ML19109A074

NRC-2018-000496 - Resp 1 - Final, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed, ACRS Working Group Records - Released Set

ML19109A074
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/16/2019
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML19109A073/ML19109A079	List: ML19109A074
References
FOIA, NRC-2018-000493, NRC-2018-000496
Download: ML19109A074 (475)

Text

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: 1/8/2018 11:12:39 AM Central Standard Time From: !Cb)(6) I To: ~1Cb_X6_) ___________________

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov I'll plan to do all of the appendices - at least, the first cut at each. I'm now pretty familiar with what the submittals contain and where some of the warts are. So it's probably easiest for me to tell the rail and highway stories. I need to reserve most of next week for subcommittee homework. I think that the scope of railway analyses is pretty limited, but everyone analyzes highway accidents. I doubt that I'll finish the highways before subcommittee week, but I'll get a start on them.

If you have some time, could you work with Derek to fix up the text that he wrote (e.g., make it flow better, reduce repetition, etc.)?

John In a message dated 1/8/2018 9:21 :46 AM Central Standard Time, ~ I r )<6_) __________________.... writes:

Planned to hit them this week; still finishing the Members Handhook.

Go ahead and let me know what remains.

On Jan 8, 2018, at 7:13 AM, jCbX6) Iwrote:

Have you done anything with the rail and highway accident appendices?

If not, please let me tackle them. I'm Just about finished with the other four appendices, and I have some momentum built up.

If you've started on the appendices, which one?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: 1/11/2018 2:14:43 PM Central Standard Time From: l(bX6) I To: l(b)(6)

No special treatment. They are following our law.

(b)(6)

On Jan 11, 2018, at 6:36 AM,._r_)<6_) _ _ _ ___,!wrote:

(b)(6)

Almost done with railroads - saving highways to last, since it's probably the most convoluted.

-Original Message --

From: Dennis Bley ) (bX6)

To: John Stetkar <!~(b.!: )(:::;:

6)= = = = = = ; 1 - - - - -

Cc: John.Stetkar ~John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wed, Jan 10, 2018 9:50 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Will do. Dodged a bullet earlier this week (bX6)

(b)(6)

On Jan 8, 2018, at 10:12 AM, ._!(b_)C6

_)_ _ _ __.! wrote:

If you have some time, could you work with Derek to fix up the text that he wrote (e.g., make it flow better, reduce repetition, etc.)?

1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazard Appendices

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazard Appendices Date: 1/19/2018 1: 1O:JI PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To:  !(bX6)

Assume what you sent today replaces/includes previous drafts.

On Jan 19, 2018, at 9:20 AM,l._(b_X6_) _ _ _ __,! w rote:

The attached file contains drafts of my concepts for the appendices (actually, pretty much final, unless you balk at how they're organfzed). I'm sending them so you have copies, just in case mine disappear. I do not want to go through this exercise again .....

Comments are welcome, but I think we first need to decide how we're going to tie everything together in the main report, including conclusions, etc.

Dennis -Are you coming to the meetings next week? I'm arriving Monday night, leaving Friday morning.

John Note: The attached 121 pages of draft appendices are withheld in their entirety under FOIA exemption 5. Portions of the draft appendices

<Hazard Analysis Appendices 19-2018.zip> containing CEil arc also withheld under FOIA exemption 3, in conjunction with 16 USC 8240-l(d)(l), and FOIA exemption 7(F).

1/1

4/1712018 Re: Re. Man-Made Hazard Appendices

Subject:

Re: Re: Man-Made Hazard Appendices Date: 1/ 19/201 8 1:39:02 PM Central Standard Time From : 1;:ICb=X=6)=====::::!....-----,

To: =!C= bX6=)==========::::-~~.....1 Cc: !Cb

...._X6_>________.

Tuesday or Wednesday morning works for me. And yes, the stuff I sent today replaces anything sent ptevlously, I'm staying Thursday, because I didn't want to risk paying fees for multiple flight changes. The APR1400 meeting agenda was also bouncing around until some time last week, so I kept my Friday flight. I can work on man--made hazard text on Thursday.

tn a message dated 1/19/2018 I :09:24 PM Central Standard Time, L,._ p >c6_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.! writes; I am arriving Monday night and leaving Wednesday afternoon. Since NuScale #2 is cancelled, J am tree to talk about this stuff Tuesday or Wednesday morning. I' II have a redo on Derek's stuff and, at least, plugins jdentified for your analyses.

On Jan 19, 2018, at 9:20 AM,!CbX6) !wrote:

The attached file contains drafts of my concepts for the appendices (actually, pretty much final, unless you balk at how they're organized). I'm sending tt,em so you have copies. just in case mine disappear. I do not want to go through this exercise again.....

Comments are welcome, but I think we first need to decide how we're going to tie everything together in the main report, including conclusions, etc.

Dennis - Are you coming to the meetings next week? I'm arriving Monday hight, leaving Friday morning.

John

<Hazard AnaJysis Appendices 19-2018.zip>

1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Mao-made hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-made hazards Date: 1/22/2018 7:33:06 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: l(b)(6)

OK - Wednesday morning.

-Original Messag1~8=-=;;..__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.....,

From: Dennis B1ey~~.!=(b=X ==6)= = = = = ~ - - - - - '

To: John Stetkar <jCbX6)

Sent: Sun, Jan 21 .i.:..2,. 0,.:,.1...

8....1...

0:.....

49- pm

Subject:

Re: Man-made hazards Sounded good two days ago. It now seems Ill the morning for homework. Can we do Wednesday morning-either at the offic.e or the hotel-I'm staying across the street this time.

On Jan 21, 2018, at 10:03 AM, ,_l(b_X6_) _ _ _ _.! wrote:

Let's get together Tuesday morning, unless you'll need that time for homework.

Happy travels tomorrow.

G 1/1

4/17/2018 Draft Man-made Report

Subject:

Draft Man-made Report Date: 1/23/2018 11 : 16:41 PM Central Standard Time From: 1Cb>c6> I To: !Cb)(6)

Cc: dcbl@nrc.gov See you at 8:30.

111

4/17/2018 RE: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 1/25/2018 8:1 8:47 AM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: 1...Cb_>c_6>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _........,

Acknowledged !!

From:!CbX6) I[mailto:il...Cb_X_

6>_ _ _ _....,

Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2018 8:34 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; !Cb ..._>c_6>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Report Hi Derek, Dennis and I are working to get a draft of the report ready for distribution to the other working group members some time in February. That's the good news. The bad news is that we'll need to pull together a complete list of all references that we've cited in the main part of the report and the appendices. Since you have already compiled much of that list, we'd like you to finish it. r,Ne're working on an edit to the text in the main report, which should be done in the next few days. It might contain a couple additional references, but I'm not sure about that right now. I'll get it to you when we have it reasonably stable.)

I originally thought about listing references at the end of each appendix, but that leads to a lot of repetition. So it's best to have Just one References section in the main report that covers everything in the main text and the appendices. In some cases, I dredged up additional references for the detailed material In the appendices, including a few RAI responses. I tried to document them as I wrote the material, but I probably did not catch all of them. So please read through the appendices for citations that you might not already have on your list. Off the top of my head, I know that I also referred to a more recent Revision 3 of the NWMI PSAR than you originally sent us.

We're not yet quite sure what we're going to do with the final report, but we should assume that it will be available to the public. So we need to be very careful about not citing proprietary information. For the most part, I think that we're OK on that account, since we use docketed submittals, SERs, and references cited in the SRP and Regulatory Guides. I'm not completely sure that the SHINE and NWMI PSAR material is publicly available, but I think that it is - please check it. I'm much less confident about the Indian Point material that I cited in Pipellne Appendix D. I got some of that material at least third-hand, so I am not sure about its original categorization. Please take a very close look at it, considering the history of that issue.

Anyway, please compile your first shot at the References section, and then we'll compare notes to see if anything needs tweaking.

Thanks!

John 1/1

From:

To: /@~} I Widmayer Derek: Stetkar. John

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Report

~- _ . 2~--~~~~~-~~~~-~--~-~

Re~v~

Date: Sunday, January 28, 2018 5:08:20 PM The 22-page redlined draft is withheld in its entirety under Attachments: Main Report Rey 2 - JWS docx FO IA exemption 5.

Dennis and Derek.

Attached for your review and comments is Draft Revision 2 of the main body of the report.

Dennis - For maximum annoyance . I turned on Track Changes so you can see what I did through Section 4.4.

Derek - I don't expect feedback from Dennis until some time after February 7. I don't expect significant changes (if any) to the references in this part of the report. There are no changes to the appendices.

John

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 1/29/2018 7:45:33 AM Central Standard Time From:

To: I"~ I Already there; arrived Sunday. Get home next Sunday, but go ahead and send it when you' re done. Only so much surf and sun one can take.

Dennis On Jan 27, 2018, at 9:03 PM,... r_x6_) _ _ _ _...,!wrote:

As usual, coming up with the words for the last section has proved more challenging than expected. I pretty confident that I'll have something margin ally coherent by Sunday afternoon (maybe earlier, if I'm lucky, but no bets on that). Two questions:

1 - When are you leaving?

2 - Should I send it to you whenever I finish, or wait until you get back from the sun and sand?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Rev. 2

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Rev. 2 Date: 1/29/2018 8:38:10 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: !Cb)(6)

At first look, it hangs together quite well.

Just got a plea from Milce---sigh.

On Jan 28, 2018, at 6:08 PM,... r_x6_) _ _ _ ____.!wrote:

Dennis and Derek, Attached for your review and comments is Draft Revision 2 of the main body of the report.

Dennis - For maximum annoyance, I turned on Track Changes so you can see what I did through Section 4.4.

Derek- I don't expect feedback from Dennis until some time after February 7. I don't expect significant changes (If any) to the references in this part of the report. There are no changes to the appendices.

John

<Main Report Rev 2 - JWS.docx>

1/1

From: Dennis Bley To: John Stetkar Cc: Widmayer Derek: Stetkar John; Bley Peoois Note: The 22 -page draft report (with marginal comment s) is Subject : [External_Sender] Re : Man-Made Hazards Report - Rev. 2 withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Date: Tuesday, February 06, 2018 3:58:32 PM Attachments: Main Report Rev 3 - dcb.docx ATT00001 htm Seems like a fine report to me. The new Section 4.5 begs for a committee letter on this topic and is the sort of thing staff should have done long ago. In the attache Rev 3, I accepted all your changes and ask a number of questions.

Dennis

4/17/2018 RE: Man-Made External Hazards Worlking Group - Draft Report

Subject:

RE: Man-Made External Hazards Working Group - Draft Report Date: 2/ 11/2018 4:18:28 PM Central Standard Time From:  !(b)(6)

,l;=

(b"!"!

)(=;;,

6)- - - - -1...,

(b)(6)

To:

~(b"!"!

)(6'!'!")_ _ _ _ _-.;.._____";"'Jo""l'hn---:.S

~t-e':"l" tk-a""".

r@:,,,:-

ru-*c-.g

- o- v-,-;, ' ~ .............--__,...---___,

D::-'ere Well-I've been loosing sleep over this for the past year in anticipation.

Ron From: !(bX6)  !(mailto:jCb)(6) D Sent: Sunda Februar 11 2018 5:14 P..,M.,..,.,,,._ _ _ _ ___,

To: Cb)(6) 6

!(bX )  !: Ronald G Ballinger <1._Cb_)<_ 6)_ _ _ __.!>;

(b)(6)  ; John.Stetkar@nrc.gov; Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made External Hazards Working Group - Draft Report Ron, Pete, and Dick, I'm sure that you all recall that you signed on to be members of our working group on man-made extemal hazards. I'm also sure that you think about it daily, and wonder what is happening. Well, wonder no more ....

Derek first did a really heroic job compiling a ton of reference material , including source documents, applicant submittals, SERs, etc. There is simply too much of that "stuff" to send immediately. It would require numerous emails with large multi-file attachments, and much of it may be of marginal interest. (Derek is currently working on the citations for the Referernces section of the report, which is a monumental task in itself.)

I suggest that you read through the draft and note areas where we need more material (I hope not), less material, or better justification for our observations and recommendations. Of course, if you think that we need additional recommendations, or if you disagree with any of the main items in Section 4.5, we'll need to work on that. If you want specific references, I can send them, but be careful what you ask for...

I hope that you can read through the report and compile your major comments and suggestions before our March full committee meeting. We won't have much time to caucus that week, considering the 4-letter workload. However, we should try to get together some time to iron out any major wrinkles. If we can't find time that week, we should perhaps shoot for the mid-March subcommittee week (depending on who is planning to be in the office).

I'd really like to finish the working group report before I leave on May 5. The full committee can then decide what is to be done with it. I do not think that the report contains any proprietary information (Derek is checking), and it has been written for possible public release (e.g., as an attachment to an ACRS letter).

Thanks, John 1/1

Note: The 164-page draft report, including appendices, is withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5. Portions of the report containing CEII are also withheld under FOIA exemption 3, in conjunction with 16 USC 8240-l(dXI). The pages of Appendix F aren't in proper order and some pages are missing.

From:

To: ...

ICb....

X6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ ._! _.! Cb_)C6_) _ _ __,U._

Cb_X6_) _ _....,!_! Cb_X6_) _ _ _ ___.! ~

J.Qhn; Widmayer Derek Subject : [External_Sender] Man-Made External Hazards Working Group - Draft Report Date: Sunday, February 11, 201 8 5:1 4:05 PM Attachments: Workina Grouo Reoort - Draft Rev 4.docx Ron , Pete, and Dick, I'm sure that you all recall that you signed on to be members of our working group on man-made external hazards. I'm also sure that you think about it daily, and wonder what is happening. Well, wonder no more ....

Derek first did a really heroic job compiling a ton of reference material , including source documents, applicant submittals, SERs, etc. There is simply too much of that "stuff" to send immediately. It would require numerous emails with large multi-file attachments, and much of it may be of marginal interest.

(Derek is currently working on the citations for the References section of the report, which is a monumental task in itself.)

I suggest that you read through the draft and note areas where we need more material (I hope not), less material, or better justification for our observations and recommendations. Of course, if you think that we need additional recommendations, or if you disagree with any of the main items in Section 4.5, we'll need to work on that. If you want specific references, I can send them, but be careful what you ask for ...

I hope that you can read through the report and compile your major comments and suggestions before our March full committee meeting. We won't have much time to caucus that week, considering the 4-letter workload. However, we should try to get together some time to iron out any major wrinkles. If we can't find time that week, we should perhaps shoot for the mid-March subcommittee week (depending on who is planning to be in the office).

I'd really like to finish the working group report before I leave on May 5. The full committee can then decide what is to be done with it. I do not think that the report contains any proprietary information (Derek is checking) , and it has been written for possible public release (e.g., as an attachment to an ACAS letter).

Thanks, John

4/17/2018 Re: Ma~Made External Hazards Worldng Group. Draft Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made External Hazards Working Group - Draft Report Date: 2/ 14/2018 11 :40:36 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6)

To: l(b_X6_) _ _ _ _ _

... ____,! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Dick, Thanks for the thoughtful comments (and for taking at least one pass through all 166 pages!).

I'll wait to hear from the others, and then we can caucus to decide on a path forward.

John

-Original Message-From: Skillman Technical Resources Inc. <fCb}C§2 I To: 6 Widma er Derek <Derek.Widma er nrc. ov>

Cc: Dennis Ble (b)(6)  ; ronald ballinger 6)  ; Riccardella, Pete (bX6) John.Stetkar <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; Skillman, Gordon <Gordon.Skillman@nrc,gov>;

Gordon Skillman 1.,..Cb..,. 6}....,...,,......,...,,.....,,...,,.---......t

}C,..

Sent: Wed, Feb 14, 2018 10:53 am

Subject:

Re: Man-Made External Hazards Working Group - Draft Report John, Derek, this is an impressive work product. Thank you for making the effort to lay this out so logically so that we can have further discussion on it.

My initial comments below from a quick read and spontaneous reaction to all 166 pages:

(b)(5) 1/2

Thank you.

dick On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 5:13 PM, 4,_(b_>c6_>_ _ _ __,~ wrote:

Ron, Pete, and Dick, I'm sure that you all recall that you signed on to be members of our working group on man-made external hazards. I'm also sure that you think about it daily, and wonder what is happening. Well, wonder no more....

Derek first did a really heroic job compiling a ton of reference material , including source documents, applicant submittals, SERs, etc. There is simply too much of that "stuff' to send immediately. It would require numerous emails with large multi-file attachments, and much of it may be of marginal interest. (Derek is currently working on the citations for the References section of the report, which is a monumental task in itself.)

I suggest that you read through the draft and note areas where we need more material (I hope not), less material, or better justification for our observations and recommendations. Of course, if you think that we need additional recommendations, or if you disagree with any of the main items in Section 4.5, we'll need to work on that. If you want specific references, I can send them, but be careful what you ask for...

I hope that you can read through the report and compile your major comments and suggestions before our March full committee meeting. We won't have much time to caucus that week, considering the 4-letter workload. However, we should try to get together some time to iron out any major wrinkles. If we can't find time that week, we should perhaps shoot for the mid-March subcommittee week (depending on who is planning to be in the office).

I'd really like to finish the working group report before I leave on May 5. The full committee can then decide what is to be done with it. I do not think that the report contains any proprietary information (Derek is checking), and it has been written for possible public release (e.g., as an attachment to an ACRS letter).

Thanks, John 2/2

4/17/2018 Re: Derek's Appendices

Subject:

Re: Derek's Appendices Date: 2/25/2018 7:55:50 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: L.!Cb_)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Got it - I'll look at it some time this week. First need to prepare two sets of slides for March dry run of April Commission meeting, since Commission as not yet decided what they want us to talk about.

---Original Messag~fj};;;;;;;;;; ; . . . . - - - - - - - - - - ,

~

From: Dennis Bley 4 Cb)(6)

To: John Stetkar ,fCb)(6) ___.

Cc: dcb1 <dcb1@nrc.gov>

Sent: Sat, Feb 24, 2018 2:06 pm

Subject:

Derek's Appendices A few additions and corrections and the attached Supplemental Report is ready for your consideration.

1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Supplement

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Supplement Date: 2/27/2018 2:15:31 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)  !

To: ~!Cb_X6_) ~~~~~

Cc: dcbl@nrc.gov Why don't you wait until I look through it, but then, yeah, it should go to the 'team'.

Thought you didn't think it worth editing; that's why I just did enough to show how it was put together. Probably better that you did it. It will save nitpicking later. Maybe...

On Feb 27, 2018, at 12:46 PM,L-! )<6_) _ _ ____,!wrote:

Cb_

I decided to read through the supplement before I tackle the Commission briefing slides. As usual, I spent too much time noodling with the report - mostly on mind-numbing formatting. If you wish, please take a look at the attached Rev. 2. It's in Track Changes, except for changes that were only formatting. Before you blindly accept all the changes, take a look at areas that contain a lot of red and margin comments. There were a couple of places where I altered the original text enough that you might be interested....or not.

When you're OK with this, I guess we should also send it to the others - right?

John Note: The accompanying 47-page redlined draft

<Supplement - Draft Rev. 2.docx> of "Supplemental Information" is withheld in its entirety under FO IA exemption 5.

1/1

4/1712018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Supplement

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Supplement Date: 2/28/2018 12:53:46 PM Central Standard Tune From: !CbX6) I To: !Cb)(6)

Cc: deb 1@nrc.gov Read it carefullv and all looks good. I (b)(5)

I'd send it to the group now.

(b)(5)

D On Feb 27, 2018, at 12:46 PM,... r_x6

_) _ _ _ ___.f ote:

I decided to read through the supplement before I tackle the Commission briefing slides. As usual, I spent too much time noodling with the report - mostly on mind-numbing formatting. If you wish, please take a look at the attached Rev. 2. It's in Track Changes, except for changes that were only formatting. Before you blindly accept all the changes, take a look at areas that contain a lot of red and margin comments. There were a couple of places where I altered the original text enough that you might be interested....or not.

When you're*OK with this, I guess we should also send it to the others - right?

John

<Supplement

• Draft Rev. 2.docx>

111

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Man-Made Haz.wds Working Group Supplemental Report

Subject:

Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Supplemental Report Date: 3/1/2018 8:30:20 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)

To: ';:::::::;::::::===::::::!...-----,

Cb_)<6_>__________________~

~!

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Derek has not yet communicated anything about the references. If we want to give the report to the full committee, we should have all of the references included and the citations in the text straightened out. I doubt very highly that we will accomplish that by next Friday. Any ideas about how I can light a fire under Derek?

John In a message dated 2/28/2018 7: 15:53 PM Central Standard Time,!Cb ..._><_6>___________________!writes:

Colleagues, So, if we do not need to caucus, I think it would be useful to report the Working Group results to the full committee during P&P next week. The only presentation material needed could be the results table from the main report and, maybe, one slide on our conclusions. We could ask members to look through the report during March and decide if the ACRS wants to write a letter, attaching the report, to support our previous recommendations. If so, it would be really nice to do that by the May meeting, before John departs.

Dennis On Feb 28, 2018, at 3:39 PM, ... r_x_> _ _ _ _ _!wrote:

6 Colleagues, Attached Is a supplement to our report on man-made hazards. It organizes information that Derek compiled when we began this, adventure. (Most of it was in the appendices to Rev. Oof the report, which has changed substantially since then.) That information helped to provide context for our reviews and to decide how we were going to structure the main .report and the current appendices.

Dennis and I decided that we should archive it, because It Is useful supporting information. Hence, the supplemental report. I'm not yet sure whether we should attach this report to our main report, or just keep It separate. That may depend on what the full committee decides to do with our work product.

In any event, here it is for your edification and comments..

Dennis - No substantive changes from Rev. 2, only a couple of very minor last-minute formatting changes.

Derek - I highlighted some references called out in the text in bold red, so they're obvious. But I'm pretty sure they're not complete. We'll need to figure out how to cite references in this one.

According to current plans, I will be in the office March 8-10, April 3-7, April 17-19, and May 2-5. I will then become a pumpkin. So i'f we need to caucus, those are my windows of opportunity.

John

<Working Group Report Supplement - Draft Rev. 3.docx>

1/1

From: (b)(6)

To:

~1~~ayer Derek;"lil!lrnm:r::::;ii:mrr- - - - - " ' " ' ..!(b_)<_5)_ _ _ _ _ __.! ...l<b_)(_5_) - - - - -

Subject : [E xtern al_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Working Group Su pplemental Report Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:39 :4 7 PM ~N-o-te-: Th-e -.,-, o-ci-at-ed_4_4--

p-ag_e_cl_ean - dr-aft

- .-of_YJ__r-"S-u-pp-lem

_ en_t_al_ln_fo_rm

_ a_ti-on_"_i,- ~

Attachments: Worki.n.aJkouo ReoocLSuoolfilOeot.c...Qraft_Re.ll....3.docx withheld in it s entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Colleagues, Attached is a supplement to our report on man-made hazards. It organ izes information that Derek compiled when we began this adventure. (Most of it was in the append ices to Rev . O of the report, which has changed substantially since then .) That information helped to provide context for our reviews and to decide how we were going to structure the main report and the current appendices. Dennis and I decided that we should archive it, because it is useful supporting information. Hence, the supplemental report.

I'm not yet sure whether we should attach this report to our main report, or just keep it separate. That may depend on what the full committee decides to do with our work product.

In any event, here it is for your edification and comments .

Dennis - No substantive changes from Rev. 2, only a couple of very minor last-minute formatting changes.

Derek - I highlighted some references called out in the text in bo ld red, so they're obvious. But I'm pretty sure they're not complete. We'll need to figure out how to cite references in this one.

According to current plans, I will be in the office March 8-10, April 3-7, April 17-1 9, and May 2-5. I will then become a pumpkin. So if we need to caucus, those are my windows of opportun ity.

John

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Supplemental Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Supplemental Report Date: 3/1/2018 3:06:28 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: l(bX6)

Cc: deb l @nrc.gov I think he is coming to the FC meeting. Ask him to bring the final with him and be ready to discuss the whole package with us.

6 On Mar 1, 2018, at 7:30 AM,r_ ... >< _>_ _ _ _____,jwrote:

Derek has not yet communicated anything about the references. If we want to give the report to the full committee, we should have all of the references included and the citations in the text straightened out. I doubt very highly that we will accomplish that by next Friday. Any ideas about how I can light a fire under Derek?

1/1

4/17/2018 Re: RE: Man-Made Hazards Report and Supplement

Subject:

Re: RE: Man-Made Hazards Report and Supplement Date: 3/2/2018 1:29:21 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)

To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Derek, Good news. I won't be in the office until Thursday morning. See you then.

John In a message dated 3/2/2018 12:54:36 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

Hi John:

I will be at the*meeting next week.

I have the References all ready to go - I was just waiting to pull the trigger when we were more or less sure there would no big revisions - which it looks like we have reached. So that will be easy. I will do it by COB next Monday so it is "cleann to present to the Committee at your discretion.

BTW - the report has come out great, in my humble opinion.

It is still a wonderment to me that there are "metricsn upon which safety decisions are being made (and yes they might be conservative when established) that the bases for are a "mystery?" I was involved in a project with NMSS at NRG where we were trying to establish a solid bases for ONE metric, the number of years we could be "reasonably assured" that a cement waste form would last after it was disposed (provided it met all assumptions regarding QA on its preparation, recipe, etc.). We spent millions of dollars and our record is complete over a three year period of endless meetings with industry and other stakeholders. While anyone can disagree w ith whether we were ultimately correct, there is no doubt we supported the number (500 years). And this was all in an effort to protect someone from a radionuclide that almost everyone expected would do very little harm in the end to anyone even if it got out of the waste form!

Well, enough of that - I am riled up after watching the G-D news this morning. (Also everyone else at NRC has the "day off' due to weather. I do not have that luxury, however, it is bright sunshine here with temps expected to reach 70 , so no complaints)

Derek 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: RE: Man-Made Hazards Report and Supplement From:rX6) Jmailto:!(bX6)

Sent: hursday, March 01, 2018 5:44 PM Joi Wjdmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>;

l(bX6) I

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Report and Supplement Hi Derek, We're hoping to have a final version of the main report, appendices, and supplement ready to submit to the Full Committee during the March meeting next week. We'll need the references and their citations in the text for that product. I have not received any substantive comments on the main report or the appendices, so I'm assuming that they are good to go.

Can you get all of the references into the report by Friday of next week?

Are you planning to attend the meeting?

John 212

4/17/2018 Re: Rev. 4 version of DOC with References Added

Subject:

Re: Rev. 4 version of DOC with References Added Date: 3/5/2018 5:32:15 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) 6 To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov,r_ ....)< _) - - - - - - - - - -

Hi Derek, Many, many thankslll I'm not sure when I'll have time to read through the changes - I hope before Thursday. I'm tied up with personal "stuff" the next couple of days. I hope to see you Thursday morning, provided that I survive a drive down from Philadelphia on Wednesday. The concept of weather Is rather annoying.

