Schaperow, Jason

From: Schaperow, JasonSent: Monday, January 03, 2011 5:32 PMTo: Chang, RichardCc: Tinkler, CharlesSubject: RE: Comm Plan CA Note122710.docxAttachments: TA Brief 8-12-09 rev 4.ppt

You also could mention the issues of staff turnover and differing technical views. These 2 issues werementioned in a brief we did for the Commissioners' Assistants on August 12, 2009, which is a little over a-yearago. (See slide 3 of the attached PowerPoint presentation.) These 2 issues continued following this brief.Since this brief, we have had multiple project managers at NRC and Sandia and multiple Branch Chiefs andDivision Directors. Regarding differing technical views, we spent a lot of effort on that in 2010, more than wehad originally planned for.

Thanks,Jason

From: Chang, RichardSent: Monday, January 03, 2011 4:17 PMTo: Schaperow, JasonCc: Tinkler, CharlesSubject: RE: Comm Plan CA Notel22710.docx

Jason,

While I won't include all of the reasons, I will try to incorporate some of them as examples. I will try to not. pin itall on the ISLOCA.

Regards,Richard

From: Schaperow, JasonSent: Monday, January 03, 2011 3:40 PMTo: Chang, RichardCc: Tinkler, CharlesSubject: RE: Comm Plan CA Notel22710.docx

Hi Richard,

My view is that the ISLOCA is not the sole, or even the most important, reason for the delay. As Charliepointed out, we have known about the ISLOCA issue since April 2010. We have had the delay, because weworked on the following tasks in 2010, instead of completing the baseline analysis and its peer review:-revising the NUREG/BR (April 2010)-revising the Executive Summary and Main Report (May 2010)-revising the public website (May 2010)-developing a day-long briefing and briefing the ACRS (June 2010)-briefing the SRAs (June 2010)-reviewing the entire SOARCA report (>500 pages) and developing comments (-summer 2010)-developing the input for the uncertainty study and briefing the peer review committee on this (-fall 2010)

1

We could include these reasons in your CA Note or Commission memo, and then state that we have refocusedon the baseline analysis and its documentation (and its peer review) and we will have a peer reviewed copycompleted by July 7, so that we can provide it to the Commission and issue it for public comment.

Thanks for considering my views.

Jason

From: Tinkler, CharlesSent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 1:05 PMTo: Chang, RichardCc: Schaperow, JasonSubject: RE: Comm Plan CA Notel22710.docx

Attached are my markups to the draft.

Do we really want to assign all the reason for the delay to the ISLOCA reanalysis?

In truth, it is only part of the reason, even so, Surry first notified us much earlier than November. The need toaddress peer review comments, the time wasted on staff comments, prior project (mis)management etc. areall reasons for the delay. Should we not mention some of these factors? If we get questioned hard on ourbasis for delay it might not hold up.

From: Chang, RichardSent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 10:13 AMTo: Tinkler, CharlesCc: Schaperow, JasonSubject: Comm Plan CA Note122710.docx

Charlie,

Attached is an electronic version of my proposed CA Note to the Commission informing them of a scheduleextension. Once Jennifer and Kathy okay an extension request I plan on using this and attaching an updatedComm. Plan. Could I please get your thoughts on it?

As discussed with you, this proposed updated Comm. Plan will include a schedule that hopefully everyoneagrees with (e.g., one of the options we present to management), and replace the key messages with theconclusions in the Main Report (or at least from the NRR/ACRS/ Commission slides). The reason the entireComm. Plan will not be revised at this time is in the interest of time.

Please let me know if I couched things correctly.

Thanks,Richard

2

i _J

OFFICIAL USE ONLY - SENSITIVE iNTERNAL INFORMATiON

7

Cr02 U.S.NRCUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Protecting People and the Environment

State-of-the-Art ReactorConsequence Analyses (SOARCA)

