accepted their recommendation. Also, I am not a good one to articulate the basis for the panela's conclusion because I would have arrived at a different outcome.
From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:34 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Roger Rihm called me about revising the one-pager on Exelon backfit appeal. He mentioned revising to reflect the fact that the EDO would have already signed the document related to the issue, and should be written as such.
Thanks Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:30 AM To: Mahoney, Michael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Mike, just left you a voice mail about revisions.
From: M ahoney, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:50 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE : ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Roger, Attached is the one-pager.
Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:30 PM To: Mahoney, M ichael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High Mike, la'm sorry, but now OCA says it needs a one pager on the Exelon backfit appeal rather than the Q&A we discussed yesterday! Can we re-tool and get a one pager by COB tomorrow?
What OCA came to me with is attached.
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:27 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>; Colgary, James <James.Colgary@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Jim believes a One-Pager is needed that will explain the timelines and the process for the Exelon backfit appeal.
From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2: 16 PM To: Adams, Darrell <Darrell.Adams@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Yesterday we discussed this being a Q&A, which is what la've tasked the staff to prepare. Do you really need more?
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:14 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Roger: Not sure if you generated the attached. OCA is requesting a one pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly. lta's another issue that may come up at the hearing.
Thanks
From: Clark, Theresa Sent : 23 Jun 2016 11:37:33 -0400 To: M izuno, Geary;Araguas, Christian Cc: Garmoe, Alex;Gendelman, Adam;Holahan, Gary;Rasouli, Houman
Subject:
Re : Public availability of EDO Backfit Appeal Charter-Bryon-Braidwood
- sorry if you get this twice--I'm offsite at a meeting where there is basically no cell reception*
Hi, Geary! There is nothing particularly sensitive in it, but I think we had left it non-public as an internal tasking document. I'm it of the office today at a meeting but I'm cc-ing Christian who is looking at having another backfit tasking made public.
Christian, could you check (perhaps with Vic if he is available or Gary) and see, and I can help tomorrow when I'm back if needed? (You might check the Hatch charter from 2012--in a backfit appeal folder on my desk--to see what the precedent was. I think I did the same thing but may not have.)
Thanks, Theresa On: 23 June 2016 11: 10, "Mizuno, Geary" wrote:
Theresa:
Left you a phone message on this.
Following the link in the attached e-mail announcing the Charter of the EDO-level backfit appeal, the document is profiled as non-public in ADAMS. Why is this? When will it be profiled publicly-available?
Geary
From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: 31 Aug 2016 12:27:14 -0400 To: Garmoe, Alex;Mahoney, Michael
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Mike, I agree with Alex that NRR is not in a position to provide one-pager input on the EDO panela's decisions or the EDOa's decision process on the backfit appeal. The appeal panel findings are non-publically available in ADAMS This package is publicly available View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16236A198 in ADAM S Open ADAMS P8 Package (Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood))
I am under the impression that Bill is going to talk to Vic again before Vic makes any final decisions.
Jen From : Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 12:16 PM To: Mahoney, Michael Cc: Whitman, Jennifer Subje ct: RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Mike, In reading the e-mail chain again below, I can only provide a small peek into what the EDO panel did, the recommended outcome, and what the final letter to the licensee will say.
However, I highly doubt the information I have will be sufficient to meet the request to generate a aceone pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly.a This really was an independent effort by them. We in NRR saw a 2 page summary of a (allegedly) 30 page document and rumor is the summary did not articulate all the points the panel considered and their conclusions.
What I know: The EDO panel recommended granting the appeal What I can speculate: While non-escalation from a Category II to a Category Ill was acknowledged to be a known and established standard, and part of the Braidwood and Byron licensing basis, the EDO panel did not believe there was a known and established standard for qualification of pressurizer safety valves that relieve water.
What I do not know: What the EDOa's final decision is, what the basis for the final decision is, or when the final decision will be issued.
It looks like Theresa is out this week but Tara Inverso or Jeremy Bowen are listed as backup contacts. I also copied Jennifer Whitman in case she had any more definitive information that could help.
Alex From : M ahoney, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:56 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@ nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Can you provide some information on what the panela's recommendation was (at a high-level)? Denying the appeal? Etc. I am not familiar at all really, and Roger wanted some additional information and will circle back with Theresa or someone on the panel (even we did not agree with the panel). I have to run out for an appointment and will return, but call me to discuss (415-3867), I stopped by your desk.
Thanks Mike
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 11:47 AM To: Mahoney, Michael <M ichael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal I suggest asking Theresa Clark for that information. I only know from a high level what the panel recommended to the EDO but I have not read their document and do not know if the EDO accepted their recommendation. Also, I am not a good one to articulate the basis for the panela's conclusion because I would have arrived at a different outcome.
From: M ahoney, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:34 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Alex, Roger Rihm called me about revising the one-pager on Exelon backfit appeal. He mentioned revising to reflect the fact that the EDO would have already signed the document related to the issue, and should be written as such.
Thanks Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:30 AM To: Mahoney, Michael <M ichael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION: FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Mike, just left you a voice mail about revisions.
From: M ahoney, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 4:50 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal
- Roger, Attached is the one-pager.
Mike From: Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:30 PM To: Mahoney, Michael <Michael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION : FW: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High Mike, la'm sorry, but now OCA says it needs a one pager on the Exelon backfit appeal rather than the Q&A we discussed yesterday! Can we re-tool and get a one pager by COB tomorrow?
What OCA came to me with is attached.
From: Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:27 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>; Colgary, James <James.Colgary@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Jim believes a One-Pager is needed that will explain the timelines and the process for the Exelon backfit appeal.
From : Rihm, Roger Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:16 PM To: Adams, Darrell <Darrell.Adams@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Talking points on Exelon backfit appeal Yesterday we discussed this being a Q&A, which is what la've tasked the staff to prepare. Do you really need more?
From : Adams, Darrell Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 2:14 PM To: Rihm, Roger <Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wolf, Carolyn <Carolyn.Wolf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Talking point s on Exelon backfit appeal Roger: Not sure if you generated the attached. OCA is requesting a one pager on the backfit appeal reversal that is going to be issued shortly. lta's another issue that may come up at the hearing.
Thanks
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 18 Jul 2016 16:25:14 +0000 To: Mizuno, Geary
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Just spoke to Theresa Clark in the EDOa's office. The charter will not be public before the panel conclusion is issued and may or may not be public afterwards.
From: M izuno, Geary Se nt: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:07 PM To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO And , is there any word about making the EDO memorandum public???
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:05 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO la've heard nothing. Geary a" have you?
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: M onday, July 18, 2016 12:02 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Ga rmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Any updates?
Joel From: Stuchel l, Sheldon Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:11 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Ga rmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO No news so far. la'm hearing that EDO may be selecting Gary Holahan to review and make a recommendation on path forward, but I havena't seen anything specific yet.
From: Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:01 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal t o EDO Do you have an idea of what the status of this appeal is?
Joel From: Stuchell, Sheldon Se nt: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:27 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Darn. I was hoping they would not be sending this in.
From: Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:10 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: FW: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Alex is out.
Joel From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:06 PM To: Miller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Duncan, Eric
<Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>; Jandovitz, John <John.Jandovitz@nrc.gov>; McGhee, James (James.McGhee@nrc.gov) <James.McGhee@nrc.gov>; Benjamin, Jamie <Jamie.Benjamin@nrc.gov>;
Betancourt, Diana <Diana.Betancourt@nrc.gov>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 23 Jun 2016 15:43:39 +0000 To: Mizuno, Geary;Clark, Theresa;Araguas, Christian Cc: Gendel man, Adam;Rasouli, Houman;Araguas, Christian;Holahan, Gary
Subject:
RE: Public availability of EDO Backfit Appeal Charter-Bryon-Braidwood According to the ADAMS profile, the panel charter for Exelona's first-level appeal was dated January 12 and made publicly available on January 14.
From: M izuno, Geary Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:38 AM To: Clark, Theresa ; Araguas, Christian Cc: Garmoe, Alex ; Gendelman, Adam ; Rasouli, Houman ; Araguas, Christian ; Holahan, Gary
Subject:
RE: Public availability of EDO Backfit Appeal Charter-Bryon-Braidwood Thanks for following up on this. FYI, the original backfit appeal tasking memo for the first Exelon Appeal at the Office Director level (ML15355A081 was made public a" although I have to admit, I cannot determine WHEN it was made publicly-available.
Geary From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:35 AM To: Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>; Araguas, Christian <Christian.Araguas@nrc.gov>
Cc: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Rasouli, Houman <Houman.Rasouli@nrc.gov>; Araguas, Christian <Christian.Araguas@nrc.gov>; Holahan, Gary
<Gary. Holahan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Re: Public availability of EDO Backfit Appeal Charter-Bryon-Braidwood Hi, Geary! There is nothing particularly sensitive in it, but I think we had left it non-public as an internal tasking document. I'm it of the office today at a meeting but I'm cc-ing Christian who is looking at having another backfit tasking made public.
Christian, could you check (perlhaps with Vic if he is available or Gary) and see, and I can help tomorrow when I'm back if needed? (You might check the Hatch charter from 2012--in a backfit appeal folder on my desk--to see what the precedent was. I think I did the same thing but may not have.)
- Thanks, Theresa On : 23 June 2016 11:10, "Mizuno, Geary" <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov> wrote:
Theresa:
Left you a phone message on this.
Following the link in the attached e-mail announcing the Charter of the EDO-level backfit appeal, the document is profiled as non-public in ADAMS . Why is this? When will it be profiled publicly-available?
Geary
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 30 Aug 2016 15:26:51 +0000 To: Whitman, Jennifer;Woodyatt, Diana
Subject:
RE: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Thanks a" good catch.
From: Whitman, Jennifer Se nt: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 10:52 AM To: Garmoe, Alex; Woodyatt, Diana Subje ct: RE: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Looks good to me. One minor comment on the 3rd facts bullet. I would use PSVs instead of relief valves Please ensure Tim and Rob are on CC when you send it on.
From : Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Monday, August 29, 2016 4:22 PM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Woodyatt, Diana <Diana.Woodyatt@nr c.gov>
Subject:
FW: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Diana and Jen, I just received a request through our Division TA to provide a one-pager on the Exelon backfit appeal for the Commissiona's use during upcoming Senate hearings. I have attached a draft and would appreciate your review and comment. My deadline to get this back to my TA is COB Tuesday so if I could get feedback by lunch Tuesday it would be much appreciated.
- Thanks, Alex From : M ahoney, Michael Se nt: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:19 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Mensah, Tanya <Tanya.Mensah@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exe lon Backfit Appeal I received a call from Roger Rihm asking for an additional one-pager to support the upcoming EPW hearing on the Exelon Backfit Appeal. Due COB tomorrow, August 30.
Thanks Mike Michael Mahoney Technical Assistant, Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Desk: {301)415-3867 Email: Michael.Mahoney@NRC.GOV
From: Mizuno, Geary Sent: 18 Jul 2016 12:29:54 -0400 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Thanks. I am going to advise Exelon and NEI attya's of this.
Geary From: Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:25 PM To: Mizuno, Geary
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Just spoke to Theresa Clark in the ED0a's office. The charter will not be public before the panel conclusion is issued and may or may not be public afterwards.
From: Mizuno, Geary Se nt: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:07 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE : Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO And, is there any word about making the EDO memorandum public???
From : Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:05 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO la've heard nothing. Geary a" have you?
From : Wiebe, Joel Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:02 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Ga rmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Any updates?
Joel From : Stuchell, Sheldon Se nt: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:11 PM To : Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal t o EDO No news so far. la'm hearing that EDO may be selecting Gary Holahan to review and make a recommendation on path forward, but I havena't seen anything specific yet.
From : Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:01 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Do you have an idea of what the status of this appeal is?
Joel From : Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:27 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO
Darn. I was hoping they would not be sending this in.
From : W iebe, Joel Se nt: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:10 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Alex is out.
Joel From : Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:06 PM To: Miller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Duncan, Eric
<Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>; Jandovitz, John <John.Jandovitz@nrc.gov>; McGhee, James (James.McGhee@nrc.gov) <James.McGhee@nrc.gov>; Benjamin, Jamie <Jamie.Benjamin@nrc.gov>;
Bet ancourt, Diana <Diana.Betancourt@nrc.gov>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@nrc.gov>; Gar moe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO
From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: 18 Jul 2016 12:50:51 -0400 To: Wiebe., Joel Cc: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO No real news. I understand they now have a management team of Gary Holahan (lead), Mike Spencer, Tom Scarbrough, and Steve West to re-look at the backfit appeal and the decision by the staff.
Havena't heard anything else, nor any request for PM support.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:02 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Any updates?
Joel From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:11 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Gar moe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO No news so far. la'm hearing that EDO may be selecting Gary Holahan to review and make a recommendation on path forward, but I havena't seen anything specific yet.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:01 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Do you have an idea of what the status of this appeal is?
Joel From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:27 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Darn. I was hoping they would not be sending this in.
From : Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:10 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal t o EDO Alex is out.
