ML20141L713

NRC-2019-000279 - Resp 4 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed. (Released Set of 2014-0488 5, Part 1 of 2)

ML20141L713
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	05/14/2020
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
Shared Package
ML20141L707	List: ML20141L708 ML20141L709 ML20141L710 ML20141L711 ML20141L712 ML20141L713 ML20141L714 ML20141L715 ML20141L716 ML20141L717 ML20141L718
References
FOIA, NRC-2019-000279
Download: ML20141L713 (256)

Text

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:0S AM To: Hasan, Nasreen; Sewell, Margaret Cc: Solorio, Dave

Subject:

RE: DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002

Nasreen, Thanks for letting us know!!

Renee From: Hasan, Nasreen Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:04 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

DPO case File-DP0-2013-002 Document is publicly available now.

View ADAMS P8 Properties MLl 4252A743 Open ADAMS P8 Document (DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002 (Public).)

Tltankyou, Nasree11 Hasan Administrative Assistant Office of E11forcement l ocatio11 I Mai/stop: 0-4Al 5A Office#: (301)415-2741 Ftu*: (301)415-3431 1

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:47 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO Case file now public It's there now.

1

~ US NRC ADAMS Common Wrb lntaf1ce

• Microsoft Internet &pknr p,Ollided by U5NRC

@Q

• I http:// adams.nrc.gov/wba/

File Edit View Favorites Tools Help i,,( Favorites w I* US NRC ADAMS Common We...

Web-based ADAl\IS

Folder View Content Search Advanced Search ADAMS << .

Download .=3 Properties ~ Export :J Report

.::l ...5J Recent Released Documents

• Hide Package Contents

=J t:i} September 2014

(_J September 10, 2014 D Document Title Accession Number

J:J J..J September 09, 201 4 [J 1B DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002 (Pubfic). ML14252A743 j;j lJ September 08, 2014 LJ 1B 09/25/2014 Corrosion rates for Fitness for Service (FFS) evaluations or buried pipe ML14253A120

..:tJ !. .]September 05, 2014

.:tJ ,.,] September 04, 2014 O lt] NUREG-2157 Vol 1, "Generic Environmental ML14196A105 Impact Statement for Continued Storage of

.:tJ ..J September 03, 2014 Spent Nuclear Fuel: Final Report."

.+/-J ..:J September 02, 2014

.tJ i..JAugust 201 4

.:tJ L.] July 2014

.:tJ O June 2014

.:tJ ..J May 2014

ti L.]April 2014

.:tJ LJ March 2014

.:tJ LJ February 2014

.t) 1..] January 2014

.tl ._J December 2013

.:tl ..J November 2013

.ti t_J October 2013

.ti ..J September 2013

.tJ CJ August 2013 ii CJ July 2013

..+/-J lJ June 2013

~ L) Moy2013 ii LJApril 2013 jJ _] March 2013

~ ..J February 2013

< I .. *~~,ir~* '101 " - , Page 5 of 5 ) t>{l .c' Done w.iiiii=:.."iiiiiiwU ID - - -1 _ , HI r---, Ii From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:38 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO case file now public

Scott, 2

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We're looking into it and will send out clarification.

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:13 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO case file now public Still not visible in the public website ADAMS.

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:11 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

FYI: DPO case file now public FYI, the DPO Case File is now public.

From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:55 AM To: Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pedersen, Renee; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

draft DPO comm Plan Importance: High

Everyone, Good morning. Attached please find a draft of the DPO Comm plan that was discussed at the 8:30 call this AM.

This is provided to you for comment. Please note that it reflects real-time action on the DPO Appeal and incorporates comments from the discussion this morning on the AB-1632 Seismic Report. Much of the Q&A comes from the "living-DCPP Comm Plan" that is being maintained by RIV (the highlighted questions are troublesome to NRR/DORL but we understand that RIV prefers to maintain these). I have included a question at the end about whether new information in the AB-1632 report could impact the DPO conclusions. Also note that the Comm Plan does not contain a timeline as we are already real-time. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

f ,,-(,c,R, 0~e¥~

Acting Branch Chief NRR/D0RL/LPL4-1 301-415-1014

/ ........,,

f ');..IJ

...., *'..*J'j 3

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:11 PM To: Wertz., Trent

Subject:

RE: EDO Daily Note on Public Availability of DPO Case File DCPP Attachments:

~---------~

FYI: DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002 is now public Note Attachment is publicly available as ML14252A743.

No problem-the EDO already knows and the WIR should go out later with the summary.

From: Wertz., Trent _

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:31 PM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

FW: EDO Daily Note on Public Availability of DPO case File DCPP

Renee, You ok with NRR submitting this as an EDO Daily Note?

Thanks, Trent From: Orf, Tracy

--*-------~--------------*-----------

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:55 AM To: Wertz., Trent

Subject:

FW: EDO Daily Note on Public Availability of DPO case File DCPP Please submit this note:

The Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) Case File (DP0-2013-002) concerning seismic issues at Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, is now publicly available in ADAMS at Accession No. ML14252A743.

Thanks, Trace From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:15 AM To: Orf, Tracy Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Sebrosky, Joseph; Singal, Balwant; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

EDO Daily Note on Public Availability of DPO case File DCPP Attached is the EDO Daily Note.

1

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:15 AM To: Hasan, Nasreen

Subject:

FW: DPO Case file now public Importance: High Can you help me understand this? Does this mean it will take another 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />?

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:13 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO case file now public Still not visible in the public website ADAMS.

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:11 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

FYI: DPO case file now public FYI, the DPO Case File is now public.

From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:55 AM To: Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pedersen, Renee; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

draft DPO comm Plan Importance: High

Everyone, Good morning. Attached please find a draft of the DPO Comm plan that was discussed at the 8:30 call this AM.

This is provided to you for comment. Please note that it reflects real-time action on the DPO Appeal and incorporates comments from the discussion this morning on the AB-1632 Seismic Report. Much of the Q&A comes from the "living-DCPP Comm Plan" that is being maintained by RIV (the highlighted questions are troublesome to NRR/DORL but we understand that RIV prefers to maintain these),. I have included a question at the end about whether new information in the AB-1632 report could impact the DPO conclusions. Also note that the Comm Plan does not contain a timeline as we are already real-time. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

f vi,o 'R. O~er~

Acting Branch Chief NRR/D0RL/ LPL4-1 301-415-1014

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:31 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael; Sampson, Michele; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: draft DPO COmm Plan Attachments: Draft mini-Comm Plan on DCPP DPO.docx; lettereditorfinal).docx Please see my comments. I'm also including an OPA letter to the editor that is very helpful.

Renee From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September' 10, 2014 9:55 AM To: Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pedersen, Renee; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

draft DPO comm Plan Importance: High

Everyone, Good morning. Attached please find a draft of the DPO Comm plan that was discussed at the 8:30 call this AM.

This is provided to you for comment. Please note that it reflects real-time action on the DPO Appeal and incorporates comments from the discussion this morning on the AB-1632 Seismic Report. Much of the Q&A comes from the "living-DCPP Comm Plan" that is being maintained by RIV (the highlighted questions are troublesome to NRR/DORL but we understand that RIV prefers to maintain these). I have included a question at the end about whether new information in the AB-1632 report could impact the DPO conclusions. Also note that the Comm Plan does not contain a timeline as we are already real-time. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.

fy(,o'R, 0e¢e¥le,,

Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORL/LPL4-1 301-415-1014 1

DRAFT - eFFleltct tlSE 6P4LY SENSITlto'E INTEftNtct INF6ftMATl6N - f46T F6ft llt1Btle ftELEASE Communications Plan -

Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest Differing Professional Opinion and Appeal

Background

The former SRI at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) submitted non-concurrence papers (NCPs) in January 2011 and January 2012, followed by a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) in July 2013 detailing a disagreement with the NRC about how new seismic information should be compared to the plant's current seismic license requirements. DPO 2013-02 restated the issues presented in NCP 2012-01 and added a concern that a license amendment was needed incorporate the Shoreline fault into Diablo Canyon's FSAR as described in the RIL 12-01 cover letter. The added concern was that the NRC did not review or take action on the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults. In accordance with Management Directive 10.159, a DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel was established to review the DPO submittal, meet with DPO submitter, and issues a DPO report including conclusions and recommendations regarding disposition of the issues presented in the DPO. The panel completed its report in May 2014 and a decision on the DPO was rendered in letter dated May 29, 2014, to the DPO submitter. The DPO submitter appealed the decision to the EDO in accordance with the NRCs DPO process. The EDO completed his consideration of the DPO appeal on September 9, 2014, concluding that he was in agreement with the original decision.

The purpose of this communication plan is to provide key messages associated with the EDO's decision on the DPO appeal and public release of the DPO Case File.

Key Messages:

1. NRC strives to establish and maintain an environment that encourages all NRC employees and contractors to raise concerns and differing views promptly without fear of reprisal through various mechanisms. The free and open exchange of views or ideas conducted in a non-threatening environment provides the ideal forum where concerns and alternative views can be considered and addressed in an efficient and timely manner that improves decision making and supports the agency's safety and security mission.

~..,.2. The NRC appreciates members of the staff bring issues like this to its attention fr.-3. The NRC encourages the use of non-concurrences and the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) process JA. The NRC reviews all non-concurrences and DPOs thoroughly and inaccordance with agency guidance (MD 10.158, MD 10.159) and believes that this is a healthy and necessary part the regulatory process L The NRC believes that, in the end, all of our regulatory decisions are better because of this process

DRAFT - OfifilCl1ct t:ISE ONLY

!Ef~Sl'fl'O'E lf4'fEPm1ct INfiOftM1c'flOf4 - HO'f fiOft l't:1et1e ftELE1cSE 4:-=

6*: ....--~Ta.;.he~N"-R=C'--'d=o:;...;:e=s....:.n=o;..a..t=to=le;.,.r=at=e....:.r=et=a=lia=t=io"'""n....;:;a=g=ai"""'n=st'-'e;.,.m:.;.ip=lo;:;;...y'""e=e=s....:.w:..:.h=o....;:e;.:..n=g=ag=e~in....;:o~ur processes for raising differing views (i.e., Open Door Policy, NCP, and DPO Program).

