Group M FOIA/PA NO: 2014-0027 RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART · 2015. 4. 13. · Group M FOIA/PA NO: 2014-0027 RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART The following types of information are

Group M

FOIA/PA NO: 2014-0027

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART

The following types of information are being withheld:

Ex. 1 :[ Records properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526Ex. 2:-- Records regarding personnel rules and/or human capital administrationEx. 3 :r-1 Information about the design, manufacture, or utilization of nuclear weapons

[-Information about the protection or security of reactors and nuclear materials-LContractor proposals not incorporated into a final contract with the NRC-- Other

Ex. 4:L--I Proprietary information provided by a submitter to the NRCE--IOther

Ex. 5:u MDraft documents or other pre-decisional deliberative documents (D.P. Privilege)E7 Records prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation (A.W.P. Privilege)Lu Privileged communications between counsel and a client (A.C. Privilege)Lu Other

Ex. 6:u Agency employee PII, including SSN, contact information, birthdates, etc.[-•Third party PII, including names, phone numbers, or other personal information

Ex. 7(A):--] Copies of ongoing investigation case files, exhibits, notes, ROI's, etc.---Records that reference or are related to a separate ongoing investigation(s)

Ex. 7(C): -Special Agent or other law enforcement PIIr--PII of third parties referenced in records compiled for law enforcement purposes

Ex. 7(D): --] Witnesses' and Allegers' PII in law enforcement recordsLu Confidential Informant or law enforcement information provided by other entity

Ex. 7(E): LuLaw Enforcement Technique/Procedure used for criminal investigationsLuTechnique or procedure used for security or prevention of criminal activity

Ex. 7(F): m Information that could aid a terrorist or compromise security

Other/Comments:

Perkins, Richard

From:Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:

Perkins, RichardTuesday, August 03, 2010 2:28 PMBeasley, BenjaminDam Failure acceptance memo with editsDam Failure Acceptance Review.doc

Ben,

Who do you want on distribution, if anyone? Reply with names and I'll have the package prepared.

DISTRIBUTION:B. Sheron, RESJ. Lyons, RESC. Liu, RESM. Case, RESJ. Uhle, RES

Richard H. Perkins, P.E.Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchDivision of Risk AnalysisOperating Experience and Generic Issues BranchPhone - 301/251-7479

I M1/I

August xx, 2010

MEMORANDUM TO:

FROM:

Lois James, ChiefProbabilistic Risk Assessment Operational Support BranchDivision of Risk AssessmentOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Benjamin Beasley, ChiefOperating Experience and Generic Issues BranchDivision of Risk AnalysisOffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research

ACCEPTANCE REVIEW OF PROPOSED GENERIC ISSUEON FLOODING DUE TO POTENTIAL DAM FAILURES

SUBJECT:

(b)(5)

L. James 2

DISTRIBUTION:B. Sheron, RESJ. Lyons, RESC. Liu, RESM. Case, RESJ. Uhle, RES

ADAMS Package Accession No.: ML ----.-----

OFFICE OEGIB OEGIB OEGIB

NAME RPerkins JKauffman BBeasleyDATE 8/ /10 8/ /10 8/ /10

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

Perkins, Richard


Sancaktar, SelimThursday, October 14, 2010 2:19 PMPerkins, Richarddoc file is attachedEF Due to Potential Darn Failures.doc

I M l~cL

ExtIeIAISEIoodin IsEueDRuT tooREATEniaDa INFRMaiur N

External'Flooding Issue Due to Potential Dam Failures

(b)(S)

EF Due to Potential Dam Failures.doc I 0/13/2010

r%1= A LF NY 1CJIT F T~ N~PATO.

(b)(5)

EF Due to Potential Dam Failures.doc 2 0/13/2010

OFFICIAI I"SE ON' ~- SECIRIU RELATED INFORMATION

(b)(5)


OFFICIAL USE ONLY SECURITY RELATED INFORMATION

(b)(5)


SOFFICIAL USE • N• Y SECURITY RE'ATrED INFORMATI•QN

EF Due to Potential Dam Failures. doe 5 0113/2010

(bX5)

EF Due to Potential Dam Failures,doc 6 0/13/2010

OFFICIAL USE ONLY., - SECURITY-RELATED iNFOKMATIuN-

EF Due to Potential Dam Failures.doc7 /32U7 0113/010

OFFICIAL U1SE GNL-* GECURIT-RELATLEDE INFORMATI!ON

(b)(5)


.OFFICIAL usE ONL:,- seCURIKI r-RtEALU INI-UKMA nIIU

(b)(5)


Perkins, Richard

From: Perkins, RichardSent: Wednesday, December 01, 201-0 8:48 AMTo: Bensi, MichelleSubject: RE: your draftAttachments: Mission.docx

Here you go. Sorry for the delay.

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Tuesday, November 30, 2010 5:30 PMTo: Perkins, RichardSubject: your draft

Hi Richard,Can you please send me an electronic version of the draft statement you wrote so I can incorporate both of ourcomments into one document?Thanks,Shelby

I

DRAFT Statement of Approach:Proposed Issue on Upstream Dam Failure

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Perkins, Richard

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 4:28 PMTo: Perkins, RichardSubject: RE: TextAttachments: Text forRichard_2011 01 13.docx

See attached. Warning: It's still in rough draft form.

From: Perkins, RichardSent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 3:53 PMTo: Bensi, MichelleSubject: Text

Hi Shelby,Could you go ahead and send me that text electronically. I'd like to work on it with red-line strike out.

Thanks,


(b)(5)

Perkins, Richard


Bensi, MichelleFriday, December 03, 2010 12:03 PMPerkins, Richardpartial draftScreening Approachyv7_FirstTwoSections.docx

Hi Richard,Attached is a partial draft of what I've written. The writing needs a bit of work, but it's not worth spending toomuch time polishing it right now because significant changes will (of course) be made. I am working on anothersection that address Oconee/Ft Calhoun and the data we have (and trends we see) for the other sites.Anyway... it's a start.Let me know your thoughts,Shelby

IH I rs,

(b)(5)

(b)(S)

(b)(5)

Perkins, Richard


Hi Shelby,

Perkins, RichardWednesday, January 19, 2011 3:45 PMBensi, MichelleEdits on textText for Richard_2011 01 13 with comments.docx

Here's my first round comments. I didn't really do much with the blue text since you might have been changingit. Let me know if you want to chat today.

