ML19219A073
| ML19219A073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/02/2019 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19219A087 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2017-000292 | |
| Download: ML19219A073 (156) | |
Text
From: Brown, Eva Sent: 23 Dec 2015 11:21:04 -0500 To: Garmoe, Alex Cc: Beaulieu, David;Poole, Justin;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Concurrence Requested
- Alex, You have my concurrence on Justin's behalf. We have notified George of our concurrence as well.
Thanks!
Eva Brown Senior Project Manager, Quad Cities, Dresden and Clinton Plant Licensing Branch 111-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Telephone: (301) 415-2315 Fax: (301) 415-1222 From : Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 9:17 AM To: Brown, Eva <Eva .Brown@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel
<Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: Concurrence Requested Importance: High
- Eva, You have probably heard about the Exelon appeal of a backfit imposed on Braidwood and Byron earlier this fall. In accordance with LIC-202, I have been working with DORL and DPR mgmt. to provide Bill Dean with an acknowledgment letter to the licensee (completed) and a charter for a backfit review panel (in progress). Justine Poole and George Wilson concurred on the draft charter yesterday, however subsequent concurrers requested changes that I believe necessitate re-concurrence. I have attached a red-line/strikeout file showing the changes from Justin's prior concurrence. The changes reflect the desire to provide the panel with more freedom to review the backfit appeal as they deem necessary, rather than specifically prescribing how they should do it.
Since you're acting for Justin and this is a short timeline item, I am asking for your concurrence as soon as reasonably achievable on the revised charter, which is available in ADAMS as ML15355A081 . Background information for the backfit is available in ADAMS package ML15355A083. Following your concurrence I will work through Trace Orf to seek re-concurrence from George Wilson.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814 From : Poole, Justin Se nt: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:16 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.W iebe@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE: ACTION: Concurrence Requested
- Alex, I concur.
Justin From : Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Monday, December 21, 2015 5:37 PM To: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon .Stuchell@nrc.gov>;
Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: Re: ACTION: Concurrence Requested
- Justin, I have seen t his and agree with th is charter.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, December 21, 2015 05:24 PM To: Poole, Justin; Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Beaulieu, David; Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
ACTION: Concurrence Requested Sheldon and Justin,
Your review and concurrence is requested on the draft Charter for the Braidwood/Byron Backfit Review Panel. Because of the short timeline for review of the backfit appeal prescribed in LIC-202, your concurrence is requested as soon as practical and by Wednesday, December 23.
Please ensure you reply to both myself and Dave Beaulieu since we will be sharing project management duties over Christmas and New Year's weel<s. The link below to ML15355A081 is for the draft Charter. To aid in your review, the second link below to ML15355A083 is for the ADAMS package with all associated B/B backfit appeal documents, which includes the initial backfit issuance and the licensee's appeal letter.
View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15355A081 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Backfit Review Panel Charter Regarding December 8, 2015 Exelon Appeal of Imposed Backfit Affecting Braidwood and Byron Stations)
Package: ML15355A083 Please don't hesitate to contact me with any questions. Thanks!
Alexander 0. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 23 Dec 2015 11:31:50 -0500 To: Wilson, George Cc: Orf, Tracy;Brown, Eva;Beaulieu, David;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence Attachments: Backfit Review Panel Charter 12-22 to 12-23 changes.docx, Backfit Review Panel Charter 12-23-15.docx
- George, Yesterday you concurred on the draft Backfit Review Panel Charter for the review of Exelon's appeal of a backfit imposed affecting Braidwood and Byron. Subsequent to your concurrence, recommended changes were made that will provide the panel with more flexibility in reviewing the appeal. Based on the changes, I am asking for your re-concurrence by Monday, December 28. Joel Wiebe and Eva Brown have reviewed the changes and concur.
Attached is a compare file showing the changes that were made since your prior concurrence.
The updated charter is attached and available in ADAMS as ML15355A081 .
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Alex From: Wilson, George Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:06 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>; Krohn, Paul
<Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence DORL concurs on the charter George Wilson Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC 301-415-1711 Office 08E4 From: Orf, Tracy Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 9:46 AM To: Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; Krohn, Paul <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>
Cc: Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Lamb, Taylor <Taylor.Lamb@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence
It looks like Justin already concurred. Please respond by email with concurrence to Alex Garmoe by 12/28.
- Thanks, Trace From: Dion, Jeanne Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 9:39 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>; RidsNrrDorl Resource
<RidsNrrDorl.Resource@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent
<Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : Request DORL's concurrence Thanks Alex, I am sending your concurrence request to DORL with a due date of Dec 28.
Jeanne From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:57 AM To: Dion, Jeanne <Jeanne.Dion@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent
<Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence
- Jeanne, Trent Wertz's auto-reply referred me to you in his absence. I have a short-turnaround document that is ready for DORL's division-level concurrence. The document, available in ADAMS as ML15355A081 and attached to this e-mail, is the Charter for a Backfit Review Panel that is being assigned to review an appeal by Exelon for a backfit that was imposed on Braidwood and Byron. The Charter is in the form of a memo from Bill Dean to the individuals he will designate as Panel members. Background information is available 1in ADAMS Package ML15355A083 and Joel Wiebe, Justin Poole , Paul Krohn, and Anne Boland are familiar with the issue.
The process we are following is documented in LIC-202 and includes fairly short duration timelines (i.e. a public meeting within 4 weeks of the appeal and the backfit review panel's decision forwarded to the licensee within 4 weeks of the public meeting). As a result, I would greatly appreciate DORL's comments and electronic concurrence (Anne, George, or Paul) by Monday, December 28. If this request can't be met please let me know and we can discuss alternate options. Please ensure Dave Beaulieu is copied on the reply.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generi c Communi cati ons Branch (PGCB)
Di vi si on of Policy and Rul emaki ng (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul ati on (NRR)
Al ex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301*415-3814
From: Wilson, George Sent: 23 Dec 2015 11:53:01 -0500 To: Garmoe, Alex Cc: Orf, Tracy;Brown, Eva;Beaulieu, David;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence I concur for DORL on the new revised charter George Wilson Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC 301-415-1711 Office 08E4 From : Garmoe, Alex Se nt: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 11:32 AM To: Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>
Cc: Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>; Brown, Eva <Eva.Brown@nrc.gov>; Beaulieu, David
<David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : Request DORL's concurrence
- George, Yesterday you concurred on the draft Backfit Review Panel Charter for the review of Exelon's appeal of a backfit imposed affecting Braidwood and Byron. Subsequent to your concurrence, recommended changes were made that will provide the panel with more flexibility in reviewing the appeal. Based on the changes, I am asking for your re-concurrence by Monday, December 28. Joel Wiebe and Eva Brown have reviewed the changes and concur.
Attached is a compare file showing the changes that were made since your prior concurrence.
The updated charter is attached and available in ADAMS as ML15355A081 .
Please let me know if you have any questions.
- Thanks, Alex From : Wilson, George Se nt: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 12:06 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>; Krohn, Paul
<Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION : Request DORL's concurrence DORL concurs on the charter
George Wilson Deputy Director Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation USNRC 301-415-1711 Office 08E4 From : Orf, Tracy Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 9:46 AM To: Wilson, George <George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; Krohn, Paul <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>
Cc: Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Lamb, Taylor <Taylor.Lamb@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence It looks like Justin already concurred. Please respond by email with concurrence to Alex Garmoe by 12/28.
- Thanks, Trace From : Dion, Jeanne Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 9:39 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>; RidsNrrDorl Resource
<RidsNrrDorl.Resource@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent
<Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Request DORL's concurrence Thanks Alex, I am sending your concurrence request to DORL with a due date of Dec 28.
Jeanne From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 8:57 AM To: Dion, Jeanne <Jeanne.Dion@nrc.gov>
Cc: Beaulieu, David <David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent
<Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION : Request DORL's concurrence
- Jeanne, Trent Wertz's auto-reply referred me to you in his absence. I have a short-turnaround document that is ready for DORL's division-level concurrence. The document, available in ADAMS as ML15355A081 and attached to this e-mail, is the Charter for a Backfit Review Panel that is being assigned to review an appeal by Exelon for a backfit that was imposed on Braidwood and Byron. The Charter is in the form of a memo from Bill Dean to the individuals he will designate
as Panel members. Background information is available in ADAMS Package ML15355A083 and Joel Wiebe, Justin Poole, Paul Krohn, and Anne Boland are familiar with the issue.
The process we are following is documented in LIC-202 and includes fairly short duration timelines (i.e. a public meeting within 4 weeks of the appeal and the backfit review panel's decision forwarded to the licensee within 4 weeks of the public meeting). As a result, I would greatly appreciate DORL's comments and electronic concurrence (Anne, George, or Paul) by Monday, December 28. If this request can't be met please let me know and we can discuss alternate options. Please ensure Dave Beaulieu is copied on the reply.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to ask.
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generi c Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov J 301-415-3814
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 14 Jan 2016 20:15:46 +0000 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
RE: AGENDA: Kick Off Meeting to Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel Or if you would rather I not call in at all, I will accommodate.
Joel From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:28 PM To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: AGENDA: Kick Off Meeting to Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel How about if I call in to listen. You can discuss the backfit, I will be available to provide background information, as needed.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:26 PM To: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: AGENDA: Kick Off Meeting to Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel You're more than welcome to call in - I can set up a bridge - but since you're off if you prefer not to then I could discuss the backfit. Your preference.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:20 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: AGENDA: Kick Off M eeting to Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel Yes, but I would offer the opportunity to Chris Jackson and Jennifer Whitman first.
I am !(b)(6) l Are you going to set up a conference l ine? I could drive in, but I would like to avoid it, if possible.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:15 PM To: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
FW: AGENDA: Kick Off M eeting to Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel
- Joel, Are you familiar enough with the backfit and appeal to be able to explain it to the panel members tomorrow?
Alex From: Bailey, Marissa Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 2:09 PM To: Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam <Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>
Cc: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel. Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Beaulieu, David
<David.Beaulieu@nrc.gov>
Subject:
AGENDA: Kick Off M eeting to Byron/Braidwood Backfit Review Panel Tony, Adam - Here's my proposed agenda for our kick off meeting tomorrow. Let me know if there is anything else we need to discuss.
Marissa
Purpose:
Kick off meeting n for panel is chartered with providing a recommendation to NRR Office Director whether a backfit is necessary at Braidwood and Byron and whether the staff's application of the compliance backfit exception is in accordance with § 50. 109(a)(4 )(i) and appropriate.
Outcome: Shared understanding of the Byron/Braidwood backfit issuance and appeal.
Alignment on backfit appeal review process, timeline, product and next steps.
Process:
- Overview of backfit issuance and appeal
- How we got here (MD 8.4 and LIC-202)
- Methodology for conducting the review
- Public meeting with licensee
- Meeting with NRC review team
- What staff expertise is needed to assist (start to identify possible individuals)
- Timeline for the review
- What is the final product?
- Next steps
From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: 9 Dec 2015 11:56:00 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel;Poole, Justin Cc: Jackson, Christopher;McGinty, Tim;Taylor, Robert
Subject:
RE: Backfit appeal one pager I do not believe there was a one pager. Below is what we sent to DORL for the commission drop-ins with Exelon that are happening tomorrow. This is an updated, simplified version of what was used to brief the ET.
Background:
- In 1973, ANS 18.2-1973 was issued and licensees incorporated it into their FSARs. This standard classifies accidents according to frequency of occurrence and preserves this classification by requiring non-escalation.
Examples:
Inadvertent safety injection (anticipated operational occurrence (AOO), Condition
- 11) fills the pressurizer and causes water relief through power operated relief valves (PORVs). Unqualified PORVs stick open resulting in a small break loss of coolant accident (SBLOCA, Condition Ill) with the frequency of an AOO(Condition II), and therefore violation of the design requirements for AOOs.
If, inadvertent safety injection is shown to not fill the pressurizer and PO RVs relieve only steam, then the AOO (Condition 11) design requirements are met.
- In 2005, Regulatory Issue Summary 2005-29 informs licensees of their commitments to ANS 18.2 and provides examples where the non-escalation requirement has not been met.
- Between 2005 and now several licensees have made improvements to analyses and/or the plant to address this issue.
Recent Actions:
The staff issued a compliance backfit to the Braidwood and Byron stations on October 9, 2015. Exelon has until December 9, 2015 to appeal (ML14225A871 ).
- 3 Chapter 15 events fail to demonstrate compliance with the non-escalation requirement: Inadvertent Operation of the Emergency Core Cooling System; Chemical and Volume Control System Malfunction that Increases RCS Inventory, and Inadvertent Operation of a PORV
- Other issues identified in the same 3 Chapter 15 events including:
o Non-conservative assumption that PORVs and pressurizer spay are inoperable o Prolonged water relief through pressurizer safety valves (PSVs)
- PSVs are not water-qualified per ASME
- PSVs are not tested under water-solid conditions o Failure to address return to operation as required for analysis of AOOs
- Incorrect statements in UFSAR From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:29 AM To: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Cc: Jackson, Christopher <Christopher.Jackson@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer
<Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Backfit appeal one pager I believe that Chris Jackson and Jennifer Whitman briefed the ET, but I am not aware of a one-pager.
As scheduled, I need to ... l<b_l<6_l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!, but I will draft a one-pager via Work-at-Home by c.o.b.
Joel From: Poole, Justin Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 10:17 AM To: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
Backfit appeal one pager Importance: High Joel Jessie came down and mention that Vic and Mike Johnson are asking fo r a one pager on the backfit. Did we ever had one from when it got issued?
From: Duncan, Eric Sent: 12 May 2016 08:52:01 -0500 To: W iebe, Joel Subje ct: RE: Backfit Appeal to the EDO Got it.
Thanks.
Original Message-----
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 8:00 AM To: Duncan, Eric <Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Backfit Appeal to the EDO MD 8.4 is publicl y available.
http://www.intemal.nrc.gov/policy/directives/cata1og/md8.4.pdf See page 15 or just search for "appeal"
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 8 Mar 2016 19:51:48 +0000 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
Re: Backfit Meeting RI ii Attendance There were no others.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2016 02:49 PM To: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
Backfit Meeting RIII Attendance
- Joel, Other than Diana, Jim McGhee, and Jason Draper, do you know of any other Region Ill folks that called in for the meeting yesterday?
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 14 Jan 2016 13:31:16 +0000 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Backfit Review Panel They do want a public meeting. The individual to discuss this with is Dave Gullatt. 630-657-2807.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 7:59 AM To: Wiebe, Joel Cc: Beaulieu, David
Subject:
Backfit Review Panel
- Joel, One of the first things the Backfit Review Panel will need to do is find out whether or not the licensee will want a public meeting to present their position to the panel (we referenced this in the acknowledgment letter from December). Frankly, hopefully they don't because it would negate the need for a lot of extra admin work as the Panel does their review. But if they do then I anticipate we will support the request. From a methodology standpoint, I think the easiest way is to have a phone call and follow-up with an e-mail that will be added to ADAMS as a record of the decision.
Do you have an idea who from Exelon we should contact? We don't want to ask without Marissa, but she'll want to know who to ask. Dave Gullatt, assuming he's still corporate Reg Assurance, comes to mind as a possibility.
Thanks!
Alexander 0 . Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communi cati ons Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Poole, Justin Sent: 10 Feb 2016 08:11:25 -0500 To: Purnell, Blake;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal There is no 8:15 with RI ii management today (don't do Wednesday's) so a short email might be better.
From: Purnell, Blake Se nt: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:07 AM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal DRP - I think it was Pat Louden that Paul was specifically talking to. But you and Justin could probably just talk to it during the morning call.
Blake Purnell 301-415-1380 From: Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:03 AM To: Purnell, Blake <Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal Which Region Ill management want the update?
Joel From: Purnell, Blake Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:01 AM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal
- Joel, During Paul Krohn's monthly call with RIii management, the Region asked about the status of the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. RIii and Paul would like some update on this action and potential paths forward .
- Thanks, Blake Purnell Project Manager NRR/D0 RL/LPL3-2 ph: 301 -415-1380
From: Poole, Justin Sent: 10 Feb 2016 09:40:28 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal Ok sounds good.
From: Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 9:35 AM To: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Cc: Purnell, Blake <Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal I Briefed the Region Ill acting BC, John Jandovitz, last week. He is covering this in the End-of-Cycle discussions for Byron and Braidwood today, with me as backup.
Joel From : Poole, Justin Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:11 AM To: Purnell, Blake <Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal There is no 8:15 with RI ii management today (don't do Wednesday's) so a short email might be better.
From : Purnell, Blake Se nt: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:07 AM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin .Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal DRP - I think it was Pat Louden that Paul was specifically talking to. But you and Justin could probably just talk to it during the morning call.
Blake Purnell 301-415-1380 From : Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:03 AM To: Purnell, Blake <Blake.Purnell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal Which Region Ill management want the update?
Joel
From : Purnell, Blake Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:01 AM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Just in <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal
- Joel, During Paul Krohn's monthly call with RIii management, the Region asked about the status of the Braidwood/Byron backfit appeal. RIii and Paul would like some update on this action and potential paths forward.
- Thanks, Blake Purnell Project Manager NRR/D0RL/LPL3-2 ph: 301 -415-1380
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 13 Apr 201611:17:07 -0400 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
RE: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Status?
Working through management review and concurrence. I'm hoping to provide it to the front office later today for their review and signature when they're ready.
There will be two letters: one to the licensee (Exelon) and one to NEI.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2016 11:02 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron Backfit Status?
Just checking status of appeal response letter.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:42 AM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Brown, Eva <Eva .Brown@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Quick Backfit Question Joel/Eva, In reading the October 9, 2015, issuance of a backfit to Braidwood and Byron (ML14225A871) I noticed the licensee was given 60 days to appeal the backfit. When Region II issued a backfit to Hatch in 2011 (M L111450793) they gave the licensee 30 days to appeal the backfit. When Region II rejected Hatch's backfit appeal back in 2011 (M L 112730194) they gave the licensee 30 days to appeal the decision to the EDO. None of the letters point to a specific section in MD 8.4 or NUREG-1409 that stated how long a licensee should be given to appeal a decision, nor did I find anything when I searched the documents.
Since I am currently drafting an appeal response letter to the licensee, in the event the appeal is denied, how long does the licensee have to appeal the decision to the EDO? My gut would say 30 days to be consistent with Hatch but I think we should be able to point somewhere to back up that number.
Thanks for any thoughts!
Alexander 0 . Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 13 Sep 2016 14:42:07 +0000 To: Duncan, Eric
Subject:
RE: Byron and Braidwood Backfit Appeal The EDO needs to decide if he should accept the Backfit Review Panel recommendations or accept NRRs current backfit decision. I understand he has decided, but I don't know what that decision is. The EDO decision letter should be issued today.
Joel From: Duncan, Eric Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 10:18 AM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Byron and Braidwood Backfit Appeal So now what happens?
From: Bartlett, Bruce Sent: M onday, August 29, 2016 10:17 AM To: Sanchez Santiago, Elba <Elha .SanchezSantiago@nrc.gov>; Betancourt, Diana X
<Diana.Betancourt@nrc.gov>; Duncan, Eric <Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>; Sargis, Daniel
<Daniel.Sargis@nrc.gov>; Pusateri, Kevin <Kevin.Pusateri@nrc.gov>; Draper, Jason
<Jason.Draper@nrc.gov>; McGhee, James <James.McGhee@mc.gov>
Cc: Nguyen, April <April.Nguyen@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Byron and Braidwood Backfit Appeal Attached is a copy of the internal letter from the Chairman of the Backfit Review Panel to the EDO. It recommends that he tell Exelon that their appeal was successful. This is not to be shared with the licensee.
