March 14th, 2011 – GI-199 Questions – Due to uncertainties in the data NRC sending letter to US Plants

Author: No Comments Share:

From: Stutzke, Martin
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 3:21 PM
To: Ake, Jon; Kammerer, Annie; Hayden, Elizabeth
Cc: Burnell, Scott; Manoly, Kamal; Munson, Clifford; Chokshi, Nilesh
Subject: RE: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant

It’s misleading to say that the GI-1 99 Safety/Risk Assessment determined which plants were OK and which were not. The purpose of the assessment was to determine, on a generic basis, if the risk associated with increased seismic hazard estimates in the Central and Eastern US (CEUS) warrants further investigation for potential imposition of cost-justified backfits.

We determined that the seismic core-damage frequencies for 27 plants had increased by 1 E-5/y or more, relative to what we thought upon conclusion of the Individual Plant Examination of External Events (Generic Letter 88-20, Supplement 4). This finding is the basis for continuing GI-1 99 and transitioning it to NRR for development of a generic letter that will request information needed to identify potential plant-specific backfits.

We presented a map that showed the locations of the 27 plants in the GI-199 “continue zone” during a public meeting held October 6, 2010 (see Slide #25 in ML102770665). The GI-199 Safety/Risk Assessment (ML100270582) is also publically available. It does not specifically identify the 27 plants, but contains information in appendices that could be used to figure out which CEUS plants are in the “continue zone.”

Marty

From: Ake, Jon
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Kammerer, Annie; Hayden, Elizabeth
Cc: Burnell, Scott; Manoly, Kamal; Munson, Clifford; Stutzke, Martin; Chokshi, Nilesh
Subject: RE: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant
As Annie has pointed out, all 96 operating reactors in the Central and Eastern U.S. were evaluated as part of the GI-199 assessment.

Currently a Generic Letter is being prepared requesting additional seismic and plantspecific information, that letter will be sent to all NPP licensees in the CEUS.

It is important to note that the Generic Letter has not yet been finalized, the specific information requests are being developed and reviewed internally. So, at this time we are unable to state exactly what path (analysis, back-fit etc.) a particular plant may follow as a result of the Generic Letter.

Kamal, Marty, Cliff-
Is this an accurate representation of our current path?
From: Kammerer, Annie
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:53 AM
To: Hayden, Elizabeth
Cc: Burnell, Scott; Ake, Jon
Subject: RE: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant
The list that was analyzed was basically everything in the CEUS. I don’t think we made the list of which plants were OK and which not public due to too much uncertainty. Jon Ake would know.

Jon, can you answer? Did we make the list of plant names and which screened in public?

From: Hayden, Elizabeth
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:48 PM
To: Kammerer, Annie
C4: Burnell, Scott
Subject: RE: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant

Is the list of plants that were analyzed and those found problematic public?
Beth Hayden
Senior Advisor
Offtce of Public Affairs
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
– R”eox/cTeop/ea’Ad/eEnlirontmenl
301-415-8202
[email protected]
From: Kammerer, Annie
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:24 PM
To: Hayden, Elizabeth
Cc: Burnell, Scott
Subject: RE: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant
Yes. Wolf Creek was analyzed as part of GI-199. It was not one of the plants that the NRC identified as problematic (i.e. staff believes this plant still has adequate margin given the latest ground shaking estimates). However, due to uncertainties in the data available to our staff, we will be sending a letter to all US plants in the central and eastern US.

I hope this helps.
From: Hayden, Elizabeth
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:18 PM
To: Kammerer, Annie
Cc: Burnell, Scott
Subject: FW: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant

Annie,

Can you help with this question we received from a reporter?

Also, can you verify whether Wolf Creek is one of the plants evaluated in GSI-1 99?
Beth Hayden
Senior Advisor
Office of Public Affairs
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
— Rro/ec/intgeople ald/he Elnm=,mew/
301-415-8202
[email protected]
From: Uselding, Lara
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 1:10 PM
To: Hayden, Elizabeth; Screnci, Diane
Subject: EXAMPLE OF REQUEST: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:08 PM
To: Uselding, Lara
Subject: Earthquake plans/reports/risk analysis for San Onofre nuclear power plant

La ra,

I am trying to track down any documents on file with the NRC concerning the risk of earthquakes occurring near the San Onofre nuclear plant north of San Diego. I am particularly interested in emergency plans, analysis of the risks faced by the plant from earthquakes and predictions of the types of damage and dangers that could be created  by earthquake damage to the plant.

I’m also interested in documents looking at the risk and dangers posed by tsunamis to the plant. Can you tell me if these types of documents exist and when I might be able to get them? I am trying to turn a story around on this topic for tomorrow’s (Tuesday’s) edition of the paper.
Thanks,
Keith
Keith Darc6
Biotechnology writer
The San Diego Union-Tribune
[email protected]
619.293.1020
www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/
Follow me on Twitter at KeithDarce

Previous Article

Kazakhstan and France Agree to Open Nuclear Fuel Plant with AREVA

Next Article

March 14th, 2011 – Seismic PRAs do not consider damage from earthquake aftershocks – Station Blackout Write-Up

Leave a Reply