Thanks!


1

(b)(5)

Perkins, Richard

From:

Sent:To:Attachments:

Perkins, RichardThursday, January 20, 2011 4:33 PMBensi, MichelleIntro Draft.docx


1 MI ('a9

Screening of the Proposed Generic Issue onFlooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites following Upstream Dam Failures

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Perkins. Richard

From:

Sent:To:Subject:Attachments:

Bensi, MichelleMonday, February 14, 2011 4:21 PMPerkins, RichardFW: TVA Dam Related IssuesFW: Responses to Hydrology Action Items (2).pdf - Adobe Acrobat Standard; FW: Slidesfor TVA Hydrology Status Meeting 7/7/2010

'C-Tzeje t"- are. - "'oii t 4vcZbe.JFYI.I will add references to the report.

From: Ferrante, FernandoSent: Monday, February 07, 2011 2:05 PMTo: Bensi, MichelleSubject: TVA Dam Related Issues

Shelby,

I believe I mentioned that some TVA dams were also being questioned for overtopping potential that couldimpact NPP sites. This was not fully developed at the time of the submittal of the issue to your Branch, but theyare also relevant so I thought I should forward these to you (more material may be available in ADAMS).

Thank you,

Fernando Ferrante, Ph.D.Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)Division of Risk Assessment (DRA)PRA Operational Support Branch (APOB)Mail Stop: 0-10C15Phone: 301-415-8385Fax: 301-415-3577

1

M / -+

Perkins, Richard

From:Sent:To:Cc:

Subject:Attachments:

Lingam, SivaWednesday, January 19, 2011 10:58 AMGratton, Christopher; Lamb, JohnHowe, Allen; Broaddus, Doug; Campbell, Stephen; Khanna, Meena; Milano, Patrick; Manoly,Kamal; See, Kenneth; Tetter, Keith; Caverly, Jill; Ferrante, Fernando; Coleman, Neil; Uribe,JuanFW: Responses to Hydrology Action Items (2).pdf - Adobe Acrobat StandardResponses to Hydrology Action Items (2).pdf

Finally, we got the TVA responses for our concerns raised during July 7, 2010, public meeting. Rod Cook ofTVA informed me about these responses by telephone (voicemail) yesterday. I have not yet received the hardcopy, including CD containing information on HESCO Concertainers (super sandbags) that were used totemporarily modify the dams.

----- Original Message---From: Young, CaleSent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:32 AMTo: Guthrie, Eugene; Lingam, SivaCc: Kontz. Craig; Hamman, Jeffrey; Deschaine, Wesley; Speck, MarkSubject: FW: Responses to Hydrology Action Items (2).pdf - Adobe Acrobat Standard

Update on status of hydrology issues.

--- Original Message----From: Bowman, Scott Travis [mailto:stbowman•-tva._ov]Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:01 AMTo: Young, CaleSubject: Responses to Hydrology Action Items (2).pdf - Adobe Acrobat Standard

Perkins, Richard

From: Mitman, JeffreySent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 6:32 PMTo: Ferrante, FernandoSubject: FW: Slides for TVA Hydrology Status Meeting 7/7/2010Attachments: hydrology update 7_7_10.ppt

From: Ungam, SivaSent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 2:29 PMTo: Howe, Allen; Broaddus, Doug; Campbell, Stephen; Wilson, George; Khanna, Meena; Manoly, Kamal; Raione, Richard;See, Kenneth; Mrowca, Lynn; Guthrie, Eugene; Bailey, Stewart; Lamb, John; Pohida, Marie; Patterson, Malcolm.Cc: Young, Cale; Speck, Mark; Caverly, Jill; Fetter, Allen; Mitman, Jeffrey; Uribe, JuanSubject: FW: Slides for TVA Hydrology Status Meeting 7/7/2010

Attached please find the presentation slides for tomorrow. The licensee will bring 20 hard copies of thepresentation slides tomorrow. In case you want to print your own copy, please feel free to use the color printer.

From: Cook, Rodney Michael [mailto:rmcook0(dtva.ciov]Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:54 PMTo: Lingam, SivaSubject: RE: Slides for WVA Hydrology Status Meeting 7/7/2010

Here it is.

Rod

From: Lingam, Siva [mailto:Siva.Linqam(anrc.gov]Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:51 PMTo: Cook, Rodney MichaelSubject: RE: Slides for TVA Hydrology Status Meeting 7/7/2010

Where is the attachment?

From: Cook, Rodney Michael rmailto:rmcook0(dtvaxgovSent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 1:33 PMTo: Lingam, SivaSubject: Slides for TVA Hydrology Status Meeting 7/7/2010 ML101930166

Attached please find the slides for tomorrow's meeting.

TVA Nuclear Power GroupManager, Corporate Nuclear Licensing -SQNLP 4K-Ce-mail: rmcook0•tva.aovOffice: (423) 751-2834Cell: (b)(6)

I

Perkins, Richard

From: Perkins, RichardSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:17 AMTo: Smith, James; Haney, CatherineCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Kokajko, Lawrence; Bensi, Michelle;

Compton, Keith; Mohseni, AbySubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

I just spoke with James Smith on the phone to go over background info and possible approaches. I'll be

sending him more info shortly. Please feel free to give me a call when needed.

Thanks,

Richard Perkins301-251-7479RES/DRA/OEGIB

From: Smith, JamesSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:48 AMTo: Haney, CatherineCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Kokajko, Lawrence; Perkins, Richard; Bensi, Michelle; Compton,Keith; Mohseni, AbySubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

So far, the response from Mr. Beasley below, is the only response that I have received. I haven't received aresponse from Mr. Perkins, the one whom I requested it from originally, and I still expect to receive a copy orinformation about where such a copy can be located. Mr. Beasley's response doesn't seem to negate thatoption and I assume that I will receive one shortly. However, as Mr. Beasley pointed out, Keith Compton isapparently a member of the review committee, and may be a better candidate for responding to this issuerelative to NMSS.

From: Haney, CatherineSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:34 AMTo: Smith, JamesCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

NRR's response is surprising. I'm not sure how we can take a position on whether NMSS facilities should be includedwithout seeing the screening analysis. What am I missing? Are things in a better place today?