5. The NRG has an obligation to protect the individual(s) submitting nen concurrences and DPOs and takes that obligation seriously

6. The DPO process is a non public process and it is a strictly controlled and formalized process

7. Persons serving on the DPO Panels are independent of the issues raised in the DPO

8. Upon disposition of the DPO via a Director's decision, the DPO submitter has appeal rights to the EDO

9. While the DPO is under review or appeal, NRC is prohibited from engaging in discussions with external stakeholders regarding the specifics of the of the DPO submittal 4-0-,..After the EDO's decision on the appeal, the DPO submitter can request that the DPO Case File be made public. Management performs a review consistent with agency policies to support discretionary release. has the right to make the DPO case file public to the extent that personal privacy information and SUNSI information is not contained in the DPO 4+.10. Regarding the DPO for Diablo Canyon, the NRC has been and will continue to be as open and scrutable as possible while protecting the privacy rights of the individual 42..,.11 . The NRC does not know the source of the public release of the Diablo Canyon DPO submittal prior to the EDO rendering a decision on the appeal

+3""12. The NRC can, however, comment on a few aspects of the DPO appeal review o A Director's Decision has been made and the DPO appeal to the EDO has been finalized o The EDO and the DPO submitter have both agreed that the issues raised in the DPO do not present an immediate safety concern for Diablo Canyon o The NRC has sought permission from the DPO submitter to allow the DPO case file to be made publicly available and the DPO submitter has agreed o We would expect the public release of the DPO case file to be within a few days of the EDO's appeal decision 4413. Regarding the operational status of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 o The plant remains within its approved design and licensing basis o There are no current operability concerns resulting from the DPO o The recent earthquake in the Napa Valley did not reach Diablo Canyon - it was neither felt nor detected Communication Team The primary responsibility of the communication team is to ensure that it conveys a consistent, accurate, and timely message to all stakeholders. The team consists of the project management, technical, and communication staff named below.

DRAFT - OFFICIAL tl!E ONLY

!EN!lfrt1E IHT!ftNAL INFOftMATION - ,~oT FOft fttll!Lle ft!Ll!!A!!

Team Member Position Organization Telephone Troy Pruett Division Director (Acting) RIV/DRP 817-200-1291 Wayne Walker Branch Chief R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1148 Ryan Alexander Sr. Project Engineer R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1195 Sr. Resident Inspector -

Thomas Hipschman R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Resident Inspector -

John Reynoso R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Thomas Farnholtz Branch Chief RIV/DRS/EB1 817-200-1243 Jon Ake Senior Seismologist RES/DE/SGSEB 301 -251-7695 Eric Oesterle Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORULPLIV 301-415-1014 Balwant Singal DCPP Project Manager NRR/DORULPLIV 301-415-3016 Renee Pedersen DPOPM OE/CRB 301-415-2742 Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer OPA 301-415-8204 Angel Moreno Congressional Affairs OCA 301-415-1691 Amy Powell Associate Director OCA 301-415-1673 Victor Dricks Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1128 Lara Uselding Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1519 Bill Maier State Liaison Officer RIV 817-200-1267 Non-concurrence and DPO Questions

[NOTE - this information is generally NON-PUBLIC, but is provided as background only]

NOTE: General FAQs on the DPO Program are included on the DPO Web site (look under Employee Resources-Employee Concerns.

1. Was the former DCPP SRI reassigned because he flied two non-concurrences?

No. Michael Peck was not reassigned. He applied for an instructor position in his area of expertise at the NRC's technical training center in Chattanooga, TN, at about the time he submitted his non-concurrence in accordance with the Non-Concurrence Process described in MD 10.158. He was competitively selected for this sought-after position, and reported to his new assignment in September 2012. Resident inspector assignments are limited to 7 years to ensure objectivity. It is common for resident inspectors to apply for their next job when a desirable position comes open.

DRAFT - OP'P'ICIAL tJSE OHLY SEl~SITl¥E lf~TEfitHAL lf~FefitMATler~ - ,~e, Feft ~t:1Btle RELEASE

2. When were the non-concurrences filed?

Two non-concurrences were filed by the DCPP SRI.

11/7/1 1. The DCPP SRI submitted NCP 2011-103, on inspection report 05000275; 323/201104.

1/26/12. The DCPP SRI submitted NCP 2012-01 , on inspection report 05000275; 323/201105.

3. What were the non-concurrences?

Both non-concurrences involve the same subject; regulatory actions in response to the discovery of the Shoreline Fault.

NCP 2011 -103 was filed by the DCPP SRI on the basis that no violation was issued (as he had submitted in the draft report) related to operability evaluation of the Shoreline fault in Report 2011-04. NCP 2011-103 was dispositioned finalizing the violation in IR 2011-05 issued on 2/14/12. (The employee requested that the NCP be non-public.)

NCP 2012-01 was filed by the DCPP SRI because the SRI believed the violation in NRC IR 2011-05 should be for an inadequate operability evaluation of the Shoreline Fault rather than not doing an operability evaluation until June 2012. The SRI believed the facility should be shutdown or the license amended to reflect the Shoreline fault. NCP 2012-01was discussed with NRC stakeholders representing NRR/DE, NRR/DORL, RIV, and RES. NCP 2012-01 was dispositioned as a multi-office staff position which concluded that a violation for having no operability evaluation from January 2011 to June 2011 existed because the licensee completed the RIS 2005-020 immediate (interim) operability evaluation in June 2011 . Additionally, the offices involved in NCP 2012-01 acknowledged that a final operability evaluation could not be completed by the licensee until the NRC decided what requirements and methods should be applied to new seismic information. At the time of Inspection Report 2011-05 issuance it was expected that the requirements and methods would be addressed in a License Amendment Request that was under consideration. However, by 3Q/2012, enough progress had been made on RIL 2012-01 for NRR and RES to conclude that the LTSP method of analysis used in the immediate operability assessment was sufficient to evaluate the Shoreline fault and that the Shoreline Fault should be considered a lesser included case of the Hosgri event. (The employee supported public release of the NCP ADAMS ML121A173.)

4. When was the DPO filed?

July 18, 2013. The former DCPP SRI filed Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) 2013-02 associated with the regulatory response following the discovery of the Shoreline Fault.

NRC employees are encouraged to file a DPO if they believe an agency decision is in error. The DPO process is in keeping with the agency's open and collaborative working environment.

DRAFT - OfflCIAL tlSE ONLY

!El~!PffltE INl'EfitNAL lf4fOfitMAl'IOf4 - f~Ol' fOfit fltlBLIC fitELEASE

5. What is the DPO?

DPO 2013-02 restated the issues presented in NCP 2012-01 and added a concern that a license amendment was needed incorporate the shoreline fault into Diablo Canyon's FSAR as described in the RIL 12-01 cover letter. The added concern was that the NRC did not review or take action on the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults.

6. What is the status of the DPO?

A decision on the DPO was issued by the Office Director for NRR on May 29, 2014 consistent with the NRC's process included in MD 10.159. The DPO submitter appealed this decision to the EDO on June 23, 2014, and the appeal was thoroughly evaluated by the EDO and decision on the appeal was rendered on September 9, 2014.

As part of the agency's open and collaborative work environment, the NRC has established the DPO program as a means for employees to have their concerns reviewed by high level managers. The DPO Program is a formal process that allows all employees and contractors to have their differing views on established, mission-related issues considered by the highest level managers in their organizations, i.e., Office Directors and Regional Administrators. The process also provides managers with an independent, three-person review of the issue (one person chosen by the employee). After a decision is issued to an employee, he or she may appeal the decision to the Executive Director for Operations (or the Chairman for those offices reporting to the Commission).

7. Will the decision regarding the DPO be made public?

The NRC supports openness and will include a summary of the disposition of the DPO in the Commission's Weekly Information Report included on the NRC Web site (see Commission Documents under the Document Collections in the NRC Library). The DPO submitter has been contacted regarding the EDO's decision on the DPO appeal and has communicated support for the public release of the DPO Case File (with appropriate redactions). The DPO Case File should be publicly available within a few days of the EDO's DPO appeal decision.

8. Was the SRI wrongfully reassigned after filing two non-concurrences and a DPO?

No. As noted in Q&A #1 above, the SRI applied for and was selected to a highly sought instructor position at the NRC's Technical Training Center. The NRC does not tolerate retaliation for engaging in the NCP or the DPO Program and both MDs reiterate this policy and direct employees to resources in the event they believe that they have been retaliated against.

9. Would the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision change based on the new seismic information found in the State of California report?

DRAFT - 6fflCIAL l::ISE 6NLY SENSl'fl'o'E INTE"NAL 1Nf'6 "MATION - NOT "O" fll::l!LIC "!L!A!!

PG&E, the licensee for Diablo Canyon, is providing a report to the State of California that includes the results of its most recent evaluation of the seismic hazards for the Diablo Canyon facility. The NRC understands that the report will be provided to the State of California on September 10, 2014, and that a copy will be provided to the NRC as well. Prior to performing a detailed review of this report, the NRC is not able to ascertain whether the new seismic information contained in the report would change the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision. The NRC understands that PG&E plans to incorporate the findings from this report into their ongoing analysis required by the NRC Post-Fukushima task force recommendations that are due in March 2015. The NRC believes this more rigorous analysis will provide the most accurate assessment of faults affecting the DCPP. In addition, the NRC staff's review of the new seismic information in the report notes that PG&E's evaluation concludes that the ground motions resulting from the faults discussed in the report (i.e.,

Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant.