John

--Original Message---

~~~T~~~~~~~\:;:;; <~:eek W j mayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Mon, Mar , 1: pm

Subject:

Rev. 4 version of DOC with References Added As discussed. References added. A "reference" from a "Reference" has not been cited*- I think we all agreed this is kosher. Redline/SO. If you accept all changes, it should be good. I was using Rev. 4 - that was the latest version I had. I hope that was right I I did make one minor substantive change - the letter which described the ACRS plans to respond to the UCS letter was actually an answer from the Chairman - so it needed minor rewording.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technlcal Support Branch

!Cb)(6) I(cell) d erek.widrnaye r@nrc.gov 1/1

From: Widmayer Derek Note: The 171-page draft repon is withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption To : l(b)(6) 5. Ponions of the repon containing CEIi are also withheld under FOIA exemption 3, in conjunction with 16 USC 8240-l(d)(l ), and FOIA exemption 7(F). The Subject : Rev. 4 version of DOC with References Added pages of Appendix F aren't in proper order and some pages are missing.

Date: Monday, March 05, 20 18 2: 12:00 PM Attachments: Working Grouci..Baport - Draft Rev 4.WID.docx As discussed. References added . A "reference" from a "Reference" has not been cited - I think we all agreed this is kosher. Redline/SO. If you accept all changes , it should be good. I was using Rev. 4 - that was the latest version I had. I hope that was right !

I did make one minor substantive change - the letter which described the ACRS plans to respond to the UCS letter was actually an answer from the Chairman - so it needed minor rewording .

7JcJr.cA cA-. w~

ACRS/Tec hni cal Sup po rt Branch

!Cb)C6) ~ eel I) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Caucus

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Caucus Date: 3/6/2018 7:57:03 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: !CbX6)

Cc: !CbX6)  !!Cb)(6)  !._!Cb_)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ ____,

Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Lord willing, and if the creek don't rise, and the snow does not get too deep-I'll be there. Any time is OK for me-hopefully.

Ron Sent from my iPad On Mar 6, 2018, at 8:50 AM, Skillman Technical Resources Inc . ... r_x_ 6

)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ f wrote:

Hi John - Will support either day.

dick On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:38 AM, <fCbX6) rwrote:

Derek added the references to our draft report, so we now have a "finished" version. It is substantively the same as Revision 4 that was distributed for your input.

I know it's late, but can you all support a group meeting at noon on Thursday? If not Thursday, how about Friday?

Derek - is the caucus room open either day? If not, perhaps we can meet in Andrea's office or the other big meeting room.

John 1/1

4/17/2018 RE: Re: RE: Man-Mede Hazards Working Group Caucus

Subject:

RE: Re: RE: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Caucus Date: 3/6/2018 2:26:34 PM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: r(bX6)  !!Cb-

...)(6-) ---------.11(b)(6)

!Cb)(6) ll(bX6) ,___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov I have reserved the ACRS Caucus Room for Friday, March 9 at Noon.

Derek From:!CbX6)  ![mailtoJCb)C6) h Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 9:58 AM To:!Cb)(6) " - - - - - - - - - . ! !...Cb_)C _>_ _ _ _ __.t !.Cb>

l ""!Cb.X,. ,.6""')- 6 . _C6_) _ _ __.~ Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: RE: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Caucus Thanks Pete, I forgot about Thursday P&P. Let's do Friday at noon. Derek - can you snare the caucus room?

John In a message dated 3/6/2018 8:48:54 AM Central Standard Time, !Cb ..._)C6_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _.....!writes:

John, P&P SC is at noontime on Thursday this week. Friday would be better for me.

Pete From:rCb)C6)  !>

Sent: 1'uesday, March 6, 2018 6:38 AM To: !Cb)C6) ti""Cb""")C6")"'- - - - - - - - . , ,CbX6) ~ Riccardella, Pete

!Cb)C) 6 I Derek.Widmayer@nrc,aov ------

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man*Made Hazards Working Group Caucus Derek added the references to our draft report, so we now have a "finished" version. It Is substantively the same as Revision 4 that was distributed for your input.

I know it's late, but can you all support a group meeting at noon on Thursday? If not Thursday, how about Friday?

Derek - is the caucus room open either day? If not, perhaps we can meet in Andrea's office or the other big meeting room.

John nic Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any att ,

intended sole y o addressee(s). If e recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notifie 10n, in , or action taken in relation to the an attachments to this e*mail is strictly prohibited and may e u ve 1/2

RE: Re: RE: Man-Made Hazards Wortdng Group Caucus 4117/2018

'rand ecany co 212

From: Widmayer. Derek To: Veil Andrea Cc: Banks. Mark

Subject:

External Manmade Hazards Working Group Date: Tuesday, March 06, 2018 3:32:00 PM Andrea:

I don't know how much either John or Dennis has been keeping you up-to-speed, but the Working Group has a finished Draft Final Report on this work, which we have spent almost 2.5 years generating. It is quite a piece of work. We are meetin on Frida in the Caucus cid what the Grou wants to do with the Report (b)(5)

Ve.h.c.lt. cA-. w~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCb)C6)  !(cell) derek wjdmayer@nrc.gov

From: Widmayer Derek To: Nguyen. Quvob

Subject:

RE: QUERY: Manmade Hazards Date: Thursday. March 08, 2018 5:19:00 PM Yes-Will Do.

From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 1:57 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

QUERY: Manmade Hazards Importance: High After the meeting on Friday, you gotta let me know ASAP if and how it should be placed in the May FC Agenda.

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Wor1clng Group Report on Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Re: Working Group Report on Man-Made Hazards Date: 3/10/2018 1:21 :28 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To:

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Yes, and to gauge general sentiment of the members.

6 ln a message dated 3/10/2018 I: 11 :37 PM Central Standard Timel.... ~_)< _) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!writes:

John, Excellent backgrounder document. I suppose we are going to discuss the "so what.." at the retreat.

Matt 6

On Mar 10, 20 I 8, at 8:21 AM~....(b-) ( _) _ _ _ ____.!wrote:

Colleagues, . .

Attached is a copy of our working group report on man-made external hazards that I mentioned briefly during P&P Friday. We plan to discuss the report in an internal ACRS retreat session during the April Full Committee meeting. The purpose of that session is to familiarize everyone with the report and our conclusions and recommendations, and to discuss a path forward for possible action by the Committee. During our working group meeting on Friday, we tentatively decided to formally present the report at the May Full Committee meeting, inviting the NRC staff and interested members of the public to attend. Our hope is for an ACRS letter transmitting the report to the Commission and endorsing some or all of the working group recommendations.

John

<Working Group Report - Draft Rev 6.docx>

1/1

From:

To :

(bX6)

(b)(6)

Cc:

Note: The entire 150-page clean draft report (with appendices) is Subject : [External_Sender) Working Group Report on Man-Made Hazards withheld in its entirety under FO IA exemption 5. Portions of the report Date: Saturday, March 10, 2018 8 :21:39 AM containing CEII are also exempt under FOIA exemption 3, in Attachments : Working Group Report - Draft Rev 6.docx conjunction with 16 U.S.C. 8240-l(d)(l), and FOIA exemption 7(F).

Colleagues ,

Attached is a copy of our working group report on man-made external hazards that I mentioned briefly during P&P Friday. We plan to discuss the report in an internal ACRS retreat session during the April Full Committee meeting. The purpose of that session is to famil iarize everyone with the report and our conclusions and recommendations , and to discuss a path forward for possible action by the Comm ittee .

During our working group meeting on Friday, we tentatively decided to formally present the report at the May Full Committee meeting , inviting the NRC staff and interested members of the public to attend. Our hope is for an ACRS letter transmitting the report to the Commission and endorsing some or all of the working group recommendations.

John

4/17/2018 Re: Working Group Report on Mall-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Working Group Report on Mao-Made Hazards Date: 3/10/2018 7:32:52 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: l(bX6)

John: .

Thanks. Good reading while huddled in my no-power house (in front of the fireplce).

Ron Sent from my iPad On Mar IO, 2018, at 8:26 AM, r_ ... )<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!wrote:

Colleagues, Attached is a copy of our working group report on man-made external hazards that I mentioned briefly during P&P Friday. We plan to discus.s the report in an internal ACRS retreat session during the April Full Committee meeting. The purpose of that session is to familiarize everyone with the report and our conclusions and recommendations, and to discuss a *path forward for possible action by the Committee.

During our working group meeting on Friday, we tentatively decided to formally present the report at the May Full Committee meeting, inviting the NRC staff and interested members of the public to attend. Our hope is for an ACRS letter transmitting the report to the Commission and endorsing some or all of the working group recommendations.

John

<Working Group Report - Draft Rev 6.docx>

1/1

From: Wk!rnayer. Derek To: Nguyen. Duynh Cc: Banks Mark

Subject:

RE: Manmade Hazards Date: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:58:00 AM HiQ:

Nope Wrong Kemosabel The subject will be discussed as a topic in the April "retreat" items. Nothing more specific needs to be listed there on the April Agenda.

But there needs to be 2 hour2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> session scheduled within the May Full Committee. The "Anticipated Workload" for May is correct - just take TENTATIVE off of the Working Group item.

Nothing in June or any other subsequent meeting. yet. But, depending on decisions yet to be made, there might be Letter Report that gets written sometime and that might take more than one meeting - like the "research reports , and will have to be included repeatedly on the Letter Writing topics, but that decision is all forthcoming.

D From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:10 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Manmade Hazards I gotta start making May Agenda.

I'm guessing there won't be a formal session and whatever Stetkar wants to do can be done during "retreat time"?

From: 6 6

To: .,. ;~:;;i;;-mr,=-:=;; -l;:;:-;;;;::---l'L!(b_)c_)_ _ ____J!Ronald G ean;ooer: l~

,~r.;: Cb-X6_) _ _ _ _.....,

OeceR.wlamavei@nrc.aoy -

ec, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Slides Note : 39 a dditional slides. reflecting content in the draft report. have been Date: Monday, Mardi 19, 2018 2:27:18 PM withheld in their entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

Attachments: Man-Made Hazards.opt Colleagues, I know that you are immersed in all things NuScale this week, so this Is probably pretty damed low on your immediate radar. I assembled the attached draft slides for the discussion of our report during an internal retreat session at the April Full Committee meeting. Don't worry about the number of slides - half are backup, and I can get through the front part pretty fast.

Please send me any comments or suggestions at your convenience.

Thanks, John

• J u.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the Environment Man-Made External Hazards Working Group Report John W. Stetkar 1

Working Group

• Ron Ballinger

• Dennis Bley

• Pete Riccardella

• Dick Skilln,an

• John Stetkar

• Derek Widn,ayer 2

Background

• ACRS engagement with staff during COL application reviews and post-Fukushima activities for operating reactors

• ACRS contacted by member of the public regarding review of Indian Point natural gas pipeline (2014 - 2016)

• Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) letter to NRC Chairman requesting ACRS review of NRC process and criteria for reviewing natural gas pipeline hazards (2015)

• NRC response to UCS noted formation of ACRS working group to gather and review information on risks from external man-made hazards, including gas pipelines 3

Background

• ACRS December 13, 2016 letter: ..The scope of external hazards to be assessed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise should be expanded to include man-made hazards, except for intentional acts ...

• Recommendation rejected, based on existing practices and staff conclusion regarding proposed Generic Issue 4

Backup Slides Regulatory Guidance Code of Federal Regulations

• 10 CFR Part 50

- 10 CFR 50.34

- General Design Criterion 3 ..Fire Protection..

- General Design Criterion 4 ..Environmental and Dynamic Effects Design Bases..

• 10 CFR Part 52

- 10 CFR 52.17

- 10 CFR 52.79

• 10 CFR Part 100

- 10 CFR 100.20 30

Regulatory Guidance Standard Review Plan

• Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 **identification of Potential Hazards in Site Vicinity

(March 2007)

• Section 2.2.3 **Evaluation of Potential Accidents (March 2007)

• Section 3.5.1.5 Site Proximity Missiles (Except Aircraft) (March 2007)

• Section 3.5.1.6 Aircraft Hazards

(March 2010) 31

Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guides

• RG 1.70 ..Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition.. (November 1978)

• RG 1.78 ..Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room during a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release..

(December 2001)

• RG 1.91 ..Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur at Nearby Facilities and on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants" (April 2013) 32

Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guides (contd.)

• RG 1.117 ..Protection Against Extreme Wind Events and Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants..

(July 2016)

• RG 1.206 ..Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition)" (June 2007)

• Additional references and supplemental guidance are cited in the SRP and RGs 33

Proposed Generic Issue

• Sub111itted by Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate in Septe111ber 2013

• Potential risk increase due to changes in 111an-111ade activities in site environs

• Need for periodic assess111ents and FSAR updates 34

Proposed Generic Issue (contd.)

• Rejected in January 2014

- Issues not amenable to risk quantification using standard tools and methods (e.g.,

SPAR models); qualitative conclusion that they do not represent a ..credible threat to the NRC's strategic and performance goals and measures..

- Issue can be addressed through other regulatory programs

- Information to determine risk significance is not available without requests to licensees or collecting it onsite 35

From:

To:

Cc: '-

~~@iar@nrc,ijov

j "°'" aL11nge,j"(b.,.."' )C"")- -------.l 6 Qerek.Widmayec@orc.gov;

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Woridng Group Sfldes Date: Tuesday, Mardi 20, 2018 10:51:08 AM Quick responses -

Slide 3 - The Chairman responded to UCS. We crafted suggested words for his response. The Chairman's letter is Reference 3 in our report.

Slide 4-Yes Slides 14-19 -Availability of more data is implied by the dates. We discuss details of sources in the appendices. I'll just say it orally.

I'll hold off on circulating Rev. 1 of the slides until I hear from others.

John In a message dated 3/19/2018 6:00:51 PM Central Standard Time,

!(b)C6) !writes:

First cut looks good-well organized. A few preliminary questions & comments:

Slide 3 * "NRC response to UCS noted formation of ACRS working group*. Did the Commission respond? SECY? EDO? Or ACRS?

Slide 4

• is really the key to the depth of our response: assume you agree

!(b)(S) I Slides 14-19

• Should we sav lmavbe iust verballv) that more recent data are available?

r b)(S) I

kom: Banks Mart To: "Mk:lmt CQIWJQ.t;l(b)(6)

Stctkai.....Jgbo ...._ _ _ _....

Cc:

Subject:

RE: Re: April Full Committee Internal discussion of man-made hazards Date: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:53:00 PM Hi John, Mike is correct. in addition to the standard letter writing item on Saturday morning, we also have a retreat item Which is for the man-made hazards discussion.

Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulat ory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fox 301-415-5589 From: Michael Corradini [mailto:... l(b_)<_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ __,

Se nt: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:07 AM To :!(b)(6) I Ban ks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: April Full Committee internal discussion of man made hazards yes it planned for Saturday - Mark??

6 From:!...(b_X_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 10:04:47 AM To: Michael Corradini; mark.banks@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stctka,@11r:-:.gov

Subject:

April Full Committee internal discussion of man-made hazards Mike and Mark, At our March meeting, we discussed having an internal discussion of the man-made hazards working group report in a "retreat" setting to familiarize members with what we've done and elicit comments on a path forward before the public meeting in May. I don't recall if we show those kinds of thir:,gs on our committee workload. Are you sUII plannlng for that session (probably Saturday morning)?

John

4/17/2018 Man-Made Hazards Report Stuff

Subject:

Man"Made Hazards Report Stuff Date: 3/20/2018 2:13:16 PM Central Standard Time From:  !(b)C6) I To: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Since I have a little time today, I created a title page and table of contents for the report. I think that the material in the supplemental report is really useful - especially if the report will be publicly available. It provides a context for our evaluations and a convenient compilation of references. At the moment, I've attached it to the report as Appendix G. We can always cut it out if the others feel differently. After you insert the references into the stand-alon~ supplement, I'll reformat them (if necessary). I think that it makes sense to keep them in the appendix.

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Date:

From: r)3/20/2018

( 9:35:22 AM

6) I Central Standard Time To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Derek, Thanks for the feedback.

John In a message dated 3/20/2018 9:34:15 AM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc,fiOY writes:

John:

Yes I have, but I am not yet done. I will finish by the end of the week, if not before. I will let you know.

Thanks for the work on the slides. They look good to me.

Derek From: !(bX6) .,.=a=ilt=o"-l(b_x_6)_ _ _ _----J

[.,m Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 10:20 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Hi Derek, Have you made any progress on the references for the supplemental report?

Don't worry about slides for the retreat discussion during the April full committee meeting. I'm just about done with a draft set. I'll circulate them to the working group for comments when they're ready - one less thing on your list... ..

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/20/2018 7:40:14 PM CentraJ Standard Tune From: !CbX6) I To: !CbX6)

Cc: .._!Cb_)(6_) _ _ _ _ _ __,! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, deb l@nrc.gov Mike, If you look at the letters we sent earlier on behalf of the Committee, we promised to alert both when the results of the working group were to be discussed by the committee. Your call on inviting them to participate, but I think we must alert them about the meeting.

Dennis On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:29 PM, ... )<6_) _ _ _ __.!wrote:

f_

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, formally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation?

1/1

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/21/2018 7:29:46 AM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: Mark.Banks@nrc.gov, "'l(b.,..,)(6"'">_ _ _ __

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov I am On the Job! Sunny and 50 on the shore of NC !

From: Banks, Mark Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:12 AM To:!(bX6) !Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi John, The Federal Govt is closed today. Also, !(b)( )

6 I Let's see what tomorrow (Thursday} brings . It is forecast to snow till midnight, so who knows about tomorrow..... We'll get back to you.

r )(6)

Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 6

From:!(bX ) . :. =o.:1.:l(b_)_<6>_ _ _ ___,

h.:m=a=ilt Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:19 PM To: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks @nrc. gov>; Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <.John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Thanks Mark, Is Andrea back in the office today? If not, will she be in tomorrow?

It might be useful if you, Andrea, Mike Corradini, and I chat by phone, just to make sure there are no surprises.

John In a message dated 3/20/2018 1:57:46 PM Central Standard Time, Mark.Banks@nrc.gov writes:

1/3

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do I have no problem with the approach outlined by both of you - very reasonable and appears to be doable.

Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 From: !Cb)(6) I[!!!.filltQj.C_b_)C_6)_ _ _ ___,

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:53 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.goy>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, Thanks very much. Your thoughts on Item 3 seem like a good plan, provided that Mike Corradini, Mark, and Andrea agree.

John In a message dated 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time, Dcrck.Widmayer@nrc.iNY writes:

John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek From: !Cb)(6) l[ ~....(b....)(6.,....,),...,......_ _ __.

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

(External_Sender) Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1 - We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning}. No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly 2/3

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards. Stuff Left To Do need to a!ert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITIEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Group to be discussed at April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree - I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full cormmittee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it.

think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the report as an "Invited expert". I'm (b)(6) 3/3

From: !CbX6) l To: Widmayer. Derek: Stetkar John

Subject:

[Extemal_sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:49:25 PM Sounds like a plan. However, regarding the staff, I'm not sure if there is a contact person for the EHCOE

- it seems somewhat amorphous. I'll do some digging, unless you have a specific name In mind.

John

---

Original Message-----

From: Widma er, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

To: jwstetkar CbX6) corradini ""lCb'"")(~6)- - - - - - - - - .

Cc: bley CbX6) Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 2:35 pm

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards* Stuff Left To Do Feedback from me in GREEN Derek From:t)(6) ~[~

Sent:ednesday, March 1, 2018 3:08 PM To: !Cb)(6)  !; Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrq;iov>

Cc:!CbX6) !Banks, Mark ; Stetkar, John <John,stetkar@nrc ~av>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do My recollection about our outreach to UCS for the December 2015 societal risk subcommittee meeting is a bit fuzzy. I'm pretty sure that we did that through an email from John Lai to Dave Lochbaum or Ed Lyman. (I think that we also contacted several others the same way.) We certainly did not send a formal letter Invitation. However, this situation Is different, considering the ACRS correspondence with Paul Blanch and the NRC Chairman correspondence with Dave Lochbaum.

I agree - a letter from ACRS, Mike is probably appropriate.

I think that Derek should contact each of them very soon by email, alerting them to the May 3 meeting and its topic - the working group report on evaluation and review of man-made external hazards. Mike should follow up with confirmatory letters, so we and they have a record of the correspondence. We should also alert them that our working group report will be available in ADAMS, and let them know when it is.

I will draft up an email with the Information that is known at this time, with the Ideas expressed in the next paragraph, and clrculate. Need to have feedback from Mark and Andrea (If she Is going to be around). Gov't offices closed today.

I think that we should afford them more than a nominal 5 minutes presentation time. If we have 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> slotted for the topic, then about 15 minutes each seems reasonable. or perhaps 20-25 minutes total if they want to consolidate their comments. We should also stress that more comprehensive written comments are always appreciated and will be made part of the meeting record. However, I don't want to get mired in details of the Indian Point analysis and review. That is not the purpose of our working group report or the ACRS briefing. Of course, that being said, we can't dictate what they present, except to indicate that we will focus on a range of man-made hazards, technical basis for evaluation and review guidance, and consistency of applications of the guidance. That might forestall too much discussion

about that one particular analysis.

We should also alert the staff (not sure who, considering the history), but indicate that we do not expect any presentations from them.

At this point, maybe the contact person for the Natural Hazards COE, who can inform others?

Your thoughts?

John Ina message dated 3/21/20181 :02:35 PM Central Standard Time, !(b_ ... )<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _....

writes:

Derek:

An informal email alerting them seems reasonable.

As for a letter invite, how did Former Chairman Stetkai handle it for the Dec. 1st SC meeting on Societal Risk? UCS presented there and how did they get invited? Was it Ed or John that sent a note to them? I am unsure of that process.

As for the date, Mark has the draft agenda for May (I saw) and this topic is tentatively on the afternoon of May 3rd at 2pm. But that may change.

Mike On*Mar 21, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Widmayer, Derek

<DerekWidmayer@nrc.~ov> wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have contact information for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum, including address, phone and emails, when ( IF?) you decide to inform them about the May FC session (email) and formally invite (letter) them to address the Committee (or whatever is decided).

I can formulate some sort of draft email that provides the "informing" step - I guess we need to decide what should be in the email - the time slot for the session has not yet been decided, but the dates can be Identified. - but are they going to be provided an opportunity to speak (for the usual 5 minutes or more?) and to submit written comments (they can do whatever they want, but did not know whether they would be specifically invited to submit comments)? Also, decide who the "informing" email should come from. (perhaps Andrea would be appropriate? - then letter from Dr. Corradini as chairman?)

We can also tell them in the email they will be getting written invites.

Derek From:l(b)(6)  ![mailto~(b)(6) ~

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:30 PM To: ~ )(6) I Cc: §)< 6) j Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>;

Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during the April retreat.

Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report.

My primary objective for the April discussion Is to answer questions about technical detalls (If any) and gain a sense of member support for the recommendations.

John

---

Original Message--

From: Mlchael Corradini < (b)(6)

,;

;,-,;a.-.__ _ _ _ _"T"'""_

..-.-----=--

To: John Stetkar (b)(6)

Cc: Dennis Bley (bX6) Widmayer, Derek

<Derek Widmayer@nrc iov>

Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 9:00 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April - or - at the mini-retreat?

Mike On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:29 PM,r... ~ wrote:

_)<6_) _ _ _ _...

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting. Mark has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, formally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation? I think we should - very soon - but It's your call.

So... l hear that they are predicting nasty weather In DC tomorrow -

are we all having just tons of fun?

John From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To:!CbX6) IMark.Banks(@nrc.gov Sent: 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark.

Once we seem to be on the same page. we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek From: !Cb

..._)<_

6)_ _ _ _ __.! [...ro...a...il....,to....!Cb_)_<6_)_ _ _ _ __J Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer(g)nrc.~ov>;

Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John Stetkar@nrc g~>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Man-Made Hazards -

Stuff Left To Do Derek.

I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1 /2 weeks:

1 - We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an Internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently s!otted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think}. This Is a key Item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I tbink that it would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making It available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the Aprll meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion In May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used -we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITTEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Group to be discussed at April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree - I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the

Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting , more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final , they have 5 minutes at the meeting. and they should send any comments to the Commission?

Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things. to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps requ ired.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem Impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or I Id re n the r ort a n "invited ex ert" CbX6)

(b)(6)

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/21/2018 11 :31 :12 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: l(b)(6)

That makes sense - I'm reading now From:,_!Cb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 11:29:51 AM To: Michael Corradini Cc:!Cb)C6) IDerek.Widmayer@nrc.gov: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do Hi Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during the April retreat. Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report. My primary objective for the April discussion is to answer questions about technical details (if any) and gain a sense of member support for the recommendations.

John

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April - or - at the mini-retreat?

Mike On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:29 PM,... !Cb_X-6)_ _ _ ___.!wrote:

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting. Mark has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, fom1ally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation? I think we should - very soon - but it's your call.

So... l hear that they are predicting nasty weather in O'c tomorrow - are we all having just tons of fun?

John I From: Derek Widma er nrc. ov To: CbX6) Mark.Banks@nrc.gov 1/3

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Sent: 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time Subject RE: Man-Made Hazal!'ds - Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek From: !(b)(6)  ![.....

m....a=ilt..,.o~J(b;;.:.)<:.;.:

6)_ _ _ ____J Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1 /2 weeks:

1 -We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group rnports - we can just use the same cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITTEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Grou*p to be discussed at April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree - I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May.

Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer to it as "Tine Working Group Report" when it 2/3

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or erha s I could resent the re ort as an "invited ex ert". CbX6)

CbX6) 3/3

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/21/2018 12:03:41 PM Central Standard Time From: Mark.Banks@nrc.gov To: !CbX6) I Hi John, I'm cozy and warm - it's an easy snowstorm, relatively warm (32 degrees) and little wind; we've had about 4-5 wet inches here at the marina so far; Kathy texted me an hour ago that she has 18 inches so far. I told her to go on Amazon and order a sled and team of dogs.....

Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 From:!CbX6)  !(m lt~o !Cb

= ai= ..._)(6_)_ _ _ ___,

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:34 PM To: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi Mark, Hope you're hunkered down in your cocoon.

f)(5)

Aah let's Plav nby ear reaard jna a conference call !Cb)<5)

John

--Original Message-From: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks nrc. ov>

To: jwstetkar Cb)C6)  ; Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John,Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wed, Mar 21, 2018 4:12 am

Subject:

RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi John, The Federal Govt is closed today. Also, !CbX )

6 I Let's see what tomorrow (Thursday) brings. It is forecast to snow till midnight, so who knows about tomorrow. .... We'll get back to you.

1/4

4117/2018 RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Tecnnical Support Branch Advisor y Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 Fromi(b)(6) !l.,_,_m,., a.sci,.,,,

ltocs.l(b....)(....

6)_ _ _ _____,

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:19 PM To: Banks, Mark <Mark,Banks@nrc.gov>; Widmayer, Derek <Derek,Wjdmayer@nrc.goy>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Thanks Mark, Is Andrea back in the office today? If not, will she be in tomorrow?

It might be useful if you, Andrea, Mike Corradini. and I chat by phone, just to make sure there are no surprises.

John In a message dated 3/20/2018 1:57:46 PM Central Standard Time, Mark.Banksr@nrc.gov writes: C I have no problem with the approach outlined by both of you - very reasonable and appears to be doable.

Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Br anch Advisor y Commit t ee on React or Saf eguards Nuclear Regulat or y Commission Tel. 301-415- 3718 Fax 30 1-415-5589 From:!(b)(6)  ![.'""

m""'a=ilt=o-'L j (b_X_6)_ _ _ _____,

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 2:53 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark. Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, 214

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Thanks very much. Your thoughts on Item 3 seem like a good plan, provided that Mike Corradini, Mark, and Andrea agree.

John In a message dated 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek From: !CbX6) I[mailto:!CbX6) p Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.eov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.eov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_SenderJ Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1 -We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, w~hout making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same 3/4

4117/2018 RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITTEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Group to be discussed at April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree - I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4

• Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it.

think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan 8 ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June o r ~

either Dennis will need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the report as an "invited expert'~

CbX6) 4/4

From: Q.ln !ii To: "1*1~

Subject:

FW: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: Wednesday, Mardl 21, 2018 2:22:00 PM Hi Andrea, FYI - There is a thread of emails below regarding the man-made hazards subject and musings of how to proceed between now and John's leaving the Committee.

Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 From: Michael Corradini _!Cb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Sent : Wednesday, March 21, 2018 2:03 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widrnayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: John Stetkar !CbX6) I l...

Dennis Bley (b-)(6__ I

) _ _ _ _ Bank~, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

!External_Senderl Re: Man-Made Hazards- Stuff Left To Do Derek:

An informal email alerting them seems reasonable.

As for a letter invite, how did Former Chairman Stetkar handle it ror the Dec. 1st SC meeting on Societal Risk? UCS presented there and how did they get invited? Was it Ed or Jolm that sent a note to them? 1 am uosure of that process.

As for the date, Mark has the draft agenda for May (I saw) and this topic is tentatively on the aftemoon of May 3rd at 2pm. But that may change.

Mike On Mar 21 , 2018, at 12:49 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derck Widmayer@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have contact information for Mr Blanch and Mr lochbaum, including address, phone and emails, when ( IF?) you decide lo Inform them about the May FC session (email) and formally invite (letter) them to address the Committee (or

whatever is decided).

I can formulate some sort of draft email that provides the "informing" step- I guess we need to decide what should be in the email - the time slot for the session has not yet been decided, but the dates can be identified. - but are they going to be provided an opportunity to speak (for the usual 5 minutes or more?) and to submit written comments (they can do whatever they want, but did not know whether they would be specifically invited to submit comments)?

Also, decide who the "informing" email should come from. (perhaps Andrea would be appropriate? - then letter from Dr. Corradini as chairman?)

We can also tell them in the email they will be getting written invites.

Derek From;!Cb)(6) HmaiJ.to.!Cb

...._)<6_) _ _ _ __,

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:30 PM To:,CbX6) I Cc: _CbX6) IWidmayer, Derek <Derek Wjdmayer@nrc gov>; Stetkar, John

<John Stetkar@nrc gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during the April retreat. Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report. My primary objective for the April discussion is to answer questions about technical details (if any) and gain a sense of member support for the recommendations.

John

--- Original Message----- - - - - - - - -

From: Michael Corradini Cb)(6)

.;,;;.;;.;.;.;;;.i..._ _ _ _ _ _ _____.

To: John Stetkar CbX6)

~~-----,.,.....-!

Cc: Dennis Bley CbX6) Widmayer. Derek <Derek.W!dmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 9:00 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards- Stuff Left To Do

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April

• or - at the mini-retreat?

Mike

On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:29 PM~...

6 (b-)(- )_ _ _ _ __,! wrote:

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting. Mar11. has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, formally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation? I think we should - very soon - but it's your call.

So... l hear that they are predicting nasty weather in DC tomorrow - are we all having just tons of fun?

John r@nrc.gov

, Mark,Banks@nrc.gov Sen.,_,: ,....,,..,.,...,,.,.....,...,,......,.....,.....,....,:00 PM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below in RED Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek Froml(bX6) I [mailtQ...!(b_X6_) - - - - -

Sent: I uesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmayer@orc.gov>; Banks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkac@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1 - We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned.

The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in

May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used-we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITIEE MEETING" and riake it a public document.

We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Group to be discussed at April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and roes.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think It is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree - I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the

ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would It be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the report as an "invited expert"j (b)(6) r )(6)

4/17/2018 RE: Staff Contact for EHCOE

Subject:

RE: Staff Contact for EHCOE Date: 3/21/2018 3:40:26 PM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: !Cb)C6) I John:

I was literally getting ready to type when your email came into my inbox.

Yes, the COE is stood-up within NRO/DSEA. I went and got that Division's roster, and it looks like an email to FOUR of the Branch Chiefs -who are indicated as being in the COE - would work. Daniel Barnhurst is listed as just a Hydrologist, so he is probably the "contact" for that self-assessment memo. We could also include Robert Taylor and Andy Campbell {DSEA Division and Deputy Division Directors) for completeness.

Derek From:!Cb)C6) ~[mallto~

Sent: Wednesday, March ~

To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Senderj Staff Contact for EHCOE Derek, I found an EHCOE one-year self-assessment memo dated October 2, 2017 (ML17243A361 - not attached, since it is not publicly available - haven't read it yet). It indicates that the EHCOE lives in NRO/DSEA and lists Daniel Barnhurst as a point of contact. That's probably a good place to start. (Silly me, I thought the EHCOE was going to be under RES ....)

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/21/2018 4:56:48 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)  !

To: !CbX6)

Cc: Derek.Widmaycr@nrc.gov, !Cb)(6) Ideb l @nrc.gov, Mark.Banks@nrc.gov, John.Stctkar@nrc.gov It's not at all clear to me to whom such an invitation should be addressed. Vic, I guess?

On Mar 21, 2018, at 3:48 PM, Michael Corradini 4._Cb_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ __,f wrote:

Sounds reasonable to me.... John?

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Wjdmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:06 PM To: Michael Corradini Ct: John Stetkar; Dennis Bley; Banks, Mark; Stetkar, John

Subject:

RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff left To Do All:

If we ask/allow the staff to make a presentation - it sounds like maybe 10 minutes per group/individual ? Maybe we should also "coach" em up on what to use the 10 minutes for? (e.g., feedback to ACRS on the conclusions/recommendations in the report - Provide corrections, additions to facts, and other things that should have been covered in submitted written comments for the record?)

An intro9uctory email could tell them they will have 10 minutes on and to provide written corrections, etc. for the record. A follow-up email that informs them the Report is in ADAMS and is reviewable could suggest what to use their 10 minutes for.

Derek From: Michael Corradini [~(bX6)

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 201"' 8""'4""

5"'2""P""'M To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widma-&r@nrc,goy>

Ct: John Stetkar ,tCbX6) *; Dennls Bley <I._Cb_)(__6)_ _ __.l; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John

<John.Stetka r@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[E><ternal_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Leh To Do SEE RED COMMENTS On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Feedback from me in GREEN Derek From~CbX6) 1-m=a-ilt-o.._!Cb_)_

(6_

) -----'

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:08 PM To:!(b)(6) I Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Ccl (b)(6) l Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do 1/5

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do My recoUectlon about our outreach to UCS for the December 2015 societal risk subcommittee meeting Is a bit fuzzy. I'm pretty sure that we did that through an email from John Lai to Dave Lochbaum or Ed Lyman. (I think that we also contacted several others the same way.) We certainly did not send a formal letter invitation. However, this situation is different, considering the ACRS correspondence with Paul Blanch and the NRC Chairman correspondence with Dave Lochbaum.

I agree -a letter from ACRS, Mike is probably appropriate. OK - sounds fine I think that Derek should contact each of them very soon by email, alerting them to the May 3 meeting and Its topic - the working group report on evaluation and review of man-made external hazards. Mike should follow up with confirmatory letters, so we and they have a record of the correspondence. We should also alert them that our working group report will be available In ADAMS, and let them know when It Is.

I will draft up an email with the information that is known at this time. with the ideas expressed in the next paragraph, and circulate. Need to have feedback from Mark and Andrea (if she is going to be around). Gov't offices closed today. OK -

sounds fine I think that we should afford them more than a nominal 5 minutes presentation time. If we have 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> slotted for the topic, then about 15 minutes each seems reasonable, or perhaps 20-25 minutes total if they want to consolidate their comments.

We should also stress that more comprehensive written comments are always appreciated and will be made part of the meeting record. However, I don't want to get mired in details of the Indian Point analysis and review. That Is not the purpose of our working group report or the ACRS briefing. Of course, that belng said, we can't dictate what they present, except to indicate that we will focus on a range of man-made hazards, technical basis for evaluation and review guidance, and consistency of applications of the guidance. That might forestall too much discussion about that one particular analysis. OK

- I would suggest 20-25 min combined We should also alert the staff (not sure who, considering the history), but indicate that we do not expect any presentations from them.

At this point, maybe the contact person for the Natural Hazards COE, who can inform others? OK -

sounds fine Your thoughts? I do think If staff wants to rnako a prosentation

• that would be fine - tell them where the report is found too John In a message dated 3/21/2018 1:02:35 PM Central Standard Time, ._l Cb_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ __,t,vrites:

Derek:

An informal email alerting them seems reasonable.

As for a letter invite, how did Former Chairman Stetkar handle it for the Dec. 1st SC meeting on Societal Risk? UCS presented there and how did they get invited? Was it Ed or John that sent a note to them? I am unsure of that process.

As for the date, Mark has the draft agenda for May (I saw) and this topic is tentatively on the afternoon of May 3rd at 2pm. But that may change.

Mike On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:49 PM , Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goy> wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have contact information for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum, including address, phone and emails, when ( IF?) you decide to infonn them about the May FC session (email) and formally invite (letter) them to address the Committee (or whatever is decided).

2/5

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do I can formulate some sort of draft email that provides the "informing" step - I guess we need to decide what should be in the email - the time slot for the session has not yet been decided, but the dates can be identified. - but are they going to be provided an opportunity to speak (for the usual 5 minutes or more?) and to submit written comments (they can do whatever they want, but did not know whether they would be specifically invited to submit comments)? Also, decide who the "informing* email should come from. (perhaps Andrea would be appropriate? - then letter from Dr. Corradini as chairman?)

We can also tell them in the email they will be getting written invites.

Derek From: iCb)(6) I (mailto ..l(b_X_6)_ _ _ ___.

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:30 PM To: 6 Cc: (bX6) Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc gov>; Stetkar, John

Subject:

(External_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do HI Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during tll'te April retreat. Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report. My primary objective for the April discussion is to answer questions about technical details (if any) and gain a sense of member support for the recommendations.

John

-Original Message- .,,.,..,.,,..-------.

From: Michael Corradini 4(b)(6)

To: John Stetkar <;;,;!(b""'X.;,

6),......_ _ _ _..-_ __.

Cc: Dennis Bley !(b)(6) I Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 201.8 9:00 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April - or - at the minketreat?

Mike On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:29 PM, ...,!(b.._ X._

6)_ _ _ __.! wrote:

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting. Mark has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch end UCS a letter from you, formally aler1ing them to the May mee1ing and inviti1i9 their partlclpallon? I think we should - very soon - but it's your call.

3/5

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do So.. .l hear that they are predicting nasty weather In DC tomorrow - are we all having just tons of fun?

John Fr1rn* Deeek Wdrnavycnrc.goy To: CbX6) Mark.Banks@nrc.gov Sent: 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in 011 the game plan.

Derek From:!Cb)(6) U....ro....ai...lt....0 '4.l;l(b_.).(6"-)_ _ _ ___.

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Ct: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.goV>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1

• We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting. with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I think that It would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them. without maklng It available publicly In ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion In May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossain has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them 'White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents -

but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITIEE MEETING" and make it a public document.

We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I 4/5

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff left To Do suggest this b e the path desired by the Working Group to be discu ssed a! April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the l eadership to agree - I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think It Is appropriate for the Committee, if It so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes?

OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NU REG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other 'QA* steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available In ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP.

The paperwork Is in progress to tennlnate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis wil need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the report as an "Invited expert". I'm CbX6) 5/5

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/21/2018 8:09:32 PM Central Standard Time From: r X6) I To:

Cc: !Cb)(6) IDerek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, !Cb_ ....X6_) _ ____.! Mark.Banks@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov I'm OK with this.

4...

On Mar 21 , 2018, at 4:41 PM, Michael Corradini ~_><_6>_ _ _ _ _ ____.~ wrote:

John:

I like your suggestion and I think staff needs to be given an opportunity and I agree with your time budget:

75 min from working group 20 min from staff 20 min from UCS et al 5 min for public comments If you feel we need to talk in person, then April is best for that. If you are OK with this time budget then contacting the fellow in EHCOE is fine with me.

Mike ICb....)(...,

From: ... 6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:19:59 PM To* Mirbael Coua~ini; Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov cd(bX6) j Mark.Banks@nrc.gov; John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do All, Derek has identified staff names for the EHCOE (in NRO/DSEA, not RES!). He should contact them, alert them to the May meeting, and tell them we will get back to them with details.

Regarding presentations by the staff, I don't know what purpose they would serve. We don't need to hear why they refused to include man-made hazards in the EHCOE - they already told us in writing. The only possible purpose would be to hear their reactions to the observations and recommendations in our report -

on the public record. That might be useful, but if we have only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the staff should have a maximum of about 20-25 minutes. That would provide 75 minutes for our presentation, 20-25 minutes for UCS et.al., and 20-25 minutes for the staff. '

My inclination is to vote "no staff presentation", but I admit they might be offended by not having an opportunity to state their views on the record. What are others' opinions? Should we leave this particular issue until the April meeting?

John In a message dated 3/21/2018 4:48:43 PM Central Standard Time,j._Cb_)<6_>_ _ _ _ _ __,!writes:

1/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Sounds reasonable to me .... John?

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:06 PM To: Michael Corradini Cc: John Stetkar; Dennis Bley; Banks, Mark; Stetkar, John

Subject:

RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do All:

If we ask/allow the staff to make a presentation - it sounds like maybe 10 minutes per group/individual? Maybe we should also "coach" em up on what to use the 10 minutes for

? (e.g., feedback to ACRS on the conclusions/recommendations in the report - Provide corrections, additions to facts, and other things that should have been covered in submitted written comments for the record?)

An introductory email could tell them they will have 10 minutes on and to provide written corrections, etc. for the record. A follow-up email that informs them the Report is in ADAMS and is reviewable could suggest what to use their 1O minutes for.

Derek From: Michael Corradini ._!Cb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:52 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc:!Cb)(6) ~; Dennis Bley !Cb)(6) IBanks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do SEE RED COMMENTS On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Feedback from me in GREEN Derek From:~(6) ~mailto JCbX6)

Sent:ednesday, Marc 21, 2018 3:08 PM To: r (6) !Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc,goy>

Cc:~X6) !Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do 2/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do My recollection about our outreach to UCS for the December 2015 societal risk subcommittee meeting is a bit fuzzy. I'm pretty sure that we did that through an email from John Lai to Dave Lochbaum or Ed Lyman. (I think that we also contacted several others the same way.) We certainly did not send a formal letter invitation. However, this situation is different, considering the ACRS correspondence with Paul Blanch and the NRC Chairman correspondence with Dave Lochbaum.

I agree - a letter from ACRS, Mike is probably appropriate. OK - sounds fine I think that Derek should contact each of them very soon by email, alerting them to the May 3 meeting and its topic - the wor1<ing group report on evaluation and review of man-made external hazards. Mike should follow up with confirmatory letters, so we and they have a record of the correspondence. We should also alert them that our wor1<ing group report will be available in ADAMS, and let them know when it is.

I will draft up an email with th~ information that is known at this time, with the ideas expressed in the next paragraph, and circulate. Need to have feedback from Mark and Andrea (if she is going to be around). Gov't offices closed today. OK -

sounds fine I think that we should afford them more than a nominal 5 minutes presentation time. If we have 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> slotted for the topic. then about 15 minutes each seems reasonable, or perhaps 20-25 minutes total if they want to consolidate their comments. We should also stress that more comprehensive written comments are always appreciated and will be made part of the meeting record. However, I don't want to get mired in details of the Indian Point analysis and review. That is not the purpose of our working group report or the ACRS briefing. Of course, that being said, we can't dictate what they present, except to indicate that we will focus on a range of man-made hazards, technical basis for evaluation and review guidance, and consistency of applications of the guidance. That might forestall too much discussion about that one particular analysis. OK - I would suggest 20-25 min combined We should also alert the staff (not sure who, considering the history), but Indicate that we do not expect any presentations from them.

At this point, maybe the contact person for the Natural Hazards COE, who can inform othe rs? OK - sounds f ine Your thoughts? I do think if staff wants to make a presentation - that would be fine - tell them w here the report is found too John In a message dat ed 3/21/20181:02:35 PM Central Standard Time, JCbX6) !writes:

I Derek:

3/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do An informal email alerting them seems reasonable.

As for a letter invite, how did Former Chairman Stetkar handle it for the Dec. 1st SC meeting on Societal Risk? UCS presented there and how did they get invited? Was it Ed or John that sent a note to them? I am unsure of that process.

As for the date, Mark has the draft agenda for May (I saw) and this topic is tentatively on the afternoon of M 9 y 3rd at 2pm. But that may change.

Mike On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have contact information for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum, including address, phone and emails, when (

IF?) you decide to inform them about the May FC session (email) and formally invite (letter) them to address the Committee (or whatever is decided).

I can formulate some sort of draft email that provides the "informing" step - I guess we need to decide what should be in the email - the time slot for the session has not yet been decided, but the dates can be identified. - but are they going to be provided an opportunity to speak (for the usual 5 minutes or more?) and to submit written comments (they can do whatever they want, but did not know whether they would be specifically invited to submit comments)? Also, decide who the "informing" email should come from. (perhaps Andrea would be appropriate? - then letter from Dr. Corradini as chairman?)

We can also tell them in the email they will be getting written invites.

Derek From!Cb)C6) I[!D.fil.!1QJ....Cb_X6_) _ _ _ ____.

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:30 PM To* CbX6)

Widmayer, Derek

<D""

er"""T...

. ...,...,---....._ r . v>; Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-M ade Hazards - Stuff Left To Do 4/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during the April retreat. Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report. My primary objective for the April discussion is to answer questions about technical details (if any) and gain a sense of member support for the recommendations.

John

---

Original Message- - - - - - - - - -

From: Michael Corradini........CbX6)

To: John Stetkar CbX6)

~'!"'"----"I'""'.'~

Cc: Dennis Bley Cb)C6) Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 9:00 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff left To Do

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April - or - at the mini-retreat?

Mike On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:29 PM,r )C6) Iwrote:

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting. Mark has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, formally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation? I think we should - very soon - but it's your call.

5/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do So.. .I hear that they are predicting nasty weather in DC tomorrow - are we all having just tons of fun?

John Frfm; Derek.Wjdma,er@nrc.gov To _Cb)<6) _ Mark.Banks@

nrc.goy Sent: 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards -

Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek 6)_ , __ _...JI [mailto:j(b)<

l(b__X__

r;;_Fr"'o~m...:...

l(b)(6)

6) I Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 201811:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his Input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1 - We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

619

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do 2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3

• We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. (It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for th~m (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May.

We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy.

We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITTEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working 7/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Group to be discussed at April FC . In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree -

I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer t o it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there 8/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP.

The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the reoort as an "invited exoert". I'm CbX6) 9/9

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

Re: Mao-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/22/2018 8:46:56 AM Central Standard Time Froin: ._!Cb_X6_)______________,

To: Mark.Banks@nrc.gov Cc: !Cb)(6) IDerek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, !Cb ..._X6_) _______.! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Let us know if she wants to talk more about this? I am free at 11-1 pm or 2-4pm today On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov> wrote:

Everyone, Andrea is back in the office today - I've provided her an overview and forwarded the email chain to bring her up-to-date.

Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 From: !(b)(6)  ![~

Sent: Thursda , March 22, 2018 9:26 AM To: (b)(6) Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: (b)(6) Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do I'm OK with this.

Derek, can you please initiate the contacts early next week, after we have the supplemental report references in hand?

Many thanks to all for muddling through this annoyance.

John In a message dated 3/21/2018 5:41:50 PM Central Standard Time, ._!Cb_)<6_) ______________,! writes:

John:

I like your suggestion and I think staff needs to be given an opportunity and I agree with your time budget:

75 min from working group 20 min from staff 20 min from UCS et al 5 min for public comments If you feel we need to talk i n person, then April is best for that. If you are OK with this time budget then contacting the fellow in EHCOE is fine with me.

1/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Mike From1CbX6)

Sent: """

w....e""' 20-1..a....s-:...,

M-a-rc""'h"'"2...1-, ...

d-ne_s_d-ay-, ... 19-:-59.....

PM ,.......

To: Michael Corradini; Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc:!Cb)C6) !Mark.Banks@nrc.gov: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do All, Derek has identified staff names for the EHCOE (in NRO/DSEA, not RES!). He should contact them, alert them to the May meeting, and tell them we will get back to them with details.

Regarding presentations by the staff, I don't know what purpose they would serve. We don't need to hear why they refused to include man-made hazards in the EHCOE - they already told us in writing.

The only possible purpose would be to hear their reactions to the observations and recommendations in our report - on the public record. That might be useful, but if we have only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the staff should have a maximum of about 20-25 minutes. That would provide 75 minutes for our presentation, 20-25 minutes for UCS et.al., and 20-25 minutes for the staff.

My inclination is to vote "no staff presentation", but I admit they might be offended by not having an opportunity to state their views on the record. What are others' opinions? Should we leave this particular issue until the April meeting?

John In~ message dated 3/21/2018 4:48:43 PM Central Standard Time, !CbX6) writes: .___ _ _ _ _ _ ____,

Sounds reasonable to me.... John?

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:06 PM To: Michael Corradini Cc: John Stetkar; Dennis Bley; Banks, Mark; Stetkar, John

Subject:

RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do All:

lfwe ask/allow the staff to make a presentation - it sounds like maybe 10 minutes per group/individual? Maybe we should also "coach" em up on what to use the 10 minutes for? (e.g., feedback to ACRS on the conclusions/recommendations in the report - Provide corrections, additions to facts, and other things that should have been covered in submitted written comments for the record?)

2/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do An introductory email could tell them they will have 10 minutes on and to provide written corrections, etc. for the record. A follow-up email that informs them the Report is in ADAMS and is reviewable could suggest what to use their 10 minutes fo~ '

Derek From: Michael Corradini [!!!fil!1Q;J..,Cb...,,X...,,

6).....-...------'

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:52 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: John Stetkar ~(bX6) ~; Dennis Bley ~(b)(6) t; Banks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do SEE RED COMMENTS On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov> wrote:

Feedback from me in GREEN Derek From: l(bX6) ~mailto:p X6)

Sent: Wednesday, Marc 21, 2018 3:08 PM To:!CbX6) ~ Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widma er nrc. ov>

Cc CbX6) Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks @nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John

<John .Stetka r@n re. gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff left To Do My recollection about our outreach to UCS for the December 2015 societal risk subcommittee meeting is a bit fuzzy. I'm pretty sure that we did that through an email from John Lai to Dave Lochbaum or Ed Lyman. (I think that we also contacted several others the same way.) We certainly did not send a 3/12