Joel From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:06 PM To: Miller, Ed <Ed .Miller@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Duncan, Eric
<Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>; Jandovitz, John <John.Jandovitz@nrc.gov>; McGhee, James (James.McGhee@nrc.gov) <James.McGhee@nrc.gov>; Benjamin, Jamie <Jamie.Benjamin@nrc.gov>;
Betancourt, Diana <Diana.Betancourt@nrc.gov>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@nrc.gov>; Garmoe,
Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 30 Aug 2016 17:40:52 +0000 To: Mahoney, Michael
Subject:
RE: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Yes. They asked me to copy Tim and Rob when I sent it. Are you going to provide it to Louise and Mirela for review or should I go ahead and copy them also when I send it to you?
From: M ahoney, Michael Se nt: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 1:13 PM To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Request for One-Pager t o support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Hey Alex.
Did you get the one-pager back from DSS?
Mike From: Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Monday, August 29, 2016 4:52 PM To: Mahoney, Michael <M ichael.Mahoney@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>;
Mensah, Tanya <Tanya.Mensah@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal
- Mike, I drafted a one-pager and it is with DSS for review. I requested comments by lunch tomorrow to support providing it to you before COB.
Alex From: Mahoney, Michael Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:19 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Mensah, Tanya <Tanya .Mensah@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal I received a call from Roger Rihm asking for an additional one-pager to support the upcoming EPW hearing on the Exelon Backfit Appeal. Due COB tomorrow, August 30.
Thanks Mike Michael Mahoney Technical Assistant, Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Desk: (301)415-3867 Email: M ichael.M ahoney@NRC.GOV
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 18 Jul 2016 16:39:07 -0400 To: Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Garmoe, Alex Subje ct: Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Ok. Thanks.
On: 18 July 2016 12:50, "Stuchell, Sheldon" wrote:
No real news. I understand they now have a management team of Gary Holahan (lead), Mike Spencer, Tom Scarbrough, and Steve West to re-look at the backfit appeal and the decision by the staff.
Havena{'t heard anything else, nor any request for PM support.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 12:02 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Any updates?
Joel From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:11 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO No news so far. la('m heairing that EDO may be selecting Gary Holahan to review and make a recommendation on path forward, but I havena('t seen anything specific yet.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 1:01 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Do you have an idea of what the status of this appeal is?
Joel From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: Th ursday, June 02, 2016 4:27 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Darn. I was hoping they would not be sending this in.
From: Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:10 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Alex is out.
Joel
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:06 PM To: Miller, Ed <Ed .Miller@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Duncan, Eric
<Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>; Jandovitz, John <John.Jandovitz@nrc.gov>; McGhee, James (James.McGhee@nrc.gov) <James.McGhee@nrc.gov>; Benjamin, Jamie
<Jamie.Benjamin@nrc.gov>; Betancourt, Diana <Diana.Betancourt@nrc.gov>; Draper, Jason
<Jason.Draper@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 30 Aug 2016 17:56:52 +0000 To: Mahoney, Michael Cc: McGinil:y, Tim;Stuchell, Sheldon;Mensah, Tanya;Whitman, Jennifer;Woodyatt, Diana;Taylor, Robert;Gavrilas, Mirela;Lund, Louise;Oest erle, Eric
Subject:
RE: Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exelon Backfit Appeal Attachments: Backfit Appeal One Pager.docx
- Mike, Attached is the requested one-pager. This was reviewed by DSS and comments were incorporated.
- Thanks, Alex From: M ahoney, Michael Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 2:19 PM To: Stuchell, Sheldon ; Garmoe, Alex ; Mensah, Tanya
Subject:
Request for One-Pager to support EPW Hearing - Exe lon Backfit Appeal I received a call from Roger Rihm asking for an additional one-pager to support the upcoming EPW hearing on the Exelon Backfit Appeal. Due COB tomorrow, August 30.
Thanks Mike Michael Mahoney Technical Assistant, Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Desk: (301)415-3867 Email: M ichael. M ahoney@ NRC.GOV
From: Keene. Todd To: Whitman lennifer; Farnan Michael; Wolfgang Robert ....................
Subj ect: RE: B&B PSV Technical Evaluation and RIS 2005-29 Disposition* Call-in 888-790-1732 PasscodeJ(b)( 6)
Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 5:26:08 PM Nothing for this one.
Todd From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 5:25 PM To: Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Farnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@n rc.gov>;
Wolfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: B&B PSV Technical Evaluation and RIS 2005-29 Disposition - Ca ll-in 888-790-1732 Passcode ~
Michael/Robert, Just checking in to see if you guys need anything from me.
Todd, what are you expecting me to bring to this meeting?
- Thanks, Jen
Original Appointment-----
From: Keene, Todd Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 4:10 PM To: Keene, Todd; Whitman, Jenn ifer; Oesterle, Eric; Alley, David; Farnan, Michael; Wolfgang, Robert; Stuche ll, Sheldon
Subject:
B&B PSV Technical Eva luation and RIS 2005-29 Disposition - Ca ll-in 888-790-1732 Passcode:~
When: Wednesday, Octobe r 26, 2016 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US &
Canada).
Where: HQ-OWFN-12B06-12p Call-in: 888-790-1732 Passcode i(bH5)
Follow up to the Oct 6 alignment meeting as noted in the attached email.
<< Message: INFO: EDO Tasking - Techn ica l Evaluation and RIS 2005-29 Disposit ion >>
DE / DSS Staff meeting to discuss DE findings
- 1. Identify the scope of the issue
- 2. Propose a product (generic communication; reg guide; etc) to address the underlying technical issue regarding the PSV.
- 3. Determine path forward concerning RI S 2005-29 and the draft revision.
- 4. Generate timeline for proposed plan
From: Garmoe Alex To: Oesterle Eric Cc: Whitman lennjfer; Aney. Dayid; Keene Todd; Billerbeck. IPbo: Farnan. Michael: Wolfgang. Robert
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120-day Plan Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:34:S7 AM Attachments: imageoo1.ong Thanks Eric. I'll take th is info and incorporate it into a memo from Bil l Dean to Vic Mccree, subj ect t o any changes we discuss duri ng t he Wednesday meeting.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:36 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennirer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farna n, M ichaeli
<M ichael. Farnan@nrc.gov>; Wolfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Definition of Underlying Tech nical issue for 120-day Pla n Importance: High
- Alex, Attached please find my write-up on attempting to define the underlying technical issue for the 120-day plan to respond to the EDO on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal decision. It focuses primarily on the Westinghouse NSAL so I request that others have a look at this write-up and offer up and comments or edits. Thanks!
fvio'R. Oe¢"er-l,e, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
From: StuchelL Sheldon To: Garmoe Alex: Alley David: Oesterle Eric: Whitman lennifer: Billerbeck lohn; Farnan Michael Subj ect: RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 7:51:05 AM I do agree and support expanding the effort to include Tony's comments and thoughts.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 5:24 PM To: Al ley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jen nifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Folks, In the event the tech staff agrees that Tony's suggestion should be included in our p lan, I have drafted an optional update to the response memo to the EDO. Additional language to incorporate Tony's concern is included in the attached redline strikeout files. Your t houghts on including Tony's comments and the additional memo language are welcomed, ideally by mid-day Tuesday to support a Wednesday morning discussion with DE and DSS management.
- Thanks, Alex From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:34 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc gov>; Oest erle, Eric <Eric Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jenn ifer <Jennifer Whjtman@nrc gov>; Bil lerbeck, John
<Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, M ichael <M icbael.Faro a n@nrc.goy>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overt urn
- Alex, I have included John Billerbeck and Mike Farnan on this just to make sure I am not misspeaking.
EPNB's involvement in this is predominantly limited to the safety valves, including their function, qualification and testing. My goal is to assess the narrow scope associated with the valves. While I have no objection to assessing the broader scope proposed by Tony, I don't believe my branch organizationally has anything to add to that broader discussion.
That is not to say we have no personal interest in the issue. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to proceed, we will remain fully engaged especially with respect to valve testing requirements Dave From: Garmoe, Alex
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:45 PM To: Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterie@nrc.gov>;
Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc gov>; Alley, David <David Alley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Good afternoon, Please see the below comments from Tony Gody about the draft response to the EDO. To summarize, he is concerned that we may be taking too narrow of a view by focusing only on PSV water qualification and not more broadly on industry actions in response to RCS overfill. Is the intention, despite the current narrow language in the response memo, to consider this more broad perspective in our re-assessment of the issue? If not, should we do so? I'll consider updating the draft response memo once we are aligned on Tony's comments.
- Thanks, Alex From: Gody, Tony Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:47 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response t o EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overt urn
- Alex, My thoughts. If the proposed staff actions are limited to the milestones for addressing the underlying technical issue in NSAL-93-013 attached to the draft memorandum to Victor Mccree they appear too narrow. If the staff focuses on just their technical concern (namely PSV qualification to pass water) then the broader question about whether the industry methodology to address an RCS overfill event is acceptable will not be answered. In my opinion, we should not narrowly focus on just one technical aspect of this event. By doing so, we lose an opportunity to address, for once, the questions about whether the industry has developed an acceptable approach to prevent what caused the Three Mile Island event.
The memo from me dated March 21 , 2016, shows that the industry has addressed the RCS overfill event in many different ways, some of which may be acceptable, nearly all of which were not challenged by us. After my very quick review of the 1O FSARs, it became apparent to me that we (the NRC) have not developed a unified approach to addressing Generic Safety Issue 70. This combined with the staff position that the PORV and its' associated block valve be designated safety-related (which is a change from our conclusion in NUREG-1316) if it is relied upon to address the RCS overfill event has resulted in an increasing number of licensee's relying on their PSVs to address the event.
Of course, it am reading the staff's proposal to limit its efforts to PSV qualification to pass water wrong, then ..... never mind.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to comment.
Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:57 AM To: Gody, Tony <Jony.Gody@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Draft Response to EDO Re: Bra idwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Tony, I hope things have been going well for you down in Atlanta. As you likely recall, the EDO accepted an appeal panel recommendation to overturn the Braidwood/Byron compliance backfit after Exelon submitted a second-level appeal. On September 15, the EDO sent a memo to Bill Dean explaining his decision and requesting to be informed within 120 days of our plan to address the following items:
- Assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors.
- The positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration.
I have been working with technical staff from DSS and DE to develop a response to the memo. Since the draft response directs staff to take into account the information provided in your memo to the NRR backfit review panel, I am including our current draft for your review and comment. If possible, your comments would be appreciated by mid-day Tuesday 11 /29.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Alexander O. Garmoe Snnlor Proj('ct Man er Generic Commun1cattons Branch (PGC8) 0 1vls1on of Policy and Rulemak,n1 (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Re1ulat1on (NRR)
AleA Garm~nr"'()Y I 301*415*3814
From: Alley. David To: Whitman teonifer; Garmoe Alex; Oesterle Eric; Stuchell Sheldon: Billerbeck lohn; Farnan Michael
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 6:56:51 AM
- All, As I am on travel I am not giving this full attention. It does however appear that this is headed in a good direction.
John Billerbeck Since I haven't heard anything dissenting from you, I presume that you are happy with where things are going.
Dave From: Wh itman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:27 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@ nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <E ric.Oesterle@ nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan I believe the basis for the detailed plan being non-public is that it is pre-decisional information and the less detailed plan with the memo contains the basic steps.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:20 PM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jenn ifer <Jen nifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>;
Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon Stuchell@orc gov>; Alley, David <David Al!ey@nrc gov>; Bi llerbeck, John
<John Billerbeck@nrq~ov>; Farnan, Michael <M ichael Farnan@nrc gov>
Subject:
Question: Backfit Response Plan
- All, We've been developing the response to the EDO via a memorandum that we always knew would be publicly available and a more detailed milestone plan that initially was thought to perhaps remain non-public. Sheldon and I were discussing this non-public detailed milestone plan and wondering if there really is a basis or reason to keep it non-public. I would like to know your thoughts on whether we should make the more detailed plan public as a standalone document or attached it to the memo.
Also, I recalled feedback from Rob Taylor that we should inform the EDO that we'd be involve with the ASME code committee as we move forward with an understanding of code requirements. I added language to the third milestone to reflect this, as follows:
Determine ASME code requirements for qualification and testing of water-qualified valves and applicable NRG requirements or positions regarding such qualification and testing. Determination to be informed by interaction with ASME code
committee.
Let me know if the added language concerns you.
- Thanks, Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemakin& (OPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Re1ulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@)nrc,1ov I 301*415-3814
From; case. Michael To: Wiebe loel; Billerbeck lohn; Banic Merrilee; sun summer- Figueroa Toledo Gladys; Kirkwood Sara*
Drzewiecki Timothy; Beaton. Robert: Borromeo loshua; Oesterle. Eric Cc: Wrona. David Subject : RE: Revision to my initial thoughts regarding the petition provided by my e-mail dated January 11, 2017 Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11 :24:48 AM Nice job Joel. That path seems to match my initial thoughts as well. I want to go back and read the petition with the mindset of trying to determine what information may be "new".
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:56 AM To: Bil lerbeck, John <Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Ban ic, Merri lee <Merri lee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Sun, Summer <Summer.Sun@nrc.gov>; Case, M ichael <Michael.Case@nrc.gov>; Figueroa Toledo, Gladys
<G ladys.Figueroa@nrc.gov>; Kirkwood, Sara <Sara. Kirkwood@nre.gov>; Drzewiecki, Timothy
<Timothy.Drzewiecki@nrc.gov>; Beaton, Robert <Robert.Beaton@nrc.gov>; Borromeo, Joshua
<Joshua.Borromeo@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wrona, David <David.Wrona@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Revision to my initial thoughts regarding t he petition provided by my e-mail dated January 11, 2017 I am continuing to go through the petition as well as go through the EDO's letter dated September 15, 2016, and tthe supporting report dated August 24, 2016.