Bruce
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 19 Aug 2016 14:10:48 +0000 To: Gavrilas, Mirela
Subject:
RE: Compliance Backfit One Pager Rev 3.docx Attachments: Compliance Backfit One Pager Rev 3 updated.docx From: Gavrilas, Mirela Se nt: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:40 AM To: Garmoe, Alex Subje ct: Compliance Backfit One Pager Rev 3.docx
Compliance Exception to the Backfit Rule Key Messages
- The Backfit Rule for power reactors (10 CFR 50.109) allows the imposition of new regulatory requirements after prior NRC approval (e.g. issuance of a license), if an analysis is prepared demonstrating that the backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security, and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, when the NRC demonstrates in a documented evaluation that a proposed backfit involves adequate protection or compliance with an established NRC requirement or licensee commitment, the NRC does not need to prepare a backfit analysis.
Industry has been increasingly raising concerns that NRC is invoking the compliance exception without a sufficient documented basis, and one licensee recently appealed a compliance backfit to the EDO.
Facts The Backfit Rule for Power Reactors (10 CFR 50.109)
- A backfit is the imposition of a new or changed interpretation of an NRC regulatory requirement on a licensee or other regulated entity after prior NRC approval (e.g. issuance of a license).
- The Backfit Rule requires the NRC to prepare an analysis demonstrating that the proposed backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, the NRC does not need to prepare the backfit analysis when the NRC demonstrates, in a documented evaluation, that the backfit involves either:
o reasonable assurance of adequate protection to safety or security o compliance with an established NRC requi rement or a licensee commitment
- NRC's backfitting guidance is contained in NUREG-1409, "Backfitting Guidelines,"
Management Directive 8.4, "Management of Facility-specific Backfitting and Information Collection," and Office-level implementing instructions.
NRC is Taking Steps to Address Stakeholder Concerns
- The NRC is taking steps to ensure the compliance exception continues to be invoked properly and consistent with the requirements of the Backfit Rule and NRC implementing guidance.
- The NRC has developed classroom and online training on backfitting, and continues to refine and expand this training. One area that will be expanded upon in the near future is to provide more detailed guidance on the key elements of the two exceptions and proper documentation to support use of the exceptions.
- The EDO has tasked the CRGR (ML16133A575) with assessing the adequacy of NRC's backfit implementing guidance, training, and knowledge management.
Recent Industry Appeal of a Compliance Backfit
- A compliance backfit imposed on Braidwood and Byron (ML14225A871) was appealed by Exelon first to the NRR Office Director (ML15342A112), who upheld the backfit (ML16095A204), then appealed to the EDO (ML16154A254), whose review is ongoing as of August 2016.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: 19 Aug 2016 14:10:35 +0000 To: Gavrilas, Mirela
Subject:
RE: Compliance Backfit Questions and Answers Rev 3.docx Attachments: Compliance Backfit Questions and Answers Rev 3 updated.docx From: Gavrilas, Mirela Se nt: Friday, August 19, 2016 9:40 AM To: Garmoe, Alex Subje ct: Compliance Backfit Questions and Answers Rev 3.docx One more
Compliance Backfit Questions and Answers QUESTION: What is a backfit?
ANSWER:
- A backfit is the imposition of a new regulatory requirement on a licensee or other regulated entity after prior NRC approval is provided (e.g., after issuance of a license).
QUESTION: What must the NRC do in order to impose a backfit?
ANSWER:
- The Backfit Rule ( 10 CFR 50.109) requires the NRC to prepare an analysis demonstrating that the backfit involves a substantial increase in protection to safety or security, and that the costs are justified by this increase in protection.
- However, the NRC need not prepare the analysis when the NRC demonstrates, in a documented evaluation, that the backfit involves eithe r:
o reasonable assurance of adequate protection to safety or security o compliance with a known and established NRC requirement or licensee commitment QUESTION: What is NRC doing to address industry concerns about excessive use of backfits, particularly the compliance exception?
ANSWER:
- The NRC considers every potential backfit against the requirements of the Backfit Rule and the NRC's implementing guidance.
- The NRC has developed classroom and online training on backfitting, and continues to refine and expand this training. One area that will be expanded upon in the near future is to provide more detailed guidance on the key elements of the two exceptions and proper documentation to support use of the exceptions.
- The NRC is developing revised guidance on cost-benefit analysis and consideration of qualitative factors to improve the backfit analyses conducted by staff.
- The EDO tasked the CRGR (ML16133A575) with assessing the adequacy of NRC's backfit implementing guidance, t raining, and knowledge management.
QUESTION: Exelon recently appealed a compliance backfit. What is the NRC doing about that?
ANSWER:
- In October 2015, the NRC issued a compliance backfit that affected Exelon's Braidwood and Byron Stations because t he NRC became aware that the accident analyses predicted water relief out of relief valves that are not qualified per ASME code to relieve water. The NRC
had previously approved the analyses as part of license amendments in 2001 and 2004 under the belief that the valves were, in fact, water qualified.
- Exelon exercised their right to appeal a backfit decision to the NRR Office Director. The NRR Office Director upheld the backfit based in large part on input from a backfit appeal review panel. Exelon then further appealed the backflt to the EDO.
- A final decision on whether to grant the backfit appeal is expected in late August.
From: Dudek, Michael Sent: 15 Dec 2015 09:15:57 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
RE: One pager on Braidwood-Byron Backfit Joel - Just a quick question. Did Jessie give you any info as to who the audience was for this?
Commission? Vic or Mike?
Michael I . Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assi, tant I t8J: Michael.Dudek@nrc.gov I ~ : (301) 415-6500 I 88:.__ ____
(b)(6) u,s, NRC
__.
From : Wiebe, Joel Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 1:33 PM To: Dudek, M ichael <Michael.Dudek@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; Krohn, Paul <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; W ilson, George
<George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Quichocho, Jessie
<Jessie.Quichocho@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE: One pager on Braidwood-Byron Backfit As requested by Jessie.
Joel From: Quichocho, Jessie Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:44 AM To: Wiebe, Joel Cc: Poole, Justin; Krohn, Paul; Dudek, Michael
Subject:
RE: One pager on Braidwood-Byron Backfit Thanks Joel, this is really good info.
Could you update the one pager and provide to Mike Dudek.
I know it may spill over to the second page but it will be fine for now since it will give clarity.
Thanks again.
J essie From : Wiebe, Joel Se nt: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:31 AM To: Quichocho, Jessie <Jessie.Quichocho@nrc.gov>
Cc: Poole, Justin <Justin.Poole@nrc.gov>; Krohn, Paul <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer
<Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: One pager on Braidwood-Byron Backfit Condition II - Faults of Moderate Frequency (definition from Byron and Braidwood UFSAR)
These faults, at worst, result in the reactor trip with the plant being capable of returning to operation. By definition, these faults (or events) do not propagate to cause a more
serious fault, i.e., Condition Ill or IV events. In addition, Condition II events are not expected to result in fuel rod failures or reactor coolant system or secondary system overpressurization.
For this backfit the Condition II fault is the inadvertent operation of the ECCS pumps, which fill the pressurizer. The Braidwood/Byron analysis of this event results in the relief of water through the Safety Relief Valves, which are not ASME qualified to pass water. The staff, therefore, concludes that the SRV will be damaged and not reseat as designed. This results in a loss of coolant accident (leak greater than makeup capability), which is a Condition Ill event.
The licensee's position is that EPRI testing of these (or maybe similar valves) shows that the valves may leak, but not exceed makeup capability. The staff accepted this explanation in 2001 during a power uprate review and also during a subsequent SRV setpoint change review.
The staffs current position is that the EPRI testing does not show that the SRVs are ASME designed nor routinely tested to pass water and therefore cannot be used in that fashion in an accident analysis.
John/Jen, Feel free to correct/clarify my discussion.
Joel From: Quichocho, Jessie Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 5:07 PM To: Poole, Justin Cc: Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: One pager on Braidwood-Byron Backfit What does "no progression of Cat II to Cat Ill events mean?" Define Cat II and Cat Ill events.
- Thanks, Jessie J essie Quichocho, ETA (NRR) 301 *415*0209 From: Poole, Justin Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 2:58 PM To: Quichocho, Jessie <Jessie.Quichocho@nrc.gov>
Cc: Krohn, Paul <Paul.Krohn@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel
<Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
One pager on Braidwood-Byron Backfit
- Jessie,
Per your request, here is a one-pager on the staff's issuance of the Braidwood-Byron backfit for which Exelon recently sent an appeal letter. The backfit was issued on October 9. 2015. Let us know if any further action is required.
- Thanks, Justin C. Poole Acting Chief NRR/DORL/LPL3-2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301)415-2048
From: GARMOE, Alex D Sent: 28 Jun 2016 16:12:43 +0000 To: M IZUNO, GEARY S Cc: SPENCER, MARY B;GENDELMAN, ADAM S
Subject:
RE: Public availability of EDO Charter on backfit appeal panel Last I knew Theresa Clark was going to look into it. I am not aware of any update.
From : MIZUNO, GEARY S Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 12:02 PM To: GARMOE, Alex D Cc: SPENCER, MARY B; GENDELMAN, ADAM S
Subject:
Public availability of EDO Charter on backfit appeal panel Any luck getting the EDO Charter on backfit appeal panel to be changed to publicly-available?
Geary
From: Jandovitz, John Sent: 5 May 2016 06:16:54 -0500 To: Wiebe., Joel
Subject:
RE: Public Talking Points - Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal Thanks Joel very useful From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:53 PM To: Duncan, Eric <Eric.Duncan@nrc.gov>; Jandovitz, John <John.Jandovitz@nrc.gov>; Draper, Jason
<Jason.Draper@nrc.gov>; McGhee, James <James.McGhee@mc.gov>; Benjamin, Jamie
<Jamie.Benjamin@nrc.gov>; Betancourt, Diana <Diana.Betancourt@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Public Talking Points - Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal For information.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 3:49 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Public Talking Points - Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal Joel - the backfit response letter to Exelon should be public this afternoon or tomorrow morning at the latest. Bill Dean has already called and spoken with Brad Fewell about the coming letter.
The attached file has ML numbers for associated documents.
Alex From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:21 PM To: Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov>; McIntyre, David <David.Mclntyre@nrc.gov>; Dean, Bill
<Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; McDermott, Brian
<Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa <Theresa .Clark@nrc.gov>; Lund, Louise
<Louise.Lund@nrc.gov>; Gavrilas, Mirela <M irela.Gavrilas@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nr c.gov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Bailey, Marissa <Marissa.Bailey@nrc.gov>; Gendelman, Adam
<Adam.Gendelman@nrc.gov>; Gody, Tony <Tony.Gody@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Public Talking Points - Braidwood/Byron Backfit Appeal Good afternoon, The NRC's response to Exelon's compliance backfit appeal is expected to be publicly issued either late this afternoon or tomorrow morning. Following release of the response letter to Exelon, NRC's response to NE l's letter in support of the Exelon appeal will be publicly issued.
The attached talking points have been coordinated with DPR, DSS, and OGC and can be used in the event of stakeholder interest.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact Marissa Bailey, Backfit Review Panel Chair, or myself.
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301*415-3814
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 28 Mar 2016 14:12:30 +0000 To: Garmoe, Alex Cc: Brown, Eva
Subject:
Re : Quick Backfit Question There is no specific guidance to point to. I would consult the panel with a recommended 60 days.
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 09:42 AM To: Wiebe, Joel Cc: Brown, Eva
Subject:
Quick Backfit Question Joel/Eva, In reading the October 9, 2015, issuance of a backfit to Braidwood and Byron (ML14225A871) I noticed the licensee was given 60 days to appeal the backfit. When Region II issued a backfit to Hatch in 2011 (ML111450793) they gave the licensee 30 days to appeal the backfit. When Region II rejected Hatch's backfit appeal back in 2011 (ML112730194) they gave the licensee 30 days to appeal the decision to the EDO. None of the letters point to a specific section in MD 8.4 or NUREG-1409 that stated how long a licensee should be given to appeal a decision, nor did I find anything when I searched the documents.
Since I am currently drafting an appeal response letter to the licensee, in the event the appeal is denied, how long does the licensee have to appeal the decision to the EDO? My gut would say 30 days to be consistent with Hatch but I think we should be able to point somewhere to back up that number.
Thanks for any thoughts!
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Divi sion of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulati on (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov I 301-415-3814
From: Clark, Theresa Sent: 12 Sep 2016 14:17:35 -0400 To: Lee, Erika;Keene, Todd;Wiebe, Joel;Baxter, Angela;Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Rohrer, Shirley;Miller, Ed
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv Thanks-yes, I was thinking that DOR L's list (Joel/Ed) would be easiest to use. If one of them (or their branch LA) can help me out, then I can give the ML# as soon as it is signed (if that's what is needed).
From: Lee, Erika Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:35 PM To: Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel
<Joel.W iebe@nrc.gov>; Baxter, Angela <Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Rohrer, Shirley <Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov>; M iller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv
- Todd, It sounds like this letter would only go to those individuals who are subscribed to receive Byron/Braidwood operating reactor correspondence. That list is owned by DORL, and it's different from the list we use to send out generic communications, which is owned by DPR.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell exactly who is subscribed to the Byron/Braidwood list since the individual's name isn't a required field, but there a few people (4 or 5) who are required to stay on the subscription list, and I believe Congress mandates who those "required" recipients are. In order to get the names of those "required" recipients, you might be able to work with Shirley Rohrer, Licensing Assistant for branch 3-2 in DORL.
I'm copying Ed Miller, DORL's acting branch chief on this correspondence for his awareness.
Let me know if you need anything else, or need additional clarification.
- Thanks, Erika From: Keene, Todd Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:19 AM To: Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Lee, Erika
<Erika.Lee@nrc.gov>; Baxter, Angela <Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Re: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv
- Theresa, Erika Lee or Angie Baxter are the best points of contact for the listserve process.
Todd
Original Message --------
From: "Clark, Theresa" < Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>
Date: Mon, September 12, 2016 11:02 AM -0400
To: "Keene, Todd" <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>, "Wiebe, Joel" <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv Hi there - the EDO is finalizing his decision on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal, and his decision documents will include a letter to Exelon that will need to be Listserved. Would you guys (or perhaps one of the LAs) be able to help with that? This would likely be ltomorrow.
Also, if possible, we would like to get contact phone #s and emails for Bryan Hanson and Brad Fewell.
Could you please send me those? Vic would like to have a call with them to communicate the decision when complete.
Thank you!
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0 -16E22
From: Clark, Theresa Sent: 12 Sep 2016 14:17:35 -0400 To: Lee, Erika;Keene, Todd;Wiebe, Joel;Baxter, Angela;Stuchell, Sheldon Cc: Rohrer, Shirley;Miller, Ed
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv Thanks-yes, I was thinking that DOR L's list (Joel/Ed) would be easiest to use. If one of them (or their branch LA) can help me out, then I can give the ML# as soon as it is signed (if that's what is needed).
From: Lee, Erika Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 1:35 PM To: Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel
<Joel.W iebe@nrc.gov>; Baxter, Angela <Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Rohrer, Shirley <Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov>; M iller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv
- Todd, It sounds like this letter would only go to those individuals who are subscribed to receive Byron/Braidwood operating reactor correspondence. That list is owned by DORL, and it's different from the list we use to send out generic communications, which is owned by DPR.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell exactly who is subscribed to the Byron/Braidwood list since the individual's name isn't a required field, but there a few people (4 or 5) who are required to stay on the subscription list, and I believe Congress mandates who those "required" recipients are. In order to get the names of those "required" recipients, you might be able to work with Shirley Rohrer, Licensing Assistant for branch 3-2 in DORL.
I'm copying Ed Miller, DORL's acting branch chief on this correspondence for his awareness.
Let me know if you need anything else, or need additional clarification.
- Thanks, Erika From: Keene, Todd Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 11:19 AM To: Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Lee, Erika
<Erika.Lee@nrc.gov>; Baxter, Angela <Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Re: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv
- Theresa, Erika Lee or Angie Baxter are the best points of contact for the listserve process.
Todd
Original Message --------
From: "Clark, Theresa" < Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>
Date: Mon, September 12, 2016 11:02 AM -0400
To: "Keene, Todd" <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>, "Wiebe, Joel" <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv Hi there - the EDO is finalizing his decision on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal, and his decision documents will include a letter to Exelon that will need to be Listserved. Would you guys (or perhaps one of the LAs) be able to help with that? This would likely be ltomorrow.
Also, if possible, we would like to get contact phone #s and emails for Bryan Hanson and Brad Fewell.
Could you please send me those? Vic would like to have a call with them to communicate the decision when complete.
Thank you!
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0 -16E22
From: Orf, Tracy Sent: 12 Sep 2016 14:23:02 -0400 To: Miller, Ed;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv We would Listserv it as normal. This is not an unusual request.
From: M iller, Ed Se nt: Monday, September 12, 2016 2:21 PM To: Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@ nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: REQUEST: assistance with contact s/ Listserv Joel, can you pull the contact info for Bryan Hanson and Brad Fewell that Teresa requested.
Trace, I'm assuming that, from a listserv perspective, we could handle a letter that didn't originate in DORL. Is there anything special they would need to do or should they just mimic the cc via listserv that we usually use?
Ed From : Lee, Erika Se nt: M onday, September 12, 2016 1:35 PM To: Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; W iebe, Joel
<Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Baxter, Angela <Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Cc: Rohrer, Shirley <Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov>; M iller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv
- Todd, It sounds like this letter would only go to those individuals who are subscribed to receive Byron/Braidwood operating reactor correspondence. That list is owned by DORL, and it's different from the list we use to send out generic communications, which is owned by DPR.
Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell exactly who is subscribed to the Byron/Braidwood list since the individual's name isn't a required field, but there a few people (4 or 5) who are required to stay on the subscription list, and I believe Congress mandates who those "required" recipients are. In order to get the names of those "required" recipients, you might be able to work with Shirley Rohrer, Licensing Assistant for branch 3-2 in DORL.
I'm copying Ed Miller, DORL's acting branch chief on this correspondence for his awareness.
Let me know if you need anything else, or need additional clarification.
- Thanks, Erika From : Keene, Todd Sent: M onday, September 12, 2016 11:19 AM To: Clark, Theresa <Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Lee, Erika
<Erika.Lee@nrc.gov>; Baxter, Angela <Angela.Baxter@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Re: REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv
- Theresa, Erika Lee or Angie Baxter are the best points of contact for the listserve process.
Todd
Original Message --------
From: "Clark, Theresa" < Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>
Date: Mon, September 12, 2016 11:02 AM -0400 To: "Keene, Todd" <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>, "Wiebe, Joel" <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv Hi there - the EDO is finalizing his decision on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal, and his decision documents will include a letter to Exelon that will need to be Listserved. Would you guys (or perhaps one of the LAs) be able to help with that? This would likely be tomorrow.
Also, if possible, we would like to get contact phone #sand emails for Bryan Hanson and Brad Fewell.
Could you please send me those? Vic would like to have a call with them to communicate the decision when complete.
Thank you!
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm*ission Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0 -16E22
From: Clark, Theresa Sent: 16 Sep 2016 11:54:28 -0400 To: Wiebe., Joel;Lewis, LaShawnna Cc: Keene, Todd;Orf, Tracy;Rohrer, Shirley;Miller, Ed;Brown, Eva
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: listserv Exelon letter Attachments: Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood)
Thanks so much! Yes, it ' s been distributed internally already.