Semi-Annual Briefing for

Commission TAs

August 13, 2009

~Greb% LusEýrLK +161TIVE iNTERNAL 1NFE)RMAT4Q4 1

OFFCIL UE NLY __S!.. ,EN--ER •LiNFORMA iO-N

Presentation Outline

" Status of Project* Peer Review

° Upcoming Dates* Communications Activities

" Seismic (EP) Study

O(TFFICIAL IS ON: (•llY _-ISENSITI\/E: IINTEr"nAL I•nF~'ORMAATIONlh 22

-eFieA USEE-eNPY-- Sm3ENSITIV NERNAt-llsýoMTMQ

Status of Projectl Accomplishments since last

(4/17/2009)TA briefing

- Seismic (EP) study for Peach Bottom and Surry- Draft NUREG- SRA Webinar Held 7/20/2009- First Peer Review Committee Meeting

* Challenges- Aggressive schedule to meet WITS Due Dates- Staff continuity and available expertise

* Sequoyah analysis is on hold

- Differing technical views remain

E)FFIGI 3

OICIISAL USE ONLY SITI\E INTERNAL IF•',RMATION,, • v '• %,.,I...• .. • . ........ -- - - - - , • l 1 • l %l~ ' lI J

Review of Draft Executive Summary" Differing technical views were not considered

in the Executive Summary included withSECY-09-0045- Met with staff to review comments- Revised Executive Summary provided to Peer

Review Committee July 2nd

- Draft provided to DEDMRT and managementsteering committee

" Work continues on revisions" Engaging Peer Review Committee with subset

of issues

~E)F-GA=USE ON~LY 44

OFSENSITIVE IT eR"AL•" IM "N-

Management Steering Committee

" Met with steering committee July 22nd- Provided revised draft Executive Summary- Summarized and discussed comments

* Steering committee suggestedengaging the Peer Review committee- Members to provide suggestions on which

issues to provide for Peer Review

" May add Regional Representation

OFFIGI OFFICIAL NTERUSE "-OrLY ̂ f-n5 5

Peer Review* Chair

- Karen Vierow (Associate Professor, Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M)* PRA Sequence Selection & Mitigative Measures

- Bruce Mrowca (ISL)- Ken Canavan (EPRI)

* Accident Progression and Radiological Release- Bernard Clement (IRSN)- Robert Henry (Fauske and Associates)- Jeff Gabor (ERIN Engineering)

* Offsite Radiological Consequences- Kevin O'Kula (Washington Safety Management Solutions LLC URS Corporation -

Washington Division)- Dave Leaver (WorleyParsons Polestar)

" Emergency Preparedness- Roger Kowieski (Natural and Technological Hazards Management Consulting, Inc.)

* Structural Failure (Seismic) Expert- John Stevenson (JD Stevenson Consulting Engineer)

* Health Effects- Jacquelyn Yanch (Professor, Nuclear Engineering, MIT)

Oe% U EO L-,,IT E-TE N L NF R ATIOI 6X-'OF FiCIAL USE NY-S ~ iiEIT R A ll-•-Il,,,•-- 6

-E N - S EN i iE --ENAL-INFGRMA-T GN-

Peer Review Charter

" Requesting individual input- Non-FACA committee - no consensus sought

* Seeking review to "...insure that the study isbest estimate and technically sound."

" Specifically requesting review of therobustness of conclusions and ExecutiveSummary

-G==GAIA4USE-~Y---NS MVtE1INT-ER-NAL-4N-FGRM-AT-I ON- 77

-e F.F I G I IAr•L UI. ",E-X3PI•IL- rISENS'ITIV•4NE-RNAt'L-'NFORMAT-ION

Preliminary Summary ofPeer Review Comments

* 72 comments received August 7 th

- Currently reviewing and prioritizingSummary of Comments- Plans for uncertainty study

* not all members commented on the issue* Committee "seemed" OK publishing without the uncertainty study* interested in our parameters and their ranges

- Committee discussed the robustness of the MELCOR calculations* focused on equipment performance and structural failure modeling* requested sensitivity studies

- The probability of the success of mitigation" can operators perform the functions?" are mitigative measures included in current plant procedures?" justification for our assumptions* how to discuss the mitigated vs. unmitigated results in the Executive

study.

OF '8

-eFF16CAL US NY S N ITI'VE INTERN- AL'' ,,.,R.-.-,.,,,,..