The petition is for Byron and Braidwood.
The EDO's letter and the supporting Backfit Appeal Review Panel (Panel) report are specifically about Byron and Braidwood. The EDO's letter states:
"I agree with the Panel's assessment that the current licensing basis for Byron and Braidwood complies with the applicable regulations and provides adequate protection of public health and safety."
Based on the EDO's statement and my review of the report from the Panel, it appears that the petition meets the criteria for rejecting Petitions under 10 CFR 2.206, specifically the criterion in MD 8.11, Part Ill, (C)(2)(b):
The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved, and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present s ignificant new information.
In this case the petition essentially requests the NRC to reopen the backfit decision.
As I see it, the issues that have been resolved for Braidwood and Byron in the Panel's
report include:
PSV Failure - Panel Report, Section 4.2 - "The Panel concluded that in 2001 and 2004 and at present, the known and established standard of the Commission is that the failures of PSVs need not be assumed to occur following water discharge if the likelihood is sufficiently small, based on well-informed staff engineering judgment. The Commission has not established a more detailed or prescriptive standard.
Event Escalation - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and G DCs 15, 21, and 29 are no longer at issue.
Event Classification - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and GDCs 15, 21, and 29 are no longer at issue.
Compliance with Regulations - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and GDCs 15, 21, and 29 are no longer at issue.
Adequate Protection - Panel Report, Section 4.4 - "... the Panel concluded that the current licensing basis for Byron and Braidwood complies with the applicable regulations and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Based on the above, I see the PRB's primary task will be to identify any significant new information (in the petition as supplemented by the petitioners remarks on February 1, 2017) that would invalidate the issue resolution as presented in the Backfit Appeal Review Panel Report.
Joel From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:19 PM To: Billerbeck, John <John Billerbeck@nrc gov>; Ban ic, Merrilee <Merrilee Banjc@nrc gov>; Sun, Summer <Summer.Sun@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <MjchaeLCase@nrc.gov>; Figueroa Toledo, Gladys
<Gladys.Figueroa@nrc.gov>; Ki rkwood, Sa ra <Sara.Kirkwood@nrc.gov>; Drzew iecki, Timot hy
<Timothy Drzewjecki@nrc gov>
Subject:
M iranda 2.206 Petition
Attached is my first screening of the items in the petition.
Please provide comments or markups by 1/19.
In addition to the attached my thoughts are that:
- 1. Since the issues involved are not resolved , but under review at the direction of the EDO (ML16246A247), we don't meet the criteria for rejecting the petition on the grounds that the issues have been the subject of NRC staff review and have been resolved.
- 2. I think we should strongly consider denying the requested enforcement in the petition since they are not supported by the claims, but take the action to refer the appropriate issues to the plan developed to respond to the EDO dated Jan 3, 2017 (ML16334A188).
This actually would be granting the petition, in part.
Joel
From: Garmoe Alex To: Alley David; Oesterle Eric Cc: Whitman leonifer; Keene. Todd; Billerbeck lohn; Farnan. Michael; Wolfgang Robert
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120-day Plan Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:13:07 AM Attachments: imageoo2.ong
- Dave, Good question about the division level briefing. I am not sure if t here was supposed to defi nitively be a division level briefing this week or if this was a ba ll park target figuring we'd have a plan to present by now - I'll try to get more info. I don't think we have the plan na iled down yet to the extent we would want for a division level briefing. Perhaps after the Wednesday morning d iscussion we w ill. At t his point I think we cou ld support early next week or t he week after Thanksgiving. Any other t houghts?
Alex From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 8:34 PM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@ nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Wh it man@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>;
Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, M ichael <M ichael.Farnan@nrc.gov>; W olfga ng, Robert <Robert. Wolfgang@nre.gov>
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120- day Plan Eric, Alex ,
First off, MJ mentioned a division level briefing on this subject and thought it was to be this week. I don't see anything scheduled yet. Did I miss something?
Now to the major issue at hand In not nearly so well thought out language as you propose, may I propose that our 120 day plan also include GIVEN:
- 1. The backfit appeal found that a well known and established NRC positon concerning the method of qualification of PSVs does not exist.
- 2. The backfit appeal establishes that the PSVs installed at Byron and Braidwood are needed for water discharge, i.e., it is part of the normally planned for operation of the plant The backfit appeal establishes that the PSVs installed at Byron and Braidwood are qualified for water discharge.
REQUIRED:
The ultimate resolution of technical and regulatory issues must include:
- 1. Determination of the safety significance of the Byron Braidwood PSVs
- 2. Determination of ASME Code compliance with testing requirements for PSVs at Byron and Braidwood given that the backfit appeal established that they are qualified to pass water
- 3. Assess the significance of these issues to the fleet
- 4. Determination of technical reasonableness for design and operation of PSVs for both steam and water
- 5. Determination of whether new licenses should be treated be treated differently than existing licenses with respect to this issue
- 6. Depending on findings above, engage licensee/region with respect to actions to resolve both technical and regulatory issues
- 7. Issue one or more RISs to clarify NRC position on existing licensees and new licenses (including renewed licenses)
STEPS TO BE EMPLOYED:
To accomplish Requirement 1:
- a. Revisit scenario in question
- b. Review General Design Criteria and other regulations for applicability
- c. Review available data on valve performance to determine technical significance of passing water
- d. Assess scenario with respect to regulatory and technical information
- e. Draft position paper Time required to implement ** months To accomplish Requirement 2:
- a. Review ASME OM code to determine periodic test requirements for PSVs qualified and required to pass water
- b. Determine whether licensees have met those requirements (this may require communications with the licensee
- c. Draft final position and recommendation concerning this issue Time required to implement** months To accomplish Requirement 3:
- a. Determine appropriate means to determine extent of this issue at other PWRs , i.e.,
number of plants which require PSVs to pass water and steam. Potential paths include:
review FSARs in house; request assistance from residents ; generic letter.
- b. Obtain necessary information
- c. Determine significance Time required to implement ** months To accomplish Requirement 4:
- a. Survey valve manufacturers concerning the technical feasibility of long term operation of PSVs with water and steam.
- b. Develop position regarding this issue for new licenses
- c. Draft position paper Time required to implement ** months I am going to quit here for the time being. Given what I have written for steps to accomplish 4, I am not sure whether I got 4 and 5 backwards or not. I think you can get the drift of where I am headed and can start to throw stones as necessary. Once we get past number 5, the last couple may be easy. Not sure whether we need more detail than I have provided (probably do) but it is after 8:30 and I would like to be done for tonight.
Dave
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:36 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whit man, Jennif er <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David .Alley@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farna n, M ichael
<M ichael,Farnan@nrc.gov>; W olfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Definit ion of Underlying Tech nical Issue for 120-day Plan Importance: High
- Alex, Attached please find my write-up on attempting to define the underlying technical issue for the 120-day plan to respond to the EDO on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal decision. It focuses primarily on the Westinghouse NSAL so I request that others have a look at this write-up and offer up and comments or edits. Thanks!
Evio R. Oe1,t'e,r-le, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/055/SRXB 301-415-1014
From: Oesterle. Eric To: Garmoe Alex: Alley David: scuchell Sheldon: Whitman lennifer: Billerbeck !oho: Farnan Michael
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:52:43 AM Attachments: Response Memo to EDO Rev 4 Internal Detailed Plan Option 2-ERO.docx.
- Alex, Good updates. My only comment is on the dates. See attached for proposed revised dates.
Also, I think Tony"s holistic review approach is consistent with what I had proposed early on:
The underlying technical issue associated with NSAL-93-013 is qualification of pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) for water discharge to ensure adequate performance in response to an inadvertent operation of emergency core cooling system (IOECCS) at power event.
The analysis of an IOECCS event includes prevention of the pressurizer from becoming water solid, which could result in an unisolable breach of the reactor coolant system (RCS) should a PSV stick open following water relief. The transition of an IOECCS event to an unisolable breach of the RCS would result in violation of another licensing criterion, specifically the prevention of a condition II event (as defined in XXX) from transitioning to a condition Ill event (also as defined in XXX) without an additional failure. To preclude the pressurizer from going solid the following actions were credited (where?):
a) Operator action to secure high head safety injection pumps prior to pressurizer fill b) If the operator action was not timely, provide pressure relief through PORV(s) c) If block valves were maintained normally closed during power operation, amend TS to allow at least one block valve to be open during power operation so that a PORV could be used for this event d) If block valves were maintained normally closed during power operation, allow discharge through PSVs, however PSVs must be qualified for liquid discharge e) If PSVs were not qualified for liquid discharge, replace or upgrade PSVs for liquid discharge f) Discharge piping for the PORVs/PSVs all the way to the pressurizer relief tank must be qualified for liquid discharge Each of these steps associated with the ECCS must be considered for every PWR licensee, including the equivalent mass addition event analyses for those PWR licensees with CE and B&W nuclear steam supply systems. The NRC must also determine what constitutes acceptable qualification of PSVs for liquid discharge, if the PSVs are credited for reseating following liquid discharge, such that an IOECCS event does not transition to an unisolable breach of the RCS (small break LOCA) as a result of the failure of a PSV to reseat.
Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 5:24 PM To: Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oest erle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jen nifer <Jen nifer.Whitman @nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, Michael <Michael.Farna,n@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Folks, In the event the tech staff agrees that Tony's suggestion should be included in our p lan, I have drafted an optional update to the response memo to the EDO. Additional language to incorporate Tony's concern is included in the attached redline strikeout files. Your t houghts on including Tony's comments and the additional memo language are welcomed, ideally by mid-day Tuesday to support a Wednesday morning discussion with DE and DSS management.
- Thanks, Alex From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:34 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon Stuchell@orc gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Erjc.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John
<John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, I have included John Billerbeck and Mike Farnan on this just to make sure I am not misspeaking.
EPNB's involvement in this is predominantly limited to the safety valves, including their function, qualification and testing. My goal is to assess the narrow scope associated with the valves. While I have no objection to assessing the broader scope proposed by Tony, I don't believe my branch organizationally has anything to add to that broader discussion.
That is not to say we have no personal interest in the issue. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to proceed, we will remain fully engaged especially with respect to valve testing requirements Dave From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:45 PM To: Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>;
Whitman, Jennifer <Jeooifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <Dayjd.Alley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Draft Response to EDO Re: Bra idwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Good afternoon, Please see the below comments from Tony Gody about the draft response to the EDO. To summarize, he is concerned that we may be taking too narrow of a view by focusing only on PSV water qualification and not more broadly on industry actions in response to RCS overfill. Is the intention, despite the current narrow language in the response memo, to
consider this more broad perspective in our re-assessment of the issue? If not, should we do so? I'll consider updating the draft response memo once we are aligned on Tony's comments.
- Thanks, Alex From: Gody, Tony Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:47 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response t o EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, My thoughts. If the proposed staff actions are limited to the milestones for addressing the underlying technical issue in NSAL-93-013 attached to the draft memorandum to Victor Mccree they appear too narrow. If the staff focuses on just their technical concern (namely PSV qualification to pass water) then the broader question about whether the industry methodology to address an RCS overfill event is acceptable will not be answered. In my opinion, we should not narrowly focus on just one technical aspect of this event. By doing so, we lose an opportunity to address, for once, the questions about whether the industry has developed an acceptable approach to prevent what caused the Three Mile Island event.
The memo from me dated March 21 , 2016, shows that the industry has addressed the RCS overfill event in many different ways, some of which may be acceptable, nearly all of which were not challenged by us. After my very quick review of the 10 FSARs, it became apparent to me that we (the NRG) have not developed a unified approach to addressing Generic Safety Issue 70. This combined with the staff position that the PORV and its' associated block valve be designated safety-related (which is a change from our conclusion in NUREG-1316) if it is relied upon to address the RCS overfill event has resulted in an increasing number of licensee's relying on their PSVs to address the event.
Of course, it am reading the staff's proposal to limit its efforts to PSV qualification to pass water wrong, then ..... never mind.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to comment.
Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:57 AM To: Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Draft Response to EDO Re: Bra idwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Tony, I hope things have been going well for you down in Atlanta. As you likely recall, the EDO accepted an appeal panel recommendation to overturn the Braidwood/Byron compliance
backfit after Exelon submitted a second-level appeal. On September 15, the EDO sent a memo to Bill Dean explaining his decision and requesting to be informed within 120 days of our plan to address the following items:
- Assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors.
- The positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration.
