ML19219A074

NRR Released Set Part 4_NRC-2017-000292 (Interim 2)

ML19219A074
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/02/2019
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML19219A087	List: ML19219A067 ML19219A068 ML19219A069 ML19219A070 ML19219A072 ML19219A073 ML19219A074 ML19219A076 ML19219A077 ML19219A079
References
FOIA, NRC-2017-000292
Download: ML19219A074 (109)

Text

From:

Whitman, Jennifer Sent:

To:

Friday, August 05, 2016 10:43 AM Borromeo, Joshua

Subject:

FW: DRAFT Backfit Panel Response.docx Attachments:

McGinty Comments Appeal response.pdf, Backfit References

Josh, Attached is Rob's write up with Tim's comments. Rob is working on incorporating them. If any of the documents you have pulled help support any of t he statements or positions in the paper, please provide t hem. Also if you have any additional comments please provide those as well.

Thanks, Jen From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 7:30 PM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>

Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: DRAFT Backfit Panel Response.docx Thanks Rob. Lubinski came and saw me, he won't be in tomorrow (nor will Billerbeck), but I did give him a copy of your initial draft to peruse over the weekend. Attached are my suggestions and things to consider to bolster. Thanks for writing this up, I know that some of my language is a little purply and the panel is not a licensee,.... but we also need to be clear. Tim From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 4:14 PM To: McGinty, nm <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>

Subject:

DRAFT Backfit Panel Response.docx 1

Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings (b)(5)

Page 476 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 477 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

I From:

Garmoe, Alex Sent:

Friday, August 05, 2016 8:32 AM To:

Bailey, Marissa; Gody, Tony; Gendelman, Adam

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - "et:JS P1@

ciecisional lAtlilFAill PIR~ WJe 9 1il)

No formal comments from me at this time.

DSS has been working hard to identify comments to provide!

b)(S)

I'll take this opportunity to once again thank you for the hard work in response to the first-level appeal. It was truly an enjoyable and educational experience.

Alex From: Bailey, Marissa Sent: Friday, August 05, 2016 8:24 AM To: Gody, Tony; Gendelman, Adam ; Garmoe, Alex

Subject:

FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - Oel8 P: e ekeiJie1.al l::tc:.:ol w~e elJt

-EffllT -

Any comments?

Marissa Marissa '.Bailey, 'Director Division of Preparedness and Response Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: (301) 287-3778 Mobile:j(b)(6)

I E-Mail: Marissa.Bail~.pov Location: 3WFN 09-602 From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski(aJnrc.gov>; Mcginty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>;

Akstulewicz, Frank <Frank.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov>; Doane, Margaret <Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>; Mcdermott, Brian

<Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bailey@nrc.e,ov>

Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hackett@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa

<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.Scarbrough@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael

<Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; Williamson, Edward

<Edward.Williamson@nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed

<Mohammed.Shuaibi@nrc.gov>; Mccree, Victor <Victor.McCree@nrc.gov>; Johnson, Michael

<Michael.Johnson@nrc.gov>; Tracy, Glenn <Glenn.Tracy@nrc.gov>; Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>

1

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OWQ P~fil El@eisieAal h:terrn1I NAE l:f3C 8ul9

All, Consistent with the plan we presented last week, attached are the preliminary findings of the Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel. The Summary from the Preliminary Findings is reproduced below. The preliminary findings were discussed briefly with the OEDO for their awareness.

As indicated in our completion plan, the panel would appreciate any comments on, or additions to: the documents sited; their interpretation and intent; or the understanding of the backfit rule compliance exception.

Comments would be appreciated by August 9, 2016, but can be accepted as last as August 15, 2016. The panel will also be available for discussion any time before August 15, 2016.

Comments will be reflected or acknowledged in the panel's final report and recommendations to the EDO.

The Preliminary Findings document attached is an internal, pre-decisional document at this time. Both Exelon and NEI declined offers for a public meeting on this issue.

Gary... for the panel

-Steve West

-Tom Scarborough

-Michael Spencer

-Theresa Clark In summary:

The NRA 2015 compliance backfit finding (October 9, 2015 letter to Exelon) is predicated on the following positions (emphases added):

"water relief through a valve that is not qualified for water relief will cause that valve to stick in its fully open position" "the licensee... has not applied the single-failure assumption" "nor have they provided ASME water qualification documentation for the PSVs... the ASME... original Overpressure Protection Report... inservice test history... including both water and steam tests" However, none of these positions were "known and established standards of the Commission" in 2001 or 2004 for determining when it was appropriate to assume a failure of PSVs to reseat. In fact, they were not "known and established standards of the Commission" in 2005 or 2006 or 2007.

Moreover, two of these positions do not appear to be "established standards of the Commission" at present, since the call for use of the single failure criterion first appears in proposed 2015 draft Revision 1 to RIS 2005-029, and the call for ASME certification first appears in the Exelon compliance backfit. The panel concludes that the standard in place in 2001 and 2004 and at present is simply that the probability of failure of a Pressurizer Safety Valve (PSV) is sufficiently small, based on well-informed staff engineering judgement, and that the use of the word "qualified" or "qualification" implied only a general demonstration of capability, such as in the EPRI testing done in response to TMI Action Plan Item 11.D.1.

The panel concludes that, in 2001 and 2004, the staff was not misinformed nor did it "err" in approving the Byron and Braidwood power uprates... nor was it in error in approving other similar cases (e.g. Beaver Valley in 2006). The 2015 staff positions taken to support the compliance backfit finding represent new and different staff views on how to address potential PSV failures following water discharge. Although they represent well-intentioned staff positions that could provide additional safety margin, they do not provide a basis for a compliance backfit.

2

The panel's findings therefore support the Exelon backfi1 appeal.

In addition to the specific finding relating to the backfit appeal, the panel believes it is important to acknowledge that water discharge through a PSV not specifically designed for such service is undesirable and should be minimized or avoided as a matter of conservative engineering and prudent operations. The panel concludes this while fully aware that the event sequence being considered appears to be of little safety significance (the panel has requested RES analysis to confirm this belief). Operator training and emergency procedures to terminate the event before pressurizer filling, as well as the use of power-operated relief valves rather than relying solely on PSVs, are clearly preferred, whether they form the facilities' UFSAR licensing basis or not.

The panel has not (at this time) formed any views on whether a backfit on this topic could be justified as "adequate protection" or "cost justified"; or whether a "forward-fit" staff position is appropriate or not.

3

From:

Sent To:

Subject:

Garmoe, Alex Monday, August 08, 2016 4:54 PM Whitman, Jennifer RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - tmo P1*e-decisio1 ml I11trn 1tsl tJRE el!@ 9Mly -

Thanks for this document. My preference (though I know I am low on the totem pole) on a meeting time tomorrow would be later in the day since I have to present at an OIG exit meeting at 10am. I won't really have a lot of time to review this document before that meeting but look forward to diving in after the meeting! Also FYI that Sheldon will be on annual leave tomorrow but back in the office on Wednesday.

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:48 PM To: Lubinski, John; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert ; Hickey, James; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon; Billerbeck, John ;

Benner, Eric; Alley, David

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OdO-fl1e-detlsio1ml l11te1 Aal ~JR, t hio QRl1;1,:

Good afternoon, Please find attached a draft comment response on the preliminary panel findings for your review and comment.

John 8., we are hoping you can provide some input on the classification of PSVs as passive/active.

I will look for a time tomorrow that we can meet.

Thanks, f}C1Ut4e'i ~tM Acting Technical Assistant NRR/DSS Office: 010 - H22 Phone: (301) 415-3253 1

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Good afternoon, Whitman, Jennifer Monday, August 08, 2016 4:48 PM Lubinski, John; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Hickey, James; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon; Billerbeck, John; Benner, Eric; Alley, David Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminairy Findings FOR COMMENT - mm PP@ ~@ei1io: al

, Tnteroal '>IRC I Ice 0'11)<

Backfit Panel Response - Rev 2.docx Please find attached a draft comment response on the preliminary panel findings for your review and comment.

John B., we are hoping you can provide some input on the classification of PSVs as passive/active.

\\ will look tor a time tomorrow that we can meet.

Thanks,

~

i'Ul~ta.<1 Acting Technical Assistant NRR/DSS Office: 010- H22 Phone: {301} 415-3253 1

Staff* Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA staff received a three-page summary of the preliminary findings of the OEDO backlit 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 484 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 485 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 486 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Subject:

Location:

Start:

End:

Recurrence:

Meeting Status:

Organizer:

Required Attendees:

Optional Attendees:

Resources:

UPDATED TIME to NOON.

CJ I'* 1 II, 1, 1,:;.r, l*i 1i*

,"f i *,j l'.1,1 f i I...

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - et:io-l'le declslo11al IRttm;ial tJR lelse 91.I)

HQ-0WFN-10B06-l 2p Tue 08/09/2016 12:00 PM Tue 08/09/2016 1:00 PM (none)

Meeting organizer Whitman, Jennifer Whitman, Jennifer; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Billerbeck, John; Alley, David; Benner, Eric; Stuchell, Sheldon; Garmoe, Alex; Hickey, James Davidson, Evan; DSSCAL Resource; DORLCAL Resource; DE_Calendar Resource HQ-OWFN-10B06-l2p 1

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

I can support 4pm.

From: McGinty, Tim Garmoe, Alex Tuesday, August 09, 2016 8:36 AM Whitman, Jennifer FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - '9~9 Pre c:letlSirn,al I:: te,,.el a1a, I fse Ool)c -

Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 8:35 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John

<John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric

<Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Hickey, James <James.Hickey@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OUO-Pre-decisional - Internal NRC Use Only-Jen - can Ypu..se.e..if we can move the backfit discussion to 4? We can use the periodic slot we had with Brian (since he is~

. Rob has conflict to go up review 50.46c proposed edits with Commissioner Saran's office.