4/17/201S Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do formal letter invitation. However, this situation is different, considering the ACRS correspondence with Paul Blanch and the NRC Chairman correspondence with Dave Lochbaum.

I agree - a letter from ACRS, Mike is probably appropriate. OK -

sounds fine I think that Derek should contact each of them very soon by email, alerting them to the May 3 meeting and its topic - the working group report on evaluation and review of man-made external hazards. Mike should follow up with confirmatory letters, so we and they have a record of the correspondence. We should also alert them that our working group report will be available in ADAMS, and let them know when it is.

I will draft up an email with the information that is known at this time, with the ideas expressed in the next paragraph, and circulate. Need to have feedback from Mark and Andrea (if she is going to be around). Gov't offices closed today. OK - sounds fine I think that we should afford them more than a nominal 5 minutes presentation time. If we have 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> slotted for the topic, then about 15 minutes each seems reasonable, or perhaps 20-25 minutes total if they want to consolidate their comments. We should also stress that more comprehensive written comments are always appreciated and will be made part of the meeting record. However, I don't want to get mired in details of the Indian Point analysis and review. That is not the purpose of our working group report or the ACRS briefing. Of course, that being said, we can't dictate what they present, except to indicate that we will focus on a range of man-made hazards, technical basis for evaluation and review guidance, and consistency of applications of the guidance. That might forestall too much discussion about that one particular analysis. OK - I would suggest 20-25 min combined We should also alert the staff (not sure who, considening the history), but indicate that we do not expect any presentations from them.

At this point, maybe the contact person for the Natural Hazards COE, who can inform others? OK - sounds fine Your thoughts? I do think if staff wants to make a presentation

• that would be fine - tell them where the report is found too 4/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do John In a message dated 3/21/ 2018 1:02:35 PM Central Standard Tlme,r X6) 'writes:

Derek:

An informal email alerting them seems reasonable.

As for a letter invite, how did Former Chairman Stetkar handle it for the Dec. 1st SC meeting on Societal Risk? UCS presented there and how did they get invited? Was it Ed or John that sent a note to them? I am unsure of that process.

As for the date, Mark has the draft agenda for May (I saw) and this topic is tentatively on t he afternoon of May 3rd at 2pm.

But that may change.

Mike On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Wi dmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Gentlemen:

I have contact information for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum, including address, phone and emails, when ( IF?) you decide to inform them about the May FC session (email) and formally invite (letter) them to address the Committee (or whatever is decided).

5/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do I can formulate some sort of draft email that provides the "informing" step - I guess we need to decide what should be in the email - the time slot for the session has not yet been decided, but the dates can be identified. - but are they going to be provided an opportunity to speak (for the usual 5 minutes or more?) and to submit written comments (they can do whatever they want, but did not know whether they would be specifically invited to submit comments)? Also, decide who the "informing" email should come from. (perhaps Andrea would be appropriate? - then letter from Dr. Corradini as chairman?)

We can also tell them in the email they will be getting written invites.

Derek From~(b)(6) I'-'-'[=ma:..:il.,_,

. : to<-1.!(b_)<

_6)_ _ _ _..J m]

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 12:30 PM To: (bX6)

Cc: (bX6) Widmayer, Derek

<Dere . 1 ma er nrc. ov>; Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Hi Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during the April retreat. Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report. My primary objective for the April discussion is to answer questions about technical details (if any) and gain a sense of member support for the recommendations.

John 6/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

-Original Message- ,.,,.,..,.,,....---------.

From: Michael Corradini CbX6)

To: John Stetkar ""Cb")(""'

""'6)........_ _ _ _"""'T"_ __.

Cc: Dennis Bley Cb)(6) Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 9:00 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April

- or - at the mini-retreat?

Mike On Mar 20, 201 8, at 5:29 PMr )C6) !wrote:

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting. Mark has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 - Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, formally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation? I 7112

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do think we should - very soon - but it's your call.

So... l hear that they are predicting nasty weather in DC tomorrow - are we all having just tons of fun?

John From: Derek.Widmayer@n To: {b)(6)

~av Banks@nrc.gov Sent: 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below in RED. Copying Mark.

Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

Derek From: l(b)(6) t_Qj(bX6)

I (.mgil Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov>;

Banks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

8112

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

[External_Sender]

Man-Made Hazards - Stuff left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1 - We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee meeting {currently slotted for Saturday morning).

No further changes to the report are planned. The Intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly {I think). This is a key item, since we're planning to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter.

We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend. {It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for them {and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time 9/12

4/17/201 8 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it.

Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, but that gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records. I suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy.

We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITIEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Group to be discussed at April FC.

In t he meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS . If you think it is the right thing to do - I suppose 10/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree

- I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the

• Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS. "

I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission? Perhaps discuss this in April.

11/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do Diel I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go t o a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other <<QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the report as an "invited expert".

CbX5) 12/12

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Date: 3/22/2018 8:59:07 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6)

To:  !(b)(6) IMark.Banks@nrc.gov Cc: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, !(b)( 6) IJohn.Stetkar@nrc.gov I have a couple of errands to run today, but I can work around any time, if Andrea thinks that it is worthwhile to talk.

John In a message dated 3/22/2018 8:46:56 AM Central Standard Time,!(b_ ... )<5_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _!writes:

Let us know if she wants to talk more about this? I am free at 11-1 pm or 2-4pm today On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:36 AM, Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov> wrote:

Everyone, Andrea is back in the office today - I've provided her an overview and forwarded the email chain to bring her up-to-date.

Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 fax 301-415-5589 From: !(b)(6)  ![~(bX6)

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:*2_s....

A..,

M.------

To:/CbX6) ~ idmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: (bX6) !Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

(External_Sender) Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do I'm OK with this.

1/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, can you please initiate the contacts early next week, after we have the supplemental report references in hand?

Many thanks to all for muddling through this annoyance.

John 6

In~ message dated 3/21 /2018 5:41 :50 PM Central Standard Time,r X) wntes: *'-----------'

John:

I like your suggestion and I think staff needs to be given an opportunity and I agree with your time budget:

75 min from working group 20 min from staff 20 min from UCS et al 5 min for public comments If you feel we need to talk in person, then April is best for that. If you are OK with this time budget then contacting the fellow in EHCOE is fine with me.

Mike From!._(b_)<6...,)-,-....,...---,--------------'

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 5:19:59 PM To: Michael Corradini; Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov Cc~(b)(6) t Mark.Banks@ nrc.goy: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do All, Derek has identified staff names for the EHCOE (in NRO/DSEA, not RES!). He should contact them, alert them to the May meeting, and tell them we will get back to them with details.

Regarding presentations by the staff, I don't know what purpose they would serve. We don't need to hear why they refused to include man-made hazards In the EHCOE - they already told us in writing. The only possible purpose would be to hear their reactions to the observations and recommendations in our report - on the public record. That might be useful, but if we have only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, the staff should have a maximum of about 20-25 2/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do minutes. That would provide 75 minutes for our presentation, 20-25 minutes for UCS et.al.,

and 20-25 minutes for the staff.

My inclination is to vote "no staff presentation", but I admit they might be offended by not having an opportunity to state their views on the record. What are others' opinions?

Should we leave this particular issue until the April meeting?

John In a message dated 3/21/2018 4:48:43 PM Central Standard Time,

!(b)(6) !writes:

Sounds reasonable to me.... John?

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:06 PM To: Michael Corradini Cc: John Stetkar; Dennis Bley; Banks, Mark; Stetkar, John

Subject:

RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do All:

If we ask/allow the staff to make a presentation - it sounds like maybe 10 minutes per group/individual ? Maybe we should also "coach" em up on what to use the 10 minutes for? (e.g., feedback to ACRS on the conclusions/recommendations in the report - Provide corrections, additions to facts, and other things that should have been covered in submitted written comments for the record?)

An introductory email could tell them they will have 10 minutes on and to provide written corrections, etc. for the record. A follow-up email that informs them the Report is in ADAMS and is reviewable could suggest what to use their 10 minutes for.

Derek 3/15

4/1712018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do From: Michael Corradini [,. . m., ,_a.. .,il,t.,,,

o_.. JCb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ __

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 4:52 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

6 Cc: John Stetkar <JCbX6)  !; Dennis Bley !CbX )  !: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do SEE RED COMMENTS On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Feedback from me in GREEN Derek From:!CbX6) !mailto j,_Cb_)<6_) _ _ _ ____.

Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 3:08 PM To:!CbX6) ~ Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: !CbX6) I Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>;

Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do My recollection about our outreach to UCS for the December 2015 societal risk subcommittee meeting is a bit fuzzy. I'm pretty sure that we did that through an email from John Lai to Dave Lochbaum or Ed Lyman. (I think that we also contacted several others the same way.) We certainly did not send a fomial letter invitation. However, this situation is different, considering the ACRS correspondence with Paul Blanch and the NRC Chaim,an correspondence with Dave Lochbaum.

I agree - a letter from ACRS, Mike is probably appropriate. OK - sounds fine 4/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do I think that Derek should contact each of them very soon by email, alerting them to the May 3 meeting and its topic - the working group report on evaluation and review of man-made external hazards.

Mike should follow up with confirmatory letters, so we and they have a record of the correspondence. We should also alert them that our working group report will be available in ADAMS, and let them know when it is.

I will draft up an email with the information that is known at this time, with the ideas expressed in the next paragraph, and circulate. Need to have feedback from Mark and Andrea (if she is going to be around). Gov't offices closed today. OK - sounds fine I think that we should afford them more th*an a nominal 5 minutes presentation time. If we have 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> slotted for the topic, then about 15 minutes each seems reasonable, or perhaps 20-25 minutes total if they want to consolidate their comments. We should also stress that more comprehensive written comments are always appreciated and will be made part of the meeting record. However, I don't want to get mired in details of the Indian Point analysis and review. That is not the purpose of our working group report or the ACRS briefing. Of course, that being said, we can't dictate what they present, except to indicate that we will focus on a range of man-made hazards, technical basis for evaluation and review guidance, and consistency of applications of the guidance. That might forestall too much discussion about that one particular analysis. OK - 1would suggest 20-25 min combined We should also alert the staff (not sure who, considering the history),

but indicate that we do not expect any presentations from them.

At this point, maybe the contact person for the Natural Hazards COE, who can inform others? OK - sounds fine Your thoughts? I do think if staff wants to make a presentation - that would be fine - tell them where the report is found too John 5/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do In a message dated 3/21/2018 1:02:35 PM Central Standard Time,!CbX6) !writes:

Derek:

An informal email alerting them seems reasonable.

As for a letter invite, how did Former Chairman Stetkar handle it for the Dec. 1st SC meeting on Societal Risk?

UCS presented there and how did t hey get invited?

Was it Ed or John that sent a note to them? I am unsure of that process.

As for the date, Mark has the draft agenda for May (I saw) and this topic is tentatively on t he afternoon of May 3rd at 2pm. But that may change.

Mike On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer @nrc.gov> wrote:

Gentlemen:

i have contact information for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum. including address, phone and emails, when ( IF?) you decide to inform them about the May FC session (email) and formally invite (letter) them to address the Committee (or whatever is decided) 6/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do I can formulate some sort of draft email that provides the "informing" step - I guess we need to decide what should be in the email - the time slot for the session has not yet been decided, but the dates can be identified. - but are they going to be provided an opportunity to speak (for the usual 5 minutes or more?) and to submit written comments (they can do whatever they want, but did not know whether they would be specifically invited to submit comments)? Also, decide who the "informing" email should come from.

(perhaps Andrea would be appropriate? -

then letter from Dr. Corradini as chairman?)

We can also tell them in the email they will be getting written invites.

Derek

..;.F.,., ~ : !Cb ro:;,..m =X =6=) . - - - - -...1[~

ICbX6) I Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 201812:30 PM To: CbX6)

Widmayer, Derek

<Dere .Wi mayer@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do HI Mike, As Dennis noted, we should contact Paul Blanch and Dave Lochbaum ASAP to alert them to the May meeting.

I think that we should elicit comments from the members during the April retreat. Unless there are egregious errors, we don't plan any major changes to the report. My primary objective for the April discussion is to answer questions about technical details (if any) and gain a sense of member support for the 7/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do l(bX6)

John

--Original Message--

From: Michael Corradini

!(bX6) ~

To: John Stetkar !(b)(6)

Cc: Dennis Bley ~l(b::;::;

)(6;;::)= = = = : : : : ; - -

Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 9:00 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do

Dear John:

ITEM #3: I am OK with the game plan and alerting Blanch and UCS. As I remember UCS sent Its note to the Commission and the Chairman told them of our intentions.

Do you want comments from the members before April - or - at the mini-retreat?

Mike On Mar 20, 2018, at 5:29 PM, !(bX6) Iwrote:

Dennis and Mike, FYI - Trying to firm up logistics leading to the May meeting.

8/15

4/17/2018 Re: Ma~Made Hazards - stuff Left To Do Mark has agreed with Derek's approach.

Mike - Please look at Item 3 -

Should we send Paul Blanch and UCS a letter from you, formally alerting them to the May meeting and inviting their participation? I think we should -

very soon - but it's your call.

So...l hear that they are predicting nasty weather in DC tomorrow - are we all having just tons of fun?

John From: Derek.Widm ayer@nrc.gov Tof )<6) m, Mark.Banks@nrc.

gov Sent: 3/20/2018 12:53:00 PM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do John:

I have answered below i n RED. Copying Mark. Once we seem to be on the same page, we should probably let Andrea in on the game plan.

9115

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Mede Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do Derek From:f(b

)(6) m rrnailto:l(bX6) 1(bX6) 1----

Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 11:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmaver@n

~ > ; Banks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.go y>

Cc: Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc.g QY> .

Subject:

[External_Se nder] Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do Derek, I've copied Mark on this to get his input on the logistics.

So here's my current understanding of what will transpire over the next 6-1/2 weeks:

1 - We finalize the report and the supplement - to be done this week. Acknowledged.

2 - We discuss the report with the members during an internal session at the April full committee 10/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do meeting (currently slotted for Saturday morning). No further changes to the report are planned. The intent is to make sure the members have time to ask questions and to develop a sense of support for an ACRS letter in May. Agreed.

3 - We make the report available publicly (I think). This is a key item, since we're plannlng to have a public discussion during the May full committee meeting, with perhaps an ACRS letter. We certainly need to alert at least Paul Blanch and UCS to that meeting, so they can plan to attend.

(It's already pretty late for that.) I think that it would be a good idea for them (and the staff) to see the report before the May meeting, so they have time to prepare comments. I don't know any other way to get the report to them, without making it available publicly in ADAMS. If we're going to do that, we'll need to at least slap a cover on it. Perhaps we make this decision at the April meeting, butthat gives us only 4 weeks until the public discussion in May. We would need to very busy, very early during the week of April 9.

11/15

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do In two recent examples, Hossein has finalized detailed technical documents and we have internally called them "White Papers." We have a folder in ADAMS where they are kept as records.

suggest we do this to the two Working Group reports - we can just use the same cover and format he used - we will need to make a Table of Contents - but that is easy. We can put it into ADAMS in that folder as a Committee Working Draft with a header that says "FOR DISCUSSION AT MAY 2018 FULL COMMITTEE MEETING" and make it a public document. We can do this as soon as needed to make it available to the public, I suggest this be the path desired by the Working Group to be discussed at April FC. In the meantime, we can get them ready with the Covers and TOCs.

I suppose we should contact the two interested parties ASAP with a heads up and then notify them as soon as the draft report is up in ADAMS. If you think it is the right thing to 12/16

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - Stuff Left To Do do - I suppose we should get at least Dennis and the Leadership to agree -

I can contact them (Blanch and UCS) to provide an early notification that the subject will be in May. Then a formal letter that goes out under Mike would probably be desirable (as part of the record of the FINAL responses to the incomings).

4 - Discussion during May full committee meeting, with possible ACRS letter or working group letter.

I think it is appropriate for the Committee, if it so chooses, to send a letter to the Commission, and attach the Final Report - I would leave the Supplemental Report in ADAMS, not attach it. I think it is okay to refer to it as "The Working Group Report" when it would be tiresome to keep providing the full Title. I am not aware of anything going to the Commission or EDO from a "working group of the ACRS."

13/15

411712018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

• Stuff Left To Do I wonder if we should allow the two stakeholders mentioned above added time at the May Full Committee meeting, more than 5 minutes? OR would it be better to tell them the ACRS report is final, they have 5 minutes at the meeting, and they should send any comments to the Commission?

Perhaps discuss this in April.

Did I miss anything?

I don't think so. As for your PS - I think these logistics will work. If there was a desire to go to a NUREG report, that would substantially delay things, to include a technical editor and other "QA" steps required.

What are your thoughts on how we get things done? In particular, what are your thoughts about making the report available in ADAMS before the May meeting?

John 14115

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards - stuff Left To Do P.S., If the logistics seem impossible, we need to settle on a clear Plan B ASAP. The paperwork is in progress to terminate me, effective May 5. If the ACRS meeting on this topic is pushed to June or July, either Dennis will need to take the lead, or perhaps I could present the report as an "invited expert".

CbX6) 15/15

4/17/2018 Re: Draft Supplemental Report with References Included.

Subject:

Re: Draft Supplemental Report with References Included.

Date: 3/22/2018 1:12:58 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Got it.

Thanks!!!!!

John In a message dated 3/22/2018 1:11 :14 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc. gov writes:

I added references - did not change the version number. Everything is the same except I replaced all the Xs where they referred to a reference.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRSffechnical Support Branch i.;..!)C6.;...

Cb;.;. ) _ _ _.I (cell) derek.widmaver@nrc.~ov 1/1

From: Wldmaver, Derek To:  !(b)(6)

Subject:

Draft Supplemental Report with References Induded. Note: The entire 48-page draft of the Date: Thursday, March 22, 2018 2:11:00 PM Supplemental Information is withheld in its Attachments: Working Group Report suppJeroent

• Draft Rey, J,docx entirety under FO IA exemption 5.

I added references - did not change the version number. Everything is the same except I replaced all the Xs where they referred to a reference.

Deha.Jt. ell-. w ~

ACRS(Technical Support Branch i(b)(6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@orc.gov

Fn1m:

To:

I t Ronald GBaHlnaer.

CC: John.St!!tkar@nrc.goy

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report - Supplemental Information Note : The entire 48-page draft Supplemental Date: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:48:01 AM Information is withheld in its entirety under Attachments: Working Groua Report supplement - Draft Rey. 1,dOQ{ FO IA exemption 5.

Colleagues, Attached for your information is a compilation of supplemental infonnation that will be added as Appendix G of our working group report. Derek collected and summarized this infomtation when we formed the working group. It provides useful context, especially for readers who are not familiar with the SRP.

regulatory guides, etc. This material does not contain any working group technical evaluations, and we will not discuss It during the Aprll retreat session. It's being distributed later than the main report and the other appendices because Derek has been rather busy during the last few weeks, and he needed to do some final formatting for the references.

This is all of it ... I promise.

John

From: Widmaver. Derek To: l(b)(6) I

Subject:

Report covers Date: Friday, March 23, 2018 10:42:00 AM Attachments: MaioReporteoyer.docx SuoplementaJReoorteover docx John:

If you are Interested - I made these Report Covers using the Template from Hossein"s "White Papers." Might be good to be consistent?

DeJr.elt. cl/-. ~clMCa11c~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!CbX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov

Evaluation of External Man-Made Hazards Main Report Prepared By Working Group on External Man-Made Hazards Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards March 2018 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Evaluation of External Man-Made Hazards Supplemental Report Prepared By Working Group on External Man-Made Hazards Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards March 2018 Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

From: Michael Corradini To: Widmayer. Derek

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Re: Draft email for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum Date: Friday, March 23, 2018 1:45:08 PM Looks good to me On Mar 23, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek,Widmayer@nrc.~oy>

wrote:

All:

I cranked out a DRAFT EMAIL FOR BLANCH I LOCHBAUM, UC$, below._

Please provide any comments, changes, feedback. I will consolidate the comments if I receive any and provide a 2nd draft before I send it out.

Derek

Dear Mr. Blanch/Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced two draft reports, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is Inviting you to provide a 10-minute presentation in response to the draft reports. The draft reports will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) shortly.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number(s) for the reports and details on where you should send your presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to tlhis email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

1Jeh.e.k ell-. w~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCb)C6) I (cell) derek,widmayer@nre.gov

4/17/2018 Re: Oran email for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum

Subject:

Re: Draft email for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum Date: 3/24/2018 9:03:18 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: tX 6

)  ! Derek.Widrnayer@nrc.gov, andrea.veil@nrc.gov, ark.Bariks@nrc.gov, !CbX6) I Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Dear John:

Your suggestions sound fine to me. I guess I assumed they would provide written comments, but explicitly asking them is smart.

Mike From:!Cb)(6) ~

Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2018 9:00:35 AM To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov: andreai.veil@nrc.gov: Mark.Banks@nrc.gov: Michael Corradini; j(b)(6)

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov .....__ _ ___.

Subject:

Re: Draft email for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum Looks good. I have only three comme*nts.

(1) I think that it makes sense to include the supplemental information as Appendix G of the working group report. That provides background and context for tlhe report, and it is useful information for many readers. We can discuss that in April.

For these emails, it's less confusing if we cite only one working group report. If we later decide to keep the supplemental information separate, we can always tell folks where to find that report.

(2) We should encourage Mr. Blanch and Mr. Lochbaum to provide written comments to the Committee and note that those comments will be included in the meeting record. That reduces the time pressure for a 10-minute oral presentation.

(3) As for timing of filing the report in ADAMS, we should probably wait until after the April retreat session, in case some of that discussion prompts last-minute tweaks. Rather than say the report will be available "shortly", it might be better to say "in early April". We should shoot for early in the week of April 9.

John In a message dated 3/23/2018 10:52:43 AM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

All:

I cranked out a DRAFT EMAIL FOR BLANCH/ LOCHBAUM. UCS. below._

Please provide any comments, changes, feedback. I will consolidate the comments if I receive any and provide a 2nd draft before I send it out.

Derek

Dear Mr. Blanch/Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced two draft reports, the results of which 112

4/17/2018 Re: Draft email for Mr Blanch and Mr Lochbaum will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 653rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide a 10-minute presentation in response to the draft reports. The draft reports will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) shortly.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number(s) for the reports and details on where you should send your presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!Cb)C6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov 2/2

From:

To:

Subject:

~:~av:r Recek

na are you?

I Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:31:00 AM I am "Senior Staff Scientist" (sort of leftover from ACNW&M).

From:!(bX6)  ![mailto l...(b_X6_)_ _ _ ___.

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 5:33 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) What are you?

Hey, Are you officially a "Senior Staff Engineer" or a "Senior Staff Scientist"?

Wouldn't want to inadvertently disparage your position - I've added a list of names up front, and Section 3 of the report currently mentions a "senior sta ff engineer".

I'm pressed for time this afternoon/ evening. I'll read the draft Blanch / Lochbaum e-mail tomorrow morning.

John

4/17/2018 RE: Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum

Subject:

RE: Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blancb/Lochbaum Date: 3/26/2018 8:44:24 AM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: r X6) I Oh yeah - Thanks.

From~CbX6) I(= i lt=o _jCb_)<6_) _ _ _ __.

m=a=

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 9:35 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>;!Cb)(6) l!CbX6) lBanks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Veil, Andrea <andrea.veU@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

(External_Sender] Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum Derek, Looks fine to me, except only one ADAMS accession number and one report in the paragraph that starts with "This email will be followed...."

Thanks, John In a message dated 3/26/2018 8:27:47 AM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc,1NVwrites:

All:

I have incorporated comments from John in a revised draft - redline/strikeout version below. If I don't received any additional comments I will send out this version (clean) at Noon today.

Derek

Dear Mr. Blanch/Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards '(ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produceci twe a draft reports-, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the a53rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft reports.

The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft reports will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS} 9l=lertly in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number(s} for the reports and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

1/2

4/17/2018 RE: Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!Cb)C6) I(eel I) derek.wjdmayer@nrc.fjOV Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Teclmical Support Branch

!Cb)C6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov 2/2

4/17/2018 Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum

Subject:

Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum Date: 3/26/2018 9:02:21 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, ._!Cb_X6_>_ _ _ _____.! ._! Cb_X6_> _ _ __.l Mark.Banks@nrc.gov, andrea.veil@nrc.gov Looks good to me.

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: MondaY, March 26, 2018 8:27:44 AM To~Cb)(6) IMichael Corradini; DENNIS BLEY (J._Cb_><_6>_ _ _ _~; Banks, Mark; Veil, Andrea

Subject:

REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum All:

I have incorporated comments from John in a revised draft- redline/strikeout version below. If I don't received any additional comments I will send out this version (clean) at Noon today.

Derek

Dear Mr. Blanch/Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced tw9 a draft reports. the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft reports. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft reports will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) SRefUy in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number(s) for the reports and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3 rd.

Thank you in advance.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch ICbX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov Derek A. Widmayer 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: REVISED Draft Email to Blanch/Lochbaum ACRS/Technlcal Support Branch ilb)C6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov 2/2

4/17/2018 Fwd: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1 :30 PM (EOM)

Subject:

Fwd: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: 3/26/2018 3:12:04 PM Central Standard Time From:  !(b)(6) I To:  !(b)C6)

===

:::::;----:----:--

Cc: I...

(b_) (6_) _ _ _ _ ____,! Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov DENNIS - DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE ON MAY 3rd - or - POSTPONE. I AM FINE EITHER WAY.

SEE DEREK's NOTE. MIKE Begin forwarded message:

From: !(bX6) I

Subject:

Invitation email's sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: March 26, 2018 at 1:44:45 PM CDT To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov -1(b-X6-) --------.L 6)

Cc: <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

I rx Derek, Mike, and Dennis, That's unfortunate, considering his long involvement with the pipeline issue.

I don't think that we have any flexibility on the date, unless Mike and Dennis decide otherwise. We're trying to get this wrapped up before I leave the Committee, which will be effective May 5. If we postpone the Full Committee briefing, Dennis would need to take the lead, or I would need to be called in as an "invited expert" or something similar. That's certainly feasible, if we collectively think that it is important for Mr. Blanch to attend the meeting.

I'm sensitive to the relatively short notice for the meeting. Written comments are often better than short oral presentations, so we would not necessarily lose the benefit of his technical input. However, speaking on the record at the meeting is important to some people. I'm on the fence regarding postponement until a date when Mr. Blanch can attend, leaning slightly in favor of postponement.

Mike and Dennis - What do you think?

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 1:24:04 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

Gentlemen:

I already heard back (emall) from Paul Blanch that he wlll be unavallable (out of the country) on May 3rd. Do we have any flexibility in changing the date or should I tell him to submit written comments for the record and see if he has anyone he works with that could present for him (I see he cc'd the email from me to several folks).?

Any other ideas ?

Derek 1/2

4/17/2018 Fwd: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and OLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM) 212

4/17/2018 Re: Invitation emails sent to PB1anch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Subject:

Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: 3/26/2018 12:49:09 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks!

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 12:45:40 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.~oy writes:

1/1

From: Wldmaw. Derek To: Mike Corradini ~(b )(6) l;!(b)(6) !DENNISBLEY d(b)(6)

Cc: Yell, Andrea: Banks Mads

Subject:

Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dl.ochbalXtl today att 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:45:00 PM

4/17/2018 FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Date: 3/26/2018 3:09:39 PM Central Standard Time From: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov To: i(b)(6) I "'"l (b,..;:

)(6"""

) - - - - - -...ullii'." (b)v,;

(6') - - - ,

From: Dave Lochbaum [1]

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:25 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Dear Mr. Widmayer:

I appreciate the invitation and am pleased to accept it. I have been monitoring this topic and look forward to reviewing the draft Working Group report to add to my awareness.

I intend on submitting a written report as well as making the 10-minute presentation during the May 3rd meeting.

Thanks, Dave Lochbaum ucs From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:42:17 PM To: Dave Lochbaum

Subject:

Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as a

well as 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

This email will be.followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

Derek A. Widmayer Senior Staff Scientist ACRS/Technical Support Branch ICbX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov 1/1

4/17/2018 FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Date: 3/26/2018 3:11 :04 PM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: l(b)(6) 11- ) - - - - - -.......11...

(b-)(6'"" (b-)(6_) _ _ _.......

It looks like we can keep the session in the meeting in May (unless you really want to have Paul there).

From: Paul [mailtol(bX6)

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:38 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Dave A Lochbaum <!(b)(6) ~

Cc: Paul Blanch (b)(6)  ; Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haagensen@nrc.gov>; Lawrence Criscione (b)(6)  ; Amy Rosmarin <!(bX6) * ~; Susan Babdolden <l(bX6) h susan van dolsen (b)(6)  ; Richard Webster <rwebster@riverkeeper.org>; Maggie Coulter

<mcoulter@riverkeeper.org>; Paul Gallay <pgallay@riverkeeper.org>; Ellen Weininger <eewgrassroots@aol.com>; Bill Corcoran <williamcorcoran@sbcglobal.net>; Michael Quinn <mdg@scwe.net>; Suzannah Glidden

<suzannahglidden@optonline.net>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek:

I am going to attempt to rearrange my schedule but not overly optimistic I can do so.

I just talked to Dave Lochbaum who is also invited to speak before the ACRS. Dave bas agreed to present my position on the gas lines as related to Indian Point and Turkey Point. His views are similar to mine.

Our presentations will be somewhat independent of the other.

My preference for the full ACRS meeting would be the June dates but I am also available in July.

Paul Blanch (b)(6)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc. gov> wrote:

Paul:

The Committee is sensitive to the short notice for the meeting - they are juggling a lot or work and one of th~ key members of this Working Group is leaving the Committee shortly.

It might be helpful to know the answers to a couple of questions concerning your request:

(1) The Committee would consider any written comments submitted to be more beneficial that whatever you can "sq ueeze" into a 10 minute presentation - so the question is, "Is there anyone you work with that you would trust to provide your 1O minute presentation for you

?"

1/3

4/17/2018 FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

(2) The following are the dates for the following two (2) Full Committee meetings of the ACRS, which of these are you available for (the specific time will have to be decided later)? The Committee does not meet in August.

a. June 6 thru 8

b. July 11 thru 13 I have already started a conversation of the ACRS leadership on whether this session can be postponed.

Derek From: Paul Blanch ~!m~a=ilt=o-1..l(b_X_6)_ _ _ _ ____.

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:54 PM To: Amy Rosmarin 1(b)(6) l>; Haagensen, Brian <Brian.Haa ensen Dave Lochbaum <dlochbaum@ucsusa.oq~>; Lawrence Criscione ._(b_X6_) _ _ _ _ _ ____.

Maggie Co~ter <mcoultec@rjverkeep.er.or_g>; Richard Webster <rwebster@riverkeeper.org>; Susan Babdolden ~(b)(6) ~ ; Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer(@nrc. gov>; susan van 0

dolsen <l{bX6) J>

Subject:

[Externa'i_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek Can we discuss this and possibly change the date as I will be out of the country?

Possibly we could talk sometime later today.

I will call you later.

Paul On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:41 PM Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Dear Mr. Blanch:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made 1 External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the a53rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd_

Thank you in advance.

Derek A. Widmayer Senior Staff Scientist 2/3

4/17/2018 FW. Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

ACRSffechnical Support Branch

!CbX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc. ~ov 3/3

From: Widmayer. Derek To: Veil Andrea

Subject:

FW: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:44:00 PM From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:42 PM To: 'dloch baum@ucsusa.org' <dloch ba um@ucsusa.org>

Subject:

Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the e53rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional infomnation. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your wrUten comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

1Jch.cA of-. w~

Senior Staff Scientist ACRS/fechnical Support Branch iCb)(6) I(cell) derek widmaver@nrc gov

From: Widmayer. Derek To: Yell Andrea

Subject:

FW: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Date: Monday, Marett 26, 2018 4:44:00 PM From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:41 PM To: l(bX6)

Subject:

Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Dear Mr. Blanch:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

De.he.It. t:11-. W ~

Senior Staff Scientist ACRS/Technical Support Branch j(bX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov

4/17/2018 Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Subject:

Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: 3/26/2018 5:43:51 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: !CbX6) !l....

Cb_X6_) _ _ _.....

Cc: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Works for me.

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 4:35:45 PM Central Standard Time~.... :_

)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _____,F tes:

Dennis: OK, we will go ahead and do it as planned in May FC. Mike On Mar 26, 2018, at 4:10 PM, DENNIS BLEY 4 CbX6)  ! wrote:

It should go ahead, as planned. He can submit written comments. (He could also make a statement at the May full committee meeting, if the committee decides to write a letter at that time.)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:44 PM, !Cb_ ...)<6_) _ _ _ __.! wrote:

Derek, Mike, and Dennis, That's unfortunate, considering his long involvement with the pipeline issue.

I don't think that we have any flexibility on the date, unless Mike and Dennis decide otherwise. We're trying to get this wrapped up before I leave the Committee, which will be effective May 5. If we postpone the Full Committee briefing, Dennis would need to take the lead, or I would need to be called In as an "invited expert" or something similar. That's certainly feasible, if we collectively think that it is important for Mr.

Blanch to attend the meeting.

I'm sensitive to the relatively short notice for the meeting. Written comments are often better than short oral presentations, so we would not necessarily lose the benefit of his technical input. However, speaking on the record at the meeting is important to some people. I'm on the fence regarding postponement until a date when Mr. Blanch can attend, leaning slightly in favor of postponement.

Mike and Dennis - What do you think?

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 l :24:04 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmaver@nrc.~oy writes:

Gentlemen:

I already heard back (email) from Paul Blanch that he will be unavailable (out of the country) on May 3rd. Do we have any flexibility in changing the date or should I tell him to submit written comments for 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM) the record and see if he has anyone he works with that could present for him (I see he cc'd the email from me to several folks).? Any other ideas?

Derek 2/2

From: Snodderly. Michael To: Widmayer Derek Cc: Banks. Mark; Yen. Andrea

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Date: Monday, March 26, 201B 5:56:27 PM

Derek, Please see Brian's comment below. Looks like you have shown up on Brian's radar. Have you or your working group made anyone in NRR aware of your upcoming report?

Thanks, Mike From: Holian, Brian Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:51 PM To: Lund, Louise <Louise.Lund@nrc.gov>; Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evans@nrc.gov>

Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@nrc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael <Michael.Snodderly@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Louise et al Is NRR working this report with ACRS .. . see below "man made hazards" Just want some background Thx Brian H

_)_<6_) - - - - - - - - '

From: Paul [_m_a_i!t_o..,,J(b Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:38 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Dave A Lochbaum

< (bX6)

Cc: Paul Blanch (bX6) >* Haagensen, Brian <Brjan.Haagensen@nrc gov>;

L-_r,:o= -------.......,

Lawrence Criscione (bX6) >; Amy Rosmarin (b)(6)  ; Susan 5 5 Babdolden )( )  ; susan van dolsen < (bX )  ; Richard Webster

<rwebster@riverkeeoer.org>; Maggie Coulter <mcoulter@rlverkeeoer.oqp; Paul Gallay

<ogal!ay@rjyerkeeper,org>; Ellen Weininger <eewgrassroots@aoLcom>; Bill Corcoran

<williamcorcorao@sbcglobal net>; Michael Quinn <mdq@scwe net>; Suzannah Glidden

<suzaooahg liddeo@opton Iine.net>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek:

I am going to attempt to rearrange my schedule but not overly optimistic I can do so.

I just talked to Dave Lochbaum who is also invited to speak before the ACRS. Dave has agreed to present my position on the gas lines as related to Indian Point and Turkey Point. His views are similar to mine.

Our presentations will be somewhat independent of the other.

My preference for the full ACRS meeting would be the June dates but I am also available in July.

Paul Blanch (bX6)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrq~oy>

wrote:

Paul:

The Committee is sensitive to the short notice for the meeting - they are Juggling a lot or work and one of the key members of this Working Group is leaving the Committee shortly.

It might be helpful to know the answers to a couple of questions concerning your request:

(1) The Committee would consider any written comments submitted to be more beneficial that whatever you can "squeeze" into a 10 minute presentation - so the question is, "Is there anyone you work with that you would trust to provide your 10 minute presentation for you ?"

(2) The following are the dates for the following two (2) Full Committee meetings of the ACRS, which of these are you available for (the specific time will have to be decided later)? The Committee does not meet In August.

a. June 6 thru 8

b. July 11 thru 13 I have already started a conversation of the ACRS leadership on whether this session can be postponed.

Derek From: Paul Blanch [m..ai!N4._ )<6_)

(b_ _ _ _ _ __ .

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:54 PM To: Amy Rosmarin 1...

(b_)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ __,~; Haagensen, Brian

<Brian.Haagensen @nrc. goV>; Dave Lochbaum <dlochbaum @ucsusa.org>; Lawrence Criscione l(bX6)  !>; Maggie Coulter <mcoulter@rjverkeeper ors>;

Richard Webster <rwebster@rjyerkeeper org>; Susan Babdolden 4(bX6) ~; Widmayer, Derek <Derek Wjdmayer@nrc.gov>; susan van dolsen ~(bX6) ~

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek Can we discuss this and possibly change the date as I will be out of the country?

Possibly we could talk sometime later today.

I will call you later.

Paul On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:41 PM Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc gov> wrote:

Dear Mr. Blanch:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

'"Deh.e.h. cA-. w ~

Senior Staff Scientist ACRSffechnical Support Branch

!(b)C6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.~ov

From: Michael Corradini To: DENNIS BLEY Cc: John stetkar; Widmayer, Derek; stetkar, John: Bley, Dennis

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Re: Invitation emalls sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:35:46 PM Dennis: OK, we will go ahead and do it as planned in May FC. Mike On Mar 26, 2018, at 4:10 PM, DENNIS BLEY <f....  !>

)<6_) _ _ _ _ wrote:

(b_

It should go ahead, as planned. He can submit written comments. (He could also make a statement at the May full committee meeting, if the committee decides to write a letter at that time.)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:44 PM, l._ )<6_) _ _ _ __.! wrote:

(b_

Derek, Mike, and Dennis, That's unfortunate, considering his long involvement with the pipellne issue.

I don't think that we have any flexibility on the date, unless Mike and Dennis decide otherwise. We're trying to get this wrapped up before I leave the Committee, which will be effective May 5. If we postpone the Full Committee briefing, Dennis would need to take the lead, or I would need to be called In as an "invited expert" or something similar. That's certainly feasible, if we collectively think that it is important for Mr. Blanch to attend the meeting.

I'm sensitive to the relatively short notice for the meeting. Written comments are often better than short oral presentations, so we would not necessarily lose the benefit of his technical Input. However, speaking on the record at the meeting is important to some people. I'm on the fence regarding postponement until a date when Mr. Blanch can attend, leaning slightly in favor of postponement.

Mike and Dennis - What do you think?

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 1:24:04 PM Central Standard Time, Derek Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

Gentlemen:

I already heard back (email} from Paul Blanch that he will be unavailable (out of the country) on May 3rd. Do we have

any flexibility in changing the date or should I tell him to submit written comments for the record and see if he has anyone he works with that could present for him {I see he cc'd the email from me to several folks) .? Any other ideas

?

Derek

From: yen Andrea To: Banks. Mart<

Cc: Widmayer Derek

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present mmments at upcoming meeting.

Date: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:06:40 PM FYI. This is on Brian Holian's radar and he cc'ed Mike Snodderly (who sent it to me).

Thanks, Andrea From: Snodderly, Michael Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:03 PM To: Veil, Andrea <andrea.veil@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

FYI From: Holian, Brian Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:51 PM To: Lund, Louise <Loujse.Lund@nrc.gov>; Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Evans, Michele <Michele.Evaos@orc gov>

Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent.Wertz@orc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael <Mjchael,Snoddecly@nrc 1:ov>

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Louise et al Is NRR working this report with ACRS ... see below "man made hazards" Just want some background Thx Brian H From: Paul ( ~._Cb_)<_ 6)_ _ _ _ _ __,

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 3:38 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer@nrc gov>; Dave A Lochbaum

<lCb)(6) I>

Cc: Paul Blanch ~(b)(6) i>; Haagensen, Brian <Brlan.Haagenseo@orc gov>;

Lawrence Criscio"" -----L.:..---.~;

'!"')~<6!"'

n-e ""'~(b ) Amy Rosmarin ~(bX6) l>;Susan Babdolden <j(b)(6) ~>; susan van dolsen 1(bX6} ~; Richard Webster

<rwebster@riverkeeoer.org>; Maggie Coulter <mcou!ter@riverkeeper.org>; Paul Gallay

<pgaUay@rlverkeeper.org>; Ellen Weininger <eewgrassroots@aol.com>; Bill Corcoran

<wjlljamcorcoran@sbcglobal net>; Michael Quinn <mdo@scwe net>; Suzannah Glidden

<suzannahglidden@opton!ine.net>

Subject:

[Extemai_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek:

I am going to attempt to rearrange my schedule but not overly optimistic I can do so.

I just talked to Dave Lochbaum who is also invited to speak before the ACRS. Dave has agreed to present my position on the gas lines as related to Indian Point and Turkey Point. His views are similar to mine.

Our presentations will be somewhat independent of the other.

My preference for the full ACRS meeting would be the June dates but I am also available in July.

Paul Blanch (b)(6)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek Wjdmayer@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Paul:

The Committee is sensitive to the short notice for the meeting - they are juggling a lot or work and one of the key members of this Working Group is leaving the Committee shortly.

It might be helpful to know the answers to a couple of questions concerning your request:

(1) The Committee would consider any written comments submitted to be more beneficial that whatever you can "squeeze" into a 1O minute presentation - so the question is, "Is there anyone you work with that you would trust to provide your 1O minute presentation for you ?"

(2) The following are the dates for the following two (2) Full Committee meetings of the ACRS , which of these are you available for (the specific time will have to be decided later)? The Committee does not meet in August.

a. June 6 thru 8

b. July 11 thru 13 I have already started a conversation of the ACRS leadership on whether this session can be postponed.

Derek

From: Paul Blanch [..... l(b_)<6 m-ai~lt-o:'L. _)_ _ _ _ ___,

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:54 PM To: Amy Rosmarin 1._ Cb_X6_) _ _ _ _ _ _,!>; Haagensen, Brian

<Brian Haagenseo@nrc.gov>; Dave Lochbaum <dlochbaum@ucsusa org>; Lawrence Criscione ~(b)(6) ~; Maggie Coulter <mcoulter@civerkeeper om>;

Richard Webster <rwebster@riverkeeper.org>; Susan Babdolden

<f(bX6) ~; Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; susan van dolsen ~(b)(6)  !>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek Can we discuss this and possibly change the date as I will be out of the country?

Possibly we could talk sometime later today.

I will call you later.

Paul On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:41 PM Widmayer, Derek

<Derek Widmayer@nrc gov> wrote:

Dear Mr. Blanch:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywlde Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd.

Thank you in advance.

Deh.e.Jt. el/-; WUUH.a.ffC!'L Senior Staff Scientist

ACRS/fechnical Support Branch

!(bX6) I(cell) derek,widmayer@nrc, INY

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Subject:

Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLocbbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: 3/27/2018 7:50:58 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: 6

!(b)( )  !,... !(b_X6_) _ _ _ _ _! Dennis.Bley@nrc.gov OK From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:49:16 AM To: Michael Corradini Cc: DENNIS BLEY; John Stetkar; Bley, Dennis

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

OK- I will let Paul know that this is the path forward. It sounded like in his email that he is satisfied with this approach.

From: Michael Corradini ... (m

"""a""'i,lto

...=:1.:.

l(b..;.)<;..;

6)_ _ _ _ _ _....J Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:42 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: DENNIS BLEY ~(bX6) ~; John Stetkar <l...(b-X6 _) _ _ _ _ ...,b; Bley, Dennis <Dennis,B!ey@nrc.goy>

Subject:

[External_Sender} Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

I would propose we go with the latter approach On Mar 27, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Will Do.

I am suggesting that the Committee could offer him a chance to come in June and make a statement as any Letter based on the report would still be worked on (probably) then?

If this Is not a legit idea, I will inform Paul he should do Plan B - submit written comments, prepare statement, and have Lochbaum present his statement. (There is still a chance that Blanch can re-arrange his travel and be there in May).

Derek From: Michael Corradini l=m=a=il..... (bX_6_) _ _ _ _ _ __,

to..,.~_

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:37 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; DENNIS BLEY <l._(b_X6_) _ _ _ John Stetkar ..,h i (bX6) I>

Cc: Bley, Dennis <Dennjs.Blev@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_SenderJ Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Let us go forward with the May FC for this topic as John and Dennis suggest.

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:31:57 AM 1/3

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Invitation emalls sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

To: DENNIS BLEY; John Stetkar Cc: Michael Corradini; Bley, Dennis

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Hi Dennis:

In your response below, did you mean that he could make a statement at the JUNE f ull committee meeting (it is May that he has a conflict w ith).

He has solicited t he assistance of Dave Lochbaum to present his statement in May (if he cannot re-arrange his travel schedule). If you meant June - I will offer that option to him.

Derek From: DENNIS BLEY (majlto:!CbX6) I Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:10 PM To: John Stetkar <]Cb)(6) f>

Cc: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Michael Corradini

!Cb)(6) I Stetkar, John <John,Stetkar@nrc. gov>; Bley, Dennis

<Dennis.Bley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Re: Invitation emails sent to PB!anch and DLochbaum today at I :30 PM(EOM)

It should go ahead, as planned. He can submit written comments. (He could also make a statement at the May full committee meeting, if the committee decides to write a letter at that time.)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:44 PM~... Cb-)<6_) _ _ _ __,!wrote:

Derek, Mike, and Dennis, That's unfortunate, considering his long involvement with the pipeline issue.

I don't think that we have any flexibility on the date, unless Mike and Dennis decide otherwise.

We're trying to get this wrapped up before I leave the Committee, which will be effective May 5.

If we postpone the Full Committee briefing, Dennis would need to take the lead, or I would need to be called in as an ~invited expert" or something similar. That's certainly feasible, if we collectively think that it is important for Mr. Blanch to atternd the meeting.

I'm sensitive to the relatively short notice for the meeting. Written comments are often better than short oral presentations, so we would not necessarily lose the benefit of his technical input. However, speaking on the record at the meeting is important to some people. I'm on the fence regarding postponement until a date when Mr. Blanch can attend, leaning slightly in favor of postponement.

Mike and Dennis - What do you think?

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 1:24:04 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc.~oy writes:

2/3

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Invitation emals sent to PBlanch and Dlodlbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Gentlemen:

I already heard back (email) from Paul Blanch that he will be unavailable (out of the country) on May 3rd. Do we have any flexibility in changing the date or should I tell him to submit written comments for the record and see if he has anyone he works with that could present for him (I see he cc'd the email from me to several folks) .? Any other ideas?

Derek 3/3

4/17/2018 Re: DRAFT Email for the EHCOE

Subject:

Re: DRAFT Email for the EHCOE Date: 3/27/2018 8:34:34 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, !Cb_

... )<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _! !Cb_ ....X6_) _ _ __

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Looks good to me.

John In a message dated 3/27/2018 8:26:40 AM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

Gentlemen:

I prepared the following DRAFT Email for the EHCOE. Word is already spreading among the staff (Paul Blanch let someone in NRR know about our invite), so I need to get this out!! Let me know of any changes per our previous exercise I DSEA Branch Chiefs in the External Hazards Center of Excellence (EHCOE):

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 653rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM. The draft report-will be available for review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

A future email will be sent that provides the ADAMS accession number for the report and the final Agenda for the meeting.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch ICb..... ) _ ____,! (cell)

)(6__

derek. widmaver@nrc.gov 1/ 1

4/17/2018 Re: DRAFT Email for the EHCOE Subj ect: Re: DRAFT Email for the EHCOE Date: 3/27/201 8 8:39:29 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: r X6) l L...!

(b_)<6_) - - - - - - - '

Looks good to me On Mar 27, 2018, at 8:26 AM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Gentlemen:

I prepared the following DRAFT Email for the EHCOE. Word is already spreading among the staff (Paul Blanch let someone in NRR know about our invite), so I need to get this out

!! Let me know of any changes per our previous exercise!

DSEA Branch Chiefs in the External Hazards Center of Excellence (EHCOE):

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee.

The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

The draft report-will be available for review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

A future email will be sent that provides the ADAMS accession number for the report and the final Agenda for the meeting.

Derek A . Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCbX6)  !{cell) derek.widmaver@nre.gov 111

Note: Thi s attachment is identical to the draft report attached to Mr. Wldmayer's March 5, 2016 2:12 PM email. It is withheld in its entirety under FOIA exemption 5. Portions of the report containing CE!! are also withheld From: Widmayer Derek under FOIA exemption 3, in conjunction with To: Veil Andrea 16 USC 8240-l(dXI), and FOIA ex emption 7 Cc: Banks Mark (F).

Subject : RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Date: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 12:45:00 PM Attachments : Working Group Report - Draft Rev 4 WIP docx Andrea:

I have attached Rev 4 that includes redline from me - I added references and made minor corrections on citations to the references - John Stetkar took this - accepted all changes and made Rev. 5. Then he re-ordered the references and made a couple of other minor edits and slapped a cover and table of contents on it - so the current version is Rev. 6.

Rev. 6 has NO substantive differences from this attached version.

I am only tell ing you this because I don't have Rev. 6 - John is the "keeper" until we are ready to put into ADAMS. I can get it from him and send that to you if you want, but this will give you a start.

Derek From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, M arch 27, 2018 12:37 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <De rek.W idmayer@ nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : Re: Invit ation to review ACRS Report and present comment s at upcoming meeting.

Thanks Derek. I haven't see it, so please send it to me.

Andrea From: W idmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, M arch 27, 2018 12:22 PM To: Veil, And rea <andrea.veil@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

(b)(5)

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, M arch 27, 2018 12:16 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek W idmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Re: Invitat ion to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meet ing.

No worries. I know that ACRS gets lots of scrutiny so I try to be careful, Andrea On: 27 March 2018 11 :57, "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek.Widrnayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Andrea:

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:55 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrq ~ov>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael <MichaeLSnodderly@nrc gov>

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

1~)(5)

Thanks, Andrea From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:49 AM To: Wertz, Trent <Trent,Wertz@nrc.gov>; Bowman, Eric <Eric.Bowman @nrc,eoy>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrqov>; Veil, Andrea <andrea.vejl @nrc iPY>; Snodderly, Michael

<Michael.Snodderly@nre.gov>

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Trent and Eric:

I have sent a notification that the Working Group report has been completed and that it will be presented to the Full Committee at the May ACRS FC meeting to the four Branch Chiefs in NRO (Cook, Harvey, Bauer, Dudek) that are in the EHCOE - but a single point of contact has not yet been identified.

I can forward that notification to you if you would like.

Also, the report is completed, but it has not been finalized yet in ADAMS - the Working Group will be taking that step as soon as the ACRS Leadership gives them approval. This will be done early in April; at the latest. at the conclusion of the upcoming April ACRS FC meeting (April 5 thru 7).

I will be keeping everyone notified as to when it is available for review.

Defte.A c:A-. lnCUH.a.ffC'L ACRS/fechnical Support Bra nch

!(bX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov From: Snodderly, Michael Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:33 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Wjdmayer@nrc gov>

Cc: Banks, Mark ; Veil, Andrea <andrea vejl@nrc.gov>; Wertz, Trent

<Trent.Wertz@nrc.ov>; Bowman, Eric <Eric.Bowman @nrq~ov>