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:53 AM To: Lewis, LaShawnna <LaShawnna.Lewis@nrc.gov>
Cc: Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa
<Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov>; Rohrer, Shirley <Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov>; Miller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>;
Brown, Eva <Eva.Brown@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: listserv Exelon letter Lashawnna, Can you listserve this? I think the rest of the dispatch will be done upstairs, but you may want to check with Theresa to verify that.
Just listserve it via the normal Byron/Braidwood listserve process.
Joel From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:39 AM To: Miller, Ed <Ed.Miller@nrc.gov>; Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Rohrer, Shirley
<Shirley.Rohrer@nrc.gov>
Cc: Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Orf, Tracy <Tracy.Orf@nrc.gov>
Subject:
REQUEST: listserv Exelon letter Importance: High Hi- the letter linked below is now publicly available in ADAMS (public link = ML16243A067). Could you please help us Listserv it as we had discussed earlier in the week? Let me know if you need any more information. Thanks so much!
View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16243A067 Open ADAMS P8 Document (09/15/16 Letter to Exelon from Victor Mccree.)
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0 -16E22
From: Banks, Eleasah Sent: 16 Sep 2016 09:06:53 -0400 To: RidsNrrMailCenter Resource;RidsOgcMailCenter Resource;RidsNroMailCenter Resou rce;RidsResPmdaMail Resource;RidsResOd Resource;RidsNmssOd Resource;RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource;RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource;RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource;RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource; RidsN rrDorl lpl 3-2 Resource; RidsN rrPM Byron Resource; RidsN rrPM Bra id wood Resou rce;RidsNrrDss Resource;RidsNrrDe Resource;RidsNrrDpr Resource;RidsNrrDorl Resource;Garmoe, Alex;Keene, Todd;Gody, Tony;Gendelman, Adam;Mizuno, Bet h;Correia, Richard;West, Khadij ah;Bailey, Marissa;Scarbrough, Thomas;S[Pencer, Michael;Clark, Theresa
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings ( Byron and Braidwood)
Date: September 15, 2016 Memorandum To: J . Bradley From: Victor M. Mccree
Subject:
Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood)
This package is publicly available in ADAMS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML16236Al98 Open ADAMS P8 Package (Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood))
From: Dean, Bill Sent: 11 Aug 2016 16:53:10 -0600 To: Whitman, Jennifer Cc: M cDermott , Brian;McGinty, Tim;Lubinski, John;Billerbeck, John;Benner, Eric;Stuchell, Sheldon;Garmoe, Alex;Alley, David
Subject:
RE: Response to Backfit Panel Preliminary Findings Well, providing them a lengthier response than what we reviewed is pretty compelling! I thought that this was well written, made our points well with facts behind them, and debunks the use of the 1977 SECY upon which the review panel seems to hinge its conclusions on. Nice job by all involved, and I assume you were the lead on this Jen, so special kudos to you.
BILL From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, August 11 , 2016 4:52 PM To: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>
Cc: McDermott, Brian <Brian. McDermott@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric
<Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Sruchell@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex
<Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Response to Backfit Panel Preliminary Findings
- Bill, 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
<< File: Backfit Panel Response Final 8- 11 -16.docx >>
Original Appointment-----
From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 20161 :41 PM To: McDermott, Brian; McGi.nty, Tim; Lubinski, John; Whitman, Jennifer; Billerbeck, John
Subject:
Response to Backfit Panel Findings W hen: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:00 AM-10:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 013 D14 POC: Jennifer x 3253
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: 25 Feb 2016 19:38:54 +0000 To: Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
RE: Telework/ln Office l{b_J(6_J _ _....,!*
I am in today, ....
Joel From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2016 2:19 PM To: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: Telework/ln Office
- Joel, I recall you telework some days and are in the office other days. Are you in the office today or tomorrow? I'd like to swing by and update you on the backfit review panel status.
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemaking (DPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov J 301*415*3814
From: Keene, Todd Sent: 15 Sep 2016 12:09:34 -0400 To: Whitman, Jennifer;Woodyatt, Diana
Subject:
RE: backfit appeal documents signed Thanks for the reply and the information.
Alex Garmoe turned this over to me 2 days ago, so I was just getting familiar with it again and then was notified of the EDO's decision.
He turned over that Diana was the POC while you were TA.
Sorry for the confusion.
I am glad you were already aware of the decision.
I will touch base with DE to get a POC.
Todd From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:10 AM To: Keene, Todd; Woodyatt, Diana
Subject:
RE: backfit appeal documents signed I talked with Tim McGinty today and DSS, DE, and DPR will need to coordinate on the policy issues and decide what place this RIS revision will have. It is my understanding that Tim is going to talk to John about who should be the lead moving forward because the issues/policies in question are the valve qualification issues which belong to DE rather than the system response issues which belong to SRXB.
I agree that it needs to be revised, but not sure the revisions can get started until we align on a path forward.
Also, just FYI Diana hasn't really been a part of this project. I'll let her/Eric decide if she should be included moving forward.
Jen From : Keene, Todd Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:00 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Woodyatt, Diana <Diana.Woodyatt@nr c.gov>
Subject:
FW: backfit appea l documents signed Jen/ Diana, The Anticipated transients RIS (RIS 2005-29 Rev 1) will need to be revised based on the EDO overturning the Byron/Braidwood backfit.
Also, please note the specific discussion in the memo to NRR that directs the NRR Office Director to provide the OEDO a plan to address policy and position issues in the original RIS and the proposed revision.
These documents have not been made publically available yet, so do not forward them out of the NRC.
I will set up a time for us to talk and discuss a path forward.
Todd From : Clark, Theresa Se nt: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:59 AM To: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; McDermott, Brian
<Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John
<John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Correia, Richard <Richard.Correia@nrc.gov>
Cc: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FYI : backfit appeal documents signed Good morning, all!
This morning, Vic signed the th ree documents associated w ith the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal.
They are being processed now, and we expect that they (along w it h the panel documents referenced within) will be made publicly available in ADAMS later today. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
- Letter responding to Exelon: M L16243A067 All 3 documents are publicly available in ADAMS
- Letter responding to NEI: ML16246A150
- Memo to NRR: ML16246A247 Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theresa .Clark@nrc.gov I 301-4115-4048 I 0 -16E22
From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: 15 Sep 2016 17:22:41 +0000 To: McGinty, Tim;Taylor, Robert;Oesterle, Eric;Anderson, Shaun Cc: Hickey, James
Subject:
RE: backfit appeal documents signed That sounds like a good path forward.
I will let Sam know that the EDO has issued his decision on the appeal once the documents are publically available.
Jen From: McGinty, Tim Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:30 PM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>;
Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Anderson, Shaun <Shaun.Anderson@nrc.gov>
Cc: Hickey, James <James.Hickey@nrc.gov>
Subje ct: RE: backfit appeal documents signed I think Jennifer should notify Sam. We should endeavor to discuss with interested stakeholders, whoever they may be, at the lowest level possible as a ru le of thumb. It tends to preserve our ability to respond to any of a variety of situations that could find ourselves in at the lowest level, which I think is in the interest of efficiency and effectiveness without sacrificing transparency in anyway. Tim From: Taylor, Robert Se nt: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:33 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Anderson, Shaun <Shaun.Anderson@nrc.gov>
Cc: Hickey, James <James. Hickey@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE : backfit appeal documents signed What is your recommendation?
From: Whitman, Jennifer Se nt: Thursday, September 15, 2016 10:20 AM To: McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGint y@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Anderson, Shaun
<Shaun .Anderson@nre.gov>
Cc: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Hickey, James <James.Hickey@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: backfit appeal documents signed Once they are made public, I know Sam will be interested. Tim/Rob do you want to notify him or should I?
From: McGinty, Tim Se nt: Thursday, September 15, 2016 10:01 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>;
Anderson, Shaun <Shaun.Anderson@nrc.gov>
Cc: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Hickey, James <James.Hickey@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: backfit appeal documents signed FYI From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 9:59 AM To: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Evans, M ichele <M ichele.Evans@nrc.gov>; McDermott, Brian
<Brian.McDermott@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John
<John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Correia, Richard <Richard.Correia@nrc.gov>
Cc: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FYI: backfit appeal documents signed Good morning, all !
This morning, Vic signed the th ree documents associated with the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal.
They are being processed now, and we expect that they (along with the panel documents referenced within) will be made publicly available in ADAMS later today. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks!
All three document s are publicl y
- Letter responding to Exelon: M L16243A067 available in ADAMS
- Letter responding to NEI: ML16246A150
- Memo to NRR: ML16246A247 Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0-16E22
From: W h itman, Jennifer Sent: 2 Aug 2016 16:58:13 +0000 To: W h itman, Jennifer;Billerbeck, John;Mcginty, Tim;Taylor, Robert;Oesterle, Eric;Garmoe, Alex;Orf, Tracy;Benner, Eric;Alley, David;Lubinski, John;Stuchell, Sheldon;Gavri las, Mirela;Lund, Louise Cc: DSSCAL Resource;DORLCAL Resource;Kaplan, Michele;Simpson, JoAnn;Blaney, William Bee: HQ-OWFN-10B06-12p
Subject:
- RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT -
GI IQ 12re eleEJi.oi,Q;Rill l1o1ten~al ~lilC I lea Q1o1ly UPDATED - NEW TIME 9 AM (since the ET Sig topic was cancelled)
Jen
From: Alley, David Sent: 15 Sep 2016 11:41:00 -0400 To: Whitman, Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Panel Findings Thanks Dave From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 11:40 AM To: Alley, David
Subject:
Panel Findings Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings (Byron and Braidwood)
That is a link to the package with the memo and the enclosure and some other related documents.
This package, and documents, are publicly ADAMS Accession Nos.: Package ML16236A198 available in ADAMS Memorandum ML16236A202; Enclosure ML16236A208
~7(/~
Reactor Systems Engineer NRR/DSS/SRXB Office: 010 a" D15 Phone: (301) 415-3253
From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: 26 Sep 2016 17:05:40 +0000 To: sm0973@gmail.com
Subject:
RE: Re: Backfit Appeal Decision The position in the SRP remains the current agency position. NRR has been tasked with proposing a path to address the PORV/PSV water qualification issue. There will be more to come on this topic.
From: Samuel Miranda [1]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 1:02 PM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>
Subject:
[External_Sender) Re: Backfit Appeal Decision Thanks. All is not well. So, are you now going to assume *u nqualified PORVs will reset after having relieved water?
On Sep 26, 2016 9:39 AM, "Whitman, Jennifer" <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov> wrote:
Hey Sam, Just wanted to let you know that the EDO's decision on the backfit appeal is now available in ADAMS.
Hope all is well!
9em4e1iW~
Reactor Systems Engineer NRR/DSS/SRXB Office: 010 - 015 Phone: (301) 415-3253
From : Alley. David To: Garmoe Alex: Oesterle Eric Cc: Whitman feooifer: Billerbeck. fohn: Farnan. Michael: Stuchell Sheldon
Subject:
RE: ACTION: Concurrence Requested Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 6:10:58 PM I concur Dave From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 2:56 PM To: Oest erle, Eric <Eric.Oest e rle@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennif er <Jennifer.Whit man@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>;
Farnan, M ichael <M ichael.Farnan@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>
Subject:
ACTION: Concurrence Request ed Dave and Eric, Your electronic concurrences are requested on the attached and linked memorandum from Bill Dean responding to Vic McCree's 9/15 memorandum (attached for background info).
Please provide comments and indicate your concurrence in a reply to this e-mail by Monday, December 5. If you don't believe this date can be met please let me know ASAP so we can discuss alternate arrangements.
ADAMS: ML16334A181 Thank you ,
Alexander D. Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generic Communications Branch (PGCB)
Division of Policy and Rulemakin& (OPR)
Office of Nuclear Reactor Reeulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@>nrc,&ov I 301-415-3814
From: Farnan. Michael To:
Subj ect:
Whitman teonifer; Keene Todd; Wolfgang Robert RE: B&B PSV Technical Evaluation and RIS 2005-29 Disposition
- Call-in 888-790-1732 Passcode:
[(6)b)]
Date: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:30:45 AM I do not need anything.
M ichae l F. Farna n Mechan ica l Engineer U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Commission 301-415-1486 From: Whitman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 5:25 PM To: Keene, Tod d <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Farnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>;
Wolfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE : B&B PSV Technical Evaluation and RIS 2005- 29 Disposition - Call-in 888-790-1732 Passcode: !(b)(6) j Michael/Robert, Just checking in to see if you guys need anything from me.
Todd, what are you expecting me to bring to this meeting?
- Thanks, Jen
Original Appointment-----
From: Keene, Todd Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 4:10 PM To: Keene, Todd; Whitman, Jenn ifer; Oesterle, Eric; Alley, David; Farnan, Michael; Wolfgang, Robert; Stuche ll, Sheldon
Subject:
B&B PSV Technical Eva luation and RIS 2005-29 Disposition - Ca ll-in 888-790-1732 Passcode: !(b)(6) I When: Wednesday, Octobe r 26, 2016 11:00 AM- 12:00 PM (UTC-05 :00) Eastern Ti me (US &
Canada).
Where: HQ-OWFN-12B06-12p Call-in: 888-790-1732 Passcode j<b)(6)
Follow up to the Oct 6 alignment meeting as noted in the attached email.
<< Message: IN FO: EDO Tasking - Techn ica l Evaluation and RIS 2005-29 Disposition>>
DE / DSS Staff meeting to discuss DE findings
- 1. Identify the scope of the issue
- 2. Propose a product (generic communication; reg guide; etc) to address the underlying technical issue regarding the PSV.
- 3. Determine path forward concerning RIS 2005-29 and the draft revision.
- 4. Generate timeline for proposed plan
From: Whitman. tennlfer To: Billerbeck lobo Subj ect: RE: Backfit Documents Date: Tuesday, J uly 19, 2016 1:34:51 PM Attachments: image001.img Let me know if t here is anyt hi ng else I ca n help you f ind.
Jen From: Bil lerbeck, John Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 1:34 PM To: W hit man, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Backfit Documents Thanks Jen John Billerbeck Mechanical Engineer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 11555 Rockvil le Pi ke, OWFN-09D3 Rockvi lle MD 20852 Telephone: 301 .415.1179 E-mail: john billerbeck@nrc gov From: Wh itman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 20161:24 PM To: Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Cc: Lubi nski, John <John Lubjnskj@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <Dayjd.Alley@nrc.gov>; Mcginty, Tim
<Iim.McGinty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert <Robert.Tayior@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Backfit Documents
- John, I have attached the original backfit that SRXB wrote beca use I th ink it does a better job walking through the technica l issues, specifically the RAI responses to the 2001 power uprate and conta ins and extensive reference list at the end. I included the ones we talked about during t he meeting below. I also attached the e-mai l I sent to Tim and Rob yesterday with the RAls t hat we proposed to send on t he most recent MUR where it was decided t he RAI was out of scope. Lastly, I have included the link for Sam' s non-concurrence on that SE.
NSAL-93-013 is included in NSAL-93-013, Inadvertent ECCS Actuation at Power, G.G. Ament and K.J. Vavrek, ML16342D412 (p37 of the PDF).
Westinghouse ESBU, June 30, 1993, and NSAL-93-013, Supplement 1, J.S. Galembush, Westinghouse ESBU, October 28, 1994 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052930330)
NRG RIS 2005-029, Anticipated Transients that Could Develop into More Serious Events, The rema ining 3 dated December 14, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051890212). records are all publicly available In ADAMS under Letter no. RS-01-11 O from Exelon to USN RC, Response to request for Additional the speci fied ML accession Information Regarding the License Amendment Request to Permit Uprated Power number s.
Operations at Byron and Braidwood Stations, January 31 , 2001 (ADAMS Accession No.
Issuance of Amendments: Increase in Reactor Power, Byron Station Units 1 and 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, May 4, 2001 (ADAMS Accession No. ML011420274)
~'kl~
Acting Technical Assisstant NRR/DSS Office: 01 O- H22 Phone: (301) 415-3253
From: Alley. David To: Billerbeck !oho
Subject:
RE: Backfit one pager Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 9:52:46 AM In my office now. Any time is fine.
Dave From: Bil lerbeck, John Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:59 AM To: Al ley, David <David.Alley@ nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Backfit one pager OK. I' ll call you at 10:10?
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:39 AM To: Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Backfit one pager
- John, Lubinski just grabbed me. If we want to add anything to the one pager for the backfit, it needs to be done this morning. I will be in a meeting from about 9-10, but we need to do something (if we are going to do anything at all) shortly after the meeting Dave David Alley PhD.
Chief, Component Performa nce NOE and Testing Branch US Nuclear Regu latory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville MD 20852 301-415-2178
From: Billerbeck. 12bo To: Alley David
Subject:
RE: Backfit one pager Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 10:30:27 AM Attachments: NRR Persoectives OEDO Backfit Panel Findings IMW - EPNB comments.docx.
See new 4th bullet.
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 8:39 AM To: Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Backfit one pager
- John, Lubinski just grabbed me. If we want to add anything to the one pager for the backfit, it needs to be done this morning. I will be in a meeting from about 9-10, but we need to do something (if we are going to do anything at all) shortly after the meeting Dave David Alley PhD.
Chief, Component Performance NOE and Test ing Branch US Nuclear Regu latory Commission 11555 Rockvil le Pike Rockvil le MD 20852 301-415-2178
NRR Perspectives OEDO Backfit Panel Findings Comment IWJI: There was some EPRI testing done at both conditions,
, but the test at the lower temperatures
! for the BB type valve experienced do not provide sufficient basis to overturn the backfit.
i significant enough valve chattering
- The panel's position is reliant on its interpretation of the 1977 Information SECY. The panel i that the test was ended early. The real has provided select quotes from that SECY that it believes supports its position. NRR i issue/difference between the feedline believes that when the entire SECY is reviewed it becomes clear that the SECY was simply ! break and the high pressure injection i is the expected temperature of the documenting current practices in 1977 and does not provide a "known and established / fluid that oasses throuah the valve.
standard." The staff contends that if the 1977 SECY had been intended to provide the i
"known and established standard" it would have been included in subsequent updates to :
regulations, regulatory guides, and SRPs over the following nearly 40 years. It has not.
- In numerous places the panel quotes documents that it interprets as describing the !
i treatment of check valves as analogous to PSVs. The panel did not find any definitive documentation that demonstrates that the agency concluded that PSVs are analogous to j check valves and, as such, should be considered passive components. This appears to be the panel's judgement, not an NRG position. NRR disagrees with the panel's interpretation i and has historically treated PSVs as active components, including designating them as such !
during license renewal. PSVs are designed to perform a specific RCS overpressure !
protection safety function critical to protecting one of the key defense-in-depth barriers to !
protect public health and safety from the release of radioactive materials. The staff believes the panel's comparison is inappropriate and establishes a very concerning precedent. i
- 10 CFR 50.55a requires nuclear power plants to be initially designed and constructed IAW i ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section Ill and to be tested throughout i their service life IAW ASME OM Code. These codes comprise the qual ification standards !
for ASME Class 1 safety valves such as the pressurizer PSVs which licensees are required ,*'
j
- ~: :o~~~E~~:~:~~:: : ~:!: ;:.~:::::::::*::;~=:~
to comply with unless relief has been granted and alternatives have been authorized by the
- aod I characterizes the PSVs and PORVs as active components. However, the panel, given its reliance on treating PSVs akin to check valves, establishes a new and different position in its own summary when it determines these valves should be treated as passive components at Byron and Braidwood for the purposes of considering the single failu re criterion.