From: Beasley, BenjaminSent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 12:39 PMTo: Smith, James; Perkins, RichardCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Weaver, Doug; Davis, Jack; Ordaz, Vonna; Mohseni, Aby; Doolittle,Elizabeth; Kokajko, Lawrence; Haney, Catherine; Bensi, Michelle; Compton, KeithSubject: Re: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Jim,

To be clear, our question is whether fuel or other facilities under NMSS responsibility should be included within the scopeof the proposed Generic Issue. We do not need a review of the screening analysis report apart from that determination.

I

Keith Compton is a member of the review panel and would be a good resource for you. Likewise, Richard Perkins orMichelle Bensi would be able to provide details of the issue. The full report is more than you will need but Richard orMichelle can provide a copy for your information.

Regards,Ben Beasley

Benjamin BeasleySent from an NRC Blackberry.

From: Smith, JamesTo: Perkins, RichardCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Weaver, Doug; Davis, Jack; Ordaz, Vonna; Mohseni, Aby; Doolittle,Elizabeth; Kokajko, Lawrence; Haney, Catherine; Beasley, Benjamin; Bensi, MichelleSent: Wed May 18 10:29:45 2011Subject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard -

In response to your request for review and input on the proposed generic issue report "Screening AnalysisReport for the Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures," I will need a copy ofthe draft for distribution and review by the staff in NMSS. Where can I find a copy of this draft report for reviewand what is the time frame in which you need it reviewed for its relevancy to Materials sites?

Jim

]ames SmithTedftJ Av=;Etus tickm RqJda Cw~ius'mOrr" ai %= mdand .Satdeh ad S••sw 1.d C^ Sdy No sae?.ý

(301) 492-3234 Wca*

From: Bailey, MarissaSent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:23 PMTo: Smith, JamesCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, ThomasSubject: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Jim - Please coordinate with SFST and HLWRS to provide NMSS' input to the proposed generic safety issuerelated to flooding caused by upstream dam failures.

From: Perkins, RichardSent: Friday, May 06, 2011 1:00 PMTo: Bailey, MarissaCc: Beasley, Benjamin; Bensi, MichelleSubject: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Good Aftemoon Marissa,

2

We are seeking your office's input in the coordination of a proposed generic safety issue. TheGeneric Issues Program is nearing the completion of the screening phase and is finalizing areport titled, "Screening Analysis Report for the Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failures." The report was presented to a Generic Issue ReviewPanel, the members of which were selected to provide recommendations regarding thisissue. The review panel has signaled its intent to recommend designation of the issue as aGeneric Issue. The Generic Issue Program would like to receive any comments your office mayhave given that this issue is likely to move forward as a Generic Issue.

The proposed issue has undergone a screening analysis with consideration of flooding of U.S.nuclear power plant sites following upstream dam failures in combination with other reasonableenvironmental conditions (for example, dam failure during a heavy precipitation event andstorm). The screening analysis is being used by the Review Panel as input as they make arecommendation on whether the issue should become a bona fide Generic Issue (and beinvestigated as such). Please note that the screening analysis did not consider facilities otherthan U.S. nuclear power plants - and so, it is not certain that other facilities (such asmedical/industrial isotope storage or certain spent fuel storage facilities) would be included in afuture generic-issue-investigation scope unless the scope is specifically broadened by theReview Panel as part of its recommendation.

The screening analysis group (who authored the screening analysis report) limited its screeningassessment effort to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. This was due largely to the group's awarenessthat the submitted issue concerned challenges that were unique to nuclear power stations, suchas decay heat, the volume of material, and the complexity of systems.

It is conceivable, however, that a larger scope is warranted or that special consideration shouldbe included in the scope of the investigation. If this were the case, an argument would need tobe made to the Review Panel that it was appropriate to include the additional scope in theproposed generic issue investigation. This argument would need to demonstrate that theadditional scope is a good fit for this investigation and that the additional scope adequatelymeets guidelines established in MD 6.4 for a generic issue. Tersely speaking, the additionalscope needs to enclose something that poses appreciable risk, applies to two or more facilities,is not readily addressable by a current NRC regulatory process, and can be defined in a mannerwhere the risk can be reasonably estimated and analyzed. I would be happy to elaborate furtheron the criteria if that would be helpful.

If you or others, in your organization, have any questions or would like to discuss this further,please feel free to call me. Thanks for any input you may have.


3

Perkins, Richard

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Friday, June 10, 2011 5:03 PMTo: Philip, Jacob; Sancaktar, Selim: Ferrante, Fernando; Rodriguez, Veronica: Ruland, William;

Pohida, Marie; Compton, Keith; Wilson, George; Khanna, MeenaCc: Beasley, Benjamin; Perkins, Richard; Kauffman, JohnSubject: working draft of communication plan for PreGl-009 and Information NoticeAttachments: PreGI0O9_CommunicationPlanWorkingDraftForComment_2011_06_10.docx

All,

I have attached a working draft of the communication plan for PreGI-009: Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Darn Failures. We would like this communication plan to represent an interoffice consensus and weare eager to receive comments and suggestions. This document is a work-in-progress and we anticipate that it will changesignificantly based on the comments we receive from reviewers. We have limited this initial distribution to those who arecurrently involved, so that we can refine the document before sending it to a broader audience.

The primary goal of this communication plan is to assist communications related to PreGI-009. However. we also intendit to provide a significant amount of information about the forthcoming Information Notice (IN) related to dam failurefrequencies. Thus, it is envisioned that this communication plan will also aid communications related to the IN. Currently,the communication plan does not include any information about the IN. As requested by NRR, we have includedplaceholders in the document (indicated by highlighted text) where we believe references to the IN may be appropriate.Please feel free to add information about the IN in those places or anywhere else in the document.

If you have comments/suggestions on the Communications Plan, please provide them to me by June 21. Feel free to addcomments/changes directly in the Word file (with changes tracked) or give me a hard copy with pen/ink changes. I willcoalesce the comments into one document and then send a revised version to a broader distribution list by June 24.