If other people will not be able to attend as a result (like DE or DPR), then leave it where it is. Thanks, Tim

---

Original Appointment---*-

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 5:14 PM To: Whitman, Jennifer; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Billerbeck, John; Alley, David; Ben.ner, Eric; Stuchell, Sheldon; Garmoe, Alex; Hickey, James

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - ODO-Pre-deelsiorlal - Internal NRC Use Only When: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 3:00 PM-4:00 PM (UTC--05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: HQ-OWFN-10B06-12p

<< Message: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT

• 01 IQ-Pcesdecisiooal IRterRal ~IRE W!I@

om,,,,. >>

1

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Billerbeck, John Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:29 AM Whitman, Jennifer; Lubinski, John; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Hickey, James; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon; Benner, Eric; Alley, David RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - Q'4,IQ Pr11 aeei,ieflel lflte,i.al PIRC l!!l!@ Q111I)'

Backfit Panel Response - Rev 2 - billerbeck comments on SRVs.docx I added a blurb about L.r_l<

5_l __________

....., (See attached.)

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:48 PM To: Lubinski, John ; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Hickey, James; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon; Billerbeck, John ;

Benner, Eric ; Alley, David Subject= Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT 91,9 Pr@ seeisie1118I l111ter111el ~IIH; I lea ORI¥ Good afternoon, Please find attached a draft comment response on the preliminary panel findings for your review and comment.

John 8., we are hoping you can provide some input on the classification of PSVs as passive/active.

I will look for a time tomorrow that we can meet.

Thanks, f~ 1(/Mtmau Acting Technical Assistant NRR/DSS Office: 010- H22 Phone: (301) 415-3253 1

Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA staff received a three-page summary of the prelfminary findings of the OEOO 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 491 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 492 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 493 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

(b)(5)

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject Attachments:

Importance:

Benner, Eric Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:49 AM Billerbeck, John; Whitman, Jennifer; Lubinski, John; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Hickey, James; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon; Alley, David RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - O~ O P: c aeci1io11el I::te.:.el NRE l!/Jc 9::ly Backfit Panel Response - Rev 2 - billerbeck comments on SRVs + EJB comments.docx High I added my comment's to John's for consideration in today's discussion.

From: Billerbeck, John Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2016 11:29 AM To: Whit man, Jennifer; Lubinski, John; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Hickey, James; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon ;

Benner, Eric; Alley, David

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - at:10- P, E-detlsim,al - Ii 1te11,al w~e t;se Oliiy -

I added a blurb about Lr_)(_si _________________ _

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 4:48 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski(dlnrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert

<Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Hickey, James <James.Hickey@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoetcilnrc.,..,ov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeckcwnrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>;

Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OtJO-111 eudecisie11nl IAte~1;nl ~IRC ! !se Qol.i Good afternoon, P1ease find attached a draft comment response on the preliminary panel findings for your review and comment.

John B., we are hoping you can provide some input on the classification of PSVs as passive/active.

I will look for a time tomorrow that we can meet.

Thanks, fie<<+ 'Ul,,fffla.n Acting T echnical Assistant NRR/DSS Office: 01 O - H22 Phone: (301) 415-3253 1

Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA staff received a three-page summary of the preliminary findings of the OEDO backlit 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 497 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 498 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 499 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

(b)(t>J

From:.

Sent To:

Garmoe, Alex Wednesday, August 10, 2016 10:35 AM Whitman, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OtlTnl"69-I.I.=

aeei9ie1 :al flilh!rnel PIR W9e Q,-1}'

Attachments:

Backfit Panel Response - Rev 3 ADG comments.docx

Jen, (b){S) 1 you ave any ques rons a ou my commen s.

Alex From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:56 AM on content Let me know To: McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Billerbeck, John; Alley, David; Benner, Eric; Stuchell, Sheldon; Garmoe, Alex ; Hickey, James Cc: Davidson, Evan; OSSCAL Resource ; DORLCAL Resource ; DE_Calendar Resource; Borromeo, Joshua

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OtlO-P, e-dEtlslo11al liilu 116116fK ldsc 8 11\\9

All, Please find attached the revised comment response for your review.

As you saw in Tim's e-mail to Gary we would like to reach alignment on this today.

Thanks,

{l~ 'UIMtnlM Acting Technical Assistant NRR/DSS Office: 01 O - H22 Phone: (301)415-3253 1

(b)(5)

Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appe.111 Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA staff received a three-page summary of the preliminary findings of the OEDO backlit appeal panel. The staff recognizes that the OEDO panel has perfomied 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.

Page 503 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 504 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 505 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 506 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

(b)(5)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject Attachments:

Billerbeck, John Wednesday, August 10, 2016 11:44 AM Whitman, Jennifer; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Alley, David; Benner, Eric; Stuchell, Sheldon; Garmoe, Alex; Hickey, James Davidson, Evan; DSSCAL Resource; DORLCAL Resource; DE_Calendar Resource; Borromeo, Joshua RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COW41iHl Qle!Q Pre Mi:!ii8R81 I:.tEI I ml PIRC t:1Se e111y -

Backfit Panel Response - Rev 3 - billerbeck comments 2.docx Good job. See attached minor comments. Thanks.

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:56 AM To: McG,nty, Tim; Taylor, Robert; Lubinski, John; Billerbeck, John; Alley, David; Benner, Eric; Stuche\\l, Sheldon; Garmoe, Alex; Hickey, James Cc: Davidson, Evan; DSSCAL Resource; DORLCAL Resource ; DE_Calendar Resource; Borromeo, Joshua

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - oUO-Pre-cfot1Slo11al liite1 Ml MR., I ise Oolv

All, Please find attached the revised comment response for your review.

As you saw in Tim's e-mail to Gary we would like to reach alignment on this today.

Thanks,

~#z 1{/,i~M Acting Technical Assistant NRR/DSS Office; O 1 O - H22 Phone: (301) 415-3253 1

Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA :staff received a three-page summary of the preliminary findings of the OEDO backfit appeal panel. The staff recognizes that the OEDO panel has pertormed 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)(!:l)

Page 510 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 511 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 512 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 513 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

(b)(5)

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Bill, Whitman, Jennifer Thursday, August 11. 2016 4:52 PM Dean, Bill McDermott, Brian; McGinty, Tim; Lubinski, John; Billerbeck, John; Benner, Eric; Stuchell, Sheldon; Garmoe, Alex; Alley, David Response to Backfit Panel Preliminary Findings We briefed Brian on our attached comments on the Backfit Panel's preliminary findings and wanted to give you a chance to weigh in before we send them back to the Panel on Friday

Thanks, Jen 1:;.,.J:i1i I -1,11

','\\ I', I,\\,.,!,..

---

Original Appointment-----

From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 1:41 PM To: McDermott, Brian; McGinty, Tim; Lub inski, John; Whitman, Jennifer; Billerbeck, John

Subject:

Response to Backfit Panel Findings When: Thursday, August 11, 201610:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).

Where: 013 D14 POC: Jennifer x 3253 1

(b)(5)

OUO P1 e BeeisieAal h.tw.al NAG Use 011lry Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NAR 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.

QblQ Pre Qeeitrie,u,t IAterAal Pd AO t:Jse 0,,ly 1

Page 517 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 518 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 519 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 520 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 521 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject Attachments:

Good Friday afternoon, Garmoe, Alex Friday, August 12, 2016 2:12 PM Bailey, Marissa; Gendelman, Adam; Gody, Tony FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 000- Ple-detlslonal Intc:: :al HR~ !Ju ORI¥ NRR to OEDO Backfit Panel Response Final 8-12-16.docx The attached document is provided as an FYI. The OEDO backfit review panel provided NAA/DSS technical staff with an opportunity to comment on their preliminary conclusion, which is to overturn the backfit. DSS coordinated an NRA response to the OEDO panel, which is attached. I anticipate that you'll find it to be an interesting read and I think a compelling case is made by DSS. We'll see what the OEOO panel thinks.

Have a nice weekend, A lex From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:54 PM To! Benner, Eric; Lund, Louise; Billerbeck, John; Garmoe, Alex; Stuchell, Sheldon; Alley, David Cc: Lubinski, John ; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Gavrllas, Mirela ; Boland, Anne ; Taylor, Robert ; Whitman, Jennifer

Subject:

FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - Bl!:le li'ue decisional Intel,:al URE "se Hi folks - attached and below is NRR's response to the preliminary findings of the OEOO Panel.

I can't thank all of you enough for supporting Rob, Jen and I throughout the process, and most recently in this most recent endeavor. Really appreciate your working with us. If I left any key folks off, please extend my thanks as well. Tim From: M cGinty, Tim Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:50 PM To: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hackett(@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa

<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.Scarbrough c@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael

<Michael.Spencer (ronrc.gov>; Evans, M ichele <:Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; Williamson, Edward

<Edward.Williamson@nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizunotwnrc..,ov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed

<Mohammed.Shuaibi@nrc.gov>; McCree, Victor <Victor.McCree@nrc.gov>; Johnson, Michael

<Michae l.Johnson (a.)nrc.gov>; Tracy, Glenn <Glenn.Tracy@nrc.gov>; Gady, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>; Dean, Bill

<Bill.Dean @nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Akstulewicz, Frank <Frank.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov>; Doane, Margaret <Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>; McDermott, Brian <Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa

<Marissa.Baileyc@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - BWQ P,e deei9ieJ1111I lfil\\en;ial ~Ul* I *se entr Gary - we very much appreciate having the opportunity to comment on the Panel's preliminary findings.

Attached is NRR's response, which was coordinated with both the pertinent Divisions and the NRA ET. We would be happy to discuss with you and/or the Panel representatives at your convenience.

Let me know if you have any questions, and have a great weekend!

Tim McGinty, Director, NRR/DSS From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Mcginty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>;

Akstulewicz, Frank <Frank.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov>; Doane, Margaret <.Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>; Mcdermott, Brian

<Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bailey@nrc.gov>

Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwln.Hackett@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West(ii)nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa

<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.Scarbrough(wnrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael

<Michaef.Sµencer@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; Williamson, Edward

<Edward.Williamson..@.nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed

<Mohammed.Shuaibi@nrc.gov>; Mccree, Victor <Victor.McCree(@nrc.gov>; Johnson, Michael

<Michael.Johnson@nrc.gov>; Tracy, Glenn <Glenn.Tracy@nrc.gov>; Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 000- Pi E-Cletlslo11al - l11tE,.. nl f4RC Iese fzih~l 1

All, Consistent with the plan we presented last week, attached are the preliminary findings of the Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel. The Summary from the Preliminary Findings is reproduced below. The preliminary findings were discussed briefly with the OEDO for their awareness.