- ~ he panel asserts in its summary that the valves in question where water qualified due to the licensee's reliance on them to pass water during feedline break events. The panel does not appear to acknowledge that feedline breaks are Condition IV events , similar to LOCAs, which are never expected to occur i n the lifetime of the facilities and therefore, given their lower probability of occurrence, are permitted to have more significant consequences. The /
EPRI testing demonstrated acc@table was-performanceee under conditions anticipated ,
during these Condition IV events (higher temperature fluid - 650°F), wh ile the EPRI test at /
not-the more likely Condition II inadvertent mass addition event conditionss (lower /
temperature nu1d -550 °F) was terminated early due to valve chatter on opening. ~ -------__!
summary of the EPRI testing indicated that for subcooled water conditions valve chatter and resultant valve damage was_g_enerally observed.
- NRR agrees with the panel that risk insights are important considerations. However, consistent with RG 1.174 , risk insights must include consideration of defense-in-depth and safety margins. If a PSV were to stick open or significantly leak at Bryon and Braidwood during a licensing basis Condition II event, which is anticipated to occur on an annual frequency, the licensee has not demonstrated adequate defense-in-depth. NRR is open to considering risk-informed licensing basis changes, or potential plant modifications, that appropriately considers all 5 elements of RG 1.174 .
From: Billerbeck. lohn To: Whitman leonifer Subj ect: RE: Backfit Panel Response Date: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 9:41:19 AM Attachments: Backlit Panel Response - Rev 3 - billerbeck comments.docx.
Right back at ya From: W hitman, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 12:27 AM To: Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Backfit Panel Response John, there are two places in the attached where I need your help t o fin ish.
- Thanks, Jen
Staff Response to Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings On August 2, 2016, the NRR staff received a three-page summary of the preliminary findings of the OEDO backfit appeal panel. The staff recognizes that the OEDO panel has performed a much more thorough review than can be documented within three pages. As such, the staff's review and comments as provided below, reflects its considerations of this short summary. The staff is willing to meet with the panel again to discuss the concerns and positions documented in this response.
(b)(S)
Page 379 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 380 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 381 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 382 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
From: Alley. David To: Billerbeck !oho Subj ect: RE: Braidwood/Byron
- Appea l of Imposition of Backfit Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and Licensing Basis Date: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 11:34:39 AM Thanks for the assessment.
Dave From: Bil lerbeck, John Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 9:51 AM To: Alley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Braidwood/Byron - Appea l of Imposition of Backfit Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and Licensing Basis
- Dave, I know you saw this already. It looks to me like the licensee doesn't dispute the technical argument that we made (i.e., that if you want to credit the PSVs with water relief, then you have to demonstrate in the ASME design and test programs that they will actually work with water). But rather, their dispute seems to focus on an alleged NRC procedural error (i.e.,
no backfit analysis performed / misuse of the compliance exemption). I guess we're in standby until management decides how to preceed.
John From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 7:27 AM To: Poole, Justin; Beaulieu, David; Schwarz, Sherry; Wertz, Trent; Evans, Michele; Lubinski, John; McGinty, Tim; Jackson, Christopher; Whitman, Jennifer; Alley, David; Billerbeck, John; Kokajko, Lawrence; Mohseni, Aby; Stuchell, Sheldon; Jessie, Janelle; Krohn, Paul; Boland, Anne; Taylor, Robert; Wilson, George; Duncan, Eric; Benjamin, Jamie; Betancourt, Diana; McGhee, James; Draper, Jason
Subject:
Braidwood/Byron - Appeal of Imposition of Backfit Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b), GDC 15, GDC 21, GDC 29, and Licensing Basis
From: Garmoe Alex To: Oesterle Eric Cc: Whitman lennjfer; Aney. Dayid; Keene Todd; Billerbeck. IPbo: Farnan. Michael: Wolfgang. Robert
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120-day Plan Date: Monday, November 14, 2016 9:34:S7 AM Attachments: imageoo1.ong Thanks Eric. I'll take th is info and incorporate it into a memo from Bil l Dean to Vic Mccree, subj ect t o any changes we discuss duri ng t he Wednesday meeting.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:36 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennirer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farna n, M ichaeli
<M ichael. Farnan@nrc.gov>; Wolfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Definition of Underlying Tech nical issue for 120-day Pla n Importance: High
- Alex, Attached please find my write-up on attempting to define the underlying technical issue for the 120-day plan to respond to the EDO on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal decision. It focuses primarily on the Westinghouse NSAL so I request that others have a look at this write-up and offer up and comments or edits. Thanks!
fvio'R. Oe¢"er-l,e, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
From : Garmoe Alex To: Oesterle Eric; AOey David Cc: Whitman leonifer; Keene. Todd; Billerbeck lohn; Farnan. Michael; Wolfgang Robert
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120-day Plan Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:30:02 AM Attachments: imageoo2.ong I agree - we'l l have a much better understanding of where we are tomorrow morning. Having a division-leve l briefing this week was a target but was never definit ive or scheduled. Framing the t ech nical issue took a bit longer t han initially ant icipat ed so that set everything back a bit. I suggest we target Monday or Tuesday of next week for a division level briefing, which would allow us to receive and incorporate comments in advance of briefing the NRR front office in early December.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:14 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David .Alley@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennif er.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@ nrc.gov>;
Billerbeck, John <Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, M ichael <M ichael.Fa rnan@nrc.gov>; W olfga ng, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@ nre.gov>
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120- day Plan I think we should nail down the briefing date during the discussion tomorrow.
Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:13 AM To: Alley, David <David.Allev@nrc.gov>; Oest erle, Eric <Eric Oesterle@nrc gov>
Cc: Whit man, Jennif er <Jennifer Whitman@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd Keene@nrc gov>;
Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, M ichael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>; Wolfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nre.gov>
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120- day Plan
- Dave, Good question about the divi sion level briefing. I am not sure if there was supposed to definitively be a division level briefing this week or if t his was a ba ll park ta rget figuring we'd have a plan to present by now - I'll try to get more info. I don't t hink we have the plan na iled down yet t o the extent we would want for a division level briefing. Perhaps after t he Wednesday morning d iscussion we will. At this point I think we cou ld support early next week or the week after Thanksgiving. Any other thoughts?
Alex From: Alley, David Sent: M onday, November 14, 2016 8:34 PM To: Oest er le, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Ga rmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whit man, Jennif er <Jennifer Whitman@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd Keene@nrc gov>;
Billerbeck, John <John Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, M ichael <Michael.Farnan@nrc gov>; Wolfgang, Robert <Robert Wolfgang@n re gov>
Subject:
RE: Definition of Underlying Technical Issue for 120- day Plan Eric, Alex, First off, MJ mentioned a division level briefing on this subject and thought it was to be this week. I don't see anything scheduled yet. Did I miss something?
Now to the major issue at hand In not nearly so well thought out language as you propose, may I propose that our 120 day plan also include GIVEN:
- 1. The backfit appeal found that a well known and established NRC positon concerning the method of qualification of PSVs does not exist.
- 2. The backfit appeal establishes that the PSVs installed at Byron and Braidwood are needed for water discharge, i.e., it is part of the normally planned for operation of the plant The backfit appeal establishes that the PSVs installed at Byron and Braidwood are qualified for water discharge.
REQU IRED:
The ultimate resolution of technical and regulatory issues must include:
- 1. Determination of the safety significance of the Byron Braidwood PSVs
- 2. Determination of ASME Code compliance with testing requirements for PSVs at Byron and Braidwood given that the backfit appeal established that they are qualified to pass water
- 3. Assess the significance of these issues to the fleet
- 4. Determination of technical reasonableness for design and operation of PSVs for both steam and water
- 5. Determination of whether new licenses should be treated be treated differently than existing licenses with respect to this issue
- 6. Depending on findings above, engage licensee/region with respect to actions to resolve both technical and regulatory issues
- 7. Issue one or more RISs to clarity NRC position on existing licensees and new licenses (including renewed licenses)
STEPS TO BE EMPLOYED:
To accomplish Requ irement 1:
- a. Revisit scenario in question
- b. Review General Design Criteria and other regulations for applicability
- c. Review available data on valve performance to determine technical significance of passing water
- d. Assess scenario with respect to regulatory and technical information
- e. Draft position paper Time required to implement ** months To accomplish Requirement 2:
and required to pass water
- b. Determine whether licensees have met those requirements (this may require communications with the licensee
- c. Draft final position and recommendation concerning this issue Time required to implement ** months To accomplish Requirement 3:
- a. Determine appropriate means to determine extent of this issue at other PWRs , i.e.,
number of plants which require PSVs to pass water and steam. Potential paths include:
review FSARs in house; request assistance from residents; generic letter.
- b. Obtain necessary information
- c. Determine significance Time required to implement** months To accomplish Requirement 4:
- a. Survey valve manufacturers concerning the technical feasibility of long term operation of PSVs with water and steam.
- b. Develop position regarding this issue for new licenses
- c. Draft position paper Time required to implement** months I am going to quit here for the time being. Given what I have written for steps to accomplish 4, I am not sure whether I got 4 and 5 backwards or not. I think you can get the drift of where I am headed and can start to throw stones as necessary. Once we get past number 5, the last couple may be easy. Not sure whether we need more detail than I have provided (probably do) but it is after 8:30 and I would like to be done for tonight.
Dave From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Monday, November 14, 2016 7:36 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrq~ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennif er <Jennifer Whjtman@nrc gov>; Alley, David <David Aliey@nrc gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd Keene@nrc gov>; Billerbeck, John <John Billerbeck@nrc gov>; Farnan, M ichael
<M ichael. Farna n@nrc.gov>; Wolfgang, Robert <Robert.Wolfgang@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Definit ion of Underlyi ng Technical Issue for 120-day Plan Importance: High
- Alex, Attached please find my write-up on attempting to define the underlying technical issue for the 120-day plan to respond to the EDO on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal decision. It focuses primarily on the Westinghouse NSAL so I request that others have a look at this write-up and offer up and comments or edits. Thanks!
fvio'R.. O~erle, Reactor Systems Branch Chief
NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
From: Garmoe Alex To: Alley David; stuchell Sheldon: Oesterle Eric; Whitman Jennifer; Billerbeck John; Farnan Michael Subj ect: RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 5:23:51 PM Attachments: Response Memo to EDO Rev 4 Option 2.docx, Response Memo to EDO Rev 4 Internal De.tailed Plan Option 2.docx,
- Folks, In the event the tech staff agrees that Tony's suggestion should be included in our plan, I have drafted an optional update to the response memo to the EDO. Additional language to incorporate Tony's concern is included in the attached redline strikeout files. Your thoughts on including Tony's comments and the additional memo language are welcomed, ideally by mid-day Tuesday to support a Wednesday morning discussion with DE and DSS management.
- Thanks, Alex From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:34 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@ nrc.gov>; Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jen nifer <Jen nifer.Whitma n@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, M ichael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, I have included John Billerbeck and Mike Farnan on this just to make sure I am not misspeaking.
EPNB's involvement in this is predominantly limited to the safety valves, including their function, qualification and testing. My goal is to assess the narrow scope associated with the valves. While I have no objection to assessing the broader scope proposed by Tony, I don't believe my branch organizationally has anything to add to that broader discussion.
That is not to say we have no personal interest in the issue. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to proceed, we will remain fully engaged especially with respect to valve testing requirements Dave From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:45 PM To: Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon.StucheH@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric Oesterle@nrc.gov>;
Whitman, Jenn ifer <Jennifer.Whjtman@nrc gov>; Alley, David <David Alley@nrc gov>
Subject:
FW: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Good afternoon, Please see the below comments from Tony Gody about the draft response to the EDO. To
summarize, he is concerned that we may be taking too narrow of a view by focusing only on PSV water qualification and not more broadly on industry actions in response to RCS overfill. Is the intention, despite the current narrow language in the response memo, to consider this more broad perspective in our re-assessment of the issue? If not, should we do so? I'll consider updating the draft response memo once we are aligned on Tony's comments.
- Thanks, Alex From: Gody, Tony Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:47 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@ nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, My thoughts. If the proposed staff actions are limited to the milestones for addressing the underlying technical issue in NSAL-93-013 attached to the draft memorandum to Victor Mccree they appear too narrow. If the staff focuses on just their technical concern (namely PSV qualification to pass water) then the broader question about whether the industry methodology to address an RCS overfill event is acceptable will not be answered. In my opinion, we should not narrowly focus on just one technical aspect of this event. By doing so, we lose an opportunity to address, for once, the questions about whether the industry has developed an acceptable approach to prevent what caused the Three Mile Island event.
The memo from me dated March 21, 2016, shows that the industry has addressed the RCS overfill event in many different ways, some of which may be acceptable, nearly all of which were not challenged by us. After my very quick review of the 1O FSARs, it became apparent to me that we (the NRG) have not developed a unified approach to addressing Generic Safety Issue 70. This combined with the staff position that the PORV and its' associated block valve be designated safety-related (which is a change from our conclusion in NUREG-1316) if it is relied upon to address the RCS overfill event has resulted in an increasing number of licensee's relying on their PSVs to address the event.
Of course, it am reading the staff's proposal to limit its efforts to PSV qualification to pass water wrong, then ..... never mind.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to comment.
Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:57 AM To: Gody, Tony <Tony Gody@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Tony,
I hope things have been going well for you down in Atlanta. As you likely recall, the EDO accepted an appeal panel recommendation to overturn the Braidwood/Byron compliance backfit after Exelon submitted a second-level appeal. On September 15, the EDO sent a memo to Bill Dean explaining his decision and requesting to be informed within 120 days of our plan to address the following items:
- Assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors.
- The positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration.
I have been working with technical staff from DSS and DE to develop a response to the memo. Since the draft response directs staff to take into account the information provided in your memo to the NRR backfit review panel, I am including our current draft for your review and comment. If possible, your comments would be appreciated by mid-day Tuesday 11 /29.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Alexander 0. Garmoe Senior ProJed Manager G~neric Commun1ca ons Branch (PGCB) 01vis1on of Polley and Rulemalun& (OPR)
Off1ct of Nuclear Reactor Reaulatlon (NRR)
Alex.Garm~@nrc,iov I 301-415-3814
Date MEMORANDUM TO: Victor M. Mccree Executive Director for Operations FROM: William M. Dean, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR A PLAN TO ASSESS THE TREATMENT OF THE UNDERLYING TECHNICAL ISSUE IN NSAL-93-013 AND THE POSITIONS IN RIS 2005-29 AND PROPOSED REVISION 1.
In a memorandum dated September 15, 2016 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) ML16246A247), you communicated the results of your review of a backfit appeal by Exelon Generation Co., LLC. The backfit was initially imposed by the staff, using the compliance exception to the backfit rule, on October 9, 2015 (ADAMS ML14225A871 ).
After undergoing the backfit appeal process with the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), in which NRR upheld imposition of the backfit, Exelon appealed the NRR decision to you in a letter dated June 2, 2016 (ADAMS ML16154A254). The September 15 memorandum referred to the report of a Backfit Appeal Review Panel, which you had designated to review the June 2 appeal.
As noted in the September 15 memorandum, the Backfit Appeal Review Panel determined that use of the ASME BPV code to demonstrate qualification of PSVs for water relief, the presumption of a PSV failing to reseat following water relief, and application of the single failure criterion were not known and established staff positions at the time the licensing actions in question were issued. In light of this determination, the memorandum included two issues identified by the Backfit Appeal Review Panel as warranting further NRC review. As stated in the memorandum:
The Panel's report also identifies two issues that warrant further NRC consideration.
The report reveals the need to assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors. In addition, given the decision communicated herein, the positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration. You are requested to inform me within 120 days of your plan to respond to these issues.
Staff from NRR have reviewed the September 15 memorandum and supporting documentation.
As requested, a plan has been developed, as described herein and in the Enclosure to this memorandum, to assess the underlying technical issue described in Westinghouse NSAL 013 and the positions included in RIS 2005-029 and the proposed revision.
The underlying technical issue associated with NSAL-93-013 (Sheet 4 of 5) for the inadvertent operation of ECCS event (IOECCS) is, "the PSRVs [Pressurizer Safety Relief Valves] ... must be capable of closing after release of subcooled water." NRR staff will re-evaluate its position on this technical issue and document what constitutes acceptable qualification of PSVs for liquid discharge.
This technical issue and the licensing implications were discussed in the current version of RIS 2005-29, which was published on December 14, 2005. This RIS was reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) and the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), who determined that the RIS did not represent a backfit. When the staff imposed the compliance backfit on Braidwood and Byron plants in October 2015, an effort began to revise RIS 2005-29 to incorporate information from the plant-specific backfit. Since Exelon's appeal of the backfit has been granted, this proposed revision will be placed on hold to allow the staff to revisit the NSAL-93-013 technical issue in question. Because at least some sites rely on power operated relief valve operation to prevent water relief from PSVs, the staff will also review the closure of Generic Issue 70. "Power-Operated Relief Valve and Block Valve Reliability." The staff will then identify an appropriate process for dispositioning and communicating the technical issue and will implement that process in accordance with Agency guidance. The staff will also determine how to address the position stated in the current publicly available version of RIS 2005-29. This could involve a revision to the RIS to further clarify the staff's position or implementation of another agency process should the staff (with the assistance of OGC and CRGR) determine that its position is new or different.
Once the staff has revisited its position on the underlying technical issue in NSAL 93 013 and clearly articulated itstRe position, plant-specific actions can be evaluated and implemented, if necessary. Regardless of the process used, the staff will ensure its position is reviewed by OGC and CRGR to ensure appropriate backfit consideration.
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RidsNrrDorllpl3-2 AGendelman , OGC RidsNrrMailCenter RidsNrrPMByron GMizuno, OGC RidsOgcMailCenter RidsNrrPMBraidwood MThaggard, RES RidsResMailCenter RidsNrrDss KSWest, NSIR RidsNroMailCenter RidsNrrDe MBailey, NSIR RidsNmssMailCenter RidsNrrDpr TScarbrough, NRO RidsRgn1 MailCenter RidsNrrDorl MASpencer, OGC RidsRgn2MailCenter AGarmoe, NRR TClark, OEDO RidsRgn3MailCenter AGody, Region II Rlorson , Region I RidsRgn4MailCenter KOBrien, Region Ill TVegel, Region IV OFFICE NRR/DPR/PGCB/PM NRR/DPR/PGCB/LA NRR/DSS/SRXB NRR/DE/EPNB NRR/DSS NAME AGarmoe EOest erle DAIiey TMcGinty DATE OFFICE NRR/DE NRR/DD NRR/DD NRR/ D NAME JLubinski MEvans BMcDermott WDean DATE
Milestones for Addressing the Underlying Technical Issue in NSAL-93-013 Implementation Plan Details Target Date Define underlvinq technical issues in NSAL Complete Identify relevant operating experience, 2/28/2017 assess the extent of condition across the fleet, and determine if the underlying technical issue has safety siqnificance Determine ASME code requirements for 2/28/2017 qualification and testing of water-qualified valves and applicable NRC requirements or positions regarding such qualification and testinq.
Develop appropriate message to be 2/28/2017 communicated regarding the technical issue, regulatory requirements, and status of the fleet Determine the appropriate process for 3/31/2017 disposition/communication of staff position.