NRC Resident Inspectors and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's corrective action process assessment of new preliminary information concerning DCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information indicates reasonable assurance of public health and safety after a seismic event.

The NRC staff will continue to review the new information provided in the report in accordance with the NRC's inspection process. The NRC will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the new information associated with the Faults around DCPP cause NRC to question PG&E's conclusions.

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:29 AM To: Markley, Michael Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret; Wertz, Trent

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO Case File Attachments: RE: Draft WIR

Mike, I'm sorry if there is a misunderstanding about the process. I thought I explained this before that NRR does the review of existing records and provides approval for discretionary release, but OE has responsibility for creating and releasing the stand-alone DPO Case File record. (Trent is familiar with our process.)

We have been working closely with OEDO and have taken action to have the DPO Case File available for immediate public release. We did this last night and it should be available later today. I hope this addresses your concern.

Renee From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:08 AM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO case File Importance: High

Renee, Please call me. The MD states that the DPO PM makes the DPO Case File Publicly available. Your e-mail seems to state that NRR is responsible for making the Case File available publicly. We could do that except that the DPO Case File I saw in ADAMS this morning still does not have the NRR Director's Statement of Views or EDO's Appeal Decision loaded into the case file. This needs to be made publicly available this morning in advance of the release of the new DCPP seismic report.

Pllease call me at 415-5723 as soon as practicable this morning. I have several meetings, if you miss me, please call Eric Oesterle at 415-1014.

Mike Markley From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 2:53 PM To: Dorman, Dan Cc: Wertz., Trent; Uhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO case File Importance: High

Dan, The EDO has issued his decision and the employee has asked that the DPO Case File be made available to the public.

1

We have previously communicated with your staff and they indicated that they did not see the need for any redactions in the DPO Case File.

In accordance with the guidance in MD 10.159, you are responsible for ensuring that information is appropriately released to the public.

Therefore, please confirm that you support public release of the complete DPO Case File.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

We are hoping to get this declared as a public OAR ASAP so it will be available to the public by tomorrow.

Renee 2

F1rom: Pedersen, Renee Se nt: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:01 PM To: Solorio, Dave

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO Case File Attachments: Anticipating Need for Public Release of DPO Case File

Dave, We have already been working this issue to support a fast track. I believe that this happened while you were out, but you were copied.

From: Solorio, Dave Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:56 PM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO case File What I don't understand was why he was able to respond so fast.

He must have known previously you were working to this goal?

He must have known , you don't state it, that the EDO wanted this released like yesterday? You just said the EDO wanted it public but didn't indicate timing of making it public.

Thanks Dave From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:54 PM To: Dorman, Dan Cc: Wertz., Trent; Uhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO case File Thanks!!

F,rom: Dorman, Dan _

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:35 PM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Wertz., Trent; Uhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

Re: ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO case File

Renee, I approve release of the DPO Case File as discussed below.

Thanks Dan 1

From : Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 02:53 PM To: Dorman, Dan Cc: Wertz, Trent; Uhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

ACTION: Need Approval for Public Release of DPO case File

Dan, The EDO has issued his decision and the employee has asked that the DPO Case File be made available to the public.

We have previously communicated with your staff and they indicated that they did not see the need for any redactions in the DPO Case File.

In accordance with the guidance in MD 10.159, you are responsible for ensuring that information is appropriately released to the public.

Therefore, please confirm that you support public release of the complete DPO Case File.

If you have any questions, please let us know.

We are hoping to get this declared as a public OAR ASAP so it will be available to the public by tomorrow.

Renee 2

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:09 PM To: Satorius, Mark Cc: Galloway, Melanie; Sampson, Michele; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

FW: QUESTION: Decision on DPO Appeal

Mark, I wanted to forward this email for your information.

In addition, Michele mentioned that you would still like to issue Certificates of Appreciation to the employee and to the DPO Panel. This is a good way to express appreciation and also allow participants to share insights from the process. We can work with Jane to set up a short 15 minute meeting with the DPO Panel. Because the employee is not local, you could arrange a phone call. Just let us know if you have any additional requests/issues.

Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 201412:55 PM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

QUESTION: Decision on DPO Appeal I'm a bit confused. Mr. Satorius said " .. I am unable to arrive at the same conclusion whereby you excluded the Hosgri evaluation and associated methodologies from the licensing basis."

1. I don't believe I did excluded the Hosgri evaluation and associated methodologies from the licensing basis, and

2. Is he saying a violation of 50.59 did not occur?

msp From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 2:20 PM To: Peck, Michael

Subject:

RE: Decision on DPO Appeal

Michael, Thank you for your prompt response. We will do our best to create a record that is legible prior to release. We appreciate your earlier email bringing this to our attention. I'll let you know when the DPO Case File is public.

Thank you once again for your participation in this important agency process.

Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 2:10 PM

To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RES: Decision on DPO Appeal

Renee, Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the Agency's DPO process.

Please make the DPO Case File available to the public.

Please replace Document 5, DPO Appeal Submittal (ML14177A534), with the more legible copy prior to release.

Thank you, Michael From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 1:46 PM To: Peck, Michael

Subject:

Decision on DPO Appeal Importance: High

Michael, Here is the EDO's decision on your appeal. It will be dispatched via ADAMS shortly and the signed memo will be sent to you in an Addressee Only envelop.

Section (0)(7) in the Handbook for MD 10.159 addresses DPO records. The guidance provides you with an opportunity to request that the records be made available to the public. If you want the records public (with or without release of your identity), the records included in the DPO Case File will be subject to a releasability review to support discretionary release.

The records included in the DPO Case File include:

Document 1: DPO Submittal Document 2: Memo from Office Director Establishing DPO Panel Document 3: DPO Panel Report Document 4: DPO Decision Document 5: DPO Appeal Submittal Document 6: Office Director's Statement of Views Document 7: DPO Submitter's Appeal Presentation to OEDO Document 8: DPO Appeal Decision Please respond to this email and highlight your preference from the three choices listed below.

1. You want the DPO Case File made available to the public.

2. You want the DPO Case File made public, but want your name redacted.

3. You want the DPO case file made non-public (only the DPOPM and the EDO will have NRC viewer rights in ADAMS).

If you want the records public, a link to the DPO Case File will be included in the summary of the decision that is included in Weekly Information Report posted on the public Web site. In addition, your DPO will be posted on the DPO Web page of the internal Web site.

2

Please let me know if you have any questions. I look forward to your response.

Thanks, Renee 3

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:48 PM To: Mcintyre, David Cc: Sewell, Margaret; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: DPO process I forgot to mention that a summary we be included in the WIR and the WIR links to the ADAMS ML number.

don't know what the schedule is for input to the WIR or when the WIR gets posted to the public web site.

From: McIntyre, David Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:46 PM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Sewell, Margaret; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: DPO process OK, thanks.

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:45 PM To: McIntyre, David Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: DPO process Peck should receive it when Mark issues it to him. Once I know he has it, I send email asking about release. When (if) he wants public, we bundle the entire record into one pdf and send to NRR to ask to redact (if necessary). Then they send back to us and we then put record in ADAMS. It then goes from our ADAMS to ADAMS web which can take a another day.

Renee From: McIntyre, David Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:18 AM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

DPO process Hi Renee - I understand Mark S is planning to sign out the DPO today. Can you fill me in on the sequence of events after he does that? When does Peck receive it? And when will Peck be asked if he wants to make it public?

Thanks, Dave

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:16 PM To: Lising, Jason; Sewell, Margaret; Thompson, Catherine; Sieracki, Diane Cc: Salter, Susan; Miller, Ilyne

Subject:

RE: News coverage of Diablo Canyon DPO

Jason, Thanks for forwarding. We have been working with the OEDO and OPA on this.

From: Using, Jason Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:12 PM To: Pedersen, Renee; Sewell, Margaret; Thompson, catherine; Sieracki, Diane Cc: Salter, Susan; Miller, Ilyne

Subject:

FW: News coverage of Diablo canyon DPO Good afternoon Renee, Margi, Kitty, and Diane-I was forwarded this information from Drew Stuyvenberg and wanted to share it with you for your situational awareness if in case you hadn't seen it yet.

Hope you are all doing well, Jason From: Stuyvenberg, Andrew Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 10:12 AM To: Using, Jason

Subject:

News coverage of Diablo canyon DPO Jason-I'm sure you all are aware of this issue, but I wanted to pass along two news items from today's summary, just in case you haven't seen them, because I think they relate to how the agency manages the DPO or NC process when the information is of high interest to the public, and the agency must then respond publicly to issues raised in a DPO or NC.

I hope all is well!

Best, Drew NRC Says Differing Professional Opinion On Diablo Canyon Earthquake Concerns Will Be Addressed. In a letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/5, 126K) Lara Uselding, NRC spokeswoman with the Region IV public affairs office in Arlington, Texas, wrote that the "word on the street" as reflected in a recent editorial and letter to the editor is that the NRC "has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion and is hiding its contents. This is incorrect." Uselding said a "differing professional opinion (DPO) is one of many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting 1

their differing views, including an open door policy and a non-concurrence process." Uselding outlines the agency's guidance for implementing the DPO process, and that Michael Peck's appeal of an earlier rejection would come under "additional review from the executive director of operations."

Editorial Urges Further Investigation Of Diablo Canyon Safety Concerns. In an editorial, the Sacramento (CA) Bee (9/6, 582K) writes that a "leaked report" by Nuclear Regulatory Commission inspector Michael Peck report which advises the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant be shut down to further assess seismic safety "once again raises key questions about the plant's ability to withstand an earthquake." The editorial argues that "the NRC should not be rubber-stamping PG&E's requests or minimizing concerns," and that "the NRC has been less than transparent in responding to the concerns of a respected member of its own staff."

The Bee notes that "Sen. Barbara Boxer... plans to hold hearings on earthquake risks at Diablo Canyon," and concludes "If it takes a congressional hearing to get straight answers from the NRC, we strongly support that step."