As indicated in our completion plan, the panel would appreciate any comments on, or additions to: the documents sited; their interpretation and intent; or the understanding of the backfit rule compliance exception.

Comments would be appreciated by August 9, 2016, but can be accepted as last as August 15, 2016. The panel will also be available for discussion any time before August 15, 2016.

Comments will be reflected or acknowledged in the panel's final report and recommendations to the EDO.

The Preliminary Findings document attached is an internal, pre-decisional document at this time. Both Exelon and NEI declined offers for a public meeting on this issue.

Gary... for the panel

-Steve West

-Tom Scarborough

-Michael Spencer

-Theresa Clark In summary:

The NRA 2015 compliance backfit finding (October 9, 2015 letter to Exelon) is predicated on the following positions (emphases added):

"water relief through a valve that is not qualified for water relief will cause that valve to stick in its fully open position" "the licensee... has not applied the single-failure assumption" "nor have they provided ASME water qualification documentation for the PS Vs... the ASME... original Overpressure Protection Report... inservice test history... including both water and steam tests" 2

However, none of these positions were "known and established standards of the Commission"' in 2001 or 2004 for determining when it was appropriate to assume a failure of PS Vs to reseat. In fact, they were not "known and established standards of the Commission" in 2005 or 2006 or 2007.

Moreover, two of these positions do not appear to be "established standards of the Commission" at present, since the call for use of the single failure criterion first appears in proposed 2015 draft Revision 1 to RIS 2005-029, and the call for ASME certification first appears in the Exelon compliance backfit. The panel concludes that the standard in place in 2001 and 2004 and at present is simply that the probability of failure of a Pressurizer Safety Valve (PSV) is sufficiently small, based on well-informed staff engineering judgement, and that the use of the word "qualified" or "qualification" implied only a general demonstration of capability, such as in the EPRI testing done in response to TMI Action Plan Item 11.D.1.

The panel concludes that, in 2001 and 2004, the staff was not misinformed nor did it "err" in approving the Byron and Braidwood power uprates... nor was it in error in approving other similar cases (e.g. Beaver Valley in 2006}. The 2015 staff positions taken to support the compliance baclctit finding represent new and different staff views on how to address potential PSV failures following water discharge. Although they represent well-intentioned staff positions that could provide additional safety margin, they do not provide a basis for a compliance backf it.

The panel's findings therefore support the Exelon backfit appeal.

In addition to the specific finding relating to the backfit appeal, the panel believes it is important to acknowledge that water discharge through a PSV not specifically designed for such service is undesirable and should be minimized or avoided as a matter of conservative engineering and prudent operations. The panel concludes this while fully aware that the event sequence being considered appears to be of little safety significance (the panel has requested RES analysis to confirm this belief). Operator training and emergency procedures to terminate the event before pressurizer filling, as well as the use of power-operated relief valves rather than relying solely on PSVs, are clearly preferred, whether they form the facilities' UFSAR licensing basis or not.

The panel has not (at this time) formed any views on whether a backfit on this topic could be justified as "adequate protection" or "cost justified"; or whether a "forward-fit" staff position is appropriate or not.

3

,0 1 fQ Pre Aecisiooal lot9coal '>JBC I lse ORI}<

Staff Response to Exelon Backf it Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA 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)

-006 Pre-becis,onai lnterrial l~RC Use 01119=

1

Page 526 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 527 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 528 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 529 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

(b)(5) 0110 Pee Oeciii9ral Internal ~1ac Use Orly QUO Pre 9eeieie,,e:I IAteFAal ~*v\\Q ~ee OAI~

6

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Gady, Tony Friday, August 12, 2016 2:24 PM Garmoe, Alex; Bailey, Mar!ssa; Gendelman, Adam RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - Ot;Q µUil decisicoal Totecoal D:IRC I lse Acly I read it already and agree with you. The NRA paper is clear. weir supported, and well written. I still believe the backfit should be conducted in accordance wi1h MD 6.4 as a generic backfit. My position is primarily based on the fact pattern described in the memo I wrote that this problem appears generic. I guess we will see how this turns out.

v/r Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 2:12 PM To: Bailey, Marissa ; Gendelman, Adam ; Gady, Tony

Subject:

FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 0 t;0 Pl'e eleeisieMI II :ter1111I ~I Re tis@

O,,ly Good Friday afternoon, The attached document is provided as an FYI The OEDO backfit review panel provided NRR/DSS technical staff with an opportunity to comment on their preliminary conclusion, which is to overturn the backfit. DSS coordinated an NRR response to the OEDO panel, which is attached. I anticipate that you'll find it to be an interesting read and I think a compelling case is made by DSS. We'll see what the OEDO panel thinks.

Have a nice weekend.

Alex From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:54 PM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Lund, Louise <Louise.Lund(runrq,ov>; Billerbeck, John

<John.Billerbedqunrc.r_r,ov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Stuchel\\, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>;

Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Gavrilas, Mirela

<Mirela.Gavrilas(a)nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.bov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 0 1;e P: e tktisiellel 11:te. "ill ~1~i Us1v

- e ::1\\, _

Hi folks - attached and below is NRR's response to the preliminary findings of the OEDO Panel.

I can't thank all of you enough to, supporting Rob, Jen and I throughout the process, and most recently in this most recent endeavor. Really appreciate your working with us. If I left any key folks off, please extend my thanks as well. Tim 1

From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Friday, August 12, 2016 1:50 PM To: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>

Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hackett@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West(@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa

<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.Scarbrough@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael

<Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; Williamson, Edward

<Edward.Williamson@nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <GearJ.Mizuno@nrc.gov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed

<Mohammed.Shuaibi@nrc.gov>; Mccree, Victor <~ctor.McCree@nrc.gov>; Johnson, Michael

<Michael.Johnson@nrc.gov>; Tracy, Glenn <Glenn.Tracy(,@nrq,ov>; Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>; Dean, Bill

<Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinskitwnrc.gov>; Akstulewicz, Frank <Frank.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov>; Doane, Margaret <Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>; McDermott, Brian <Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa

<Marissa.Bailey@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - QlislQ PF@ aeeieieriel lriten.el m~c l!Jle

~

Gary - we very much appreciate having the opportunity to comment on the Panel's preliminary findings.

Attached is NRR's response, which was coordinated with both the pertinent Divisions and the NRR ET. We would be happy to discuss with you and/or the Panel representatives at your convenience.

Let me know if you have any questions. and have a great weekend!

Tim McGinty, Director, NRR/DSS From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, BIii <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski~-L nrc.gov::.; Mcginty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>;

Akstulewicz, Frank <Frank.Akstulewicz@nrc.gov>; Doane, Margaret <Margaret.Doane@nrc.gov>; Mcdermott, Brian

<Brian.McDermott(olnrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bailey(wnrc.gov>

Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwln.Hackett@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven. West@nrc.6ov>; Clark, Theresa

<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thornas.Scarbrough@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael

<Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; WIiiiamson, Edward

<~dward.Williamson@nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Geary.Mizuno@nrc.gov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed

<Mohammed.Shuaibi@nrc.gov>; Mccree, Victor <Victor.McCree@nrc.gov>; Johnson, Michael

<Michael.Johnson@nrc.gov>; Tracy, Glenn <Glenn.Tracy@nrc.gov>; Gady, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 0 1:10 Pre eleei,ieriel IRterriel P4RE l:lse 91119

All, Consistent with the plan we presented last week, attached are the preliminary findings of the Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel. The Summary from the Preliminary Findings is reproduced below. The preliminary findings were discussed briefly with the OEDO for their awareness.

As indicated in our completion plan, the panel would appreciate any comments on, or additions to: the documents sited; their interpretation and intent; or the understanding of the backfit rule compliance exception.

Comments would be appreciated by August 9, 2016, but can be accepted as last as August 15, 2016. The panel will also be available for discussion any time before August 15, 2016.

Comments will be reflected or acknowledged in the panel's final report and recommendations to the EDO.

The Preliminary Findings document attached is an internal, pre-decisional document at this time. Both Exelon and N El declined offers for a public meeting on this issue.

2

Gary... for the panel

-Steve West

-Tom Scarborough

-Michael Spencer

-Theresa Clark In summary:

The NRA 2015 compliance backfit finding (October 9, 2015 letter to Exelon) is predicated on the following positions (emphases added):

"water relief through a valve that is not qualified for water relief will cause that valve to stick in its fully open position" "the licensee... has not appli,ed the single-failure assumption" "nor have they provided ASME water qualification documentation for the PS Vs... the ASME... original Overpressure Protection Report... inservice test history... including both water and steam tests" However, none of these positions were "known and established standards of the Commission" in 2001 or 2004 for determining when it was appropriate to assume a failure of PSVs to reseat. In fact, they were not "known and establ1shed standards of the Commission" in 2005 or 2006 or 2007.

Moreover, two of these positions do not appear to be "established standards of the Commission" at present, since the call for use of the single failure criterion first appears in proposed 2015 draft Revision 1 to RIS 2005-029, and the call for ASME certification first appears in the Exelon compliance backfit. The panel concludes that the standard in place in 2001 and 2004 and at present is simply that the probability of failure of a Pressurizer Safety Valve (PSV) is sufficiently small, based on well-informed staff engineering judgement, and that the use of the word "qualified" or "qualification" implied only a general demonstration of capability, such as in the EPRI testing done in response to TMI Action Plan Item 11.D.1.

The panel concludes that, in 2001 and 2004, the staff was not misinformed nor did it "err in approving the Byron and Bra*1dwood power uprates... nor was it in error in approving other similar cases (e.g. Beaver Valley in 2006). The 2015 staff positions taken to support the compliance backfit finding represent new and different staff views on how to address potential PSV failures following water discharge. Although they represent well-intentioned staff positions that could provide additional safety margin, they do not provide a basis for a compliance backfit.

The panel's findings therefore support the Exelon backfit appeal.