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek, Could you please provide your EHCOE contact to Trent Wertz and a copy of the draft report that was sent to Mr. Blanch to Trent and Eric Bowman?

Thanks, Mike From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:01 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael

<Michael.Snodderlv@nrc.gov>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Yes, Brian is pulsing his staff so they will need info in order to brief him.

Thanks, Andrea From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:59 AM To: Snodderly, Michael <Michael Snodder!y@nrc.gov>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrqov>; Veil, Andrea <andrea veil @orc PY>

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Mike:

Thanks for this. The Working Group, and Chairman Corradini, agreed to reach out to the External Hazards Center of Excellence (EHCOE) which is housed within NRO as an initial contact. To the extent they might reach out to NRR, the Committee was satisfied. The staff will have over a month to decide if and how they might want to respond to the report.

Andrea - based on the fact that NRR get wind of this on their own, should I take any steps to inform them of the above plan ?

Derek From: Snodderly, Michael Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 5:56 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc ijlov>

Cc: Banks, Mark ; Veil, Andrea <andrea,vejl@nrc,gov>

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek, Please see Brian's comment below. Looks like you have shown up on Brian's radar. Have you or your working group made anyone in NRR aware of your upcoming report?

Thanks, Mike From: Holian, Brian Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 4:51 PM To: Lund, Louise <Loujse.Luod@nrc gov>; Lorson, Raymond <Raymond Lorson@nrc gov>; Evans, Michele <Micbele.Evaos@orc.eov>

Cc: Wertz, Trent <Trent,Wertz@nrc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael <MichaeLSnodderiy@nrc eov>

Subject:

FW: Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Louise et al Is NRR working this report with ACRS ... see below "man made hazards" Just want some background Thx Brian H From: Paul [-CbX6) U Sent: Monday, March 26, *2018 3:38 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc,gov>; Dave A Lochbaum

<lCbX6)  !>

Cc: Paul Blanch ~CbX6)  !>;. . . . .

'-;:;:::::;:;:;;======-: Haagensen, Brian <Brian Haa~ensen@nrc eov>;

Lawrence Criscione lCbX6) ~>; Amy Rosmarin ~(b)(6) hSusan Babdolden 1(b)(6) r Susan van dolsen 1 (b)(6) F;Richard Webster

<rwebster@riverkeeper.org>; Maggie Coulter <mcoulter@riverkeeper.org>; Paul Gallay

<pgallay@rjverkeeper.org>; Ellen Weininger <eewgrassroots@aol com>; Bill Corcoran

<williamcorcoran@sbcg!obal net>; Michael Quinn <mdq@scwe net>; Suzannah Glidden

<suzanoabglidden@optonlioe.net>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek:

I am going to attempt to rearrange my schedule but not overly optimistic I can do so.

I just talked to Dave Lochbaum who is also invited to speak before the ACRS. Dave }las agreed to present my position on the gas lines as related to Indian Point and Turkey Point. His views are similar to mine.

Our presentations will be somewhat independent of the other.

My preference for the full ACRS meeting would be the June dates but I am also available in July.

Paul Blanch (bX6)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer@nrc.gov>

wrote:

Paul:

The Committee is sensitive to the short notice for the meeting - they are juggling a lot or work and one of the key members of this Working Group is leaving the Committee shortly.

It might be helpful to know the answers to a couple of questions concerning your request:

(1) The Committee would consider any written comments submitted to be more beneficial that whatever you can "squeeze" into a 1O minute presentation - so the question is, "Is there anyone you work with that you would trust to provide your 10 minute presentation for you ?"

(2) The following are the dates for the following two (2) Full Committee meetings of the ACRS, which of these are you available for (the specific time will have to be decided later)? The Committee does not meet in August.

a. June 6 thru 8

b. July 11 thru 13 I have already started a conversation of the ACRS leadership on whether this session can be postponed.

Derek From: Paul Blanch [m.aill.cJ._ ~_)c6_) _ _ _ _ ___.

Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 1:54 PM To: Amy Rosmarin <!._Cb_)C6_) _ _ _ _ ___,l>; Haagensen, Brian

<Brjan,Haagenseo@occ gov>; Dave Lochbaum <dlochbaum@ucsusa ocg>; Lawrence Criscione 1Cb)C6) ~; Maggie Coulter <mcoulter@rjverkeeper.org>;

Richard Webster <rwebster@rjyerkeeper.org>; Susan Babdolden

~(b)(6) l>; Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; susan van dolsen <!CbX6) l>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Invitation to review ACRS Report and present comments at upcoming meeting.

Derek Can we discuss this and possibly change the date as I will be out of the country?

Possibly we could talk sometime later today.

I will call you later.

Paul On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:41 PM Widmayer, Derek

<Derek.Widmaver(@nrc. ~ov> wrote:

Dear Mr. Blanch:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 653rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS} in early April.

This email will be followed by a formal invitation letter with additional information. I also will be providing additional information via a future email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides

when they are ready.

Please respond to this email to confirm your participation at the Committee's meeting on May 3rd .

Thank you in advance.

DeJuJL o4-. W ~

Senior Staff Scientist ACRSfreclmical Support Branch

!CbX6) I(cell) dcrck.widmayer@nrc gov

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Subject:

Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlancb and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Date: 3/27/2018 3:03:32 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov And again....THANKS!l John In a message dated 3/27/2018 2:44:54 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov writes:

OK - Contacted Paul Blanch - he is good with Plan B. Still trying to change his travel plans to come in May but if he cannot, Lochbaum will present.

Also, NRO and NRR staff notified - NRO through the EHCOE, NRR separately as an FYI.

From: Michael Corradini [mailtoj Cb)(6) D Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:42 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widma er nrc. ov>

Cc: DENNIS BLEY CbX6)  ; John Stetkar .. !Cb...

)(,..,.

6)- - - - - - - . 1 Bley, Dennis <Dennis.Bley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

I would propose we go with the latter approach On Mar 27, 2018, at 7:40 AM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc,~oy> wrote:

Will Do.

I am suggesting that the Committee could offer him a chance to come in June and make a statement as any Letter based on the report would still be worked on (probably) then?

If this is not a legit idea, I will inform Paul he should do Plan B - submit written comments, prepare statement, and have Lochbaum present his *statement. (There Is still a chance that Blanch can re-arrange his travel and be there in May).

1/4

4/17/2018 Re: Re: lnvltaUon emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Derek From: Michael Corradini [mailtofCb)(6) b Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 8:37 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; DENNIS BLEY <J1.,Cb_)<6_>_ _ __.~; John Stetkar

~(bX6) ~

Cc: Bley, Dennis <Dennis.Bley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

Let us go forward with the May FC for this topic as John and Dennis suggest.

From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:31:57 AM To: DENNIS BLEY; John Stetkar Cc: Michael Corradini; Bley, Dennis

Subject:

RE: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at l :30 PM (EOM)

Hi Dennis:

In your response below, did you mean that he could make a statement at the full committee meeting (it is May that he has a conflict with).

He has solicited the assistance of Dave Lochbaum to present his statement in May (if he cannot re-arrange his travel schedule). If you meant June - I will offer that option to him.

Derek From: DENNIS BLEY [~

Sent: Monday, March 261~

To: John Stetkar ~Cb)(6) I Cc: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Michael Corradini

<lCb)<6) LT t>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; Bley, Dennis

<Dennis.Bley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and DLochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM) 2/4

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and D.Lochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

It should go ahead, as planned. He can submit written comments. (He could also make a statement at the May full committee meeting, if the committee decides to write a letter at that time.)

On Mar 26, 2018, at 12:44PM~...Cb-)<6_) _ _ _ _ _!wrote:

Derek, Mike, and Dennis, That's unfortunate, considering his long involvement with the pipeline issue.

I don't think that we have any flexibility on the date, unless Mike and Dennis decide otherwise. We're trying to get this wrapped up before I leave the Committee, which will be effective May 5. If we postpone the Full Committee briefing, Dennis would need to take the lead, or I would need to be called in as an "invited expert" or something similar. That's certainly feasible, if we collectively think that it is important for Mr.

Blanch to attend the meeting.

I'm sensitive to the relatively short notice for the meeting. Written comments are often better than short oral presentations, so we would not necessarily lose the benefit of his technical input. However, speaking on the record at the meeting is important to some people. I'm on the fence regarding postponement until a date when Mr. Blanch can attend, leaning slightly in favor of postponement.

Mike and Dennis - What do you think?

John In a message dated 3/26/2018 I :24 :04 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.~oy writes:

Gentlemen:

3/.4

4/17/2018 Re: Re: Invitation emails sent to PBlanch and Dlochbaum today at 1:30 PM (EOM)

I already heard back (email) from Paul Blanch that he will be unavailable (out of the country) on May 3rd_ Do we have any flexibility in changing the date or should I tell him to submit written comments for the record and see if he has anyone he works with that could present for him (I see he cc'd the email from me to several folks).? Any other ideas?

Derek 4/4

From: Michael Corradini <!Cb)C6)  !>

Sent Thursday, March 29, 2018 1:59 PM To: Veil, Andrea; Matt Sunseri; Pete Riccardella

Subject:

[Extemal_SenderJ CORRESPONDENCE from NRC CHAIRMAN Attachments: Extl_Event.MU5258A242.pdf Note : The attached letter is available in public ADAMS as ML15258A242.

Here is the letter from then Chairman Burns

From: Widmayer, Derek Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov #

Subject:

Preliminary Research on Man-Made Hazards Date: March 31, 2016 at 3:46 PM DENNIS BLEY l!b}C6} j, (b)(6) ) _ _ _ _ _ __.l Ron Ballinger ICb..)C..6._

To:

!(b)(6) t (b)(6) _________..

, (bX6)

, Pete Rlccardella ..

Members of Working Group:

Well, it took a little bit longer than I was expecting agreed would be the first step in the research of N fC X6) l,but I am enclosing the "compendiums* that we evaluations of man-made hazards. They consist of:

A list of man-made hazards (compiled Independently of "NRC documents")

A list of NRC guidance documents that require evaluation of man-made hazards at certain NRC licensed facllltles A list of IAEA safety series documents that recommend evaluation of man-made hazards ~t nuclear facilities A list of NRC safety evaluation reports in which man-made hazards are evaluated A vory DRAFT outline of a report I have copies of the "pertinent sections" (i.e., not the FULL document) from ALL of the documents listed in the compendiums (except for the resources on the man-made hazard list, we should decide if there is more information we need there (descriptions of hazards and why they merit considera1ion or whatever? or is a "list" enough?) I can pu1 CDs 1ogether1hat contain all of the documents.

Two things to think about:

(b)(:,)

So that Is It for now.

Let me know if you all want to respond by email and form a consensus, or shall we meet during April FC meeting at some point ?

Derek IU lD

[U.

Extemal.Hazards.Guidan Man- NRC.Ucensing.Docume ce.docx Made.Haza... s.Llst.docx nts.docx

Man-Made Hazards The following is a comprehensive list of man-made "hazards," comprised from internet searches, newspaper and magazine articles, and other various sources. Many sources are "lists" of the "worst" disastrous events or instances of a "hazard," compiled by the authors of the lists using various "metrics>> for the measure of why the event is considered one of the "worst." Most of these "metrics," are some variant of the impacts of the event on loss of human life and/or casualties, costs of property damage (or loss of revenue}, environmental loss (some measure of land/water/air rendered "harmful" to humans) or ecological loss (some measure of land/water/air rendered "harmful" to plants and animals), or a combinat1 i on of more than one of these.

There are several ways these events are "grouped" to compile these lists, so the organization of the following list could be done in several ways. Further evaluation of some kind could probably be performed to result in a list of man-made "hazards" that "likely" could impact a nuclear facility, or which should be considered in evaluating a nuclear facility for impacts from such hazards.

One "evaluation" of the list has already been completed: any man-made hazard that was evaluated in the NRC safety evaluation documents compiled for this effort is included in this list.

War World War II (1939 - 1945)

Terrorist Attack Attack on World Trade Center, New York, NY (09/11/2001)

Riot/Civil Disorder La Violencia, Colombia (1948-1960)

Industrial Facility Accident

• Explosion

• Texas City, TX (04/16/1947)

• Fire

• AI-Mishraq Fire (06/24/2003)

• Radiation Release

• Chernobyl, Soviet Union (04/26/1986)

• Chemical Release

• Bhopal, India (12/02/1984)

• Land/Mud Slide

• Kingston Fuel Plant (2008)

Trans12ortation Accident

• Air

• Sao Paulo, Brazil Airbus A320 (07/17/2007)

• Maritime

• MV Dona Paz, Phillipiries {12/20/1987)

• Road

• Los Alfaques, Spain (07/11/1978)

• Railway

• Ufa Train Disaster, Soviet Union (06/04/1989)

• Tunnel

• Mont Blanc Tunnel, France/Italy (03/24/1999)

• Bridge Collapse

• 1-35 Mississippi River Bridge, MN (08/01/2007)

Pipeline Accident1

• Explosion

• San Bruno, CA (09/09/2010)

• Puncture

• Walnut Creek, CA {11/09/2004)

• Leak

• Pump Station 1, Alyeska Pipeline, AK (01/15/2009)

Pollution

• Air

• London "Fog" (1952)

• Maritime

• Deepwater Horizon (2010)

• land

• Times Beach, MO (1983)

Mining Accident

• Collapse

• Twin Shaft, Pittston, PA (06/28/1896)

• Explosion

• Mount Mulligan, Australia (09/19/1921)

• Persistent Fire

• Centralia, PA (1962 - Present)

• Mud Volcano

• Sidoarjo, Indonesia (May 2006 - Present)

• Slurry Spill

• Martin County, KY (10/11/2000)

Fire

• Forest

• Great Michigan Fire (October 1871)

• Building

• Cocoanut Grove, Boston, MA (11/28/1942)

• Rural

• Cloquet, MN Fire (October 1918)

Dam Collapse11

• Tailings lmpoundment

• Buffalo Creek Flood, WV (07/14/1999)

• Concrete

• Hauser Dam Failure, MT (04/14/1908)

Construction Accident

• Equipment Failure

• Miller Park Crane Collapse, Milwaukee WI (07/14/1999)

• Partial Bldg. Collapse

• Savar Building, Bangladesh (04/24/2013)

Sinkhole111

• Groundwater wells

• St. Petersburg, FL, 4 GW well fields (1960 - 1991)

• Fracking/lnjection wells

• Bayou Corne, LA (2012)

Note: Other "Hazards" also make "worst" lists, related to whether the authors or compilers have a specific "agenda," or did not (or could not) identify a specific measure to rank the hazard. An example of these is global warming. Also, many "worst" man-made disaster lists which use human casualties as a metric have many listings under the following categories which have not been included here since they do not (or could only remotely) involve the possibility of impacts to a facility: Genocide, Mass Murder/Suicide, Politicide, Illness/Plagues, Famine).

1 Pipeline incidents include acute ruptures (explosions) and massive leaks (without explosions) found to be caused by pipeline corrosion or weakness, as well as ruptures, tears, and fires caused by equipment working on the pipeline or on nearby facilities.

11 Not caused by severe weather event 111 Not formed by natural activities

US NRC Guidance Documents Standard Review Plans

1. NUREG-0800, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition."

2. NUREG-1520, "Standard Review Plan for Fuel Cycle Facilities License Applications."

3. NUREG-1536, "Standard Review Plan for Dry Cask Storage Systems."

4. NUREG-1537, "Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors;" Part 2, "Standard Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria."

5. NUREG-1567, "Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel Dry Storage Facilities."

6. NUREG-1702, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of a License Application for the Tank Waste Remediation System Privatization {TWRS-P) Project."

7. NUREG-1718, "Standard Review Plan for the Review of an Application for a Mixed Oxide {MOX)

Fuel Fabrication Facility."

8. NUREG-1727, " NMSS Decommissioning Standard Review Plan."

9. NUREG-1804, "Yucca Mountain Review Plan."

10. NUREG-2126, "Standard Review Plan for Conventional Uranium Mill and Heap Leach Facilities."

Special Review Plans

1. NUREG-1407, "Procedural and Submittal Guidance for the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (IPEEE) for Severe Accident Vulnerabilities."

Regulatory Guides

1. Regulatory Guide -1.91, "Explosions on Transportation Routes."

2. Regulatory Guide -4.7, "General Site Suitability for Nuclear Power Plants."

IAEA Safety Series Documents General Safety Standards

1. GSR Part 4, "Safety Assessment for Facilities and Activities." 2009 (Publication 1714)

Nuclear Power Plants Safety Standards

2. SSR-2/1, "Safety of Nuclear Power Plants: Design." 2012 (Publication 1715)

3. NS-R-3, "Site Evaluation for Nuclear Installations." 2003 (Publication 1709)

Safety Guides

4. GS-G-4.1, "Format and Content of the Safety Analysis report for Nuclear Power Plants." 2004 (Publication 1185)

5. NS-G-1.5, "External Events Excluding Earthquakes in the Design of Nuclear Power Plants." 2003 (Publication 1159)

6. NS-G-3.1, "External Human Induced Events in Site Eval uation for Nuclear Power Plants." 2002 (Publication 1126) 7 . SSG-35, "Site Survey and Site Selection for Nuclear Installations." 2015 (Publication1690)

8. SSG-2, "Deterministic Safety Analysis for Nuclear Power Plants." 2002 (Publication 1428)

9. SSG-3, "Development and Application of Level 1 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants." 2010 (Publication 1430)

10. SSG-4, "Development and Application of Level 2 Probabilistic Safety Assessment for Nuclear Power Plants." 2010 {Publication 1443)

Research Reactors Safety Standards

11. NS-R-4, "Safety of Research Reactors." 2005 (Publication 1220)

Safety Guides

12. SSG-20, "Safety Assessment for Research Reactors and Preparation of the Safety Analysis Report." 2012 (Publication 1508)

Fuel Cycle Facilities Safety Standards

13. NS-R-5, Rev. 1, "Safety of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities." 2014 (Publication 1641)

Safety Guides

14. SSG-5, "Safety of Conversion Facilities and Uranium Enrichment Facilities." 2010 (Publication 1404)

15. SSG-6, "Safety of Uranium Fuel Fabrication Facilities." 2010 (Publication 1402)

16. SSG-7, "Safety of Uranium and Plutonium Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facilities." 2010 (Publication 1403)

Transportation

17. SSR-6, "Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material." 2012 (Publication 1570)

US NRC Licensing Documents Nuclear Power Plants - Operating Licenses

1. NUREG-0847, "Final Safety Evaluation Report for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unit 2." Feb 2011

2. NUREG-2124, "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Combined Operating license for Vogtle Units 3 and 4." Sept 2012

3. NUREG-2153, "Final Safety Evaluation Related to Combined Operating License for Summer Units 2 and 3." Sept 2013

4. "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Fermi, Unit 3." NUREG still under development, Nov 2014

5. "Final Safety Evaluation Related to Combined Operating License for Comanche Peak Units 3 and 4. NUREG never published. XXXX 200X

6. "Final Safety Evaluation Related to Combined Operating License for Levy Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2." NUREG still under development, XXXX 201X

7. "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to North Anna, Unit 3." NUREG never published, XXXX 20XX

8. "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to Combined Operating License for South Texas Plant, Units 3 and 4." NUREG still under development, XXXX 20XX Nuclear Power Plants - Early Site Permits

9. NUREG-1844, "Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) ESP Site." May 2006

10. NUREG-1840, "Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Grand Gulf Site."

April2006

11. NUREG-1835, "Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site." Sept 2005

12. "Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the PSEG Site." NUREG still under development. Feb 2015

13. NUREG-1923, "Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) ESP Site." July 2009 Fuel Cycle Facilities

14. NUREG-2120, "Safety Evaluation Report for the General Electric-Hitachi Global Laser Enrichment LLC Laser-Based Uranium Enrichment Plant in Wilmington, North Carolina" Feb 2012

15. NUREG-1827, "Safety Evaluation Report for the National Enrichment Facility in Lea County, New Mexico, Louisiana Energy Services." June 2005 Materials / Disposal Facilities

16. NUREG-1949, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Wastes in a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada: Volume 2, Repository Safety Before Permanent Closure." January 2015 17 . "Final Safety Evaluation Report Related to the SHINE Facility." NU REG still under development, XXXX 20XX

MAN-MADE HAZARDS I. INTRODUCTION II. BACKGROUND III. MAN-MADE HAZARDS IV. GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATING MAN-MADE HAZARDS A. NRC Guidance B. IAEA International Guidance C. DOE Guidance D. Other Agencies/ Organizations Guidance V. SAFETY EVALUATIONS INCLUDING MAN-MADE HAZARDS A. NRC B. Other Countries (Use of IEAE Guidance)

C. DOE D. Other Agencies / Organizations VI. CONCLUSIONS VII. REFERENCES

From: Rlccardella, Pete To:

Cc: '!"8lev , I Oeooisq(b)(6)

__ rdeba ~*l"'!r"""""'----...

~ Ronald GBallinger; Rlccardefla Pete: Derek,Widmayer@nrc,gpy:

Subject:

Rf: Working Group Report on Man-Made Hazards D1te1 Monday, April 2, 2018 10:15:56 AM John et al, I've reviewed the subject report and associated documents in preparation for our discussions next week. The report is thorough and obviously represents a great deal of effort by Derek. I have the following observations on it.

(b)(5)

I look forward to discussing these points during our retreat session next week.

Regards, Pete From: .... ___________

l(bX6) ....,rt Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 6:21 AM To: ~(bX6) tl....

(b-)(6-) -----.!; l(b)(6) ~ l(b)(6)

~ ~~ t~~~-~_>_____~t

~==::::::::::::::!...l,,rn~~x_...."6)>:~~~~~~~~~~:-',...!=!==--.....

Cc: Derek Wjdmayer@orc.gov; John Stetkar@nrc.gov

R1ccardella,

==,i."l'r. Pete

Subject:

Working Group Report on Man-Made Hazards Colleagues, Attached is a copy of our working group report on man-made external hazards that I mentioned briefly during P&P Friday. We plan to discuss the report in an internal ACRS retreat session during the April Full Committee meeting. The purpose of lhat session is to familiarize everyone with the report and our conclusions and recommendations, and to discuss a path forward for possible action by the Committee.

During our working group meeting on Friday, we tentatively decided to formally present the report at the May Full Committee meeting, inviting the NRC staff and interested members of the public to attend. Our hope is for an ACRS letter transmitting the report to the Commission and endorsing some or all of the working group recommendations.

John

_ __o""_nic Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachmen s, *

• ded solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you otified that any dissemination, distribution, copyin or action taken in relation to the contents o an ents to this e-m * *

• ited and may be unlawful. If you have received this - the sender immediately and penna e onginal and any copy of this e-mail ann""?tffl,loAC1nto your cooperation.

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: 4/2/2018 1:54:28 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: !Cb

..._)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ __.! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks Pete, I'll guard this one more carefully. Sorry for the bother.

John In a message dated 4/2/2018 1:39:05 PM Central Standard Time, ... 6 l(b_)c _) _ _ _ _ _ _ __,! writes:

Here you go.

Pete Hey Pete, Could you please re-send your note to me? I was just starting to read it, my screen flashed, it disappeared, and I can't find it anywhere!

Thanks, John ET~:rew~..eti.Yvac Notice: The infonnation contained in this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solely for us ed addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient o *1, you are hereby notified that any dissemm

• ution, co en in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail i 1 1e unlawful. If you have received this e-mai * , e notify the sender immediately and permanen original opy of this e-mail and any printout Thank you for your cooperation.

Attached Message

[ From Riccardela, Pete (b)(6)

To (bX6)

Cc ~~~~~~~~~~~~~----, ...,,.. .....,..,....,

1ccardeila, Peter Subject 1/3

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards I Da1e Mon, 2 Apr 201814:15:48 +0000 John et al, I've reviewed the subject report and associated documents in preparation for our discussions next week. The report is thorough and obviously represents a great deal of effort by Derek. I have the following observations on it.

(b)(5)

I look forward to discussing these points during our retreat sessi.on next week.

Regards, Pete 2/3

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards From: ""!(b"""

)C"""

6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____J Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2018 6:21 AM To: l(bX6) I; l(b)(6) I; ICbX6) I l(bX6) t Cb)C6) I; 11b!16) 1;l(b)(6) l;!Cb)(6)

Cb)(6) ~ l(bX6) t lCbX6) UCb)(6) I; CbX6) IRiccardella, Pete 1Cb)C 6)

L.....::---:----:- - - - - - - - - - J I

Cc: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov; John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Working Group Report on Man-Made Hazards Colleagues, Attached is a copy of our working group report on man-made external hazards that I mentioned briefly during P&P Friday. We plan to discuss the report in an internal ACRS retreat session during the April Full Committee meeting. The purpose of that session is to familiarize everyone with the report and our conclusions and recommendations, and to discuss a path forward for possible action by the Committee. During our working group meeting on Friday, we tentatively decided to formally present the report at the May Full Committee meeting, inviting the NRC staff and interested members of the public to attend. Our hope is for an ACRS letter transmitting the report to the Commission and endorsing some or all of the working group recommendations.

John 3/3

From: Widmayer. Derek To:  !(bX6)  !

Subject:

RE: EHCOE Program Plan Date: Monday, April 02, 2018 3:21:00 PM 1*11 try !

From: !(bX6) I [mailto1(bX6)

Sent: M onday, April 02, 2018 3:20*...P"" M_ _ _ ___.

To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

(External_Sender) EHCOE Program Plan Hi Derek, I'm in transit to DC. On the pl ane, I read the External Hazard Center of Expertise (EHCOE) "1-Year Self-Assessment", dated October 2, 2017, which I stumbled across some time In the last couple of weeks (ML17243A361 ). It briefly mentions "manmade hazards", but without much elaboration. It also mentions a Program Plan. which apparently describes the EHCOE scope, objectives, etc., but does not seem to be publicly available.

My Citrix certificates expired last week, so I can"t access our files or non-public ADAMS documents.

hope to get the certificates reinstated tomorrow, when l"m in the office. (Of course. 1"11 then also have full access to ADAMS.) The self-assessment refers to a couple of enabling documents with ML numbers, but I'm not sure if they are the Program Plan. Can you find the Program Plan?

Thanks, John

From:

To:

@1c'£i!Yec Derek  !

Subject:

RE; EHCOE Program Plan Note: The EH COE Program Plan is publicly available in ADAMS as Date: Monday, April 02 , 2018 3:39:00 PM MLl6232A631.

Attachments: EHCOE.PCog@m Plan.pdf Here you go! It is a publicly available document, so you can view and use at your convenience.

From:!(b)(6)  ![mallto:p )(6)

Sent: Mond ay, April 02, 2018 3:20"'P""" M.--------'

To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John .Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

lExternal_Sender] EHCOE Program Plan Hi Derek, I'm In transit to DC. On the plane, I read the External Hazard Center of Expertise (EHCOE) "1 -Year Self*

Assessment", dated October 2, 2017, which I stumbled across some time in the last couple of weeks (Ml 17243A361 ). It briefly mentions "manmade hazards", but without much elaboration . It also mentions a Program Plan, which apparently describes the EHCOE scope, objectives, etc., but does not seem to be publicly available.

My Cltrix certificates expired last week, so I can't access our files or non-public ADAMS documents.

hope to get the certificates reinstated tomorrow, when I'm in the office. (Of course, I'll then also have full access to ADAMS.) The self-assessment refers lo a couple of enabling documents with ML numbers, but I'm not sure if they are the Program Plan. Can you find the Program Plan?

Thanks, John

From: Widmaver Derek To: ICb)(6)

Subject:

RE: EHCOE Program Plan Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 8:12 :00 AM John:

Don't get me started on ADAMS. The system was invented with all good intentions, but I don't think it functions the way that most people "think." Anyway.

The Program Plan is within an ML "package." This allows one to create several documents and work on them separately, and then pile them together when one is ready to distribute.

This mechanism is not supposed to make the individual documents "invisible" but anyway.

ML16229A350 is the "package." See if you can bring that up. The Plan is one of the documents in that package. I did not write down the ML number for the Program Plan .

will get it if this is not successful for you .

Derek From: !CbX6) I ... )<6_) _ _ _ __,

[mailto !Cb_

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 10:07 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] EHCOE Program Plan OK, I'm not over it - I'm at the hotel, and I tried again to find the EHCOE Program Plan via Google searches - no success.

Where did you find it? If you have an Ml number, what is it?

I'm mostly interested because we may want to cite the plan in a Committee letter on the working group report. If so, I'll need the citation.

Thanks, John

From: Widmayer Derek To: Mike Corradini [l(b)(6) p

Subject:

Invitation Letters to Blanch and Lochbaum Date: Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:10:00 AM Attachments: Blanch Invite Letter dooc Lochbaum Invite Letter docx Mike:

Let me know of any revisions you would like to make to these and I will get somebody to birddog them for your signature before the FC meeting is over.

D~cA-.W~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!CbX6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc. gov

Mr. Paul Blanch 135 Hyde Road West Hartford, CT 06117

Dear Mr. Blanch:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS).

• Our ACRS staff contact for this issue is Derek Widmayer. He can be.reached at derek.widmayer@nrc.gov or at (301) 221-1448. He will be providing additional information via email with the ADAMS accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Thank you in advance for your participation on this important issue.

Sincerely, Dr. Michael Corradini Chairman

Mr. David A. Lochbaum Director, Nuclear Safety Project Union of Concerned Scientists P.O. Box 15316 Chattanooga, TN 37415

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 653rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2 :00 PM.

Because of your interest in this subject, the Committee is inviting you to provide written comments as well as a 10-minute presentation at the meeting in response to the draft report. The written comments will become part of the Transcript of the meeting. The draft report will be available for you to review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS).

Our ACRS staff contact for this issue is Derek Widmayer. He can be reached at derek.widmayer@nrc.gov or at (301) 221-1448. He will be providing additional information via email with the ADAMS-accession number for the report and details on where you should send your written comments and presentation slides when they are ready.

Thank you in advance for your participation on this important issue.

Sincerely, Dr. Michael Corradini Chairman

From: Widmayer. Derek To: Banks Mart; Yell. Andrea

Subject:

Invitation Letters to Blanch and Lochbaum Date: Thursday, April 05, 2018 9:14:00 AM Guys:

Mike Corradini has draft letters of invite for Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum to provide their reviews of the Man-Made Hazards working group report. I have asked him to provide me any revisions so they can be ready before the FC meeting is over on Saturday.

Do you want to add these to P&P, or is it OKAY to work outside of that system? Let me know. ( I had not focused on these until I saw the Roberts letter in the P&P papers)

DaAe.Jt. of-. w ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch j(b)(6) I(cell) derek.widmaver@nrc.gov

4/17/2018 RE: Names in Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

RE: Names in Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/6/2018 6:55:41 AM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: !CbX6) I Yes and Yes.

From: !CbX6) I[mailto1._Cb_X6_) _ _ _ __,

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 7:46 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer @nrc. gov>; Stetkar, John <.John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>*

Subject:

[External_Sender] Names in Man-Made Hazards Report Derek, Sorry to bug you with this - I'm trying to tie up some minor items before our discussion tomorrow.

Given the plan to make the report publicly available in ADAMS, two questions:

(1) Should we list the names of the working group members in the report?

(2) If we do list the names, do you want your name included?

Thanks, John 1/1

4/1712018 Re: Issue for discussion at tomorrow's *retreat"

Subject:

Re: Issue for discussion at tomorrow's "retreat" Date: 4/6/201 8 11:01:32 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: !CbX6) I Derek:

Yes, we will discuss it.

While staff may not want to present, I think we need to offer them the same opportunity that we do to Blanch and Lochbaum.

Mike On Apr 6, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov> wrote:

John:

In an email Mike Corradini sent to me yesterday letting me know that the invite letters to Blanch and Lochbaum were OK, he said, "I want to make sure NRC staff are presenting at the session."

In my emails to the EHCOE alerting them to the working group's finishing its work, I did not invite them to present. I thought perhaps from earlier comments that you were not necessarily in favor of this, so I thought it needed to be discussed tomorrow.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch ICb)(6)  !{cell) derek.widmayer@nre.gov 1/1

From: Widmayer. Derek, To: Pav! Blanch

Subject:

RE: Draft report from the ACR rash Date: Friday, April 06, 2018 11:48:00 AM Hi Paul:

The ACRS Full Committee is having a discussion on the report tomorrow morning (all members have now had a chance to review and comment on the report). At the conclusion of the discussion, I believe the Working Group will get "permission" from the full membership to make the report available for you and others to review. I would expect, therefore, it will become publicly available shortly thereafter, maybe on Tuesday, ifit goes to the ADAMS processors on Monday.

l will ask pennission tomorrow to email the report to you (and David Lochbaum) at the conclusion of the discussion if the full committee says the report can go public, then you will have it early to begin your review. Look for something from me tomorrow one way or another.

Derek

---

Original Message-----

From: Paul Blanch [mai.J.1Q;J"C"b-X-6)_ _ _ _ _.....,

Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 11 :37 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Dave Lochbaum <dlochbaum@ucsusa.org>

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Draft report from the ACR rash Derek when can we expect to see the draft report R Sent from my iPhonee Sent from my iPhone

From: Widmayer Derek To: Veil. Andrea

Subject:

FW: May Meeting on External Hazards Wor1cing Group Report Date: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:22:00 PM Here is what I sent out a moment ago.

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:22 PM To: 'Paul Blanch' Cb)(6) >; 'dlochbaum@ucsusa.org' <dlochbaum@ucsusa.org>

Subject:

May Meeting on Externa Hazar s Working Group Report Gentlemen:

The ACRS Full Committee just delayed the reporting of the External Hazards Working Group Report in May - it is postponed for now, it is not canceled. I wanted to let you know as soon as possible. The Committee plans on continuing their discussion tomorrow as reported earlier, but the schedule is now stretched out and the discussion and presentation of the report will be re-scheduled for a future FC meeting. I will send more details early next week after tomorrow's discussion.

Derek

-Oc.luJt. ell-. w ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCbX6) I(cell) derek,widmayer@nrc.gov

From: Paul Blanch To: Widmayer Derek Cc: diochbaum@ucsusa.org

Subject:

[External_5ender] Re: May Meeting on External Hazards Working Group Report Date: Friday, April 06, 2018 4:38:53 PM Thank youFor the update Sent from my iPhone On Apr 6, 2018, at 1:21 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Gentlemen:

The ACRS Full Committee just delayed the reporting of the External Hazards Working Group Report in May - it is postponed for now, it is not canceled. I wanted to let you know as soon as possible. The Committee plans on continuing their discussion tomorrow as reported earlier, but the schedule is now stretched out and the discussion and presentation of the report will be re-scheduled for a future FC meeting. I will send more details early next week after tomorrow*s discussion.

Derek 1Je1r.e1t. di. w~

ACRS/rechnical Support Branch

!Cb)(6) I (cell) derek.widmaver@nrc.gov

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Wor1<ing Group Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/6/2018 6:44:34 PM Central Standard Time From:  !(b)C6) I To:  !(b_

... X6_)-------------

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks Dick, Hope you're having more fun than we are. As of this afternoon, the full committee decided to not schedule the man-made hazards report for the May meeting. !Instead, we are {I think) going to first have a closed subcommittee meeting with the staff, and then a full committee meeting that is open to the public. Not yet sure about the logistics or schedules for those meetings.

Drive safely and enjoy the spring colors.

John In a message dated 4/6/2018 8:08: 14 AM Central Standard Time, !(b_ ...)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _!writes:

HiJohn-...(b_)C _6)----...-..---...............----------------------' Yes, and Yes. Thank you for asking. Best regards there. Dick Get Outlook for Android On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 7:41 AM-0400, ~...

6 (b_)c _) _ _ _ ___,~ wrote:

Hi Dick, Sorry to bother you with this at the last minute. Pending discussions during our retreat session on Saturday morning, we plan to make our report available publicly in ADAMS early next week. Two questions:

( 1) Should we list the names of the working group members in the report?

(2) If we do list the names, do you want your name included?

Thanks, John 1/1

~U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the Environment Man-Made External Hazards Working Group Report John W. Stetkar 1

Working Group

• Ron Ballinger

• Dennis Bley

• Pete Riccardella

• Dick Skill111an

• John Stetkar

• Derek Widn,ayer 2

Background

• ACRS engagement with staff during COL application reviews and post-Fukushima activities for operating reactors

• ACRS contacted by member of the public regarding review of Indian Point natural gas pipeline (2014 - 2016)

• Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) letter to NRC Chairman requesting ACRS review of NRC process and criteria for reviewing natural gas pipeline hazards (2015)

• NRC Chairman response to UCS noted formation of ACRS working group to gather and review information on risks from external man-made hazards, including gas pipelines 3

Background

• ACRS December 13, 2016 letter: ..The scope of external hazards to be assessed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise should be expanded to include man-made hazards, except for intentional acts ...

• Recommendation rejected, based on existing practices and staff conclusion regarding proposed Generic Issue 4

Backup Slides Regulatory Guidance Code of Federal Regulations

• 10 CFR Part 50

- 10 CFR 50.34

- General Design Criterion 3 **Fire Protection..

- General Design Criterion 4 ..Environmental and Dynamic Effects Design Bases..

• 10 CFR Part 52

- 10 CFR 52.17

- 10 CFR 52.79

• 10 CFR Part 100

- 10 CFR 100.20 30

Regulatory Guidance Standard Review Plan

• Section 2.2.1-2.2.2 Identification of Potential Hazards in Site Vicinity

(March 2007)

• Section 2.2.3 Evaluation of Potential Accidents (March 2007)

• Section 3.5.1.5 Site Proximity Missiles (Except Aircraft) (March 2007)

• Section 3.5.1.6 Aircraft Hazards

(March 2010) 31

Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guides

• RG 1.70 ..Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition" (November 1978)

• RG 1.78 ..Evaluating the Habitability of a Nuclear Power Plant Control Room during a Postulated Hazardous Chemical Release" (December 2001)

• RG 1.91 ..Evaluations of Explosions Postulated to Occur at Nearby Facilities and on Transportation Routes Near Nuclear Power Plants" (April 2013) 32

Regulatory Guidance Regulatory Guides (contd.)

• RG 1.117 ..Protection Against Extreme Wind Events and Missiles for Nuclear Power Plants..

(July 2016)

• RG 1.206 ..Combined License Applications for Nuclear Power Plants (LWR Edition)" (June 2007)

• Additional references and supplemental guidance are cited in the SRP and RGs 33

Proposed Generic Issue

• Subn,itted by Japan Lessons-Learned Project Directorate in Septen,ber 2013

• Potential risk increase due to changes in n,an-n,ade activities in site environs

• Need for periodic assessn,ents and FSAR updates 34

Proposed Generic Issue {contd.)

• Rejected in January 2014

- Issues not amenable to risk quantification using standard tools and methods (e.g.,

SPAR models); qualitative conclusion that they do not represent a "credible threat to the NRC's strategic and performance goals and measures"

- Issue can be addressed through other regulatory programs

- Information to determine risk significance is not available without requests to licensees or collecting it onsite 35

From: Widmayer Derek To: Stetkar John

Subject:

. RE: Man-Made Hazards This Morning Date: Saturday, April 07, 2018 7:58:00 AM I will call in. Tell Theron to open the "Maitri" teleconference line and I will hook into that at some point before 9:00. [I guess we will have to rename it the "Derek" line]

Thanks From: Stetkar, John Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 7:57 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards This Morning Hi Derek, We're first going to do final edits on a letter, which should not take much time. I expect that we'll start the man-made hazards discussion around 9:00, if you want to call in.

John

From:

To:

CbX6)

Subject:

n a:za s O ng Group Report Note: The 203-page clean draft report, with appen dices, is withheld in its entirety under FOIA Date: Saturday, Apri 7, 201812:48:19 PM exemption 5. Portions of the report containing CE!! are also withheld underFOIA exemption 3, Attachments: Worjtjng Group Report - Rey 7.docx in conjunction w ith 16 USC 8240-l(d)(l), and FOIA exemption 7(F).

Sorry for the delay - all talk. no action .... Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John

From: Veil. Andrea To: Widmayer, Derek Cc: Banks. Mark Subject Re: DRAFT - Agreement on Man-Made Hazards Worl<lng Group Report path forward Date: 5aturday, April 07, 2018 9:03:42 AM Hi Derek, I plan to give the AO a heads up on this at my periodic meeting with him on Tuesday.

That will give the EDO's office a heads up before the proposed closed SC meeting. If the EDO's office wants a copy when the staff gets it, l also think that is appropriate and 1 will keep you informed.

Andrea On: 07 April 2018 08:20, "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek.Widmaveru!1nrc. f.!OV> wrote:

Does this all sound good? I will send it to everyone that needs to get it after you check on it.

On Friday. April 6. 2018. during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report:

• The Full Committee session scheduled for May 2nd will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this immediately by email (done). ACRS Staff (Widmayer} will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation. NRO and NRR Management wlrl be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weidong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications will be sent as needed.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send it to is yet to be decided). At a minimum. the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE}. This invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report if the staff desires, at which they can present their review of the report.

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establlsh a time for this Subcommittee meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at whic h the staff will be invited to provide a presentation of

their review of the report (if they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff.

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and will check with OGC to ensure this Is allowed.

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, If needed).

• The Full Committe*e will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be invited to present (Paul Blanch and David l ochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Furl Committee meeting and after the report is made publicly available. The Full Committee will decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to send a letter attaching the report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission or the EDO.

De.11.cA cA-. W ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCb)(6) I(cell) derek,widmayer@nrc,!lov

From: Widmayer Derek To: Yell, Andrea

Subject:

RE: DRAFT - Agreement on Man-Made Hmrds Working Group Report path forward Date: Saturday, April 07, 2018 9:27:00 AM I am on - waiting for your end.

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 9:26 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derel<.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: DRAFT - Agreement on Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report path forward We are ready for you to call back in.

On: 07 April 2018 08:20, "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek,Widmayer@nrc.gov> wrote:

Does this all sound good? I will send it to everyone that needs to get it after you check on it.

On Friday, April 6, 2018, during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report:

• The Full Committee session scheduled for May 2nd will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this immediately by email (done). ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation. NRO and NRR Management will be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weidong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications will be sent as needed.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send it to is yet to be decided). At a minimum, the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE). This invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report if the staff desires, at which they can present their review of the report.

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establish a time for this Subcommittee meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at which the staff will be invited to provide a presentation of their review of the report (If they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff.

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and will check with OGC to ensure this is allowed.

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, if needed).

• The Full Committee will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be invited to present (Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Full Committee meeting and after the report is made publicly available. The Full Committee will decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to send a letter attaching the report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission or the EDO.

DeJr.eA J. w ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch i(b)C62 I (cell) derek wjdmayer@nrc gov

From: Widmayer, Derek.

To: Bauer. Laurel; Cook Christopher; Dudek. Michael; Harvey, Brad Cc: Tavtor. Robert; Campbell, Andy

Subject:

RE: Notification ofWor1dng Group Report completion and upcoming ACRS meeting Date: Saturday, April 07, 2018 10:33:00 AM The presentation discussed below for the May ACRS Full Committee meeting has been postponed. The Full Committee decided to follow its normal process of convening a Subcommittee Meeting followed by a Full Committee session. More details will pe forthcoming .

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:39 AM To: Bauer, Laurel <Laurel.Bauer@nrc.gov>; Cook, Christopher <Christopher.Cook@nrc.gov>; Dudek, Michael <Michael.Dudek@nrc.goV>; Harvey, Brad <Brad.Harvey@nrc.gov>

Cc: Taylor, Robert <Robert.Taylor@nrc.gov>; Campbell, Andy <Andy.Campbell@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Notification of Working Group Report completion and upcoming ACRS meeting Branch Chiefs in External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE):

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Working Group on Man-Made External Hazards has completed its work and produced a draft report, the results of which will be presented to the Full ACRS at the 553rd (May 2018) meeting of the Committee. The presentation is currently scheduled for Thursday, May 3, 2018, starting at 2:00 PM. The draft report-will be available for review in the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) in early April.

A future email will be sent that provides the ADAMS accession number for the report and the final Agenda for the meeting.

'De.JrRJt.. o4-. lt'ldHt.<<ffC!.'L ACRS/Technical Support Branch jCb)(6) I(cell) derek.widmaver@nrc.gov

From: Yell, Andrea To: Widmayer Derek

Subject:

RE: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: Saturday, April 07, 2018 11:34: 16 AM Thanks for getting us all on the same page Derek.

Andrea From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 11:26 AM To: Mike Corradi.;.,: n~ i !:;::

(b=)(6=) ======::::;l.!:l(b=)(=6)========1!..!:l(b  ;;,.;).:..

<6);....__ _ _ _ _.......

P:,:

et:.:e..:.R::.:

ic::.

ca:,:r.:

de::l.:.:

la2:!C=)=

b (6)= ===:::::;--;:;;:;:;;::='='(b=X= 6)=::::::;i-------- DENN IS BLEY

!(b)(6) ~; !i.;.

(b.;..;.

X6.;..

) _ _ _ __,

Cc: Veil, Andrea <andrea.veil @nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael

<Michael.Snodderly@nrc.gov>; Wang, Weidong <Weldong.Wang@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report On Friday, April 6, 2018, during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report:

• The Full Committee session scheduled for May 2nd will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this Immediately by email (done). ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation (done). NRO and NRR Management will be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weidong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications wlll be sent as needed. ACRS Executive Director (Andrea Veil) will notify the EDO's Assistant for Operations (AO) at her next periodic meeting (Tuesday, April 10th) of this agreed process.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send it to is yet to be decided). This will be done as soon as possible. At a minimum, the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE). This invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report if the staff desires, at which they can present their review of the report.

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establish a time for this Subcommittee meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at which the staff wlll be invited to provide a presentation of their review of the report (if they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff.

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and will check with OGC to ensure this is allowed.

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (Incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, if needed).

• The Full Committee will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be invited to present (Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Full Committee meeting and after the report is made publicly available. The Full Committee will decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to send a letter attaching the report with concluslons and recommendations to the Commission or the EDO.

DekeA of-. W ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!(b)(6) I(cell) derek,wjdmayer@nrc gov

From: yeu Andrea To: Widmayer. Derek

Subject:

Re: DRAFT* Agreement on Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report path forward Date: Saturday, April 07, 2018 11:20:04 AM Attachments: PSEA Roster.docx Where are John's slides? Can you send them to me?

Andrea On: 07 April 2018 10:24, "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek.Widma) eny nrq~ov> wrote:

Andrea:

The EHCOE resides in NRO DSEA. Their roster is attached. The way it "works" is thru program plan and other programmatic documents which are available.

Derek From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 10:22 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: DRAFT

• Agreement on Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report path forward Derek, I've lost track of where the center of expertise resides and who are the managers?

Thanks, Andrea On: 07 April 2018 08:20, "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek.Widmayerw)nrc. gov> wrote:

Does this all sound good? I will send it to everyone that needs to get it after you check on it.

On Friday, April 6, 2018, during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group

Report:

• The Full Committe,e session scheduled for May 2nd will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this immediately by emall (done). ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation. NRO and NRR Management will be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weidong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications will be sent as needed.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send it to is yet to be decided). At a minimum, the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE). This Invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report If the staff deskes, at which they can present their review of the report.

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establish a time for this Subcommittee meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at which the staff will be invited to provide a presentation of their review of the report (if they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff.

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and wlll check with OGC to ensure this is allowed.

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, if needed).

• The Full Committee will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be Invited to present (Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Full Committee meeting and after the report is made publicly available. The Full Committee will decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to send a letter attaching the report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission or the EDO.

Deh.elt. cA-. W ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!CbX6) I(cell) derek.wjdmayer@nrc !i:OY

DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS {DSEA) (U5220) (MS 0-7H04)

Robert M. Taylor Director 0-7H01 x1634 (RMTl) Clifford Munson Sr. Level Advisor 0-7D06 x6947 (CGM1)

Andy C. Campbell Deputy Director 0-7H03 x1634 (ACC) Stephanie Devlin-Gill Technical Assistant 0-7H10 x5301 (SXD8)

Jane Spence (c) Division AA (A) 0 -7H04 x1634 (JMS20) *Thompson, Jenise (A) Technical Assistant 0-7D01 x1811 (JMT4)

HYDROLOGY AND METEOROLOGY BRANCH (RHM) (MS 0-7021m) (US224) RADIATION PROTECTION AND ACODENT CONSEQUENCES BRANCH (RPAC)

• Cook, Christopher Branch Chief 0-7D18 415-6397 {CBC1) (MS 0-7021m) (US223)

Mills, Vivian {c) Admin. Asst. o-7023 415-3592 {VXMl)

• Dudek, Michael Branch Chief 0-7022 415-6500 (MID)

• Ahn, Hosung Hydrologist 0 -7E14 415-1398 (HXAl) Spence, Jane (c) Admln. Asst. 0 -7H04 415-4717 (JMS20)

• .,ar i~1, Dil I fiyd-c10g t "7C'l .. 4l ',653 (C... r, Clement, Richard Sr. Health Physicist 0-7E08 415-1988 (RSC4)

• Breithaupt, Steve Consultant-Hydrologist W@H 425-299-2443 (SA811) *Ghosh, Amitava Geotechnlcal Engineer 0-7021 415-3268 (AXG15)

• 01eng, Yuan Hydrologist 0-7F10 415-1212 (YXC1) Gran, Zachary Health Physicist 0 -7F08 415-5520 (ZXGl}

• Hibler, Lyle Consultant-Hydrologist W@H 360-504-2018 (LFHl) Hart, Michelle Sr. Reactor Engineer 0-7E24 415-1265 (MLH3)

• Lee, Michael Sr. Hydrologist 0-7C06 415-6887 (MPL) Lavera, Ronald Health Physldst 0*7801 415-5306 {RXL3)

• Rivera-Lugo, Richard Project Manager 0 -7013 415-7190 (RRL2} Palmrose, Donald E. Sr. Reactor Engineer 0-7Dl0 415-3803 (DEPl)

• See, Kenneth Sr. Hydrologist 0-7H13 415-1508 (KRS2) stutzcage, Edward E. Health Physicist 0*7H18 415-5345 (EES1)

• llruneh, Neblyu Hydrologist 0-7F02 415-2080 (NDT1)

• Tammara, Seshaglrl Physical Scientist 0-7El5 415-2734 (SRT)

William, Stephen Health Physicist 0 -7F12 415-6498 (SEW2)

METEOROLOGY TEAM (RMET/RHM) (MS 0 -7D21m) (U5224)

• Harvey, R. Brad Team Leader 0-7020 415-4118 (RBH) GEOSCIENCE AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH (RGS)

MIiis, Vivian (c) Admln. Asst. 0*7023 415-3592 (VXM1) (MS 0 -7D21m) (U5225)

• Mazalka, Michael Physical Scientist 0*7G07 415-6282 (MDM3)

• Bauer, Laurel Branch Chief/Geo!. 0

• 7E10 415-3210 (LMBl}

• Quinlan, Kevin Physical Scientist 0*7F06 415-6809 (KRQl) MIiis, Vivian (c) Admin. Asst. 0 -7D23 415-3592 (VXM1)

• White, Jason Physlcal Scientist 0-7005 415-3212 (JDW3) ~ndelario, Lulssette Geotechnlcal Engineer 0 -7C04 415-8189 {l.XC4)

• Giacinto, Joseph Geologist 0-7A03 415*0714 (JFG2)

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL REVIEW BRANCH (RENY) (MS 0-7D21m)

• Heeszel, David Geophysicist WOH 415-0890 {DSH4)

(U5227)

• Stirewalt, Gerry Sr. Geologist 0-7E12 415-3698 (GLS3)

Erwin, Kenneth Branch Chief 0-7E22 415-7559 (KTE) *Thompson, ,enise-Mane Project Manager o-~001 415 18 I (1t If4)

Spence, Jane (c) Admin. Asst. 0-7H04 415-4717 (lMS20)

• Wang, Weijun Sr. Geotechnical Eng. 0-7H19 415-1175 (WXW2) ba nrru -st, uaniel ~yr.lrologi"" 0-7015 4.5-6653 (0061) *Xi, Zuhan Geotechnlcal Engineer 0*7H23 415-1306 {ZXXl)

Cushing, Jack Sr. Project Manager 0-7Hl5 415-1424 (JXC9)

Davis, Jennifer Sr. Project Manager 0-7014 415-3835 (JXDlO)

Doub, Peyton Environ. Scientist 0-7F04 415-6703 (JPD5)

Haque, Mohammad Sr. Hydrologist 0-7H21 415-4041 (MWH3) A-ActlnQ RO/RimRotatinq Out or In of DSEA ( OT)=Detail Hickey, Eva Consultant - NEPA W@H S09-43CH46S L- Leave (C)=Contractor * "' EHCOE Kratchman, Jessica Project Manager 0-7G01 415-5112 (JAK3)

Kugler, Andrew Sr. Project Manager 0 *7H11 415-2828 (AJK1)

Mussatti, Daniel C Economist 0-7016 415-2394 {DCM2)

• Quinn-Willingham, Laura Project Manager 0-7C18 415-2220 (LMQl) ADAMS Accession No. ML12339A355 (Last updated on 02/20/18 JMS)

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Subject Re: Mao-Made Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/7/2018 12:40:15 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6)

To:

John:

Thanks for all the work on this.

I know you well enough to realize how much effort you put into this and it clearly shows.

I know the staff will benefit from this, even if they will not directly admit it.

My only major comment is ... r_)c-5)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,,

(b)(5)

Mike p.s. see you SC week (b)(5)

On Apr 7, 2018_, at 11 :48 AM, ._ jCb_)C6_) ___ ___,! wrote:

Sorry for the delay - all talk, no action.... Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very usefu1 for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

112

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report John

<Working Group Report - Rev 7.docx>

212

4/17/2018 Re: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report

Subject:

Re: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/7/2018 1:3 1:32 PM Central Standard Time From: l(bX6) I To:  !(bX6) ~ Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Dennis Is correct.

John 6

Tn a message dated 4/7/20 18 11 :53:22 AM Central Standard Time,!... (b_

)< _) ___ _,!writes:

J believe that John wanted a chance to update the report, if he gets comments, say, by Monday. Please speak with John once more before posting the report for NRC staff.

Sent from my JPhone On Apr 7, 2018, at '11 :25, Widmayer, Derek <Ocrck.W1dma\crft1nrc.i:ov> wrote:

On Friday, April 6, 2018,. during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report:

• The Full Committee session scheduled for May 2nd will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this immediately by email (done). ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation (done). NRO and NRR Management will be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weldong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications will be sent as needed. ACRS Executive Director (Andrea Veil) will notify the EDO's Assistant for Operations (AO) at her next periodic meeting (Tuesday, April 1oth) of this agreed process.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send it to is yet to be decided). This will be done as soon as possible. At a minimum, the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE). This invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report if the staff desires, at which they can present their review of the report.

1/2

4/17/2018 Re: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establish a time for this Subcommittee meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at which the staff will be invited.to provide a presentation of their review of the report (if they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff.

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and will check with OGC to ensure this Is allowed.

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, if needed).

• The Full Committee will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be invited to present (Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Full Committee meeting and after the report is made publicly available. The Full Committee will decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to send a letter attaching the report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission or the EDO.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch

._IX6__

Cb....) __ _,I (cell) dcrek.wjdmn>eri,,*nrc.~ov 2/2

4(17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Wortdng Group Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/7/2018 J :36:15 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: l(b)(6)

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Harold, Thank you very, very much.

John In a message dated 4/7/2018 12:16:41 PM Central Standard Time, _!(b_X6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _!writes:

John: I will do mv best. l(b)C6)

(b)C6) I So, ""1_w_a_n_

t -to_r_e--s-t-at_e_w-.,h-a..,.t.,.l_w_a_s-t r-y"""

in_g_t_

o_c_

om_ m_u_n.,.ic_a..,..

te-.-be

..,ii"""o-re_w

_ e "'"

b-ro..,.k_e_u_p-. "'"'

it_ __,

goes like this, and I want to make clear that I have not yet fully re-read the material group report to validate what I am about to say.

(b)(S) 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Woriung Group Report (b)(5)

(bXS) !Hope this helps explain my comments earlier. Harold From~(bX6) H~

Sent: Saturdav. Aorll 07 2018 9:48~

To: l(b)(6) ~ 1(bX6) ~ !(b)(6) I: l(b)(6)

(bX6) t 1(bX6) I; l(b)(6) t l(bX6) I (b)(6) 1; l(b)(6) t l(b)(6) ll(b)(6) l; !(b)(6)

(b)(6) ~ John.Stetkar@nrc.gov; Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Sorry for the delay - all talk, no action .... Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John 2/2

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=285639&tr-America/Denver l(b)(6)

Cable One Webmail Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report From : Joy Rempe <I.._Cb_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _..... t> Sun, Apr OBr 2018 11:22 AM Subject : Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report To : Skillman Technical Resources Inc. "'!Cb.,...,

X""'6)- - - - - - - .

Cc : John Stetkar <John.Stetl<ar@nrc.gov>, Derek Widmayer

<Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>, Gordon Skillman <Gordon.Sklllman@nrc.gov>,

jlr3@nrc.gov Thanks for the quick response back. It helps me prioritize on what to request from your group. I just wanted to make sure that I was aware of opinions from the entire working group before I sent in my remarks. I'll be sending them in soon.

_rx_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1.

Joy From: "Skillman Technical Resourrces Inc." !._Cb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ __

To: "Joy Rempe" ~ (b)(6) t>

Cc: "John Stetkar" <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>, "Derek \/Vidmayer" <Derek.\/Vidmayer@nrc.gov>, "Gordon Skillman"

!Cb)(6) I"Gordon Skillman" <Gordon.Skillman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Sunday, April 8, 201811 :15:27 AM

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report The report -

• (bX5)

Thank you Joy.

Best regards.

Dick 1 of3 4/16/2018, 4:34 PM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cobleone.net/h/printmessage?id'"285639&tz=America/Denver On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 11:16 AM, Joy Rempe < L.!Cb_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ _.!>wrote:

Dick, If ou have an  ?

CbX5)

Joy From: Cb)(6)

To: Cb)(6) , JCb)(6)  !.!CbX6)

CbX6)

(b)(6) !CbX6)  !._Cb_)<...6)- .............- -.........- - - - - - - "John Stetkar"

<John,Stetkar@nrc.gov>, "Derek Widmayer <Dere . maver@nrc.qoV>

Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:48:06 AM

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Son)'fll<llledel~-a11ta1k. no action... Here's the version with the rover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, If you have any comments on tt,e report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John Dr. Joy L Rempe. Principal Rempe Ind Anoclato,, LLC CbX6) 2 of3 4/16/2018, 4:34 PM

Cable One WebmaiJ https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=285639&tz=America/Denver Or. Jc1f L Rempe, 1'11ncipal 3of3 4/16/2018, 4:34 PM

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report