We appreciate all comments and suggestions, including:(1) suggested questions to add or delete (as well as any "follow-up questions" that should be anticipated based on

questions already included in the communication plan)(2) corrections/changes to answers(3) comments on points of confusion(4) suggestions on whether the questions/answers are too technical or not sufficiently technical

Thank you for your help,

Michelle (Shelby) Bensi, Ph.D.Reliability and Risk EngineerNuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchDivision of Risk AnalysisOperating Experience and Generic Issues Branch

Communication Plan for PreGI-009

Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites

Following Upstream Dam Failures (working

draft dated 2011_06j10)

20 pages withheld in their entirety -

exemption 5

Perkins. Richard

From: Smith, JamesSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AMTo: Perkins, RichardCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz,

Vonna; Haney, Catherine; Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, Lawrence; Compton, Keith; Haney,Catherine; Tripathi, Bhasker

Subject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard-

Can you give me a deadline for providing NMSS' feedback. I think I have the input from my Division, but adeadline would help the other Division's prioritize and respond.

Thanks,

Jim

From: Compton, KeithSent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:40 AMTo: Smith, James; Haney, CatherineCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Jim,

Based on my participation in the review panel, I think that your initial read is reasonable. I believe that theauthors consider the scope of the generic issue to me focused mainly on power reactors. If there is anyone inNMSS who feels that the scope needs to be explicitly expanded to cover NMSS facilities, they need to make acase to be included within the scope of the generic issue. I suspect, as you indicated, that we are alreadyadequately covered. If anyone has any questions about whether any similar issues we have in NMSS wouldqualify to be considered in the scope of this generic issue, they can feel free to contact me for assistance inmaking that case.

I think that the issue is not simply whether to assess the risk of upstream dam failures, since those risks arealready required (either explicitly or implicitly) to be assessed. The issue seemed to me to be more along thelines of getting a more consistent treatment of flood risks due to dam failures and other causes. That being thecase, I believe that our main followup would be simply to ensure that whoever in NMSS is responsible forevaluating external hazards (such as flooding) would want to follow the progress of the group tasked withresolving this issue.

From: Smith, JamesSent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:11 AMTo: Compton, KeithCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: FW: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Keith-

1 M/1O

Can you provide me with your view about the applicability of the proposed generic issue report "ScreeningAnalysis Report for the Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures?" (draftattached)

I've taken a look at it, relative to FCSS and I don't think it applies, just because we already have a regulatoryrequirement under the ISA program to address Natural Phenomenon Hazards and Environmental andDynamic Effects under 70.64 to meet the performance requirements of 70.61. I am not sure, but I believe thatSFST has similar requirements for storage and transportation. I think it's pretty safe to say it won't be aproblem for HLWRS.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Jim

James SmithTedimd Aix.us t&dw Ra~kty mo'r•- ta uwmr l'• S.dey Or SW ds

U'iWC Nd cyde. Sddy old sdagANSX2C40M

(30) 492-323 Wr(b~)(BI_~lCkb~1 m5N1

From: Smith, JamesSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:22 AMTo: Haney, CatherineSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Will do.

From: Haney, CatherineSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:19 AMTo: Smith, JamesSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Thanks for the update. Just be careful as the reactors also have flooding analyzes.

From: Smith, JamesSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:18 AMTo: Haney, CatherineCc: Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Compton, KeithSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic. Issue

Hey Cathy-

No, but I just got off the phone with Richard Beasley. He is going to send me a very draft copy of thescreening report. He recommended that I speak to Keith after I receive the draft if I need help interpreting it.

The generic issue, basically, is that in response to the Fukushima incident, NRR is needs generically to look atthe possibilities of their plants being flooded by upstream dam failures and the possible impacts there would beand what kind of mitigating actions are necessary to avoid a Fukushima type scenario from such flooding.

2

I told him we, at least in FCSS, are probably in good shape because our ISA reviews already require ananalysis of flooding and other natural phenomenon.

Jim


Have you spoken to Keith yet?






Jim,



Regards,Ben Beasley

3



Richard -


Jim

James Smith

us tcrl ROPAY cmwnisiOnce of %,ia, 4a•, . et-i -S d q . %feg.

Daatud Fyl- CSdeldy od Sda"4

Wamdf&* DC 'A(301) 492-3Z1 •'ork

(b)(6) BtaCkbeffY




Good Afternoon Marissa,

We are seeking your office's input in the coordination of a proposed generic safety issue. TheGeneric Issues Program is nearing the completion of the screening phase and is finalizing areport titled, "Screening Analysis Report for the Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failures." The report was presented to a Generic Issue ReviewPanel, the members of which were selected to provide recommendations regarding thisissue. The review panel has signaled its intent to recommend designation of the issue as a

4

Generic Issue. The Generic Issue Program would like to receive any comments your office mayhave given that this issue is likely to move forward as a Generic Issue.





Richard H, Perkins, P.E.Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchDivision of Risk AnalysisOperating Experience and Generic Issues BranchPhone - 301/251-7479

5

Perkins, Richard

From: Perkins, RichardSent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:46 PMTo: Beasley, BenjaminSubject: FW: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Please see below.

From: Smith, JamesSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AMTo: Perkins, RichardCc; White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, Lawrence; Compton, Keith; Haney, Catherine; Tripathi, BhaskerSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard-


Thanks,

Jim

From: Compton, KeithSent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:40 AMTo: Smith, James; Haney, CatherineCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Jim,



From: Smith, JamesSent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:11 AMTo: Compton, KeithCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;

1 P41i/1i

Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: FW: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Keith-


I've taken a look at it, relative to FCSS and I don't think it applies, just because we already have a regulatoryrequirement under the ISA program to address Natural Phenomenon Hazards and Environmental andDynamic Effects under 70.64 to meet the performance requirements of 70.61. I am not sure, but I believe thatSFST has similar requirements for storage and transportation. I think it's pretty safe to say it won't be aproblem for HLWRS.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Jim

James SmithTcdvxcg AsWMis mc R~9aoay comm"M

~.uiw at Fud Cyd. k m Sdd egWd

1"z 492-32,4 ft-kI (b)(6) IBackbe•,


Will do.


Thanks for the update. Just be careful as the reactors also have flooding analyzes.

From: Smith, JamesSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:18 AMTo: Haney, CatherineCc: Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Compton, KeithSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Hey Cathy-

2




Jim








Jim,


3


Regards,Ben Beasley



Richard -


Jim

James SmithTearom"B AiMrW

usTor" Smith, James*3

M=u d ME*= MAEM Sedd -W SdMdr%*am d tCyo Sdny cau Sd b p a m lý.5 em~w

From: Bailey, MarissaSent: Monday, May 16, 2011 2:23 PMTo: Smith, JamesCc: Kinneman, John; H sltz, ThomasSubject: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Jim - Please coordinate with SFST and HLWRS to provide NMSS'input to the proposed generic safety issuerelated to flooding caused by upstream dam failures.