Upcoming Dates* Peer Review Meetings

- 09/15-16/09 (scheduled)- 11/10-11/09 (tentative)

" Uncertainty analysis- estimated completion date April 2010- planning to request peer review input and feedback

" OECD/NEA workshop on Implementation of SevereAccident Management Measures, October 2009

" ACRS- Subcommittee Meeting 11/4/09- Full Committee Meeting 11/5/09

" Final NUREG Including Peer Review andRecommendation Regarding Future Work- to SECY 1/29/10

9

•'1q;W1 IA I 1wi -l"W1 CA L S NIT I-- VE',~=•l- IN EL'''"kA INIGIIAT' eNhAII/,K

Communications Accomplishments

* SOARCA public website updated to reflectCommunication Plan provided to Commissionin SECY-09-0045.

" NRC Reporter and The Researcher articlespublished for staff communication

" OPA Briefed NEI Communications Staff onSOARCA

" Revised Communications Plan to Recognizethe Need to Brief our Federal Partners such asFEMA, EPA, etc.

eFFIGIAL-USE eNE-Y = SEN61TIVE INTERNAL44FERMATIE)1ý 141 10

Seismic (EP) Study* Background - ACRS questioned adequacy of EP modeling (for

seismically initiated SOARCA scenarios) which did not explicitlyconsider effect of seismic event on EP

* Past risk studies have not generally considered this effect exceptas simplified sensitivity calcs (delay times and evac speed)

* SOARCA Approach- Seismic assessment of infrastructure by RES seismic experts

* Bridges, roads, power network (notification, traffic signals)- Reassessment of EP given impact on infrastructure and ORO's

* Route alerting assessment by SNL/NSIR staff* New ETE assessment based on available road network* New EP model developed for MACCS2

- Recalculation of offsite consequences* Conclusion - No substantial effect on offsite health

consequences

11

Seismic (EP) Study

Peach Bottom - Unmitigated Short-Term SBOAssuming LNT

10 Baseline EP U Seismic EP

8.OE-1 1

J6L_

0.

t--

6.OE-11 -

4.OE-11 ' .

2.OE-1 1

0.0E+00 - I

0-10 0-50 0-100

Distance (miles)

OF" CIALUSEONLY- SENSIVE--ENTERNAL-INPORMATION--1212

Seismic (EP) StudySurry - Unmitigated Thermally Induced Steam Generator Tube Rupture

Assuming LNT

[] Baseline EP U Seismic EP

2.OE-10

C-

IL

C-

1.5E-10 I

1.OE-10 0-

5.OE-1 1

0.OE+00 ý ------- r- I.

0-10 0-50 0-100

Distance (miles)

-OF, P rl:, 11 US F - I MAT-ION- 13

Seismic (EP) Study

* Seismic effects of EP are site specific but withno substantial effect on health consequences- Peach Bottom

Sirens fail but alternative notification is adequate, largershadow evacuation

* Free span bridges fail - but they are not key to evacuation,adequate road network remains and evacuation speeds areunchangedIn addition, sequence timing predicted by realistic analysisis delayed so that there is some "margin" for EP activationand execution

E)FFIGIA 14"

OFFiCiAL USE ONLY - SENSITIVE INTERNAL iNFORSATIONu

Seismic (EP) Study~.Sdsb*y

~\ ~7.

rC:E:lf'%! Al 1 1 C: n 15

Seismic (EP) Study

Surry* Sirens function, public evacuation starts earlier,

shadow evac occurs, schools delayed* Bridge failures significantly retard

major effect on evacuation speedevacuation

* Smaller radiologicallong term

release, LCF dominated by

16

J'• I'n' I•" I /'% I A I I if'•r'• f%.lL ii i/

V| • eve# • •ViBJ VU !• |

Seismic (EP) StudyOLOUCE R-

• • I,.'-- r..- i A'qL I • I I I/'•p •L li t ! •h nA R•RI B•

L I 1._"14R A A 17I

G•FFt6tEIGIOLY-SN

Conclusions* SOARCA represents major change from the

way people perceive severe reactor accidentsand their likelihood and consequences- Mitigation is likely (due to time and redundancy) and,

when it is implemented, effective in preventing coredamage

• Impact on existing level 1 PRA- Unmitigated accidents progress more slowly with

smaller releases, no LERF* Impact on existing level 2 PRA

- Early fatality risk lower than previous studies- Dominance of external events suggests need for

corresponding PRA focus* Seismic research needed

-QFF4L-USE4NLY---SEN4VE-RNAH+ýNFGRMATNI 118"'