Drew Stuyvenberg U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-287-0756 Andrew.Stuyvenberg@nrc.gov 2

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2014 2:21 PM To: Sampson, Michele;! (b)(6)

Cc: Zimmerman, Roy; Brock, Kathryn; Galloway, Melanie; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: DPO 2013-002

Michele, Thanks again for your support on this important process. I just wanted to point out a process correction regarding the DPO Case File.

In particular, I will send an email to the employee when the decision is issued to the employee and ask him to reply (in writing) if he wants the case file public.

Homt lnsert Page layout Rtftrencu Mailings Rt".lltW \11,w AD.6.MS Acrobat SecureZJP I~  : ~~ . -1{ ,.

t.LJ ADC i.!1JJ a~ . i- L] ':j t:J tJ r finol: Show Mork up j Show Markup

• I

~ V

• )

Pm1ou, J C Sp ell1r1g &. Ruurd1 G~mmar Th,au,us \.'"Jord Cou~

T,ans,,tt Unguag, Ntw Comment Otlttt Ptt\'ious t~l!xt

. Trad.

(hinges ...

Iii!) Reviewing Pine ..

A<Ctpt RtJtct Ntxt Compare- &!ud' J,tJl hi,t ,

Rt1 Edit l'loorlng Cor,1rncr.ts fr tc~ing (hsngel Coniptrt Prt>ttct

-~ * '

• t * '

• 1 * '

• I * ' *

• I

• * * ) * '

• I * *

• 4 *

• I

' '"' 5 ' * ' I '  :-* 'n,_

l t V f l U..;l f V l f ...VWVWI . . . . V ....

• t U I I . . : .... - I I W'IYIII I Y ........... -..v 1 1 ¥ ,

I would like to commend you on a package that was well-researche , and insightful. Bas my review, discussion with the Ad Hoc Review Panel, and our Interview, I agree that ther significant or Immediate safety cone em associated with the Issue you have raised. How1 you have highlighted the complexity of the Dlablo Canyon licensing basis as documente<

Final Safety Analysis Report Update, which Is a direct result of how the licensing basis w augmented during the orlglnal llcenslng process, between Issuance of the construction p, 1968 and Issuance of the operating llcenslng In 1984. While I appreciate your concern~

clarity of the Final Safely Analysis Report Update. I am unable to arrive at the same cone wherebyyou exclude the li2!9r! evaluation and associated methodologies from the Ileen basis.

Nevertheless, your questioning attitude and perseverance were j(ey, to ensuring that the licensee and statrfully evaluated the lmpllcallons of the Shoreline fault zone. In addition raising awareness oft he complexity of the DCPP seismic licensing basis. you have lllust1 the need for the agency to ensure there are clear guidelines for starr and licensees re gar how changes In natural hazards should be evaluated. This awareness Is partlculartyllm1 Important as fNe move forward ~!1.~_th~-~-1:'~':l.~~Jn:i.~.~~~J.I~~lll .T.~~.f.~!-~~-~-~ -~n:i.l!'!~.n~~-

ln accordance with Management Directive 10.159, a summary of this DPO appeal declsf, be Included In the Weekly Information Report fl1ll!filposted on the NRC's public web site advise Interested employees and members of the public of the outcome. Now that the pr Is complete. you may request that the DPO Case File be public and a link to the DPO Ca (with redactions, if applicable) W ill be included in the WIR. Tl:re p1:1bli6 reserlls fer tt:lis QPC available In the QPO sase me paskage In ,11,QAMS Assesslon No. MLXYJ'.XXY_'(X_

I want to thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. Your DPO was well thou~

and researched. As you know, our agency relies on Its starr members to raise concerns regarding decisions so that they can be properly considered. Your perseverance In ralsh these concerns demonstrates your dedication to safety that Is the foundation of the agen excellent starr. and I applaud your errorts In this regard. I take concerns such as the one:

raised very seriously, and hope that my Interactions With you have demonstrated my erroJ consider and fairly evaluate your concerns In making my decision.

From: Sampson, Michele Se~

• S: t11cdav Seoterober; r 014 1:40 PM To (b)(6)

Cc immerman, Roy; Broc ; thryn; Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

DPO 2013-002 Attached is draft text for your review. On Friday, Renee, Kathy, Melanie, and Roy provided comments. I met with Roy on Friday afternoon to discuss the comments and have incorporated all of the comments into the current draft.

Thank you, Michele Sampson, Chief Licensing Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division 2

Mail Stop 3WFN-14A44 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Phone: 301-287-9077 3

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 2:07 PM To: Wertz, Trent Cc: Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave Subje ct: FW: question: who has the lead on the DPO communication plan and changes needed when DPO is released Attachments: DCPP DPO Key Messages 2.docx; Diablo seismic process key messages_srb+ero.docx

Trent, Mike asked me to call him and I spent some time explaining our process, but I'm not sure he gets it. That's OK, as long as you get it. The only document that may be released is the pdf DPO Case File "roll up" that will include the cover sheet. We are not changing the profile for any of the existing documents. We will also have a pdf of the file that the staff will have access to and that will be on the web.

Renee From: Markley, Michael Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014' i :30 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Useldlng, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Pedersen, Renee; Wertz, Trent; Lund, Louise; Slngal, Balwant; Lyon, Fred; Dudek, Michael; Walker, Wayne

Subject:

RE: question: who has the lead on the DPO communication plan and changes needed when DPO ls released Lara and Scott The communication plan is simple. We will provide a one-pager communications plan, with FAQs, on Monday summarizing the following:

We cannot release anything without the DPO submitter authorizing it. Renee Pedersen will confirm that and whether or not the individual wants his PII redacted. We are working to make all of the documents that can be made available publicly upon notification from OE. We will inform you, Scott, Trent. and others in Headquarters and RIV when the review is complete.

NRR would expect to send an EDO Daily Note informing of the public release of the DPO Case File. OE will release the ADAMS accessibility change to ADAMS IM.

Attached are the talking points we would hope for people to use. No press release is planned.

Mike From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 10:03 AM To: Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

FW: question: who has the lead on the DPO communication plan and changes needed when DPO Is released FYI - joe From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, September 05/ 2014 10:01 AM 1

To: Sebrosky, Joseph Cc: Burnell, Scott; Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: question: who has the lead on the DPO communication plan and changes needed when DPO is released Hello Joe- I'm looping in HQ OPA so they know about the two efforts. I haven't heard anything on a separate DPO comm plan as we do have talkers in our current comm plan. I'm sure Mike or Eric can find out what the EDO's office message will be. We had discussed on one call that the EDO cover letter will include language that can be used as key messages.

Lara From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 7:18 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara

Subject:

question: who has the lead on the DPO communication plan and changes needed when DPO is released Mike, Eric, Balwant, Wayne, and Lara, The purpose of this email is to inquire as to who has the headquarters lead on the DPO comm plan and adjustments to this comm plan that will be made to reflect when the DPO's panel's recommendations and the DPO appeal are made publicly available?

It is my current understanding that the DPO panel's response and the DPO appeal decision maybe made publicly available next week. Although independent of the public release of the State of California report, the two issues are sure to be tied together in questions to the NRC.

I understand that I have the headquarters lead to work with the Region on the draft communication plan for the State of California report (which will be adjusted on 9/9 based on our quick look at the report).

Who has the lead for making changes to the DPO communication plan to reflect questions that we may get after the DPO panel's recommendation and DPO appeal decision are made publicly available? A second related question is whether or not the DPO comm plan or the State of California comm plan will address the following question:

Would the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision change based on the new seismic information found in the State of California report?

Any insights would be appreciated.

Thanks, Joe 2

DCPP DPO Key Messages:

• The NRC really appreciates members of the staff bring issues like this to its attention

• We encourage the use of non-concurrences and the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) process

• We review all non-concurrences and DPOs thoroughly

• It is a healthy and necessary part the regulatory process

• In the end, all of our regulatory decisions are better because of this process

• We do also have an obligation to protect the individual(s) submitting non-concurrences and IDPOs

• The DPO process is a non-public process

• It is a strictly controlled and formalized process

• Persons serving on the DPO Panels are independent of the issues raised in the DPO

• Upon disposition of the DPO via a Director's decision, the DPO submitter has appeal rights to the EDO

• While the DPO is under review or appeal, NRC is prohibited from engaging in discussions with external stakeholders regarding the specifics of the of the DPO submittal

• After the EDO's decision, the individual has the right to make the DPO case file public to the extent that personal privacy information and SUNSI information is not contained in the DPO

• Regarding the DPO for Diablo Canyon, we will be as open and scrutable as we can be while protecting the privacy rights of the individual

• We do not know the source of the public release of the Diablo Canyon DPO submittal

• We can, however, comment on a few aspects of our review o A Director's Decision has been made and the DPO appeal to the EDO has been finalized o We are seeking permission from the DPO submitter to release the DPO case file o We would expect the public release to be within a few weeks but no later than early October, if authorized

• Regarding the operational status of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 o The plant remains within its design and licensing basis o We have no current operability concerns resulting from the DPO o We would also note that there were no adverse impacts on the units from the recent earthquake in the Napa Valley

PG&E Seismic Report (AB 1632) Key Messages:

• The NRC has previously concluded that Diablo Canyon can operate safely based on information the agency has reviewed before the AB 1632 report.

• The NRC will review the new information and take any appropriate regulatory actions based on that assessment

• The licensee is always responsible for ensuring safe operation of its facilities

• Licensees perform operability determinations to ensure the structures, systems, and components (SSCs) remain operable as required by the plant Technical Specifications

• When new information is identified by the licensee, NRC, or a third party, the licensee performs an operability evaluation

• Licensees also perform evaluations to ensure the SSCs meet their intended safety functions, particularly when a degraded or non-conforming condition exists.