4







5

Perkins, Richard

Perkins, RichardFrom: Perkins, RichardSent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:21 PMTo: Beasley, BenjaminSubject: Memo textAttachments: GIRP Recomendation Memo.docx

Here you go!


1 M/10-

Memorandum

From: William Ruland, NRR, Generic Issue Screening Panel ChairMarie Pohida, NRO, Generic Issue Screening Panel MemberKeith Compton, NMSS, Generic Issue Screening Panel Member

To: Brian Sheron, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

Subject: Generic Issue Review Panel Recommendation for the ProposedGeneric Issue Pertaining to Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failure

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Perkins, Richard

From:Sent:To:Cc:Subject:Attachments:

Bensi, MichelleFriday, June 17, 2011 9:40 AMRuland, William' Pohida, Marie; Compton, KeithPerkins, Richard; Beasley, Benjamin; Kauffman, JohnGeneric Issues Review Panel recommendation memorandum - Draft for CommentGIRP Recomendation Memo'- Draft for Comment - 06-16-11 .docx; PreGl-009_Analysis_2011_06_16.docx

Bill, Marie, and Keith,

I have attached a draft of the Generic Issues Review Panel recommendation memorandum for your review and

comment. Please send your comments to Richard Perkins (with a copy to John Kaufmann and me).

Once we receive your comments, Richard will revise the memo accordingly. You will then be provided with a finalversion of the memo with appropriately labeled enclosure. Once the memo is finalized, Ben Beasley and Richard Correia

will be asked for concurrence. Next, we will ask for your signatures followed by concurrence from the individual offices(NRR, NRO, NMSS). Brian Sheron will provide final approval before the memo and report are released publically.

I have also attached the most recent revision of the screening analysis report for your review. The attached reportremains designated as Official Use Only. The report is currently under review by NSIR and we are awaiting guidanceregarding the sensitivity classification of the document. Please note that the version of the report that is currently in

ADAMS is not the most recent version. We hope to have the revised report included in ADAMS soon. If necessary, thereport will be updated in ADAMS as revisions are made to it.

As you know, we are currently working on a Communication Plan that will be distributed to appropriate offices andmanagers to inform them about the forthcoming Generic Issue. We intend to broadly disseminate the final version of

theCommunication Plan before the screening panel memo is signed by the Generic Issues Review Panel and eventuallyby Brian Sheron. We will also offer briefings on the screening analysis to assure that all are prepared for the publicrelease. Please refer to the schedule below for tentative dates related to the issuance of the screening assessmentreport.

Finally, please note the following with regard to the completeness of the attached draft memo:* We will continue to work on the concurrence block at the bottom of the memo. We ask for your suggestions

regarding names that should concur for your respective offices.

" We are awaiting a decision from NMSS regarding the inclusion of fuel cycle and spent fuel storage facilities in

the scope of the Generic Issue. Currently, the memo includes "placeholder" text, which will be modified once we

have received a decision from NMSS.

Tentative schedule for issuance of the PreGI-009 screening memo and analysis report:

Date ActionComplete completion of draft Communication Plan, distribute to first circle for comment

(Panel, contributing parties)

Complete draft memo provided to Screening Panel with final screening analysis report

June 21 decision with.NSIR on sensitivity of screening analysis report

June 21 comments on Communication Plan due from first circle

June 24 provide revised / final memo with appropriately labeled enclosure to panel for finalreview

June 24 distribution of Communication Plan to second circle (affected DORL project

M//5

managers, Regions, OPA, etc.)

July 5 and on briefings as needed to DORL, Regions, etc.

July X - 14 Panel signs memoJuly X Brian Sheron approval of memoJuly X distribution of revised Communication Plan

July X+3 public release of memo and screening analysis

July X+30 public meeting presenting results of screening analysis

Please contact Richard Perkins, John Kaufmann, or me if you have any questions.

Thank you,


2

OFF:CIA.L 'USE OQNLY .S',TI'VE- TERNAL lNFORMrATON

MEMORANDUM TO: Brian Sheron, DirectorOffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research

FROM: William Ruland, Generic Issue Screening Panel ChairDivision of Safety SystemsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Made Pohida, Generic Issue Screening Panel MemberPRA and Severe Accidents BranchDivision of Safety Systems and Risk AssessmentOffice of New Reactors

Keith Compton, Generic Issue Screening Panel MemberPerformance Assessment BranchTechnical Review DirectorateDivision of High Level Waste Repository SafetyOffice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards

SUBJECT: GENERIC ISSUE REVIEW PANEL RECOMMENDATION FORTHE PROPOSED GENERIC ISSUE PERTAINING TOFLOODING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES FOLLOWINGUPSTREAM DAM FAILURE

(b)(5)

eprieIAL bU3E ON& - ENISITIVME 1TRNAt-tNF0RMAT107Lq-

eFFiclAL: USE ONL'=' SENSITIV.E !NTFERNAIL INFORMATION-2-B. Sheron

(b)(5)

IOFFICIAL USE eNtLf - SENSMTVE 1NTERNRL iNUKMAI ION

OFFICIAL USE ONLY SENSITIVE IN.TERNAL INFORMATION-2-B. Sheron

(b)(5)

DISTRIBUTION:KCompton, NMSSELeeds, NRRMCheok, NRRFFerrante, NRR

MPohida, NROCHaney, NMSSPHiland, NRRSSancaktar, RES

BRuland, NRRMBailey, NMSSMKhanna, NRRJPhilip, RES

BSheron" RESRCorreia, RESGWilson, NRRMBensi, RES

ADAMS Accession No.: ML111672131

OFFICE RES/DRA/OEGIB Tech Editor RES/DRA./OEGIB RES/DRA NRR/DSSNAME R. Perkins J. Zabel B. Beasley R. Correia B. Ruland

(via email)

DATE /11 / /I11 / /11 / /11 / /11OFFCENRO/DSRA NMSS/DHLWRS NRR NRONMSS

NAME M. Pohida K. Compton TBD TBD TBDDATE 1 /11 / 11 1 / /11 / /11 /_ Il

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

OFFICIAL USE 03NtY - BEWSITIVE INTERNAL IWORIVAT"CISI

Screening Analysis Report for the ProposedGeneric Issue on

Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failures (draft

dated 06/16/2011)

47 pages withheld in their entirety -exemption 5

Perkins, Richard

From: Pohida, MarieSent: Tuesday, June 21,2011 12:04 PMTo: Perkins, RichardCc: Bensi, Michelle; Mrowca, LynnSubject: RE: Generic Issues Review Panel recommendation memorandum - Draft for Comment

Good Morning,

I reviewed the latest version of the screening analysis report. (b)(5)

(b)(5) I1 have two comments.