In addition to the specific finding relating to the backfit appeal, the panel believes it is important to acknowledge that water discharge through a PSV not specifically designed for such service is undesirable and should be minimized or avoided as a matter of conservative engineering and prudent operations. The panel concludes this while iu\\ly aware that the event sequence being considered appears to be of little safety significance (the panel has requested RES analysis to confirm this belief). Operator training and emergency procedures to terminate the event before pressurizer filling, as well as the use of power-operated relief valves rather than relying solely on PSVs, are clearly pr,eferred, whether they form the facilities' UFSAR licensing basis or not.

The panel has not (at this time) formed any views on whether a backfit on this topic could be justified as "adequate protection" or "cost justified"; or whether a "forward-fit" staff position is appropriate or not.

3

From:

Bil!fil.~UQhn To:

Whitman Jennifer; McGlnt\\ Tlm

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Rndlngs FOR COMMENT- 0119 RJII teelais::ol fiiltilibl lCKC use

~

Date:

Thursday, August 11, 2016 11:47:00 AM Attachments:

B "Ckfit Panel Re pcnse Final

• w11h bdlerbe, k utdate on so ssa.docx

Jen, See attached. I added some further words on page 5 as we discussed. I also made minor editorial changes on pages 3 and 4. Thanks John From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:49 PM To: Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Alley, David

<David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon

<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Hickey, James

<James.Hickey@nrc.gov>

Cc: Davidson, Evan <Evan.Davidson@nrc.gov>; DSSCAL Resource :<DSSCAL.Resource@nrc.gov>;

DORLCAL Resource <DORLCAL.Resource@nrc.gov>; DE_Calendar Resource

<DE_Calendar.Resource@nrc.gov>; Borromeo, Joshua <Joshua.8orromeo@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 000- ?, E dccisio:.sl l::t@. M l ~IP.~ '!Eli Qgly -

I have incorporated all of the comments I have received thus far. Please use this version if you haven't reviewed it yet Jen From: Billerbeck, John Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 201611:44 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <J~nnifer.Whilman, nrc. ov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGjnty@nrc.sov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Ta,.lor nrc,_ ov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski nrc. _ v>; Alley, David

<D_a.vid.AUe a nrc. ov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner nrr.. ov>; Stuchell, Sheldon i::Sh ldon.Stuchell., rnc.....QY>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.(iar_moP a n,c. _ov>; Hickey, James

<l.drnc.Hi kc a ore. ov>

Cc: Davidson, Evan <Evan.Davjdson@1nrqov>; DSSCAL Resource <DSSCAL.Besource@nrc,eov>;

DORLCAL Resource <DORLC~I.Reso re nr... ov>; DE_Calendar Resource

<DE Calendar.Resou:*ce:runrc......ru,,>; Borromeo, Joshua <Joshua.Borromeo 1....orc. ov>

Subject:

RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT _.,O""O"'O"'- p,..r""'e--d"'"e... c...,s-10... n...

a,..

1..,erl'lsl PIRC WJ@ 91'11, -

Good Job. See allached minor comments. Thanks.

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:56 AM To: McGinty, Tim <Iim.McGi.n.t.Y:._Qrc. ov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert Taylor@nrc ~ov>; Lubinski, John

<John.lubi11!:)ki(i,nr,. ov>; Billerbeck, John <John Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Alley, David

<David.Alley@nrc.eov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon

<Sh~do1,.Stu h, ll12'nr.c..,_..Q.:i>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe.. 1 nrc. ov>; Hickey, James

<laows.Hickey@nrc gov>

Cc: Davidson, Evan <fvan.Dayidsonro

..Q.:i>; DSSCAL Resource <DSSCAL Resource@)nrc gov>;

DORLCAL Resource <D..OBLCAL.Reso_!Arce nr c.,v>; DE_Calendar Resource

<OE_CaJerida~es.o.u.a:e~, nr...Q.:i>; Borromeo, Joshua <Joshua.Borromeo, nrc. ov>

Subject:

Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 0"8 P1 c elcei9ief'lel li1tc111al PJAC t;sc 81.ly

All, Please find attached the revised comment response for your review.

As you saw in Tim's e-mail to Gary we would like to reach alignment on this today.

Thanks, Jc,utif:1 7f/~it1w:111 Acting Technical Assistant NRR/DSS Office: 010 - H22 Phone: (301 ) 415-3253

O~O P1 e 8eeiaio11al Iii lo ii.al P4R6 Use 61119-Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRA 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)

-sue P1 e Becisior ral Ir 1te11 ral 1'4RC use Ohiy-1

Page 537 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 538 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 539 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

Page 540 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

(b)(5)

GWO PFe 9 eeieier.al I Rte: nal NAO l:Jsa Oiily

-OUO Pte DeeisieP.al IRhm~el ~l~C I l&Q Qgly 6

From:

Billerbeck, John Sent:

To:

Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:23 PM Alley, David

Subject:

RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backftt issue

Dave, I'm OK with Rob's proposed edit.

John From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:12 PM To: Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue

Dave, Thanks for the inout. If it is ok with vou, l(bl(5l (b)(5)

Are you ok with that?

Rob From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:53 AM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>

Cc: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeckcrunrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue

Rob, John Lubinski requested that we review the backfit one pager and comment to you. We (John Billerbeck and I) propose an additional bullet !<b)(5l I

We propose (b)(5) 1

(b)(::>)

Dave From: Lubinski, John Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:54 AM To: Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>

Cc: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue Any comments on this?

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:48 AM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John

<John.Lubinski(a)nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George

<George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit Issue (OJ{::>)

From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:03 AM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrq,ov>; Boland, Anne

<Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>

Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer. Whitman~i.)nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue

All, Per Bill's request, I have drafted the attached one-pager Please consider it rough and provide any comments you have. Jen, please fact check for me.

Rob From: Dean, Bill Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:04 PM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne

<Arme.Boland@mc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>

Cc: McDermott, Brian <Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans(amrc.gov>

Subject:

Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue I asked mike johnson about getting with Vic before he signs out the backfit appeal package and he thought that was good to do - he indicated he and Vic are both just starting to read it. I would be interested in a handful of ke talkin oints that the staff would like to make sure we share with him. I heard some thin s this mornin re:

(b)(

2

f...

~' -1(5-) __

__,/ Maybe in a couple of days?

BILL 3

From:

Lubinski, John Sent; To:

Tuesday, August 30, 201611:54 AM Alley, David Cc:

Ross-Lee, MaryJane

Subject:

FW: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue Attachments:

NP-2770-LDVl.pdf; NRR Perspectives OEDO Backfit Panel Findings JMW.docx Any comments on this?

From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:48 AM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John

<John.Lubinsk1@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George

<George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue (b)(5)

From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:03 AM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne

<Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGintv@nrc.gov>

Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman(dlnrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Providing EOO feedback on the byron backfit issue All.

Per Bill's request. I have drafted the attached one-pager Please consider it rough and provide any comments you have. Jen, please fact check for me.

Rob From: Dean, Bill Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:04 PM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane.Ross-Leecwnrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne

<Anne.BolandOilnrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Tay!or@mc.gov>

Cc: McDermott, Brian <Brian.McDermottcwnrc. 1,.ov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue I asked mike johnson about getting with Vic before he signs out the backfit appeal package and he thought that was good to do - he indicated he and Vic are both just starting to read it. I would be interested in a handful of ke talkin oints that the staff would like to make sure we share with him. I heard some thin s this mornin re:

(b ( )

(b)(5)

Maybe in a couple of days?

l

BILL 2

NRA Persoectives OEDO Backfit Panel Findinas (b)(5)

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Ja,ksoo. CtiristotJJ.er Whitman. Jennlfoer; Oesterle Eric FW: Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel Recommendations Tuesday, March 29, 2016 12:31:01 PM Congratulations Jennifer - this is a big accomplishment!

From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Monday, March 28, 20Jl6 2:41 PM To: King, Michael ; Hickey, James; Taylor, Robert; Anderson, Shaun; Davidson, Evan; Oesterle, Eric; Jackson, Christopher; Whitman, Jennifer

Subject:

Fwd: Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel Recommendations From: "Bailey, Marissa" <Marissa.Bailey ccnrc,.,;Q.Y_>

Subject:

Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel Recommendations Date: 28 March 2016 14:10 To: "McGinty, Tim" <[jm.Mc<"1intv ~*nr,.~ov>, "Boland, Anne" <Anne.Boland liinrc~>

Cc: "Garmoe, Alex" <A!ex,Garmoe@nrq;ov>, "Gody, Tony" <Tony.l1od)!..£Vnrc.:,!Ov>,

"Gendelman, Adam" <Adam.i_,eodelmanLaJnrcJ!.ov>, "Kokajko, Lawrence"

<Lawrence.Koka"1ko <tnn:.~>, "Mohseni, Aby" <Ab,v.Mohseni <pnrc.ggv>

Anne, Tim -

This morning, the Panel briefed Bill, Michelle and John on our review of the Braidwood and Byron backfit appeal. The Panel recommended that Exelon's appeal be denied. We also recommended that staff review the general strategy, used by PWR licensees, of relying on PORVs or PSVs to relieve water during mass addition events to determine if further generic actions are warranted in light of the staff position communicated in the October 9, 2015, backfit letter.

Our review and recommendations are documented in ADAMS ML 16082AS4~. Details on the basis for the second recommendation are documented in a memo from Tony Gody to me (ADAMS MLL60sJ A405).

Bill was supportive of the Panel's recommendations. Next step will be to write a letter to Exelon on the appeal decision; Alex Garmoe will have the lead. That letter will make no mention of the potential generic issue. The potential generic issue will likely be turned over to DSS for further consideration.

Marissa

Subject:

location:

Start:

End:

Recurrence:

Meeting Status:

Organizer:

Required Attendees:

Optlon,al Attendees:

From: Taylor, Robert Backfit Panel Response.docx Rob's Office Mon 08/08/2016 1:00 PM Mon 08/08/2016 1:30 PM (none)

Meeting organizer Whitman, Jennifer Whitman, Jennifer; Taylor, Robert McGinty, Tim; DSSCAL Resource Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 7:11 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>

Cc: McGinty, Tim <Tim.M cGinty@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Bacl<.fit Panel Response.docx Good thoughts. Let's meet at 1pm to go over them. Want to makes sure I fully understand.