• Licensees also use their Probabilistic Risk Assessments (PRAs) to assess the risk impacts and determine whether certain SSCs may remain functional

• Licensees also enter this information and associated studies in its corrective action program (CAP)

• NRC performs regulatory oversight of the licensees decisions using the Reactor Oversight Process (ROP) including both the operability determinations and use of the CAP

• NRC Guidance is provided in Inspection Manual Chapter 0326, "Operability Determinations and Functionality Assessments for Conditions Adverse to Quality or Safety"

• PG&E has performed additional seismic studies as required by California Coastal Commission and California Public Utility Commission with state-of-the-art methods in accordance with Assembly Bill 1632

• PG&E expected to submit Seismic Report to CA State on September 9 or 10, 2014

• PG&E has stated they will provide the Seismic Report to NRC at or about the same time

• PG&E has stated that the new Seismic Report will provide additional characterization of the Shoreline fault, has performed its operability and functional evaluations, and is entering it into its CAP.

• PG&E has stated that the Seismic Report concludes that the seismic risks are bounded by the Hosgri fault and that Diablo Canyon remains within its design and licensing basis

• NRC will independently verifying the operational/functional evaluations performed by PG&E when the report is available

• NRC actions will include:

o An initial evaluation of the licensee's operability and functional determinations by the resident inspectors, regional staff, and any needed Headquarters support o A more detailed evaluation by seismic and structural experts o An evaluation of the risk estimates relative to the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement o An evaluation of the Seismic Report and the information expected to be provided in response to the 10 CFR 50.54(f) letter on Fukushima actions

• NRC expects that the results of the seismic study will be considered as part of PG&E's response to the NRC that is due in March 2015 in response to the 50.54(f) letter requesting information on updated seismic hazards

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 12:47 PM To: Markley, Michael; Case, Michael; Singal, Balwant Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Wertz, Trent; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Lyon, Fred; Sebrosky, Joseph; Poole, Brooke

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files (9-elO se. .sitive ;., ,twl i, :fo:., 1.:tw,-+-

Attachments: Releasability Review of DPO Case Files-2014.docx

Mike, Unfortunately, I'm working at home today. When release issues get tricky, that's when we should reach out to OGC. I've called Brooke Poole and made her aware of this situation.

Renee From: Markley, Michael Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 12:06 PM To: Pedersen, Renee; case, Michael; Slngal, Balwant Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Wertz, Trent; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Lyon, Fred; Sebrosky, Joseph

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files (000 - Sc::s:mc .11tc:::0Mttib:11mi:ion)

Renee, Some of the things Mike cites in the non-public sections are problematic for us. The DPO Panel cited documents and had discussions about things that we (NRR) do not have nor have access to them. Some things, like the pre-licensing meeting summaries should be publicly available. Legal opinions are not. We need Mike's help to identify what he would suggest be redacted from the list if anything.

We can leave it all in there, but we are going to get FOIAs on it all.

Renee, are you available to meet in my office 0-8H1 at 1:00 p.m.? Eric, Balwant, Joe, Fred?

Mike Markley From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 8:43 AM To: case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Singal, Balwant Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Wertz, Trent; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files

Mike, Thanks for your support on the panel report. I'm glad we're making progress so that we can fast track the DPO Case File when the EDO issues his decision.

Renee

From: Case, Michael Sent: Friday, September os*, 2014 8:39 AM To: Markley, Michael; Singal, Balwant Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files Hello gentlemen. I looked at the DPO panel report and I don't find anything there that shouldn't be released publically. There are a couple of things that I would appreciate your consideration. In the references section of the report, we list publically available documents, non-publically available documents, and information that we couldn't find in ADAMs but to us may not be publically available. What should we do with those lists?

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Thursday, September 04, 20i4 3:32 PM To: Singal, Balwant; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Case, Michael; Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files

Balwant, The target here is to have the documents screened and ready for public release and/or redaction upon approval be the EDO. That may happen as soon as 9/9 or 9/10. The DPO Case File still cannot be released unless requested by the DPO submitter. That authorization will have to come through Renee Pedersen, the DPO Coordinator.

The DPO Panel Chair, Mike Case has agreed to assist you as needed. See Eric Oesterle if you need additional help.

Mike From: Singal, Balwant .

Sent: Thursday, September 04, '2014 3:04 PM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files

Renee, I am the Project Manager for Diablo Canyon. Presently, I do not have access to most of the files associated with the subject DPO. I could access only one file related to the appeal. Can you please provide me with the access to all the files ASAP?

Thanks.

2

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:32 AM To: Peck, Michael Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Michael, I am so sorry that this issue has evolved the way it has. Sometimes the press has a way of telling stories that it believes will titillate its readers. This is why we try so hard to prevent release of documents until the process is complete and until we get a request for release from the DPO submitter. (I'm assuming that you will want the DPO Case file public?) Of course, this isn't always a guarantee that the press will get it right, but at least the facts are out there.

I do not think of you as a whistleblower. I do think that you are senior employee with expertise in nuclear reactor regulation and that you have been following agency policy to speak up and following agency policy that 1 allows you to pursue your concerns. I certainly hope that you aren't getting the "harry eyeball" from any of your co-workers about your DPO or the fact that it looks like it got leaked to the press. Please let me know if you are having problems and we can talk about possible strategies to make sure that you are comfortable in your workplace.

Thanks raising your concern about the clarity of your appeal. We'll look into this.

Have a good weekend!

Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 i0:40 AM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

FW: REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Renee, Margaret, I hope this e-mail fides your both well. The DPO story seems to evolve with each retelling in the press. I haven't spoken to any reporters about the DPO. However, apparently I am not only a senior agency official ,

and nuclear expert, but also a "whistle blower."

The ADAMS file (ML14177A534) still has the somewhat illegible copy of the DPO 2013-002 Appeal. Some of the FSARU exhibits in the ADAMS copy are unreadable. Presumably the poor document qualify resulted from the original document being printed and then re-scanned.

I've attached a clean copy of the Appeal with the completed NRC Form 690. Could you take the action to replace the current ADAMS copy with the attached file?

Thank you, Michael

From: Peck, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:42 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; DPOPM Resource Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal Renee, I added the completed DPO cover sheet to the DPO 2013-002 Appeal file (attached). Would you mind replacing the attached file with the copy currently in ADAMS (ML14177A534). The attached file should provide a more legible copy.

Thank you, Michael From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:12 PM To: Satorius, Mark; Zimmerman, Roy; Leeds, Eric; Galloway, Melanie; Dorman, Dan Cc: Hilton, Nick; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret; Peck, Michael; case, Michael; Hill, Brittain; Bernhard, Rudolph

Subject:

Acceptance of DPO Appeal Importance: High In my capacity as the DPOPM, and in coordination with the Acting Director, OE, I am notifying you that we have received, screened, and accepted a DPO appeal for DP0-2013-002, involving seismic issues at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant.

The DPO appeal process is included in Section E of the DPO MD 10. 159 Handbook.

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/ADM/DAS/cag/Management Directives/md10.159.pdf In accordance with the guidance in MD 10.159, the Director, NRR will develop a written statement of views (SOVs) on the contested issues included in the appeal and provide it to the EDO (via the DPOPM).

Once the DPOPM receives a SOVs from the Director, NRR, we will forward them to the EDO along with the DPO appeal package for review and issuance of a DPO Appeal Decision.

In accordance with MD 10.159, the EDO has complete discretion to conduct the review of the DPO appeal in any manner deemed appropriate. As such, the EDO may choose to:

• conduct a series of interviews (including one with the submitter),

• establish another independent review of the issues, or

• implement another evaluation strategy.

The timeliness goal for the DPO Appeal Decision is 30 to 60 calendar days of receiving the DPO appeal package from the DPOPM.

Please feel free to contact me or my backup, Marge Sewell, at any time during this process if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.

DPOPM.Resource@nrc.gov Renee Pedersen Sr. Differing Views Program Manager (301) 415-2742 2

Marge Sewell Safety Culture Specialist (301) 415-8045 3

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:33 PM To: Markley, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Wertz, Trent Cc: Case, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files Attachments: MPeck -DPO 2013-002 Appeal Discussion July 30 2014.pdf; Releasability Review of DPO Case Files-2014.docx Note: The first attachment is Document 5 in the publicly available DP02013-002 case file (ML14252A743).

It is my understanding that we are on track for reviewing those documents that will make up the DPO Case File.

I'm attaching one more document and that is the employee's slides that he used to brief the EDO.

I wouldn't expect to see the need for a lot of redaction, except possibly Pl I that could be in the submittal and the panel report.

If you have any questions, please free to contact me or Marge Sewell.

Thanks!

Renee From: Markley, Michael Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:32 PM To: Singal, Balwant; Pedersen, Renee Cc: case, Michael; Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

RE: Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files

Balwant, The target here is to have the documents screened and ready for public release and/or redaction upon approval be the EDO. That may happen as soon as 9/9 or 9/10. The DPO Case File still cannot be released unless requested by the DPO submitter. That authorization will have to come through Renee Pedersen, the DPO Coordinator.

The DPO Panel Chair, Mike Case has agreed to assist you as needed. See Eric Oesterle if you need additional help.

Mike From: Singal, Balwant This complete email may be found as Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:04 PM document M/12a in interim response #5 in To: Pedersen, Renee FOIA/PA-2014-0488 (ML15224A774).

Cc: case, Michael; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric

Subject:

Request for Access to DPO 2013-002 Files

Renee, I am the Project Manager for Diablo Canyon. Presently, I do not have access to most of the files associated with the subject DPO. I could access only one file related to the appeal. Can you please provide me with the access to all the files ASAP?

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:00 PM To: Harrington, Holly

Subject:

FW: Draft Letter to the Editor Attachments: TODAY comments from RP.docx

Holly, I only made a minor revision, but you may want to tighten this up, because we essentially repeat our process in two places. I leave it up to you. I also think it would be good to include the link for the DPO MD in the article, because I think that's the key message. We are following our process.

http://www.internal.nrc.gov/ADM/DAS/cag/Management Directives/md10.159.pdf Renee From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:53 PM To: Galloway, Melanie; Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor

Melanie, I appreciate your comments. The DPO Program supports openness by always posting a summary of the DPO and its disposition on the public web site in the WIR.