(b)(5)

(b)(5)

Thank you.Marie

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Friday, June 17, 2011 9:40 AMTo: Ruland, William; Pohida, Marie; Compton, KeithCc: Perkins, Richard; Beasley, Benjamin; Kauffman, JohnSubject: Generic Issues Review Panel recommendation memorandum - Draft for Comment

Bill, Marie, and Keith,

I have attached a draft of the Generic Issues Review Panel recommendation memorandum for your review andcomment. Please send your comments to Richard Perkins (with a copy to John Kaufmann and me).

Once we receive your comments, Richard will revise the memo accordingly. You will then be provided with a finalversion of the memo with appropriately labeled enclosure. Once the memo is finalized, Ben Beasley and Richard Correiawill be asked for concurrence. Next, we will ask for your signatures followed by concurrence from the individual offices(NRR, NRO, NMSS). Brian Sheron will provide final approval before the memo and report are released publically.

I M/14

I have also attached the most recent revision of the screening analysis report for your review. The attached report

remains designated as Official Use Only. The report is currently under review by NSIR and we are awaiting guidance

regarding the sensitivity classification of the document. Please note that the version of the report that is currently in

ADAMS is not the most recent version. We hope to have the revised report included in ADAMS soon. If necessary, the

report will be updated in ADAMS as revisions are made to it.

As you know, we are currently working on a Communication Plan that will be distributed to appropriate offices and

managers to inform them about the forthcoming Generic Issue. We intend to broadly disseminate the final version of

the Communication Plan before the screening panel memo is signed by the Generic Issues Review Panel and eventually

by Brian Sheron. We will also offer briefings on the screening analysis to assure that all are prepared for the publicrelease. Please refer to the schedule below for tentative dates related to the issuance of the screening assessmentreport.

Finally, please note the following with regard to the completeness of the attached draft memo:" We will continue to work on the concurrence block at the bottom of the memo. We ask for your suggestions

regarding names that should concur for your respective offices.

" We are awaiting a decision from NMSS regarding the inclusion of fuel cycle and spent fuel storage facilities in

the scope of the Generic Issue. Currently, the memo includes "placeholder" text, which will be modified once we

have received a decision from NMSS.

Tentative schedule for issuance of the PreGI-009 screening memo and analysis report:

Date ActionComplete completion of draft Communication Plan, distribute to first circle for comment

(Panel, contributing parties)Complete draft memo provided to Screening Panel with final screening analysis report

June 21 decision with NSIR on sensitivity of screening analysis report

June 21 comments on Communication Plan due from first circle

June 24 provide revised / final memo with appropriately labeled enclosure to panel for finalreview

June 24 distribution of Communication Plan to second circle (affected DORL projectmanagers, Regions, OPA, etc.)

July 5 and on briefings as needed to DORL, Regions, etc.

July X - 14 Panel signs memoJuly X Brian Sheron approval of memoJuly X distribution of revised Communication Plan

July X+3 public release of memo and screening analysis

July X+30 public meeting presenting results of screening analysis

Please contact Richard Perkins, John Kaufmann, or me if you have any questions.

Thank you,


2

Perkins, Richard

From: Rodriguez, VeronicaSent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 6:26 PMTo: Bensi, MichelleCc: Ferrante, Fernando; Mitman, Jeffrey; Khanna, Meena; Wilson, George; Beasley, Benjamin;

Perkins, Richard; Kauffman. JohnSubject: RE: working draft of communication plan for PreGI-009 and Information NoticeAttachments: PreGIO09_CommunicationPlanWorkingDraftForComment_2011_06_10_FFVR.docx

Shelby,Comments from APOB are attached. I believe that Meena and George will be adding their comments to thisfile.

Feel free to call us if you have questions.

Thanks,Veronica

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Friday, June 10, 2011 5:03 PMTo: Philip, Jacob; Sancaktar, Selim; Ferrante, Fernando; Rodriguez, Veronica; Ruland, William; Pohida, Marie; Compton,Keith; Wilson, George; Khanna, MeenaCc: Beasley, Benjamin; Perkins, Richard; Kauffman, JohnSubject: working draft of communication plan for PreGI-009 and Information Notice

All,

I have attached a working draft of the communication plan for PreGI-009: Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failures. We would like this communication plan to represent an interoffice consensus and weare eager to receive comments and suggestions. This document is a work-in-progress and we anticipate that it will changesignificantly based on the comments we receive from reviewers. We have limited this initial distribution to those who arecurrently involved, so that we can refine the document before sending it to a broader audience.

The primary goal of this communication plan is to assist communications related to PreG]-009. However, we also intendit to provide a significant amount of information about the forthcoming Information Notice (IN) related to dam failurefrequencies. Thus, it is envisioned that this communication plan will also aid communications related to the IN. Currently,the communication plan does not include any information about the IN. As requested by NRtR, we have includedplaceholders in the document (indicated by highlighted text) where we believe references to the IN may be appropriate.Please feel free to add information about the IN in those places or anywhere else in the document.






2

Communication Plan for PreGI-009

Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites FollowingUpstream Dam Failures (working/redlined draft

dated 2011_06_10)

25 pages withheld in their entirety - exemption 5

Perkins, Richard

From: Pohida, MarieSent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 9:17 AMTo: Bensi, MichelleCc: Perkins, RichardSubject: RE: working draft of communication plan for PreGl-009 and Information Notice

Good Morning Shelby and Richard,

Yes, please put me as a member of the Communication Team.

Thank you.Marie

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Friday, June 24, 2011 11:56 AMTo: Pohida, MarieCc: Perkins, RichardSubject: RE: working draft of communication plan for PreGI-009 and Information Notice

Marie,

Regarding the Communications Team: It has been suggested by reviewers to include you as a member of theComm Team. In your email below, you have suggested Richard Raione and Lynn Mrowca. Do you mind if weinclude you as well or do you prefer/recommend that we only including Richard and Lynn?