Subject:

Re: Man.Made Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/8/2018 J:25:I2PM Central Standard Time From: !Cb)(6) I 6

To: ~'Cb-)<_)- - - - - - ~

Cc: John.Stctkar@nrc.gov Thanks Walt, Hope you got home OK. !Cb ..._X_6)_ _ _ _ _ __.

John Jn a message dated 4/8/2018 12:43: 10 PM Central Standard Time, !Cb_ ... )<6_) _ _ _ _ ___.! writes:

John, Looks like a very useful and complete compilation - as discussed at airport, I have no further comments on draft.

Walt

-Original Mes'"'s"'"' a,._e,:-_-_ _ _ __

From: jwstetkar CbX6)

To: ble CbX6)  ; CbX6) >; DanaPowers (b)(6)

(b)(6) , (b)(6)

,: :o; rir-:~TKT.:==:::-::>1;;'7

_ _ _ _ _........,............. ; John.Stetkar <John.Stetkar@nrc-"':.g::':o~v:>:, ~...:...fJ=====""'

ent: a , pr , :48 pm

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Wor1<ing Group Report Sorry for the delay - all talk, no action....Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this moming, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John 1/1

From: Joy Rempe X6)f  !>

Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 4:42 PM To: Veil, Andrea Cc: Rempe, Joy

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report I noticed that Harold copied you. Perhaps I also should have copied you? Anyhow, here's my response ... !CbX5) I Joy From: "Jo >

To: CbX6)

Cc: ..............

(b)(6)

CbX6) --------------, (b)(6)

CbX6)

CbX6) (b)(6)

~ ~ I

< Cb)C6) , "John Stetkar <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>, "Derek Widmayer"

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>, jlr3@nrc.gov Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2018 12:5,9:42 PM

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report

Dear John (and other members of the Working Group),

I appreciate the hard work that you have done to research this topic. It helped to discuss this document on Saturday and hear your proposed approach on future ACRS recommendations re ardin the a roach that staff mi ht ado t for addressln issues raised within this document. I (b)(5) 1

(b)(5)

From: Cb)<6)

To: Cb)<6) CbX6)

!CbX6) I CbX6) CbX6)

< ere . 1 mayer me.gov>

Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:48:06 AM

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Sorry for the delay - all talk, no action .... Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John 2

Dr. Joy L. Rempe, Principal Rempe and Associates, LLC (b)(6)

Website: www.rempellc.com Dr. Joy L. Rempe, Principal 3

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id- 285838&tz=America/Dcnve1 cable One Webmall l(b)(6)

Re: Man- Made Hazards Working Group Report From : Joy Rempe 1._ Cb_)<6_)_ _ _ _ __ . Sun, Apr 08, 2018 07:05 PM Subject : Re: Man-Made Hazards Worlcing Group Report To : Harold Ray <jCbX6) ~

Cc : jlr3@nrc.gov Harold, (b)(S) 1 of4 4/18/2018, ll:20AM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=2&5&3&&tz=America/Denver (b)(S)

I'd be interested In any additional comments that you send to them.

Take care, Joy From:!CbX6) I To: r (6) I Cc: 'Cb)C6)

Sent: Sunday, Apnl 8, 2018 5:02:44 P l

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report From: Joy Rempe [mailto!Cb)(6) b Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 12:00 PM To: iCbX6) I Cc: !CbX6) UCbX6) Cb_)(6_) _ _ _ __,M.....

U._ (b_X6_) _ _ _ __,t""'h..i.

2(6::.)_ _ _ _ __.

2 of 4 4/18/2018, 11:20 AM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=285838&tz=America/Denver j(bX6) l;ICbX6) p (b)(6) I...

ICb.._

X.,.

6)_ _ _ __

l<bX6) j;j$}(6) I; ilb)(6) HCbX6} p;John Stetkar

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; Derek Widmayer <Derek.Widmayer@nr"" c.g'""o""'

V>*;-.

jlr..

3...,,

@-n-rc-.g-ov_ _ _ __.

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report

Dear John (and other members of the Working Group),

I aooreciate the hard work that vou have done to research this tooic. It heloed to discuss this document on Saturdav CbX5)

From: CbX6)

To: Cb)(6) !Cb)(6) i!CbX6)

(b)(6)

!CbX6) I* (b)(6)

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov> ~."'fflll:o-=e're

='!:T."!:'l"l!':

1r.:m~a=-:-y~er" <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Saturday, April 7, 201810:4!6:06 AM

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Sorry for the delay - all ta.lk, no action....Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me 3 of4 4/18/2018, 11:20 AM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printrnessage?id=285838&tz=America/Oenvcr ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John Dr. Joy L. Rempe. Principal Rempe and Associates, LLC (b)(6)

Website: www.rempellc.com Or. J<Yf L Rempe, Principll Rempe and Aatociales, LLC Websle: WWW,rempeJIC,COffi 4of4 4/18/2018, t 1:20 AM

4/17/2018 Fwd: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Wor!<lng Group Report

Subject:

Fwd: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/9/2018 5:18:44 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)

To: ~1(b~)~

C6)- ---------..--___,

You were not copied Begin forwarded message:

From: "Banks, Mark" <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Fwd: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: April 9, 2018 at 4:40:48 AM CDT To: Michael Corradini !Cb)C6)  ! "Widmayer, Derek"

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Veil, Andrea" <andrea.veil@nrc.gov>

Hi Derek, We do not need to check with OGC to close an ACRS subcommittee meeting - FACA is clear regarding subcommittees not being held to FACA. The newly revised and approved ACRS Bylaws are in line with the FACA requirements regarding subcommittee meetings Thanks, Mork Banks - Chtd Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission ie.l. 301-415-3718 Fox 301-415-5589 From: Michael Corradini (mailto:l(b)(6) U Sent: Saturday, April 07, 20181:18 PM To: Widmayer; Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc goV>

Cc: Veil, Andrea <aodrea.veil@nrc g01,>; John Stetkar <j<hX6)  !>; Banks, Mark

<Mark.Banks@nrc. gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Derek: Couple of edits in BOLD BELOW. Mike Begin forwarded message:

From: "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goy>

Subject:

Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: April 7, 2018 at 10:25:31 AM CDT 1/3

4/17/2018 Fwd: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report

~---------_,.....,________

To: "Mike Corradini t (bX6)

(b)(6) I>, "Pete Riccardella t;:;:

(b~ )C6~

) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.... ll(b

_ X_

6

)--,"""'1'!"'!"'!'!""-----.,....l "DENN1S BLEY (b)(6) t' 1(bX6) I

\O~)\O) - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - '

Cc: "Veil, Andrea" <andrea.veil@nrc,gov>, "Banks, Mark"

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>, "Snodderly. Michael" <Michael.Snodderly@nrc.gov>,

"Wang, Weidong" <Wejdong.Wang@nrc.gov>

On Friday, April 6, 2018, during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report:

• The Full Committee session scheduled for May 3,c:' will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this immediately by email (ac , '). ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation (done). NRO and NRR Management will be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weidong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications will be sent as needed. ACRS Executive Director (Andrea Veil) will notify the EDO's Assistant for Operations (AO) at her next periodic meeting (Tuesday, April 1oth) of this agreed process.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send it to is yet to be decided). This will be done as soon as possible EARLY NEXT WEEK AFTER ACRS MEMBER FEEDBACK. At a minimum, the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE). This invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report if the staff desires, at which they can present their review of the report.

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establish a time for this Subcommitte~ meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at which the staff will be invited to provide a presentation of their review of the report (if they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff. POSSIBLE TIMES COULD BE JUNE 4th or JUNE SC week GIVING THE STAFF AT LEAST 6 WEEKS TO REVIEW ??

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and will check with OGC to ensure this is allowed

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, if needed).

• The Full Committee will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be invited to present (Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Full Committee meeting and after the report is made publicly available. The Full Committee will decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to 2/3

4/17/2018 Fwd: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report send a letter attaching the report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission or the EOO.

Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCbX6) I(cell) derek.w1dm yer@nrc.gm, 313

From: Michael Corradini To: Banks Mark Cc: Yell Andrea; Widmayer Derek

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender] Re: Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: Monday, April 09, 2018 6:19:38 AM Thanks Mark On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:40 AM, Banks, Mark <Marlc Banks@nrc,ioy> wrote:

Hi Derek, We do not need to check with OGC to close an ACRS subcommittee meeting -

FACA is clear regarding subcommittees not being held to FACA. The newly revised and approved ACRS Bylaws are in line with the FACA requirements regarding subcommittee meetings.

Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 From: Michael Corradini (maiJm.t....

Cb_>C_6>_ _ _ _ _ ___.

Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:18 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer@nrc gov>

Cc: Veil, Andrea <andrea.veil@nrqov>; John Stetkar 1...Cb_)C6_>_ _ _ __.!>; Banks, Mark

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd : Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Derek: Couple of edits in BOLD BELOW. Mike Begin forwarded message:

From: "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek,Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Agreement on Path Forward for External Hazards Working Group Report Date: April 7, 2018 at 10:25:31 AM CDT To: "Mike Corradini CbX6) II CbX6) "

CbX6)

l(b)(6) I...

l(b_)(6_) _ _ _ _ _ __,

Cc: Veil, Andrea" <andrea veil@nrc gov>, "Banks, Mark"

<Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>, "Snodderly, Michael"

<MichaeLSnodderly@nrc gov>, "Wang, Weidong"

<Weidong.Wang@nrc.gov>

On Friday, April 6, 2018, during the 652nd Full Committee meeting, the ACRS decided on the following path forward for processing the External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report:

• The Full Committee session scheduled for May 3rd will be cancelled.

• ACRS Staff (Derek Widmayer) will notify Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum of this immediately by email (done).

ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will also send an email to the EHCOE regarding the meeting cancellation (done). NRO and NRR Management will be notified by Mike Snodderly and Weidong Wang at the Monday AM Management Meetings for NRO and NRR. Other notifications will be sent as needed. ACRS Executive Director (Andrea Veil) will notify the EDO's Assistant for Operations (AO) at her next periodic meeting (Tuesday, April 1oth) of this agreed process.

• The Working Group will prepare the Report for review and transmit it to the NRC staff (exactly who to formally send It to is yet to be decided). This will be done as soon as possible EARLY NEXT WEEK AFTER ACRS MEMBER FEEDBACK. At a minimum, the Working Group would like the report to be reviewed by the External Hazards Center of Expertise (EHCOE). This invitation will indicate that the ACRS will hold a Subcommittee meeting on the report if the staff desires, at which they can present their review of the report.

• ACRS Staff (Widmayer) will establish a time for this Subcommittee meeting on the ACRS SC schedule at which the staff will be invited to provide a presentation of their review of the report (if they desire). The time of the SC meeting will be confirmed later after discussions with NRC staff. POSSIBLE TIMES COULD BE JUNE 4th or JUNE SC week GIVING THE STAFF AT LEAST 6 WEEKS TO REVIEW??

• Because the report will remain a Draft ACRS Working Product during this time, ACRS staff will plan on the meeting being closed and will check with OGC to ensure this is allowed

• After NRC staff review and the Subcommittee meeting, the Working Group will make the report publicly available (incorporating revisions agreed to after the staff review, if needed).

• The Full Committee will hear from the staff (if they desire) and the members of the public who have an interest in this work and who will be invited to present (Paul Blanch and David Lochbaum) after the Subcommittee meeting at a future Full Committee meeting and after the report Is made publicly available. The Full Committee wlll decide at this future Full Committee meeting whether to send a letter attaching the report with conclusions and recommendations to the Commission or the EDO.

Deh.e.lt. of-. W ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCb)(6) I {c~II) derek.widmayer@nrc ~ov

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=285929&tz=America/Denver cable One Webmail l(b)(6)

RE: Fwd: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report From : Andrea Veil <andrea.veil@nrc.gov> Mon, Apr 09, 2018 06:06 AM Subject : RE: Fwd: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report To : Joy Rempe ~Cb)C6) I Cc :Joy Rempe <Joy.Rempe@nrc.gov>, Derek Widmayer

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>, Mark Banks <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Thanks for your comments Joy. I will also get a copy of the report from Derek since I wlll be starting my discussions tomorrow with the EDO's Office (Derek, please send Mark and I the latest copy of the report with the cover page etc).

Please also keep Mark and I in the loop on future revisions of this report, and the supporting deliberations leading up to meetings going forward. As I stated on Friday before you were on the catl. r )(S) l(bXS) I . . -----------

Andrea From: "Jo To: CbX6)

Cc: Cb)(6) (b)(6)

(b)(6)

CbX6)

(b)(6)

<Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc.gov>, jlr3@nrc..gov Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2018 12:59:42 PM

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report

Dear John (and other members of the Working Group),

I appreciate the hard work that you have done to research this topic. It helped to discuss this document on Saturday and hear your proposed approach on future ACRS recommendations regarding the aooroach that staff might adopt for addressing issues raised within this document. lCb)(S) I (bXS) 1 of 2 4/16/2018, 4:28 PM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=285929&tz=America/Denver (b)(5)

From: (b)(6)

To: (b)(6) l(b)(6)

(b)(6)

~~----"l"'"'r-~:'--------...

.._ _____ _., (b)(6)

~~-.,...,..,...,......,.,J (b)(6) ,_Cb_X_6)_-,,:,o_.,..--____,

etkar" <John .Stetl<ar@nrc.goV>, "Derek Widmayer" <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goy>

Sent: Saturday, April 7, 201810:48:06 AM SUbject: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Sorry for the delay

• all talk, no action....Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John Dr. Joy L. Rempe, Principal Rempe and Associates, LLC (b)(6)

Website: www.remoenc.com Dr. Joy L. Rempe, Principal Remoe and Associates LLC (b)(6)

Website: www.remoenc.com 2of2 4/ 16/20 18, 4:28 PM

From: Banks, Mark Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 6:39 AM To: Widmayer, Derek Cc: Veil, Andrea

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards - Missing Data, Documents, etc...

Hi Derek, CbX5)

Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Sofeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 1

4/1712018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Su~ject: Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/9/2018 8:46:35 AM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: L..!(b_)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ ____.! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks Matt.

John (b)(6)  ; Michael Dimitrfevi~

1~(bJX~6)~ :::::::::::::::,r::ioi~~:§!i::J&y§l[3:~!i:::::::=::::;;::::;::~~~~~~]Qj~~ Dick Skillman

Vesna (b)(6) >; Joy Rempe 1ii;)C6} 1>; Charles Brown (b)(6)  ; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; Derek Widmayer <~er!..5!e=~===~=*

Sent: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 8:31 am

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report John, (bXS)

Thanks, Matt On Apr 7, 2018, at 11:48AM, i..;.!Cb..;.X..;.

6)_ _ _ __.! wrote:

Sorry for the d~lay - all talk, no action....Here's the version with the cover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest., please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John

<Working Group Report- Rev 7.docx>

1/1

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableon e.net/h/printmessage?id=286026&tz=America/Denv...

Cllble One Webmall R.e: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report From :._!(b_)C_

6)_ _ _ __. Mon, Apr 09, 2018 10:53 AM Subjec.t : Re: Man-Made Hazards Wor1<lng Group Report To : l(bX6) LJohn Stetkar <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Got It, understood.

Thanks again.

-Original Messag.,.,.e:;::;- .,,,....-----,

From: Joy Rempe~(b)(6) ~

To: jwstetkar 1(ht(~

Cc: Malt Sunse ...r+11l-..(6"'"

f

) _ _ _ _ _...,i jlr3 <jlr3@nrc.gov>

Sent: Mon, Apr 9,..2... 0...

18- 9-:4..,.

8_a_m_ _ __.

Subject Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report (b)(5)

From: !Cb)C6)

To: l(bX6)

I Cc: "John Stetkar <John.Stetkar<&nrc.qov>

Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 8:35:25 AM

Subject:

Re; Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Got it.

Thanks.

In a message dated 4/9/2018 9:34: 14 AM Central Standard Tlme,!.... )C6_) _ _ _ ____,! writes:

(b_

Hi, My email ended up with the 'indentation' missing during transmittal and I put in a 'to' when I meant to have a 'from' So, let me try again (with some changes to darify).

Thanks, Joy 1 of3 4/16/2018, 4:31 PM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cablcone.net/h/printmessage?id=286026&tz-Arnerica/Denv...

f r"' .... 11 lnu R"'ffl""" J (b)(6) I>

To: (bX6) I Cc: (bX6) I, !(b)(6)  ! iCbX6) I.. !(b)C6) I (bX6) I. l(b)(6) I, "jose march-leuba" i(b)(6) I I,l(b)(6) I i(b)(6)

!(b)(6) t UCb)(6) i(bX6)

Widmayer' <Dere .Wldmayer@nrc.gov>, jlr3@nrc.go" t,

l !(bX6)

"John Stetkar <John.Stetkar@nrc.goy>, "Derek Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2018 12:59:42 PM

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report

Dear John (and other members of the Working Group),

I appreciate the hard work that you have done to research this topic. It helped to discuss this document on Saturday and hear your proposed approach on future ACRS recommendations rPnardlna the annroach that staff might adopt for addressing issues raised within this document. j(b)C5) I (b)(5) 2of3 4/16/2018.4:31 PM

Cable One Wcbmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=286026&tz=America/Denv...

From: l(b)C6) I To: l(bX6) I,l(b)(6) ~ l(b)(6) l l(b)(6) I (b)(6) I, ICbX6) I "jose march-leuba" <j(b)(6) ,.

1122162 ~,l(bX6) Ll(bX6) Ll(bX6) I (b)(6) j;, 1CbX6) 1Cb)(6) l "John Stetkar

<John.Stenc;:ir@lnrc.gov>, "Derek Widmayer <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov>

Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:48:06 AM

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report SOtJY foc the delay. a1 talk. no acuon....Here's the version with the oover pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John r:::-.., I

-Or. J<1t L Rempe, F'rtnclpal w-11e www.rempellc.com

--Or. Jf1t L Rempe, Pl1r.clp,I Rim£!! rd Aa1oclu, LLC 1~X6) w11>&11a. www.rempellc.com I

Of. .kif L Rempe. Plh:lpal Rem£!! nl MIIOdllN. LLC 1~X6)

Webslla; WWW .renipi;lic.eom 3 of3 4/16/2018, 4:31 PM

From: l(b)(6)

Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:16 AM To: Allen, Linda

Subject:

[External_Sender] Fwd: Re: May FC Meeting - Thursday/Friday?

Forwarded using cloudHQ's free email forwarding tool: Multi Email Fornard For Gmail You might be also interested to try cloudHQ's Auto DCC for Gmail: Setup automatic blind copies ofspecific emails that you send

Subject:

Re: May FC Meeting - Thursday/Friday?

From: Skillman Technical Resources Inc." < j"""(b.,..,. ) - - - - - - -.....1

)(6"'" .>

To: Michael Corradini <j(b)(6)  !>

Cc: Gordon Skillman <j(b)(6) ~. Gordon Skillman at NRC <grsl@nrc.gov>

Date: 2018-04-09T16:57: 17.000Z Mike, thank you for the head's up. dick From: Michael Corradini ~ (b)(6) ~

Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 12:41 PM To: Harold Ray; Dennis Bley; CHarles Brown; John Stetkar; Joy Rempe; Dick Skillman; Margaret Chu; Walt Kirchner; Dana Powers; Pete Riccardella; Jose March-1!.euba; Matt Sunseri; Ron Ballinger; Vesna Dimitrijevlc Cc: Veil, Andrea; Banks, Mark; Bellinger, Alesha

Subject:

Fwd: May FC Meeting - Thursday/Friday?

Folks, As noted below, the Man-made Hazards topic and the APR1400, Long-term Core-cooling topic has been eliminated from the May 653 Full committee agenda.

r on Responsive Record So we will definitely not have a Saturday session in May and will likely finish on Friday afternoon.

M ike Begin forwarded message:

On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:18 AM, Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov> wrote:

Hi Mike, 1

The May FC meeting now has only 1 letter (APR1400 LB LOCA) since APR1400 LTCC and Man-Made Hazards items have been delayed. The APR1400 LB LOCA letter should not be complicated or long, so, would you like to eliminate Saturday?

Thanks, Mark Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301-415-3718 Fax 301- 415-5589 2

4/17/20'18 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/9/2018 2:45:44 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To:  !(bX6)

Dates OK. Tonight OK for redline/strikeout (I hope).

On Apr 9, 2018, at 1: 19 PM, !(b_ ....)<6_) ____ _,! wrote:

This Is just a quick update and some process questions - I forgot tha~(b)(6) !ttiis aftemoon, which interrupts continuity. I haven't received any new comments In the last hour, so perhaps interest is waning. However, I don't want to be blind-sided by a last-minute tirade, so I'll hold onto the report for a few more hours.

(b)(S)

(b)(S) ___,~ If you disagree with this plan, please let me know.

Regarding the subcommittee meeting, based on the current meeting schedule, it seems that the morning of June 19 is the best option, with the afternoon of June 4 a less desirable possibility. July looks bad, unless the T-H meeting on July 10 disappears. Either way, that would mean a September Full Committee meeting on this topic.. Any thoughts about the schedule?

I would really like to get this thing into ADAMS on Wednesday. So if I send it to you this evening, can you tum it around and send me your input by mid-day or early afternoon Tuesday?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/9/2018 3:04:17 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: !CbX6)

Hi John, will return comments prompty. dick On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 3:19 PM, ~ CbX6) ~ wrote:

This is just a quick update and some process questions - I forgot that ""!Cb"X 6)--------,l

"""" this afternoon, which interrupts continuity. I haven't received any new comments in the last hour, so perhaps interest is waning. However, I don't want to be blind-sided by a last-minute tirade, so I'll hold onto the report for a few more hours.

(b)(S)

(b)(S) I 1r you a1sagree w1m mrs p1an, please let

._m_e-- k:n_o_w-.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Regarding the subcommittee meeting, based on the current meeting schedule, it seems that the morning of June 19 is the best option, with the afternoon of June 4 a less desirable possibility. July looks bad, unless the T-H meeting on July 1O disappears. Either way, that would mean a September Full Committee meeting on this topic. Any thoughts about the schedule?

I would really like to get this thing into ADAMS on Wednesday. So if I send it to you this evening, can you turn It around and send me your input by mid-day or early afternoon Tuesday?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Subj ect: RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Date: 4/9/2018 8:13:39 PM Central Standard Time From: I To:

._________.... (b)(6) l...

(b...,

)(6,,...

) --,----,,,,.....-------'

Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Looks good.

Ron From:i(b)(6) ~

Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 6:55 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger (bX6)  ; !(b)(6)  !;...l (b_)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _~

(b)(6) Dere .Wi mayer@nrc.gov; John.Stetkar@nrc. gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, so here it is. It's in track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in the appendices for consistency).

Please send comments, suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know if you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks, John 1/1

From:

To:

Subject : [E xtern al_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Note: The attached 203-page redlin ed draft report is withheld in it s entirety un der FOIA exempion 5. Portions containing CE!! are also Date: Monday, April 09, 20 18 7:06:04 PM exempt un der FOIA exemption 3. in conjunction with 16 USC 8240-l Attachments: WorkinaJkouo Reooct - DJatLRev 8 ..d.ocx (d)(l). an d FOIA exemption 7(F).

No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, so here it is . It's in track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in the appendices for consistency).

Please send comments, suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know if you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks ,

John

4117/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Date: 4/10/2018 8:02:04 AM Central Standard Time From: !Cb)(6)

I To: 6 Cb_)< _) _ _ _ _ _

!._ .....,!, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Vesna, Thanks very much for your thoughts. l (b)(S)

(b)(S)

John Hi John, (b)(S) 1/2

4/1712018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Vesna On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:48 PM, <!Cb)C) 6

~ wrote:

Sorry for the delay - all talk, no actlon.... Here's the version with the cover pages.

1 For those of you who were not here this morning, If you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

I Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John 212

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Re.port

• Draft Revision 8

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Date: 4/10/2018 8:05:16 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)

To: L..!

Cb_)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks for the quick tum-around.

--Original Messag~ - - - - - - - - - - - .

From: Dennis Ble CbX6)

To: John Stetkar '.'i::(b~)(~6): - - - - - - , -_ _ __ ,

Cc: Ron Ballin er Cb)(6) >; Pete Riccardella ~ (b)(6) ~ ; Dick Skillman (b)(6)  ; ere 1dmayer <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; John.Stetkar <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Sent: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 8:11 pm

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 It's OK. Thanks, John.

On Apr 9, 2018, at 4:55 PM. r X6) Iwrote:

> <Working Group Report - Draft Rev 8.docx>

1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Date: 4/ 10/2018 8:06:09 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Cb_X6_) _ _ ____,! John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks for the quick tum-around.

--Original Message-From: Ronald G Ballin er >

To: CbX6) o n. e ar nrc. ov Sent: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 8:13 pm

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Looks good.

Ron from~._Cb_X_6>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __..

Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 6:55 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger <f(bX6) b!(b)(6)  !; ~CbX6>

!CbX6) l Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov; John.Stetkar@nrc.gov ---------

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, so here it is. It's in track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in the appendices for consistency).

Please send comments, suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know if you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks, John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report-Draft Revision 8 Date: 4/10/2018 8:14:45 AM Central Standard Time From: !Cb)(6)

To: 'I==------"--.. .

~!

Cb_)<6_) ______________.

Dick, Thanks for the quick turn-around.

"Wankegan" Is a direct quote from the reference citation in SRP 3.1.5.6. That's why I stuck the [sic] in the citation. That testimony Is one of the few "elusive references" that we could not find - even with help from the NRC reference librarians.

Good catch - you really did read this beast!

--Original Message-Fro *

• To: Cb)(6)

Cc: ronald ballin er Riccardella, Pete Cb)(6) , 1 mayer, Derek <Dere . 1 ma er nrc. ov ; o n. e ar <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>;

Gordon Skillman 1CbX6~ r: Skillman, Gordon <Gordon.Skillman@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tue, Apr 10, 20 a6:38 am

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Looks good John. l (b)(5)

!Cb)(5) i See page G-175. Should be Waukegan - not sure whre Wankegan came from.

Good to go.

dick On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:55 PM, ~CbX6) ~ wrote:

No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, so here it 1s. It's In track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in the appendices for consistency).

Please send comments, suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know if you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks, John 1/1

From: Widmayer. Derek To: Veil. Andrea; Banks, Mark

Subject:

FW; Man-Made Hazards Report

• Draft Revision !'--,-~~---,--------,-....,....,.---,--=------,---,----,---,----::-:,-----,

Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:46:00 AM Note: Thi s is the s~e v~rsi?n of the draft report attached to the April 9, Attachments: working Group Report. Draft Rey 8.docx 2018 7:06 P M email earlier m package.

Revision 8 sent to The Working Group by John last night at 6:55 PM. He is still open to comments for now, from the Working Group according to is email, I will let you know when he states it is "finished ."

From:!Cb)(6) I [mallto !Cb_

... )<6_) _ _ _ __,

Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 6:55 PM To: !CbX6)  !!Cb-)(6

... .,..)- - - - - - - - - - , ! ._!Cb_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ __,

• Widm ayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John

< o n. e ar nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_SenderJ Man- Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, so here It is. It's In track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in the appendices for consistency).

Please send comments, suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know if you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks, John

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:07 AM To: Snodderly, Michael

Subject:

RE: NRR Monday Morning Meeting on April 9, 2018 l

(bXS)

Thanks Mike. I just got a copy of the latest draft and ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '

Thanks, Andrea From: Snodderly, Michael Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 5:55 PM To: Veil, Andrea <andrea.veil@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Bellinger, Alesha

<Alesha.Bellinger@nrc.gov>

Cc: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

NRR Monday Morning Meeting on April 9, 2018 I attended the NRR Monday Morning Meeting on April 9, 2018. The following are items of potential interest:

!Non R esponsive R ecord ACRS External Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report I provided the status of the ACRS external man-made hazards working group report as directed by Derek's April 7, 2018 email. I mentioned that the full Committee session scheduled for May 2, 2018 was cancelled.

will forward the draft report to my NIRR contacts when I receive it.

Please let me know if there are any items you want me to look out for.

Mike 1

from: Baoald G aamooec To: l(b)(6) I SUbJect: RE: Man-Made Hazards Report

• Draft: Revision 8 Date: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:21:00 AM Ron From: _!(b_X_  !

6)_ _ _ _ _ _!Cb_X6 _)_ _ _ _ __

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:17 AM To: Ronald G Ballingerl_(b_)<6_)_ _ _ _~

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Thanks very much. Much of my rants, antics, and theatrics (rats) are not so inspiring.....

--Original Message-From: Ronald G Ballin er (b)(6)

To: (bX6)

Sen : ue, pr am

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 John:

I wou ld like to acknowledge my debt to you during my t ime on ACRS. You are a prime example of the depth of knowledge and commitment that all of us need to aspire to. This is especially true for me. I take it as an honor to tiave served with you. Humbling also.

Ron From:!._(b_)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:06 AM To: Ronald G Ballinger !(bX6) !John.Stetkar@nrc gov

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Thanks for the quick turn-around.

(b)(6)  ; ..__ ______________

(b)(6)

<Derek Widmayer@nrc gov>; John.Stetkar <John Stetkar@nrc gov>

Sent: Mon, Apr 9, 2018 8:13 pm

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8

Looks good.

Ro n

• (b)(6)

.____________ '----------'; Derek.Widmayer@nrc 20v; John. Stetkar@nrc. iQY

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. so here it is. lt"s in track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in tihe appendices for consistency).

Please send comments. suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know if you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks, John

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:47 AM To: Widmayer, Derek; Banks, Mark Subject RE: Man-Made Hazards - Missing Data, Documents, etc...

FYI. I updated the AO (Rob Lewis) yesterday and he planned to discuss the report with Mike Johnson.

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 9:37 AM To: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Cc: Veil, Andrea <andrea.veil@nrc.goV>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards

• Missing Data, Documents, etc...

Mark:

CbX5)

Derek From: Banks, Mark Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 6:39 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Veil, Andrea <andrea.vell@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards - Missing Data, Documents, etc...

Hi Derek, (b)(5)

Thanks, Mork Banks - Chief Technical Support Branch Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tel. 301- 415-3718 Fax 301-415-5589 2

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableonc.net/h/printmessagc?id=286273&tz=America/Dcnve1 r X6) cable One Webmall Fwd: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report From : Joy Rempe 6

~ (b)( ) ~ Tue, Apr 10, 2018 03:08 PM

Subject:

Fwd: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report To : Harold Ray ~ (b)(6)  !>

From: "Joy Rempe" ~ (b)(6) ~

To: "Harold Ray" <f=(b~ )(6:) :::::::::::::i Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:03:08 PM

Subject:

Fwd: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report FYI,,, Pid you send aovtbioa else to John? !(b)<5)

Joy 6

From: "Joy Rempe" 4 (bX )

To: !(bX6) I Cc: "Matt Sunseri" ._!(b_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ ___.! jlr3@nrc.gov Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 8:48:13 AM

Subject:

Re: Man--Made Hazards Working Group Report (bXS)

From: !(bX6) I To:!(b)(6) I Cc: "John Stetkar" <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Sent: Monday, April 9, 2018 8:35:25 AM

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report Got It.

Thanks.

6 In a message dated 4/9/2018 9:34:14 AM Central Standard Time, !(b_

....x _) _ _ _ ____,!writes:

I Hi, I of4 4/18/20 l8, It:16 AM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?ld=286273&tz=Amerlca/Denver My email ended up with the 'indentation' missing during transmittal and I put in a 'to' when I meant to have a 'from' So, let me try again (with some changes to dartfy).

l(b)(5)

Thanks, Joy From: "Jov Rempe" ~(b)(6)

To: (bX6) I Cc: (b)C6) l l(b)(6) 1.l(b)(6) I ~(bX6) 1.

l(bX6 ll(b)(6) lfhl/6) I. 1/hV6) L11h\fn \ *,l(b)(6) I

!(bX6) )(.6. ,.)._______- .........._--__,h "John Stetkar < lohn,, n *r....r<aJnrc.nov>, "Derek 11.,_(b....,,.

Widmayer <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>. jlr3@nrc.gov Sent: Sunday, April 8, 201812:59:42 PM Subject Re: Man-Made Hazards Wor1':ing Group Report

Dear John (and other members of the Working Group),

I appreciate the hard work that you have done to research this topic. It helped to discuss this document on saturday and hear your proposed approach on future ACRS recommendations reaardlna the annroach that staff mtght adopt for addressing Issues raised within this document. l(bXS) I (bX5) 2 of4 4/18/2018, 11:16 AM

Cable One Webmail https://mail.cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=286273&tz=America/Denve1 (b)(S)

JCb)(6) l !(b)(6) 6 (b)(6)

<John,Stetkar@nrc.gov>, ere , maye ov>

Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:48:06 AM

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Working Group Report SOR'Y for the delay-au talk. no act1on....Here's the version with the aNer pages.

For those of you who were not here this morning, if you have any comments on the report, please send them to me ASAP (Monday at the latest, please).

Thanks to all for your patience this morning. It was very useful for me to get a sense of everyone's concerns.

John Dr. Jay L Rllfllpe, PrincJpal Rem Ind As1oclales. LLC (b)(6) websk www.rempellc.com Or. JfYf L R1111pe, P<lnclp,I R1mpundAHoclllM, U.C I""'

Wtbllte: WWW,rempeilC,COffi Or. Jf>y L Rempe. Pltlclptl Rempe and Assoclabls, LLC we,1e: www.rempellc.com 3 of4 4/18/2018, 11:16AM

Cable One Webmail https://mail .cableone.net/h/printmessage?id=286273&tr-America/Denver DI'. Jc1f L R_,,f' Pmcipal I.,.,

Rempe and ~uocfato1. ll.C Websle: WWW. rempellc,com Df. Jay L Rempe,, Principal Rempe Ind Aosoei.tes, LLC I"

Website: WWW.rempetlC.COffi 4of4 4/18/2018, 11:16AM

From: Veil, Andrea Sent Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:39 AM To: Widmayer, Derek Cc: Banks, Mark; Snodderly, Michael Subjed : RE: Man-Made Hazards Report and MOU Thanks Derek, I alerted Rob that the report was coming, so the EDO's Office is aware and it should go to them. Remember,

)(5)

On the MOU topic, I'm fine with OCIO seeing it. They can see the whole thing if they want for context.

Thanks!

Andrea From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:1.2 AM To: Veil, Andrea <andrea.vell@nrc.gov>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>; Snodderly, Michael <Michael.Snodderly@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report and MOU Andrea:

Reporting on the subject subjects

• Repo,r t- Joe Sebrosky from NRR called me this morning along with his BC-they wanted a big picture on where the Man-Made Hazards report came from and what was happening next. I gave them the details on the background and summarized the next steps as agreed to at the April Full Committee meeting. During these discussions, it seemed that sending the report to the EDO and asking for review (as suggested by Mike Snodderly) is the way to go. They indicated that it was probably not clear to anyone in NRR who might all should be involved in the review, so It would be best for the NRO Director lo decide. They also pointed out that RES might be interested in commenting.

I also told them I had not scheduled a SC meeting yet, but considering all of the staff interest, I suggested it might be in 2 or 3 months in order for all parties to do a thorough review and prepare for the meeting. So I will find a time and put it In webACTS as tentative for now.

MOU - As you know, I asked OCIO about the CUI issue - they have made a suggested revision and also asked if I wanted them to look at the SUNSI section and see if their suggestion makes sense - so I told them I would ask you if that was OK. I wi ll make sure them comment only on that section and only in response to the question posed by Larry in the EDO's Office.

DAW Dch..c.A t:A-. W<<dH<<OflP'L ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!(bX6) I(cell) oerek..wldmayer@nrc.gov

4/17/2018 Re: Mao-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/11/2018 12:26:58 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks for the feedback. Works are in progress for me to participate as an "invited expert", or something similar, for the subcommittee and full committee meetings, but no firm conclusions yet.

I'm going to lobby for a June 4 afternoon subcommittee meeting, even though it's on a Monday, and a July Full Committee briefing. That gives the staff about 7 weeks to digest the report, and the public about 4 to 5 weeks, assuming there are no major changes after the subcommittee meeting.

John

---Original Message-From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

To:!(bX6) I Sent: Wed, Apr 11, 2018 11 :57 am

Subject:

RE: Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards Report I don't have any issues with the changes to the report.

Do you think you will be asked to return as a subject matter expert (consultant)? Or are we going to have to deal with the really painful part of the process without you?

From:!(b)(6) I[=m=ai=lt=,olL.(b-)(_l _ _ _ _

6

...J Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 10:44 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Pete seems to be among the missing - absolutely no communications from him - so you're not directly on the bubble.

ICbX6)

John In a message dated 4/11/2018 9:36: 13 AM Central Standard Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.~ov writes:

Hi John:g,,

(b)(6)

Derek From!(b)(5)  ![ ~

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 9:49 AM 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc,gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards Report r X6)

-Original Message- -

From: Widma er Derek <Derek.Widma er c nrc. ov>

To: (b)(6)

Sent: Wed, Apr 11 , 2018 7:47 am

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report John:

r)( I I will be looking at it this morning.

6

) .rX. .___________________,

6

)

Derek From: !(b)(6)  ! [n....,1a=i

...... l=to""":L(b_

l X6_) _ _ _ __,

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 4:21 PM To:!Cb)(6) I Widmayer, Derek <Derek,Widmayer@nrc,~ov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.~ov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Man-Made Hazards Report Pete and Derek, Did you have a chance to look at the changes in Rev. 8? If not, when do you think you'll have some time to look through it? If you're still working on comments, no rush - I'm going to wait for input from all members of the working group before we go final with this revision and file it in ADAMS for the staff.

John 2/2

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/11/2018 1:41 :00 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: l(b)(6)

Thanks, Will do.

In a message dated 4/11/2018 1:10:26 PM Central Standard Time, !Cb_ ...x6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!writes:

Absolutely. They are essentially the same as my earlier email that I sent to the entire WO.

Sent from my iPhone, Pete From: !Cb ..._)<_6) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Sent: Wednesday, April 11; 201811 :43:58 AM To: Rlccardella, Pete Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Pete, j However, to start a John In a message dated 4/11/2018 11: 14:20 AM Central Standard Time,!._Cb_x6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _!writes:

John, I've reviewed *the revised report, CbX5)

(b)(5) 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report I've highlighted and commented on both of these in applicable sections of the attachment.

(b)(5)

Regards, Pete From:._!Cb_)C_6) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,~

Sent: Tuesday, April l 0, 2018 2:21 PM To: Riccardella, Pete ~...Cb_)c_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ ___,,~ ; Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John .Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report Pete and Derek, Did you have a chance to look at tihe changes in Rev. 8? If not, when do you think you'll have some time to look through it? If you're still working on comments, no rush - I'm going to wait for input from all members of the working group before we go final with this revision and file it in ADAMS for the staff.

John

.,..,..,no..i.Lu*c Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachmen *s intended solely for use by the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e- ou are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, co , or action taken in relation to ontents of and attachments to this e-mail is strict o ibited and may be unlawful. If you have re

• this e-mail in error, please noti sender immediately and permanently delete the original and a o y of this e-mai any printout. Thank you for your cooperation.

Electronic Privacy Notice: The informa

• ontained in this e-m *

• eluding any attachment(s), is intended solely for use by then addressee(s). lfyou are not the inte recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notifie any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action ta *n relation to the contents of an c ments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. I ave receiv 1s e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the or any copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank you for your cooperation.

2/2

From: ICb)(6) I To: f$1~f Geamnge[i .. ,(b...)("6"')- , - - - - - - - , i.:.ICb-')(._6"'-)--::;:;==:::=~ID~er:'.::e~k==.W~ld:m:ay~c~r@=n~rc~.g~oy~;~ - - - - - - - ~

Cc: John stelkar@n'rc gov Note: The entire 203-page draft report is withheld in

Subject:

Man-Made Haz.ards Report its entirety under FO IA exemption 5. Portions of the Date: Wednesday, Apr1111, 201s 2:56:50 PM report containing CEIi are also withheld under FOIA Attachments: Working Group Report - Draft Rey 8-PCR Comments,docx exemption 3, in conjunction with 16 USC 8240-1 (d) 1 and FO IA exem tion 7 F .

Colleagues.

Attached are Pete's comments and recommendations for the reoort. As I mentioned Saturdav. l<o>C5)

(b)(5)

John P.S., My email has been acting snarky today, so please let me know if you do not receive the attachment with Pete's comments.

From: l(b)(6)

To: !(b>C6) I Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, Michael.Corradlnl@nrc.gov, Peter.Rlccardella@nrc.gov Sent: 4/11/2018 11 :14:20 AM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report John, I've reviewed the revised report, jCb)(S)

(b)(5) l've highlighted and commented on both of these in applicable sections of the attachment.

CbX5)

Regards, Pete From: ._!Cb_><6_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _......~

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:21 PM To: Riccardella, Pete <JL.Cb_><_s>_ _ _ _ _ _ ____,Jf>; Derek Wjdmayer@nrc,2ov Cc: John Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report Pete and Derek.

Did you have a chance to look at the changes in Rev. 6? If not. when do you think you'll have some time to look through it? If you're still working on comments, no rush - I'm going to wait for Input from all members of the working group before we go final with this revision and file It In ADAMS for the staff.

John

From: Skillman Technical Resourtes Inc.

To:  !(bX6) 1 Cc: Ronald G8aihoger;t[(b~)(~6):...,..._ _ _ _ _ _J ~Ji.1ccai.<Wat11o1elw;ila. ie~e~te; Widmayer Derek; John.stetlsac@orc gov

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 6:38:03 PM Hi John, r )cs) dick 6

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at4:16 PM, i._(b_x _>_ _ _ ___,~ wrote:

Dick. -

(bX5)

Thanks for the quick input.

I""

John In~ message dated 4/ 11/2018 2:34:47 PM Central Standard Timei (b)(6) wntes: '-*- - - - - - - - - - '

l(b)(5)

John. Colleai:iues -

CbX5)

Best regards.

dick 6

On Wed, Apr J1, 2018 at 2:56 PM, ~Cb)< > ~wrote:

Colleagues, Attached are Pete's comments and recommendations for the reoort. As I mentioned Saturday,l(b)(5) I (bX5)

(b)(S)

I John I P.S., My email has been acting snarky today, so please let me know If you do not receive the attachment with Pete's comments.

FromJ Cb)C6)

To: !Cb)C6) J Perek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrcov, MichaeLCorradioi@nrc.gov, Peter Riccardella@nrc gov Sent: 4/11/2018 11 :14:20 AM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report John, I've reviewed the revised reoort. andl (b)(S)

, l(b)(S)

I

(b)(5)

Regards, Pete From: ...l(b_X_6)______________.

Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 201 8 2:21 PM To: Riccardella, Pete ... l(b_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Derek.Widmayer@nrc gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report Pete and Derek, Did you have a chance to look at the changes in Rev. 8? If not, when do you think you'll have some time to look through It? If you're still working on comments, no rush - I'm going to wait for input from all members of the working group before we go final with this revision and file it in ADAMS for the staff.

John

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 11:19 AM To: Veil, Andrea; Banks, Mark

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 (bX5)

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 11:09 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Thanks Derek. Tomorrow is fine since I will be checking e-mails.

Thanks, Andrea On: 12 April 2018 10:49, "Widmayer, Derek" <Derek.Widmayer(w,nrc. gov> wrote:

Andrea:

l(b)(6)

I am on this now - probably can provide some good background by tomorrow, but it looks like you are off? Is that OK?

Derek (I do want to remind you that this was one of my projects that I discussed with you in our "introductory" meeting

- I know that was a while ago and it has only been recently that it became visible since we finished all of our groundwork.)

1

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 4:34 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Hi Derek, CbX5)

Thanks, Andrea From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:47 AM To: Veil, Andrea <andrea.veil @nrc.gov>; Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 Revision 8 sent to The Working Group by John last night at 6:55 PM. He is still open to comments for now, from the Working Group according to is email, I will let you know when he states it is "finished ."

From:!Co)(6) l [mailtoJCbX6) !j Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 6:55 PM To: !CbX6)  ! !Cb

.....X6

,....,..)- - - - - - - - - - . UCbX6) U~Cb~X6

..;,.)_ _ _ _ __,

Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@mc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Report - Draft Revision 8 No further comments in the last 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, so here it is. It's In track changes mode, so you can see every edit I made (mostly in the main report, with a few stragglers in the appendices for consistency).

Please send comments, suggestions, edits, etc. - and please let me know If you have none, so I know everyone has weighed in.

Thanks, John 2

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/ 11/2018 6:06:24 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: !_

Cb_X6_>___________,

Deep breaths ...

On Apr 11, 2018, at 2: 16 PM~-(b-)(6_) _ _ _ _ _ wrote:!

Dick, Thanks for the Quick input. Just so I better understand your second paragraph - ICb)CS)

(bXS)

John In a message dated 4/ 11/2018 2:34:47 PM Central Standard Time, _!Cb_)C6_>_ _ _ _ ___,! writes:

John, Colleagues - I recommend that )CS)

(bXS)

Best regards.

dick Colleagues,

1. .

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 2:56 PM, (b_)c6_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ wrote:

I 1/3

4117/2018 Be* Ma0:Made Hazacds Beonrt l(b)(5)

John P.S., My email has been acting snarky today, so please let me know if you do not receive the attachment with Pete's comments.

6 Fro~Cb)( )  !

w To: 65 IDerek.Widmaver@nrc.aov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, Michael.Corradioi@orc.gov, Peter.Riccardella@nrc.gov Sent: 4/11/2018 11:14:20 AM Central Standard Time

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Repo.rt John, I've reviewed the revised report, and!Cb)(S)

(b)(S)

Regards, 213

From: Veil, Andrea Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:19 PM To: l(b)(6) I Cc:  !(bX6) I; ._!

(b_)(6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ __.l ...l(b_)(6_) _ _ _ _ ____,! Banks, Mark; Widmayer, Derek; Stetkar, John Subject. Re: Re: WG Report Status Thanks John, An estimate is all I need and can pass that on. The interest is wide and far reaching.

Andrea On: 12 April 2018 12:13,

l. . 6 (b_X _) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.f wrote:

Hi Andrea, At the moment, all I can say is that we've hit a bit of a speed bump with our working group members' concurrence on the recommendations in our report. I'm trying very hard to get consensus. I hope that we can release it today or tomorrow.

I know this is frustrating, but we have to work through it.

John In a message dated 4/12/2018 10:00:26 AM Central Standard Time, andrea.veil@nrc.gov writes:

Good Morning John, I'm in a Commission Meeting this morning, and I j ust had a conversation with Commissioner Burns Chief of Staff. I plan to talk to the other offices as well regarding the pending WG report. Do you have an estimate of when it will be done and ready to issue to the EDO's office? !(b)(S) I (b)(5)

Thanks, Andrea 1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Meetings

Subject:

Re: Mao-Made Hazards Meetings Date: 4/12/2018 1: 10:29 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6)

To: !Cb)(6)

Cc: !Cb)(6)  !!Cb)(6) Iandrea.veil@nrc.gov, mark.banks@nrc.gov, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov John: OK, I accept your judgment on this.

Derek/Mark: Can you ask what members can attend a SC mtg prior to the June FC (6-4) or a SC mtg on SC week (6-21)?

Mike On Apr 12, 2018, at 12:37 PM, I._ ><6_> _ _ _ _..,! wrote:

Cb_

If we held the subcommittee meeting on June 21, there would be 3 weeks between the subcommittee meeting and the July Full Committee meeting. That seems rather short for public reading and preparation of comments, especially since the July 4 holiday is in that period (folks might have already planned a whole week away, since the 4th Is in the middle of the week). Also, based on my experience from trying to get the report :'done" this week, if there are any changes at all as a result of the subcommittee meeting, we need to plan at least a week's delay before the report is publicly available.

So, no, I don't think that a mid-June subcommittee meeting and a July Full Committee briefing would work.

John In a message dated 4/12/2018 12:15:05 PM Central Standard Time,1...Cb_X6_>_ _ _ _ _ __.! writes:

John: I suggest that Derek/Mark pulse the members to see who can make either date. I would also note that since the July meeting is in mid-month with the 4th of July on Wednesday -- can we not still plan for a July FC with a mid-June SC meeting? Mike From:!Cb)(6) ~

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:12:10 PM To: Michael Corradini; !Cb)(6) 6)_ _ _ _ _ _.....,! andrea.veil@nrc.gov:

! ._!Cb__)(__

mark.banks@nrc.gov; Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Meetings Colleagues, This morning, Mark sent out the meeting schedules for the next few months. The man-made hazards line item has correctly disappeared from the May Full Committee meeting list.

Members make travel plans based on the published schedule, especially for the next 60-90 days.

We seem to have two options for the path forward on the man-made hazards topic.

(1) Closed subcommittee meeting on June 4, Full Committee briefing in July 1/2

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Meetings (2) Closed subcommittee meeting on June 21 , Full Committee briefing in September There are, of course, other possible combinations, but this suffices for now. I thought that Mark or Derek was going to pulse members about their availability for June 4. That hasn't happened. Since it's now mid-Thursday, I think that we should do that ASAP. Should I take the initiative and list the options shown above?

I'm really sorry to bother you with this, but I'm getting rather frustrated by this whole process.

John 2/2

4/17/2018 Re: Fwd: WG Report Status

Subject:

Re: Fwd: WG Report Status Date: 4/12/2018 1:30:17 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6)

To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, andrea.veil@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Derek, (b)(S)

John In a message dated 4/12/2018 I :06:56 PM Central Standard Time, Derek.Wjdmayer@nrc.gov writes:

John I Andrea:

(b)(5)

I)

~)

3) l)

1/3

4/17/2018 Re: Fwd: WG Report Status (bXS)

Derek From: !(b)C6) I[mailto:!(1:,)(6) h Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 12:24 PM To:!(bX6) ~ !(bX6) I"'"!(b""")(6"'")_ _ _ _ _ ____,!._!(b_)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ _!

Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goy>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.goy>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Fwd: WG Report Status Colleagues, Please see the email from Andrea below. We need to get this thing tied up and out to the EDO. Please, please send me your thoughts about Pete's comments soon. Basically, I think !(b)(S)  !

(b)(5)

Please send me your thoughts.

2/3

4/17/2018 Re: Fwd: WG Report Status John Good Morning John, I'm in a Commission Meeting this morning, and I just had a conversation with Commissioner Bums Chief of Staff. I plan to talk to the other offices as well regarding the pending WG re ort.

Do you have an.estimate of when it will be done and read to issue to the EDO's office? Cb)(S)

(b)(5)

Thanks, Andrea 3/3

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:27 PM D; Dennis Bley (bX6)

To: Charles Brown (!(b)(6)

Dick Skillman; Harold Ra ; Jose March-Leuba (b)(6) ,:;..,i,-----------  ; Joy Rempe (b)(6)  ; Margaret Chu""?.!(b~)("!!"

6)- - - - - ~ ;M at:":":

th_e_,

w Sunseri (bX6) Michael Corradini (b)(6)  ; Pete Riccardella (b)(6) Ron Ballinger (b)(6) Vesna Dimitrijevic; Walter Kirchner C(b)(6) t Cc: Banks, Mark; John Stetkar ._j(b_)(6_) _ _ _ ___.

Subject:

RE: Information - ACRS Schedule 4- 12-18 ACRS Members:

The External Man-Made Hazards Working Group is trying to setup a Subcommittee Meeting on the Draft Report as discussed during the April FC Meeting:

We have identified two dates for which we would like to ask whether you are available to attend a SC meeting:

• June4, 2018

• June 21, 2018 Please respond to let me know your availability for these two dates. Please indicate afternoon or morning only if that is appropriate.

We will let you know what the response is before scheduling the SC meeting.

Derek uch.clt. cA-. w ~

ACRS/Technica l Support Branch

!(b)(6) I(cell) derek.widmayer@nrc.gov 1

4/17/2018 Re: WG Report Stalus

Subject:

Re: WG Report Status Date: 4/12/2018 3:18:52 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To: !Cb)(6)  ! !CbX6)

Cc: .,,.!

Cb.)<6

.,._) ...,,,.......,.........,,,,___ _ __.! ._! X6_) _ _ _ _ _____,! Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, Cb_

John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Ron, et.al. ,

(b)(S)

John In a message dated 4/12/2018 3:01:23 PM Central Standard Time, !Cb_ ...X6_) _ _ __.!writes:

Folks:

I voiced my issues regarding the report during our discussions. !CbX5)

(bXS)

Ron From: Dennis Bley ~(bX6) l>

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 3:42 PM To: iCb}C6}

Cc: Ronald G BallingerCbX6) 1 l>; Pete Riccardella dCbX6) b;Dick Skillman

<!Cb)(6) ~; Derek Widmayer <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>;

dcbl@nrc.gov

Subject:

Re: WG Report Status Apologies. Missed that you were waiting on Pete's concerns.

1/4

4/17/2018 Re: WG Report Status CbX5) r X5J I

Dennis On Apr 12, 2018, at 10:24 !Cb)(6) !wrote:

Colleagues, Please see the email from Andrea below. We need to get this thing tied up and out to the EDO.

Please, please send me your thoughts about Pete's comments soon. Basically, I think !Cb)(5) l(b)(S) I I (b)(5) 2/4

4/17/2018 Re: WG Report Status l(b)(5)

Please send me your thoughts.

John From: andrea.veil@nrc.gov To: !(bX6) I Cc: (b)(6)  !(bX6) I, ark.Banks@nrc.gov, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goy en :  : 6 AM Central Standard Time

Subject:

WG Report Status Good Morning John, I'm in a Commission Meeting this morning, and I just had a conversation with Commissioner Bums Chief of Staff. I plan to talk to the other offices as well regarding the pending WG report. Do you have an estimate of when it will bed ne and read to issue to the EDO's office? (b)(S)

(b)(S)

Thanks, Andrea 3/4

4/17/2018 Re: WG Report Status 4/4

4/17/2018 Re: 1/1/G Report Status

Subject:

Re: WG Report Status Date: 4/ 12/2018 4:24:54 PM Central Standard Time From: !Cb)(6)

====

::;----....1 To: !CbX6)

Cc:

';:::::::::::::::::===~--------

!Cb)(6)  !!Cb)(6)  !._!Cb_X6_) - - - - - - - - - '

Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, deb l@nrc.gov I agree. !(bXS)

On Apr 12, 2018, at 2:07 PM,!Cb_ ...X6_) _ _ _ _....,!wrote:

Dennis, Thanks for the feedback !Cb)<5)

(b)(5)

John In a message dated 4/12/2018 2:41 :40 PM Central Standard Time,

!Cb)(6) !writes:

Apologies. Missed that you were waiting on Pete's concerns.

(bX5) 1/3

4/17/2018 Re: WG Report Status (b)(S)

Dennis On Apr 12, 2018, at 10:24 AM,!(b_ ....X6_) _ _ _ __,!wrote:

Colleagues, Please see the email f,rom Andrea below. We need to get this thing tied up and out to the EDO. Please, please send me your thoughts about Pete's comments soon.

Basically, I think!(b)(S) I (b)(S)

Please send me your thoughts.

John From: andrea.veil@nrc.gov Tot(b)(6) I Cc: !(bX6)

I...-..,.!::::=====::;:-:-'

I 1<6)<6) I

!(bX6) IMark.Banks@nrc.gov, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Sent: 4/12/2018 10:00:26 AM Central Standard Time

Subject:

WG Report Status Good Morning John, I'm in a Commission Meeting this morning, and I just had a conversation with Commissioner Bums Chief of Staff. I plan to talk to the other offices as well regarding the pending WO report. Do you have an estimate of when it will be done and ready to issue to the EDO's office? l(b)(5) 2/3

4/17/2018 Re: WG Reoort Status (b)(S)

Than.ks, Andrea 3/3

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/12/2018 6:44:00 PM Central Standard Time From: l(b)(6) I To:  !(bX6)

Cc:  !(bX6)  !!(b)(6)  !!(b_

....)<6_) - - - - - -

Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov John, Yes, include my name.

Dennis On Apr 12, 2018, at 5:23 PM, r X6) !wrote:

If we release the report as-is for the closed subcommittee meeting (Revision 8, with all track-changes accepted), do you want your name included as a member of the Working Group?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/12/2018 7:32:40 PM Central Standard Time From:  !(b)(6) I To:  !(b)(6)

Cc: =====:;--'

!(b)(6) I.....(bX6)- - - - - - - - - - - , (b)(6)

Derek.Widmayer@nrc ..gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, ._(b_X_6) _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Gordon.Skillman@nrc.gov Please include my name. dick On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 7:23 PM, ~(b)(6) ~ wrote:

(bX5)

If we release the report as-is for the closed subcommittee meeting (Revision 8, with all track-changes accepted), do you want your name included as a member of the Working Group?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 4/ 13/2018 7:58:35 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: ._!Cb_)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks Pete. I really appreciate this.

John In a message dated 4/12/2018 9:01 :23 PM Central Standard Time,!Cb_ .... X6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _..,!writes:

OK to include my name.

Pete From: .._!Cb_)<6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,~

Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 5:23 PM To: !Cb)(6) I Cb)(6) Riccardella, Pete Cb)(6)  ; Cb)<6) Derek.Widmaver@nrc.eov c: a rm re. ov ...__ _ _ _ _ _ __..

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Report If we release the report as-is for the closed subcommittee meeting (Revision 8, with all track-changes accepted),

do you want your name included as a member of the Working Group?

John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Names

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Report Names Date: 4/13/2018 11:40:57 AM Central Standard Time From:  !(b)(6) I To: r X6) I Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks Ron. I really appreciate this.

John 6

In a message dated 4/ 13/201811:30:18 AM Central Standard Time,l... (b_)<_) ___ __,Fites:

John:

CbX5)

I thought that I had responded. Sorry.

Ron Sent from my iPhone On Apr 13, 2018, at 12:13 PM, '1 ..(b_)<6_> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ wrote:  !>

Ron and Derek, You two are still hold-outs. lfi you're wori<ing on revised text, no rush. If not, I'd appreciate a response.

John 1/1

From: Widmayer, Derek To: Hb)(6) I RonaJd Geantngec Cc: SJ:etkar John

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards Report Names Date: Friday, April 1!3, 2018 1:48:03 PM John:

l(bXS)  !!

From:!(bX6) I [mailtof(b,_ )<6_) _ _ _ __.

Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 12:14 PM To: !(b)(6) I Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.g_ ov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Report Names Ron and Derek, You two are still hold-outs. If you're working on revised text, no rush. If not, I'd appreciate a response.

John

4/17/2018 Mao-Made Hazards Report, Revision 8, for ADAMS

Subject:

Man-Made Hazards Repol"4 Revision 8, for ADAMS Date: 4/13/2018 1:49:25 PM Central Standard Time From: l(bX6) I To: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov The 204-page clean draft report is w ithheld in its entirety under Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov FOIA exemption 5. Portions of the report containing CEII are also exempt under FOIA exemption 3, in conjuction with 16 USC 8240-l(d)(I), and FOIA exemption 7(F).

Hi Derek, Attached at long last is a clean copy of Revision 8 of the report. Please keep i1 marked "Draft", because some members are sensitive about that term until we hold the subcommittee meeting.

Please alert Mari<, Mike Snodderly, and Andrea that it is ready, then please file it in the restricted part of ADAMS, and alert the staff to its location. Please send me the ML number when you have it.

Considering how the report is marked, can I transmit it to the ACRS members via my personal e-mail, or do we now need to refer them to ADAMS?

John 1/1

From: Gordon Skillman To:

Cc:

Rogajd

!Cb)(6)

G:noer; !Cb)( 6) 1l(b)(

!Gordon Skmmao* Slo1Jmao Gordon_ _ _ _ ___,

6

) I Widmayer, Derek

Subject:

RE: Man- Hazards - Ooslng the Loop Date: Tuesday, Aprtl 17, 2018 12:53:02 PM Am OK. dick Get Outlook for Android From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent:Tuesday, April 17, 201812:06:35 PM To: !Cb)(6) l!CbX6) Ia.Cb.;.l.;.;)<..;.6)_ _ _ _ _ ____.

lCbX6) I Cc:!CbX6) I

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Gentlemen:

I am getting ready to send the Working Group Report to the EDO's Office - who will be making it available in a "limited access" environment for NRC Staff to review.

Mike Corradini asked me to check with each of you one more time to ensure you are OK with this next step. John Stetkar and I have already gi1ven our nods of approval for this to take place.

He asked me to tell you if you had any issues or needed to discuss this, to please call his cell phone. I will provide that to you if you don't already have it by response to this email.

Derek De11.cA o4-. w~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!Cb)(6) I(cell)

~P.k..w~rnrc,eov

From:

To:

Cc:

~~~~~"'"~v.:~. .:. . . . J

!CbX6)

...,:!)~(6)_ _ _ _.....11 .....

,(b)_<6) _ _____.l .....

l(b)_<6) _ _........

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Har.ards

• Closing the Loop Date: Tuesday, Aprill 17, 2018 1:15:00 PM OK Ron From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:07 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger !Cb)(6)  !!Cb)(6)

!CbX6)  !._!

Cb_)(6_) _ _ _ _ __.

Cc:!CbX6)

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Gentlemen:

I am getting ready to send the Working Group Report to the EDO's Office - who will be making it available in a "limited access" environment for NRC Staff to review.

Mike Corradini asked me to check with each of you one more time to ensure you are OK with this next step. John Stetkar and I have already given our nods of approval for this to take place.

He asked me to tell you it you had any issues or needed to discuss this, to please call his cell phone. I will provide that to you if you don't already have it by response to this email.

Derek Dc!u?A cA-. W ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch iCbX6) I(cell) derek widmayer@nrc !$PY

From: Ronald Gsau;nger To: Blccardena, eete

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards

• Ooslng the Loop Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:39:00 PM We are in the staff's presentation of the proprietary LBLOCA stuff.

Ron From: Riccardella, Pete ._!Cb__ X__

6) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __,

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:38 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger !._Cb_X6_) _ _ _ ___,

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Standing by. What's the status?

Pete From: Ronald G Ballinger 1,.. <b.,,.)(.,.

6).,...,,.,,,....,.,,..,....____.t Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:39 AM To: Riccardella, Pete <._!<b_l<_6l_ _ _ _ _ _ __.!>

Cc: Brown, Christopher <Christooher.Brown @orc.eov>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Most likely about 3PM our time but I'll know better in an hour.

Ron From: Riccardella, Pete ~(b)(6 ) ~

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:37 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger <I...Cb_X6_>_ _ _ __.

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Yep. Just send me a note with t he time. I assume the bridge line is the same.

Pete From: Ronald G Ballinger <JCb)C6) ~

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 201811:24 AM To: Riccardella, Pete i Cb>C6) ~

Cc: Brown, Christopher <Christopher Brown@nrc gov>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Pete:

There is a chance that we could get to some of tomorrow's stuff (Chapter 3) this afternoon. Are you OK with this?

Ron From: Riccardella, Pete ~(b)(6) ~.

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:21 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wid ~ avec@occ eov>* Booalq G Ballinger ~ (b)( )

6 b

~ 1~ J ~---~

Cc:!(b)(6) I Riccardella, Peter <Peter Rjccardella@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made I lazards - Closing the Loop OK Pete From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, April 17,.i,.;;;,.

20;.;;1;.;:;8;..;;1;.;;;0.;.;;

0;.;..7..;..A;;..:

M.;.....__ _ _ _...,

6 To: (b)(6) (b)( ) Riccardella, Pete

. (bX6)

......,_ _ _ _ _ _ _____. , L--------..J Cc (b)(6)

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Gentlemen:

I am getting ready to send the Working Group Report to the EDO's Office - who will be making it available in a "limited access" environment for NRC Staff to review.

Mike Corradini asked me to check with each of you one more time to ensure you are OK with this next step. John Stetkar and I have already given our nods of approval tor this to take place.

He asked me to tell you if you had any issues or needed to discuss this. to please call his cell phone. I will provide that to you if you don't already have it by response to this email.

Derek Dc.'1.c.h. c4-. W ~

ACRS(rechnical Support Branch

!(bX6) I(cell) derek.widmaver 1a1 nrc pov Electromc nvac attachment(s), is intended solel f; essee s . you

- a1 , you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying,

action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited and be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immedia and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any p

• Thank you for ur cooperation.

Electronic Privacy tice: The information contained in this e-mail, includ* y attachment(s), is intend olely for use by the named addressee(s). If are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you ereby notified that any dissemin

• n, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the c nts of and attachmen this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have rece1 this e-mai

• error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the ori

• any copy of this e-mail and any printout.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Electronic Privacy Notice: The info on contain

• e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended solel ruse by the named addr recipient of this e-mail, y e hereby notified that any disse ion, distribution, copying, or action taken in re on to the contents of and attachments to this e- *1 is strictly prohibited and may be ful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please no e sender immedi and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail an Th you for your cooperation.

From: Ronald Gean;ooer TOI Rk;car:dena. Pete

Subject:

RE: Man+1ade Hazards - Ooslng the Loop Date: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:56:00 PM Well-now more likely closer to 3:30.

Ron From: Rlccardella, Pete !Cb ..._X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _...

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:38 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger ~Cb)C6) p

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Standing by. What's the status?

Pete From: Ronald G Ballinger ~....

6 (b_)c_)_ _ _ _....,~

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:39 AM To: Riccardella, Pete ~....Cb_)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _....,~

Cc: Brown, Christopher <Christooher. Brown @nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Most likely about 3PM our t ime but I'll know better in an hour.

Ron From: Riccardella, Pete <!Cb)C6) ~

Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:37 PM To: Ronald G Ballinger i (bX6) ~

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Yep. Just send me a note with the time. I assume the bridge line is the same.

Pete From: Ronald G Ballinger ~... Cb_>c_6) _ _ _ _....~

Sent: Tuesday, Aprll 17, 2018 11:24 AM To: Riccardella, Pete I...Cb_)C6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _.......~

Cc: Brown, Christopher <Chrjstopher.Brown@nrcJ?.QY>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Pete:

There is a chance that we could get to some of tomorrow's stuff (Chapter 3) this afternoon. Are you OK with this?

Ron From: Riccardella, Pete 1!-, Cb,....,.

X6..,,.)....,......,,,...,.....,,,..,....,....----...J Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 1:21 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <D.artl. Wjdmaver @nrc.eov>; Ronald G Ballinger ~CbX6) l(bX6) l !CbX6) I ,_______,h cd Cb)<6) IRiccardella, Peter <Peter Riccardel ia@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop OK Pete From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer@n rc gov>

Sent: Tuesday, April 17,,;.._

To Cb)(6) 2018 10:07 AM Cb)(6) Riccardella, Pete CbX6) _ _ _ _ _ __ , ,....._

.....,,...... CbX6)_ _ _ _ _ _...J Cc CbX6)

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazards - Closing the Loop Gentlemen:

I am getting ready to send the Working Group Report to the EDO"s Office - who will be making it available in a "limited access" environment for NRC Staff to review.

Mike Corradini asked me to check with each of you one more time to ensure you are OK with this next step. John Stetkar and I have already given our nods of approval for this to take place.

He asked me to tell you if you had any issues or needed to discuss this, to please call his cell phone. I will provide that to you if you don't already have it by response to this email.

Derek 7J~ e4-. WubHa.g.eh.

ACRS/fechnical Support Branch

!Cb)(6) I(cell) derek widmayer@nrc gov

action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is strictly prohibited an be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immedia and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any

• tout.

Thank you fo ur cooperation.

Electronic Privacy tice: The information contained in this e-mail, inclu

• any attachment(s), is inten olely for use by the named addressee(s). u are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you hereby notified that any disse

• 10n, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the c tents of and anachme o this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have rece* this e-m

• n error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the o

• d any copy of this e-mail and any printout.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Electronic Privacy Notice: The infi ation contain

• this e-mail, including any attachment(s), is intended so or use by the named a see(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail are hereby notified that any disse

• tion, distribution, copying, or action taken in tion to the contents of and attachments to this ail is strictly prohibited and may be wful. If you have received this e-mail in error, please n

• the sender y and permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-m

• any printout.

you for your cooperation.

4117/20'18 Re: External Hazards Report* INITIAL DRAFT

Subject:

Re: External Hazards Report - INITIAL DRAFT Date: 7/6/2017 8:43:28 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek. Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks Derek!

I'm looking forward to reading it.

Johrn In a message dated 7/5/2017 2:36:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

John and Dennis.

The long-awaited subject report is attached. I was close to being done a while ago when I realized I was typing some information for the third time I Finally got my thoughts around what was wrong and was able to get it restructured.

Note, there are no Conclusions and Recommendations (yet). I thought the Working Group needs to agree on the analyses and the discussions before it comes to agreement on Conclusions and Recommendations.

Also, I am not sure there aren't still some mistakes - I am continuing to brush it.

Derek 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: External Hazards Report

• INITIAL DRAFT

Subject:

1 Re: External Hazards Report - INITIAL DRAFf Date: 7/5/2017 4:15:44 PM Central Standard Time From: l(bX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: !CbX6) I Thanks, Derek. 1 look forward to reading it.

On Jul 5, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widma~cr " nrc *ov> wrote:

John and Dennis.

The long-awaited subject report Is attached. I was close to being done a while ago when I realized I was typing some Information for the third time I Finally got my thoughts around what was wrong and was able to get it restructured.

Note, there are no Conclusions and Recommendations (yet). I thought the Working Group needs to agree on the analyses and the discussions before it comes to agreement on Conclusions and Recommendations.

Also, I am not sure there aren't still some mistakes - I am continuing to bruslh It.

Derek Note: The 95-page (partial) draft report is withheld in its

<REPORT.Appendices.docx><REPORT.RevO.docx> entirety under FOIA exemption 5.

1/1

4/17/2018 RE. External Hazlllds Report* INITIAL DRAFT

• NEW VERSION

Subject:

RE: External Hazards Report - INITIAL DRAFf - NEW VERSION Date: 7/6/2017 12:36:40 PM Central Standard Time From: Derck.Widmaycr@nrc.gov To: j<hX6) l """l (b,..,;,

X6,- ) -----,

As I figured, I found where a paragraph was left out of the version I sent to you yesterday. This Is still marked as Revision 0, but dispose of the one I sent yesterday.

I have not made any substantial changes to the Appendices for now From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Wednesda Jul 05, 2017 3:37 PM To CbX6) DENNIS BLEY t..Cb.... X-6)- - - - - - - - - - .

azaras Report - INITIAL DRAFT John and Dennis.

The long-awaited subject report is attached. I was close to being done a while ago when I realized I was typing some Information for the third time I Finally got my thoughts around what was wrong and was able to get It restructured.

Note, there are no Conclusions and Recommendations (yet). I thought the Working Group needs to agree on the analyses and the discussions before It comes to agreement on Conclusions and Recommendations.

Also, I am not sure there aren't still some mist akes - I am continuing to brush It.

Derek 1/1

From:

l(bX6) I To: Wldmaw:c Pecckp X6>

Cc: Stet,kar John ...- - - - - - - - -...

Subject:

[ExtemaLSender] A Curious Item Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:22:08 AM HI Derek, I was taking my first read-through of the man-made hazards reoort on the olane vesterdav (summarilv interruoted bv a canceled fliahO. l(bX5)

(b)(5)

John

From: IM 6l I To: Wklmayer Qer:ek;p X6>

CC: Stetkar John L---------....1

Subject:

[Ext:ema1_5ender] One More lldbit on Alraalt Crashes N ote: The attached table is withheld in its entirety under FOIA Data: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:57:11 PM exemption 5.

Attachments: Airport SCreeolao Cdteda,doc HI Derek, CbX5)

John

4117/2018 Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Subj ect: Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Date: 7/18/20 17 2:23:12 PM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: !CbX6) IJohn.Stetkar@nrc.gov OK, It's on my calendar, On Jul 18, 2017, at I :04 PM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widma) er0 nrc.~oy> wrote:

OK I will put it on the Caucus Room schedu le for lunchtime (12 Noon-1PM) on Wed, August 23 -

with caveat that I am still waiting to hear from Dennis

~m:p~ l 1-m_

a_ilt=o~f_X _6_) _ _ _ _~

Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2oi7 11:14 AM .--..-----------,

To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>; !CbX6)

Cc: Stetkar, John <John,Stetkar@nrc goV> ----------

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Noon on August 22 or 23 is good for me. The August 24 SC meeting is currently scheduled to end at noon. I don't know if we'll need more than an hour to dis.cuss the path forward for our report. If so, we might consider doing that in the afternoon on August 24.

I have not yet made my travel arrangements for that week, so my return time is still open - but I'll need to do that in the next week, or so.

John In a message dated 7118/2017 8:39:49 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek,Widmayer@nrc...gov writes:

Dennis and John:

I will set up a meeting for the SC week (August 21 - 24) -1s there a particular time that would be "good," or "bad"?

Derek From: Dennis Bley [~ CbX6)

s...

Sent: Monday, July 17, 201'""?'""1""'0.. 3-p""'

M. - - - - - - - -

6 To: John Stetkar iCbX )  !

Cc: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaxer@nrc.goy>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; Bley, Dennis <Dennis.Bley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Agree with John on caucus in August.

On Jul 17, 2017, at I J :01 AM,.... r _x6)_ _ _ ___.I wrote:

1/3

4/17/2018 Re One MOt'e Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes CbX5)

John In a message dated 7/17/2017 8:13:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, DerekW1dmayer@nrc.gov writes.

Dennis and John .

X5)

Derek From~CbX6)  !~

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:57 PM To: Widmayer, Derek 6

<Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>;f ._X_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

2/3

4/17/2018 Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Cc: Stetkar, John <John.St etkar@nrc.fov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Hi Derek, (bX5)

John 313

..,1112018 Re: DRAFT Man-Mede Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: DRAFT Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 7/ 19/20 I 7 l I :06: I 5 PM Central Standard Time From: l(bX6) I To:  !(bX6)

Cc: Derek.Widmaycr@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov I'll be available on the 24th, as well.

On Jul 19, 2017,at 11 :3 1 AMl...(b_X6

_) _ _ _ _...!wrote:

Derek, I have August 23 noon on my calendar. To deal with limited travel options, I just arranged flights home In the morning on August 25. So I'll be around in the afternoon on August 24 if we need more time.

John In a message dated 7/19/2017 11 :26:45 A.M. Central Daylight lime, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

From: Dennis Bley !._(b_X6_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 10:53 PM To: John Stetkar !(bX6) I Cc: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.gov>; Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.goV>; Bley, Dennis <Pennis.Bley@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) Re: One More Tidblt on Aircraft Crashes Agree with John on caucus in August.

On Jul 17, 2017, at 11 :01 AM,f..._X6_) _ _ _ _...!wrote:

(bX5) 1/3

4117/2018 Re: DRAFT Man-Made Hazards Report (bXS)

John In a message dated 7/17/2017 8:13:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Q~c~~.Wi!:!m~!U@a~.gQv writes:

Dennis and John:

CbXS)

Derek 6

From:l(bX6) 11mi!il12e x ) I Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9 :57 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmi)ver@nrc.gQv>;!(bX6)

Cc: Stetkar, John <Joha,Stetkar@arc,goy>

I

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender) One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Hi Derek, CbX5)

John 2/3

-4/17/2018 Re: DRAFT Man-Made Hazards Report 313

4/17/2018 Re: One More Tidbit on Ai<<::raft Crashes

Subject:

Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Date: 8/2/2017 9:57:25 AM Central Standard Time From: l(bX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, !._Cb_X6_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____,

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Derek, S)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,h'II need to review my Good comments for our consideration. 1,,;,!(b.;..X.;..

notes on it. I'm now burled in reading a ton ot*stuff" for the August NWMI meeting.

It looks like we should probably plan to meet in the afternoon on August 24 - seems to be a lot to discuss for a path forward, possible SC meetings, etc.

John In a message dated 8/2/2017 8:39:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek,Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

Dennis and John:

(b)(6) I I am Just now responding to older emails from you guys:

(bX5)

Derek From:!(bX6) I~

Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 12:02 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmaver@nrc.goy>~... (b-X-6)- - - - - - - - - -

1/3

4/17/2018 Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Cc: Stet kar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes (b)(S)

John In a message dated 7/17/2017 8:13:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time. Derek.Widmayer@nrc gov writes:

Dennis and John:

2/3

r. . .

4/17/2018 x,-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,

Re: One More lldblt on Aircraft Crashes Derek From: !CbX6)  ![~

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 201~

To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>; ,.,!Cb"X 6)- - - - - - - - - - .

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender) One More Tidbit on Aircraft Crashes Hi Derek, (bXS)

John 3/3

From: Gibson. Lauren To: Wldmava: Pmt SUbject RE; White Paper D*te: Wednesdly, August 02, 2017 11:44:'18 AM The information was discussed publicly at a RIC session In 2012-h~:flwww.ruc..gQW_ublic.--iov~nf.ereoce-symposja/dc/past/2012/agenda btmJ Session W14. You can hear my presentation there!

Lauren From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 9:54 AM To: Gibson, Lauren <Lauren.Gibson@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: White Paper Hi Lauren:

I am only in the first draft of my report for the ACRS, I don't know If I will be limited to only publicly available information, but I am assuming so right now. I have suggested to the two ACRS members In charge of the efrort that a SC meeting might be needed (we are a long way from this deci~1on), so probably any information that would be needed on top of the source documents you cite could come from that meeting - let's see where we go. (in other words, we won't have to revisit the decision 011 your paper 1f we have a SC meeting)

(I don't know if you are a "history" buff or not - but I found your paper through one of my favorite activities -ADAMS searches. They can be a lot of fun).

From: Gibson, Lauren Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 9:48 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wjdmaver ~*.DKJ.QY>

Cc: Kanatas, Catherine <Catherjne.Kanatas. nrc,f ov>

Subject:

RE: White Paper Hi, T he paper is not publicly available. I would support revisiting that decision If there is a need.

but I am not sure it would change. Are you limited to just citing publidy available papers?

I am glad you are finding it useful!

Thanks.

Lauren From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 9:42 AM

To: Gibson, Lauren <Lauren Gibson@nrc.gov> Note: This white papet is publicly available in ADAMS as

Subject:

White Paper MI.112730055.

Lauren:

I got a copy of the 'tv'hite Paper you authored entitled, MNRC and Licensee Actions In Response to New Information from a Third Party: I am using some of the information In the paper for a paper I am writing for an ACRS Working Group and I was wondering if your paper has become or will become publicly available? At the present time, I am citing the source documents you reference In the paper, but your paper is an excellent source on its own, and I would llke to cite it if appropriate.

Let me know - and if you want to discuss further, respond by email. (I am a permanent teleworker - if you want to discuss on the phone, let me know and I will call you with my number}

Thanks Derek Widmayer DEREK WIDMAYER, Sl'NIOR STAFF ENGI Nl:l:R 301-415-5375 I TWFN-2D31 I Derek W!dmayer@nrq:oy Technlcol Support Branch

/ldvi.~ory Comm,ttl"I" on Rroctor So{tguords

4/17/2018 FW SERS for Man-Made Extemal Hazards Research* Chapter 3 evaluations for ESP SERs

Subject:

FW: SERs for Man-Made External Hazards Research - Chapter 3 evaluations for ESPSERs Date: 9/12/2017 12:30:15 PM Central Standard Ttmc From: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov To: !CbX6) I From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 3:54 PM To: DENNIS BLEY r X6) h Stetkar, John <.John.Stetkar, ~nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: SERs for Man-Made External Hazards Research

• Chapter 3 evaluations for ESP SERs Dennis and John:

A follow-up to my ematl from last Friday (see below)

CbX5)

Derek From>Widmayer, Derek Sent: Friday, Sept ember 08, 2017 2:25 PM To: DENNIS BLEY (f(bX6) ~; Stetkar, John <.1ohn.Stetkanrunrc&9v>

Subject:

SERs for Man-Made External Hazards Research Dennis and John:

CbX5)

Derek 111

4/17/2018 FW. MalHMde Hazard Slt)mittal References

Subject:

FW: Man-Made Hazard Submittal References Date: 9/12/20 17 12:29:22 PM Central Standard Time From: John.Stctkar@nrc.gov To: !CbX6) I From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 12:55 PM To: Stetkar, John <.!Qb.n,Stetkar...@_orc..,g_ov>

Cc: CbX6)

Subject:

RE: Man-Made Hazard Submittal References Hi John:

I was on the phone for most of the meeting - but (as usual) the agenda-following was "skewed" and I was not listening when you discussed our progress.

I will get all of the materials to you post haste. I will aim for the end of the day (I am chasing something for Mike Corradini right now).

Derek From: Stetkar, John Sent: Friday, September 08, 2017 12:50 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer*w nrc , ov>

Cc: !CbX6)

Subject:

Man-Made Hazard Submittal References Hi Derek, This morning, Dennis and I gave a quick overview of we've been doing and where we are. We're In the process of making notes on the staff guidance (SRP and RGs) and chasing references from those documents

{NUREGs, reports, obscure citations, etc.). So far, we've had varying success in trying to find some of the references that pre-date the mld-70's. That's probably been your experience, too. After we've finished our initial searches, we'll need to compare notes on what the three of us have, and what we're missing. Dennis and I plan to do that during the September subcommittee week.

A couple of weeks ago, you said that you had compiled many of the submittals for man-made hazards (e.g.,

Chapter 2 of COL applications, SHINE, NWMI, and whatever else we had on our 11st). You mentioned that you had sent that stuff to us, but neither Dennis nor I can find it in our flies. Do you have that material? If so, can you get it to us?

Thanks, John 1/1

4/17/2018 Re: DRAFT Man-Made Hazards Report

Subject:

Re: DRAFT Man-Made Hazards Report Date: 8/14/2017 5:54:07 PM Central Standard Tune From: l(bX6) I To:  !(bX6)

Cc: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov, John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, deb l@nrc.gov I just got around to reading Derek's draft. Very nicely done. I only have a few comments on style/structure, but agree with the issues John raises.

Also, 'comprehensive' seems to be missing from the important attributes.

See you next week. It seems we should have a 'retreat' item on this in September.

Dennis r_x_>_ _ _ _ _lwrote:

On Jul 19, 2017, at 1:31 PM, ...

6 rX5) 1/1

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards Subj ect: RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: 9/18/20 17 9:4 1:26 AM Central Standard Time From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: !CbX6) I Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov, !._ Cb_X6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___

Of course!!

From:r X6) IlrnAll12J...

Cb_X6_)_ _ _ ___.

Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:10 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayen@nrc.goV>

Cc: St etkar, John <John,Stetkar@nrc,cov>;F ._b_l(_6)__________.

Subject:

[Extemal_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards Thanks Derek, I'm flying today and Dennis Is flying tomorrow. We plan to discuss the plan tomorrow evening or some time Wednesday, so you probably won't hear anything from us until then. In the mean Ume, it's just exhilarating wort<, isn't it???

John In a message dated 9/18/2017 8:57:36 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek.Wdmayer@nrc,qoy writes:

John:

Sorry about the mixup. I need to be careful when I assign those email addresses. I wish 1he nrc.gov address did not come up on the drop down, I am unfamiliar with a method to erase those unwanted Items from one of those drop downs.

Collecting the applicant submittal information is "time consuming* but not difficult. The information has already been centrally located by NRR and NRO on their webpages and 1t Is just a matter of keeping everything straight as I compile it. I will repeat the SER documentation but using the applicant Information.

I have already started, so I guess I would ask if you or Dennis or the both of you decide you DON"T want to do this, just let me know so I can STOP!!!!

Derek From: !CbX6) t~ CbX6)

Sent: Saturday, September 16,Wl? 11:52 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derel~.,.Wldmaver@n,,,r.., c..,,.

eo ...v_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _---.

6 Cc: SteUcar, John <John.Stetkana.,nrc.gov>;._ f _x_ )_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Subject:

[External_Sender) Man-Made Hazards Hi Derek, Thanks for the SER material. I just logged into NRC to look for something in ADAMS and found your notes from last week. Unless it's proprietary, please send stuff to my AOL address, since I check NRC email very sporadically when I'm not in DC. Also, if you send something proprietary to the NRC address, please alert me.

1/2

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards I haven't ooened the files vet. 1CbX5)

CbX5)

That's probably a lot of work. Dennis and I plan to discuss a path forward some time next week (Tuesday -

Thursday). What are your initial thoughts about retrieving the applicant analyses?

John 2/2

From: jibY6}

To:

Cc: Stdlsar John;

!1' X6)

Subject:

[Elctemat Sendef

!--o-J """

Mc1n

-Macle Hmrds Date: Thursday, September 21, 2017 7:12:32 PM Attachments: Elum Bc:fi:n:OCJ'$.doc Haz.ard Aoofvsis Appendm doc HI Derek, Dennis and I finally found some time to discuss things this aflemoon. lCbXS)

(bXS)

The second attached Item is a list of obscure or very old references that are cited in the SRP or RGs. I could not find these references in my searches. Dennis suggested that we ask the NRC library to try to find them. Before we do that, did you find any of them during your searches? Do you have any others to add to the list?

John

Elusive References September 21, 2017

1. Eisenhut, D.G., "Reactor Siting in the Vicinity of Air Fields," American Nuclear Society, June 1973

2. Eisenhut, D.G., "Testimony on Zion/ Waukegan Airport Interaction" (Docket No. 50-295)

3. Vallance, J.M., "A Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc. , April 7, 1972 (perhaps submitted on Docket 50-295)

4. Vallance, J.M., "Supplement to a Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc., August 2, 1972 (perhaps submitted on Docket 50-295)

5. Project 485, Aircraft Considerations, Pre-application Site Review, Boardman Nuclear Plant, October 1973

6. WASH-1238, "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants", December 1972 JWS Note 08/29/17: I found Supplement 1 to WASH-1238, dated April 1975, but it is not relevant to the accident data cited in NUREG/CR-6624.

7. SLA-74-0001, "Severities of Transportation Accidents", Sandia National Laboratory, July 1976

8. Safety Evaluation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, November 9, 1976, and Supplements, Docket 50-412 JWS Note 08/29117: The Beaver Valley Unit 2 operating license SER is NUREG-1057. I could not find the original version of that report. Section 2.2.3.1 of the Beaver Valley Unit 2 FSAR indicates that the risk from a gasoline barge accident was evaluated in PSAR Amendment 12, dated December 1973, and PSAR Amendment 13, dated February 1974. I could not find those reports.

9. NUREG-0014, "Safety Evaluation Report, Hartsville Nuclear Plants A1, A2, B1 , and B2,"

April 1976, Docket STN 50-518

10. NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Report (July 1987), in Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-5283-SR-A, "Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installation -

1987 Revision"

11. Section 2, Supplement 2 to the Floating Nuclear Plant Safety Evaluation Report, September 1976, Docket STN 50-437 JWS Note 08/30117: I could not find this reference. I found SECY 76-501 , which transmits a draft version of NUREG-0140 for Commission information. NUREG-0140 compares risks from accidents at floating nuclear plants and land-based plants. However, it focuses

primarily on liquid pathway releases and does not expl icitly address external hazards such as ship collisions.

12. Affidavit of Jacques B.J. Read before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2, July 15, 1976, Dockets STN 50-522 and STN 50-523

Hazard Analysis Appendices A. Aircraft Crash Accidents B. Highway Accidents C. Pipeline Accidents D. Railway Accidents E. Ship Accidents F. Storage Facility Accidents In each appendix:

• Guidance for Methods

• Technical Basis for Methods

• Applied Methods in Licensing Submittals

• Staff Reviews of Applications

• ACRS Working Group Comments and Recommendations

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: 9/22/2017 11 :00: 17 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov,l""Cb..,.

X6")-

Thanks Derek, Priority #1 is dogging the applicant submittals.

Thanks, John In a message dated 9/2212017 8:19:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek.YYJdmayer@nrc.gov writes:

John and Dennis:

I am collecting the SARs / License Apphcation information and not "packaging* them. Some (as you might predict) are a little harder to do to ensure I am getting the "correct" versions, i.e., the versions that are cited in the SERs. vis an earlier version Your list of references encompasses the "few" that I found to be elusive, you have gone into the RGs in greater detail than I had a chance to do. I will enlist the NRC library for help. for sure. They are usually pretty good.

The NRC also has a "law library," which many (most?) staff does not even know about, separate from the technical library. Testimony and items submitted on Dockets can usually be found there, OR can be pulled from storage. So I hope they can find some of those items which are labeled as "testimony" or "affidavit." They also might have an "easy" way of searching on Dockets to see if those items which are suspected of being submitted with Dockets are in fact included.

I will get back to you as soon as possible on the answer on those inquiries.

Derek From: r(bX6) I~

Sent: +liiursday, September 21, 2017 7:12 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>;J(b ,__

X.6,..)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Hi Derek, 112

4/17/2018 Re: M~Made Haza

._rds 5

I Dennis and I flnallv found some time to discuss thinas this afternoon. fbX > I (b)(5)

The second attached item is a list of obscure or very old references that are cited in the SRP or RGs. I could not find these references in my searches. Dennis suggested that we ask the NRC library to try to find them. Before we do that, did you find any of them during your seaf'IChes? Do you have any others to add to the list?

John 212

From: Wld[))jM![ Pm's To:

Subject:

tCbX6> I RE: l..lc::rose ~ic:ation SAAS * &nail Sa of S Date; Frlday, September 29, 2017 11 .55:00 AM This 439-page attachment is available in public AD AMS as Attachmentl: Natfs]rjdfagbtyJSA5wD(Dary,LE5 gdf ML060600!53_

I think this worked.

Derek

From: WldmavewDerek To:  !(bX6)  !

Subject License Application SAAS

• Email Sa of S Date: Friday, September 29, 201? 1l:S 2:00 AM Note: The first 3 attachments are publi cly available in ADAMS as ML11229Al 74, Attachments: GJobalL,aserEnrichlSASummary GEH pdf ML12256A682, and ML060680653 , respectively. The 4th attachment, consisting of 3 pages, is m:'~TaJi:'11..ALA:ss: .'cidr withheld in full und er FOIA exemption 5.

APPlicaot.SARs.Documents dooc John:

I saw this morning that my email #5 to you was rejected. I am pret1y sure it was because of its size - NRC and AOL do not communicate items passing some arbitrary size constraint that is undefinable in "normal" numerical terms. So I have broken it up just for you into two emails, lets see if this works .

The WORD file showing the references used is included in this email. The second one contains only one file - the biggest one.

As usual, let me know if something does not work.

Derek

From: Wldmayer Derek To: Nguyen Ouvnh Cc: Banks Mart

Subject:

RE: Refereoces for External Har.ants Report Datt: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:58:00 PM I'll let you know when they are done. So far, the entire library staff has helped on parts of It, so I will clarify who you need to talk to.

From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 201 / 1:48 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goV>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks@nrc.goV>

Subject:

RE: References for External Hazards Report 1laha... I've done this stuff before... I'll do my best Oust let me who to find at the Library to get me started).

Hopefully this is not "History of the World Vol II" epic-ness!

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:39 PM

'To: Nguyen, Quynh <Ouynh Neuyeo@orr LlPY>

Cc: Banks, Mark <Mark.Banks, ~ >

Subject:

References for External Hazards Report Hi Quynh:

I am cc'lng Mark on this so he knows I have asked you and In case he wants someone else to help me.

I am working on the "External Man-Made Hazards" report (currently with John and Dennis),

and they have asked me to locate and make avallable to them about a dozen references from the Standard Review Plan and a couple of Reg Guides. These references are, for the most part, very old, and such have never been added to ADAMS In electronic form. Most of them are, however, showing up in the ADAMS "Legacy Library* or in anciml1 Docket Files (for example, an affidavit from an NRC employee on the Skagit Nuclear Power Plant license!)

The Technical Library is running them down for me, and is nearly finished . Of the dozen, It turns out three of them have been located in electronic format, so I have downloaded those. What will probably be needed for the other Nine is a hard copy will need to be made, and that is where I will need your help. Have you ever used a NUDOCS station?

These old references will be found in microfiche form. When the Tech Library is done, they will provide the microfiche addresses for them all, and then somebody has to sit at a NUDOCS station and make the hard copy. it Is very tedious, but I found it very fun (in the old daysl). I think there wlll be a couple of microfiche that will be found in the NUDOCS station in the Technical Library, and then the rest will be in the NUDOCS station in the

public document room.

I will let you know when the Library is done with the research. Let me know if this sounds like (also you Mark) something somebody else might like to (or should) do. I would do it myself but teleworking has Its down sides!

Dch.A!.A <A-. W ~

ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!CbX6) I(cell) dcrek wjdrn;iyer@nrc eov

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: I0/2/2017 12:20:48 PM Central Standard TI me From: l(b)(6) I To: Derek.Widmaycr@nrc.gov Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov Thanks!

John In a message dated 10/2/2017 12:17:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

6. WASH-1238

7. SLA-74-0001

10. NRC SER in EPRI NP-5238-SR-A From:!(bX6) I~

Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:40 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Qerek,Wjdmaver@nrc.gov>

Cc: Stetkar, John <John,Stetkar@nrc.goy>;._ V,_X6_>__________.

Subject:

(External_Sender) Re: Man-Made Hazards Wow!

Just oul of curiosity, which three did you find?

John In a message dated 10/2/2017 10:20:43 AM. Central Daylight Time, Oerek.Widmayer@nrc.gov writes:

John and Dennis:

Update on REFERENCES.

I was able to find ~ of the Elusive References on available technical document resources that are available to the NRC Technical Library, and library staff was able to find one other.

1/3

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards In the meantime, the remaining ruM documents are being chased by the Technical Library and the Public Document Room, and I hope to hear from them soon.

It has been my experience with the NRC document system that EVERY document that I have looked for has been available on microfiche. Sometimes it is just a matter of knowing where and how to look, so I am hoping that the PDR folks retain those skills! (I had an amazingly fun project when I was in NMSS helping solve a legal case for a Decommissioning project - where a major contamination had taken place in the 60s and a "partial" cleanup had been done. The current owner was doing a "final" decommissioning and was trying not to pay for any of the added cleanup that was needed to bring the "partially" cleaned up areas up to current standards. Fascinating stuff- I had to run down licensing documents clear back to the 50s.)

So hopefully everything should still be there someplace.

Derek From:!(b)(6)  ! ._!

(b_X6_)_ _ _ _ _ ___.

Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 7:12 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc: St etkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; l""

(b.,.;

X,,,.

6)- - - - - - - - - - ,

Subject:

[External_Sender) Man-Made Hazards Hi Derek, Dennis and I finally found some time to discuss things this afternoon. l(bX5)

(bX5) 2/3

<4/1712018 Re: Man-Made Hazards CbX5)

The second attached item is a list of obscure or very old references that are cited in the SRP or RGs. I could not find these references in my searches. Dennis suggested that we ask the NRC library to try to find them. Before we do that, did you find any of them during your searches? Do you have any others to add to the list?

John 3/3

Ft-om: W,Om ilYEX, Qergk Toi  !(bX6)

CC:  !(bX6)

Subject:

Ul>OAT!:. i:)temal M.Jo.+lldr .---::S Report Note: The attached table is withheld in its entirety und er FOIA Date: Thursday, Octobef OS, 2017 1;45:00 PM exemption 5.

Attachments: (bJ(sJ I John and Dennis:

Updates:

( 1)

(b)(5)

[2)

Six of the elusive references have been located and are available That's half. The Public Document Room is continuing to look for the other six. At some point I probably will need to tel1 them to cease. we should think about that, But that would be quite a weird development does the SRP actually reference documentation that cannot even be obtained at NRC? - (I doubt an "affidavit on a ASLBP ruling would be available anywhere else)

Derek Da.11..cJt. ~ Wui.-Ho~r lL ACRS/Technical Support Branch

!(bX6)  !(cell) derek,wjdma:xer@orc gov

From: zut>eti Sardar To: Wlqnaycr Pccck Cc Wineostelo. Lee Subject! RE: REFERENCl:S need for ACRS Date: Thursday, October 19, 2017 9: 11:07 AM Derek, I looked for remaining documents in our docket files, some other places, and in Adams. No documents were found. My recommendation is to fill out form 499 and send an e-mail to document,resource@nrc.gov, and David Pinckney or Sunny Kim to request these documents. I am not sure how they can find these documents, they might have more resources than us.

Thanks Sardar From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 9:40 AM To: Zuberi, Sardar <Sardar.Zuberi@nrc.goV>

Cc: Wittenstein, Lee <Lee.Wittenstein@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RErERENCES need for ACRS Hi Sardar:

Any more news on finding the references that still need to be located?

Derek Dc."-ch. ell-. m~

ACRS/1 echnical Support Branch

!(bX6) I (cell) derck widmayer@occ BPY From: Zuberi, Sardar Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 9:40 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <DereK Widmayec@!lcc eoV>

Cc: Wittenstein, Lee <Lee w;tten,1ejn,. ore, oy>

Subject:

RE: REFERENCES need for ACRS

Derek, This is Sardar, work at the library and PDR.

I was able to find few more references, I also found similar title with different document dates.

These findings may provide more information on the subject. I noted on the same document, originally Anne worked on. My notes are in green color.

Please let us know how useful these information 1s for you?

Thanks Sardar

1. 9 NUREG-0014, "Safety Evaluation Report, Hartsville Nuclear Plants Al, A2, Bl, and 82," April 1976, Docket STN 50-518 NUREG-0014 is available from PDR; 599 pages_. supplement 199 pages.

1. 10 NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Report (July 1987), in Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-5283-SR A, "Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installation -

Found document in Legacy library Accession 8602030159 Number:

Document Forwards,for concurrence,BWR Owners Group for IGSCC Research

Title:

"Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installations,"

incorporating ACRS & NRC comments.

Document Mon Jan 27 00:00:00 EST 1986 Date:

Estimated Page Count:

Document CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE, Type: UTILITY TO NRC Document Report Number:

Author Affiliation: BWR OWNERS GROUP, NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.

Microform 34443:253-34443:329 Addresses:

Physical PDR:TOPRP-EMVGENE-C-860127,PDR:TOPRP/EMVGENFJC File 860127,CF:SUBJ//RD lBWR 860127 Location:

Package 8602030159*

Number:

Accession 8602030162 Number:

Document

Title:

"Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installations."

Document Tue Dec 31 00:00:00 EST 1985 Date:

Estimated Page 76 Count:

Document TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS & TEST REPORTS,

Type: TEST/INSPECTION/OPERATING PROCEDURES Documenl Report PROC-851231 Number:

Author Affiliation: BWR OWNERS GROUP Microfonn Addresses: 34443:254-34443:329 Physical POR:TOPRP-EMVGENE-C-860127,PDR:TOPRP/EMVGENFJC File 860127,CF:SUBJ//RD-10-IBWR 860127 Location:

Package 8602030159A Number:

From: library Resource Sent: Tuesday, September 76, 2017 10:41 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <0~1ctmaxer.~ nrc,rov>

Cc: Zuber!, Sardar <SardarZuberl 1 nru~V>

Subject:

RC: Rt i-1:RENCES need for ACRS Hi Derek, I've been working on a few of the references on your list that look like they might be available through the Library collection.

Reference #1 by D.G. Eisenhut Is avallable in our periodical print collection:

Transactions of the American Nuclear Society; Vol.16, 1973, Pages 210-211 As far as I can tell this only appears in print. so you'd have to make a copy of it in our Library.

The other reference I discovered, #7, Is available online In full text through NTRL at https:/JntrLntis,goy/NTRU Enter Accession number SLA740001VS14 in the search box on the uppe,r left hand side of the screen and you should bring up a downloadable file of the Severities of Transportation Accidents.

Most of the other references on your list appear to be microfiche and one of my colleagues is looking into them and will be in contact soon.

Thank you for contacting the Library and have a great day.

Sincerely, LeeW.

Lee Wlttcnstcln Technical U br.irian, User Services Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com mission

Washington, DC 20555 (301)415-6436 Lee.Wjttenstejnnrc.goy From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 4:46 PM To: Library Resource <Library Resource@nrc eov>

Subject:

RC: REFERENCES need for ACRS Anne:

Wow - Thanks.

I look forward to hearing from you again.

Just off the top of my head, I will probably solicit the assistance of someone who still works at TWFN to do what needs lo be done on the Docket File information assuming your colleaguies find them.

Thanks Again Derek From: Library Resource Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 '1:36 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Dete.l<....Widrna~~r l'nr~ ov>

Cc: Zuberi, Sardar <Sardar.Lubfill. 1~v>; Wlttensteln, Lee <Lee Wjttenstejn@occ,11ov>

Subject:

RI:: Rl:H:Rl:NCES need for ACRS Hello Derek, We received your 11st of references. I have made a first pass through them and, as you noted, many seem to be related to docket mes. The Public Document Room at NRC headquarters does have a docket microfiche collection and I'm going to enlist the help of my colleagues, Sardar and Lee (copied on this email-they also work In the Technical Library) to search through the docket microfiche on Monday to see if they can locate any of these references there.

The only reference I've located 1n electronic format so far is #10 and I found it on the EPRI Web site for download at https:/lwww.eprLcom/#/pages/producUNP-5283-sRA%20%20%20%20%20%20%20/

If we do locate the other references only on microfiche or print here at headquarters, you might want to consider asking an ACRS colleague to come to the Technical Library or Public Document Room to view the items on your behalf as we cannot make electronic copies of microfiche or print documents for you.

Also, please note that for any NRG documents we locate for which we may have on microfiche, if you need an "official agency record" copy of the document or if you would like

the document to be made electronically available in ADAMS, you would need to go through r:eGO!.d.s..resource@nc.c,.g,ov for that service. We can assist with verifying the references you have and obtaining microfiche addresses, but then you would need to work with the Records team to get them digitized/put into ADAMS. However, you can have an ACRS colleague view the documents and save electronic "reference" copies if that's all you need.

Lee and/or Sardar will be in touch next week with further search results.

Thank you, Anne Perrera Goel Anne Per rera Goel Technical Librarian User Services Team Information Services Branch Office of the Chief Information Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6

301-415-2819 I'm working from an alternate location and can be reached at !Cb ..._x_>_ ____,

One White I-lint, 1st floor F-25 If you found the help you received In the Technical Library useful please send us a note regarding the value of the service you received.

From: Widmayer, Derck Sent: Friday, September 22, 201 7 7:30 PM To: library Resource <Ubrary.fte~vrr~ .,.Sfi>

Subject:

REFERENCES need for ACRS Hello I am working on a project for the ACRS and I have a list of about a dozen references that I could use some help running down. I have attached the list which contains as complete a reference as possible. (one is crossed out because I did find this one on my own).

These references all are cited In the Standard Review Plans and Reg Guides used by NRO and NRR for reactor reviews, however, they were first cited In the early 70s and 80s and have not been replaced or removed from any revisions of the documents. Since they are old, they don't appear in ADAMS as referenced. I think some of them might be in the legacy library of ADAMs but I have not successfully found them (and even if I did, I work permanent telework and am not near any NUD0Cs machines anymore).

Also, as noted and with emphasis added, most of them mighVshould be included in Dockets. It Is also possible (I guess) that some of them might be available at the Law Library?

Please advise on how I should continue? If you can help run these down , do you need a CAC number or are you covered for any work you do? (Time recording is changing in one week, so I thought I would ask in case there Is a change to how you are to do business).

DoAc!.lt. o4-. WubHafJ r 'a.

ACRS/Technical Support Branch r )(6) I(cell) derek wjdmayer@nrc.gov

Derek A Widmayer Elusive References September 21 , 2017

1. Eisenhut, D.G., "Reactor Siting in the Vicinity of Air Fields," American Nuclear Society, June 1973 check Techncial Library print collection of Transactions of the American Nuclear Society for 1973. Did not find in ADAMS or on the ANS Web site.

2. Eisenhut, D.G., "Testimony on Zion/ Waukegan Airport Interaction" (Docket No. 50-295) Did not find in ADAMS. Check docket fiche in PDR, but may need to direct user to Records for the Official Agenc~ Record. No results in Google.

3. Vallance, J.M., "A Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc., April 7, 1972 (perhaps submitted on Docket 50-295) did not find in A DA MS. Check docket fiche in PDR.

4. Vallance, J.M ., "Supplement to a Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc., August 2, 1972 (perhaps submitted on Docket 50-295) did not find in A DAMS. Check docket fiche in PDR.

5. Project 485, Aircraft Considerations, Pre-application Site Review, Boardman Nuclear Plant, October 1973 could not locate docket number for "Boardman Nuclear Plant"

&.- WASH 1238, "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants", December 1Q72 JWS-N&le-OB/29/ 17: ~fw.AG-Supplemont 4-te-WASH 1238, datea-~4-Q.?a,9Yt-it-is-Ret relevant to the accident data cited in NUREG/CR 6624.

7. SLA-74-0001 , "Severities of Transportation Accidents" , Sandia National Laboratory, July 1976 c heck Technical Library report room and technical report microfiche collection. Could not locate in SciTech Connect or NTRL, but it is referenced in another Sandia Report at https ://www. osti.gov/scitech/bi bl io/6854377-seve rities-tra n sportation-accidents-involving-la rge-packages

8. Safety Evaluation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, November 9, 1976, and Supplements, Docket 50-412 did not find in A DAMS. Check PDR docket fiche.