1

From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Friday, August OS, 2016 11:11 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@..n~

ov>

Cc: McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Backfit Panel Response.docx 2

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

John & Tim, Benner Eri<;

L, b1nski John; McGjntv. :nm Taylor Robert; Whitman leoo!Cer: Alley payld; Oestcdc Eric ACTION: Review of Byron-Braidwood Backfit Decision Feedback for Discussion at 3:00 with Bill Dean Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:56:51 AM By Br Backit Appeal Resoonses.docx Attached is what we've come up with on the Byron-Braidwood Backfit Decision. It includes ro osed rewrites for some of the res onses in the enclosure to the decision as well as a (b)(5)

Great job by Jen, Eric 0. and Dave coming up with this!

Eric

NRR Feedback on Byron-Braidwood Backfit Appeal (b)(5)

Page 553 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Garmoe, Alex Thursday, August 04, 2016 7:58 AM Stuchell, Sheldon RE: COMMISSION E-READER -- Wednesday, July 20, 2016 ML1609SA204.pdf This attachment is publicly available in ADAMS FYI I'm not sure if the backfit letter that Tim sent was the absolute final *copy (since the file name indicated April 11 ). Attached is the issued copy from ADAMS dated May 3.

From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 7:34 AM To: Garmoe, Alex

Subject:

FW: COMMISSION E-READER -- Wednesday, July 20, 2016 From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 6:40 PM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman L@nrc.gov>; Hickey, James

<James.Hickey@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.5ov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>

Subject; FW: COMMISSION E-READER - Wednesday, July 20, 2016 Regarding our meeting tomorrow on backfitting - see Tab A above.

This is a recent NEI letter on open phase, and concerns they have with potential future application of the compliance exception for those licensees that would end up not completing the voluntary initiative when the IEP expires.

(bJ(tJJ Tim 1

From: Lubinski, John Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2016 10:10 AM To: McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGint y@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: COMMISSION E-READER -- Wednesday, July 20, 2016 Letter you requested is Tab A.

From: Dean, Bill Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 9:51 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Mcdermott, Brian <Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane

<MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>

Cc: Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.rwv>

Subject:

Fwd: COMM ISSION E-READER. -- Wednesday, July 20, 2016 Assume OGC will have lead on responding?

Brn Dean Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC From: "Lewis, Antoinette" <Antoinette.Lewis(g)nrc.gQY>

Subject:

COMMISSION E-READER -- Wednesday, July 20, 2016 Date: 20 July 201611: 17 To: "Commission E-Reader Distribution" <CommissionE-Readcr@nrc._g__ov>

INTERNAL USE ONL V Some of the ed in the Read publicly a If th<Mlll:il""'!lifie any questions, please contact S READING FILE INDEX July 20, 2016 INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE Tab "A" 07/19/16 - Letter from Anthony R. Pietrangelo, Sr. Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, concerns Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on Tasking Memorandum Dated June 9, 2016. Placed in the E-Reader at the request of OEDO.

2

OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE None.

. \\111oit1L*tll' I,t*,ris (.\\111.,~l')

.\\ ssiSltllll [cir (.'orrc~p<<HHkllCl' & lknird!\\

( )l'Jicl' ol' tlw,,;l'<Tt*tar)* (SEC\\')

Hrn>111 :\\t1111bcr: () I Iii l'.2:l

(;*!0 1) il.i-lfi7 1 3

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

oesterJe. Eric Garmoe. Alex Stuchell Sheldon; Jackson Christopher; Bailey. Marissa RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Monday, May 02, 2016 2:51:00 PM Thanks for the update Alex! I appreciate the follow-up.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 1:29 PM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon ; Jackson, Christopher; Bailey, Marissa

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Eric, Marissa, Bill, and I met on Friday in advance of the briefing. Based on his understanding of what Mike Johnson is looking for, Bill's preference is that the group remain small and not include DSS. Our impressions are that this is a situational awareness type of conversation that will be focused on the appeal process rather than the initial backfit. Please let me know if you have any questions and I apologize for cycling your organization late last week.

Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:33 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex Garmoe@nrc gov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sbcldon.Stuchel)@nrc.gov>; Jackson, Christopher

<Chri.sto.tber.Jacksoo nrc. ~ov>; Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Baile.:.. nrc__,_,~ov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Alex, Thanks for the follow-up. We plan to have someone from DSS support the briefing.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:40 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <fric:.OesterlP nrc. ov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <SheJdon.Stuchell 11nrc. ov>; Jackson, Christopher

<Cllcistopher.Jackson(@nrc gov>; Bailey, Marissa <MM.!S$a.Uaile....2...0.L~>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Eric, I spoke with Theresa from the EDO's Office and Adam Gendelman from OGC. The general consensus is that it should not be a problem for DSS to toe present at the briefing. The key for EDO and DSS representatives at the briefing will be to discuss the circumstances and facts and to not appear to influence Bill's decision. I think it would be an overall benefit for someone from DSS to be present to address technical questions that might come up.

Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:46 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe ore...QY.>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sbeldon,Stuchcll@nrc 13ov>; Jackson, Christopher

<Chrlsto1 *hecJacksoMnt:C...L v>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Alex, Thanks for the heads up. My plan would be to have Jennifer Whitman provide support for this.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:32 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle nrc. ov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell ~ nrc ov>; Jackson, Christopher

<Christo he,.lcick on 11nrc,. v>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High

Eric, On Tuesday, May 3 at 4:30pm there is a briefing requested by Mike Johnson on the Exelon backfit appeal. Our intention is to provide a fairly high level overview of the backfit, the appeal, the appeal process and conclusions, and what might come next. Since DSS identified the initial issue and issued the initial backfit, we'd appreciate if someone from DSS could attend the briefing with us in case any questions about the underlying technical issue come up. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Alex From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:55 AM To: Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Baile_y 11 nrr. cY>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon,Stuchell@nrqov>;

Gavrilas, Mlrela <Mirela.Gavrilas@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Marissa, Mirela, and Sheldon, I asked Theresa Clark if we could anticipate any specific interests ahead of next week's briefing and her reply is below. It sounds like we'll be on the right track if we prepare for an overview of the initial backfit, licensee's appeal, the process we used to review the appeal, and what might come next (the licensee might appeal the decision to the EDO). As Marissa mentioned yesterday, it would probably be a good idea to have someone from DSS that could assist with any detailed questions about the technical issue since they issued the initial backfit. I'll check with DSS.

Alex From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:36 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe,, ore. Qt>

Subject:

Re: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks, Alex. I didn't know the specific time, but I'll pull it off Mike's calendar now that I do.

I'm guessing Mike will want to focus on the use of the backfit criteria and the error that is being cited. I gave him a copy of the draft in ADAMS, with the understanding that it will be updated more to address Bill's comments, so you can expect that he will be aware of the basics. He may also be interested in the public meeting held a while back, as well as the appeal process (if it happens).

I'll check with him on the details and get back with you if l hear anything different. Thanks!

Theresa On: 26 April 2016 I 8:03, "Gannoe, Alex" <Alex.Garn, )e c1)nrc.~ )v> wrote:

Theresa, You are probably aware of a briefing with Mike Johnson that is scheduled for May 3 at 4:30pm to discuss the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. We are preparing to discuss an overview of our review of the backfit appeal and were wondering if you knew of any particular OEDO concerns or areas of interest that we should focus on.. Also, in case it might affect any questions that might arise during the briefing, I want to ensure you are aware that, should the licensee choose to further appeal the NRR Director's decision, that appeal would be directed to the EOO per Management Directive Handbook 8.4, section 111.A.S(h), section 111.A.6, and Exhibit 2.

Thanks for any information you might have. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

Alexander 0. Garmoe Senior Protect Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)

Division of Policy and Ruiemaking (DPR)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov 301-415-3814

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Importance:

Rob,

~~

Taylor Robert McGjntv Uro FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:49:00 AM High Wanted to make sure that you are aware of the M. Johnson briefing request on the By/Br Exelon Backfit Appeal on May 3rd at 4:30pm (see below). I am going to have Jen Whitman support DPR.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:32 AM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon ; Jackson, Christopher

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High

Eric, On Tuesday, May 3 at 4:30pm there is a briefing requested by Mike Johnson on the Exelon backfit appeal. Our intention is to provide a fairly high level overview of the backfit, the appeal, the appeal process and conclusions, and what might come next. Since DSS identified the initial issue and issued the initial backfit, we'd appreciate if someone from DSS could attend the briefing with us in case any questions about the underlying technical issue come up. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Alex From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:55 AM To: Balley, Marissa <Marissa.BailE>

nrc. ov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon Stuche!l@nrq10v>;

Gavrilas, Mirela <M1rela.Gavrilas a nrc. ov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Marissa, Mirela, and Sheldon, l asked Theresa Clark if we could anticipate any specific interests ahead of next week's briefing and her reply is below. It sounds like we'll be on the right track if we prepare for an overview of the initial backfit, licensee's appeal, the process we used to review the appeal, and what might come next (the licensee might appeal the decision to the EDO). As Marissa mentioned yesterday, it would probably be a good idea to have someone from DSS that could assist with any detailed questions about the technical issue since they issued the initial backfit. I'll check with DSS.

Alex From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:36 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <~lex.Garmoe nrc. ov>

Subject:

Re: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks, Alex. I didn't know the specific time, but I'll pull it off Mike's calendar now that ( do.

I'm guessing Mike will want to focus on the use of the backfit criteria and the error that is being cited. I gave him a copy of the draft in ADAMS, with the understanding that it will be updated more to address Bill's comments, so you can expect that he will be aware of the basics. He may also be interested in the public meeting held a while back, as well as the appeal process (if it happens).

I'll check with him on the details and get back with you if I hear anything different. Thanks!