I will be out of the office next week, so please copy Richard Perkins on your reply so he can revise the CommTeam list accordingly.

Thanks,Shelby

From: Pohida, MarieSent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 8:44 AMTo: Bensi, MichelleCc- Mrowca, LynnSubject: RE: working draft of communication plan for PreGI-009 and Information NoticeImportance: High

Good Morning Shelby,

I read the Communications Plan for PreGI-009. The report read very well. I only have 3 comments:

1. Regarding the listing of the Communications Team: For NRO, I suggest: Richard Raione, Chief

Hydrologic Engineering Branch and my supervisor, Lynn Mrowca, Chief of PRA and Severe Accidents

Branch.2.

(b)(5)

3,

(b)(5)

Thank you.Marie

From: Bensi, MichelleSent: Friday, June 10, 2011 5:03 PMTo: Philip, Jacob; Sancaktar, Selim; Ferrante, Fernando; Rodriguez, Veronica; Ruland, William; Pohida, Marie; Compton,Keith; Wilson, George; Khanna, MeenaCc: Beasley, Benjamin; Perkins, Richard; Kauffman, JohnSubject: working draft of communication plan for PreGI-009 and Information Notice

All,

I have attached a working draft of the communication plan for PreGI-009: Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failures. We would like this communication plan to represent an interoffice consensus and weare eager to receive comments and suggestions. This document is a work-in-progress and we anticipate that it will changesignificantly based on the comments we receive from reviewers. We have limited this initial distribution to those who arecurrently involved, so that we can refine the document before sending it to a broader audience.

The primary goal of this communication plan is to assist communications related to PreGI-009. However, we also intendit to provide a significant amount of information about the forthcoming Information Notice (IN) related to dam failurefrequencies. Thus, it is envisioned that this communication plan will also aid communications related to the IN. Currently,the communication plan does not include any information about the IN. As requested by NRR. we have includedplaceholders in the document (indicated by highlighted text) where we believe references to the IN may be appropriate.Please feel free to add information about the IN in those places or anywhere else in the document.





Michelle (Shelby) Bensi, Ph.D.2

Reliability and Risk EngineerNuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchDivision of Risk AnalysisOperating Experience and Generic Issues Branch

3

Perkins, Richard

From: Smith, JamesSent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:58 PMTo: Perkins, RichardCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Haney, Catherine; Bailey, Marissa; Kokajko, Lawrence;

Bensi, Michelle; Compton, Keith; Mohseni, Aby; Tripathi, Bhasker; Pstrak, David; Weaver,Doug; Tang, David; Waters, Michael; Jordan, Natreon; Beasley, Benjamin

Subject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic IssueAttachments: RE: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard-

From the Division of FCSS our comments are:

* Relative to FCSS, we don't think it applies, just because we already have a regulatory requirementunder the ISA program to address Natural Phenomenon Hazards and Environmental and DynamicEffects under 70.64 to meet the performance requirements of 70.61..

From the Division of SFST the comments are in the attached e-mail from Bob Tripathi.

From the Division of HLWRS, there are no comments, but it is assumed it is not applicable.

Contact me for questions regarding FCSS, and Bob (Bhasker) Tripathi for questions regarding SFST input.

Thanks

Jim

From: Perkins, RichardSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:17 AMTo: Smith, James; Haney, CatherineCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Kokajko, Lawrence; Bensi, Michelle; Compton, Keith; Mohseni, AbySubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

I just spoke with James Smith on the phone to go over background info and possible approaches. I'll be

sending him more info shortly. Please feel free to give me a call when needed.

Thanks,

Richard Perkins301-251-7479RES/DRA/OEGIB




NRR's response is surprising. I'm not sure how we can take a position on whether NM5S facilities should be included

without seeing the screening analysis. What am I missing? Are things in a better place today?


Jim,



Regards,Ben Beasley


From: Smith, JamesTo: Perkins, RichardCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Weaver, Doug; Davis, Jack; Ordaz, Vonna; Mohseni, Aby; Doolittle,Elizabeth; Kokajko, Lawrence; Haney, Catherine; Beasley, Benjamin; Bensi, MichelleSent: Wed May 18 10:29:45 2011Subject: RE; ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard -


Jim

2

James SmithT-dW*d A=61"us wcbmff Raiwmy C3ci!3i3,o~rI-- aI .thw MKSwid lee4 &V SeaqeLWf

Dym fd CydcSdd* ad Sdwxt~I' SM0

(301) 492-3234 Wokk(b)(6) B isck b--,,






The proposed issue has, undergone a screening analysis with consideration of flooding of U.S.nuclear power plant sites following upstream dam failures in combination with other reasonableenvironmental conditions (for example, dam failure during a heavy precipitation event andstorm). The screening analysis is being used by the Review Panel as input as they make arecommendation on whether the issue should become a bona fide Generic Issue (and beinvestigated as such). Please note that the screening analysis did not consider facilities otherthan U.S. nuclear power plants - and so, it is not certain that other facilities (such asmedical/industrial isotope storage or certain spent fuel storage facilities) would be included in afuture generic-issue-investigation scope unless the scope is specifically broadened by theReview Panel as part of its recommendation.

The screening analysis group (who authored the screening analysis report) limited its screeningassessment effort to U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. This was due largely to the group's awareness

3

that the submitted issue concerned challenges that were unique to nuclear power stations, suchas decay heat, the volume of material, and the complexity of systems.



Richard H. Perkins, P.E.Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOffice of Nuclear Regulatory ResearchDivision of Risk AnalysisOperating Experience and Generic Issues BranchPhone,- 301/251-7479

4

Perkins, Richard

From: Tripathi, BhaskerSent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:46 PMTo: Smith, JamesCc: Pstrak, David; Weaver, Doug; Bailey, Marissa; Tang, David; Waters, MichaelSubject: RE: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

CEUS = Central and Eastern United States, as opposed to WUS = Western United States [among 48contiguous States of US]

Bhasker (Bob) P. Tripathi, P.E., F. ASCESenior Structural EngineerDivision of Spent Fuel Storage and TransportationOffice of Nuclear Materials Safety and SafeguardsU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionMail Stop: EBB 3 D02MWashington, DC 20555-0001 USAE-mail: [email protected]: +1 301-492-3281Fax: +1 301-492-3350

From: Smith, JamesSent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:44 PMTo. Tripathi, BhaskerCc: Pstrak, David; Weaver, Doug; Bailey, Marissa; Tang, David; Waters, MichaelSubject: RE: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Sorry, you mentioned an new acronym. What does CEUS stand for?