Consider whether any aspects of the issue should be included in the Generic Issues Program and whether Gl-70 should be re-assessed or uodated.
Implement the selected process in TBD based on selected process accordance with Aqencv quidance Consider plant-specific actions to address Following completion of communication of the concerns identified in extent of condition staffs position review Enclosure
Internal Detailed Plan to Address NSAL-93-013 Underlying Technical Issue Implementation Plan Details Taraet Date Define underlyinQ technical issues in NSAL Complete Identify relevant operating experience, 2/28/2017 assess the extent of condition across the fleet, and determine if the underlying technical issue has safety significance 0 Work with DIRS/IOEB to identify operating experience related to IOECCS occurrences and relevant data on PSV performance 0 DSS/SRXB to lead identification of the potentially affected plant designs and licensees, what NRC has previously accepted with respect to PSV qualification, and determination of whether PSV application appears appropriate for these licensees 0 Determine whether closure of Gl-70 remains accegtable and/or imgacts the staff gosition on the technical issue in NSAL-93-013 (G9ASi9eF iAfmmatieA from TGody-lR Memo to NRR Backfit Panel (ML16081A405) 0 Document this outcome in a white paper from DSS/SRXB to DSS manaQement Determine ASME code requirements for 2/28/2017 qualification and testing of water-qualified valves and applicable NRC requirements or positions regarding such qualification and testing.
0 Identify applicable ASME code language 0 Identify applicable NRC requirements and what specifically is required 0 Identify any gaps or lack of clarity in requirements Develop appropriate message to be 2/28/2017 communicated regarding the technical issue, regulatory requirements, and status of the fleet 0 Is there a concern with PSV application and methods of qualification?
0 What is the extent of condition across the fleet?
0 Is long term operation of PSVs with water and steam technically feasible?
0 What has been previously accepted Page 1 of 2
for PSV qualification by NRC?
0 What are currently acceptable methods of PSV qualification?
0 What are ASME OM code requirements for testing water-qualified valves?
Determine the appropriate process for 3/31/2017 disposition/communication of staff position.
Consider whether any aspects of the issue should be included in the Generic Issues Program.
0 Consider whether Gl-70 should be re-assessed or u12dated (iAfem:iatieA from TGody-+A Memo to NRR Backfit Panel (ML16081A405) 0 Ensure coordination and review by OGC and CRGR Implement the selected process in TBD based on selected process accordance with Agency guidance Consider plant-specific actions to address Following completion of communication of the concerns identified in extent of condition staffs position review Page 2 of 2
From : Alley. David To: Garmoe Alex: stuchell Sheldon: Oesterle Eric: Whitman lennifer: Billerbeck lohn; Farnan Michael Subj ect: RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Date: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:33:49 PM
- Alex, I have included John Billerbeck and Mike Farnan on this just to make sure I am not misspeaking.
EPNB"s involvement in this is predominantly limited to the safety valves, including their function, qualification and testing. My goal is to assess the narrow scope associated with the valves. While I have no objection to assessing the broader scope proposed by Tony, I don't believe my branch organizationally has anything to add to that broader discussion.
That is not to say we have no personal interest in the issue. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to proceed, we will remain fully engaged especially with respect to valve testing requirements Dave From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: M onday, Novem ber 28, 2016 1:45 PM To: Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@n rc.gov>; Oest erle, Eric <Eric.Oest erle@nrc.gov>;
W hit ma n, Jenn ifer <Jennif er.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Good afternoon, Please see the below comments from Tony Gody about the draft response to the EDO. To summarize, he is concerned that we may be taking too narrow of a view by focusing only on PSV water qualification and not more broadly on industry actions in response to RCS overfill. Is the intention, despite the current narrow language in the response memo, to consider this more broad perspective in our re-assessment of the issue? If not, should we do so? I'll consider updating the draft response memo once we are aligned on Tony's comments.
- Thanks, Alex From: Gody, Tony Sent: M onday, November 28, 2016 12:47 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, My thoughts. If the proposed staff actions are limited to the milestones for addressing the underlying technical issue in NSAL-93-013 attached to the draft memorandum to Victor Mccree they appear too narrow. If the staff focuses on just their technical concern (namely PSV qualification to pass water) then the broader question about whether the industry
methodology to address an RCS overfill event is acceptable will not be answered. In my opinion, we should not narrowly focus on just one technical aspect of this event. By doing so, we lose an opportunity to address, for once, the questions about whether the industry has developed an acceptable approach to prevent what caused the Three Mile Island event.
The memo from me dated March 21 , 2016, shows that the industry has addressed the RCS overfill event in many different ways, some of which may be acceptable, nearly all of which were not challenged by us. After my very quick review of the 10 FSARs, it became apparent to me that we (the NRG) have not developed a unified approach to addressing Generic Safety Issue 70. This combined with the staff position that the PORV and its' associated block valve be designated safety-related (which is a change from our conclusion in NUREG-1316) if it is relied upon to address the RCS overfill event has resulted in an increasing number of licensee's relying on their PSVs to address the event.
Of course, it am reading the staff's proposal to limit its efforts to PSV qualification to pass water wrong, then ..... never mind.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to comment.
Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:57 AM To: Gody, Tony <Jony.Gody@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfi t Overturn
- Tony, I hope things have been going well for you down in Atlanta. As you likely recall, the EDO accepted an appeal panel recommendation to overturn the Braidwood/Byron compliance backfit after Exelon submitted a second-level appeal. On September 15, the EDO sent a memo to Bill Dean explaining his decision and requesting to be informed within 120 days of our plan to address the following items:
- Assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors.
- The positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration.
I have been working with technical staff from DSS and DE to develop a response to the memo. Since the draft response directs staff to take into account the information provided in your memo to the NRR backfit review panel, I am including our current draft for your review and comment. If possible, your comments would be appreciated by mid-day Tuesday 11 /29.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Alexander 0 . Garmoe Senior Project Manager Generi c Communications Branch (PGCB)
Divi s ion of Policy and Rulemaki ng (OPR)
Offi ce of Nuclear Reactor Reaulation (NRR)
Alex.Garmoe@)nrc.1ov I 301-415*3814
From: Garmoe Alex To: Oesterle Eric; AOey David; sruchel! Sheldon; Whitman Jennifer; Billerbeck John; Farnan Michael
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 8:14:29 AM Thanks for the prompt feedback - it sounds like we all agree that Tony's comments are in scope and worth including in our plan. I'll send him the redline strikeout updated files so he can see our revisions to reflect his comments. Barring any further comments in the next couple hours, I'll update tomorrow's calendar appointment with the latest files for discussion. Rob Taylor and MJ Ross-Lee have accepted the appointment so I'm presuming that's who we'll be briefing.
Once we have mgmt. alignment on the drafts I'll start routing it through concurrence to support a December 8 briefing of the NRR ET. The goal is to have the package with the front office for signature by early in the week of 12/12, which will give the ET a couple weeks around Christmas/New Year's to review and sign out the response memo, which is due by January 13.
Alex From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 6:53 AM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon
<Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Whitman, Jen nifer <Jen nifer.Whitma n@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<John. Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, Michael <Michael.Farna n@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overt urn
- Alex, Good updates. My only comment is on the dates. See attached for proposed revised dates.
Also, I think Tony's holistic review approach is consistent with what I had proposed early on:
The underlying technical issue associated with NSAL-93-013 is qualification of pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) for water discharge to ensure adequate performance in response to an inadvertent operation of emergency core cooling system (IOECCS) at power event.
The analysis of an IOECCS event includes prevention of the pressurizer from becoming water solid, which could result in an unisolable breach of the reactor coolant system (RCS) should a PSV stick open following water relief. The transition of an IOECCS event to an unisolable breach of the RCS would result in violation of another licensing criterion, specifically the prevention of a condition II event (as defined in XXX) from transitioning to a condition Ill event (also as defined in XXX) without an additional failure. To preclude the pressurizer from going solid the following actions were credited (where?):
a) Operator action to secure high head safety injection pumps prior to pressurizer fill b) If the operator action was not timely, provide pressure relief through PORV(s) c) If block valves were maintained normally closed during power operation, amend TS to allow at least one block valve to be open during power operation so that a PORV could
be used for this event d) If block valves were maintained normally closed during power operation, allow discharge through PSVs, however PSVs must be qualified for liquid discharge e) If PSVs were not qualified for liquid discharge, replace or upgrade PSVs for liquid discharge f) Discharge piping for the PORVs/PSVs all the way to the pressurizer relief tank must be qualified for liquid discharge Each of these steps associated with the ECCS must be considered for every PWR licensee, including the equivalent mass addition event analyses for those PWR licensees with CE and B&W nuclear steam supply systems. The NRC must also determine what constitutes acceptable qualification of PSVs for liquid discharge, if the PSVs are credited for reseating following liquid discharge, such that an IOECCS event does not transition to an unisolable breach of the RCS (small break LOCA) as a result of the failure of a PSV to reseat.
Eric From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 5:24 PM To: Alley, David <Davjd.Alley@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Whit man, Jennifer <Jennjfer.Whjtman@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John
<John Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Folks, In the event the tech staff agrees that Tony's suggestion should be included in our plan, I have drafted an optional update to the response memo to the EDO. Additional language to incorporate Tony's concern is included in the attached redline strikeout files. Your t houghts on including Tony's comments and the additional memo language are welcomed, ideally by mid-day Tuesday to support a Wednesday morning discussion with DE and DSS management.
- Thanks, Alex From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 2:34 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Whit man, Jenn ifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John
<John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Fa rnan, Michael <Michael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, I have included John Billerbeck and Mike Farnan on this just to make sure I am not misspeaking.
EPNB's involvement in this is predominantly limited to the safety valves, including their function, qualification and testing. My goal is to assess the narrow scope associated with the valves. While I have no objection to assessing the broader scope proposed by Tony, I don't believe my branch organizationally has anything to add to that broader discussion.
That is not to say we have no personal interest in the issue. Irrespective of the manner in which we choose to proceed, we will remain fully engaged especially with respect to valve testing requirements Dave From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 1:45 PM To: Stuchel l, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric Oesterle@nrc.gov>;
Whit man, Jen nifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn Good afternoon, Please see the below comments from Tony Gady about the draft response to the EDO. To summarize, he is concerned that we may be taking too narrow of a view by focusing only on PSV water qualification and not more broadly on industry actions in response to RCS overfill. Is the intention, despite the current narrow language in the response memo, to consider this more broad perspective in our re-assessment of the issue? If not, should we do so? I'll consider updating the draft response memo once we are aligned on Tony's comments.
- Thanks, Alex From: Gody, Tony Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 12:47 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex Garmoe@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfit Overturn
- Alex, My thoughts. If the proposed staff actions are limited to the milestones for addressing the underlying technical issue in NSAL-93-013 attached to the draft memorandum to Victor McCree they appear too narrow. If the staff focuses on just their technical concern (namely PSV qualification to pass water) then the broader question about whether the industry methodology to address an RCS overfill event is acceptable will not be answered. In my opinion, we should not narrowly focus on just one technical aspect of this event. By doing so, we lose an opportunity to address, for once, the questions about whether the industry has developed an acceptable approach to prevent what caused the Three Mile Island event.
The memo from me dated March 21 , 2016, shows that the industry has addressed the RCS overfill event in many different ways, some of which may be acceptable, nearly all of which
were not challenged by us. After my very quick review of the 10 FSARs, it became apparent to me that we (the NRC) have not developed a unified approach to addressing Generic Safety Issue 70. This combined with the staff position that the PORV and its' associated block valve be designated safety-related (which is a change from our conclusion in NUREG-1316) if it is relied upon to address the RCS overfill event has resulted in an increasing number of licensee's relying on their PSVs to address the event.
Of course, it am reading th e staff's proposal to limit its efforts to PSV qualification to pass water wrong, then ..... never mind.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to comment.
Tony From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 11:57 AM To: Gody, Tony <Jony.Gody@nrc PY>
Subject:
Draft Response to EDO Re: Braidwood/Byron Backfi t Overturn
- Tony, I hope things have been going well for you down in Atlanta. As you likely recall, the EDO accepted an appeal panel recommendation to overturn the Braidwood/Byron compliance backfit after Exelon submitted a second-level appeal. On September 15, the EDO sent a memo to Bill Dean explaining his decision and requesting to be informed within 120 days of our plan to address the following items:
- Assess the treatment of the underlying technical issue described in the 1993 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter (NSAL-93-013) on PSV performance after water discharge at pressurized-water reactors.
- The positions included in RIS 2005-29, as well as its proposed Revision 1, should be (re)assessed through the appropriate generic process to ensure they receive appropriate backfit consideration.
I have been working with technical staff from DSS and DE to develop a response to the memo. Since the draft response directs staff to take into account the information provided in your memo to the NRR backfit review panel, I am including our current draft for your review and comment. If possible, your comments would be appreciated by mid-day Tuesday 11 /29.
Thank you and Happy Thanksgiving!
Alexander o. Garmoe
~"nlo Proje<< M.m *er
~ntr,c COmmun,cat,ons Stanch (PGC8)
O,v,slon o! Polley and Rult ~llinr (OJ>R) o,f,ct o' Nucleer Rta-etor Atrulot*on (N~R)
Aft). Gar~(lnrc.iov I 301-41S*3814
From : Billerbeck. 12bo To: Alley David
Subject:
RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:23:27 PM
- Dave, I'm OK wit h Rob's proposed edit.
John From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:12 PM To: Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>
Cc: Lubi nski, John <John.Lubinski @nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John <John.Bil lerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Providing EDO feedback on t he byron backfit issue
- Dave, Thanks for the input. It it is ok with you, I would like to delete the last two sentences. The last one because the point of the backfit was to say they were out of compliance with the regulations, so it is redundant in my mind. The second to last one because we didn't cite them for non-compliance with 50.55a. I think your points are valid and perhaps we should have cited them for non-compliance with 50.55a. I think without the sentences you make it clear that the ASME code is a known and established standard and that there are appropriate vehicles for seeking alternatives to the code requirements.
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: Lubi nski, John <John,Lubinski@nrc,gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Bil lerbeck@nrc.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 which gets to the heart of regulatory compliance We propose
- 10 CFR 50.55a requires nuclear power plants to be initially designed and constructed IAW ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section Ill and to be tested throughout their service life IAW ASME OM Code. These codes comprise the qualification standards for ASME Class 1 safety valves such as the pressurizer PSVs
with which licensees are required to comply unless alternatives have been authorized by the staff IAW 1O CFIR 50.55a. Byron and Braidwood are not in compliance with the ASME Code and do not possess an NRC approved alternative. Therefore Byron and Braidwood are not in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations.
Dave From: Lubinski, John Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:54 AM To: Alley, David <Davjd.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: Wh itman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:48 AM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Tavloc@orc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MarvJane.Ross-Lee@nrc gov>;
Lubinski, John <John Lubjnskj@nrc gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne Bo[and@nrc gov>; Benner, Eric
<Eric Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim
<Tim. McG inty@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue l"ve modified the second to last bullet to better incorporate the EPRI test data in the attached PDF. I"ve highlighted the appropriate passages (pages 28 and 53 of the PDF).
From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:03 AM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJa ne <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>;
Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Ben ner, Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George
<George.Wj[soo@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Iim.McGinty@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennjfer.Whjtman@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: Dea n, Bil l Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:04 PM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MarvJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John Lubjnski@nrc gov>;
Boland, Anne <Anne.Boland@nrc gov>; Ben ner/ Eric <Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George
<George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim .M cG inty@nrc.gov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Jaylor@nrc.gov>
Cc: McDermott, Brian <Brian McDermott@nrc gov>; Eva ns, M ichele <Michele Evans@nrc gov>
Subject:
Provid ing 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 key talking points that the staff would like to make sure we share with him. I heard some things this morning re: certain recommended taskings that we think are way off base, but I would also like to reinforce where we have issues with certain references that were relied upon and flaws in their technical views re:
water qualification. Maybe in a couple of days?
8/ff
From: Alley. David To: Taylor Robert Cc: Lubinski lohn; Billerbeck. lobo
Subject:
RE: Providing EDO feedback on the byron backfit issue Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:23:47 PM
- Rob, My apologies for the slow reply. John stuck his head into my office a while ago and indicated that you were going to only use part of what we submitted. That is fine. Thanks for letting us take part.
Depending on the outcome of this effort, it may be worthwhile to discuss where we may be in enforcement space.
Dave From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 2:12 PM To: Al ley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>
Cc: Lubinski, John <John. Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Bil lerbeck, John <John.Bil lerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Providing EDO feedback on t he byron backfit issue
- Dave, Thanks for the input. If it is ok with you, I would like to delete the last two sentences. The last one because the point of the backfit was to say they were out of compliance with the regulations, so it is redundant in my mind. The second to last one because we didn't cite them tor non-compliance with 50.55a. I think your points are valid and perhaps we should have cited them tor non-compliance with 50.55a. I think without the sentences you make it clear that the ASME code is a known and established standard and that there are appropriate vehicles tor seeking alternatives to the code requirements.
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 Billerbeck@nrc gov>
Subject:
FW: Provid ing 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 which gets to the heart of regulatory compliance We propose
- 10 CFR 50.55a requires nuclear power plants to be initially designed and constructed IAW ASME Boiler and !Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC), Section Ill and to be tested throughout their service life IAW ASME OM Code. These codes comprise the qualification standards for ASME Class 1 safety valves such as the pressurizer PSVs with which licensees are required to comply unless alternatives have been authorized by the staff IAW 10 CF1R 50.55a. Byron and Braidwood are not in compliance with the ASME Code and do not possess an NRC approved alternative. Therefore Byron and Braidwood are not in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations.
Dave From: Lubinski, Joh n Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:54 AM To: Al ley, 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: Wh itman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:48 AM To: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MarvJane.Ross-Lee@nrc.gov>;
Lubi nski, John <John Lubjnski@nrc gov>; Boland, Anne <Anne Bolaod@nrc gov>; Benner, Eric
<Eric.Benner@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George <George.Wilsoo@orc.gov>; McGinty, Tim
<Jim. McGinty@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Providing EDO feedback on t he byron backfit issue I've modified the second to last bullet to better incorporate the EPRI test data in the attached PDF. I've highlighted the appropriate passages (pages 28 and 53 of the PDF).
From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 7:03 AM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane <MaryJane Ross-Lee@nrc gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubjnski@nrc gov>;
Boland, Anne <Anne Boland@nrc gov>; Ben ner, Eric <Eric Benner@nrc gov>; Wilson, George
<George.Wilson@nrc.gov>; McGinty, Tim <Tim.McGinty@nrc gov>
Cc: Whit man, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@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: Dea n, Bi ll
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2016 6:04 PM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJa ne <MaryJane.Ross-Lee@nrc gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@orc gov>;
Boland, Anne <Anne Boland@nrc gov>; Ben ner, 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>; Eva ns, M ichele <Michele Evans@nrc gov>
Subject : Provid ing 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 key talking points that the staff would like to make sure we share with him. I heard some things this morning re: certain recommended taskings that we think are way off base, but I would also like to reinforce where we have issues with certain references that were relied upon and flaws in their technical views re:
water qualification. Maybe in a couple of days?
8/ff
From: Billerbeck. lohn To: Alley David; Whitman lennifer: Garmoe Alex: Oesterle Eric: stuchell Sheldon; Farnan Michael Cc: Billerbeck lohn
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 7:09:26 AM Yes. I' m on board . The only comment that I m ight have at t his point is t hat t he ASM E code requirements for SRV design, qualification and testing are fa irly straight forward and go back many, many yea rs. So, I'm not sure how much ASM E code comm it tee involvement w e will have on t his issue going forward.
