ML20114E278

SER-Meeting-Notes-Helton-Mar-Mtg

ML20114E278
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/27/2019
From:	Christopher Hunter NRC/RES/DRA/PRB
To:
Hunter C (301) 415-1394
References
Download: ML20114E278 (5)

Text

INSRP SER Development Meeting Air Force Safety Center, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM March 27-28, 2019 Attendees: Representatives from all 5 agencies, and all INSRP Working Groups Note: This is not a comprehensive set of notes; it is simply intended to capture items of particular note to me (ticklers for later reference). There are associated slides for most of the presentation areas.

Day 1:

Opening Remarks - Matt Forsbacka, NASA

• Need to be able to articulate what we think of the methodology, and things that we think they (the Program) need to be looking at

• Are the assumptions being made reasonable? Is the uncertainty adequately addressed?

• Can we communicate our findings to decision-makers and non-technical stakeholders Schedule - Don Helton, NRC

• See associated slides

• Scope of changes are important for one-off versus new SAR, but degree of change in risk results is also very important in terms of how much disruption the new SAR will cause to the SER development

• There was feedback related to the bi-weekly tagups, which is captured later Sensitivity Analysis Tickler - Don Helton, NRC

• See associated slides Aside - Matt Forsbacka, NASA

• Discussed the SAR comments that NASA circulated on March 25th, 2019

• There are a mix of cases where NASA has identified concerns that INSRP is aware of and agrees with, INSRP is aware of and disagrees with, and possibly a few that werent on our radar.

• WGs will provide 1-liner viewpoint on each item to support Matts interaction with his NASA counterparts DOD SER Status - Lance Peterson, DOD

• See associate slides

• Up-front material is mostly complete

• Provide references as we go - (agency, year) format LAWG Update - Amber Chang-Armstrong, USAF

• See associated slides

• Discussion about how the WGs should approach the in-hand SAR versus the expected Summer SAR situation - resolution of this is captured later

• Upcoming Atlas V (9), Delta IV M (1), Delta IV H (1) launches, and the possibility of new failures, is a key assumption - other launch failures (e.g., Falcon) could also have an impact from a Range risk assessment perspective, though not from a Databook perspective 1

• Discussion about how to handle the possibility of the new PD/NSC-25 policy, especially if M2020 is not grandfathered - resolution of this is captured later

• For the small pieces that would nominally be the same between all the STIVs, Amber has taken a crack at this and will circulate it to the other WGs

• Discussion of whether the STIVs should have Lessons Learned and whether the mission should do an overall Lessons Learned report - resolution of this is captured later SNSWG Updates - Damon Burnette and Greg Wyss, et al., Sandia, INSRP

• See associated slides

• As an aside, Greg pointed out that the MMRTG (M2020, MSL) uses thermal conductivity rather than radiative heat transfer for the thermo-electrics, which change the clad temperature somewhat (in an unfavorable direction from a nuclear safety perspective) - this doesnt impact the current analysis, but it does point to an opportunity to improve the design from a nuclear safety perspective going forward (if there arent operational challenges associated with returning to the radiative design)

METWG - Will Pendegrass, ORNL

• See associated slides

• IAT model has generally been tuned, rather than validated - major concerns here

• Insufficient access to source code and documentation - somewhat ameliorated by a Day 2 breakout between MET/BEES and SAR team

• Use of HYSPLIT for high-altitude releases carried out over multiple days is unjustified, and is probably conservative in terms of ground-level exposures

• Ground level concentration / plume graphics can be dramatically misleading, because some of the plotted contours are at extremely low levels (as low as fractions of a particle per computational cell)

• Still actively debating what a reasonable computational threshold (RCT) should be to capture de minimus exposures - working with BEES and need more time, but see this as critical to characterizing the actual results more appropriately (believe that the Program results are unphysical (over-state some aspects of the risk) in this respect)

BEESWG - Bob Nelson, PNL

• No associated slides

• Echoed previously-stated concerns about DDREF values used, FDOSE assumptions, DCFPAK4, etc. - some of these concerns/questions are now in the DRT REWG - Mike Weaver, Aero

• See associated slides

• Discussion about the clad temperature during reentry accidents (free-flying GIS experiencing convective cooling prior to ground impact)

SQAWG - Matt Forsbacka, NASA

• Based on the 3/26 few-hour on-site visit, seems like all the mechanisms are in place, and are planning on doing the remainder of the review by document review in April/May

• Program is following an NQA-1-like process Additional Risk Issues - Don Helton, NRC

• See associated slide 2

RI&U WG, Curtis Smith, INL

• See associated slides

• Highlighted the afore-discussed need for the panel to provide further direction on what results will be provided in the SER and STIVs, building off the notes from the December 2018 caucus

• For relevant basic events in the model, RI&U is looking to the other WGs for:

o Does using the mean SAR value make sense?

o Should the uncertainty be characterized by a maximum entropy fit to the SAR information, or something else?

o What sensitivity analysis should be run?

• Some additional coordination between SNS, MET, BEES, and RI&U is needed (and planned) in terms of selecting scenarios that can be investigated soup-to-nuts, and ensuring the various folks interrogating STORM outputs are benefiting from each others work/knowledge Day 2:

DOE-NE / SAR Team Status - Dan Clayton, Sandia (Program)

• See associated slides

• General timeline of ongoing calculations:

o End of April - Source Terms o End of May - Consequences

• The final version of Databook Addendum #3 (3/22/2019) includes some updates to the accident uncertainty characterization above what was in the draft version of Databook Addendum #3 (2/15/2019) - JPL subsequently posted a delta document

• Guestimate is that the summer SAR mean max individual dose will be ~300 mrem

• All RAS will be repeated, and thus all new LASEP runs, all new STORM outputs, etc.