From: Tripathi, BhaskerSent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:41 PMTo: Tripathi, Bhasker; Smith, JamesCc: Pstrak, David; Weaver, Doug; Bailey, Marissa; Tang, David; Waters, MichaelSubject: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

6-28-2011 [1440]

Jim: I have not heard from you or anyone at RES. Meanwhile, now that the flooding at Fort Calhoun is all overthe National News Channels, it may be a moot point to recognize that indeed this could be a generic issue atseveral CEUS plants. Flooding issue is governed by regulations 10 CFR Part 72.122(b)(2)(i).

As for the applicability to ISFSIs licensed by NRC/DSFST, among the list that has been included in this study,there are Operating ISFSIs at 14 locations as follows:

Indian pointPeach bottomHope CreekVermont YankeeBrowns Ferry

1

McGuire OconeeRobinsonSequoyahSurryPrairie IslandANOCooperFort Calhoun

Note: To put things in proper perspective and assess the relative significance of the risks involved - ifany - at Oconee ISFSIs there are 118 dry storage casks storing 2,832 PWR fuel assemblies, while atFort Calhoun there are 10 casks storing 320 PWR fuel assemblies. As for Cooper Station there are 8casks storing 488 BWR assemblies.

Please forward this inf. as NMSS/DSFST input to appropriate contacts at RES.If you have any questions feel free to call.


From: Tripathi, BhaskerSent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:26 PMTo: Smith, JamesCc: Pstrak, David; Weaver, Doug; Bailey, MarissaSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

6-15-2011 [1425]

Jim: You have been asking for deadline for almost a month now. Either Richard Perkins and/or Keith Comptonare on vacation or they have lost the interest in getting comments from NMSS. Let me know as soon as youhear from either of them. I will have few comments in a draft form, ready next sometime week. Thanks.


2

From: Smith, JamesSent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 11:42 AMTo: Perkins, RichardCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, Lawrence; Compton, Keith; Haney, Catherine; Tripathi, BhaskerSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard-


Thanks,

Jim

From: Compton, KeithSent; Wednesday, May 25, 2011 9:40 AMTo: Smith, James; Haney, CatherineCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Jim,



From: Smith, JamesSent: Friday, May 20, 2011 10:11 AMTo: Compton, KeithCc: White, Bernard; Ford, William; Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Ordaz, Vonna; Haney, Catherine;Mohseni, Aby; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: FW: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Keith-


I've taken a look at it, relative to FCSS and I don't think it applies, just because we already have a regulatoryrequirement under the ISA program to address Natural Phenomenon Hazards and Environmental and

3

Dynamic Effects under 70.64 to meet the performance requirements of 70.61. I am not sure, but I believe thatSFST has similar requirements for storage and transportation. I think it's pretty safe to say it won't be aproblem for HLWRS.

Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Jim

James SmithTmft" AnstwtUS tkdin Pm~homy cwiumuiaio.lc d %xdw "dang Sd~y ale sequuoh

D rý ofdCyck.- Sdedy md satgwifft

wmfqL DC 255

(3l0 492-32.4 work(b)(6) J Blckb,-ar


Will do.


Thanks for the update. Just be careful as the reactors also have flooding analyzes..

From: Smith, JamesSent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 11:18 AMTo: Haney, CatherineCc: Kinneman, John; Bailey, Marissa; Hiltz, Thomas; Compton, KeithSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Hey Cathy-




Jim

4





From: Haney, CatherineSent; Thursday, May 19, 2011 10.34 AMTo: Smith, JamesCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Kokajko, LawrenceSubject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue



Jim,



Regards,Ben Beasley


From: Smith, JamesTo: Perkins, Richard

5

Cc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, Thomas; Bailey, Marissa; Weaver, Doug; Davis, Jack; Ordaz, Vonna; Mohseni, Aby; Doolittle,Elizabeth; Kokajko, Lawrence; Haney, Catherine; Beasley, Benjamin; Bensi, MichelleSent: Wed May 18 10:29:45 2011Subject: RE: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue

Richard -


Jim

James SmithTromiley AMatst

S-kent: Monay May ari20 2:23DVW Ct fd C.W Olddy SCTUPWg

To: Smith, JlamesCc: Kinneman, John; Hiltz, ThomasSubject: ACTION FW: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue


From: Perkins, RichardSent: Frday, May 06, 2011 1:00 PMTo: Bailey, MarissaCc: Beasley, Benjamin; Bensi, MichelleSubject: Coordination on a Proposed Generic Issue


We are seeking your office's input in the coordination of a proposed generic safety issue. The

Generic Issues Program is nearing the completion of the screening phase and is finalizing areport titled, "Screening Analysis Report for the Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant SitesFollowing Upstream Dam Failures." The report was presented to a Generic Issue Review

Panel, the members of which were selected to provide recommendations regarding thisissue. The review panel has signaled its intent to recommend designation of the issue as aGenetic Issue. The Generic Issue Program would like to receive any comments your office mayhave given that this issue is likely to move forward as a Generic Issue.

The proposed issue has undergone a screening analysis with consideration of flooding of U.S.nuclear power plant sites following upstream dam failures in combination with other reasonable

Panlthemeber o whchwer slecedtoproid reomendtins egrdig h6

environmental conditions (for example, dam failure during a heavy precipitation event andstorm). The screening analysis is being used by the Review Panel as input as they make arecommendation on whether the issue should become a bona fide Generic Issue (and beinvestigated as such). Please note that the screening analysis did not consider facilities otherthan U.S. nuclear power plants - and so, it is not certain that other facilities (such asmedical/industrial isotope storage or certain spent fuel storage facilities) would be included in afuture generic-issue-investigation scope unless the scope is specifically broadened by theReview Panel as part of its recommendation.




Richard H. P

Documents

Group M FOIA/PA NO: 2014-0027 RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART · 2015. 4. 13. · Group M FOIA/PA NO: 2014-0027 RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART The following types of information are