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 6:57 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>;
Oester le, Eric <Eric.Oest erle@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Bi lle rbeck, John <John.Bil lerbeck@nrc.gov>; Farnan, Michael <M ichael.Farnan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan
- All, As I am on travel I am not giving this full attention. It does however appear that this is headed in a good direction.
John Billerbeck Since I haven"t heard anything dissenting from you, I presume that you are happy with where things are going.
Dave From: Whitman, Jenn ifer Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:27 PM To: Garmoe, Alex <Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Oest erle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@ nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John
<John Billerbeck@nrc gov>; Farnan, Michael <Michael Fama n@nrc gov>
Subject:
RE: Question: Backfit Response Plan I believe the basis tor the detailed plan being non-public is that it is pre-decisional information and the less detailed plan with the memo contains the basic steps.
From: Garmoe, Alex Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:20 PM To: Oest erle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>; Wh itman, Jen nif er <Jenn ifer.Whitman@nrc.gov>;
Stuchell, Sheldon <Sheldon.Stuchell@nrc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Al!ey@nrc.gov>; Bi llerbeck, John
<John Bilierbeck@nrc gov>; Fa rnan, M ichael <M ichael Fama n@nrc gov>
Subject:
Question: Backfit Response Plan
- All,
We've been developing the response to the EDO via a memorandum that we always knew would be publicly available and a more detailed milestone plan that initially was thought to perhaps remain non-publ ic . Sheldon and I were discussing this non-publ ic detailed milestone plan and wondering if there really is a basis or reason to keep it non-public. I would like to know your thoughts on whether we should make the more detailed plan public as a standalone document or attached it to the memo.
Also, I recalled feedback from Rob Taylor that we should inform the EDO that we'd be involve with the ASME code committee as we move forward with an understanding of code requirements. I added language to the third milestone to reflect this, as follows:
Determine ASME code requirements for qualification and testing of water-qualified valves and applicable NRG requirements or positions regarding such qualification and testing. Determination to be informed by interaction with ASME code committee.
Let me know if the added language concerns you.
- Thanks, Alexander 0. Garmoe Cjenior Pro1ect Manager Gen~ric Communications Branch (PGCB)
O,vislon or Polley and Rulemakin& (OPR)
Office or Nuclear Reactor Reaul11t,on (NRR)
AlexG11rmoe~nrc aov I 301-415-3814
From: Alley. David To: Clark Theresa; Billerbeck lobo Subj ect: RE: REQUEST: DE discussion w/ Exelon backlit appeal panel Date: Monday, July 18, 2016 3:53:41 PM
- Theresa, Let me see what I can do
- John, Was this your issue and if so can you come to a meeting on Wednesday.
Dave From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 3:48 PM To: Alley, David <David.Al ley@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>
Cc: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: DE discussion w/ Exelon backfit appeal panel If possible (it did for the DSS discussion). I didn't see their names on the October 2015 letter so I didn't attempt to include them, but it looks like from the input that John Billerbeck might have been involved with an earlier version.
From: Al ley, David Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 3:45 PM To: Clark, Theresa <Theresa Clark@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John Lubjnski@orc gov>
Cc: Holahan, Gary <Gary.Holahan@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: REQUEST: DE discussion w/ Exelon backfit appeal panel Should this include the technical evaluators?
Dave From: Clark, The resa Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 2:55 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@orc.gov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>
Cc: Holahan, Gary <Gary Holahan@nrc gov>
Subject:
REQUEST: DE discussion w/ Exelon backfit appeal panel
- John,
Following their meeting w ith DSS earlier today, the EDO-leve l appea l panel for the Exelon backfit (Byron/B raidwood PORV/PSV) would like to meet with you and Dave Alley for an informal d iscussion of your review role in the 2015 backfit lette r (where you' re on concurrence) .
The pane l has a regularly schedu led meeting on Wednesday at 1pm. Dave looks to be free, but you have a conflict. These panel folks have pretty busy schedules so it's hard to find a t ime that works for al l. Is there any chance you can make 1pm Wednesday work? Please let me know; if not, I'll search for anothe r time.
Thanks so much!
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Techn ica l Assist ant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co m mission Jheresa.Clark@orqNY I 301-415-4048 I 0 -16E22
Original Appointment-----
From: CLARK, THERESA V Sent: Friday, Jun e 24, 2016 11:08 AM To: CLARK, TH ERESA V; HOLAHAN, GARY M ; W EST, Steve n S; SCARBROUGH, THOMAS G; SPENCER, M ICHAEL A
Subject:
backfit appeal pane l When: Wednesday, Ju ly 20, 2016 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 0 - 16B2
From: Oesterle, Eric To: Case Michael; Wiebe loel; Billerbeck !oho; Baoic Merrilee* sun summer; Eii:ueroa Toledo Gladys; ~
s.m.; Drzewiecki Timothy: Beaton. Robert; Borromeo. loshua Cc: Wrona Dayid
Subject:
RE: Revision to my initial thoughts regarding the petition provided by my e-mail dated January 11, 2017 Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:40:36 AM Attachments: iroageoo1 png Yes, nice job. Based on my recollection of the reading the 2.206 some time ago, I believe there are specific issues raised in the 2.206 that are not addressed in the action plan tasked by the EDO (e.g., issue of reduction in margin of safety).
Eric R. Oesterle I Chief Reactor Systems Branch (SRXB)
Division of Safety Syst ems (DSS)
Office of Nuclea r Reactor Regulat ion (NRR) 301-415-1014 From: Case, M ichael Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 11:25 AM To: W iebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John .Bi llerbeck@ nrc.gov>; Banic, Merrilee
<Merri lee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Sun, Summer <Summer.Sun @nrc.gov>; Figueroa Toledo, Gladys
<G ladys.Figueroa@nrc.gov>; Kirkwood, Sara <Sara. Kirkwood@nre.gov>; Drzewiecki, Timothy
<Timothy.Drzewiecki@nrc.gov>; Beaton, Robert <Robert.Beaton@nrc.gov>; Borromeo, Joshua
<Joshua.Borromeo@nrc.gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wrona, David <David.Wrona@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Revision to my initia l thoughts regarding the petition provided by my e-ma il dated Jan uary 11, 2017 Nice job Joel. That path seems to match my initial thoughts as well. I want to go back and read the petition with the mindset of trying to determine what information may be "new".
From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:56 AM To: Bil lerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc gov>; Ban ic, Merrilee <Merrilee.Banic@nrq;ov>; Sun, Summer <Summer Sun@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <MichaeLCase@nrc.gov>; Figueroa Toledo, Gladys
<Gladys.Figueroa@nrc gov>; Ki rkwood, Sara <Sara Kjrkwood@nrc gov>; Drzewiecki, Timothy
<Timothy Drzewieckj@nrc gov>; Beaton, Robert <Robert Beaton@nrc gov>; Borromeo, Josh ua
<Josh ua.Borromeo@nrc gov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric Oesterle@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wrona, David <David Wrona@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Revision to my initial thoughts regarding t he petition provided by my e-mai l dated January 11, 2017
I am continuing to go through the petition as well as go through the EDO's letter dated September 15, 2016, and the supporting report dated August 24, 2016.
The petition is for Byron and Braidwood.
The EDO's letter and the supporting Backfit Appeal Review Panel (Panel) report are specifically about Byron and Braidwood. The EDO's letter states:
"I agree with the Panel's assessment that the current licensing basis for Byron and Braidwood complies with the applicable regulations and provides adequate protection of public health and safety."
Based on the EDO's statement and my review of the report from the Panel, it appears that the petition meets the criteria for rejecting Petitions under 10 CFR 2.206, specifically the criterion in MD 8.11, Part Ill, (C)(2)(b):
The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved , and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information.
In this case the petition essentially requests the NRC to reopen the backfit decision.
As I see it, the issues that have been resolved for Braidwood and Byron in the Panel's report include:
PSV Failure - Panel Report, Section 4.2 - "The Panel concluded that in 2001 and 2004 and at present, the known and established standard of the Commission is that the failures of PSVs need not be assumed to occur following water discharge if the likelihood is sufficiently small, based on well-informed staff engineering judgment. The Commission has not established a more detailed or prescriptive standard.
Event Escalation - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification , event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and GDCs 15, 21 , and 29 are no longer at issue.
Event Classification - Panel Report, Section 5 - ".. . in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification , event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and G DCs 15, 21 , and 29 are no longer at issue.
Compliance with Regulations - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRG staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 1O GFR 50.34(b) and GDGs 15, 21, and 29 are no longer at issue.
Adequate Protection - Panel Report, Section 4.4 - ".. . the Panel concluded that the current licensing basis for Byron and Braidwood complies with the applicable regulations and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Based on the above, I see the PRB's primary task will be to identify any significant new information (in the petition as supplemented by the petitioners remarks on February 1, 2017) that would invalidate the issue resolution as presented in the Backfit Appeal Review Panel Report.
Joel From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:19 PM To: Billerbeck, John <John Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Ban ic, Merrilee <Merrilee Banic@nrc.gov>; Sun, Summer <Summer.Sun@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <Michael.Case@nrc.gov>; Figueroa Toledo, Gladys
<Gladys.Figueroa@nrc.gov>; Ki rkwood, Sa ra <Sara.Kirkwood@nrc.gov>; Drzewiecki, Timot hy
<Timothy. Drzewiecki@o re. gov>
Subject:
Miranda 2.206 Petition Attached is my first screening of the items in the petition.
Please provide comments or markups by 1/19.
In addition to the attached my thoughts are that:
- 1. Since the issues involved are not resolved, but under review at the direction of the EDO (ML16246A247), we don't meet the criteria for rejecting the petition on the grounds that the issues have been the subject of NRG staff review and have been resolved.
- 2. I think we should strongly consider denying the requested enforcement in the petition since they are not supported by the claims, but take the action to refer the appropriate issues to the plan developed to respond to the EDO dated Jan 3, 2017 (ML16334A188).
This actually would be granting the petition, in part.
Joel
From: Whitman. 1eooifer To: Billerbeck !oho
Subject:
RE: Westinghouse NSAL-93-013 Date: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:27:31 AM It's in ADAMS. NSAL-93-013 in included in NSAL-93-013, G.G. Ament and K.J. Vavrek, Westinghouse ESBU, June 30, 1993, and NSAL-93-013, ML116342D412 (page 37 of the Supplement 1, J.S. Galembush, Westinghouse ESBU, October 28, 1994 (ML052930330) PDF), which is publicly available.
From: Bil lerbeck, John Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 10:27 AM To: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Wh itman@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Westinghouse NSAL-93-013
- Jen, Do you per chance have an e-copy of the subject NSAL? Thanks.
John
From: Clark, Theresa Sent: 12 Sep 2016 11:02:52 -0400 To: Keene, Todd;Wiebe, Joel
Subject:
REQUEST: assistance with contacts/ Listserv Hi there - the EDO is finalizing his decision on the Byron/Braidwood backfit appeal, and his decision documents will include a letter to Exelon that will need to be Listserved. Would you guys (or perhaps one of the LAs) be able to help with that? This would likely be t omorrow.
Also, if possible, we would like to get contact phone #s and emails for Bryan Hanson and Brad Fewell.
Could you please send me those? Vic would like to have a call with them to communicate the decision when complete.
Thank you!
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Theresa .Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0-16E22
From: Roberts, Ashley Sent: 30 Sep 2016 16:35:03 -0400 To: Clark, Theresa Cc: Valentine, Nicholee;Wiebe, Joel;Keene, Todd;Garmoe, Alex;Burnell, Scott;Abraham, Susan;Stuchell, Sheldon
Subject:
RESPONSE: ACTION: pre-request - cost data for Exelon backfit
- Theresa, Below is the hours information you requested, should you need it. As you noted below, this does not include any management hours, OGC hours, or hours for any staff that did not charge to the specific CACs (like yourself as you mentioned as an ETA).
Backfit preparation for Braidwood and Byron -1013.6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> Review of appeal - 202.2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> EDO review of appeal- 370.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> Please let us know if you have questions.
Ashley Ashley 8. Roberts {Bettis)
Chief, Financial, Human Capital & Analysis Support Branch Program Management, Policy, Development, & Analysis Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulat ion Mailstop: 013-H16M 301-415-1567 From: Abraham, Susan Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 9:51 AM To: Gavrilas, Mirela <M irela.Gavrilas@nrc.gov>; Lund, Louise <Louise.Lund@nrc.gov>; Boland, Anne
<Anne.Boland@nrc.gov>; Evans, M ichele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>
Cc: Roberts, Ashley <Ash ley.RobertsBettis@nrc.gov>; Valentine, Nicholee
<Nicholee.Valentine@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: pre-request - cost data for Exelon backfit For awareness, Susan From: Clark, Theresa Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 8:58 AM To: Roberts, Ashley <Ashley.RobertsBettis@nrc.gov>; Valentine, Nicholee
<Nicholee.Valentine@nrc.gov>
Cc: Wiebe, Joel <Joel.Wiebe@nrc.gov>; Keene, Todd <Todd.Keene@nrc.gov>; Garmoe, Alex
<Alex.Garmoe@nrc.gov>; Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov>; Abraham, Susan
<Susan.Abraham@nrc.gov>
Subject:
pre-request - cost data for Exelon backfit Ashley/Nikki,
We' re working with OPA on some public communications regarding the Exelon backfit appeal decision by the EDO this week. They w ere hoping to have in their back pocket any information w e had on the cost of the agency's activities related to this backfit, the NRR appeal, and the EDO appeal, as well as if they were fee billable.
I think the following are the relevant CACs, though the PMs may know better. I recognize that it will not capture everyone's hours, as managers (and I!) used different CACs, but it should include most staff time.
- MF3206/7/8/9, Backfit - licensing basis relis upon relief of water through the pressurizer safety valves for mitigation of...
- MF7231/2/3/4, Review of Appeal oflmposition of Backfit Regarding a Condition II Event that Could Cause a More Serious Event (non fee billable)
- MF8035, EDO Review of Appeal of Imposition of Back.fit Regarding a Condition II Event that Could Cause a More Serious Event I don't think there is a huge rush to get the information but if you could get started pulling it together that w ould probably make life easier in the future.
Thanks so much!
Theresa Valentine Clark Executive Technical Assistant (Reactors)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm*ission Theresa.Clark@nrc.gov I 301-415-4048 I 0-16E22
From: McDermott, Brian Sent: 10 Aug 2016 17:40:59 +0000 To: McDermott, Brian;McGinty, Tim;Lubinski, John;Whitman, Jennifer;Billerbeck, John
Subject:
Response to Backfit Panel Findings POC: Jennifer x 3253
From: Dean, Bill Sent: 21 Nov 2016 21:31:17 +0000 To: Dean, Bill;McDermott, Brian;Lubi111ski 1 John;Ross-Lee, MaryJane;McGinty, Tim;Taylor, Robert;Oesterle, Eric;Alley, David;Stuchell, Sheldon;Whitman, Jennifer;Garmoe, Alex
Subject:
Response to the EDO's 9/15 Memo Requesting a Plan to Address the NSAL-93-013 Technical Issue and RIS 2005-29 Attachments: EDO 9-15 Memo to NRR.PDF The attachment is publicly ava ilab le in ADAMS as ML16246A247.
Requested by Alex Garmoe x 38 14
From: Wiebe, 1oe1 To: Billerbeck !oho: Banic Merrilee: sun summer; Case Michael: Figueroa Toledo Gladys; Kirkwood Sara; Drzewiecki Timothy; Beaton. Robert: Borromeo loshua; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Wrona. David Subj ect : Revision to my initial thoughts regarding the petition provided by my e-mail dated January 11, 2017 Date: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:55:53 AM I am continuing to go through the petition as well as go through the EDO's letter dated September 15, 2016, and the supporting report dated August 24, 2016.
The petition is for Byron and Braidwood.
The EDO's letter and the supporting Backfit Appeal Review Panel (Panel) report are specifically about Byron and Braidwood. The EDO's letter states:
"I agree with the Panel's assessment that the current licensing basis for Byron and Braidwood complies with the applicable regulations and provides adequate protection of public health and safety."
Based on the EDO's statement and my review of the report from the Panel, it appears that the petition meets the criteria for rejecting Petitions under 10 CFR 2.206, specifically the criterion in MD 8.11 , Part Ill, (C)(2)(b):
The petitioner raises issues that have already been the subject of NRC staff review and evaluation either on that facility, other similar facilities, or on a generic basis, for which a resolution has been achieved, the issues have been resolved , and the resolution is applicable to the facility in question. This would include requests to reconsider or reopen a previous enforcement action (including a decision not to initiate an enforcement action) or a director's decision. These requests will not be treated as a 2.206 petition unless they present significant new information.
In this case the petition essentially requests the NRC to reopen the backfit decision.
As I see it, the issues that !have been resolved for Braidwood and Byron in the Panel's report include:
PSV Failure - Panel Report, Section 4.2 - "The Panel concluded that in 2001 and 2004 and at present, the known and established standard of the Commission is that the failures of PSVs need not be assumed to occur following water discharge if the likelihood is sufficiently small, based on well-informed staff engineering judgment. The Commission has not established a more detailed or prescriptive standard.
Event Escalation - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and GDCs 15, 21, and 29 are no longer at issue.
Event Classification - Panel Report, Section 5 - "... in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification , event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and G DCs 15, 21 , and 29 are no longer at issue.
Compliance with Regulations - Panel Report, Section 5 - ".. . in the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the Panel concluded that the concerns articulated by the NRC staff in the Backfit SE related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and GDCs 15, 21 , and 29 are no longer at issue.
Adequate Protection - Panel Report, Section 4.4 - "... the Panel concluded that the current licensing basis for Byron and Braidwood complies with the applicable regulations and provides adequate protection of the public health and safety.
Based on the above, I see the PRB's primary task will be to identify any significant new information (in the petition as supplemented by the petitioners remarks on February 1, 2017) that would invalidate the issue resolution as presented in the Backfit Appeal Review Panel Report.
Joel From: Wiebe, Joel Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2017 4:19 PM To: Billerbeck, John <Joh n.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>; Ban ic, Merri lee <Merri lee.Banic@nrc.gov>; Sun, Summer <Summer.Sun@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <Michael.Case@n rc.gov>; Figueroa Toledo, Gladys
<G ladys.Figueroa@nrc.gov>; Kirkwood, Sa ra <Sa ra. Kirkwood@nre.gov>; Drzewiecki, Timot hy
<Timothy.Drzewiecki@nrc.gov>
Subject:
Miranda 2.206 Petition Attached is my first screening of the items in the petition.
Please provide comments or markups by 1/19.
In addition to the attached my thoughts are that:
- 1. Since the issues involved are not resolved , but under review at the direction of the EDO (ML16246A247), we don't meet the criteria for rejecting the petition on the grounds that the issues have been the subject of NRC staff review and have been resolved.
- 2. I think we should strongly consider denying the requested enforcement in the petition since they are not supported by the claims, but take the action to refer the appropriate issues to the plan developed to respond to the EDO dated Jan 3, 2017 (ML16334A188).
This actually would be granting the petition, in part.