I have been working with technical staff from DSS and DE to develop a response to the memo. Since the draft response directs staff to take into account the information provided in your memo to the NRR backfit review panel, I am including our current draft for your review and comment. If possible, your comments would be appreciated by mid-day Tuesday 11 /29.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Alexander O. Garmoe Senior Project M,1n lger Generic Communications Branch (PGCB) o,v,s1on of Polley and Rultmak1n1 (OPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Reaulatlon (NRR)
Alex Garm<>tf>nrc.aov I 301*415*381<:
Internal Detailed Plan to Address NSAL-93-013 Underlying Technical Issue Implementation Plan Details Taraet Date Define underlyinQ technical issues in NSAL Complete Identify relevant operating experience, ~6G-1-73/31/2017 assess the extent of condition across the fleet, and determine if the underlying technical issue has safety significance 0 Work with DIRS/IOEB to identify operating experience related to IOECCS occurrences and relevant data on PSV performance 0 DSS/SRXB to lead identification of the potentially affected plant designs and licensees, what NRC has previously accepted with respect to PSV qualification, and determination of whether PSV application appears appropriate for these licensees 0 Determine whether closure of Gl-70 remains accegtable and/or imgacts the staff gosition on the technical issue in NSAL-93-013 (Consider information from TGody-iA Memo to ML16081A405 is publicl y NRR Backfit Panel (ML16081A405) available in ADAMS.
0 Document this outcome in a white paper from DSS/SRXB to DSS manaQement Determine ASME code requirements for 2/28/20173131/2017 qualification and testing of water-qualified valves and applicable NRC requirements or positions regarding such qualification and testing.
0 Identify applicable ASME code language 0 Identify applicable NRC requirements and what specifically is required 0 Identify any gaps or lack of clarity in requirements Develop appropriate message to be 2/28/20174}~ 1..L2_017 communicated regarding the technical issue, regulatory requirements, and status of the fleet 0 Is there a concern with PSV application and methods of qualification?
0 What is the extent of condition across the fleet?
0 Is long term operation of PSVs with water and steam technically feasible?
0 What has been previously accepted Page 1 of 2
for PSV qualification by NRC?
0 What are currently acceptable methods of PSV qualification?
0 What are ASME OM code requirements for testing water-qualified valves?
Determine the appropriate process for 3/31/20175/19/2017 disposition/communication of staff position.
Consider whether any aspects of the issue should be included in the Generic Issues Program.
0 Consider whether Gl-70 should be re-assessed or u12dated (iAfem:iatieA from TGody-+A Memo to NRR Backfit Panel (ML16081A405) 0 Ensure coordination and review by OGC and CRGR Implement the selected process in TBD based on selected process accordance with Agency guidance Consider plant-specific actions to address Following completion of communication of the concerns identified in extent of condition staffs position review Page 2 of 2
From: Oesterle, Eric To: Whitman tennifer; Garmoe Alex; stuchell Sheldon; Alley David; Billerbeck tohn: Farnan Michael
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 6:02:28 AM I agree with Jennifer's understanding of the basis and agree with the additional wording re:
interaction with ASME. Thanks Alex.
Eric From: Wh itman, Jennifer Se nt: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:27 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchel l@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan I believe the basis tor the detailed plan being non-public is that it is pre-decisional information and the less detailed plan with the memo contains the basic steps.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:20 PM To: Oesterle, Eric <Erjc.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Wbitman@nrc gov>;
Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc gov>; Bi llerbeck, John
<Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, Michael <Michael. Farna n@nrc.gov>
Subject : Question: Backfit Response Plan
- All, We've been developing the response to the EDO via a memorandum that we always knew would be publicly available and a more detailed milestone plan that initially was thought to perhaps remain non-public. Sheldon and I were discussing this non-public detailed milestone plan and wondering if there really is a basis or reason to keep it non-public. I would like to know your thoughts on whether we should make the more detailed plan public as a standalone document or attached it to the memo.
Also, I recalled feedback from Rob Taylor that we should inform the EDO that we'd be involve with the ASME code committee as we move forward with an understanding of code requirements. I added language to the third milestone to reflect this, as follows:
Determine ASME code requirements for qualification and testing of water-qualified valves and applicable NRG requirements or positions regarding such qualification and testing. Determination to be informed by interaction with ASME code committee.
Let me know if the added language concerns you.
- Thanks,
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generi c Communications Branch (PGCB)
Divi si on of Policy and Rul emaki ng (DPR)
Offi ce of Nuclear Reactor Re1ulat1on (NRR)
Alex.Garm0t@nrc.1ov I 301*415* 3814
From : Whitman. 1eooifer To: Garmoe Alex: Alley David: Stuchell Sheldon: Oesterle Eric: Billerbeck !oho: Farnan Michael
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 5:53:51 PM I think you have incorporated the comments well and believe that the broader technical issue should be evaluated.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 5:24 PM To: Al ley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oest erle@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennife r <Jen nifer.Whit ma n@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<John. Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, M ichael <M ichael.Fam a n@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidw ood/Byron Backfit Overt urn
- Folks, In the event the tech staff agrees that Tony's suggestion should be included in our plan, I have drafted an optional update to the response memo to the EDO. Additional language to incorporate Tony's concern is included in the attached redline strikeout files. Your t houghts on including Tony's comments and the additional memo language are welcomed, ideally by mid-day Tuesday to support a Wednesday morning discussion with DE and DSS management.
- Thanks, Alex From: Alley, David Sent: M onday, November 28, 2016 2:34 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@orc gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jenn ifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John
<John. Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, M ichael <Michael.Farna o@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, I have included John Billerbeck and Mike Farnan on this just to make sure I am not misspeaking.
EPNB's involvement in this is predominantly limited to the safety valves, including their function, qualification and testing. My goal is to assess the narrow scope associated with the valves. While I have no objection to assessing the broader scope proposed by Tony, I don't believe my branch organizationally has anything to add to that broader discussion.
That is not to say we have no personal interest in the issue. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to proceed, we will remain fully engaged especially with respect to valve testing requirements Dave
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:45 PM To: Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon Stuchell@orc gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc gov>;
Whitman, Jennifer <Jeooifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David Alley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Draft Response to EDO Re: Bra idwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Good afternoon, Please see the below comments from Tony Gody about the draft response to the EDO. To summarize, he is concerned that we may be taking too narrow of a view by focusing only on PSV water qualification and not more broadly on industry actions in response to RCS overfill. Is the intention, despite the current narrow language in the response memo, to consider this more broad perspective in our re-assessment of the issue? If not, should we do so? I'll consider updating the draft response memo once we are aligned on Tony's comments.
- Thanks, Alex From: Gody, Tony Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:47 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, My thoughts. If the proposed staff actions are limited to the milestones for addressing the underlying technical issue in NSAL-93-013 attached to the draft memorandum to Victor Mccree they appear too narrow. If the staff focuses on just their technical concern (namely PSV qualification to pass water) then the broader question about whether the industry methodology to address an RCS overfill event is acceptable will not be answered. In my opinion, we should not narrowly focus on just one technical aspect of this event. By doing so, we lose an opportunity to address, for once, the questions about whether the industry has developed an acceptable approach to prevent what caused the Three Mile Island event.
The memo from me dated March 21 , 2016, shows that the industry has addressed the RCS overfill event in many different ways, some of which may be acceptable, nearly all of which were not challenged by us. After my very quick review of the 1O FSARs, it became apparent to me that we (the NRG) have not developed a unified approach to addressing Generic Safety Issue 70. This combined with the staff position that the PORV and its' associated block valve be designated safety-related (which is a change from our conclusion in NUREG-1316) if it is relied upon to address the RCS overfill event has resulted in an increasing number of licensee's relying on their PSVs to address the event.
Of course, it am reading the staff's proposal to limit its efforts to PSV qualification to pass water wrong, then ..... never mind.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to comment.
Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:57 AM To: Gady, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Draft Response t o EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfi t Overturn
- Tony, I hope things have been going well for you down in Atlanta. As you likely recall, the EDO accepted an appeal panel recommendation to overturn the Braidwood/Byron compliance backfit after Exelon submitted a second-level appeal. On September 15, the EDO sent a memo to Bill Dean explaining his decision and requesting to be informed within 120 days of our plan to address the following items:
- Assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors.
- The positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration.
I have been working with technical staff from DSS and DE to develop a response to the memo. Since the draft response directs staff to take into account the information provided in your memo to the NRR backfit review panel, I am including our current draft for your review and comment. If possible, your comments would be appreciated by mid-day Tuesday 11 /29.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Alexander O. Garmoe S"nlor Pro1ect Man g r Genertc Commun1cat1ons Branch (PGC8) 01v1slon o! Po11cy and Rulemalun& (OPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Re1utat1on (NRR)
Alex Garmoe(tnrc cov I 301-415*3814!
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 29 Sep 2016 13:04:24 +0000 To: Jessica Krejcie
Subject:
120 Day Action Item Related to Braidwood/Byron Backfit Attachments: ML16246A247.pdf This document is publicly availab le in ADAMS.
- Jessica, The action item is mentioned in the third full paragraph on page 3 of the attached EDO letter, which is a public document.
It concerns the underlying technical issues in NSAL-93-013 and RIS 2005-29. The action is to inform the EDO of NRR's plan to address these issues through the appropriate generic process.
I don't have a problem taking this item off of our licensing status agenda, but we can also leave it on there if you want to track the status of the generic issue.
Joel
Unionof d . .
[ Concerne Sc1ent1sts BACKFIT RULE AND CRGR's ROLE DAVE LOCHBAUM DIRECTOR, NUCLEAR SAFETY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
§50.109 Paragraph (a)(1)
Backfitting is defined as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components, or design of a facility; or the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or the procedures or organization required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission's regulations or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission's regulations that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position.
§50.109 Paragraph (a)(3)
Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, the Commission shall require the backfitting of a facility only when it determines, based on the analysis described in paragraph (c) of this section, that there is a substantial increase in the overall protection of the public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the backfit and that the direct and indirect costs of implementation for that facility are justified in view of this increased protection.
§50.109 Paragraph (a)(4)
"The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section are inapplicable and, therefore, backfit analysis is not required and the standards in paragraph (a)(3) of this section do not apply where the Commission or staff, as appropriate, finds and declares, with appropriated documented evaluation for its finding, either:
{i) That a modification is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Commission, or into conformance with written commitments by the licensee; or (ii) That regulatory action is necessary to ensure that the facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the common defense and security; or (iii) That the regulatory action involves defining or redefining what level of protection to the public health and safety or common defense and security should be regarded as adequate."
Point 1 The backfit regulation prevents the NRC from imposing a new or revised requirement on plant owners unless it is necessary to provide adequate protection or the benefit to be realized by the requirement justifies its cost.
So, the open and public rulemaking process that adds or revises federal regulations can only impose new requirements that are necessary for adequate protection or formally justified.
§50.109 Guidance & Implementation NUREG-1409, Backfitting Guidelines NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Management Directive 8.4, Management of Facility-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection LIC-202 Rev. 2 , Procedures for Managing Plant Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests LIC-400, Procedures for Controlling the Development of New and Revised Generic Requirements for Power Reactor Licensees Committee to Review Generic Requirements ML021270338, Plant-Specific Backfit Audit Report
Point 2 The backfit regulation is backed by voluminous guidance and implementing documents to help NRC avoid imposing requirements that are not needed for adequate protection and lack justifiable cost.
Point 3 The backfit regulation and accompanying guidance and implementing documents are intended to protect plant owners from the NRC imposing unnecessary and unjustified requirements.
Point 4 Requirements imposed by the NRC after navigating the backfit regulation's many wickets are intended to protect public health and safety.
Points 5 and 6 When unnecessary and unjustified requirement are imposed, plant owners have been inadequately protected and unfairly burdened.
When necessary and justified requirements are imposed but not met, the public has been inadequately protected and unfairly burdened.
Backfit vs. Backoff What regulation and associated guidance and implementation documents apply when the NRC staff decides to allow a reactor shut down for 22 years to restart despite known violations of fire protection regulations, permits three reactors to continue operating for years despite known violations of fire protection regulations, or deems longer than a decade sufficient time to eventually achieve compliance with necessary and justified requirements?
The Backoff Hole THIS SLIDE UNFORTUNATELY BLANK
Safety Last at Browns Ferry March 19, 1985: TVA shut down Unit 1 June 2, 2007: Unit 1 reconnected to the grid May 1, 2007: NRC accepted non-compliances 1 . TVA, in its letter of April 24 , 2006 (Reference 7 ) , committed to identify the Append i x R, Paragraph I II . G. 2 , noncompl i a nces involving operator manual actions , to place them i nto TVA ' s correcti ve act i on progr am , a nd t o implement compensatory measur es . The r efore , TVA shoul d compl ete the commitments made in its Apr i l 24 , 2006 , lette r , as wel l as any o ther r es t a r t re l ated commitments made previ ousl y to the NRC regarding post- fire operator manual May 1 , 2007 El - 48 act i ons . [STATUS : TVA noti fi ed the NRC of compl etion of these commitments in a letter dated Apri l 24 , 2007 (Reference 8 ) . ]
Browns Ferry Point TVA was unable (or unwilling) to find the time during the 22-year outage to bring Unit 1 into compliance with either the fire protection regulations adopted by the NRC in 1980 as a result of the Browns Ferry fire or the alternative fire protection regulations adopted by the NRC in July 2004.
NRC approved restart of Unit 1 knowing that it did not comply with requirements imposed because they were needed for adequate protection of public health.
Where's the regulatory analysis? Where's the CRGR evaluation of backing off from this generic requirement? What protects the public from the NRC not enforcing a requirement necessary for adequate protection?