JWS Note 08/29/17: The Beaver Valley Unit 2 operating license SER is NUREG- 1057.

could not find the original version of that report. Section 2.2.3.1 of the Beaver Va lley Unit 2 FSAR indicates that the risk from a gasoline barge accident was evaluated in PSAR Amendment 12, dated December 1973, and PSAR Amendment 13, dated February 1974. I could not find those reports. Did not find in ADAMS. Check PDR docket fiche.

9. NUREG-0014, "Safety Evaluation Report, Hartsville Nuclear Plants A 1, A2, B1 , and B2," April 1976 , Docket STN 50-518 Found in Legacy ADAMS at 8001 100808. Did not find in Main ADAMS, SciTech Connect, NTRL, or HathiTrust.

10. NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Report (July 1987), in Ellectric Power Research Institute Report NP-5283-SR-A, "Guidel ines for Permanent BWR H7,drogen Water Chemistry Installation -

1987 Revision" avai lable for download from the EPRI Web site at https://www.epri.com/#/pages/producUNP-5283-SRA%20%20%20%20%20%20%20/

1O continue found few non-public documen ,

Accession Number 8606250157 Document Date 6/9/1986 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 1 Document Type CORRESPONDENCE-LETIERS OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE Title Forwards minutes of 860416 meeting w/BWR Owners Group for IGSCC Research in Bethesda.MD re guidelines for permanent BWR hydrogen water chemi stry installation,per 860522 request.W/o encl.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name HULMAN L G Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 68448:079-68448:079 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 8606250157 Accession Number 8507020589 Document Date 6/25/1985 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 14 Document Type MEETING MINUTES & NOTES--CORRESPONDENCE MEETING SUMMARIES-INTERNAL (NON-TRANSCRIPT)

Title Summary of 850619 meeting w/BWR Owners Group for IGSCC re production of generic document providing guidance for design,installation & operations of pe rmanent hydrogen water chemistry sys.Proposed schedule & draft outline provided.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name WITT F J Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 67934:318-67934:331 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 8507020589 Accession Number 8606110861 Document Date 6/2/1986 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 2 Document Type MEETING MINUTES & NOTES--CORRESPONDENCE MEETING SUMMARIES-INTERNAL (NON-TRANSCRIPT)

Title Summary of 860522 meeting w/BWR Owners Group for IGSCC Research in Allentown .PA re 860508 request for addl info on hydrogen water chemistry installation guidelines.Response to Bernero 860207 ltr expected by 860605.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name WITT F J

Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 68427:096-68427:097 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 8606110861 -h Section 2, Supplement 2 to the Floating Nuclear Plant Safety Evaluation Report, September 1976, Docket STN 50-437 could not locate in Legacy ADAMS. Check PDR docket fiche.

Accession N umber: 4006000253 Document

Title:

NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT 2 Document Date: Fri Oct 08 00:00:00 EDT 1976 Estimated Page Count: 52 Microform Addresses: 50437-278 JWS Note 08/30/17: I could not find this reference. I found SECY 76-501, which transmits a draft version of NUREG-0140 for Commission information. NUREG-0140 compares risks from accidents at floating nuclear plants and land-based plants. However, it focuses primarily on liquid pathway releases and does not explicitly address external hazards such as ship collisions.

12. Affidavit of Jacques B.J. Read before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2, July 15, 1976, Dockets STN 50-522 and STN 50-523 check PDR docket fiche and/or PDR ASLBP fiche (if that collection exists)

OUND in Adams Accession 79 11050075 Number:

Affidavit of JB Read on 790913 re recent A6 aircraft crash experience.Crash Document

Title:

rate was conservative.Aircraft hazards need to be considered as basis for design.

Document Date: Thu Sep 13 00:00:00 EDT 1979 Estimated Page 3

Count:

Document Type: AFFIDAVITS, LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS Document Report Number:

Author AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED Affiliation:

Microform 01268:293-01268:295 Addresses:

Physical File PDR:ADOCK-05000522-G-79092 l ,PDR:ADOCK/05000522/G 790921 Location:

Package 7911050069A

Number:

Accession Number 791 1050075 Document Date 9/13/1979 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 3 Document Type AFFIDAVITS LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS Title Affidavit of JB Read on 790913 re recent A6 aircraft crash experience.Crash rate was conservative.Aircraft hazards need to be considered as basis for desig n.

Author Affiliation AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED Author Name READ J B J Availability Publicly Available Microform Addresses 01268:293-01268:295 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 7911050069A Accession Number 7910250409 Document Date 10/3/1979 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 2 Document Type INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE Title Comments on B&W 32-11 0392-00 rept re site boundary doses associated w/postulated RCS release to auxiliary bldg: calculations are correct.if RCS inventory is as sumed strongly acidic or very hot.

Author Affiliation NRG OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name READ J B J Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 00883:087-00883:088 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 7910250409 Accession Number 7910290094 Document Date 10/3/1979 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 3 Document Type INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE Title Forwards equation derivation sample to be transmitted to applicant re FSAR,Amend 7,Page 2.2-32.Applicant states that base area of liquid spill increases linearly w/time.Encl derivation shows area is actually quadratic in time.

Author Affiliation NRG OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name READ J B J Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 00886:352-00886:354 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 7910290094

Accession Number 7912050299 Document Date 11/15/1979 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 1 Document Type CORRESPONDENCE-LETIERS OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE Title Requests accident rate data re C-141 & CSA aircraft & level of traffic of planes at Harrisburg Intl Airport for updating evidence TMl-2 Appeal Board will reconvene i n Feb 1980.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name READ J B J Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 02128:360-02128:360 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 7912050299 Accession Number 8002120308 Document Date 2/4/1980 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 13 Document Type AFFIDAVITS LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS Title Affidavit presenting analysis of 1978 air traffic & accident rates.Contains revisions to 1976 &

1977 estimates to NRC testimony re air carrier.military accident & traffi c data & aircraft crash potential evaluation.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name READ J B J Availability Publicly Available Microform Addresses 05064:297-05064:317 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 8002120300A Accession Number 8005300663 Document Date 2/20/1980 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 2 Document Type INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE Title Suggests representative be sent to Natl Research Council Committee on High Temp Science

& Technology to acquire addl info & better understanding of developm ents in high temp research.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name READ J B J Availability Non-Publicly Available Microform Addresses 02665:087-02665:088 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 8005300663 Accession Number 8010070588 Document Date 10/2/1980 12:00:00AM Estimated Page Count 14

Document Type AFFIDAVITS LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS Title Affidavit re TX PIRG motion for summary disposition of Addi Contention 50 .Dose rate & total dose of accidental airborne radioactivity are sufficient to cause electro nic malfunction.Prof qualifications encl.

Author Affiliation NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION (NRR)

Author Name FERRELL C READ J BJ SINISGALLI A A Availability Publicly Available Microform Addresses 07028:250-07028:263 Document Sensitivity Non-Sensitive Package Number 8010070576B

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Update* on Buslve Refe<ences: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

RE: Re: Update on Elusive

References:

Man-Made Hazards Date: 10/24/2017 10:37:37 AM Central Standard Tune From: Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov To: !CbX6) I JW:

Two of the documents, from the PDR, will be "blown-up" from Microfiche. A "good" scanned version of those will be a challenge, but we will do our best!

DW From~Cb)(Q) l ~

Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 11:35 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>;,.!(b_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.

Cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

(External_Sender) Re: Update on Elusive

References:

Man-Made Hazards Thanks.

If those 3 references are only available in paper form, please be sure that we get good scanned electronic versions. I hale paper cuts, and my old eyes don't do well with fuzz ....

John In a message dated 10/24/2017 10:28:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek,Widmayer@nrc,goy writes:

Acknowledged. I have made a version of the "lisr that is just those that we were not able to attain, if you (or Committee) decides this needs to be pointed out. In the meantime, Quynh will be getting/obtaining the 3 References from the library/PDR that were located - probably in Hard Copy I assume.

From:i(bX6) Ilmru!1QI.C_b_X_6>_ _ _ __.

Sent: Friday, October 20, 2017 10:56 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Cc~CbX6) t Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Update on Elusive

References:

Man-Made Hazards Hi Derek, I think that we should declare a truce for the "Elusive References" (not a victory, but a draw).

I'm pretty confident that missing References 2, 3, and 4 are backups for Reference 1. I know that 3 and 4 are consultant reports, which were likely never filed on the docket. Reference 2 is cited in the guidance, but it is always paired with Reference 1. So I think that Reference 1 should be adequate for that group (I hope).

Missing Reference 5 apparently pertains to military aircraft crashes. I think that recent submlttals rely on guidance in a DOE standard that we have. Reference 5 Is cited In SRP 2.2.1-2.2.2, so that's why it Is on the list.

Missing Reference 8 apparently pertains to gasoline barge accidents. I think that the PSEG ESP probably contains more recent methods. Reference 8 is cited in SRP 2.2.1-2.2 .2, so that's why it is on the list.

1/'4

4/171201 8 RE: Re: Update on Elusive References. Men-Made Hazards Missing Reference 12 is a mystery. It Is cited in SRP 2.2.3, but I have no idea what types of hazards It might address. It's too old and too nebulous to Justify more effort.

So, I think we now have enough. Call off the cavalry.

John In a message dated 10/19/2017 9:58:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time, Derek.Widmayer@nrc,qoy writes:

John and Dennis*

So the library and PDR staff have *exhausted" their resources for finding the 12 documents listed in the "Elusive References* list. The results are* 3 available electronically which I have downloaded; 3 available thru the "legacy" library system (NUDOCS) on microfiche in the PDR or in print at the Technical Library, 6 un..ible to find (I).

The next step is for me to request a document search into the "retired" files of the NRC. I know that since the NRC has existed since 1975 that there are tons and tons of pieces of paper that are in storage in a warehouse here in Rockville. Not knowing how they are stored, using what recording system, etc., I don't know what the chances of

• success" are - or whether this is a resource-wary effort. The NRC Records Management website indicates that it will be 2 - 10 days from when they receive the request (It is an official Form 499) until I "get my documents" (they word it this way as if "success" is guaranteed!). I assume they would say that they "could not find something" after the same amount of time.

So the list is attached showing the "status" of the documents at this time. I am proceeding with this document request unless I hear that you do not want me to.

Derek Derek A. Widmayer ACRS/Technical Support Branch 1

ig~~~k.w1droa~;~ ~rc.goy From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Monday, October 02, 20171:17 PM To: l(bX6) cc: ICbX6)

Subject:

RE: Re: Man-Made Hazards

6. WASH-1238

7. SLA-74-0001

10. NRC SER in EPRI NP-5238-SR-A 2/4

4/17/2018 RE: Re: Update on Elusive Refemlces. Ma,H,lade Hazards From!CbX6) Hmallto:JCbX6) J Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 11:40 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>

cc: Stetkar, John <John.Stetkar@nrc.goy>; i.;. f:1,-x....;.

6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,J

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: Man-Made Hazards Wowl Just out of curiosity, which three did you find?

John In a message dated 10121201110:20:43 A.M Central Daylight lime, Derek,Wjdmayer@nrc.goy writes:

John and Dennis:

Update on RErERENCES.

I was able to find !Yt.Q of the Elusive References on available technical document resources that are available to the NRC Technical Library, and library staff was able to find ~ other.

In the meantime, the remaining~ documents are being chased by the Technical Library and the Public Document Room, and I hope to hear from them soon.

It has been my experience with the NRC document system that EVERY document that I have looked for has been available on micr,ofiche. Sometimes it is just a matter of knowing where and how to look, so l am hoping that the PDR folks retain those skills!

(I had an amazingly fun project when I was in NMSS helping solve a legal case for a Decommissioning project - where a major contamination had taken place in the 60s and a "partial" cleanup had been done. The current owner was doing a "final" decommissioning and was trying not to pay for any of the added cleanup that was needed to bring the "partially" cleaned up areas up to current standards. Fascinating stuff - I had to run down licensing documents clear back to the 50s.)

So hopefully everything should still be there someplace.

Derek From =!CbX6) ~ l.!n..ruJ14CbX6)

Sent: Thursday, September 21, 20L;-1.;,; 7..;.:1~2 """

7...,. PM ,....,....--..J To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goy>

Cc: Stetkar, John <.John.Stetkar@nrc.gov>; ._!Cb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____,J

Subject:

[External_Sender] Man-Made Hazards Hi Derek, Dennis and I finany found some time to discuss things this aftemoon. l(bXS)

(bX5) 3/4

4117/2018 RE: Re: Update on Elusive

References:

Man-Made Hazards (bXS)

The second attached item Is a list of obscure or very old references that are cited in the SRP or RGs. I could not find these references in my searches. Dennis suggested that we ask the NRC library to try to find them. Before we do that, did you find any of them during your searches?

Do you have any others to add to the list?

John 4/4

Derek A Widmayer Elusive References Status - October 19, 2017i

1. Eisenhut, D.G., "Reactor Siting in the Vicinity of Air Fields," American Nuclear Society, June 1973 Found in print in Technical Library:

Transactions of the American Nuclear Society; Vol.16, 1973, Pages 210-211

2. Eisenhut, D.G., "Testimony on Zion/ Waukegan Airport Interaction" (Docket No. 50-295)

3. Vallance, J.M., "A Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc., April 7, 1972 (perhaps submitted on Docket 50-295)

4. Vallance, J.M., "Supplement to a Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc., August 2, 1972 (perhaps submitted on Docket 50-295)

5. Project 485, Aircraft Considerations, Pre-application Site Review, Boardman Nuclear Plant, October 1973

6. WASH-1238, "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants", December 1972 Found electronic file - downloaded

7. SLA-74-0001, "Severities of Transportation Accidents", Sandia National Laboratory, July 1976 Found electronic file - downloaded 8 . Safety Evaluation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, November 9, 1976, and Supplements, Docket 50-412 9 . NUREG-0014, "Safety Evaluation Report, Hartsville Nuclear Plants A1 , A2, B1 , and 82,"

April 1976, Docket STN 50-518.

Found in Legacy ADAMS at 8001100808:

Microform Address: 04029:001 to 04030: 119

10. NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Report (July 1987), in Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-5283-SR-A, "Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installation* 1987 Revision" Found electronic file - downloaded

11. Section 2, Supplement 2 to the Floating Nuclear Plant Safety Evaluation Report, September 1976, Docket STN 50-437 Found in Legacy ADAMS at 4006000253:

Microform Addresse: 50437-278

12. Affidavit of Jacques B.J. Read before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2, July 15, 1976, Dockets STN 50-522 and STN 50-523 1

(detailed "search" notes redacted from this version) 2

From: Wl<tJJavec Pccek To: Nauveo Auvob Subject RE: References fOf External Hazards Report Date: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 2:23:00 PM Attachments: EIYSIYC Re{ergncgs.NONot,:s Wldmay,:r.dgoc Q:

I am now ready for your help.

Attached is the complete list of references I was trying to find for Dennis and John Stetkar Of the 12, we were able to locate 6 in the "ons1te NRC resources. 3 of those were found in electronic versions.

3 were found In either print or on microfiche - those are the three I need you to get for me.

On the list, they are #1, #9, and #11. #1 was found in print in the Technical Library - Lee Wittenstein of the Tech Library staff found this for me, so he should be able to get this readily for you.

Of the two on microfiche - the microfiche addresses are included on the list. If you need help for some reason, Sardar Zuberi of the PDR found those for me So, what Dennis and John need are electronic versions of these. I guess a two-step process Is required, copying and/or downloading the hard copies available, and then scanning those into an e-version. The members have asked for this as they are trying to work In a paperless environment. If you think you will need some help as the scanning might be labor intensive, please ask Mark and Alesha who you could solicit for aid.

As far as timing - I think having these available within the next 2 weeks should be good.

Send them to me when they are ready e-versions as I will package all of the documents we found into one email, to minimize confusion.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Derek From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 2:10 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: References for External Hazards Report I can look for some next week. Just give me specifics as it comes in.

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Friday, October 06, 20171:46 PM To: Nguyen, Quynh <Ouyn,,Nauyen@nrc 11ov>

Cc: Banks, Mark

Subject:

RE: References for External Hazards Report Update:

So far the Library and the PDR have found 3 documents that I will need you to obtain some version (probably a printed version). (two from microfiche and one from a reference document in the Library)

They are still trying to locate several more (6 to be exact), so I will wait until they tell me they are done before I let you know the results and who to talk to.

Derek From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:58 PM To: Nguyen, Quynh <.Quynh Nguyen@nrc,soy>

Cc: Banks, Mark <M...a.i:Li3arlks~ JJV>

Subject:

RC: References for brternal Halards Report I'll let you know when they are done. So far, the entire library staff has helped on parts of It, so I will clarify who you need to talk to.

From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 1:48 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer@nrc,sov>

Cc: Danks, Mark

Subject:

RC: References for Fxternal Hazards Report Haha ... I've done this stuff before ... I'll do my best Oust let me who to find at the Library to get me started).

Hopefully this Is not "History of the World Vol II" epic-nessl From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 7017 1:39 PM To: Nguyen, Quynh <Ouynh Nsuveo@nrc 11ov>

Cc: Banks, Mark

Subject:

References for External Hazards Report Hi Quynh:

I am cc'ing Mark on this so he knows I have asked you and in case he wants someone else to help me.

I am working on the "External Man-Made Hazards" report (currently with John and Dennis),

and they have asked me to locate and make available to them about a dozen references from the Standard Review Plan and a couple of Reg Guides. These references are, for the

most part, very old, and such have never been added to ADAMS In electronic form. Most of them are, however, showing up In the ADAMS "Legacy Library" or In ancjent Docket Files (for example, an affidavit from an NRC employee on the Skagit Nuclear Power Plant license I)

The Technical Library is running them down for me, and is nearly finished. Of the dozen, it turns out three of them have been located In electronic format, so I have downloaded those. What will probably be needed for the other Nine is a hard copy will need to be made, and that Is where I will need your help. Have you ever used a NUDOCS station?

These old references will be found in microfiche form. When the Tech Library is done, they will provide the microfiche addresses for them all, and then somebody has to sit at a NUDOCS station and make the hard copy. It is very tedious, but I found it very fun (in the old daysl). I think there will be a couple of microfiche that will be found in the NUDOCS station In the Technical Library, and then the rest will be in the NUDOCS station In the public document room.

I will let you know when the Library Is done with the research. Let me know if this sounds like (also you Mark) something somebody else might like to (or should) do. I would do it myself but teleworking has Its down sidesl D ~ cf-. Wul.was,a.'I..

ACRS echnlcal Support Branch (bX6) (cell) derek w1dmayer@nrc,aov

Flnal List Eluslve References October 24, 201 rt

1. Eisenhut, O.G., "Reactor Siting in the Vicinity of Air Fields," Amorican Nuclear Society, June 1973 Found fn print in Technical Library:

Transactions of the American Nuclear Society; Vol 16, 1973, Pages 210-211

2. Elsenhut, D.G., "Testimony on Zion I Waukegan Airport Interaction* (' ~ket No. 50-'

3. Vallance, J.M .* *A Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates. Inc., April 7, 1972 (perhaps submitted on C' "')

4. Vallance, J.M., *supplement to a Study of the Probability of an Aircraft Using Waukegan Memorial Airport Hitting the Zion Station", Pickard, Lowe, & Associates, Inc., August 2, 1972 (perhaps submitted on o~c t )

5. Project 485, Aircraft Considerations, Pre-application Site Review, Boardman Nuclear Plant, October 1973

6. WASH-1238, "Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants", December 1972 Found electronic file - downloaded

7. SLA-74-0001, "Severities of Transportation Accidents", Sandia National Laboratory, July 1976 I Found electronic file - downloaded

8. Safety Evaluation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2, November 9, 1976, and Supplements r:1 c,- 1

9. NUREG-0014, "Safety Evaluation Report, Hartsville Nuclear Plants A1 , A2, 81 , and 82,"

April 1976, Docket STN 50-518.

Found in Legacy ADAMS at 8001100808:

Microform Address: 04029:001 to 04030: 119 1

10. NRC Staff Safety Evaluation Report (July 1987), in Electric Power Research Institute Report NP-528J.SR-A, "Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installation

• 1987 Revision" Found electronic file - downloaded 11 . Section 2, Supplement 2 to the Floating Nuclear Plant Safety Evaluation Report, September 1976, Docket STN 50-437 Found in Legacy ADAMS at 4006000253:

Mlcroform Addresse: 50437-278

12. Affidavit of Jacques B.J. Read before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2, July 15, 1976, Dockets ...r ~ :> ti 1 (detailed "search" notes redacted from this version) 2

From: Wjdmayec. Derek Toi Ngyyen. Ouvob subject RE: Library Run!

• lliANKS !!

Date: Monday, Od.obe" 30, 2017 2:17:00 PM

!! Sounds good.

From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 1:58 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.goV>

Subject:

RE: Library Run !* THANKS !!

Yeah, Lee pulled the microfilm slidesheet. I went to H278" which is the correct address- slide number where the SE is supposed to start. I did a quick scan of the slidesheet. o,dn't see anything related to the title.

I can email her.

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 1:50 PM To: Nguyen, Quynh <Ouynh.Nsuven@nrc iPY>

Subject:

RE: Library Run! - THANKS II Q:

Thanks for your hard work on this! Yes. tedious is not the word.

And also you are correct that Ref 11 was an incorrect address? Here is the information that Sardar Zuberi sent to me - it looks like I gave you the correct microform address - at least from the Accession Number provided. Maybe you could check with her again?

Maybe the address is only off by a digit or so? The Properties indicates that the document is about 52 pages, which sounds about right.

I know we are in FC week, so maybe you could try for a little while longer on Monday -

Tuesday of next week?

[ Info from Sardar J

+.--section 2, Supplement 2 to the Floating Nuclear Plant Safety Evaluation Report, September 1976, Docket STN 50-437 eot:1ld not loeete il"I Legee, ADAMS. Cheek PDR doeket fiehe.

Accession Number: 4006000253 Document

Title:

NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT 2 Document Date: Fri Oct 08 00:00:00 EDT 1976 Estimated Page Count: 52 Microform Addresses: 50437-278

From: Nguyen, Quynh Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 8:27 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek Widmayer lore. *ov>

Subject:

Library Run I Importance: High

Derek, The documents are In G: Derek Library Met Lee.

REF 1 /\ have a hardcopy at my desk and scanned for you.

RCF 9 This was tedious/challenging - I think I got all of It.

• I got scans from the original scans. It's really blurry but I think they can figure out things via context. We aren't gonna get much better quallty.

• The loader of the film ... the wheels had some drift at points so I may have repeated slldes but I think my system of captures was the best tradeoff of speed and accuracy. Sorry In advance I

• On the album of the microfilm, I have to save each individual page. Also, each page was NOT ID'd.

Rcr 11 - I think I captured a Livermore page. This address was not correct!

TL; DR- Ugly, but I got done what was possible given physical constraints.

From: Nguyen PYmb To: ZUbcrJ SardM Cc: WJdmMr~

Subject:

Mlcrolllm R e ~

Data: Monday, Qaober 30, 2017 2:22:48 PM Attachments: W 11 SQ43Z-278 PDF

Sardar, Greetings! Lee pulled 50437 and I went to Slide 278 and I believe I saw a Livermore report (see attached). Perhaps, there was a mistake when it was originally scanned and cataloged?

Please advise.

Thanks, Quynh "Quin" And also you are correct that Ref 11 was an incorrect address? Here is the information that Sardar Zuberi sent to me - it looks like I gave you the correct microform address - at least from the Accession Number provided. Maybe you could check with her again?

Maybe the address is only off by a digit or so? The Properties indicates that the document is about 52 pages, which sounds about right.

I know we are in FC week, so maybe you could try for a little while longer on Monday -

Tuesday of next week?

[ Info from Sardar]

~ -Section 2, Supplement 2 to the Floating Nuclear Plant Safety Evaluation Report, September 1976, Docket STN 50-437 eotild not loc11t! in l:!geey ADAMS. Cheek PDR dock!t fkh!.

Accession Number: 4006000253 Document

Title:

NRC SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT 2 Document Date: Fri Oct 08 00:00:00 EDT 1976 Estimated Page Count: 52 Microform Addresses: 50437-278

. .;: ,. ~** .: ,

• I "'*

.. :...:~

-u--,~ ,la:11---.* '.

6 ~:;. , _ .... * ~:-.*.\ , :

u..,.c_lo __*',_

. .. ' I l .,

., ~!. I :"

,t  :,.

--U.lUA

. . ac* ...

.~:*.;.*,.:. '  :~

. ..-~

.... - 11:ruaua. -

• cc-e,............. ntM *

. l.Nillaa 111 " ~.~

t

• 1' ~

• -,.-

• t

.-.11,- - c a

• , J

--..----- T t

t t

T

" "6

• 101: - . r t s & * " - - * -

• • L

• -..~ - ,.1.. u '""""' ** ..,._ ....u ....,.,

flOIC Mil 1... 111I J

4/17/2018 Re: Pipeine Probabiistic Fracture Analysis

Subject:

Re: Pipeline Probabilistic Fracture Analysis Date: 10/29/2017 8:41 :24 PM Central Standard Ttme From: !CbX6)

I To:

Cc:

L...'

(b-X6_) _ _ _ _ ___.~ rL--

1...

X6_) _ _ _ __, 1Cb_X6)_ _ _ _ _.....

Thanks, Pete. I'll read it on the plane tomorrow.

On Oct 20, 2017, al 11 :22 AM, Riccardella, Pete ~...Cb_x _) - - - - - - -~ wrote:

6 Dennis and John, r on Responsive Record I'll see you all In November.

Pete Riccardella, PhD Member, USNRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Structural Integrity Associates, Inc.

Experti In the prevention and c<<Jtrol of slnlctural and m<<hanlu,/ fl/luru 333 Adams St.

Denver, CO 80206 Cell: l(bX6)

Home: ..._ ___....

cte~mic Privacy Notice: The information contained in this e-mail, including any attachrnent(s), is intended so e the named addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient of this -

mail, you are hereby notific

• cmination, distribution, copyin en in relation to the contents of and attachments to prohibited and may be unlawful.

If you have received this e-mail * , e notify the sen

• tcly and permanently delete the y copy of this e-mail and any printout. Thank you ration.

ews and Views 43 8.24.17 PG 16-17 Final.pdf.>

111

4/17/2018 Re: Man-Made Hazards

Subject:

Re: Man-Made Hazards Date: l 2/24/2017 5:23: 19 PM Central Standard 'lime From: l(bX6) I To:  !(bX6)

(b_X6_) _ _ _.....!>

Have not hit the Man-made yet, because I am unpacking boxes (delayed a week and a half by !_

and I' m editing/fixing the Members Handbook, while still "in charge"!

Merry Christmas!

D

...X6_) _ _ _ __,j wrote:

On Dec 23, 2017, at 7:07 AM, !(b_

(bX5)

John

<Appendix A - Aircraft Crash Analyses.doc>

1/1

4117/2018 Re: RE: Re: The Infamous BuslYe References email 1 or 3

Subject:

Re: RE: Re: The Infamous Elusive References email 1 of 3 Date: 12/29/2017 10:33:20 AM Central Standard Time From: !CbX6) I To: Derek.Widmaycr@nrc.gov, ._!Cb_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

Cc: John.Stetkar@nrc.gov The only potentially relevant sections of the Hartsville SER would be those that address pipeline failures (explosions, fires, and toxic chemical releases). That seems to be the topic for which the SRP cites that reference (SRP 2.2.1-2.2.2, Section Ill, Item 3, if you're really curious). But don't do anything now about printing the report. If you can find where It addresses pipeline failures, I'll take a look at it during January subcommittee week.

John In a message dated 12/29/2017 8:20:42 AM Central Standard Time, Derek.Wjdma)erunrc,eov writes:

John:

Yes, it is easy enough to print out all (or better - the relevant sections) of the Hartsville SER if that is the plan. It Is still difficult to read In many places due to poor microfiche repro.

Dennis:

I believe you had some format and other changes you thought would be good for the report - I don't know If those are still relevant or not? If yes, send them as this is a good time to be working on them Derek From: !CbX6) [mailtoj(bX6)

Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2017 10:28 AM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.goV>~(bX6)

<John.Stetkar@nrc.gov> .____________.....

I Stetkar, John

Subject:

[External_Sender] Re: The Infamous Elusive References email 1 of 3 Derek, Got all four - Thanks!

Regarding the Hartsville SER - just hold onto it for n<M. Perhaps Quynh can get it to us when we're there in mid-January. My notes Indicate that it was referenced In the SRP for pipeline accidents. I think that we have enough other pipeline material for the time being. I don't expect that it will add much.

Reference 11 was the SER for the Floating Nuclear Planl It is just a general reference In the SRP, and I suspect 1/3

4/17/2018 Re: RE: Re: The Infamous Elusive References emaR 1 of 3 it won't add much to our library. fuggedaboudit.

John

-Original Message-From: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer@nrc.gov>

To:!CbX6) I:!CbX6)

Sent: Thu, Dec 28, 2017 7:59 am - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Subject:

RE: The Infamous Elusive References email 1 of 3 John:

I am sending FOUR of the elusive references which are "easy" and "cleann for sending to you and Dennis. It will be in three emails.

I need to come up with another plan for the other one - the SER for Hartsville NPP is both "messy" (poor reproduction from microfiche) and HUGE (really huge).

It turned out that we thought we had found Reference No. 11 , but the information about it was incorrect

- the associated microfiche Address did not contain the paper we were looking for.

I'll get back to you with some ideas for Hartsville - let me know if you have any in the meantime.

(Perhaps I can excerpt the parts you are interested in?)

Derek From:!CbX6) I[-m-a_ilt~o....:lCb'""'X"""6)______,,

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:50 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Widmayer " nrc.~oy>1CbX6) ~ Stctkar, John

<John.Stetkar~( ore.gov> ,______________,

Subject:

[External_Sender] The Infamous Elusive References Hi Derek, CbX6) I'm finally getting around to digging back Into the man-made hazards stuff.

1'm first starting to digest what people have done with aircraft crashes.

In late October, you said that you had tracked down 6 of the 12 "elusive references". At that point, we decided to 2/3

4/17/2018 Re: RE: Re: The Infamous 8usive References emal 1 of 3 declare victory. I thought you said that Quynh was actually procuring them from the library. Do we now have them? Can you please send them to us?

Thanks, John P.S., I suspect that folks are rapidly winding down for the holidays, so we might not get them for a couple of weeks

- but I thought I'd try...

313

From: wqnaru DerJ!!s Toi  !(bX6) U(bX6)

Subject:

Rf:Them~mous~ !o--,,....,,.

Referencl!s

..,....--ema 11 -m 3 __,

Date: Thursdl't, Otcembef 28, 2017 8:59:00 AM Note: The 2nd anachment, EPRI Report, NR-5283-SR-A, "Guidelines for Permanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installations - 1987 Revision" is Attachments: Ejznhut NfSartjde pdt publicly anilable at hnps ://epri.com#/pages product?NP-5283-SRA.1ang=en-EPBJ NP-S'283*SRA.pdf US.

John:

I am sending FOUR of the elusive references which are *easy" and *clean" for sending to you and Dennis. It will be in three emails.

I need to come up with another plan for the other one - the SER for Hartsville NPP is both "messy" (poor reproduction from microfiche) and HUGE (really huge).

It turned out that we thought we had found Reference No. 11 , but the information about it was incorrect - the associated microfiche Address did not contain the paper we were looking for.

I'll get back to you with some Ideas for Hartsvllle - let me know if you have any in the meantime. (Perhaps I can excerpt the parts you are interested in?)

Derek From:!(bX6) Hmailto!<hX6> t Sent: TLesday, December 19, 2017 4:50 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <Derek.Wldmayer@nrc.gov>; ._!(b_X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,! Stetkar, John

<John .Stetkar@nre.gov>

Subject:

[External Sender) The Infamous Elusive References HI Derek,

!CbX6) l I'm finally getting around to digging back Into the man-made hazards stuff. I'm first starting to digest what people have done with aircraft crashes.

In late October, you said that you had tracked down 6 of the 12 "elusive references". At that point, we decided to declare victory. I thought you said that Quynh was actually procuring them from the library.

Do we now have them? Can you please send them to us?

Thanks, John P.S., I suspect that folks are rapidly winding down for the holidays, so we might not get them for a couple of weeks

• but I thought I'd try...

210 Gene ral Reactor Safety l()*l

--...---- io**

APPfl(W;II oas t.WiET I. I. 8. WALL and R. C AUG&NST&tN, "Proba~llaUc ANn1ment or Aircraft Ht.urd to a NuclNr Power C

,er* Plant* I, Tran.s * *Im Jh,cl Soc., 13, 217 (1970).

~*

IO'"- ~ -

,.'

• 2 ... 2. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Oockat No. 50*S22, Amendment No. 3, Loos Island Llshtlnr Company

• KT--* 4 ( February 5, 1989).

,q* 3. "Stctloo vn and Vlll, Rome Point Prellnnn:sry su, rY'" ~ £n1uatlon," Yankee /\tom1c Electric Company ('Peb* 111110 (moven t, p.. -Kr~* 8 ruary 18, 1971).

I ~Ir Carri*

S.ry 10 ~ RICHARD J CAMP, "Bayahore Temporary Route  :,111c1llae1 s-sz,rs-111 Riak Analy111," Memorandum , Oepl. ot *,

the Air Force, Communication with Conaumers Power Locacton /pw I

dl11&ne1 In m Co. on 811 Roc:k Jlolnt (April 28, 1911).

TltJtl Area (

5 P B1EN1ARZ. Private Communication, Potomac Elec- probability an standard d1vl11.tlon ui to accommodate dtvlattona lrom the I

tric Power Company (DousJa* Point Nuclnr Oennat-Ideal path, both In 1n1le and lateral dlaplacernnt Probl.bll lly of 1111 Station) (March 12, 1013). dama(lnr c ra a}*ai*(~)' e. ThrH Milt l1land, F6AR, Am,ndmtnt No. 10, Dodttt No. 50-280, Metropolitan Edlton Company. *rh* taolllt1 I llwH aove,u

• h*r* "O and r, x character1u tht dl1lr1butlona of &nl\llar 7. Zion Stallon, FSAR, Amendment No. 18, Oocktl No. bAlr*carrh1r 1 Uld la.t1r11l dtvlallon, retptctlvtly. Normallullon ac-commodates lhe auumptlon that all fUpta termlaate cu th, target.

50-295, Commonwnlth Edi100 Co. (December t971).

8. PreUm1nary Site lvaluatlon, Doerdman Sitt, Portland l *TM Cacll11y n.Goo mo**m Gtotral f:lectrlc, Porlland, OR (to be fllod April 101n.

Further mor,, wo u1um1 th* t th, p r obability ol rupectlvely.

cruhet lrom crU lcal cnall1mclloN1 and/or pilot error f rabl11.

may be related to the dl1tance lrom the tariet by 5. Reactor Sitings In the Vicinity of Alr- !ht lnlor1 flelds-1 , D. G. Etsenhut (USAEC) tht probablll rr/ *x+t(a~)'J aM . An evaluation of th* probabUlly or an urcrart crub at a nuclear Caclllcy 1n tbt v1clnltJ ol an airport hH beea IIIH. Thetc ThtH relatlona provldt 1omt Ju.t.Ulcatlon for coznputln1 performed. Thle naJuatlon, toeether with Olhtr 1tudte1, 10 lhe atandl.rd dev\allon lrom may ua11t In the developm111t of 1*neral criter ia for the

.11ttn1 of reactors near airport,.

I N In det1rml111n1 thl probability or 1lrcra11 ,ruh.. u a "i.l

• N n*I E r~

tuncUon ol dl1tance from an urport rWlway, tht h.Lttory :o ol cr11he1 or air car rier and m1lllary alrcralt wu IUD'!*

whtro rn are the coordln1t11 ol N recorded cruhH. .uied. Our analy1u con,ldtrtd thoa1 accident, that oc*

The IMual probablllty ot a eruh on lht 11le follow, curred within a few mllH ot a runway and 1110 occurred 11: wit.Jun a 80-dec rdannc, tllcht path aymm*trlc about lht *O extmdtd cenlcrllne of the runway. Only :iccldenc, that P, .. m

• l

• J (py*Pt,1)dA m

• l

• py(r0 ,l 0 ) reaalttd 1n human l1talltl11 wen COll.lldertd. Thi alr 111 carrier 1naly111 wa1 baaed on 80,000,000 mov1mentt

• P,.1(ro) A, , while the Navy/ MarlM Corpt and Air Force analy,.. u g i

wtre bl11d on !1!1,000,000 and 39,000,000 movementa, where m malfunct10111/1pproacb, I

• appr~chu/ytu r 0 , rlo

• plant coordinate,. /11

• projecllon or crlUcal ..,2 TABLE I I.)

1tructurt1, lncludln1 1llowancn for wln1 1pan u well u lO ~

plant-1hadow a.nd sldddln& commensurate wllh typical Compar iaon of Probability or an Aircraft  ;:

condltlona or lncldtnct. Th* pr oduct (p 'F J>t,t) CO(Ultl- Cruh tor Varlout Type, or Alrcrall l) tut,s the pr obabUUy of a (tvtn crub occurrlnc wllbln a _..... tQ Q

unit area at (r 0 , B0). It 11 plOltld In Fis. l for a typ1n.l Dmanc* Probability (X to") of a Fatal Crash >,

aet of param1\er1. from End lO ,J pu SquaN Mlle per Aircraft Movement

~

or Runway Slmllarly, a model It e11abllahed for t he prolMJ>lllty of

i.n o.irplane collldlni: wlth cr1tlcal strvcturta while ap*

proachln1 at low 11ltltudt

.__ (mile) U.S. Air Carr11r USN/USMC USAF 0- I 8.3 5.1 l1 15.1 1- 2 4.0 1.1 a.3 Pa~ wa~~~ r 0

e~["l(~)' *(":~ 0

))']

• 2- 3 3- 4 0,98 0.58 0.33 0.31 l.l 0 42

4. 5 o.~O lO where o H 1, lht 1t.a11d.lrd deviation rroni the prucrl~d 0.27 0.20 oltltude H, and At 111 the vertical cross HCtlon of crlllcaJ 5- e 0.01 NAb ~/\

1tru ctur11 lncludlns aUowancu 1naJoeou1 to thoH made e- , 0.0 NA MA for A 1* ,_ 8 0.0 NA HA

,\ ppllcatlon ol 1h11 analyala to the case In reference yields probability valuea ol 1.5 x 10* 11 and 7.4 x 10**1or p, tlnd Pa, re11pcct1vely, ualn1 a con,uvatln let ol pa-ranuters. Additional lnsllftt la 11tned Crom an &Hoct-11.ted 111111,lvlty 1tudy ad m 11 t In i 1everal 1mportani:

conclu1lons.

8- 9 9-lO 0.14 0.12 NA NA

-- NA

~A

• No cr:uihu occurred iU these dlat.1.11ces 11tthin 1 !O-de&

fllcht pelb.

b0a1a nol available.

• .o J01

"-t-l .0

General Reador Safety 211 Generally spealuni;, past practice hu been that if the

,blllstlc TABLE: II

• Power Cruh Probab1ltllea 11 ' 'arloua S11H probability of an alrcra!t cr:uh Into I nucl ear fa cility wu 0). < 1 x 10... per year, U1e situation was not eumlned Thrff further. U the probability was on the order of or > 1 x 50*322, M ilt Rom* 10**, the atructu.ral details of the faclllty w~re en.mined ompany leland Shoreham Point to determl.oe If a facility bad enoul!h Inherent atructural 12 unit&) ll unll) Cl unl1al apabWty to mitigate the consequence, of an aircraft iry Sitt crub and thereb) to 1ub1tantlally reduce lhl, probability uu,;, tmo..-meni*lyurl o( a damagill& atrlke y (Peb*

Air Carrlera 11<1,000* a.ooo U lnbercnl atructu.ral capabUltlt* were not found to Ila")' 8,000 87,000C Y Route )h~cellaneou s.ooob adequdely reduce ihe "target a.rea" of a da.ma.g,ng atrlke, Dept. of then enouah additional prulecllon waa included to reduce LoG&llon tpla.o1-1trport 2.& 4 ,$ ll 5 the J)Tobablllty to s1gnl.!le.1ntly < I x 10... per yea.r.

s Power dii1.1nc:r 1n mlle*I IC Elec*

ltnorat*

I Ta"at Arn ruaed tn probablllt, 1111aly111)

Prob&bllliy of a potent\all)'

0.02 ml1 II 01 ml1 11 .02 ml 1

6. Probabilistic Assessment of Flooding Hazard tor Nuclear Power Plants, Ian B.

, Docket I damap~ cruh (per veal')

• Thi lacllll)I 11

&w10*'

I 2>< 10-l ~ ~ 10*

deal med IO wllh11and IIIP crub of all but i.ot, of J Wall (GE-San Jose)

Proba.blllstlc app.r oacbea to I.he de11lgn, siting, and 1ha1e m~vtmenll aalety anal7ala nf nuclear power planle havf' brf'n pro*

I cket No. bAlr*c&rrlor 11all1Uc1 were uMd for tlleH movemt'llt* pond bJ Farmer' and WIJl 1 who Hlabllahed llmll*llneo 19,tl. C'l"h<< faclllly It dHtped ID wlthoULDCI the cnah of all of th*** to delineate between a cceptable and unacceptable riaka 91,000 movamaata A limit *line, 1 complementary cumulative dJ11trlbullon Porlle.nd lunctlon for f,.1IOt1 product releue mapllude, hu been I

• ll 19?3). reaptcllvcly. Tht rHulla o! theet 1nalyae1 are 1tated 1n utabllabed for alte1 by I atallallcal 1naJy1l1 of mtlt-Table l. orolol)I.*,* To Implement the method, all accident

>f Air- Tht Information In Table l hu been u11d to dtterallne chalna muat be 1y1tematlcall7 anolyzed to determine their probability and aa1octated fiaalon product releau I

th~ probability of an alrcr&ll craab at HVtraJ oucltar sllea. Tht1e are identified In Table 0 mai;nthldo; the combl.nllllon la compared to the llmll *llne.

craah at haa been I

11tudlu, 2 3 10 100 1000 10000 SD

.1 for tho lhOI HI

/

I e hl.1lori* 70 11 exam*

that oc*

occurred about lh* .o

/ v ~11.dl,,

r,u1<\mun, ll~*ll*

I ~0 ood e11lmator lente that ,uc, ronlldonc, The ur ,nrf'r\"ll -

ovement1 .:!

analyaea ~o 0"

,vomcn11 , 8 lol

/,% ~ v w

C)

It :i:

u l!l 0

~ /

1vement 30 j V USAF

~ ~~

5,7 2.3 ~~ ...

1.1 0.42 0.40 10 I ~

~t V' NA ~v NA NA 0

1 NA .OOJ .001 .01 *I .: 3 *4 S ~ 7 I 999 9999 NA ' Cc mlllatl** .P,ob.l>llUy99 0

a 60-dtg Redoced \ *an&l.c Fig. 1. Ext.re10e value plol of Oood uta lbotnn& control curves.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JUL 13 1987 Mr. G. H. Neils Chaini,an, Regulatory Advisory CoJ1H11ittee BWR Owner's Group II for Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking Research 414 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401

Subject:

Acceptance for Referencing of Licensing Topical Report Titled, "Guidelines for Pennanent BWR Hydrogen Water Chemistry Installations,"

1987 Revision

Dear Mr. Neils:

We have completed our review of the topical report submitted by your letter dated December 5, 1986, We find the report acceptable for referencing in licensee requests for approval of permanent hydrogen water chemistry installation to the extent and under t~e limitations delineated in the repC'rt and the associated NRC evaluation, which is enclosed. The evaluation defines the basis for acceptance of the report.

We do not intend to repeat our review of the matters described in the report and found acceptable when the report is referenced in licensee requests for approval of a permanent hydrogen water chemistry installation, except to ensure that the material presented is applicable to the specific plant involved. Our acceptance applies only to the matters described in the report.

In accordance with procedures established in NUREG-0390, we request that EPRI publish accepted versions of this report within three months of receipt of this letter. The accepted versions should incorporate this letter and the enclosed evaluation between the title page and the abstract. The accepted version should include an -A (designating accepted} following the report identification number.

Hydrogen water chemistry in combination with high water quality has demonstrated that mitigation and possibly complete suppression of intergranular stress corrosion cracking can be achieved in 280°C water at an electrochemical potential of less than -230 mV {Standard Hydrogen Electrode). This can be achieved with a dissolved oxygen content below 20 ppb and the conductivity maintained below 0.3 µS/cm. Consequently, the staff is developing criteria to give credit for effective hydrogen water chemistry in reducing frequency of inservice inspection of recirculation piping.

There have been a number of recent potentially hazardous hydrogen concentrations and/or deflagrations resulting from hydrogen leaks (NRC Infonnation Notice No. 87-20: Hydrogen Leak in Auxiliary Building). When this topical report is revised to.incorporate our evaluation, it may also be useful in providing industry guidance for the design, operation, maintenance. surveillance, and

G. Neils testing of hydrogen supply systems (1) for providing a cover gas in the PWR volume control tank and (2) for cooling the generator (in addition to hydrogen water chemi~try). We recommend that you consider providing such guidance in the final version.

Sincerely.