Theresa On: 26 April 2016 18:03, "Garmoe, Alex" <Alex.(,annoc cf'11t*c.vQv> wrote:

Theresa, You are probably aware of a briefing with Mike Johnson that is scheduled for May 3 at 4:30pm to discuss the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. We are preparing to discuss an overview of our review of the backfit appeal and were wondering if you knew of any particular OEDO concerns or areas of interest that we should focus on. Also, in case it might affect any questions that might arise during the briefing, I want to ensure you are aware that, should the licensee choose to further appeal the NRR Director's decision, that appeal would be directed to the EDO per Management Directive Handbook 8.4, section 111.A.S(h), section 111.A.6, and Exhibit 2.

Thanks for any information you might have. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

Alexander 0. Garmoe Senior Projec.t Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)

Division of Policy and Rulemaklng (DPR)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

Alex.Garmoe@nrc.aov 301-415-3814

from:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Oesterle Errc Garmoe Alex RE: Question about upc.OITling briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:26:00 AM She won't be back until Tuesday.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 9:00 AM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon ; Jackson, Christopher

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks Eric. I know she's been out of the office for a couple weeks, will she be back on Monday so we can touch base with her ahead of the briefing?

Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:46 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garrnoel'.:'.1.(lrc. _y>

Cc: Stuchel\\1 Sheldon <~liiQ.n.Stuchell nrt. ov>; Jackson, Christopher

<CbristopherJacksoo@orc,gov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Alex, Thanks for the heads up. My plan would be to have Jennifer Whitman provide support for this.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:32 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <[ric.Oeste[l~rc. ov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell, or ov>; Jackson, Christopher

<Cho:,topher Jacksoo@orc.eov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High

Eric, On Tuesday, May 3 at 4:30pm there is a briefing requested by Mike Johnson on the Exelon backfit appeal. Our intention is to provide a fairly high level overview of the backfit, the appeal, the appeal process and conclusions, and what might come next. Since DSS identified the initial issue and issued the initial backfit, we'd appreciate if someone from DSS could attend the briefing with us in case any questions about the underlying technical issue come up. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Alex From: Garmoe, Alex sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:55 AM To: Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bajley@nrc gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Si u h lln)nrc..* ov>;

Gavrilas, Mirela <Mirela.Gavcilas_or,._oV>

subject: FW: Question about I\\Jpcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Marissa, Mirela, and Sheldon,

I asked Theresa Clark if we could anticipate any specific interests ahead of next week's briefing and her reply is below. It sounds like we'll be on the right track if we prepare for an overview of the initial backfit, licensee's appeal, the process we used to review the appeal, and what might come next (the licensee might appeal the decision to the EDO). As Marissa mentioned yesterday, it would probably be a good idea to have someone from DSS that could assist with any detailed questions about the technical issue since they issued the initial backfit. I'll check with DSS.

Alex From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:36 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex~Gannoe1a>nrc.P v>

Subject:

Re: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike.Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks, Alex. I didn't know the specific time, but I'll pull it off Mike's calendar now that I do.

I'm guessing Mike will want to focus on the use of the backfit criteria and the error that is being cited. I gave him a copy of the draft in ADAMS, with the understanding that it will be updated more to address Bill's comments, so you can expect that he will be aware of the basics. He may also be interested in the public meeting held a while back, as well as the appeal process (if it happens).

I'll check with him on the details and get back with you if f hear anything d.itlerent. Thanks!

Theresa On: 26 April 2016 18:03, "Gannoe, Alex" <8L~-~rmo!:1q:nrqmv> wrote:

Theresa, You are probably aware of a briefing with Mike Johnson that is scheduled for May 3 at 4:30pm to discuss the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. We are preparing to discuss an overview of our review of the backfit appeal and were wondering if you knew of any particular OEDO concerns or areas of interest that we should focus on. Also, in case it might affect any questions that might arise during the briefing, I want to ensure you are aware that, should the licensee choose to further appeal the NRR Director's decisio1n, that appeal would be directed to the EDO per Management Directive Handbook 8.4, section 111.A.S(h), section 111.A.6, and Exhibit 2.

Thanks for any information you might have. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

Alexander D~ Garmoe Senior Project M anager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)

Oivi.sion of Policy and Rulemaklng (OPR)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu'lation (NRR)

Atex.Garmoe@nrc.gov 301-415-3814

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Alex, Oesterle. Enc Garmoe. Alex Stuchell Sheldon; Ja~soo Chnstopher; eauev. Marissa RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon bad<fit appeal Monday, May 02, 2016 6:33:00 AM Thanks for the follow-up. We plan to have someone from DSS support the briefing.

Erle From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:40 AM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon; Jackson, Christopher; Bailey, Marissa

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Eric, I spoke with Theresa from the EDO's Office and Adam Gendelman from OGC. The general consensus is that it should not be a problem for DSS to be present at the briefing. The key for EDO and DSS representatives at the briefing will be to discuss the circumstances and facts and to not appear to jnfluence Bill's decision. I think it would be an overall benefit for someone from DSS to be present to address technical questions that might come up.

Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:46 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garn1oe(a)nrc.goy>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheld~chell nrc. ov>; Jackson, Christopher

< hrist. 1 he_r.JrK~.Ofl nrc. ov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Alex, Thanks for the heads up. My plan would be to have Jennifer Whitman provide support for this.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:32 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.StuchelJC@nrc.gov>; Jackson, Christopher

<Chri*,toi.. her.Jackson _a nrc,r.ov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Importance: High

Eric, On Tuesday, May 3 at 4:30pm there is a briefing requested by Mike Johnson on the Exelon backfit appeal. Our intention is to provide a fairly high level overview of the backfit, the appeal. the appeal process and conclusions. and what might come next. Since DSS identified the initial issue and issued the initial backfit, we'd appreciate if someone from DSS could attend the briefing with us in case any questions about the underlying technical issue come up. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Alex From: Garmoe, Alex

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:55 AM To: Bailey, Marissa <fVlarissa.Baile_,:.§?nr-.....Q..v>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.$.tu..chcllt nrc., ov>;

Gavrilas, Mirela <Mirela~~v..rila._L.nrc. ov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Marissa, Mireta, and Sheldon.

l asked Theresa Clark if we could anticipate any specific interests ahead of next week's briefing and her reply is below. tt sounds like we"II be on the right track if we prepare for an overview of the initial backfit, licensee's appeal, the process we used to review the appeal, and what might come next (the licensee might appeal the decision to the EDO). As Marissa mentioned yesterday, it would probably be a good idea to have someone from DSS that could assist with any detailed questions about the technical issue since they issued the initial backfit. I'll check with OSS.

Alex From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:36 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.GarJnQ.e......:.nrc. ov>

Subject:

Re: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks, Alex. I didn't know the specific time, but I'll pull it off Mike's calendar now that I do.

I'm guessing Mike will want to focus on the use of the backfit criteria and the error that is being cited. I gave him a copy of the draft in ADAMS, with the understanding that it will be updated more to address Bill's comments, so you can expect that he will be aware of the basics. He may also be interested in the public meeting held a while back, as well as the appeal process (if it happens).

I'll check with him on the details and get back with you if I hear anything different. Thanks!

Theresa On: 26 April 2016 I 8:03, "Garmoe, Alex" <t\\k'.\\ Garmoc~('nrc.gov> wrote:

Theresa, You are probably aware of a briefing with Mike Johnson that is scheduled for May 3 at 4:30pm to discuss the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. We are preparing to discuss an overview of our review of the backfit appeal and were wondering if you knew of any particular OEDO concerns or areas of interest that we should focus on. Also, in case it might affect any questions that might arise during the briefing, I want to ensure you are aware that, should the licensee choose to further appeal the NRR Director's decision, that appeal would be directed to the EDO per Management Directive Handbook 8.4, section 111.A.S(h), section 111.A.6, and Exhibit 2.

Thanks for any information you might have. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions.

Alexander 0. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)

Division of Polley and Rulemaking (DPR)

Office of Nu dear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov 301*415-3814

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Alex,

~t rle.friC Garmoe Ali*x MJohnson Briefing on Backflt Appeal Monday, May 02, 2016 7:32:00 AM iroaoeoo 1. ona Please forward the scheduler for the MJohnson briefing to me. Thanks!

'EY-i.o'R.. <D~evl.e,,

Chief (Acting), Reactor Systems Branch NRR/055/SRXB 301-415-1014

From:

O~terle_.Eri To:

Wtlitmill'\\ Jerm\\fer: Ta, IQL Rotert

Subject:

M Johnson brletl ng on EXelon Backlit Appeal

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Importance:

Qesterle Erii; Whitman. J<:nnlfer; Ia:tloC, Robert DSSCAL Resource Canceled: M Johnson briefing on Exelon Backtlt Appeal High Bill Dean has determined that DSS participation in this discussion is noc necessary a, it will foc1L~ on process.

Eric

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Importance:

Rob, Oe t, rle Mt Ta.,lor Robe!1; Whitman,ennjfer Mike Johnson brleflng on Exelon Back.flt Appeal Monday, May 02., 2016 3:25:00 PM RE Ol e,tion about uc<omhu orl* fitU c.f Mike iohn on orr Exelon backOt a. '[,eal.!lli!J 1mage001.ona High DSS support is no longer needed for subject briefing (see attached).

f y(,c,'R. ()~e;-le, Chief (Acting), Reactor Systems Branch NRR/055/SRXB 301-415-1014

From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject Attachments:

Eric, Garmoe, Alex Monday, May 02, 2016 3:02 PM Oesterle, Eric Whitman, Jennifer RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Braidwood and Byron Backfit briefing notes Rev 2.docx Four your awareness, here's the one-pager Marissa will speak to in the briefing tomorrow. lf you have any concerns with it or suggestions please let me know

Thanks, Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 2:51 PM To: Garmoe, Alex Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon ; Jackson, Christopher; Bailey, Marissa Sub)ect: RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks for the update Alex! I appreciate the follow-up.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 1:29 PM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell{iilnrc.gov>; Jackson, Christopher <Christopher.Jacksontainrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa

<Marissa.Bailey(runrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Eric, Marissa, Bill, and I met on Friday in advance of the briefing. Based on his understanding of what Mike Johnson is looking for, Bill's preference is that the group remain small and not include DSS. Our impressions are that this is a situational awareness type of conversation that will be focused on the appeal process rather than the initial backfit. Please let me know if you have any questions and I apologize for cycling your organization late last week.

Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:33 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoeta nrc.go,v>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchelt(ronrc.gov>; Jackson, Christopher <Chrlstopher.Jackson(61nrc.~

>; Bailey, Marissa

<Marissa.Bailey(@ nrc.g_ov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal l

Alex, Thanks for the follow-up. We plan 10 have someone from DSS support the briefing.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 9:40 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell~

ov>; Jackson, Christopher <Christonher.Jack~on(runrc.gQ_v>; Bailey, Marissa

<Marissa.Bailey@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal

Eric, I spoke with Theresa from the EDO's Office and Adam Gendelman from OGC. The general consensus is that it should not be a problem for DSS to be present at the briefing. The key for EDO and DSS representatives at the briefing will be to discuss the circumstances and facts and to not appear to influence Bill's decision. I think it would be an overall benefit for someone from OSS to be present to address technical questions that might come up Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:46 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.1;ov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell(!unrq,ov>; Jackson, Christopher <Christop~er.Jackson@nrc.t;ov>

Subject:

RE: Question about upcoming briefing of M ike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Alex.

Thanks for the heads up. My plan would be to have Jennifer Whitman provide support for this.

Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:32 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric,Qesterle(@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Jackson, Christopher <Christopher.Jackson(o>nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon bacl<fit appeal Importance: High

Eric, On Tuesday, May 3 at 4:30pm there is a briefing requested by Mike Johnson on the Exelon backfit appeal. Our intention is to provide a fairly high level overview of the backfit, the appeal, the appeal process and conclusions, and what might come next. Since DSS identified the initial issue and issued the initial backfit, we'd appreciate if someone from DSS could attend the briefing with us in case any questions about the underlying technical issue come up. Any support is greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Alex 2

From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 7:55 AM To: Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bailey@nrc.;.ov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell en: nrc.gov>; Gavrilas, Mirela

<Mirela.Gavrilas@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Question about upcoming !briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Marissa, Mirela, and Sheldon.

I asked Theresa Clark if we could anticipate any specific interests ahead of next week's briefing and her reply is below. It sounds like we'll be on the right track if we prepare for an overview of the initial backfit, licensee's appeal, the process we used to review the appeal. and what might come next (the licensee might appeal the decision to the EDO). As Marissa mentioned yesterday. it would probably be a good idea to have someone from DSS that could assist with any detailed questions about the technical issue since they issued the initial backfit. I'll check with DSS.

Alex From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 7:36 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe(Wnrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Question about upcoming briefing of Mike Johnson on Exelon backfit appeal Thanks, Alex. I didn't know the specific time, but I'll pull it off Mike's calendar now that I do.

l'm guessing Mike will want to focus on the use of the backfit criteria and the error that is being cited. I gave him a copy of the draft in ADAMS, with lhe understanding that it will be updated more to address Bill's corrunents, so you can expect that he will be aware of the basics. He may also be interested in the public meeting held a while back, as well as the appeal process (if it happens).

I'll check with him on the details and get back with you if I hear anything different. Thanks!

Theresa On: 26 April 2016 18:03, "Garmoe, Alex" <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gQy> wrote:

Theresa, You are probably aware of a briefing with Mike Johnson that is scheduled for May 3 at 4:30pm to discuss the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. We are preparing to discuss an overview of our review of the backfit appeal and were wondering if you knew of any particular OEDO concerns or areas of interest that we should focus on.

Also, in case it might affect any questions that might arise during the briefing, I want to ensure you are aware that, should the licensee choose to further appeal the NRA Director's decision, that appeal would be directed to the EDO per Management Directive Handbook 8.4, section 111.A.S(h), section 111.A.6, and Exhibit 2.

Thanks for any information you might have. Please don't hesitate to let me know it you have any questions.

3

Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)

Division of Policy and Ru'emaking (OPR)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Re.&ulatlon (NRR)

A!ex.Garmoe~nrc.gov 301-415*38H 4

BYRON/BRAIDWOOD BACKFIT REVIEW PANEL BRIEFING FOR OEDO Key Messages Exelon appealed a compliance backfit imposed on Braidwood and Byron (B/B)

Per NRA Office Instruction LIC-202, which implements the MD 8.4 backfitting process for NRA, a Backfit Review Panel was appointed by NRA Office Director to review the appeal The Panel determined that imposition of the backfit is necessary and application of the compliance backfit exception is appropriate, and recommended denial of the EGC's appeal In accordance with MD 8.4, the licensee can appeal the Panel's decision to the EDO

Background

NRC approved 8/8 inadvertent ECCS operation (IOECCS) analysis in 2001 and 2004 SERs During review of 8/B MUR application in 2011, NRC identified that the licensee's UFSAR analyses for RCS mass addition events predicted water relief through pressurizer relief valves (PORVs) and/or safety valves (PSVs)

RCS mass addition events are Condition II events per ANS-N18.2-1973 (incorporated into 8/B UFSAR). ANS-N18.2-1973 requires that Condition II events cannot generate more severe Condition Ill or IV events without another independent event occurring PORVs and PSVs were not qualified for water relief - the licensee relied on EPRI testing that does not demonstrate the PSVs and PORVs would re-seat and not leak following water discharge Failure of PORV or PSV to re-seat could result in a small break LOCA, a Condition Ill event NRG issued backfit via October 9, 2015 letter:

UFSAR Sections 15.5.1 (IOECCS), 15.5.2 (CVCS malfunction), and 15.6.1 (inadvertent opening of PORV or PSV) predict water relief through a valve not qualified for water relief UFSAR does not demonstrate compliance with ANS design requirement for Condition II events, thus, does not comply with GDCs 15, 21, and 29 and 50.34(b)

Change in NRC position from 2001 and 2004 SER approvals Exelon appealed NRC's backfit to the NRA Office Director via December 8, 2015 letter:

compliance backfit did not apply because NRG did not explain how its prior position was erroneous due to an omission or mistake of fact acknowledged consistent NRC position regarding propagation of Condition II events NRC application of GDCs differed from positions documented in 2001 and 2004 SEs NEI submitted comments in support of Exelon appeal by letter dated January 20, 2016 Backf it Review Panel Met with NRG staff involved in the backfit decision and with Exelon via public meeting Confirmed that UFSAR predicts water relief for RCS mass addition events Confirmed that PORVs and PSVs were not shown to re*seat following water relief, failure to re-seat could result in SLOCA, Staff appropriately identified that new position is a change from 2001 and 2004 approvals and appropriately identified the compliance exception as applicable Consistent NRC position regarding propagation of Condition II events was the known and established standard Backfit cited water qualification of the PORVs/PSVs as the mistake of fact that led to erroneous approvals in 2001 and 2004 But for the mistake of fact that the PSVs were not actually shown to be water qualified, NRC would not have approved the applicable UFSAR analyses in 2001 and 2004 Panel recommended to NRA Office Director that Exelon's appeal be denied.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Hi Jen, OesterL~

Whitmaunnlfi:r RE: MJohnson Briefing on By/Br Bad<flt Appeal Monday, May 02, 2016 3:35:00 PM 1maoeoo1.pog Confirmed. Found out today that DSS support is_rurt needed. Thanks!

Eric From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:32 PM To: Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

RE: MJohnson Briefing on By/Br Backfit Appeal

Eric, I looked Lhrough all the e-mails related to this and wam to confirm that my support was determined to not be needed.

Please shoot an e-mail to my personal e-mail (ieall2@grnajl.com) if my support is in fact needed for this brietlng tom on ow.

Thanks, Jen From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 8:48 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <.tcnn1fer,Wl1itman__:n1~v>

Subject:

MJohnson Briefing on By/Br Backfit Appeal Importance: High

Jen, There is a briefing by DPR of Mike Johnson on May 3 at 4:30pm. Please support. Thanks!

fv0R. O~er-lb Chief (Acting), Reactor Systems Branch NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014

from:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Pate:

Attachments:

Wbllroan.Ji:nnifer Taylor Robert; McGinty. Tim Oesterle Ea, RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Tuesday, June 07, 2016 12:26:14 PM Backflttlna Flow Charts Ddf Looking at Management Directive 8.4, in this second level appeal to the EDO, the EDO may choose to appoint a panel of CRGR members to review the appeal.

Additionally, the EDO may review and modify the backfit decision either on his or her own initiative or at the request of the licensee. A backfit claim and resultant staff determination that is reevaluated by EDO initiative or in response to an appeal and that is again determined by the EDO not to be a backfit, or is excepted from the requirement for a backfit analysis, shall not be treated further in the context of this MD, but is dealt with within the normal licensing or inspection appeal process.

If the licensee appeals to the EDO and is unsuccessful and refuses to comply with the staffs position, an order may be issued.

I have also attached the flow chart.

It looks like the ball ls definitely in the EDO's court and I do not have any requests for information other than to brief Brian on Thursday.

Jen From: McDermott, Brian Sent: rriday, June 03, 2016 10:40 AM To: Taylor, Robert ; McGinty, Tim Cc: Whitman, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Thanks. Appreciate the discussion this morning.

From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:20 AM To: McDermott, Brian <Brjc1J1 McDennotl nrc. Qv>; McGinty, 1 im <

Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennif, ov>

Subject:

RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO

Brian, ov>

Following up on our discussion, I would recommend you take a look at the original backfit and our response to the appeal. I have attached them. Jen and I will gladly brief you on both the backfit and the RIS next week at your conveniernce.

Regards, Rob From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 6:25 AM To: McGinty, Tim <lim.McGin_t._.

o_v>; Taylor, Robert <f~obe.rt....L _ a nr. ov>

Subject:

Fwd: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO l need to speak with someone about this and the RlS today.