Duke Requests NRC's Approval for Fire Protection Fixes at Oconee RONALD A. JONES
~ Dulce SVP, N uclear Operations rOEnergy. N uclear Generation Duke Energy Corpora tion 526 South Church Street Charlotte, NC 28202 M alling Address:
EC07H IP 0 . Box 1006 Charlotte, N C 28201-1006 7 04 382 8149 704 382 6056 fax
, a;ones@duke-energy.com U.S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTENTION : Document Control Desk Washington , D .C : 20555
Subject:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Site Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 License Amendment Request to Adopt NFPA 805 Perfo.rmance-Based Standard for Fire Protectio n for Light Water Reactor Generating Plants (2001 Edition).
License Amendment Request (LAR) No. 2008-01 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0816/ML081650475.pdf 15
§50.109 Paragraph (a)(4)
"The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section are inapplicable and, therefore, backfit analysis is not required and the standards in paragraph (a)(3) of this section do not apply where the Commission or staff, as appropriate, finds and declares, with appropriated documented evaluation for its finding, either:
{i) That a modification is necessary to bring a facility into compliance with a license or the rules or orders of the Commission, or into conformance with written commitments by the licensee; or (ii) That regulatory action is necessary to ensure that the facility provides adequate protection to the health and safety of the public and is in accord with the common defense and security; or (iii) That the regulatory action involves defining or redefining what level of protection to the public health and safety or common defense and security should be regarded as adequate."
NRC Amends Operating Licenses for Fire Protection Requirements UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, O.C. 20555-0001 Mr. T. Preston Gillespie '
Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENTS REGARDING TRANSITION TO A RISK-INFORMED, PERFORMANCE-BASED FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.48(c) (TAC NOS. ME3844, ME3845, AND ME3846)
Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103630612.pdf 17
NRC Gives Duke Two Years to Implement the Approved Changes Transition License Conditions
- 1) The licensee shall complete the items described in Section 2.9, T able 2.9-1, "Implementation Items," in the NRC SE dated December 29, 2010, prior to January 1, 2013. Implementation items that result in a risk increase, as part of a plant change evaluation. can be self-approved by the licensee, as long as the overall transition risk remains a decrease (i.e., collective risk increases of transition and implementation are offset by the PSW modification risk decrease.)
- 2) To complete the transition to full compliance with 10 CFR 50.48(c), the licensee shall implement the modifications listed in Section 2.8, Table 2.8.1-1 , "Committed Plan1 Modifications," in the NRC SE dated December 29, 2010.
- 3) The licensee shall maintain appropriate compensatory measures in place until completion of all modifications and implementation items delineated above.
More than 4Yz
- 4. This license amendmelillP"i~lffl!'""'~;ac::. of its date of issuance and sha ll be fully implemented prior t years after FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Duke requested the changes Gloria Kulesa , Chief Plant licensing Branch 11-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Re ulation 18 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1036/ML103630612.pdf
Duke Asks NRC to Extend Deadline Until December 31, 2014 T. PRESTON GILLESPIE, JR.
ADuke
- Vice President r,Energy~ Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy ONO I VP I 7800 Rochester Hwy.
Seneca. SC 29672 864-873-4478 864-873-4208 fax T.Gillespie@duke-energy.com U.S. Nuclear .Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555
Subject:
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Oconee Nuclear Site Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Numbers 50-269, 50-270 and 50-287 NFPA 805 Performance-Based Standard for Fire Protection fo r Light Water Reactor Generating Plants (2001 Edition)
LAR 2012-09, License Amendment Req uest for Revision to License Condition 3.0 , Transition License Conditions #1 and #2 19 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M L1226/ML12262A372.pdf
NRC Denies 2-Year Extension UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
~ nuary 15, 201 ~
Mr. Preston Gillespie Site Vice President Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672-0752
SUBJECT:
OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3, DENIAL OF AMENDMENT REQUEST REGARDING EXTENSION OF LICENSE CONDITION FOR NFPA 805 TRANSITION (TAC NOS. ME9184, ME9185, AND ME9186) 20 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M L1234/ML12345A204.pdf
NRC's Reasons for the Denial The proposed changes requested to extend the due dates for certain plant modifications required by a previous license amendment which approved the transition to NFPA 805 for Oconee 1, 2, and 3. As described below, the increase in core damage frequency (COF) resulting from the change requested in the July 2012 application is about four times the greatest acceptable increase in CDF for a facil ity with a very low total risk, and 40 times the greatest acceptable CDF increase for a high total risk plant. This significant increase in CDF warrants denial of the aQplication based on the guidance of RG 1. 174.
The requested 2-year extension is at least four times the allowable core damage frequency, or risk of core meltdown, increase.
21 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M L1234/ML12345A204.pdf
Follow-up to NRC's Denial UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON , D.C. 20555.0001 c July 1. 2013 ::>
EA-13-010 NOT April 1st, which Mr. Scott Batson would make lots more Site Vice President sense of this NRC antic Oconee Nuclear Station Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 7800 Rochester Highway Seneca, SC 29672-0752
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF VIOLATION AND CONFIRMATORY ORDER RELATED TO A FIRE PROTECTION PROGRAM LICENSE CONDITION (OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3) 22 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M L1311/ML13114A928.pdf
And NRC Ordered Fixes by...
- 6. The licensee shall complete all items in Table 2.9-1 , "Implementation ltems,'t of the December 29, 2010, Oconee NFPA 805 safety evaluation report no later than After turning down a 2-year extension request as being too risky, the NRC ordered that the fixes be completed within 4 years.
23 Source: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M L1311/ML13114A928.pdf
Oconee Point With regulatory analysis, due process, and all other backfit regulation niceties satisfied, the NRC imposed the NFPA 805 fire protection requirements.
Via a public license amendment process, NRC approved Oconee's transition to NFPA 805 within a specified timeline.
With no regulatory analysis-like evaluation and without any public process, the NRC permitted the three reactors to continue operating for years in non-compliance with requirements deemed necessary for adequate protection. What protects the public from the NRC not enforcing requirements necessary for adequate protection?
24
Other Backoff Examples
- Schedular exemptions from Fukushima Orders
- Reactors slowly working towards resolution of GSl-191 - a generic safety issue determined by NRC to have high priority last century (Sept. 1996).
- Oconee still working towards resolution of tornado protection problems identified even earlier in the 20th century.
- Reactors ( except Seabrook) operating despite not complying with GDC 17 requirements ( e.g., the open open phase condition condition.)
25
Backfit vs. Backoff Point The backfit regulation et al protects plant owners from the NRC imposing unjustified requirements.
Nothing comparable protects the public from the NRC backing off justified requirements.
If it takes X, Y, and Z to protect owners from the NRC imposing requirements unnecessarily, then it also takes X, Y, and Z to protect the public from the NRC relaxing requirements unnecessarily.
Backoff Point Context UCS does not contend that formal measures for backoffs comparable to those for backfits would prevent the NRC from allowing reactors to continue operating while known safety problems were resolved or from extending a deadline for their resolution.
The backfit measures do not prevent new and revised requirements from being imposed. They protect owners from unnecessary and unjustified backfits.
The public deserves comparable protection against unnecessary and unjustified backoffs.
Square Peg/Round Hole Backfits New or Revised New or Revised Requirement Requirement YES NO Traditional Backfit Process YES Requirement Imposed YES Requirement Imposed YES Requirement Not Imposed NO
Square Peg/Round Hole Backfits
Adequate protection and both the costs and benefits in cost-benefit analyses are so vaguely defined, uncertain, and subjective that it is way, way, way, way, way too easy to tweak inputs to achieve any desired outcome.
The process permits the NRC staff to impose or reject candidate requirements as it wants.
The process is objective: both industry and UCS object to it.
Square Peg/Round Hole Backfits
~ Wanted by NRC and Imposed: Spent fuel pool level instrumentation NRC's Spent Fuel Pool Consequences Study concluded little risk after irradiated fuel has been in pool for 60 days. If true, why didn't the NRC Order calendars instead of level instruments?
~ Unwanted by NRC and Not Imposed: Expedited transfer of irradiated fuel from unsafe, unsecure spent fuel pools into safer and securer dry storage
~ (Wanted then) Unwanted by NRC and Not Imposed: Filters for containment venting of highly radioactive gases during beyond design basis accidents
"Safety Spotlight" on Backfit Appeal I Quarterly Strategic Alignment Meeting I November 3, 2016 Theresa Clark In September 2016, the EDO overturned on appeal from Exelon a compliance backfit associated with certain pressurizer valves at Byron and Braidwood (B/B).
Key Messages Based on the Appeal Panel's Review:
- Consistent with the NRC mission and values, it is the staff's right and responsibility to raise safety concerns.
- It is the agency's responsibility to employ its processes to evaluate and document the resolution of such concerns.
- Evaluation of issues should consider plant licensing basis, industry-wide precedent, and safety significance.
- Compliance backfits are justified for failure to meet "known and established" NRC standards at time of approval because of omission or mistake of fact, not for new or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance.
What was the backfit about?
- Staff's concern that pressurizer valve failure following water discharge could cause escalation of events to more serious conditions, counter to plant licensing basis (e.g., ANS-51.1/N18.2-1973), predicated on several positions:
o ASME Code qualification for water relief had not been conducted.
o Water relief through an unqualified valve will cause it "to stick fully open."
o The single-failure criterion in the regulations had also not been applied to the valves.
- 2015 positions differed from those taken for B/B in 2001 and 2004 license amendments.
- The staff determined the 2001/2004 positions were in error and that backfitting was justified under the compliance exception (10 CFR 50.109(a)(4}{i)). The staff directed the licensee to take action to resolve the non-compliance.
What is (some of) the history?
- 1968-1972: GDCs define AOOs (normal operation to once in plant life events) and Postulated Accidents
- 1970+: ANS (and Westinghouse) formulate ANS Conditions I (normal), II (frequent), Ill (infrequent), IV (accident) and non-escalation position for transient analysis
- 1979+: TMI Action Plan item 11.D.1 requires "qualification" by testing of pressurizer valves; EPRI testing showed that valves did not stick open on water discharge; NRC issued safety evaluations for each plant
- 1993: Westinghouse (NSAL-93-013) identifies analysis problems (no Part 21 or generic NRC action)
- 1996+: Licensees update FSAR under 10 CFR 50.59 or request license amendments with varying approaches including reanalysis, PORV upgrades, safety valve crediting, etc.
- 200,1 and 2004: Staff issues B/B amendments, including credit for safety valve water discharge
- 200,s : RIS-05-029 observes that PWR analyses include errors (e.g., non-safety PORVs, un-qualified valves)
- 2013: Staff determined that a proposed RAI on a B/B measurement uncertainty uprate was out of scope (not issued)
- 2015: Staff issued backfit to B/B What happened next?
o Positions taken by the NRC staff in the 2015 backfit decision represent new and different staff views on how to address pressurizer safety valve performance following water discharge.
o 2001 and 2004 staff reviews were not in error; though they differ from the current staff approach, they were well-informed and technically founded decisions.
o The 2015 staff position is a well-intentioned and conservative approach that could provide additional safety margin, but not the basis for a compliance backfit.
o Very small risk reduction would be expected from the backfit (separate from defense-in-depth considerations).
- NRR is preparing a plan to reassess issues identified in RIS 2005-29 and its draft Revision 1 (due January 2017).
References:
Each of these documents is publicly
- EDO letter to Exelon on appeal : ML16243A067 available in ADAMS
- EDO memo to NRR on appeal: ML16246A247
- EDO Backfit Appeal Review Panel report: ML16236A202 and ML16236A208 (additional references inside)
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 19 Feb 2016 16:11:53 +0000 To: Rankin, Jennivine
Subject:
Accepted: Backfit Discussion
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 13 Jan 2016 20:47:04 +0000 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
Accepted: FW: Backfit Review Panel Kickoff Meeting
From: Taylor, Robert Sent: 26 Sep 2016 11:03:59 -0400 To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Whitman, Jennifer;Alley, David;Lubinski, John;Ross-Lee, MaryJane;McGinty, Tim;Anderson, Shaun
Subject:
ACTION: 120-day Plan for 8/8 8ackfit Issue
- Eric, Please take the lead in coordinating with DE regarding what the path forward should be in response to Vic McCree's direction to develop a plan within 120 days. I would suggest that you set a goal of having an early discussion with division management on the potential options either next week or the following week. That will let you get early perspectives and thoughts on how to proceed before you go too far in developing options.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- Regards, Rob
From: Poole, Justin Sent: 10 Dec 2015 08:42:06 -0500 To: Krohn, Paul Cc: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
ACTION: Review of Braidwood-Byron Backfit one-pager Attachments: Braidwood-Byron Backfit.docx Importance: High
- Paul, In the workload meeting yesterday we got on the topic of the Exelon's letter requesting an appeal of our backfit determination. I mentioned that the EDO's office (through ETA - Jessie) had requested a one-pager on the topic. Attached is the one-pager Joel (PM for Braidwood/Byron) has put together. Please review and provide any comments so we may send this up by COB today. If you would like a quick brief, Joel (and I) can stop by. Thanks Justin
Braidwood-Byron Stations Backfit Key Messages
- Braidwood and Byron are not in compliance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix A, general design criteria (GDC) 15, "Reactor Coolant System Design," GDC 21 , "Protection System Reliability and Testability," and GDC 29, "Protection Against Anticipated Operational Occurrences," 10 CFR 50.34(b), "Final Safety Analysis Report," and the plant-specific design bases showing there will be no progression of Category II events into Category Ill events ("prohibition of progression of Condition II events") ..