• Not sure if they will re-run the fire and thermal analysis; are making some additional changes to IAT (and it is unclear whether they will be using a new version of IAT for the summer SAR)

• Dan is envisioning that the SAR will be annotated with a left line denoting changes a la a page/replace (rather than a true redline/strikeout)and envisioning that virtually every table would change o Should be able to provide SQA descriptions of changes in a near real-time manner

• Could potentially provide the summer SAR to INSRP in parallel to DOE-NE reviewin mid-Julyprovide draft chapters in the interim?

• Proposal to use first 10-15 minutes of bi-weekly for Dan to report out on SAR changes/updates in the prior 2 weeks Working Group questions for SAR team - All [like all parts of these notes, this is not comprehensive of what was discussed]

• For REWG:

o several cases were identified where the SAR doesnt adequately describe specific modeling assumptions, and these were verbally clarified and will be enhanced in the summer SAR o Agreement that the technical basis for a 900C ground impact temperature is not defensible as described in the January 2019 SAR - SNL SAR team has performed new LAPS/TAOS/HANDI/CMA analysis (1D thermal model) that provides additional justification that the actual ground impact temperatures would 3

be greater than 900C - discussion about why RAS 3 / suborbital cases could be at lower temperatures (and the documentation is not entirely clear about whether RAS 3 uses 730C or 900C)

• For RI&U WG:

o Inability to reproduce the SAR tables from the STORM originating data -

commitment to follow-up on this o No documentation in the SAR of:

Instances where theyve found errors in their own work, that have been addressed (would be captured in SQA documentation)

Review of individual realizations to confirm the results make sense (though Dan asserted that this was done) o For sensitivity analysis performed inherent to the post-January SAR, they envision these guiding the changes to SAR descriptions, but they are not intending to document them as official sensitivity analysis

• For LAWG WG:

o Phase 0 - right now they are assuming 1 person at the VIF for Phase 0 (for the revised analysis) o Phase 1 - not clear if SLC-40 workers are being accounted for o Some apparent differences between the Databook and the SARs implementation of the FRAG45 results

• For METWG:

o Would like to know the IAT sensitivity studies being conducted, and their results, via the bi-weeklys

• For SNSWG:

o Looking at the entrainment model results seems to suggest no dependence on the rate of vaporization as a function of standoff distance, which doesnt seem realistic - John Hewson committed to providing some examples and Dan committed that they would look in to it

• For BEESWG:

o Seems like the dose coefficients for inhalation in bins 8-13 are un-realistically high, given that they are above the respirable range o Information provided (including a supporting spreadsheet) doesnt map the specific assumptions made when using DCFPAK4 o Seems to be an issue with the density used in calculating the inhalation dose o Repeated that the DDREF distribution used (which goes up to 8) is only appropriate for low LET radiation, not the high LET radiation associated with Pu inhalation Panel Breakout:

• Mark will work with Lori/Lance to layout the plans for the bi-weeklys, using what we discussed yesterday and today o Bi-weekly with program to become 90 minutes, and to include a lightning round for all WGs to ask questions and a deep soak on the designated WG-of-the-call o Clarify what is expected to the WGs (e.g., MET may want to engage at a higher level b/c of more systemic concerns, whereas RE may want to engage at a very detailed level given their closer alignment) o Understand that bi-weekly round robin is inherently subject to change o Flip BEES and RI&U in the schedule proposed in my presentation (slide 7) 4

• Mark will resurrect the abandoned M2020 INSRP Roadmap, for possible use in developing the INSRB Terms of Reference, once the new Nuclear Space Launch Policy has been issued

• Regarding lessons learned, Section 5.2 of the suggested STIV outline will hereafter read, Areas of Key Uncertainty, Key Assumptions, Concerns, and Observations o Defer any decision to do a dedicated Lessons Learned report until August o Don will circulate the template with this revision (will be Rev. 2)

• Regarding presentation of results, the WGs should continue on their current path, and they will be asked to eventually use existing results to plot/table those results against the new launch policy and Air Force safety guidelines o The expectation is that doing so does not require any re-work, and if this isnt the case, the WGs should raise this to the Coordinators

• Regarding how the WGs should approach the January vs. summer SAR:

o Continue to work using the January SAR o Plan to reflect on the summer SAR when it is ready o To the extent practical, WGs should differentiate (organically in their SER/STIV development activities, not formally) between long lead-time work (which needs to be done now) versus short lead-time work (which can be done later, and ideally with the summer SAR) o Reality is more complicated than this, and individual issues should be taken up with your Coordinator

• Regarding the state of the review document (early April) o Recipients will be Charlie and George o Coordinators will review (and revise if necessary) their WG inputs, and provide to Don o Don will package those inputs, add an introductory and closing paragraph, and then return to the WGs for comment Mark will be out from April 2-19, and Jacob Habrum will be the POC for DOD on finalizing this

• Regarding the idea of a draft SER in June o No, but could do an annotated SER outline and a briefing in July, provided during a joint workshop, and they will provide their pre-release Summer SAR (in parallel to DOE review) o Suggestion for a pre-meeting with the panel and WG leads ahead of this

• Regarding Agency Views:

o Was introduced to the PD/NSC-25 process for courtesy purposes, and there is some thought that it does not provide benefit in the current situation

• Regarding communication with OSTP:

o Communicate to OSTP via an in-person brief, to provide an update of where things stand relative to the our past briefings about problems - to occur soon after the release of the new policy

• Regarding the STORM/LASEP outputs associated with the summer SAR, it was confirmed that we will be requesting these 5