The current DPO MD is very restrictive and specific on public release of the DPO Case file.

In particular, it provides that if the employee does not want public release, that viewer rights in ADAMS be restricted to the DPO PM and the EDO (or Commission if the DPO was from an office reporting to the Commission.)

The thought is that we don't want to chill an employee from submitting a DPO because they don't want to be subject to possible public scrutiny by release of the entire case file.

If the employee wants public release, the OD/RA has responsibility for performing a releasabilty review consistent with all agency requirements, including the NRC Policy for Handling, Marking, and Protecting Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI); MD 3.4; and MD 3.1. In other words, even if the employee wants the entire Case File public, it is always management's responsibility to determine whether public release (with or without redactions) is appropriate.

The current revised DPO MD out for comment is somewhat of a compromise. The employee can still ask that it be public or non-public, but if they want the file non-public normally it will be available to all NRC viewers. It also emphasizes that it is management's decision to support discretionary release.

I'm including some suggested changes.

Renee From: Galloway, Melanie Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:13 PM To: Pedersen, Renee; Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy 1

Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor My only comment is that the letter implies in 3 places that the only consideration in public release is whether the submitter would like the information released. But isn't there also consideration from an agency standpoint as to whether we want public release? Maybe not in this case but in general. And I wouldn't want to leave an impression that the only consideration is with the views of the submitter. Before stating that we will provide a public link to the DPO case file, we should ensure that we agree it can all be released.

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:10 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Galloway, Melanie; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor

Holly, Here are my comments on the article. I tried to put a link to the DPO MD under the words about DPO guidance, but it wouldn't link in the redline strikeout mode. You may want to do this, because the message is that we are in process!

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Renee From: Harrington, Holly _

Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:40 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor To clarify- we assume you will share this with whomever else need to also review it. We will share a final (if it gets to that point) with the Chairman's Office.

Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Draft Letter to the Editor We have drafted a proposed "Letter to the Editor" in response to an earlier editorial and a letter to the editor at t he San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/1, 126K which says, in part, that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report, "twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line t hat lies approximately just 650 yards from Diablo Canyon." Peck is concerned "that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at t he plant will never withstand 2

the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC " never responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."

The letter to the editor addressing primarily the issue above in red is attached. Can you please review it to ensure it is factually accurate and appropriately worded. Please send me any suggestions for changes. We will then run it by the Chairman's Office.

We do need to do this quickly in order for it to be relevant in the " news" world, so I apologize for the haste with which we'd like it reviewed.

Thank you!

Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 3

LEITER TO THE EDITOR:

The word on the street, as reflected in an Aug. 28 editorial entitled "NRC should respond to the Diablo report" and a Sep. 1 "Close Diablo Canyon" letter, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion and is hiding its contents. A Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) is one of many paths t he NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.

To provide clarity, in accordance with the guidance for implementing the DPO process, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director t o the submitter, Michael Peck, and he appealed the decision resulting in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that decision is rendered, a summary will be posted on the NRC public Web site as part of the Commission's Weekly Information Report. In addition, if the submi'tter a-fl-request~ to have the documents publically released, the summary will include a link to the DPO Case File.

Before this process was complete, a document purporting to be Mr. Peck's DPO was published by interest groups. In keeping w ith our practice te-not to release predecisional documents and to protect those who want to challenge an agency decision, that document was not provided by the NRC. Those who suggest the decision was hidden are mistaken. The DPO process is an int ernal process and NRC employees have a right to privacy. After a final decision is issued, documents may be made public if the submitter requests public release in writing.agicees-:

NRC strives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and DPOs.

The NRC expects to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will askseelE 13en'RissioA frol'R the submitter whether he would like public ta-release of the DPO

~ease £file. We ha*1e recei11ed AO request from Hie subl'Ritter at this writiAg to A'lake the documeAts

~

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:54 PM To: Peck, Michael Cc: Sewell, Margaret Subje ct: RE: DPO in the Press Michael, It's my understanding that the EDO is still in the process of reviewing the appeal and it may be issued in early to mid-September.

With respect to timeliness, although the current MD says that a decision should be issued 30 - 60 days from receipt of the appeal, in practice, we calculate 30 - 60 days from the EDO receiving the DPO appeal package, which includes the appeal, the OD's Statement of Views, the DPO Decision, the DPO Panel report, and the DPO submittal.

Mark did not take receipt of the package until 7/7/2014 which would generate a September 5, 2014, goal. I emphasize the word goal, because the EDO wants to make sure that he has sufficient time to render a well informed and well written decision.

Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6 !49 PM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: DPO in the Press No, I hadn't - I'm out of the office this week for training.

To best on my knowledge, the appeal had not been resolved, even thought the 60 days has come and gone.

Just so you know, I wasn't the one who leaked the DPO to the press.

ms From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:42 AM To: Peck, Michael Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

DPO in the Press

Michael, By now I'm sure that you have seen the coverage in the press on your DPO. I'm sorry that your DPO has been released prematurely and I'm sorry that your name is being cited in the press. We work very hard to protect your identity while your concerns are being evaluated in the DPO process and remind participants that although it is appropriate for employees to discuss the details of active DPOs with NRG co-workers as part of the evaluation, as with other predecisional processes, employees should not discuss specific details of activP.

DPOs outside of the agency.

As you know, after the decision on the DPO appeal is issued, you can request that the DPO Case file be made public (with or without your identity). In the meantime, the agency's response is that we will not discuss the case (including your identity) until the process is complete.

Please let us know if you believe that release of your name is resulting in negative consequences in your workplace.

Renee & Marge Expert calls for closure of Diab lo Canyon, Senate committee plans hearings Michael R. Blood I AP 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> ago Show caption A senior federal nuclear expert is urging regulators to shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo. MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images .

2

3 Share this story

• Share via Email

• Share on Twitter3

• Share on Facebookl Update: 5:40 p.m.

A U.S. Senate committee is planning hearings on earthquake risks at California's last operating nuclear power plant.

The hearings were announced Monday after The Associated Press disclosed that a senior federal expert is urging regulators to shut down the Diablo Canyon plant until they can determine whether its reactors can withstand powerful shaking from nearby earthquake faults.

U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer - who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee- says that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is failing to do its job to protect public safety.

She says she's alarmed that the recommendation by Michael Peck, the NRC's former lead inspector at the plant, was made a year ago and the agency hasn't acted.

4

The NRC and plant owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co. say the facility is safe.

- AP Earlier:

A senior federal nuclear expert is urging regulators to shut down California's last operating nuclear plant until they can determine whether the facility's twin reactors can withstand powerful shaking from any one of several nearby earthquake faults.

Michael Peck, who for five years was Diablo Canyon's lead on-site inspector, says in a 42-page, confidential report that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not applying the safety rules it set out for the plant's operation.

The document, which was obtained and verified by The Associated Press, does not say the plant itself is unsafe.

Instead, according to Peck's analysis, no one knows whether the facility's key equipment can withstand strong shaking from those faults - the potential for which was realized decades after the facility was built.

Continuing to run the reactors, Peck writes, "challenges the presumption of nuclear safety."

Peck's July 201 3 filing is part of an agency review in which employees can appeal a supervisor's or agency ruling - a process that normally takes 60 to 120 days, but can be extended. The NRC, however, has not yet ruled. Spokeswoman Lara Uselding said in emails that the agency would have no comment on the document.

The NRC, which oversees the nation's commercial nuclear power industry, and Diablo Canyon owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co., say the nearly three-decade-old reactors, which produce enough electricity for more than 3 million people annually, are safe and that the facility complies with its operating license, including earthquake safety standards.

PG&E spokesman Blair Jones said the NRC has exhaustively analyzed earthquake threats for Diablo Canyon and demonstrated that it "is seismically safe." Jones said in an email that the core issue involving earthquake ground motions was resolved in the late 1970s with seismic retrofitting of the plant.

The disaster preparedness of the world's nuclear plants came into sharp focus in 2011 , when the coastal Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan suffered multiple meltdowns after an earthquake and tsunami destroyed its power and cooling systems. The magnitude-9 earthquake was far larger than had been believed possible. The NRC has since directed U.S. nuclear plants to reevaluate seismic risks, and those studies are due by March 2015.

The importance of such an analysis was underscored Sunday when a magnitude 6.0-earthquake struck in Northern California's wine country, injuring scores of residents, knocking out power to thousands and toppling wine bottles at vineyards.

U.S. Rep. Lois Capps, a California Democrat whose district includes the plant, said in a statement Monday she would push for tough oversight and additional studies. "The safety of our community is always my top priority.

The community deserves to be fully informed," she said.

Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon - the state's last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onofre reactors in Southern California - as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting. In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco on the Pacific coast and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength.

What's striking about Peck's analysis is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant's mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result.

The conflict between Peck and his superiors stems from the 2008 discovery of the Shoreline fault, which snakes offshore about 650 yards from the reactors. A larger crack, the Hosgri fault, had been discovered in the 1970s about 3 miles away, after the plant's construction permits had been issued and work was underway. Surveys have mapped a network of other faults north and south of the reactors.

According to Peck's filing, PG&E research in 2011 determined that any of three nearby faults - the Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay - is capable of producing significantly more ground motion during an earthquake than was accounted for in the design of important plant equipment. In the case of San Luis Bay, it is as much as 75 percent more.

5

Those :findings involve estimates of what's called peak ground acceleration, a measurement of how hard the earth could shake in a given location. The analysis says PG&E failed to demonstrate that the equipment would remain operable if exposed to the stronger shaking, violating its operating license.