- The inadvertent operation of emergency core cooling system (IOECCS) analysis that is the center of the non-compliance was previously accepted by the NRC staff in the Issuance of Amendments regarding the Increase in Reactor Power, Byron Station Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2," May 4, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011420274).
Facts
- The UFSAR IOECCS analysis predicts water relief through a valve that is not qualified for water relief. Therefore, the staff concludes that the UFSAR does not contain analyses that demonstrate the structures, systems, and components will meet the design criteria for Condition II faults as stated in the Braidwood and Byron UFSAR.
- Because the analyses in UFSAR, Chapters 15.5.1, 15.5.2, and 15.6.1 , do not show that Condition II faults will not cause a more serious fault, the staff concludes that these UFSAR analyses do not demonst rate compliance with GDCs 15, 21 , and 29.
- The N RC staffs conclusions with respect to noncompliance with GD Cs 15, 21, and 29, 10 CFR 50.34(b) and UFSAR provisions with respect to prohibition of progression of Condition II events, differs from a previous NRC position on the acceptability of the Braidwood and Byron design bases. The staffs earlie r position was documented in the SE for an increase in reactor power enclosed with a letter dated May 4 , 2001 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML011420274).
Therefore, the staff has determined that the current conclusion and position constitutes backfitting under 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
- The staff determined that the backfitting falls within the compliance exception in 10 CFR, Section 50.109(a)(4)(i), because the staffs interpretation, guidance, and general application (as opposed to the specific NRC approval for Byron and Braidwood) of GDCs 15, 21, and 29, 10 CFR, Section 50.34(b), have not changed, with respect to the unacceptability of the specific Condition II events at the Braidwood and Byron plants evolving to Condition Ill events. In addition, the staffs interpretation of these plants' UFSAR provisions with respect to prohibition of progression of Condition II events has not changed. Consequently, a backfit analysis is not required to support the staffs determinations, and the staff has not prepared a backfit analysis to support the SE.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 18 Dec 2015 13:41:20 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
ACTION: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Attachments: Backfit Review Panel Charter.docx
- Joel, I have been working on the NRC's actions to take in response to the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal that was received on December 8. One of the tasks is to create a backfit review panel charter, which I have drafted and attached. The individuals listed in the charter have been discussed with Bill Dean and have expressed a willingness to participate on the panel. This is an initial draft that reflects my efforts to get up to speed on this issue. I used the backfit review panel charter from the 2011 Hatch backfit appeal as guidance. At your earliest convenience, could you review what I drafted and suggest edits as needed? In particular, please review the questions asked of the panel to make sure they make sense and cover the issues in the licensee's appeal. LIC-202 prescribes a pretty quick timeline for all of this so I am hop,ing to move this document forward on Monday 12/21 .
Thanks for any assistance you can provide!
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy a nd Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NR.R)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
Date XXX MEMORANDUM TO: Marissa Bailey, Acting Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Anthony T. Gody, Jr, Director Division of Reactor Safety Region II Office Adam S. Gendelman, Acting Deputy Director Reactor and Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel FROM: William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUBJECT CHARTER FOR BACKFIT REVIEW PANEL ON EXELON APPEAL OF BACKFIT AFFECTING BRAIDWOOD AND BYRON STATIONS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, AND THE LICENSING BASIS In a letter dated December 8, 2015, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) appealed the imposition of a backfit at the Braidwood and Byron Stations. The process by which the NRC will review and respond to the appeal is documented in Management Directive Handbook (DH) 8.4, "Management of Facility-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection," section Ill.A, "Facility-specific Backfits," as implemented by Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-202, Revision 2, "Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests," section IV.A, "Non-Adjudicatory Appeal Process."
In accordance with section IV.A of LIC-202, and after consultation with your management, I am designating Marissa Bailey as Chairman of the Backfit Review Panel and Anthony Gady and Adam Gendelman as members of the Backfit Review Panel. The purpose of the panel is to review EGC's appeal of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's determination that a backfit is necessary at the Braidwood and Byron Stations and the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception.
In an October 9, 2015, letter, the NRC forwarded the results of a review of licensing basis documents for Braidwood and Byron Stations. The staff determined that Braidwood and Byron were not in compliance with General Design Criteria (GDC) 15, GDC 21 , GDC 29, 10 CFR 50.34(b), and the plant-specific design bases, and invoked the compliance backfit exception in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i). On December 8, 2015, the licensee appealed the staff's decision in a letter to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation , which stated that the compliance
exception is not applicable and the NRC must conduct a cost-justified, substantial safety backfit analysis.
The Panel should review the October 9, 2015, backfit issuance; the December 8, 2015, appeal; and supporting information and provide a response to the following:
- 1. Explain whether the 2001 power uprate and 2004 pressurizer safety valve setpoint amendment evaluations were based, at least in part, on the use of water qualified pressurizer safety valves, which was subsequently found to be unsubstantiated.
- 2. Explain what formed the basis of the backfit analysis.
- 3. Explain whether the NRC attempted to identify an omission or mistake of fact.
- 4. Explain whether the NRC's application and interpretation of GDCs 15, 21, and 29 in the 2015 backfit safety evaluation differed from previous documented positions.
- 5. Explain whether RIS 2005-029 affected the NRC's evaluation of the abnormal operational occurrences listed in the appeal.
- 6. Explain whether the requirements of the compliance backfit exception of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i) are met.
The responses to these questions should be sufficient to provide a recommendation of whether a backfit is necessary at Braidwood and Byron and whether the staffs application of the compliance backfit exception is appropriate. In conducting its review, the Panel may seek staff support. It should review appropriate background information including the October 9, 2015, backfit imposition letter and enclosed safety evaluation; the 2001 and 2004 safety evaluations referenced in the appeal; and the licensee's December 8, 2015, appeal to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The Panel should complete its review and provide recommendations and written responses to the questions within 2 weeks following the public meeting with EGC, or by January 29, 2016, if a public meeting was declined by the licensee.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 23 Dec 2015 09:17:00 -0500 To: Brown, Eva Cc: Beaulieu, David;Poole, Justin;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
ACTION: Concurrence Requested Attachments: Backfit Review Panel Charter 12-22 to 12-23 changes.docx Importance: High
- Eva, You have probably heard about the Exelon appeal of a backfit imposed on Braidwood and Byron earlier this fall. In accordance with LIC-202, I have been working with DORL and DPR mgmt. to provide Bill Dean with an acknowledgment letter to the licensee (completed) and a charter for a backfit review panel (in progress). Justine Poole and George Wilson concurred on the draft charter yesterday, however subsequent concurrers requested changes that I believe necessitate re-concurrence. I have attached a red-line/strikeout file showing the changes from Justin's prior concurrence. The changes reflect the desire to provide the panel with more freedom to review the backfit appeal as they deem necessary, rather than specifically prescribing how they should do it.
Since you're acting for Justin and this is a short timeline item, I am asking for your concurrence as soon as reasonably achievable on the revised charter, which is available in ADAMS as ML15355A081. Background information for the backfit is available in ADAMS package ML15355A083. Following your concurrence I will work through Trace Orf to seek re-concurrence from George Wilson.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generi c Communi cati ons Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov J 301-415-3814 From: Poole, Justin Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:16 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Concurrence Requested
- Alex,
I concur.
Justin From : Wiebe, Joel Sent: M onday, December 21, 2015 5:37 PM To: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaul ieu@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>;
Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Re: ACTION: Concurrence Requested
- Justin, I have seen this and agree with this charter.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 05:24 PM To: Poole, Justin; Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Beaulieu, David; Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
ACTION: Concurrence Requested Sheldon and Justin, Your review and concurrence is requested on the draft Charter for the Braidwood/Byron Backfit Review Panel. Because of the short timeline for review of the backfit appeal prescribed in LIC-202, your concurrence is requested as soon as practical and by Wednesday, December 23.
Please ensure you reply to both myself and Dave Beaulieu since we will be sharing project management duties over Ch ristmas and New Year's weelks. The link below to ML15355A081 is for the draft Charter. To aid in your review, the second link below to ML15355A083 is for the ADAMS package with all associated B/B backfit appeal documents, which includes the initial backfit issuance and the licensee's appeal letter.
This document is publicly available in A DAMS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15355A081 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Backfit Review Panel Charter Regarding December 8, 2015 Exelon Appeal of Imposed Backfit Affecting Braidwood and Byron Stations)
Package: ML15355A083 Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thanks!
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
MEMORANDUM TO: Marissa G. Bailey, Acting Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Anthony T. Gody, Jr, Director Division of Reactor Safety Region II Office Adam S. Gendelman, Acting Deputy Director Reactor and Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel FROM: William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUBJECT CHARTER FOR BACKFIT REVIEW PANEL ON EXELON APPEAL OF BACKFIT AFFECTING BRAIDWOOD AND BYRON STATIONS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, AND THE LICENSING BASIS In a letter dated December 8, 2015, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) appealed the imposition of a compliance backfit at the Braidwood and Byron Stations. The process by which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will review and respond to the appeal is documented in Management Directive Handbook 8.4, "Management of Facility-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection," section Ill.A, "Facility-specific Backfits," as implemented by Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-202, Revision 2, "Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests," section IV.A, "Non-Adjudicatory Appeal Process."
In accordance with section IV.A of LIC-202, and after consultation with your management, I am designating Marissa Bailey as Chairman of the Backfit Review Panel, and Anthony Gody and Adam Gendelman as members of the Backfit Review Panel. The purpose of the panel is to review EGC's appeal of the NRC staff's determination that a backfit is necessary at the Braidwood and Byron Stations, and the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception.
In an October 9, 2015, letter, the NRC transmitted the results of a review of licensing basis documents for Braidwood and Byron Stations. The staff determined that Braidwood and Byron were not in compliance with General Design Criteria (GDC) 15, GDC 21 , GDC 29, 10 CFR 50.34(b), and the plant-specific design bases, and invoked the compliance backfit CONTACT: Alexander D. Garmoe, NRR/DPR 301-415-3814
M. Bailey, et al exception in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), since this differed from a previous staff position documented in a 2001 power uprate safety evaluation. On December 8, 2015, the licensee appealed the staffs decision in a letter to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which stated that the compliance backfit exception is not applicable, and the NRC must conduct a cost-justified, substantial safety backfit analysis. The panel should review the October 9, 2015, backfit issuance, the December 8, 2015, appeal and supporting information, and provide a response to the following:
Determine and describe whether the 2001 power uprate and 2004 pressurizer safety valve setpoint amendment e';aluations were based , at least in part, on the use of water qualified pressurizer safety valves, and if so, whether this assumption was subsequently found to be unsubstantiateek-Determine and describe what formed the basis of the backf.it analysis.
Determine and describe whether the NRG attempted lo identify an omission or mistake of faGh Determine and describe whether the NRC's application and interpretation of GDCs 15, 21 ,
and 29 in the 2015 backf.it safety evaluation differed from previous documented positions.
Determine and describe whether Regulatory Issue Summary 2005 29 affected the NRC's evaluation of the abnormal operational occurrences listed in the appeal.
Determine and describe whether the requirements of t he compliance backf.it exceptieR-Of 10 CFR 50.10Q(a)(4)(i) are met.
The responses to these questions should be sufficient to provide-panel is chartered with providing a recommendation to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of whether a backfit is necessary at Braidwood and Byron, and whether the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception is appropriate. 1-A-oonductingTo arrive at its reiJiewrecommendation , the panel may seek staff support. It should review appropriate background information including the October 9, 2015, backfit imposition letter and enclosed safety evaluation, the 2001 and 2004 safety evaluations referenced in the appeal, a ~
licensee's; the December 8, 2015, appeal to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation~
and any relevant supporting information including the 2001 and 2004 safety evaluations referenced in the appeal. In conducting its review, the panel may also seek staff support.
The panel should complete its review, and provide recommendations and written responsesits recommendation to the questioA&Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation within 2 weeks following an associated public meeting with EGC, or by January 29, 2016, if a public meeting is declined by the licensee.
M. Bailey, et al exception in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4 )(i}:). since this differed from a previous staff position documented in a 2001 power uprate safety evaluation. On December 8, 2015, the licensee appealed the staffs decision in a letter to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,
which stated that the compliance backfit exception is not applicable, and the NRC must conduct a cost-justified, substantial safety backfit analysis. The panel shmild review the October 9, 2015, backfit issuance, the-Gecember 8, 2015, api,eal and supporting information, and pro\4Ge a response to the f.ollowing :
~lain whether the 2001 power uprate and 2004 pressurizer safety valve setpoi-At:
amendment evaluations were based, at least in part, on the use of water qualified pressurizer safety va lves, which was subsequently found to be unsubstantiated.
Explain what formed the basis of the backfit analysis.
Explain whether the NRG attempted to identify an omission or mistake of fact.