~1:~~~~ctor

~~~~ Engineering Division of Engineering &Systems Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Note: The attachment, "Environmental Survey of Transportation of From: Radioactive Materials To and From Nuclear Power Plants", Atomic Energy To: Commission (Dec. 1972), is publicly available at subject: RE: Toe Infamous Busive References en.,J 2 o( j https://www.osti.gov/serlets/purL'4569 ! 34.

Date:

AttAic:hmentl:

John*

I am sending FOUR of the elusive references which are "easy" and "clean* for sending to you and Dennis. It will be In three emails.

I need 10 come up with another plan for the other one - the SER for Hartsville NPP is both "messy" (poor roproductlon from microfiche) and HUGE (really huge).

It turned out that we thought we had found Reference No. 11. but the Information about It was incorrect - tho associated microfiche Address did not contain the paper wo were looking for.

I'll get back to you with some ideas for Hartsville - let me know if you have any In the meantime (Perhaps I can excerpt the parts you are Interested In?)

Derek From:!(bX6) I [!.l aili.o.~~=====]

Sent: i liesday, December 19, 2017 4 ~O PM To: WidTlaycr, Derek <DffPts.W1dmaver@nrc,cov>; !(b ..._X_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___,,! Stetkar, John

<John.Stetkar@nrc 8PY>

Subject:

[External_Senderj The Infamous Elusive References HI Derek,

!(bX6) I 1*m finally getting around to digging back Into the man-made hazards stuff. l"m first starting to digest what people have done with aircraft crashes.

In late October, you said that you had tracked down 6 of the 12 "elusive references*. At that point, we decided to declare victory. I thought you said that Quynh was actually procuring them from the library.

Do we now have them? Can you please send them to us?

Thanks.

John P.S .* I suspect that folks are rapidly winding down for the holidays. so we might not get them for a couple of weeks - but I thought I'd try...

Note: The attachments, "Severities of Transportation Accidents, Vol I-Summary," Vol. II-Cargo Aircraft", and "Vol. 3-Motor Carriers,"

From: ~ ma1er Derek Sandia Labs, SLA-74-000IVS14, are publicly available through the To:  !(bX6) k\iX§} National Technical Infonnation Service (NTIS) at

Subject:

Ihe

famous Ls1ve Referen~ eniail 3 of 3 httpsJ/ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboaird/searchResults/titleDetail/SLA Date: Thunday, Oecttnber 28, 2017 9:0'l:00 AM 740001VS14.xhtml.

Attachments: Sl,AZ40Q01Y$11 Qdf John:

I am sending FOUR of the elusive references which are *easy" and "clean" for sending to you and Dennis. It will be In three emails.

I need to come up with another plan for the other one - the SER for Hartsville NPP is both "messy' (poor reproduction from microfiche) and HUGE (really huge).

II turned out that we thought we had found Reference No 11 , but the information about it was incorrect - the associated microfiche Address did not contain the paper we were looking for.

I'll get back to you with some Ideas for Hartsville - let me know if you have any in the meantime. (Perhaps I can excerpt the parts you are interested In?)

Derek IFrom~(bX6) !l....rn....i 11........o[:'L,._x6_) _ _ _ __,

Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:50 PM To: Widmayer, Derek <OCJ:fk Widl:na. er , n!L.Qv>j(bX6) !Stetkar, John

<Jcno.Stetkar@occ,iov> .______________,

Subject:

[External_Senderj The Infamous Elusive References Hi Derek,

!CbX6) l l'm finally getting around to digging back into the man-made hazards stuff. I'm first starting to digest what people have done with aircraft crashes.

In late October, you said that you had tracked down 6 of the 12 "elusive references". At that point, we decided to declare victory. I thought you said that Quynh was actually procuring them from the library.

Do we now have them? Can you please send 1hem to us?

Thanks, John P.S., I suspect that folks are rapidly winding down for the holidays, so we might not get them for a couple of weeks* but I thought I'd try...

Fc,,m: SnoddedY Michael To: WJdmayq Pcm Svbjett: FW: Status d Man-Made External HaWds War1ong Group Date: Wednescay, November 04, 2015 ll:28*56 N'4 Note: ML14016Al96 is available in public Attachments: Slaff Ey§uatign gt f"lmb!e Man Made H,mnis Gl EoclPSlt Non PubOc MU4016Al96.pdf ADAMS.

I understand you are going to be the lead staff engineer for this issue. Please see below.

From: Snodderly, Michael Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:45 PM To: John Stetkar; Dennis Bley; Peter Riccardella; Ron Ballinger; Gordon Skillman Cc: Lui, Christiana; Weaver, Kathy, Lai, John; Stephen Schultz; Banks, Marie

Subject:

Status of Man-Made External Hazards Working Group During the reporting of the Planning and Procedures Subcommittee (P&P) at the 6281h full Committee Meeting I took an action Item to be the staff engineer for a working group on man-made external hazards. l noted that the Members of this working group are the addresses of this email. We discussed during the P&P that consideration of man-made external hazards was specifically excluded by the NRC staff during their consideration for resolving open Fukushima Tier 2 and 3 recommendations. More specifically. the NRC staff stated In the draft Tier 2 and 3 SECY that, "Because man-made hazards do not have a direct nexus to the Fukushima Oai-ichi accident, the staff concluded that they should be treated outside the scope of Fukushima lesson-learned activities. As such, the NRC staff submitted the consideration of man-made hazards to the NRC's Generic Issue (GI) program by memorandum dated September 9, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. Ml12328A180).

By memorandum dated January 17, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13298A782),

the NRC staff concluded that the proposed GI does not satisfy at least three criteria for acceptance as a GI. Therefore, the NRC staff did not undertake possible regulatory requirements or infonnation collection related to man-made hazards and will continue to address issues in that area as they arise on a case-by-case basis, as has been the NRC's historical practice.*

Attached please find the staffs evaluation of the proposed GI. Please note it is not publlcally available and treat it accordingly. The s1aff ooncludes in its evaluation that several regulations are potentially gennane to the issue of Increased risk due to man-made external hazards. Accordingly, NRC may inspect in this area, and may prompt further evaluations (either by Individual plants or generically), as appropriate. Slmllarly, regulatory processes are available to address FSAR updates of new information. So the staff is saying that If they are made aware of information that would potentially negate a licensee screening out a man-made hazard they could pursue IL I think the next step is to determine if we have sufficient Information to question the screening of certain man-made hazards and then determine how best to communicate this with the NRC staff (What is the most germane regulation or regulatory process for this issue. Perhaps enhanced guidance on consideration of the new data in the RG). Finally, please note that the Paul Blanch letter of October 1, 2015 that was shared with the Committee at P&P on this issue is noo-pubUcaUy available. It should not be shared outside the Committee. I look forward to further direction from the working group.

Sincerely, Mike

From: l\bX6>

Sent Friday, November 27, 201S 6:54 PM To: Widmayer, Derek; !CbX6) I!CbLl.;.:.;X.;.:6)_ _ _ _ _ _.....1

!CbX6)  !

Cc: Stetkar, John Subject (External_Sender] Re: Preliminary Research on Natural Gas Pipeline Explosions Hi Derek, Sorry this Is so late, but all notes on this topic went only to my NRC emall address. I check that mall very, very sporadically when I'm not In town (especially this week). Please send all future notes to my AOL address:

jwstetkar@aol.com.

Dennis Is right. The scope of the working group should cover all man-made hazards

• land transportation accidents (rail, highway), nearby Industrial/ military facllltles, aircraft crashes (not deliberate), water transportation accidents, pipelines, others?? (I think that dam failures are supposed to be covered under the staff's work on external flooding, but I'm still not sure Just how.)

I think that a good start would be to compile all of the current NRC guidance (SAP sections, Reg. Guides, ISGs) on these topics. It would also be useful to look at recent applications of the guidance, since that will show us what folks are doing In practice. Those applications are mostly associated with the following completed and In-progress COLAs and a couple of other relevant items:

Vogtle COLA  !'.'.)

Summer COLA £S r-.s South Texas COLA FermlCOLA /"n ... ~~

Com1;1nche Peak COLA ( 1'\ ~ - -'

LeeCOLA ) Gr-~ ~

Calvert Cllffs COLA (?)

SHINE PSAA N~ ,4,.,..,~ ,*

• _ U Indian Point Gas Pipeline ,/~

Others(?) ~ 8.-J.. V1 *~

1-,"\"'C. p 5 E:°t.o It Is a good Idea to get the group together before we get too deep Into any particular area. Unfortunately, I have a previously-scheduled meeting at noon next Thursday (12/03), so that time slot doesn't work for me.

We also Just received another letter requesting ACAS attention to the Indian Point gas pipelfne, which I'm In the process of responding to

• I'll discuss it at December P&P.

John In a message dated 11/27/2015 4:39:01 P.M. Central Standard Time, John.StetkarOnrc.gov writes:

From: Widmayer, Derek Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 3:09 PM To: Stetkar, John; DENNIS BLEY 0CbX6) p; Pete Ria:ardeHa ._!Cb_X6_)_ _ _ _ _ _....,! Ron Ballinger

!CbX6)  !

Subject:

Prellmlnary Research on Natural Gas Pipeline Explosions

From: Rk:ardtla, Ptte To:

Subject:

W!dovvcc Peta; %me JsttJ* QfNNIS w l :6)

[Extemal_Sender] RE: Prellmnary Researdl on ral Gas

JneBoo nonmgcr!(bX6)

Exp4osions Datt: Fndly, December 04, 2015 1*09:14 PM Attachments: Bil y,wey PA Badcgrosol Jmnra100 pdf Some info on PHMSA pipeline failure reporting.

Pete From: Widmayer, Derek Widmayer@nrc.gov

Sent: Friday, November 20, 2015 1:09 PM To: Stetkar, John ; O[NNIS BLEY r X6)

!(bX6)  ! _ _ _ _....

!) , R1ccardella, Pete ; Ron Ballinger

Subject:

Preliminary Research on Natural Gas Pipeline Explosions I am sending this to you because I :hlnk you are the members interested in the White Paper the Committee wants to develop on natural gas pipeline Incidents. (Remind me 1f there are others and I will send to them!)

I have done some preliminary research on natural gas pipeline explosions and vetted some of the information that is available. The Internet yields websites and sources where there Is Data, and where there is anecdotal information.

The most comprehensive data on pipeline explosions 1s kept by the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration (PHMSA), part of the Department of Transportation. The data here seems fairly comprehensive back to 1994 and individualized reports can be made sorting on pipeline types, allowing one to remove gasoline and crude oil pipeline incidents from natural gas Incidents, for example. Maybe some other playing around would result in even more specialized reports. As one would expect, the data concentrates on deaths and Injuries from the incidents, as well as property damages. I don't have an understanding yet of when and/or why an incident would or would not be reportable to the PHMSA, although it appears as if ALL incidents must be reported If there is either death or injury.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 1s called In on many occasions (I had not paid attention to this before) to investigate the causes of pipeline incidents. I have not done enough discovery to learn when and/or why they would be asked to investigate (versus not asked). But a quick search yielded some 120 individual reports on pipeline Incidents of all kinds. I did not dig deeper to see how many are natural gas reports, but a quick look seems to indicate there are several. The San Bruno 2010 incident ,s one that NTSB Investigated and I downloaded that report to read.

Anecdotal information, mostly in the form of Newspaper articles, Is readily available from several sources, Including Wlklpedla, as well as "WatchdogN groups (e.g., Natural Gas Watch) which can be used to supplement data sources, if desired. As I said, not understanding yet when and/or why an incident would or would not be reportable to a government agency, I figure not all pipeline Incidents are reported, I don't know how many of the anecdotal discussions are "repeats" of the data until more work is completed - if we go that route.

So that is a fast 10,000-foot level look.

Technlca/ Support Branch

Public Awareness Program Topics PHMSA 2013 Data Update Public Awareness Regulations Review Public Awareness Inspection Review Gathering Line Overview What We Regulate Pipeline Miles by System Types - end of CY 2012, as-of 3/7/2014 System Type Miles o/oTotal # Operators Hazardous Liquid 185,629 7o/o 410 Gas Transmission 303,308 11% 953 Gas Gathering 16,728 1°/o 342 Gas Distribution 2,138,676 s1°1o 1,356 (Mains & Services )

Some Operators Total 2,644,341 have multiple System Types Liquefied Natural Gas 130 Plants 203 Tanks 82

Categories of Incident Reports All Reported - everything operators report Serious - fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization, but Fire First excluded. Fire First are gas distribution incidents with a cause of "Other Outside Force Damage" and sub-cause of "Nearby Industrial, Man-made, or Other Fire/Explosion" Significant include any of the following, but Fire First excluded:

1. Fatality or injury requiring in-patient hospitalization

2. $50,000 or more in total costs, measured in 1984 dollars

3. Highly volatile liquid (HVL) releases of 5 barrels or more

4. Non-HVL liquid releases of 50 barrels or more

5. Liquid releases resulting in an unintentional fire or explosion 4

Serious Incidents All System Types downward trend continues in 2013 National, All Pipeline Systems, Serious Incidents: Count 1994-2013

'b()

V,

~

r:

.,, roO CJ

• o

-c::

I ll 0

r,;.O

• t:

CP

{I.I '},()

Source PHlt SA S gtHFcant 1ric ctet1ts Files Feb 04 20" 4 84°/o Gas Distribution 12°/o Hazardous Liquid 4°/o Gas Transmission 5

atalities and Injuries Fatality count continuously down since 2010 N,lln,.. ,... ..11 Pipel11,e y::, ""'"'* Seriou.. ; .. ,uents. FatnlitlP.S 1994 .LU.I.>

.1 II

.:>'JL "C~ S, ' '

Injury count down from 2012 Nationa l. All Pipeline Systems Serious Incidents. lnJuries 1994 201) 111 II 6

2013 Gas Distribution Incidents All REPORTED

- SIGNIFICANT SERIOUS Top Causes ~Incident Cauff Type

• Excavation ALL OTHER CAUSES CORROSION 19 1

15 0

9 0

Damage EXCAVATION DAMAGE 37 22 8 INCORRECT OPERATION 4 2 0

• Other Outside MATERIAL/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE 13 5 0 Force Damage NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE 4 2 0 OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE 31 14 4 Grand Total 109 60 21 Serious Top Causes 43%

• Excavation Damage

• Other a ALL OTHER CAUSES

• CORROSION

• EXCAVATION DAMAGE

• INCORRECT OPERATION MATERIAL/WELD/EQUIP FAILUflll NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE

Serious Incidents All System Types downward trend continues in 2013 N11llon11I, An Plpellnu Systems, Senou~ Incidents* Count 1994 2013

..,~ *-°

'D C

,.o I

II 0

'C

~o Gas Distribution downward trend continues in 2013 National, G11s Distribution, Serious Incidents: Count 1994-2013 "O

Ill

• .:; 'J,,a Ill 0

'£:

QI ~

<I) 8

Significant Incidents All System Types slight rise in 2013 N11tion11I, All Pipeline Syste ms. Slgnificent Incidents: Count 1994-1013 cf>

~

C

'O u

.:.. if)

C c0 c§)

iii 0

~Pi" of§)

'\)

Gas Distribution slight rise in 2013 National, Gas Distribution, Significant Incidents: Count 1994- 2013 C o,O 41 "Cl

• u

-C C

I'll rc,O u

~

C

.~ ,f' II) 0

~'

'\-~

~<§)

'\.

p.., S * ~* 1nc1den1s ,=,,*e~. 9

Gas Distribution Significant Incidents by Cause 20

- CORROSION FAILURE

- EQUIPMEN, FAILURE 15 - EXCAVATION DAMAGE NCORRECT OPERA-'ON

- MA* ERIAL FA'LURE OF P"PE OR WELD 10 NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE OTHER INC:DENT CAUSE 5 01liER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE 0 data as-of 3-3-2014 2010 2011 20:2 2013 2013 Gas Gathering Incidents ALL REPORTED SIGNIFICANT SERIOUS h ncldent Cause Type Top Causes 2 ALL OTHER CAUSES 1 0

• Corrosion CORROSION 4 4

-- 0 EXCAVATION DAMAGE 0 I

• Other INCORRECT OPERATION 0

-]

MATERIAUWELDIEQUIP FAILURE 0 NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE I 0 0 1 I

No Serious Grand Total 6 s 0 Incidents 33%

since 2006 a ALL OTHER CAUSES a CORROSION a EXCAVATION DAMAGE a INCORRECT OPERATION MATERIAL/WELD/EQUIP FAILUFIII NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE

Significant Incidents All System Types slight rise in 2013 Nation*! All Pipeline Svstems. Siqnllicant Jnddenl!h Count 1994 2013 c-..

.,<:f'

'C i: #

!5 6

Ill Pt..

~~ ..,,# i' ..,,o~o Gas Gathering slight decline in 2013 National, Gas Gatherino, Sionificant Incidents: Count 1994 101 3 C:

CII "O

• o C

..,o V

.1 **

!i5 C

0 "Iii "

0 9"

,..o; r::,O

'\,(j ~"

'\,(j

~

~o 111 12

Gas Gathering Significant Incidents by Cause 6

..,._CORROSION FA LURE 5

-4t-EQUIPMENT FAtLURE

- EXCAVATION DAMAGE 4

-INCORRECT OPERATION 3 - MATERIAL FAILURE OF PIPE OR WELD

- NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE 2

OTHER INCIDENT CAUSE 0TH ER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE 1 -

0 -

2010 2011 2012 2013 data as-of 3-3-2014 2013 Gas Transmission Incidents Top Causes IIncident Cause Type AU OTHER CAUSES ALL REPORTED 5

SIGNIFICANT 4

SERIOUS 0

CORROSION 18 15 1

• Material/Weld/ EXCAVATION DAMAGE 11 1 14 0 Equip Failure INCORRECT OPERATION 6 2 Oj MATERIAL/WELD/EQUIP FAILURE 47 27 0,

• Corrosion NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE 6 3. 0!

OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE 7 5 0

• Excavation Grand Total 106 70 1 Damage 7% 5% 7% 6%

21%

Serious Incident 16% 39%

caused by 3%

Corrosion AU. REPORlED-GT GNFICANT l

• ALL OittER CAUSES CORROSIOU EXCAVA:IOU DAI.it.GE 1UCORREC- OPER.C.ilOU HATERtt.l.h' ELD/EQUIP FAll.URE NA~RAL FORCE OAf~AGE o-HER OUTSOE FORCE DAMA.GE

Serious Incidents All System Types downward trend continues in 2013 Notional. All Ph>eline Systems, Serious Jncide.nts: Count 199**2013 Gas Transmission dips down to one aqain in 2013 National. Gas Transmission.-'- _Js Incidents: Cc...

II

" Pl-IMS:. 2014 15

Significant Incidents All System Types slight rise in 2013 N11tlonal, All Pl~lln P Systems. Siqnlficent t ncldents: Count 1994* 2013 c., ,.,(§)

...ti

.: .,,(§)

c*

t" .._(/)

oii

()

.,A<,

Gas Transmission slight rise in 2013 National, Gas Transmission . Significant Incidents: Count 1994-201 3 QI o,c::,

uC C

II:

foe::,

u sC 0

Cl)

,.,c::,

c::,

9"

...,o; 11 r:,c::,

"l,(S

'*~~ :c - 16

Gas Transmission Significant Incidents by Cause 25 CORROSION FAILURE 20 - + - EQUIPMENT FAILURE EXCAVATION DAMAGE 15 - INCORRECT OPERATION MATERIAL FAILURE Of PIPE OR WELD 10 NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE OTHER INCiOEN. CAUSE 5 - OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE 0

data as-of 3-3-2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 I nterst ate Rate Less Than GT Significant Incidents in Significant lncldenlS per 10.000 HCA MIies from Incident Reports

! cc HCA per HCA Mile 2 oc Intrastate Rate Significant Incidents per 10.000 HCA Miles from Incident Reports 0

0

• o 0

2 50 L 00 00 00 2CIC  :?011 2C12 201~

2013 Hazardous Liquid Incidents Top Causes I Incident Cause Type - - - - -

---

+----

ALL REPORTED SIGNIFICANT SERIOUS All OTHER CAUSES 27 15 2

• Material/Weld CORROSION 67 33 0 I EXCAVATION DAMAGE 14 11 0 Equip Failure INCORRECT OPERATION 59 22 0 MATERIAUWELO/EQUIP FAILURE 211 60 0

• Corrosion NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE 15 10 0 OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE 9 6

• Incorrect Operation Grand Total 402 167 :1 6'11, 4% 10'1(,

21~

Serious - 3'11, 38'11, Incidents 15%

14~

7%

• Other and ALLREPORTED-Hl. stG CANT-H 0 utsi de Force

• ALL OTHER CAUSES

• CORROSION EXCAVATION DAMAGE a 1NCORRECT OPERATION MATERIAL/WELD/EQUIP FAILUFa NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE OTHER OUTSIDE FORCE DAMAGE

Serious Incidents -~~

em Types downward trend continues in 2013 lwtlon~I. All Pi.,.llnte System\, Serious lntldents: Count 199 4 2013

,f>

.,,o "O

0 I

'>-0 I II 0

11

'C

"'o 1 0  !).,

Fl~

._Oi ..,# -.,cs ~

I?()

o ... -,S.:. ~.., !,c~f'f -r,a*~- r: *:

°"

Hazardous Liquid rises to three in 2013 National, Hazardous Liquid, Serious Incidents: Count 1994-2013

~

,.J I:

Q,I

~

• v

- C:

J 0

b

• cQ,I 11

'?,

U)

()

p_,'>

...._q I

20

Significant Incidents All System Types slight rise in 2013 Natlonal, All Pi~nne Systen1s. S~lflcant tn ddenls: Coun.!.!_994* 2013 _ _

...=

...,cf>"

C:

1J

~ ,#'"I I

~

"'c cf>"I

!Z '>

0 A'> '>o cf>" ~o Cj ~ 'II ,,,o Hazardous Liquid rises to the highest level since 1997 National, Hazardous Liquid, Sionificant Incidents: Count 1994-2013

.,C "O

~

"()

• uC C

Ill

">(§>

u

• c 0 <,o*

in

()

~,

"'t,Oj Sourc:e* - s,g /na der..z; o 21

Hazardous Liquid Significant Incidents by Cause 45 CORROSION FAILURE 40 EQUIPMENT FAILURE 35 30 EXCAVATION DAMAGE 25 'NCORREC- OPERATION 20 MATERIAL FAILURE OF PIPE OR WELD 15 NATURAL FORCE DAMAGE

.:.o

- OTHER NCIOENT CAUSE 5

0 0-niER OUiSIOE FORCE DAMAGE 2010 2011 20::..2 2013 data as-of 3-3-2104 accidents including one or more of these consequences:

• death or personal injury requiring hospitalization

• property damage greater than $50,000 in 1984 dollars

• more than 5 barrels released

• fire or explosion

• pollution of water - - -

• Large Spins per 10,000 HCA Miles 12

,,~ ......

lC 8

--.....--.~------

4 2

O' - - - - ~

2004 2005 20Cc 2CC7 200& 200& 2010 2C11 2012 Year 23

Public Awareness Program Regulations Review

Background

• Regulatory Background

- Gas 1970: 192.615 (Emergency plans) 1983, 1995: 192.614 (Damage prevention )

1995: 192.616 (Public aw areness)

- Liquid 1980: 195.440 (Public aw areness) 1995: 195.442 (Damage prevention) -

Why Public Awareness?

It's the Law

• Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002

- Each pipeline facility operator "shall carry out a continuing program to educate the public ... "

- "The Secretary may issue standards prescribing elements of an effective public education program

• Final Rule in May 2005 (Docket RSPA-03-15852);

effective June 20, 2005

- 192.616 for Natural Gas Pipelines

- 195.440 for Hazardous Liquids Pipelines

- Incorporated by reference the guidelines in API RP 1162, Public Awareness Programs for Pipeline Operators, 1st Edition Where are Public Awareness Rules?

TITLE 49 IParts 186 to 199 Subtitle B Chapter I Subchapter D

---

(Pipeline Safety)

Subpart L - Operations 192.616 Transportation of 0 Plpellr.a Safety natural and other gas

- Reguletlona

~-

== __..,.............. ,.,....... by pipeline

~

°""'......,,...

~

Subpart F - O&M Part 195.440 Transportation of hazardous liquids by pipeline _27 _

Public Awareness Regulations

§192.616/ §195.440 Public Awareness a)

• Must develop and implement a written continuing public education program that follows the guidance provided in the API RP 1162.

b)

• Must follow general program recommendations of A PI RP 1162 and assess the unique attributes and characteristics of operator's pipeline and facilities.

c)

• Must follow general program recommendations, including baseline and supplemental requirements of API RP 1162, unless operator provides w ritten justification why compliance w ith all or certain provisions of the recommended practice is not practicable and not necessary for safety.

• Master meter & petroleum gas operators exempt (unless transports gas as primary activity).

Public Awareness Regulations

§ 192.616/ §195.440 Public Awareness d)* Program must specifically include provisions to educate the public, appropriate government organizations, and persons engaged in excavation related activities on:

(1 ) Use of a one-call notification system prior to excavation and other damage prevention activities; (2) Possible hazards associated with unintended releases from a pipeline facility; (3) Physical indications that such a release may have occurred; (4) Steps that should be taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release; and (5) Procedures for reporting such an event.

• Master meter & petroleum gas operators exempt (unless transports gas as primary activity).

Public Awareness Regulations

§ 192.616/ §195.440 Public Awareness e)

• Program must include activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations.

f)

• Program and the media used must be as comprehensive as necessary to reach all areas in which the operator transports gas.

g)

• Program must be conducted in English and in other languages commonly understood by a significant number and concentration of the non-English speaking population in the operator's area.

• Master meter & petroleum gas operators exempt (unless transports gas as primary activity).

Public Awareness Regulations

§192.616/ §195.440 Public Awareness h) Operators in existence on June 20, 2005, must have completed their written programs no later than June 20, 2006 (June 13, 2008 for master meter or petroleum gas system operators}.

i) Program documentation and evaluation results must be available for periodic review by appropriate regulatory agencies.

• Master meter & petroleum gas operators exempt (unless transports gas as primary activity).

Public Awareness Regulations

§ 192.616/ §195.440 Public Awareness j) Unless the operator transports gas as a primary activity, master meter or petroleum gas system operators are not required to develop a public awareness program as prescribed in paragraphs (a) through (g). Instead must develop and implement a written procedure to provide its customers public awareness messages twice annually.

The message must include:

1) A description of the purpose and reliability of the pipeline

2) An overview of the hazards of the pipeline and prevention measures used;

3) Information about damage prevention;

4) How to recognize and respond to a leak; and

5) How to get additional information.

Other Relevant Sections

• Public Awareness interacts other sections of code

- Damage Prevention

• §192.614 and §195.442 0

~

Plpetine Safety Regulations

== ...........

,.......,...,.,.......,.,.... ,40

~---~,....,a OI....,,.,.~~,_,..

- Emergency Res ponse ......... ..

°"4,....,..,..

• §192.615 and §195.402(e)(8)

- Integrity Management - Subpart 0

- Alternative MAOP - §192.620

- Special Permits API RP 1162, 1st Edition, Dec 2003

• Incorporated by reference (in its entirety) into Parts 192 and 195

• Contains additional requirements Public Awareness Programs for

- Message Frequencies Plpellne Operators

- Message Content APIIUCOMM£HOE:> l'R.4Cl\CE 1112 F'l~S':" E:>n'!Oh ~ ! U R 20QJ

- Supplemental Enhancements

- Program Evaluation

Related Advisory Bulletins

• PHMSA-2010-0307: Pipeline Safety: Emergency Preparedness Communications

• ADB-05-03: Planning for Coordination of Emergency Response to Pipeline Emergencies

• ADB-03-04: Pipeline Safety: Pipeline Industry Implementation of Effective Public Awareness Programs

• ADB-03-08: Self-Assessment of Pipeline Operator Public Education Programs

• ADB-93-02: Advisory to Owners and Operators of Gas Distribution and Gas Transmission Facilities; Continuing Educational Program for Gas Customers and the Public

• ALN-91-04: NTSB recommendations S P-91-3/P-91-4, 03/15/90 NY leak/explosion: Requiring operators to extend their public education/emergency preparedness programs Additional Guidance

• The intent of the regulation is that messages should provide "enough information so that in the event of a pipeline emergency, the intended audience will know how to identify a potential hazard, protect themselves, notify emergency response personnel, and notify the pipeline operator" (API RP 1162, Section 4)

• Generic messages do not meet the intent of the PAP regulations because they do not necessarily provide "awareness"

• Message content must be pipeline system and product specific Public Awareness: NOT One Size Fits All Resources

• Regulatory Requirements

• API RP 1162

• Public Awareness Program Workshops

• Inspection and Enforcement Documents

• FAQs q . .. .... ,.,...,.......

Publlc Awareness Programs

~ -.........,-...................................--..cll' ... ~ f l l. . . . . . . . . . .JIIIIMr...._....-..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., , ~. . . . . . . . . . . __...C9'd.ct:~flr,MI. .................... ~ .......... "*' .................,......, ......... --....,

1111,,1,,..........

f!W*~

,,,,.,NJ . .................. ~ ...,................. .,............. ...... ..,......, ............................, ............................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . , _ , - ... ............... _..__. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,,, .......... - ~......... ........

ft . . . . ._ , ,..... . _ . . . . . , ....................

-.............- ...........~-.............................. ..........................

,.,...._,_m,1...._...,..._.....,....ofrw............ ~

~ - . . . . ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . N!lla ...............................

~ ~ ....... ...................................................-..............

~

..... ..,...... ...... ---......,

• ftllPWWPl ....... _...-.1:r.:_,ONIIIIU._ .... ,__.._...............

-..llnt9 .......~ - - ~........................ ..................-....... ..._ ..... .,........

~-~ ....... illir.....,.,._

........... ~ ........ ........., . . . ..,.....trMaJ__ ... ._...._,......,....._ .......... ........_~~ .................. ......._

http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/PublicAwareness/PublicAwareness.htm?nocache=8605 Public Awareness Program Inspection Status PAP Inspection Updates

• PAP Inspection timeline:

- Federal PAP Ins pections completed by end of 2012

- Interstate agent inspections completed by end of 2012

- States are also incorporating PAP inspections into their normal inspection cycle by end of 2013

• Finalized documented published online:

- PAP Effectiveness Inspection Form http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline /library/forms

- PAP Enforcement Guidance Document http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/foia/e-reading-room PAP Contpleted Inspections:

- Total PAP Inspections end of 2012

>> 313

- PHMSA lead Inspections end of 2012

>> 135

- States Lead PAP inspec~ions end of 2012

>> 178 PAP Inspection Updates PAPEE Completed Inspections End of 2012 End of 2013 Total Inspections 313 614 PHMSA Lead 135 135 State Lead 178 477 Public A"1areness Inspections Section One (2012)

Section One Questions 18.00% 15.86~o- - _1_6_.~4_s_oA

_o_

16.00%

14.00% 12.100/o 11.Z60/a_

12.00%

10.00% 8.530/o 6.76°/o 8 .00%

6 .00%

4 .00%

2 .00%

0 .00%

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 Public Awareness Inspections Section One (2013) 40.~ 36.8~ 0/o 35.00<<MI 29;63°0 -

30.00<<M.

25.00%

20.00% 0 18.52°/o 14.810/016.30 ~Q- --

15.00%

10A.SOA1 10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

/

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 2012 SECTION AGENCY Not Not HEADER Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Applicable Checked t otal  % Unsat 1.01 PHMSA Written Public Education Program 561 53 3 4 621 8.53°/o 1.02 PHMSA Management Support 535 75 4 6 620 12.10°/o 1.03 PHMSA Unique Attributes and Characteristics 533 73 10 5 621 11.76°/o 1.04 PHMSA stakeholder Audience Identification 512 98 3 5 618 15.86°/o 1.0 5 PHMSA Message Frequency and Message Delivery 574 42 0 5 621 6.76°/o 1 .06 PHMSA Written Evaluation Plan 508 102 4 5 619 16.48°/o 2013 SECTION AGENCY Not HEADER SAT UNSAT N/A Checked total  % Unsat 1.01 PHMSA Written Public Education Program 112 20 2 1 135 14.81°/o 1.02 PHMSA Management Support 108 22 2 3 135 16.30°/o 1.03 PHMSA Unique Attributes and Characteristics 106 25 2 2 135 18.52°/o Stakeholder 1.04 PHMSA Audience Identification 81 49 1 2 133 36.84°/o 1.05 PHMSA Message Frequency and Message Delivery 118 14 0 2 134 10.45°/o 1.06 PHMSA Written Evaluation Plan 91 40 2 2 135 29.63°/o Section One 1.04 - Stakeholder Audience Identification

• Missed Audiences/ Parts of Audiences

• Didn't include other information in audience ID (IMP) to Establish distance either side of pipeline 1.06 - Written Evaluation Plan

• Written plan to conduct and evaluate

• Correct Frequencies

• Statistical Sample Size, Confidence Level and M.O.E., by Stakeholder Audience Written PAP Written program described who, what, when, where, how, why

• Cross referenced to other company procedures such as:

- Emergency response plans

- Integrity management plans

• Unique attributes not listed or specific, missing:

- System type Pttbtic:Aw~*Pro~

PfPelir,e F~lea

- Types of products

- Lines and/or facilities covered

- All company assets/facilities cover ~ ~--

Public A-wareness Inspections Section T-wo (2012)

Section Two Questions 25.oo<<MI 20.77°/o 20.00CM. 18. 6!>>/o 16.08°/o 15-.~80/o 16.0S 0A_o _

15.00%

13.85°/o 10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 Public A"Wareness Inspections Section T"Wo (2013) 39.260/o 35.00CM.

28.890/o 30.~

23.Z0°/o -

25.00CM.

- 19.26°/o 20.00%

1

_ _ _ _ 1 _7 _.0_4°/o _ _ _,

1 15.00%

11.11 O:V,...;:o...._

10.00%

5.00%

0.00% £ 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06

.. 49 ..

SECTION 2 .01 PHMSA English and other Languages 508 86 24 3 621 13.85°/o 2.02 PHMSA Message Type and Content 487 129 1 4 621 20.77°/o 2.03 PHMSA Messages on Pipeline Faclllty Locations 488 100 30 4 622 16.08°/o 2.04 PHMSA Baseline Message Delivery Frequency 498 113 4 4 619 18.26°/o 2.05 PHMSA Considerations for Supplemental Program Enhancements 511 96 9 4 620 15.48°/o 2.06 PHMSA Maintaining Liaison with Emergency Response Officials 509 99 5 4 617 16.05°/o 2013 2.01 PHMSA English and other 92 39 2 2 -135 28.89°/o Languages 2.02 PHMSA Message Type and 79 53 1 2 135 39.26°/o Content 2 .03 PHMSA 114 15 4 2 135 11.11%

Messages on Pipeline Facility Locations 2.04 PHMSA 108 23 2 2 135 17.04%

Baseline Message Delivery Frequency 2.05 PHMSA Considerations for 103 26 4 2 135 19.26%

Supplemental Program Enhancements Maintaining Liaison 2.06 PHMSA with Emergency 97 32 3 3 135 23.70°/o Response Officials Section Two 2.01 - English and Other Languages Process,Frequency,Source 2.02 - Message Type and Content Message Mapping (1162 / PAP/ Brochures) 2.04 - Delivery of materials and messages Meet or exceed the baseline frequencies specified 2.06 - Maintaining Liaison with Emergency Responders ERP Available, Sharing Capabilities Non-Attendees (Closing the Loop) every three yrs_ 52 _

I01ple01entation Lan ua es

• Defined process with thresholds for actions

• Commonly provided in Spanish (as default)

• Emergency Response & Public Official (English only)

• (800) Translation number on print material

• TDD/TYY (speech - hearing impaired #on print material)

Implementation lemental Enhancements

• Increased message delivery frequency

• Messages in multiple languages

• Emergency # translates to other languages (Spanish, French, Japanese, Russian, Korean, Arabic, etc)

• 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> public awareness phone #

• Agricultural mailings

• Scratch and sniff NG cards

• ER website portal to get operator specific information (capabilities across the state)

I01ple01entation Messa es Collaborative

?.

Operator Specific II

• i,,. I-

~~

Educating Stakeholders

Implementation Maintaining Liaison w / ER Officials

• Collaborative operator public meetings {limited specific operator interaction)

• Tracked who attended meetings and followed up

• Verified ER lists for accurate contact information

• Generic information sent may not motivate to attend

• Inconsistent information shared from ER plan

• Difficult getting ER officials engaged

Public A\Vareness Inspections Section Three (2012)

Section Three Questions 28.92°/o 30.004Mt 25.~

20.00<<M, Section Three 15.00%

10.00%

5.000/o 0.00%

3.01 3.02 3.03

Public A-wareness Inspections Section Three (2013)

ss.ootM. 31.11 °/o 30.00CMt 25.00tM.

20-;90°/o 20.00%

15.00%

9.63°/o 10.000/o 5.000/o 0.000/o 3.01 3.02 3.03

2012 3.01 PHMSA Measuring Program Implementation 427 179 9 4 619 28.92°/o 3.02 PHMSA Acceptable Methods for Program Implementation Audits 520 83 13 4 620 13.39°/o 3.03 PHMSA Program Changes and Improvements 480 117 16 4 617 18.96°/o

2013 3.01 PH MSA Measuring 87 42 4 2 135 31.110/o Program Implementation Acceptable Methods for 3 .02 PHMSA Program Implementation 116 13 4 2 135 9 .63%

Audits Program Changes 3.03 PHM SA and 101 28 3 2 134 20.900/o Improvements Averages 101 28 4 2 135 21%

Section Three 3.01 - Measuring Program Implementation

• Documents that Verify Annual Review

• Guide a Consistent Process.

3.03 - Program Changes and Improvements (Document what was reviewed, Considered, Decisions, implementation, by whom and by Date Due)

Evaluations (Annual Audits)

Some operators:

• Documented meetings , dates, participants , agenda

• Meeting with cross-functional review teams (or prevent silos)

• Defined/monitored metrics

• Combined annual audit & effectiveness evaluation in year4

• Linked timing and review with other programs :

• Integrity management

• Emergency response

Program Changes and I01provements

• Changes/documented tracked?

• Implemented changes during next year

• Verified adequate resources were available

• Updated written plan

• Obtained current management support

• Reviewed supplemental enhancements

• Changes to print material

- Public Awareness Inspections Section Four 2012 Section Four Questions 35.00tM. 32.36°/o 26...5._4.!Vo _ _

26.66°/o 30.00tM.

24.760/o 24.SSO/o 25.00tM.

24.56°/o 20.00%

Section Four 15.00%

L 10.00%

5 .00%

0.00% --.-- --,- --,-

4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07

Public Awareness Inspections Section Four 2013 40.004Mt 36 3001 34.81°/o * ~4.590/o - - - - - -

35.004Mt 32. 590/o 30.37°/o 30.0o<<M.

25.0~

20.90~~ Vo _

20.00%

I 15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%

4.01 L

4 .02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4 .0CS 4.07

2012 Evaluating Program 4.01 PH MSA Effectiveness 386 200 25 7 618 32.360/o 4.02 PHMSA Measure Program Outreach 424 152 35 8 619 24.56°/o 4.03 PH M SA Measure Percentage Stakeholders Reached 421 153 36 8 618 24.76°/o Measure 4.04 PHMSA Understandability of Message Content 413 165 33 8 619 26.660/o 4.05 PHMSA Measure Desired Stakeholder Behavior 421 151 33 10 615 24.55°/o 4.06 PHM SA M easure Bottom-Line Results 412 164 33 9 618 26.540/o

• 4.07 PHM SA Program Changes 429 140 36 10 615 22.760/o

2013 4.01 PHMSA Evaluating Program 74 47 11 3 135 34.81°/o Effectiveness Measure Program 4.02 PHMSA Outreach 81 41 10 3 135 30.37°/o Measure Percentage 4.03 PHMSA Stakeholders 77 44 11 3 135 32.59°/o Reached Measure 4.04 PHMSA Understandability of 73 49 10 3 135 36.30°/o Message Content Measure Desired 4.05 PHMSA Stakeholder 73 46 9 5 133 34.59°/o Behavior PHMSA Measure Bottom-Line 4

• 06 Results 93 28 9 4 134 20.90°/o 4.07 PHMSA Program Changes 82 37 10 3 132 28.03°/o Section Four 4.01 - Evaluating Program Effectiveness 4 years from Implementation, Sample Size, MOE, Confidence Level 4.02 - Measure Outreach Actual Number by Stakeholder Audience 4.03 - Percentage of Stakeholders Reached 4.04 - Understandability of Message Content 4.05 - Des ired Stakeholder Behavior 4.06 - Bottom Line Results Considered other Bottom Line Measures 4.07 - Program Changes Document Changes -

Section Four How effective is the operator's public awareness program?

• Collecting data is not the o*nly component to completing an effectiveness evaluation.

• Operator effectiveness evaluations should:

• Identify program metrics

• Describe evaluation methodology

• Summarize findings or conclusions

• Identify changes in written plan and/or implementation

Conclusion

• Most operators putting forth effort and improving programs with creative approaches

• Process/methodology improvements are needed with annual audits/effectiveness evaluations

• Motivating stakeholders to stop, listen, and change

• Balancing information overload with specific messages

Gathering Pipelines

• What is a gathering pipeline?

>>,, transport gases and liquids from the commodity's source - to a processing facility, refinery o r a transmiss ion line.

• Gathering lines are defined as:

}> For natural gas, a pipeline that transports gas from a current productior:i facility to a transmission line or main (49 CFR 192.3) as determined using an industry standard (49 CFR 192.8).

~ For hazardous liquids, a pipeline 219.1 mm (8 5/8 in) o r less in nominal outside diameter that trans po rts petroleum from a production facility (49 CFR 195.2).

Gas Gathering

• §192.8 How are onshore gathering lines and regulated onshore gathering lines determined?

> An operator must use API RP 80 (incorporated by reference, s ee §192.7), to determine if an ons hore pipeline (or part of a connected s eries of pipelines) is an ons hore gathering line. The determination is s ubject to the limitations listed below.

~ After making this determination, an operato r must determine if the ons hore gathering line is a regulated onshore gathering line under paragraph (b) of this s ection. (Type A or B)

Gas Gathering

• §192.9 What requirements apply to gathering lines?

, Offs hore gas gathering pipelines and high-pressure ons hore lines (Type A) must meet all requirements of 49 CFR192 applicable to gas transmission pipelines .

~ Ons ho re gas gathering pipelines that o perate at lower pressures (Type B) must comply with a s ubset of these requirements specified in 49 CFR 192.9.

. . . U.S D ~ t of TransoortaLon

~ Pipe~ and Hazaroous Malertals Safety Adm,nrstr~ ,.

Liquids Gathering

• §195.11 What is a regulated rural gathering line

& what requirements apply?

~ A regulated rural gathering line means an onshore gathering line in a rural area that has : a nominal diameter from 6 5/8 inches (168 mm) to 8 5/8 inches (219.1 mm); is located in or within one-quarter mile (.40 km) of an unus ually s ens itive area as defined in

§195.6; and operates at a maximum pressure corres ponding to a stress level greater than 20-percent of the s pecified minimum yield strength of the line pipe; or if the stress level is unknown or the pipeline is not constructed with steel pipe, a pressure of more than 125 ps i (861 kPa) gage.

Liquids Gathering

• §195.11 What is a regulated rural gathering line & what requirements apply?

ii,i- Prepare, follow, and maintain written procedures

~ Identify all segments of pipeline meeting the criteria.

, Design, install, construct, inspect, and test the in compliance with this part.

For non-steel pipelines constructed aft.e r, notification requirement.

>, Reporting requirements in subpart B.

Liquids Gathering

• §195.11 What is a regulated rural gathering line

& what requirements apply?

Establish maximum operating pressure.

~ Install and maintain line markers.

~ Continuing public education program .

Damage prevention program.

~ External corrosion control for steel pipelines.

~ Internal corrosion prevention and mitigation for steel pipelines.

~ Operator Qualification.

Gathering Pipelines

• If regulation is eventually extended to all onshore gathering pipelines, who will be in charge of regulating them?

~ Most onshore gathering pipelines begin and end in the same state. While PHMSA is respo ns ible for conducting ins pections o n pipelines that cross state boundaries, individual states ' w /certified pipeline s afety agencies govern lines that do not. Intrastate pipelines are regulated by these agencies through adoption and enforcement of PHMSA Federal s afety standards. PHMSA's ro le is to oversee state agency performance. The State maintains direct regulatory authority, but must maintain Federal Regulations.

Links to PHMSA Gathering Pipeline Information http://www. phmsa .dot. gov/

http : // p h m sa. dot.gov/pi pel in e/g u id a nee http://phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/advisory-bulletin Questions

Contact:

Williant (Bill) Lo"Wry Community Assistance & Technical Services Bill.Lowry@dot.gov Thank you!

From: Slclllman TedmiCII ResQrc!s Inc.

To: Wlda>AYCC Pcrck Note: This attachment is IAEA Safety Standards Series, CC: $k0nao GQrdon Pub 1159 (Safety Guide No. NS-G-1.5), which is publicly SUb~ (ectemalSendlr) RdtmlCII

• Min Hide HIDrds available at https://www-Dalia: Friday, December 04, 20lS 5:15;31 PH pub.iaea.org/ MTCD/ Publications/ PDF/ Pub1159_web.pdf.

Attachments, fubll$9 wrl> Qdf Hi Derek - here is the file for man made hazards Steve Schultz communicates that this Is the most recent version. Thanks. dick

From: GettYs Eyetyn To: WJdromr Pmk Sub.le¢ S1m1M1Y of things I have been woodng on that )'OU may not know D1te: Friday, December 18, 2015 2:15:23 PM Hello Derek, OK - so for external man-made hazards; sink holes, flooding and climate changes are things that are being considered by the staff for the level 3 PRAs. I talked to Anders GIibertson who is working on the Vogtle Level 3 PRA.

Just what Is In the L3 PRAs Risk Metric Is still being determined by the staff, and when that determination Is made, then they will present it to the ACRS.

The geological area Is taken into consideration, so for Vogtle coal seams running under the plant is not a consideration nor is sink holes, but flooding Is and climate changes Is an

'uncertain factor' that has yet to be determine but is being addressed.

Paul Blanch received response letters, concern the IP's proposed gas pipeline, fll'om RI Michael Dudek, June 29, 2015 (Ml15082a420), and NRR/DlR Chris Miller November 6, 2015 (ML15287a257).

Hope this is helpful, Evelyn

From: Gettys. Eyetyn To: Wldma:tec Pccck

Subject:

FW: Ref: Question on gas pjpeines around IP D1te: Tuesday, ~ 08, 2015 9:24:38 AM Attldlments: Poe:faoecJncHan pojnt Natural Gas Pipenoe project docx Good Morning, Shall I setup a meeting for us to discuss with Doug? He is in DORL we could meet over coffee. He seems to understand what we are looking for EG From: Pickett, Douglas Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 8:51 AM To: Gettys, Evelyn

Subject:

RE: Ref: question on gas pipelines around IP Evelyn -

We have a ton of Information on natural gas pipelines at Indian Point. Two gas pipelines have been on the owner controlled property since before licensing of Indian Point 2 & 3 plus there are plans to build another pipeline that will also cross the owner controlled property. I've attached a one-pager for general information but there is lots more.

I am aware of the Lochbaum letter that originated your effort but I don"t know how much i nformation you will need. Also, there are natural gas pipelines near other nuclear power plants.

I can drop by and we can discuss.

Doug Douglas V. Pickett. Senior Project Manager Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 & 3 James A FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Douglas.Pickett@nrc.gov 301-415-1364 From: Haagensen, Brian Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 6:24 PM To: Gettys, Evelyn Cc: Dentel, Glenn; Pickett, Douglas

Subject:

RE: Ref: question on gas pipelines around IP Evelyn.

Unfortunately. we are in the middle of a reactor startup and visit by the Chairman tomorrow.

I won't be able to get to answering you until this is over. Could you check with Glenn Dental, our Branch Chief, in Region 1 or Doug Pickett, our PM in HQ for a prompt response?

Thanks, Brian From: Gettys, Evelyn Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 3:37 PM To: Haagensen, Brian <Brjan.Haa ensen ore.. ov>; Rich, Sarah <Sarah Rjch@nrc iPY>; Newman, Garrett <Garrett.NewmaQ{< me, Pv>

Subject:

Ref: question on gas pipelines around IP Hello Brian, Sarah and Garrett, I am helping the ACRS staff gather information on man-made hazards at nuclear plants,

with particular Interest In gas pipelines that are existing or being purposed In the vicinity of a nuclear facility. It is my understanding that Indian Point has had this Issue and came to some conclusion. If you could verify this for me and direct me to any analysis they produced to support their position would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Evelyn Gettys Project Manager ACRS (R) 301-415-4029 TWF-D41

Natural Gas Pipeline Project Proposed Near Indian Point Key Messages

• On March 3, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved the proposed Spectra Energy expansion to natural gas pipelines In the New England area.

If constructed, a new 42-inch diameter pipeline will traverse a portion of the owner-controlled property at the Indian Point site.

• Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. performed a site hazards analysis of the new pipeline pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59 and concluded that the project poses no additional risks and that prior NRC review and approval Is not required.

• NRC staff from Region I, NRO, and NRR reviewed Entergy's 50.59 evaluation, performed an Independent blast analysis, and concluded that the proposed natural gas pipeline will not pose additional risks to radiological safety at the Indian Point site.

Facts

• Natural gas pipelines have existed on the Indian Point owner-controlled property prior to plant construction. A 26-inch diameter natural gas pipeline was built In 1952, followed by a 30-lnch diameter pipeline In 1965. Operating licenses were granted to Indian Point Units 1, 2, and 3 in 1962, 1973, and 1975, respectively. The existing pipelines are located approximately 640 feet from the Unit 3 containment. The AEC/NRC performed confirmatory analysis to determine the impact of a rupture of the existing natural gas pipelines at the Indian Point facility in 1973, 2003 and 2008.

• NRC regulations require that the licensee perform a site hazards analysis to determine the Impact of a rupture of the proposed natural gas pipeline on the safe operation and shutdown of nuclear power plants. Entergy submitted their analysis concluding that a rup,ture of the 42-inch natural gas pipeline would not represent an increased risk of radiological safety at the site and that prior NRC review and approval was not required.

• While the new pipeline is larger than the existing pipelines, it will be routed significantly further away from safety-related systems, structures, and components (SSCs) than the existing gas pipelines at the Indian Point site. The closest distance from the underground piping to the security owner controlled area fence is 1580 ft. As a result, the blast analysis performed by the licensee and the confirmatory analysis performed by the NRC concluded that resultant pressure waves and critical heat flux from a pipeline rupture would not adversely impact SSCs at the site.

• Both the licensee and the NRC used the ALOHA computer code for the blast analysis.

ALOHA, which was developed by EPA and NOAA, is designed to model chemical releases and Is widely accepted by numerous industries. Release rates determined by ALOHA have been compared with release rates calculated manually based upon equations available in reference literature and reports. The ALOHA model predicts maximum and average release rates that are higher than the ones calculated by hand and, therefore, is considered reasonable and conservative for this application.

From: DE.NN1S 111.EY To: Wldmaw:r, Puck Cc;: Blc:t PeooJs; lobo SJ:etlw Subjectl r&temal_Sender] R.e: Man-Made Hazards An,lysls - lntormal meeting Ollte: Friday, July 01, 2016 12: 16:24 PM Let's go with Plan B I- September. See you next week.

On Jul 1, 2016, al 8:25 AM, Widmayer, Derek <Derek Wjdmayer@nrc iov>

wrote:

Dennis I should have figured, but a couple of my fellow-ACRS staff members have reserved members for Informal meetings on both days of next week's FC meeting (Thurs and Fri). I am not available on Wednesday for a meeting (if you wanted to try to muster everyone for then).

So Plan B options are (1) wait until September - I can reserve one of the days right away so we will not miss it; (2) try to hold a teleconference - that is something i have never tried with a group of members before; (3) both; (4) try to arrange for Informal meeting during August SC week If SC (of a majority of) SC members are in town a certain time.

White we are deciding, I will hold the Caucus Room for a day in September.

Let me know what direction you would like me to pursue.

Derek

~ <II 'Wlt/nuwat Senior Staff Scientist ACRS/fechnical Support Branch Email: derek,widmayer@nrc,goy Phone: 301-415-5375