The agency should shut the facility down until it is proven that piping, reactor cooling and other systems can meet higher stress levels, or approve exemptions that would allow the plant to continue to operate, according to Peck's analysis.

Peck disagreed with his supervisors' decision to let the plant continue to operate without assessing the findings.

Unable to resolve his concerns, Peck in 2012 filed a formal objection, calling for PG&E to be cited for violating the safety standards, according to his filing. Within weeks, the NRC said the plant was being operated safely. In 2013 he filed another objection, triggering the current review.

The NRC says the Hosgri fault line presents the greatest earthquake risk and that Diablo Canyon's reactors can withstand the largest projected quake on it. In his analysis, Peck wrote that after officials learned of the Hosgri fault's potential shaking power, the NRC never changed the requirements for the structural strength of many systems and components in the plant.

In 2012, the agency endorsed preliminary findings that found shaking from the Shoreline fault would not pose any additional risk for the reactors. Those greater ground motions were "at or below those for which the plant was evaluated previously," referring to the Hosgri fault, it concluded.

Peck, who holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering and is now a senior instructor at the NRC's Technical Training Center in Tennessee, declined to comment on the filing.

Earthquake faults and nuclear power plants have been uneasy neighbors in the state for decades. The Humboldt Bay plant in Northern California, which was within 3,000 yards of three faults, was shut down in 1976 to refuel and reinforce its ability to withstand possible earthquakes.

Restarting it became more difficult and costly than projected - it never reopened.

Related Links 6

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:06 AM To:: Sampson, Michele Cc: Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Arrighi, Russell; Wertz, Trent

Subject:

FW: updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this Hi Michele. Just checking in to see if we are on track for the DPO Appeal Decision. Obviously, things are heating up. NRR is working on a communication plan, but obviously they don't know what the DPO Appeal Decision will say. It will be helpful for the communication plan if you can have the WIR summary prepared. You can use the guidance I previously sent and you can see previous summaries on the web site.

Just let us know if there is anything we can do to support you.

Renee & Marge

§ Q *1*, hltp//www.lntemalrvc.gov/0[/()P(l/dN 2008 002.ht,nl I

• 11::;[',J xl!Pe.,

Flit Edlt V,ew Favo,lles Tools Help

,,1 hvo,ites H Differing ProJ~ssi~alop~i_g'n j _O) Program Home O,q.111,zat,on Employee Resources Sen,,ces Ne"'s lnformat,on Resources Policy Secur,ty Tr,11111110 Tr.wcl Sh,utPo,nt Aug 26, 2014 OE Home> O,ffenng Professional Opinions Program (OPO) >Closed OPO Cases Summary> OP0.2008-002 Ioe "°'" (FENOC) Response to NRC Request for lnforma ICout,1ets I Overvl~w DPO Case File* ADAMS Package ML101380407 IObjectives OPO Appeal Decision I FAQs On December 1. 2009. the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a decision on the appeal of Differing Proft Irm t 0. U9 2008-002. The DPO submitted on October 15, 2008. stated that FENOC'$ May 2, 2007. response to Request for Info, materially Incomplete, and violated 10 CFR 50.0, *completeness and Accuracy of Information: The OPO further statec IoPo c.,~"tl NRC's preceding letter specifically requested any assessment of the Exponent Report, FENOC did not provide a oons I Pll,)(Jfi'HH ~ IIW Hlbl the Exponent Report.

The above concem was addressed by an Allegations Review Board (ARB) which conclu<fed that the consullant'1 repo, the NRC. The OPO submitter disagreed with lhe ARB conclusion. A OPO Panel was established on November 13. 200 concluded that the omission of the consultant's report from FENOC's response to the RFI did not constitute a violation Region Ill Regional Administrator issued Its decision on May 29. 2009, supporting the Paners findings.

A OPO appeal was submitted on June 18, 2009. In the OPO appeal decision, the EDO staled that he supports both thi conclusion and Region Ill Regional Administrator technical decision. The EOO found that the regulatory actions the Nf; the licensee's commitments and corrective actions, which were designed to ensure that Information of potential regula recognized and communicated to the NRC in a timely and effective manner. were adequate. The EOO further stated th included In the consultant's report would not have changed the agency's technical decisions and regulatory actions. N1 stated that the OPO submitter was right in questioning the basis for the staffs decision, giYen the language of the RFI raised by the DPO submitter regarding the allegation process did bring to light improvements to the process.

DPO Decision On May 29. 2009. the Reaional Administrator. Reqion Ill, issued a decision on a OifferinQ Professional Opinion (DPO)

--~---------'4, locol lntran..t I Protected M0<

it Olf**fl-*---.. . . .

0Q * "

'1UINIC http //www.inlt roalnrc.gov10f/DPO/dpc* )OOS (\)'*d h*ml Fil~ Edit Voew Favorites Tools Help

.,. h vorites ,,;1

~ Office of (nforc.ment OE Home> Differing Professional Opinions Program {DPO) > Closed DPO Cases Summary> DP0-2005-009 DP0-2005-009: Issuance of Differing Professional Opin on Solvent Flammability Limits for the Proposed Mixed Fuel Fabrication Facility OPO Case File - ADAMS ML141766223 - (Non-Public)

DPO Appeal Decision On April 19. 2007, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a decision on an appeal to an August 25, 2006 Director of the Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). The appeal related to a September 23. 200 an NRC employee on the adequacy of chemical consequence limits proposed by a license applicant. The original DPO issues surrounding the lower flammability limit of chemical combustion concentrations, how it was applied in the MOX C Authorization Request (CAR). and compliance with the regulations. The EDO agrees with the DPO decision that DPO s any safety concerns that have technical or legal implications on the staffs approval of the CAR. Most the concerns arc inherited issue with the two*step licensing process. The applicant made the business decision to proceed with the two-knowing the associated uncertainties and potential risks. The NMSS staff approved the CAR in accordance with releva two-step licensing process. Upon receipt of the OPO appeal. the EDO Initiated an extensive review or related inlormatl understand the Issues, the EOO also met with the members of the OPO panel and the DPO Submitter.

Based on all the avallable information reviewed, the EOO agrees with the OPO panel decision that no safety concerns legal implications on the staffs approval of the CAR were raised. As such. there is no need to re-open the OPO on Sol*

Limits at the Proposed Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (OP0-2005*009), and the follow up actions taken by the t DPO are :adequate. The EDO also recognized the efforts of the submltler In ra'1slng the issues concerns and the contril in ensuring the agency's safety goals are achieved.

DPO Decision On Auoust 25. 2006. the Director. NMSS. issued a decision on a OPO lnvolvino solvent ftammabilitv limits at the orooo

• * * * 'i\. l ~ inlr* net I P,o*t.;;td ~

From: Zimmerman, Roy Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:15 AM To: Holahan, Patricia; Hilton, Nick; Solorio, Dave; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

FW: updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this From: Johnson, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:13 AM To: Zimmerman, Roy; Satorius, Mark; Ash, Darren; Galloway, Melanie

Subject:

FW: updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this Fyi.

Mike From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:57 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Fw: updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this Apparently Boxer has now weighed in claiming that "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is failing to do its job to protect public safety".

2

Marc Dapas Sent from NRC Blackberry From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 08:46 PM To: Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Pruett, Troy; Clark, Jeff; Hipschman, Thomas; Maier, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Poston-Brown, Martha

Subject:

updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: LU [mailtoJ (b)(6) I Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 08:30 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

Fwd: Blood updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this

~~-

-~ q

acded ro<~~::ee -------T Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:30 PM

Subject:

Blood updated AP story -Boxer stating she'll hold a Senate hearing on this To: "Brenner, Eliot" <eliot.brenner@nrc.gov>, scott.burnell@nrc.gov, victor.dricks@nrc.gov, jenny.weil@nrc.gov Expert calls for closure of Diablo Canyon, Senate committee plans hearings Michael R. Blood I AP 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> ago Show caption A senior federal nuclear expert is urging regulators to shut down the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo. MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images

~

Share this story

• Share via Email

• Share on Twittcr3

• Share on Facebookl Update: 5:40 p.m.

3

From: Pedersen, Renee Se nt: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:42 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara Cc: Wertz, Trent; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Arrighi, Russell

Subject:

RE: See this Q about 120 days.....

Scott, DPO timeliness has been an issue over the years. DPOs can be very complex and take time to fully evaluate to support an informed decision. Based on past practice, we are currently revising the DPO MD to reflect more flexibility than the current 60 - 120-day description in the MD.

DPO appeal is described as 30 - 60 days.

Here are excerpts from the revised DPO MD currently out for comment.

Ensure that the DPO process is executed timely, consistent with the (1) importance of prompt action on the issue, (2) safety significance of the issue, (3) complexity of the issue, and (4) priority of other work activities affecting the availability of participants.

Because the scope and complexity of DPOs can vary widely, the timeliness expectations for dispositioning DPOs and DPO appeals are expressed as goals. It is important to ensure that issues receive a thorough and credible review. Schedules should factor in a number of circumstances, including the importance of prompt action on the issue, the safety significance of the issue, the complexity of the issue, and the priority of other work activities affecting the availability of DPO participants. Because these circumstances can vary widely, it may require longer than 120 calendar days to resolve a DPO and longer than 80 calendar days to resolve a DPO appeal. Similarly, circumstances may warrant prompt action and resolving a DPO in less than 120 calendar days or a DPO appeal in less than 80 calendar days.

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:28 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RE: See this Q about 120 days.....

Renee; How appropriate would it be to generically mention the DPO process can include appeals of decisions reached within 120 days?

Scott From: Uselding, Lara _

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:24 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

See this Q about 120 days.....