Explain whether the NRG's application and interpretation of GDCs 15, 21 , and 29 in the 2015 backfit safety evaluation differed from previous documented positions.
Explain wh~atGF.y-lssue Summary 2005 29 affecteG-tRe NRC's evaluation of-the abnormal operational occurrences listed in the appeal.
~lain whether the requirements of the compliance backfit exception of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i) are met.
The responses to these questions should be sufficient to pfOVfe&.panel is chartered with providing a recommendation to the Director. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation of whether a backfit is necessary at Braidwood and Byron, and whether the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception is appropriate. In conductingTo arrive at its raviewrecommendation, the panel may seek staff support. It should review appropriate background information including the October 9, 2015, backfit imposition letter and enclosed safety evaluation, the 2001 and 2004 safety evaluations referenced in the appeal, and the licensee's; the December 8, 2015, appeal to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation~
and any relevant supporting information including the 2001 and 2004 safety evaluations referenced in the appeal. In conducting its review, the panel may also seek staff support.
The panel should complete its review, and provide recommendations and written responsesits recommendation to the questionsDirector, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation within 2 weeks following an associated public meeting with EGC, or by January 29, 2016, if a public meeting is declined by the licensee.
DISTRIBUTION:
MBailey, NRR MSpencer, OGC RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrOd AGody, RII LDudes, RII RidsNrrPMByron AGendelman , OGC RidsN rrPMBraidwood RidsEdoMailCenter A DAMS Accession Nos.: Package/ML15355A083; Acknowledgement of Appeal/ML15351A372 Backfit Review Panel Charter/ML15355A081
M. Bailey, et al OFFICE NRR/DPR/PGCB NRR/DPR/PGCB:LA NRR/DPR/PGCB:BC NRR/DORUPLBlll-2:BC NAME AGarmoe Elee* SStuchell* JPoole*
DATE 12/21/15 12/21/15 12/22/15 12/22/15 OFFICE NRR/DORL:D N~OGC(NLO) NRR/DPR:QDD NRR/DPR:D NAME GWilson* for ABoland AMohseni AMohseniLKokajko LKokajko DATE 12/22/15 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 22 Dec 2015 08:56:33 -0500 To: Dion, Jeanne Cc: Beaulieu, David;Wiebe, Joel;Wertz, Trent
Subject:
ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence Attachments: Backfit Review Panel Charter 12-22-15.docx
- Jeanne, Trent Wertz's auto-reply referred me to you in his absence. I have a short-turnaround document that is ready for DORL's division-level concurrence. The document, available in ADAMS as ML15355A081 and attached to this e-mail, is the Charter for a Backfit Review Panel that is being assigned to review an appeal by Exelon for a backfit that was imposed on Braidwood and Byron. The Charter is in the form of a memo from Bill Dean to the individuals he will designate as Panel members. Background information is available in ADAMS Package ML15355A083 and Joel Wiebe, Justin Poole, Paul Krohn , and Anne Boland are familiar with the issue.
The process we are following is documented in LIC-202 and includes fairly short duration timelines (i.e. a public meeting within 4 weeks of the appeal and the backfit review panel's decision forwarded to the licensee within 4 weeks of the public meeting). As a result, I would greatly appreciate DORL's comments and electronic concurrence (Anne, George, or Paul) by Monday, December 28. If this request can't be met please let me know and we can discuss alternate options. Please ensure Dave Beaulieu is copied on the reply.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communicati ons Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
MEMORANDUM TO: Marissa G. Bailey, Acting Director Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Anthony T. Gody, Jr, Director Division of Reactor Safety Region II Office Adam S. Gendelman, Acting Deputy Director Reactor and Materials Rulemaking Office of the General Counsel FROM: William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation SUBJECT CHARTER FOR BACKFIT REVIEW PANEL ON EXELON APPEAL OF BACKFIT AFFECTING BRAIDWOOD AND BYRON STATIONS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, AND THE LICENSING BASIS In a letter dated December 8, 2015, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) appealed the imposition of a compliance backfit at the Braidwood and Byron Stations. The process by which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will review and respond to the appeal is documented in Management Directive Handbook 8.4, "Management of Facility-Specific Backfitting and Information Collection," section Ill.A, "Facility-specific Backfits," as implemented by Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC-202, Revision 2, "Procedures for Managing Plant-Specific Backfits and 50.54(f) Information Requests," section IV.A, "Non-Adjudicatory Appeal Process."
In accordance with section IV.A of LIC-202, and after consultation with your management, I am designating Marissa Bailey as Chairman of the Backfit Review Panel, and Anthony Gody and Adam Gendelman as members of the Backfit Review Panel. The purpose of the panel is to review EGC's appeal of the NRC staff's determination that a backfit is necessary at the Braidwood and Byron Stations, and the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception.
In an October 9, 2015, letter, the NRC transmitted the results of a review of licensing basis documents for Braidwood and Byron Stations. The staff determined that Braidwood and Byron were not in compliance with General Design Criteria (GDC) 15, GDC 21 , GDC 29, 10 CFR 50.34(b), and the plant-specific design bases, and invoked the compliance backfit CONTACT: Alexander D. Garmoe, NRR/DPR 301-415-3814
M. Bailey, et al exception in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), since this differed from a previous staff position documented in a 2001 power uprate safety evaluation. On December 8, 2015, the licensee appealed the staffs decision in a letter to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, which stated that the compliance exception is not applicable, and the NRC must conduct a cost-justified, substantial safety backfit analysis. The panel should review the October 9, 2015, backfit issuance, the December 8, 2015, appeal and supporting information, and provide a response to the following:
- 1. Determine and describe whether the 2001 power uprate and 2004 pressurizer safety valve setpoint amendment evaluations were based , at least in part, on the use of water qualified pressurizer safety valves, and if so, whether this assumption was subsequently found to be unsubstantiated.
- 2. Determine and describe what formed the basis of the backfit analysis.
- 3. Determine and describe whether the NRC attempted to identify an omission or mistake of fact.
- 4. Determine and describe whether the NRC's application and interpretation of GDCs 15, 21 , and 29 in the 2015 backfit safety evaluation differed from previous documented positions.
- 5. Determine and describe whether Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-29 affected the NRC's evaluation of the abnormal operational occurrences listed in the appeal.
- 6. Determine and describe whether the requirements of the compliance backfit exception of 10 CFR 50 .109(a)(4 )(i) are met.
The responses to these questions should be sufficient to provide a recommendation of whether a backfit is necessary at Braidwood and Byron, and whether the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception is appropriate. In conducting its review, the panel may seek staff support. It should review appropriate background information including the October 9, 2015, backfit imposition letter and enclosed safety evaluation, the 2001 and 2004 safety evaluations referenced in the appeal, and the licensee's December 8, 2015, appeal to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
The panel should complete its review, and provide recommendations and written responses to the questions within 2 weeks following an associated public meeting with EGC, or by January 29, 2016, if a public meeting is declined by the licensee.
Package/ML15355A083; Acknowledgement of Appeal/ML15351A372 Backfit Review Panel Charter/ML15355A081 OFFICE NRR/DPR/PGCB NRR/DPR/PGCB:LA NRR/DPR/PGCB:BC NRR/DORUPLBl ll-2:BC NAME AGarmoe ELee* SStuchell' JPoole*
DATE 12/21/15 12/21/15 12/22/15 12/22/15 OFFICE NRR/DORL:D NRR/DPR:DD OGC (NLO) NRR/DPR:D NAME ABoland AMohseni LKokajko DATE From: Garmoe Alex To: Oesterle Eric; A!ley David Cc: Whitman. fennifer; Billerbeck. fohn: Farnan Michael: Stuchell Sheldon
Subject:
ACTION: Concurrence Requested Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:55:41 PM Attachments: Response Memo to mo 11-30-16.docx EDO Memo to NRR Sept 15 20]6 pdf Dave and Eric, Your electronic concurrences are requested on the attached and linked memorandum from Bill Dean responding to Vic McCree's 9/1 5 memorandum (attached for background info).
Please provide comments and indicate your concurrence in a reply to this e-mail by Monday, December 5. If you don't believe this date can be met please let me know ASAP so we can discuss alternate arrangements.
ADAMS: ML16334A181 Thank you, Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communi cations Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301*415*3814
From: Alley. David To: Billerbeck !oho
Subject:
another thought on th e backfit stuff Date: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 9:15:08 AM
- John, Haven't thought this through completely.
I think the appeals panel is saying that a RIS that went out a few years ago was a new position. By definition a RIS cannot be a new position. The RIS required both a technical review and a legal review. To me this means that the agency had an official position that the current position was not a new position at the time the RIS was issued. The appeals panel appears to me to be reversing both the legal and technical position without significant review Dave David Alley PhD.
Chief, Component Performa nce NOE and Testing Branch US Nuclear Regu latory Com m ission 11555 Rockvil le Pike Rockville MD 20852 301-415-2178
From: Banks, Eleasah Sent: 16 Sep 2016 08:17:09 -0400 To: RidsNrrMailCenter Resource;RidsOgcMailCenter Resource;RidsNroMailCenter Resou rce;RidsResPmdaMail Resource;RidsResOd Resource;RidsNmssOd Resource;RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource;RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource;RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource;RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource; RidsN rrDorl lpl 3-2 Resource; RidsN rrPM Byron Resource; RidsN rrPM Bra id wood Resou rce;RidsNrrDss Resource;RidsNrrDe Resource;RidsNrrDpr Resource;RidsNrrDorl Resource;Garmoe, Alex;Keene, Todd;Gody, Tony;Gendelman, Adam;Mizuno, Bet h;Correia, Richard;West, Khadij ah;Bailey, Marissa;Scarbrough, Thomas;S[Pencer, Michael;Clark, Theresa
Subject:
Appea l of Backfit Imposed in Braidwood and Byron Stations (To: William Dean, From: Victor Mccree)
Date: September 15, 2016 Memorandum To: William M . Dean From: Victor M. Mccree
Subject:
Appeal of Backfit Imposed in Braidwood and Byron Stations (To: William Dean, From:
Victor Mccree) This document is publicly available in ADAMS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16246A247 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Appeal ofBackfit Imposed in Braidwood and Byron Stations (To:
Wil.liam Dean. From: Victor McCree))
From: Billerbeck. 12bo To: Alley David; Farnan Michael <Michael farnao@nrc govl; Wolfeaog Robert
Subject:
ASME compliance for SRV certification Date: Wednesday, November 09, 2016 11 :01:00 AM Attachments: ASME Design Certification and Test Reauirements for Class 1 Safety and Relief Valves R1 .docx.
- All, Attached is the compliance matrix that I gave DSS a couple of years ago to use as a hammer in their backfit effort . . . knowing full well that Byron and Braidwood could not produce the information since there is no such thing as a steam/ water SRV.
ASME Design, Certification, and Test Requirements for Class 1 Safety and Relief Valves ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section Ill, 1971 Edition through Winter 1972 Addenda (with the ASME Section Ill, 1977 Edition through Winter 1978 Addenda for relief capacity only) is the applicable construction code for the Byron and Braidwood Pressurizer Safety Valves. Article NB-7000, Protection Against Overpressure, of that code governs the design, certification, and test requirements for these valves. Some of the code requirements are premised on the system media for which the valves are required to operate (wet steam, dry steam, water, etc.).
NB-7320, Content of [Overpressure Requires the Owner to define:
Protection] Report
- the range of operating conditions under which a pressure relief device is required to function
- required relief capacity based on maximum system transient pressures and temperatures NB-7810, Responsibility for Certification of Requires the Manufacturer to certify the Pressure Relief Valves relieving capacity of the valves NB-7820, Capacity Certification Tests Requires capacity certification testing using saturated steam for steam service valves and using water for elevated temperature pressurized water service valves The licensee should be asked to produce the original Overpressure Protection Report showing the inadvertent SI water transient as an anticipated event and defining the operating conditions and required relief capacities associated with it. The licensee should further be asked to produce the manufacturer's certification of the valves relief capacity under pressurized water conditions including test results.
1
ASME OM Code, 2001 Edition thru 2003 Addenda is the applicable inservice test code for ASME Class 1, 2, and 3 components at Byron and Braidwood. Mandatory Appendix I, lnservice Testing of Pressure Relief Devices in Light-Water Reactor Nuclear Power Plants, of that code governs the periodic inservice testing for the Class 1 pressurizer SRVs. Similar to the construction code, some of the inservice test code requirements are premised on the system media for which the valves are required to operate (wet steam, dry steam, water, etc.).
1-8100, Set Pressure Testing Requires valves designed to operate on steam to be set-pressure tested with saturated steam; similarly, valves designed to operate in liquid service shall be tested with the normal system operating fluid and temperature 1-8200, Seat Tightness Testing Requires valve seat tightness testing to be performed using the same fluid used for set-pressure testing 1-8300, Alternative Test Media Allows valves to be set-pressure tested and seat tightness tested using a test medium other than that for which they are designed provided that:
- a sufficiently accurate correlation of pressure relief device operation is documented for the two different media; and
- a written procedure is prepared specifying all test parameters that affect the media correlation The licensee should be asked to produce the inservice test history (procedure and results) for the pressurizer SRVs including both water and steam tests; or, alternatively produce a certified correlation test procedure and justification for use of an alternative test fluid.