Joel From: Keene. Todd To: Whitman tennifer; Farnan Michael; Wolfgang Robert Cc: Oesterle, Eric; All!ey David
Subject:
Supporting Documents from the Byron an/,J-=aJJ.LlOlLtl.LL!---'2<1.1.J>JJ.LQ.lWJ::.ca...aJ.W...J:u..>....<==-=--------~
Date: Friday, October 07, 2016 3:11:44 PM The attachment is pub licly available in ADAMS as Attachments: NE! Letter to EDO - tune 16 2016.pdf ML16208A008.
This is a list of documents and ADAMS packages that may be useful as this issue is being addressed.
Letter - EDO to Bill Dean ADAMS Package - EDO Letter to NEI ADAMS Package - EDO Backfit Appeal Review Panel Findings BIS 2005-29 Draft BIS 2005-29 Rey 1 Todd Todd Keene Project Manager NRR/DPR/PGCB (301 )415-1994
From: Stuchell, Sheldon Sent: 26 Sep 2016 13:57:32 -0400 To: Whitman, Jennifer;Garmoe, Alex;Woodyatt, Diana
Subject:
The ind ustry view!
NRC Grants Exelon's Backfit Appeal
- NRC staff action lacked "appropriate basis"
- Focus sharpened on actions that will demonstrably enhance safety
- N RC looking at broader issues of regulatory predictability
-~-~
- Regulation Sept. 22, 20l~In a win for good government, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's highest-ranking career official forma lly decided last week that the NRC staffs new interpretation of an existing regulatory requirement did not meet the standard to impose changes on two nuclear plants.
The Sept. 15 decision by NRC Executive Director of Operations Victor McCree grants an appeal by Exelon Corp. challenging a change to an NRC staff position that had previously credited the performance of certain safety valves at the company's Byron and Braidwood power plants in Illinois.
The NRC staff sought to impose changes to the plants using the "compliance exception" to the agency's backfit rule. The rule, 10 CFR 50. 109(a)(L), requires the NRC to demonstrate that any new or amended requirement or interpretation will yield a substantial safety benefit and be cost-justified. McCree informed tlhe Nuclear Energy Institute and Exelon on Sept. 15 that the staff "did not provide an appropriate basis" for applying the backfit rule's compliance excep tion in this case.
"The industry is very pleased, as we strongly supported Exelon's backfitting appeal," NEI Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Ellen Ginsberg said. NEI submitted letters last January and June encouraging the agency to grant the appeal and articulating broader policy concerns with the staffs use of the compliance exception.
"Adherence to the backfit rule is necessary to ensure that agency and licensee resources are devoted to regulatory initiatives that wi ll yield demonstrable safety and security benefits.
Properly applying the backfit rnle provides a basis for the agency's regulatory framework to evolve, but in a transparent, predictable and cost-effective manner," Ginsberg added.
The nuclear energy industry has long expressed concern with the NRC's failure to identify changes in staff position or new interpretations as backfits and, as in the present case, tbe agency's overly broad interpretation of the "compliance exception." The so-called compliance exception is intended for situations in which "the licensee has failed to meet known and established standards of the commission because of omission or mistake of fact," as the NRC stated in a docwnent published with its final 1985 backfit rule.
Significantly, the agency also has stated that "new or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance would not fall within the exception and would require a backfit analysis" to demonstrate that the change is a cost-justified, substantial safety enhancement.
Tn the Exelon case, McCree agreed with the position taken by a backfit appeal review panel that he had appointed. The appeal panel found that the NRC's earlier approvals of Exelon 's approach in "200 I and 2004 license amendments were based on reasonable and well-informed engineering judgment of the NRC staff, not a mistake."
[n endorsing the appeal panel findings, McCree stated that while the "new and different staff views on how to address pressurizer safety valve performance following water discharge ... are conservative approaches that could provide additional safety margin, they do not provide an appropriate basis for a compliance backfit."
McCree said he has also asked the NRC Committee to Review Generic Requirements to address broader issues regarding the backfit rnle and has shared the backfit review panel's findings with the committee.
McCree 's decision and the review panel's memorandum and report on its findings are available on the NRC's ADAMS document retrieval system.
from: ~ . It\
To: B0nocr Eric; Alley. David; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whitman Jeor1ifer
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backflt Appeal Decision Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:13:00.AM Attachments: Bv Br Ba kit A1.m~Q!lse MeldedJ)..raft.docx
~.!ll...Qilll Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Gentlemen, Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c. 2d , 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
f rw'R. O~'le, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/ DSS/SRXB
...
301-415-1014
Page 430 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
(0)(5)
From:
To: oesterlc Eric; Alie David; Iuvlor Robert Cc: Whitman Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backflt Appeal Declslon Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 7:18:41 AM Attachments: imaaeoo1 .ono Sensitivity: Confidential Thanks! I'll review later this morning.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric ; Alley, David; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whitman, Jennifer
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Gentlemen, Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
f y{,c/R. (')~le, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
...
/v. . ..... , *
- *
- r
From: II.lie. Da11i0 To: Oesterle Erjc; B~nn. r Eric; Ta lor Robert Cc: Whitman Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Bad<fit Appe.)I Decision Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:13:23 AM Attachments: B Br Baci<lt Arneal Rsm,onses - Mekl,,u Qr.,ft DA,docx imaaeoo1,poo Sensitivltv: Confidential I twiddled a bit with many of the answers to try to make them read a bit better. I did more on 2b. I didn't understand the original response and I really didn't understand our rewrite.
Maybe it is me who is missing the point. In any case I reworked the answer along the theme that if NRR could interpret it one way and the Panel could interpret it another, it did not support the concept of the existence of a known position.
I have a bunch of meetings today. If I don't answer my office phone, try my cell 240-344-8327 Dave From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric; Alley, David ; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whitman, Jennifer
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Gentlemen.
Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
Fvlo'R. O~le, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
,. ..
Page 434 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
(b)(5)
From: Oesterle Enc To: WhlVnan Jennlf r; Allev, David; 8concr Eric; ~ b e r t
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Back.fit Appeal Decision Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:38:00 AM Attachments: imaoeoo1.ong Sensitivity: C.onfldential Jen, I agree with your assessment of Dave's ed"its.
Eric From: Whit man, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:18 AM To: Alley, David ; Oesterle, Eric; Benner, Eric; Taylor, Robert
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Dave, I think all of your edits, particularly the re-write of 2b make the document better.
Jen From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:13 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric OesLcrle@nrceov>; Benner, Eric <E1 i =--'-'-~ ' _ ov>; Taylor, Robert
<Rob rt.Ia lor a nrc. ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitm*,n nrc. ov>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential I twiddled a bit with many of the answers to try to make them read a bit better. I did more on 2b. I didn't understand the original response and I really didn't understand our rewrite.
Maybe it is me who is missing the point. In any case I reworked the answer along the theme that if NRR could interpret it one way and the Panel could interpret it another, it did not support the concept of the existence of a known position.
I have a bunch of meetings today. If I don't answer my office phone, try my cell 240-344-8327 Dave From: Oesterle, Eric sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner @nrc. ov>; Alley, David <David Alie ov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.LL.lo.I run re.. v>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jenn_if L_Whitma.Q_JJ.LC. 1 ov>
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Bacl<fit Appeal Decision Importance: High sensitivity: Confidential Gentlemen, Jen and I worked on tt,e attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
fvio'R.. O~evle, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
..-** ..." ...,
- "v_
~
.* _.,.. .
. .. "-,
From: eeoneLl:Jic To: Alley. DayJd; Oesterle Enc; Ta. Jor Robert Cc: Whitman Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Date: Wednesday, 5eptember 14, 2016 9:S9:49 AM Attachments: B, Br B11tkit Appeal Resrnnses M Iden DrMft DA & EB CQMPA~
B Br Badi.!l~esr,onse_s - Meld\'!rl DrafJ DA_& E6.._docx lmaaeaat.ona Sensitivity: Confidential Great job! Attached is both a clean version and compare version with my edits for your consideration.
Dave, have you pulled together key messages for us to tranmit to staff when this gets issued? l will want to provide them to Vic when we provide our proposed responses fso he can consider them for a message to staff.
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8: 13 AM To: Oesterle, Eric ; Benner, Eric; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whit man, Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivltv: Confidential (b)(5)
~ bunch of meetings today. If I don't answer my office phone. try my cell ... l'<b_J<6_l _ ___.
'r5ave From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, Septembe r 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner nrc. v>; Alley, David <DJvirl.Alle ov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robe1.LT~ r d>nr:.c._ _ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer .Whitman ,""J)ll.,. .Q.v>
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confident ial Gentlemen, Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
fvlo'R.. O~l.e,,
Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
......... *,.,
- Page 440 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 441 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 442 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
Page 443 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
From: O~sterti::.. Eric; To: eenocr. Eric; Alley David; Taylor Robert Cc: Whitman Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:39:00 AM Attachments: B, Br Bd .kit Ar.:, eat R, ronses - Melded Draft DA EB_E&O ..ctQcx imaoe001.ona Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential I believe we have achieved alignment! I few minor edits attached.
Eric From: Benner, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:00 AM To: Alley, David ; Oesterle, Eric ; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whitman, Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Great job! Attached is both a clean version and compare version with my edits for your consideration.
Dave, have you pulled together key messages for us to tranmit to staff when this gets issued? I will want to provide them to Vic when we provide our proposed responses fso he can consider them for a message to staff.
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:13 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Er ic.Oe~terl a nrc. ov>; Benner, Eric <f ric.; Benner rorur .. ov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Ta lor a nrc. ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <lennifer.Wh1trl:kln ore. av>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensltivitv: Confidential (b)(5)
I have a bunch of meetings today. If I don't answer my office phone, try my celljCbJ(6l
~ '---------1 From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.8enner a nrc. ov>; Alley, David <David.Alie ~ o\l>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Taylor@nrc eov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman wnr *. ov>
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential Gentlemen ,
Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see
attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
fr-lo 'R. O~e,,-le, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
~*.
- " ** * . t ..
..:~.,
- ,.
~
~
....,.. . '
From: Wl!itmaa....J~ifer To: Benner Eric; Cks*et:k En~ Alley oayjd; Taylor Robert
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backftt Appeal Decision Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:37:06 AM Attachments: jmaaeoo 1.ona Sensitivity: Confidential I am aligned.
From: Benner, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:35 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Alley, David; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whitma n, Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidential So how about the following for key messages:
- (b){5)
- If we are in alignment, I'll send to Tim and John (and cc you all) for their review before we discuss with Bill.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:48 AM To: Alley, David <David.Alie nrc. ov>; Benner, Eric <Eric. nr*r.. ov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Ta. lor _ r}Ic. ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer Whitmao@ orc !;ill!>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Eric From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:30 AM To: Benner, Eric <Edcdie.Qner . nrc c1ov>; Oesterle, Eric <EucOesterle:;.c.ll(C, Jl\l>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.To lor a> nrc. ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Wl11tman nrc. OV>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Maybe there are three key messages: l<b)(5)
(b)(5)
I Thoughts?
Dave From: Benner, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:00 AM To: Alley, David <David /\!lev@nrc eov>; Oesterle, Eric <E:.ricJ)esterle__nr:c.. QY>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Tavlor@occ.aov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <.lenr1ii 1.Wbitm.a~'-ov>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Great job! Attached is both a clean version and compare version with my edits for your consideration.
Dave, have you pulled together key messages for us to tranmit to staff when this gets issued? I will want to provide them to Vic when we provide our proposed responses fso he can consider them for a message to staff.
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:13 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <l.ric.Oestede1ci>nrc:, ov>; Benner, Eric <Eric Bennerc@nrc gov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Ta, for run re..'Ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer .Whitman nrc._ ov>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential (b)(5)
I have a bunch of meetings today. If I don't answer my office phone, try my cell l(b)(6)
~ ......________.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, Septemb er 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner nrc. ov>; Alley, David <Dayjd.Alley@nrc uov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Taylor@nrc gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman nrc. ov>
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidentia l Gentlemen.
Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backflt Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
'fy[c,,'R.. (?~e,rl.e, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB
... *,
301-415-1014
.. ,v*
,
,.
~
i,
. ...... .
/
C
From: Benner Eric To: Q t i ~ AHev. David; Tayloe Robert Cc: Whitman Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backlit Appeal Decision Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:51:51 AM Attachments: Jmaae001.ong Sensltivlty: Confidential OK, I'm going to send up .and we can still refine as necessary.
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:43 AM To: Benner, Eric; Alley, David; Taylor, Robert Cc: Whitman, Jennifer
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential I'm in alignment also.
fvi,c,R. O~e-r-le, Reactor Systems Branch Chief NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
- .,
From: Benner, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 11:35 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oesterle* "Ore. ov>; Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc eov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert Tay!or@orq~ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer Whjtman@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High If we are in alignment, I'll send to Tim and John (and cc you all) for their review before we
discuss w ith Bill.
From: Oesterle, Eric Se nt: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:48 AM To: Alley, David <Davjd.Alley@occ gov>; Benner, Eric <fric.Benner~rc. ov>; Taylor, Robert
<8.QJleJ t, T;i lor1wnrc_..:ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman__or .._!,J_v>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Eric From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:30 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric.Benner.
- ore ov>; Oesterle, Eric <(ric.Oe:>terl ., nrL. ov>; Taylor, Robert
< B.o.b..e.r:tla, !or ci> orc.. ..J)v>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <J.ennjf L.._Whitrna n a nrc. ov>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidentia l Mavbe there are three kev messaaesJ(b)(5) I (b)(5)
Thoughts?
Dave From: Benner, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 10:00 AM To: Alley, David <David.Allev@nrc gov>; Oesterle, Eric <£r.Lc...Desterle@nrc gov>; Taylor, Robert
<RobPrt.Tdylor@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <,,....nniLL.Whltma.nJfulL ,_ OY.>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Sensitivity: Confidential Great job! Attached is both a clean version and compare version with my edits for your
consideration.
Dave, have you pulled together key messages for us to tranmit to staff when this gets issued? I will want to provide them to Vic when we provide our proposed responses fso he can consider them for a message to staff.
From: Alley, David Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:13 AM To: Oesterle, Eric <Erjc Oester!e@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <F.ri<:,6enner-11[c,..QY>; Taylor, Robert
<Bob..erl'.Ta lor,1 nrc. ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <leonifer.Whilman a*nrc.: ov>
Subject:
RE: Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision r>---:.a..: ...: *** r---L:...1- ... ,,;...,I (b)(5) l ~h*:, a bunch of meetings today. If I don't answer my office phone, try my cell'""!(b_)(6 _l _ ___,
From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:13 AM To: Benner, Eric <Eric Benner@orc.8.m(>; Alley, David <Dav1d.Alle11a. nrc. ov>; Taylor, Robert
<Robert.Tay!or@nrc sov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jenniff.'J~WhLtman.._o( , iv>
Subject:
Revised Responses for Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision Importance: High Sensitivity: Confidentia l Gentlemen, Jen and I worked on the attached proposed revisions to the Byron/Braidwood Backfit Appeal Decision last night and have aligned on language that is ready for your review (see attached). The revised responses include 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2e, and 2f. We did not see the need to provide any revisions to responses 1 and 3.
f Yio'R. O~erl,e; Reactor Systems Branch Chief N RR/DSS/SRXB
...
301-415-1014
....
...
From: O~erle. Eric To: Ta ,lor Robert Cc: Whitman Jennifer; McGinty Jim
Subject:
RE: 8/B Backfit DEDR Briefing The attachment app ears later in th is Date: Monday, May 02, 2016 7:05:00 AM package.
Attachments: ~ on at. ut vt: comln briefin of Mike JohnsQn on Exelon b ckflt al'!'cal.Jll.SJ
- Rob, I followed up with DPR and they are leading it. Will Just be a one-pager and DSS will be there to su ort i.e. answer an technical questions). !(b)(5) and DSS role.__ w...il,_,
i 6-e- lim
- ite_d.,.....
to_j,...
u-st_a_n_s_w_e_r,..
in_g_ _
1,.--.--------....----------..,.,.,..~
ec nica questions. r any. I wi get with Jennifer first thing tomorrow to let her know of support needed.
Eric From: Taylor, Robert Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 7:02 AM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Whitman, Jennifer; McGinty, Tim
Subject:
B/B Backfit DEDR Briefing
- Eric, Do we have any additional insights on this briefing? I happened to see it scheduled on McDermott's calendar for tomorrow at 4:30. Who is leading it and what role, if any, does DSS have?
Rob
From: Benner. Eric To: l&ID...lllll; McDermott Brlan; Lubmskl John; McGinry nm; Taylor Robert; Ross*Lee Mar~Jane; Oesterl Er1<:;
Whitman Jennifer; Alley, QaY)d Cc: Benner Eric
Subject:
Revised Byron-Braidwood Document Attached Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:22:49 PM Attachments: Bv Br Backit Appeal Resoonses.docx Importance: High
NRR Feedback on Byron-Braidwood Backfit Appeal
{b)(!J)
Page 455 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
From: Benner Enc To: McDermott. Bo 1n; ~ ; Lubinski John; f:k.GinJ.Y. nn,; Tayloe Robert: Ross-Lee Ma ,Jane; Oesterle Eric:
Whitman Jennifer: Alley Qayjd
Subject:
RE: Revised Byron-Braidwood Document Attached Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 8:50:18 PM Attachments: By Br Backit Appeal Responses docx Revised attached.
From: McDermott, Brian Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 5:07 PM To: Benner, Eric; Dean, Bill; Lubinski, John ; McGinty, Tim; Taylor, Robert ; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Oesterle, Eric; Whitman, Jennifer; Alley, David Cc: Benner, Eric
Subject:
Re: Revised Byron-Braidwood Document Attached Please take another read of the first bullet in the communication messages. Seems to be missing the word "the" and ends with a double negative. Otherwise, the specific responses seem to reflect our discussions.
Thank you, Brian On: 14 September 2016 16:22, "Benner, Eric" <Eri a ov> wrote:
NRA Feedback on Byron-Braidwood Backfit Appeal b)(5)
Page 458 of 582 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b)(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act
From: Billerbeck, John Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 8:44 AM To: Alley, David; Lubinski, John
Subject:
RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT a@l?:19 Pr&
lil@l!!i!ii8R81 llilt@Fl'lel PHK lefge 9,,1, The panel's position seems to be that past staff decisions regarding adequate performance of pressurizer safeties to pass water during mass addition events {I'll stay away from 'qualified' terminology here) were based on ad hoc EPRI testing and engineering judgement and that raising the ASME code compliance argument at this time is therefore a new or modified interpretation of what constitutes compliance. This, however, ignores the fact that the regulations required ASME code compliance long before the issue was raised in the various LARs, RIS', etc., and further, the regulations require a specific process to be followed in order to deviate from the code. Are the regulations not a staff position? It is a mystery to me that the code compliance/deviation argument was apparently never raised during the evolution of this issue over the several decades that it was being considered.
From: Alley, David Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 10:07 PM To: Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - e1:1e P, e decisional l11te111al w~e 1::1~"'
~ -
John Lubinski, I have not read this thoroughly but it appears at the panel has failed to address the primary issue - the need to qualify the valves for water discharge. In the absence of specific language to the effect that the NRC has evaluated the concept that the regulatory requirement to qualify the valves is unnecessary and the NRC changed the regulation, the regulatory requirement to qualify the valves for water discharge appears to take precedence over any NRC guidance.
John Billerbeck, Please discuss with John Lubinski.