From: "Boland, Anne" <Anne.11oland ~.111.JL~

Subject:

FW: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO

Date: 02 June 2016 16:19 To: "Dean, Bill" <Bill.Dean u il}]'.L1ov>, "Evans, Michele" <Midicl\\,;.Evans tt'mc.~>,

"McDermott, Brian" <:Brian.McDcn11t)tl u1nrc.oov>, "McGinty, Tim"

<Tim.McGintv,t>nrc.!.!,ov>, "Taylor, Robert" <Robcn.*u1ylor@mc.,?.ov>, "Scott, Catherine"

<Catl1i..:rinc.Scol1',(i>.nrc.,1..ov>

Cc: "Benner, Eric" <D:i.(;Jknncr((i.nn:.1i:ov>, "Wilson, George" <Gcor0 c Wib n ir.,~>

Backfit appeaf sent to OEDO for Byron/Braidwood Anne From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:06 PM To: Miller, Ed <E_d_._Mille.L( nr. JJ'J>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Bolaod~ov>; Duncan, Eric

<Erii:;.Dunc..rn @nrc. ov>; Jandovitl, John </.Qh11Jm.dovit7, nrc_,_Q_v>; McGhee, James

<J.:in1P'i..Mc:(ihee n,... ClV>; Benjamin, Jamie <.lami(),R<?niNroiu nrc. ov>; Betancourt, Diana

<Diana.fu,tancoL1ct.2~..!JJC.._ ov>; Draper, Jason <Jason.Draper@nrc gov>; Garmoe, Alex

<Alex.Garro ~.il',I:::.

Subject:

Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO

DH 8.4 MANAGEMENT OF FACILITY-SPECIFIC BACKFITTING AND INFORMATION COLLECTION Date Approved: 10/09/2013 Exhibit 1 Internal NRC Facility-specific Backfit and Issue Finality Flow Chart An applicant, a licensee, or NRC staff Identifies a potentlal backfitting or Part 52 issue finality concern.

NRC staff reviews potential backflttlng or Port 52 Issue finality concern.

Compliance Starr character~es the backfit type, informs manogemen1, and inijiates the backfit control process Necessary for Adequa1e protection*

Defining or redefining adequate protection The issue dropped and originator Informed Substantial increaso In safety or securtty Documented ovaluatlon Baokfit onolysls Justiflca Ion of the Backflt by Oocum nted

. --------* --* --* ~'l l11Ml9!1.9J.ft.@P.k.f1tAt1.il.lY_!il_!i ***--*......

After management approval, division director Issues the backfit; LI d

the ECO is Informed censee oes not contest ~------.

Backfi1 Is implemented Licensee contests Licensee-or applicant raises backfilling or Part 52 issue finality concern and initiates appeal process.

• of pubtic health and safety or common defense and security For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the online MD Catalog.

25

DH 8.4 MANAGEMENT OF FACILITY-SPECIFIC BACKFITTING ANO INFORMATION COLLECTION Date Approved: 10/09/2013 Exhibit 2 Facility-specific Backfit Appeal Process Flow Chart Licensee or applicant raises backfilling or Part 52 issue finality concern and inibetes appeal process.

Issue dropped and licensee informed Licensee accepts the NRC decision Backfrt is implemented decision Not a justified backfrt NRC accepts the licensee appeal First-Level App al Yes, a Jusllfled backfit Licensee accepts the NRC decision Second-Level Appeal and Final Appeal Yes, a justified beckflt, but the licensee contests the first-level app<>al decision The EOO chaners a special Backlit Appeal Review Panel (may be -

composed of CRGR members Nol a Justified bacl<frt Executive Director for Operations Yes, a justified backfn, but the lloenlieO contests tho EDO decision Lloonsee refuses to Implement the backlit Program offlco

~------.i diroctor Issues en Order

" The director of NSIR reviews all appeals on security-related backfits.

Yes, a justified backfrt Licensee accepts the EDO decision Licensee complies with theOrdor For the latest version of any NRC directive or handbook, see the onllne MD Catalog.

26

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Tim,

<Rstetle Eri.

l:'lcGJn:.......]m RE: Braidwood/Byron Badcfit Appeal to EDO Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:53:00 AM Thanks for your repty1. I haven't got the complete picture on this because I haven't seen all the staffs work on the backfit and backfit appeal. However. my impression of Exelon's Backfit Appeal to the EDO is that they make a compelling case. As such it has also caused me to rethink my support for the RIS consistent with my previous expression to you that one of the reactions to the RIS could be "why is the NRC expending resources on this issue when it is not a safety concern."

Eric From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 5:17 PM To: Oesterle, Eric ; Whitman, Jennifer; Taylor, Robert

Subject:

Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit /\\ppeal to EDO I agree with Eric. Given an outstanding known appeal, we should coordinate with CRGR. No sense in issuing the RIS 011ly to find out subsequently that it did not hold up through the second appeal. The additional work and turmoil that situation would present, I am sure, we all would appreciate avoiding.

Jen - thanks for the info and insights. Do let me know if you or staff see this differently, l would certainly listen.

Tim On: 08 June 2016 00:29, "Oesterle, Eric" <Eri1,;.0e;;terlc a>nrc."oY> wrote:

Thanks Jen for the flowchart! Also. after completing my read of the Backfit Appeal to the EDO, I also think that may be prudent to await release of the RIS until after the EDO's decision or, at least, obtain an opinion from OGC in this regard.

Eric From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 12:26 PM To: Taylor, Robert <Rob rt.Ta, IQf a rirc. ov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim. McGint,. '..LL.... ov>

Cc: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Qesterle,*11rr~ ov>

Subject:

RE: Braidwood/Byfon Backfit Appeal to EDO Looking at Management Directive 8.4, in this second level appeal to the EDO, the EDO may choose to appoint a panel of CRGR members to review the appeal.

Additionally, the EDO may review and modify the backfit decision either on his or her own initiative or at the request of the licensee. A backfit claim and resultant staff determination that is reevaluated by EDO initiative or in response to an appeal and that is again determined by the EDO not to be a backfit, or is excepted from the requirement for a backfit analysis, shall not be treated further in the context of this MD, but is dealt with within the normal licensing or inspecHon appeal process.

If the licensee appeals to the EDO and is unsuccessful and refuses to comply with the staff's position, an order may be issued.

I have also attached the flow chart.

It looks like the ball is definitely in the EDO's court and I do not have any requests for information other than to brief Brian on Thursday

Jen From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:40 AM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Ta lor nr<~>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinl, nr~>

Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <J...e!'lnife1.Whitma11 c,_ nrc..gml>

Subject:

RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Thanks. Appreciate the discussion this morning.

From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:20 AM To: McDermott, Brian <e.n'1n,McOer111ott ov>; McGinty, Tim <.TimJy1<.Gtnl l:.!..11K!'Ov>

Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <IC'nnif er. Wllitn1,111 @11r1; Pov>

Subject:

RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO

Brian, Following up on our discussion, I would recommend you take a look at the original backfit and our response to the appeal. I have attached them. Jen and I will gladly brief you on both the backfit and the RIS next week at your convenience.

Regards, Rob From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 6:25 AM To: McGinty, Tim <Tim.Mc:Gi!}j WflrC.POV>; Taylor, Robert <Ro

Subject:

Fwd: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO I need to speak with someone about this and the RIS today.

From: "Boland, Anne" <t\\nn~.Boland1{fnrc.** )V>

Subject:

FW: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO Date: 02 June 2016 16:19 To: "Dean, Bill" <Bill.Dcao(iion:.goy>, "Evans, Michele" <Mkbdc;,Evaosamrc: gov>,

"McDermott, Brian" <:Bri.m.McD~m,\\m J,11rc,.*qv>, "McGinty, Tim"

<Tim.McCiin.tY.0,nrc.~*>, "Taylor, Robert" <R,)bert.Ta_yfor ~unn.:.\\mv>, "Scott, Catherine"

<Catherine.Scott ci1nn:.~ov>

Cc: "Benner, Eric" <Eric.B~1111cr,,.*nrc.nov>, "Wilson, George" <<,~or re.Wilson a,nrc.,iov>

Backfit appeal sent to OEDO for Byron/Braidwood Anne From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:06 PM To: Miller, Ed <Ed~Miller nri:.., ov>; Boland, Anne <Aime.,.Boland nrc.. ov>; Duncan, Eric

<Eric.Ouncan 111c. QY>; Jandovit7, John <J.Ql.ll1.tm1dQILL.t111 rnrc:. *Qv>; McGhee, James

<James.Mr:Ghee@Jnrc ~ov>; Benjamin, Jamie <.J~mie.Ben.'amin ni c. *ov>; Betancourt, Diana

<Dian*, Seta.ncou rl.f!l.Drc.. *ov>; Draper, Jason < Jason. Dra..,1 ov>; Garmoe, Alex

<~Gat rnoe __ oJc. oll>

Subject:

Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal to EDO

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

OG~crlc. t;ri~

McGlntv. nm Rf: Draft Backfit Appeal Responses to Exelon and NE!

Friday, April 22, 2016 3:00:00 PM Thanks Tim!

Eric From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:58 PM To: Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

FW: Draft Backfit Appeal Responses to Exelon and NEI The origin of Brian's question about specificity of the "error" that we made during our initial approval in the early 2000"s From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 11:52 AM To: McGinty, Tim <lim.McGint,

ov>

Subject:

FW: Draft Backfit Appeal Responses to Exelon and NEI Not sure this is the latest, but it will give you insight regarding my question.

Thx, Brian From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:11 PM To: McDermott, Brian <Brian.

_ov>

Cc: Gavrilas, Mirela <Mirela.Gavnlas nrc. ov>; Mohseni, Aby <Abv,Mohsenj@nrc PY>; Stuchell, Sheldon <She.ldQn.Stuchell Jcc._ov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.

ns _

.ov>

Subject:

Draft Backfil Appeal Responses to Exelon and NEI

Brian, I understand you would like to see the current draft backfit appeal responses to Exelon and NEI, which are attached. These letters are nearing completion of Division level concurrence and should soon be ready for Front Office concurrence and signature. The letters have been NLO'd by OGC (Brad Jones and Jim Biggins). In response to questions about OGC's position on omission or mistake of fact and the compliance exception to the backfit rule, a meeting with Brad Jones to discuss this topic is being scheduled for this afternoon. Mirela is aware of the Front Office questions and will participate in the meeting to ensure they are discussed.

Alexander D. Garmoe I

l Generic Communications Branch (PGCS)

Division of Policy an d Rulemaking (DPR)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NR.R)

Alt:K.Garmoe@*nrc.gov 301-415-3814