2
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 16 Dec 2015 17:08:59 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
8/8 8ackfit
- Joel, Is there a TAC for the B/B compliance backfit that was issued back in October? Do you know if we should be charging time spent on their appeal to that TAC? I would think we should fee-bill those hours.
Thanks.
Alexander 0. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov J 301-415-3814
From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: 26 Sep 2016 14:39:26 +0000 To: 'sm0973@gmail.com'
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Decision Hey Sam, Just wanted to let you know that the ED0a's decision on the backfit appeal is now available in ADAMS.
Hope all is well!
~'HI~
Reactor Systems Engineer NRR/DSS/SRXB Office: 010 a" D15 Phone: (301) 415-3253
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 7 Mar 2016 09:17:05 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Meeting Info
- Joel, The call-in information for the backfit appeal public meeting is below. In addition, the meeting slides were recently added to ADAMS as ML16062A422. Just a reminder that the meeting starts at 1 :30pm eastern.
This document is publicl y available in ADAMS Dial-in nu~ 888-730-9143 Passcod e : ~
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project M anager Generi c Communicati ons Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Poole, Justin Sent: 9 Dec 2015 10:17:04 -0500 To: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
Backfit appeal one pager Importance: High Joel Jessie came down and mention that V ic and Mike Johnson are asking for a one pager on the backfit. Did we ever had one from when it got issued?
From: Banks, Eleasah Sent: 16 Sep 2016 09:06:53 -0400 To: RidsNrrMailCenter Resource;RidsOgcMailCenter Resource;RidsNroMailCenter Resou rce;RidsResPmdaMail Resource;RidsResOd Resource;RidsNmssOd Resource;RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource;RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource;RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource;RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource; RidsN rrDorl lpl 3-2 Resource; RidsN rrPM Byron Resource; RidsN rrPM Bra id wood Resou rce;RidsNrrDss Resource;RidsNrrDe Resource;RidsNrrDpr Resource;RidsNrrDorl Resource;Garmoe, Alex;Keene, Todd;Gody, Tony;Gendelman, Adam;Mizuno, Bet h;Correia, Richard;West, Khadij ah;Bailey, Marissa;Scarbrough, Thomas;S[Pencer, Michael;Clark, Theresa
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings ( Byron and Braidwood)
Date: September 15, 2016 Memorandum To: J . Bradley From: Victor M. Mccree This package, and its 5 documents, are publicly available in ADAMS
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood)
View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16236Al 98 Open ADAMS P8 Package (Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood))
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 16 Sep 2016 16:00:39 +0000 To: 'David Gullott';'Jessica Krejcie';'Joseph Bauer'
Subject:
Attachments: ~--------------~
Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings ML16243A067.pdf This attachment is publicly available in ADAMS This will be sent out on listserve, today.
Not sure if you already have a copy or not.
Joel
From: W iebe, Joel Sent: 12 May 2016 12:59:53 +0000 To: Duncan, Eric Subje ct: Backfit Appeal to the EDO http://www.intcrnal.nrc.gov/policy/dircctivcs/catalog/111d8.4.pdf See page 15 or just search for "appeal" Management Directive 8.4 (M L12059A460) is publicly available in ADAMS
From: Clark, Theresa Sent: 15 Sep 2016 01:50:44 +0000 To: Clark, Theresa;McGinty, Tim;Lubinski, John;Oesterle, Eric;Whitman, Jennifer;McCree, Victor
Subject:
backfit discussion w/ EDO CONFIRMED per discussion with Victor Mccree this afternoon. Thanks for your willingness to schedule on short notice.
Theresa X4048
From: Whitman. 1eooifer To: Billerbeck lobo Cc: Lubinski I ohn; Alley. Dayjd; Mcginty. Jim; Taylor Robert
Subject:
Backlit Documents Date: Tuesday, J uly 19, 20161:23:58 PM Attachments: FW Updated to Provjde References - Discussion wExelon Regarding RAJs Related to eresssurizer PPRY performance and qualification during a Safety Injection that fills the pressurizer and an inadvertent PPBY opening msg ML14184B061
- b l. I *1 bl *111 Original Back{jt ML14184B061 odf ADAMS is pu ic Y avai a e
- John, I have attached the original backfit that SRXB wrote beca use I t hi nk it does a better job wal king through t he technica l issues, specifically the RAI responses to the 2001 power uprate and conta ins and ext ensive reference list at the end. I included t he ones we talked about during t he meeting below. I also attached the e-mai l I sent to Tim and Rob yesterday with the RAls t hat we proposed to send on t he most recent MUR where it was decided t he RAI was out of sco e. Lastl I have included
. kf S , th t SE NCP-2013-014 is publicly available in ADAMS as t h e I_m __ or _ams non-concurrence on __ a_--* ML14os2A431 NSAL-93-013 is NSAL-93-013, Inadvertent ECCS Actuation at Power, G.G. Ament and K.J. Vavrek, included in Westinghouse ESBU, June 30, 1993, and NSAL-93-013, Supplement 1, J.S. Galembush ML11634D412 (PDF Westinghouse ESBU, October 28, 1994 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052930330) ~~~~~~:i~~ ~oj.,u~~~ly NRC RIS 2005-029, Anticipated Transients that Could Develop into More Serious Events 2005 029 dated December 14' 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051890212). available Rrs - is publicly In ADAMS Letter no. RS-01 -110 from Exelon to USN RC, Response to request for Additional RS 110 Is publicly available in ADAMS Information Regarding the License Amendment Request to Permit Uprated Power Operations at Byron and Braidwood Stations, January 31, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML010330145)
Issuance of Amendments: Increase in Reactor Power, Byron Station Units 1 and 2, and ~ - - - - - ~
Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, May 4, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011420274) ~uL~~c~:~~~~1~~~e in ADAMS p~e,,, 7 , ( / ~
Acting Technical Assisstant NRR/DSS Office: 0 1o- H22 Phone: (301) 415-3253
From: W iebe, Joel Sent: 18 Jul 2016 21:23:02 +0000 To: M cginty, Tim
Subject:
FW: Updated to Provide References - Discussion w/Exelon Regarding RAls Related to Presssurizer PORV performance and qualification during a Safety Injection that fills the pressurizer and an inadvertent PORV opening Attachments: SRXB RAIS for Byron and Braidwood MUR accident analysis, All attachments are ML003772455 BB SPU RAI 11-27-2000.pdf, ML040300843 BB Set Point RAI 1-29-2004.pdf, publicl y available in ADAM S ML042250515 Lift Settings NRC SE 8-26-2004.pdf, ML011420274 BB SPU NRC SE 5-4-2001.pdf Herc is one of the many meetings that were had on the topic of these RAls, but this one includes the references gathered by Joel.
Original Appointment-----
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:17 AM To: Wiebe, Joel; Miller, Joshua; Miranda, Samuel; Gall, Jennifer Cc: Jackson, Christopher; Benjamin, Jamie S ubject: Updated to Provide References - Discussion w/Exelon Regarding RAls Related to Presssurizer PORV performance and qualification during a Safety Injection that fills the pressurizer and an inadvertent POR V opening When: Wednesday, May 29, 20l3 L0:00 AM-I I :00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: HQ-OWFN-09802-l 2p When: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 10:00 AM-11:00 AM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: HQ-OWFN-09B02-12p Note: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments.
The conference line # is (866)214-0726 & Participant Code i~-(b-)(6_l__
From: Miller, Joshua Sent: 24 Apr 2013 14:16:30 -0400 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
SRXB RAIS for Byron and Braidwood MUR accident analysis
- Joel, As you may have seen there are questions coming from SRXB on certain accident analysis that Byron and Braidwood currently have. Two RAls have been developed do address these questions. I was wondering what you thought the appropriate way to address the questions would be. I didn't know if you would like to go ahead and send them to the plant or if you wanted to wait until a date in t he future.
Also Sam suggested that the resident may be int erested in this topic to chase down as a 50.59 issue or something else. If you would be interested in sending the questions to the resident that would be fine too and let him know that he has headquarters support on the issue.
Let me know how you would like to proceed. I will be out the next two weeks and I will get back to you as soon as I can. The RAls are as follows:
- 1. Page 15.5-3 indicat es that the pressurizer fills and the safety relief valve system discharges water.
- a. What are safet y relief valves? Are they PO RVs or spring-loaded safety valves?
- b. At the MUR power level, show that the inadvertent operation of the ECCS event will not escalate to a Condition Ill or IV event. Show that the pressurizer will not fill, or else show that the PO RVs are protection grade equipment, qualified for use as an accident mitigation system. This means the PORVs and discharge piping are qualified for water relief, t he automatic control system circuitry is of lE quality, and the Tech Specs assure that the PORVs will always be available. The NRC staff approved such a PORV qualification for Salem, in 1997 (ADAMS no. M L011720397). Also see RIS 2005-029, for more guidance.
- 2. At the MUR power level, show that the inadvertent opening of a pressurizer PORV event will not escalate to a Condition Ill or IV event. This event is normally analyzed as a RCS depressurization at power. Reducing pressure without reducing power reduces thermal margin.
The analysis determines that the DNBR safety limit is not violated. The reactor trip is generated by the overtemperature OT protection logic, which is intended for DNB protection. This usually doesn't take more than a minute. If the analysis is allowed to proceed past the time of overtemperature OT trip, then the continuing de pressurization reaches the low-low pressurizer pressure SI setpoint, which is a legitimate SI signal. As the RCS pressure drops, the ECCS delivers more SI flow, and fills the pressurizer, in about five minutes, and discharges water through the open PORV. Water discharge t hrough the PORV could prevent the PORV from reseating, even when valve closure is demanded by the operator. This scenario was considered for the St. Lucie and Turkey Point EPUs.
Thank you!
Joshua R Miller
NRR/DSS/SRXB Phone: (301)415-8398 Office: 0-10C12 t,. \
U.S. RC
"""* ,, ,f l - ..
From: Lubinski. I oho To: NRR DE Djstrjbytjon
Subject:
backfit info request Date: Friday.July 22, 201611:02:27 AM Recent interactions with external stakeholders, coupled with internal agency discussions, ML16133A575 have focused on the adequacy and consistency of the staff's implementation of agency is publicly backfitting guidance. The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has been available in ADAMS tasked by memo (ML16133A575) to look at this issue, and provide recommendations to the EDO.
In particular, the CRGR has been asked to carry out the following tasks:
- 1. Assess Backfit Requirements, Guidance, and Criteria (NUREG-1409 and Management Directive (MD) 8.4)
- 2. Assessing Backfit Training
- 3. Assess Knowledge Management on Backfitting The CRGR has been asked to coordinate with the offices involved in backfitting reviews and rulemaking for support in addressing the tasks identified above, and NRR is one of the program offices that most frequently uses the backfit process. To assist CRGR in making the assessments, we"re asking NRR staff familiar with the process (i.e., having used the backfit process, or vetted issues through the process to see if backfit is appropriate) to provide some information and detail on the following questions, as appropriate:
- 1. Assess Backfit Requirements. Guidance. and Criteria (NUREG-1409 and Management Directive (MD) 8.4)
If you"ve evaluated an issue for backfit, have you found the office implementing procedures adequate, needed, and consistent with agencywide guidance when determining whether a backfit is appropriate?
- 2. Assessing Backfit Training What training have you taken related to the backfit rule , guidance, and procedures, and is it required as part of any formal qualification programs? Has it been sufficient for you to acquire the skills and competencies required to implement NRC"s backfitting requirements?
- 3. Assess Knowledge Management on Backfitting Are you aware of the NRC's KM program in capturing, storing, and transferring necessary knowledge about backfitting?
Please provide any feedback you have on these questions to Sheldon Stuchell, branch chief in DPR, by August 5th, to enable NRR to compile an office-wide response to this request.
Thank you in advance for your time in answering this request.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 8 Mar 2016 14:49:57 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
Backfit Meeting RIi i Attendance
- Joel, Other than Diana, Jim McGhee, and Jason Draper, do you know of any other Region Ill folks that called in for the meeting yesterday?
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project M anager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rule-making (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Ale-x.Garmoe-@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Alley. David To: Billerbeck !oho
Subject:
Backlit one pager Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:38:37 AM
- John, Lubinski just grabbed me. If we want to add anything to the one pager for the backfit, it needs to be done this morning. I will be in a meeting from about 9-10, but we need to do something (if we are going to do anything at all) shortly after the meeting Dave David Alley PhD.
Chief, Component Performance NOE and Testing Branch US Nuclear Regu latory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockvil le MD 20852 301-415-2178
From: Whitman. 1eooifer To: Billerbeck !oho Subj ect: Backlit Panel Response Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:26:52 AM Attachments: Backlit Panel Response Rev3.docx John, there are two places in the attached where I need your hel p t o finish.
- Thanks, Jen
Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRR staff received a three-page summary of the preliminary findings of the OEDO backfit appeal panel. The staff recognizes that the OEDO panel has performed a much more thorough review than can be documented within three pages. As such, the staff's review and comments as provided below, reflects its considerations of this short summary. The staff is willing to meet with the panel again to discuss the concerns and positions documented in this response.
(b)(5)
Page 154 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 155 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 156 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act