Dave From: Lubinski, John Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: Alley, David <David.Alley@nrc.gov>; Billerbeck, John <John.Billerbeck@nrc.gov>
Subject:
FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 8l?:18 P.c decisional - 111te111a1 l~F<C use "OfflV"'!'
fyi From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, Bill <Bill.Dean@nrc.gov>; Lubinski, John <John.Lubinski@nrq ..ov>; 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 <Edwin.Hackett@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West(,@nrc.gov>; Clark, Theresa
<Theresa .Clark@nrc. gov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.Scarbrough@nrc.gov>; Spencer, Michael l
<Michael.S.Qencer@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>; Williamson, Edward
<Edward.Wil liamson@nre.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Geary.M izu no@n re. 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 - etie- Ii', E decisional 111te. iibl FJRC ~,c 81111
- 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 summery:
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 II. 0.1.
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 2
in 2006). The 2015 staff positions taken to support the compliance backfit finding represent new and different staff views on how to address potent1ial 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 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: ~~
To: Whitman. Jennifer; ~ r n ; Borromeo Joshua
Subject:
FW: Exelon Bacl<fit Appeal Panel Preliminary Rndlngs FOR COMMENT - <i' 'i I' 1 aeclsle.:al 1::tc:::al lhtt J~
e1:1, Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 10:07:00 AM Attachments: SHORT Prelmlnarv Flndin ,s Jul 1 29 3. m.docx Now that the EDO's Backfiit Appeal Panel has reached a preliminary decision on the Exelon Appeal. I wanted to get any feedback that you might have on their preliminary decision. Is there anything you feel needs clarification, anything you believe is incorrect, anything they missed, or has you feeling somewhat disappointed, etc. Let me know so we can provide some feedback to Tim as we start to move forward following the decision. Thanks!
Eric From: Mcginty, Tim Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 6:14 PM To: Whitman, Jennifer ; Oesterle, Eric; Hickey, James ; Taylor, Robert
Subject:
FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - ODO- P: c el@eiiionll..
- 111ce111a1 JQHC use e,1ly -
Team - please evaluate per the panel's request for any comments or clarifications, etc.
Note that any comments provided will be reflected in the final recommendations, and ultimately I would anticipate being made publically available. I would think that we will want to meet on this in the near future.
Please also take your usual care to treat the information as OUO pre-decisional and internal use only. Thanks, Tim From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, Bill <Bi11.De(1n wnrc. oV>; Lubinski, John <lohn.l ubinski nrc. oy>; Mcginty, Tim
<Tirn.M. Giru r_cvnr .JN.>; Akstulewicz, Frank <l-rank.Akstulew1c2 .ore. ov>; Doane, Margaret
<Mar J!ret.Dofil.)e rc.P.Qv>; Mcdermott, Brian <Brian.1\11.cDerrnott nrc. ov>; Bailey, Marissa
<M,1ri~c;,1.Bai!e nrc. *ov>
Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hacke t wnrc. ov>; West, Steven <'.:>teven.WestL..J,r . ov>; Clark, Theresa
<l heresa.Clark ore. ov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thoma .Scarbr91J. h runr . v>; Spencer, Michael
<M1chaeJ.S encer alnJ:(....ov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Ev,,ns wnrc. ov>; Williamson, Edward
<Edward Williamson@nrc.gov>; Mizuno, Geary <Gear .Mizul)o @nc.c.1_ov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed
<Mohammed.Shuaibi@nrc gov>; Mccree, Victor <Victor McCree@nrc ~ov>; Johnson, Michael
<Mirb_ael. ohnson nrc. ov>; Tracy, Glenn <Glenn Tracv@orc gov>; Gody, Tony 1
<Ton .God romc. ov>
Subject:
Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT 000- Pl E-decisio:.el ii ICE/ I idl f4Rt: t;sc 811(9
- 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 NRR 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 Qualjficatjon 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 o f 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.
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.
606 - Pre-beclSlbiidl - h,te, .:al 114~ Ws& Orly -
July 29, 2016 3pm version Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings The compliance exception to the Backfit Rule is intended to address failures to meet known and established Commission standards because of omission or mistake of fact. New or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance do not fall within the exception. The panel concludes that in 2001 and 2004 and at present, the known and established standard of the Commission is that the probability of failure of pressurizer safety valves (PSVs) following water discharge during Inadvertent Operation of Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) should be sufficiently small based on well-informed staff engineering judgment. During the Exelon power uprate review in 2001 and the review of a later valve setpoint amendment in 2004, the staff exercised reasonable and well-informed engineering judgment when concluding that the PSVs were unlikely to stick open (i.e., fail to reseat). The backfit appeal panel has preliminarily concluded that the position on valve qualification in the 2015 backfit is a new or modified interpretation of what constitutes compliance.
In the absence of a PSV failure to reseat, the concerns articulated in the backfit related to event classification, event escalation, and compliance with 10 CFR 50.34(b) and General Design Criteria 15, 21, and 29 are no longer at issue.
The panel findings support the Exelon appeal.
The panel's finding relative to treatment of PSV failure potential derives from the following:
- Treatment of single failures of passive components in fluid systems per 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Footnote 2 o 1977 SECY-77-439 (on additional passive failures) : "[l]t has been judged in most instances that the probability of most types of passive failures in fluid systems is sufficiently small that they need not be assumed in addition to the initiating failure in application of the Single Failure Criterion .... "
- Resolution of 1979 TMI Action Plan item 11.D.1, "Performance Testing of BWR and PWR Relief and Safety Valves" o 1982 Westinghouse Owners Group report (WCAP-10105): relied on the EPRI testing program to assert the acceptability of PSVs and power-operated relief valves (PORVs) in Westinghouse-designed PWRs.
o 1988 Letter from L. N. Olshan (NRG) to H. E. Bliss (ComEd), "NUREG-0737, Item 11.D.1, Performance Testing on Relief and Safety Valves for Byron Station, Units 1 and 2," and a 1990 letter from S. Sands (NRG) to T. Kovach (ComEd), "NUREG-0737, Item 11.D.1 ,
Performance Testing on Relief and Safety Valves for Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2":
The NRG staff found the licensee's reliance on EPRI testing of PSVs to be acceptable.
o 1993 and 1994 Westinghouse Nuclear Safety Advisory Letter NSAL-93-013 and NSAL-93-013, Supplement 1: "It should be noted that the licensees may have qualified these valves in compliance to NUREG-0737, Item 11.D.1."
- Review of valve testing in 2001 power uprate for Byron and Braidwood o A review of the safety evaluation and associated RAls shows that the staff was well aware of the nature of the EPRI testing being relied on. This understanding was 1
ewe Pi e BeeiJiel'lel h:te11 .el t*RE Wgc 91119 confirmed in a conversation the panel had with the then PWR Reactor Systems Section Chief.
o In 2001, the NRC granted a power uprate for Shearon Harris that included the operability of PORVs and PSVs during the discharge of subcooled water in accordance with NUREG-0737, Item 11.D.1.
- Review of valves in 2004 setpoint amendment for Byron and Braidwood o In 2004, NAC issued a license amendment for the Braidwood and Byron Stations granting an adjustment to the PSV setpoints. In an RAI , the staff requested that Exelon perform a quantitative analysis regarding PSV water cycles and relief/discharge water temperature. In its SER, the staff concluded that the reanalysis was acceptable for assuring that the PSVs wiJJ remain operable following a spurious safety injection event.
- Application of staff guidance regarding valve failures o 2005 RIS 2005-029: "The NRC staff's position is noted in the power uprate review standard [RS-001 2003], as follows: ... '(b) pressurizer level should not be allowed to reach a pressurizer water-solid condition."' However, RIS 2005-29 and its draft supplement do not discuss ASME water relief certification requirements. Also, when RfS 2005-29 was originally issued, the staff stated that it did not publish the RIS in the Federal Register for comment because this RIS is informational and pertains to a NRC staff position that does not depart from current regulatory requirements and practice."
o Further, RS-001 stated, "The staff does not intend to impose the criteria and/or guidance in this review standard on plants whose design bases do not include these criteria and/or guidance." This intent was confirmed in personal discussions with the NRA manager responsible for developing and issuing AS-001. Therefore, contrary to the RIS statement, neither the RS-001 review standard nor the RIS 2005-29 documented "known and established standards of the Commission."
o In 2006, the NRC granted a power uprate for Beaver Valley that referred to RIS 2005-29 and found reasonable assurance that the PSVs would adequately discharge and reseat following a spurious safety injection actuation with reliance on the EPRI test data. In addition, the panel found general references to EPRI and vendor testing for the capability of PSVs and PORVs in license amendments for other nuclear power plants.
o In 2007 SAP 15.5.1 "The pressurizer safety valves, too, may be assumed to reseat properly after having relieved water; but only if such valves have been qualified for water relief." This section does not reference ASME requirements for qualification.
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.
2
In fact, they were not "known and established standards of the Commission" in 2005 or 2006 or 2007.
Moreover, 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 AIS 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 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 the 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.
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 tihe 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.
3
from: Oesterle. Erle To: Mcginty. JJm; Lubinski John; Abraham. Susan: 13easley. BenlamJo: Broner l;ric; Boland. Anne; DavJs Jack; Eelt~ RJ.J. sell; i>avrnas. MJrclq; GHucr Joseph; J:l.eJton. Shana; Lce...Sa.IllS9a; Lund Louise: Marshall Jane; .t1lller.
Cl.tcl.s; Ross-Lee Mat ,*Jane; ham .1101Ja111.; Taylor. Robert; wnsoo George Cc: Whitman Jennifer; Stucbe!L S!JeJoon
Subject:
RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT. ei,e P:c dtelsiu:.al t:.l!I ! I fill Ii Wae "OfflV-Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:29:00 PM I"ve reached out to David Alley who is John Billerbeck"s BC and he is also interested.
Eric From: Mcginty, Tim Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:28 PM To: Lubinski, John; Abraham, Susan; Beasley, Benjamin; Benner, Eric; Boland, Anne; Davis, Jack ;
Felts, Russell ; Gavrilas, Mirela ; Giitter, Joseph; Helton, Shana ; Lee, Samson ; Lund, Louise ;
Marshall, Jane; Miller, Chris; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Shams, Mohamed; Taylor, Robert; Wilson, George Cc: Whitman, Jennifer; Oesterle, Eric; Stuchell, Sheldon
Subject:
RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - @ete " ' E-c'.IECISIOilai -
Ii ,t@I I :el ti~ is'!ilil QAl\f McGinty. Jen Whitman, Oesterle. Lubinski, Billerbeck, Stuchell, Garmoe, Louise/Mirela, a DE BC if desired.
From: Lubinski, John Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:24 PM To: Mcginty, Tim <TI.m.McGint __ ,.QY>; Abraham, Susan <Susan.Abraham@nrc gov>; Beasley, Benjamin <Benjamin Beaslev@nrc.gov>; Benner, Eric <Enc BenoPC@orc gov>; Boland, Anne
</\nne,Boland nrc. ov>; Davis, Jack <Jack Davi~@occ aov>; Felts, Russell <R11ssPII .F<'lts nrc. ov>;
Gavrilas, Mirela <Mirela.Gavrilas nr . ov>; Grtter, Joseph <IOSP h.Giitter nrc. ov>; Helton, Shana
<Shaoa.1::!elton _ nrc._ v>; Lee, Samson <Sarr.son.Lee nrc. 01,>; Lund, Louise
<Louise I und@nrc gov>; Marshall, Jane <Jane.Marshall nrc. ov>; Miller, Chris
<Chris.Miller nrc. ov>; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <Mar Jan .Ross-Lee .a nrc. :ov>; Shams, Moha med
<Mohamed.Shams nrc. V>; Taylor, Robert <Rob..ert.Ta I r (l)nr , ov>; Wilson, George
<George.Wilson@nrc.gov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Jennifer.Whitman ov>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oe.iliWe.. nrc.Pov>;
Stuchell, Sheldon< heldon.Stu heil,a nrc. oV>
Subject : RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - Otlel- ", E dccisiv11b l IAtUISill W~- i IUi Q1;l1p1 Ok, can we have an initial meeting? Who should attend?
From: Mcginty, Tim Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 12:19 PM To: Abraham, Susan <Susan.hbrab.c!!JL__ ov>; Beasley, Benjamin <Benjamin Beasley@nic.gov>;
Benner, Eric <Eric.Bennel'..20.(C.....QY>; Boland, Anne <Ann .B land cvnrc. ov>; Davis, Jack
<.Jack.Davis @nrc. ov>; Felts, Russell <RI sell.Felts@nrc. ov>; Gavrilas, Mirela
<M1rela.0avrilas nrc, v>; Giitter, Joseph <Joseph Giilte1@nrc.gov>; Helton, Shana
<Sh* n- .11.s!l.t o_ nrc.vov>; Lee, Samson <5amsonJge a nr(.. ov>; Lubinski, John
<John.Lubio. ki ov>; Lund, Louise <Louise.Lund @nrc. ov>; Marshall, Jane
<)" ov>; Mcginty, Tim <Tim.McGjnty@nrc f;l;Ov>; Miller, Chris
; Ross-Lee, MaryJane <Mar Ja1Je,Ross-Lee nrc. .Qv>; Shams, Mohamed
<Mc harned. *11c1m wnrc. _gv>; Taylor, Robert <l~obert.1 aylor@nrc.gov>; Wilson, George
<Geor e.Wilson r nrc, ov>
Cc: Whitman, Jennifer <Je,11[1 ifer.Whitrna11_a>nrc. ov>; Oesterle, Eric <Fric.00.stt'rlc a nrc. ov>;
Stuchell, Sheldon <S~hfill..~_11U,.,!!.Qv>
Subject:
FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 000- Ple-deelslor\51
- Internal I\JRC use e, .Iv As discussed this morning, attached as an FYI is the OEDO panels preliminary findings.
Lousie/Mirela and John/MJ - as we coordinate, Bill Dean made a point to me a few minutes ago that we should also coordinate with DPR, who has already expressed views to Bili. Jen Whitman mentioned to me that she was engaging Alex. Tim From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, Bili <.!iilLDe.an @11rc. ov>; Lubinski, John <Joiln.Luhin~kL ,1nrc. ,.m(>; Mcginty, Tim
<Tim.McGint nrc.g.QY>; Akstulewicz, Frank <Fraok..AkstJJlewic1.@nrc.gov>; Doane, Margaret
<Ma1_0 aret.l}oan nrc. Qv>; Mcdermott, Brian <Brian.McDermott roorc._ov>; Bailey, Marissa
<M.a~6a.i!.f' -@nrc. m,>
Cc: Hackett, Edwin <.f;dwjnJ-iackett runrc."ov>; West, Steven <'-it':'ven.We t ivnrc. v>; Clark, Theresa
<lbeu~..sa. ] ark._@nrc. .ov>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thornas.Scilcbrou h a)nrc. ,ov>; Spencer, M ichael
<Michael Spencer@nrc falQY>; Evans, Michele <Miehe-le Evans@ ncc.gov>; Williamson, Edward
<Edwar .Williarn~on nrc. ov>; Mizu no, Geary <Gea1 .Mizuno rvnrc .. ov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed
<Mohammed. hu i i @nrc. ov>; Mccree, Victor <Vjctor.McCree@nrc gov>; Johnson, Michael
<Mici.1dE>l.lohnson 1mc. ov>; Tracy, Glenn <.G.!.e11n.Trac;_,_~0Lc.....ov>; Gody, Tony
< 1ony.GodyC@ rn c.gov>
Subject:
Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - OtJas ,, e dccisiel"ll11 l11LC11 ml PIRC i!!l!l@ 9~1;
- Ali, 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 NRR 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 probabi lity 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 11.0.1 .
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 pirovide 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 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.
From: Qestcd~ Et~
To: Alley David
Subject:
RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - etfe ,., C dttl!la al l*'illrAIII tfPC I ,,a
-e,09 Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 11:55:00 AM Attachments: irnageOO I ong OK, thanks Dave.
Eric From: Alley, David Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 201611:53 AM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Billerbeck, John
Subject:
RE: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - ei;@ P, e 81!8isioRiill l11te111al fJR l,se eliily I am at an epri meeting this week. I do think it would be a good idea to get together to discuss. Please chat with John Billerbeck this week. I will be back next week and would like to discuss then Dave From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2016 10:14 AM To: Alley, David <Dav1ct.Allev@orc.gov>
Cc: Billerbeck, John <J...o.b n.J3jJler beck~ ll.[{:__,_ o_y>
Subject:
FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - t,t:18 P,@ li@eisioPiill
- 1nterna1 IQRt use 01119 *
- David, Now that the EDO Backfit Appeal Panel has developed their preliminary finding on this backfit, I wonder if you would entertain a discussion with SRXB and DSS/DE regarding any feedback you and your staff might have on this. For example, is there anything you feel needs clarification, anything you believe is incorrect, anything they missed, or has you feeling somewhat disappoi1nted, etc. Let me know so we perhaps we can coordinate our branches/divisions to provi*de some feedback to Tim McGinty and John Lubinski as we start to move forward following the decision. Thanks!
fvlo'R. O~le,,
Chief (Acting), Reactor Systems Branch NRR/DSS/SRXB 301-415-1014
...
From: Mcginty, Tim Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 6:14 PM To: Whitman, Jennifer <JennifeL.Whit.rD n nr . v>; Oesterle, Eric <Eric.Oester!e@)rn c ~oy>;
Hickey, James <J .mes.Hicke @nrc. ov>; Taylor, Robert <RobertJ'a~lor nrc,.i.ov> 1
Subject:
FW: Exelon Backfit Appeal Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 01.'.'1~ Pre e@@i@i81s2I 1At@FA81 Pl~'5 lei6@ Q1d\
Tearn - please evaluate per the panel's request for any comments or clarifications, etc.
Note that any comments provided will be reflected in the final recommendations, and ultimately I would anticipate being made publically available. I would think that we will want to meet on this in the near future.
Please also take your usual care to treat the information as OUO pre-decisional and internal use only. Thanks, Tim From: Holahan, Gary Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 5:57 PM To: Dean, Bill <Bill. De.an.....cunrc. ov>; Lubinski, John <illhn.Lubinsk1 a>nrc.~v>; Mcginty, Tim
<Jim,McGinty@nrqov>; Akstulewicz, Frank <Frank.Akst*il, wicz , nrc. ov>; Doane, Margaret
<Mar ar t.OoanP@nrc,gQy>; Mcdermott, Brian <Brjan.McDermott , nr.c.... ov>; Bailey, Marissa
<Marissa.Ba1le..i ~ >
Cc: Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hacket~.n,c. ov>; West, Steven <SteY o.We , _ ov>; Clark, Theresa
<ThPresa.Clark nrc.* ,v>; Scarbrough, Thomas <Thomas.~ar rou .ti nrc... ov>; Spencer, Michael
<Michael.Spencer@ nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <MicheJe.E.vans,< nrc. ov>; Williamson, Edward
<.E.c!.ward.WiJJiarnson or.c_o.v>; Mizuno, Geary <G.e..ar,.. Mi1uno ore. ov>; Shuaibi, Mohammed
<Mohamrn£"d.5huai i n~v>; Mccree, Victor <Victor.Mccree n1c. ov>; Johnson, Michael
<MichaeJ.Johnson a nrc. ov>; Tracy, Glenn< lennJrac ronrc.P.ov>; Gody, Tony
<Tony.Gody@nr-c.gov>
Subject:
Exelon Backfit Appea l Panel Preliminary Findings FOR COMMENT - 6U<9 f', e dEtislui ,;ii -
mten WI 1u"e else El~J,
- 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 NRR 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 siogle-:fai!ure assumption"
- "nor have they provided ASME water qualjficatjon documentation for the PSVs ... the ASME. .. original Overpressure Pro tection 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.
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.