Importance: High

From: Sewell, Abigail M [1]

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:58 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

FW: Diablo canyon: Secret document details federal safety inspector's alarm over plant's vulnerability t Importance: High Hi Lara - I'm temporarily back on the nuclear beat and wanted to reach out for comment on this document Friends of the Earth released today re. Oiablo Canyon. SpecifiraUy they say the NRC should have ruled on it within 120 days of filing. Can you respond to that? I can be reached af b I l

Regards, Abby Sewell From: Kate Colwell [mailto:kcolwell@foe.org1 Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:16 AM To: Sewell, Abigail M

Subject:

Dlablo canyon: Secret document details federal safety Inspector's alarm over plant's vulnerability t http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2014-07-diablo-canyon-secret-document-details-federal-safety-alarm For Immediate Release:

August 25, 2014 Expert

Contact:

Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor, (202) 352-4223, dmoglen@foe.org Communications Contacts:

EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org (East Coast)

BIii Walker, (510) 759-9911, bw.deadUne@gmaiLcom (West Coast)

Diablo Canyon: Secret document details federal safety inspector's alarm over plant's vulnerability to earthquakes Agency expert says reactors must be shut until proven safe WASHINGTON, o.c. - In an explosive document kept secret for a year, a former federal inspector charges that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant In California Is more vulnerable to earthquakes than initially known and should be shut down until Pacific Gas & Electric Co. can prove its safety.

The Associated Press reported today that Dr. Michael Peck, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's former senior resident inspector at Diablo Canyon, In July of 2013, flied an extraordinary and sharp dissent over the agency's decision to let the plant's twin reactors keep running despite the failure of both PG&E and the NRC to conduct a rigorous safety analysis and take action to address newly Identified seismic risks. Dlablo Canyon sits on the central California coast, near San Luis Obispo, In close proximity to faults that seismic studies show could trigger an earthquake stronger than the reactors and Internal equipment were built to withstand.

Peck asked that his dissent, known as a Differing Professional Opinion, be made public, but the agency has not released It.

Despite the agency's requirement that Differing Professional Opinions are to be ruled on within 120 days of filing, the NRC has not ruled on the opinion. Friends of the Earth has posted the document on our website at: www.foe.org/diablo.

"Inspector Peck is the canary in the coal mine, warning us of a possible catastrophe at Diablo Canyon before It's too late,"

said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor at Friends of the Earth. "We agree with him that Dlablo Canyon Is vulnerable to earthquakes and must be shut down immediately. Rather than the NRC keeping this a secret, there must be a thorough Investigation with public hearings to determine whether these reactors can operate safely."

2

In his dissent, Peck says that since the 1960-era reactors were built, new information that has emerged about the severity of potential earthquakes means it is operating "outside the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis" -- In other words, In violation of Its federal license.

- more -

"Continued reactor operation ... challenges the presumption of nuclear safety," Peck asserted. "The reactors should remain shut down pending demonstration that...safety functions can be met at the higher seismic stress levels."

"Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes," Moglen said, "federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors to be built on this site now. Are PG&E and the NRC putting the utility's profits before the health and safety of millions of Californians?"

In the document, Peck says he first raised these issues in September 2010 but was repeatedly rebuffed by his superiors at the NRC. In January 2012, he detailed his objections i111 a document known as a non-concurrence report. That critique was made public, but the Differing Professional Opinion Is a far more substantive and critical analysis -- the ultimate dissenting action an NRC safety Inspector can take when disagreeing with his superiors.

Diablo Canyon's seismic safety has been a point of concern since construction at the site started in 1968. These concerns were verified in the aftermath of Fukushima when in their own 2011 report, the NRC ranked the Diablo Canyon reactors as the most likely In the nation to be hit by an earthquake stronger than they were designed to withstand.

Diablo Canyon is surrounded by seismic activity. The San Andreas Fault is about 45 miles inland and the smaller Rinconada Fault Is about 20 miles away. In 1971, oil company geologists published a paper revealing a previously unknown, major fault line, the Hosgrl, about 3.5 miles offshore of the plant site, forcing PG&E to conduct a long, costly and controversial retrofit of the unfinished reactors. Despite massive public opposition, the NRC granted permission for the reactors to start up in 1984-85.

In 2008 PG&E Informed the NRC of the discovery of yet another fault, the Shoreline, less than 1,000 feet from the Intake structure where water to cool the reactors is drawn from the Pacific Ocean. According to the utility's own analysis, the Shoreline fault, along with two smaller faults, San Luis Bay and the Los Osos, which also flank the plant, could all trigger earthquakes generating ground motion beyond that for which the reactors and their equipment have been tested.

Friends of the Earth fights to create a more healthy and Just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.

If you would rather not receive future communications from Friends of the Earth, let us know by clicking ~

Friends of the Earth, 1100 15th Street tffl 11th Floor, Washington, DC 20005 United States 3

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:07 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Markley, Michael; McIntyre, David Cc: Case, Michael; Sebrosky, Joseph; Davis, Jack; Uselding, Lara; Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Brenner, Eliot; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Hilton, Nick; Sampson, Michele; Zimmerman, Roy

Subject:

RE: Someone has posted DPO online Maybe more information than you want, but I think it is important to note that we support openness in the DPO Program. Once the process is complete (the decision on the DPO appeal is issued) a summary of the case will be made public in the Commission's Weekly Information report. A redacted version of the case file will also be public if the submitter wants public release.

Renee

---

Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:03 PM To: Markley, Michael; Pedersen, Renee; McIntyre, David Cc: Case, Michael; Sebrosky, Joseph; Davis, Jack; Uselding, Lara; Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Someone has posted DPO online Lara; I spoke to Renee and here's the response for today:

Until the NRC completes its internal review process for a Differing Professional Opinion, the agency is unable to comment on any potential DPO documentation. Once a given review is complete the agency will have a final decision on the DPO and associated documentation.

Scott

---

Original Message-----

From: Markley, Michael . J *

• Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:52 PM To: Pederaen,Renee Cc: Case, Michael; Sebrosky, Joseph; Davis, Jack; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael

Subject:

FW: Someone has posted DPO online

Rene, Lara Uselding, OPA in RIV is looking for some assistance regarding this. The Diablo Canyon DPO appears h~ve gone cyber and she wants to know what she can discuss. From my view, it is not much except that it is still in process and that we have not made a final determination. The DPO is non-public and we cannot release it or discuss our evaluation of its contents.

Mike

---

Original Message-----

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:15 PM To: Markley, Michael; Walker, Wayne; Buchanan, Theresa; Alexander, Ryan Cc: Sebrosky, Joseph; Case, Michael; Davis, Jack; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Someone has posted DPO online Importance: High Can someone verify if what Mothers for Peace Jane Swanson has sent out to media and the public is the actual DPO? See her link to below:

6 From: Jane Swanson (mailtoJ (b)( )

Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 12:30 PM To: Swanson Jane

Subject:

MORE on AP story Detailed information about NRC Inspector Dr. Peck's Differing Professional Opinion is at http://libcloud .s3.amazonaws.com/93/5a/8/4821 /Diablo_Canyon_Seismic_DPO.pdf It is at the heart of the AP story.

---

Original Message----- .

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11 :12 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael Cc: Sebrosky, Joseph; Case, Michael; Davis, Jack; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: DPO story has run Importance: High All ,

FYI, it appears that the DPO regarding Diablo Canyon is now running in the AP. As you know, the process is still pending within the NRC. A final decision has not been made and the DPO process is a non-public process, in part, because the submitter has privacy rights. Only the submitter of the DPO can release the information to the public.

Mike

---

Original Message----

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:52 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, Michael; Gibson, Lauren; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John Cc: Walker, Wayne; Buchanan, Theresa

Subject:

FW: DPO story has run

---

Original Message-----

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:47 AM 2

From: Pedersen, Renee Se nt: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:37 AM To: Peck, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO 2013-002 - Appeal

Michael, Just a followup to my voicemail.

Specific slide suggestions/questions:

Slides 2 & 3 - Are these issues consistent with the original Statement of Issues you and the pa, Probably, but just want to make sure.

Slides 6 "DPO Panel Conclusions" -- I think it would read better if he put something like "Submitter Response" before comments to each Panel Conclusions. Something like this:

DPO Panel Conclusions

• The new seismic information did not reveal a significant or immediate seismic safety concern:

DPO Submitter Response:

The DPO did not assert that significant or immediate safety concern existed at Diablo Canyon.

Slide 26, 3 rd bullet - "Lack of agency accountability for the NCP & DPO processes ...... " - It's OK to give feedback, but it isn't within the scope of the appeal.

Slides 27 recommend using "Recommended Actions" vs. "Requested Actions" From: Peck, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:33'PM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RES: DPO 2013-002 - Appeal Renee Per our discussion, I took a shot at drafting a presentation for a potential EDO meeting. Please feel free share and provide any feedback.

Michael

Diablo Canyon Seismic Issues Appeal of DPO 2013-02 Decision 1

DPO Issues:

The NRC failed to enforce:

• 10 CFR 50.59 requirement that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) obtain an amendment to the Operating License prior to incorporating new seismic information into the FSARU.

• Plant Technical Specifications following inadequate demonstration of operability:

- New seismic information resulted in greater stress than plant structure, system and components (SSCs) were qualified.

- New seismic stresses exceeded the ASME Code acceptance limits for the reactor coolant pressure boundary (RCPB).

2

Diablo Canyon Seismic Design and Licensing Bases General Design Criteria (GDC) 2 & Part 100, Appendix A: Certain SSCs remain functional following the maximum earthquake potential considering the local geology and seismology:

• Integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary (ASME Code acceptance limits),

• Capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, and

• Capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents (seismic qualification of plant SSCs).

3

Diablo Canyon Design and Licensing Bases Safe shutdown earthquake (SSE) design bases :

• Safety analysis {10 CFR 50.34) developed the Double Design Earthquake {ODE, 0.4 pga).

• Demonstrated that the GDC 2 functional requirements were satisfied for the maximum ground motion based on the local geology and seismology.

• Important to safety SSCs {RG 1.29, Seismic Design Classification) qualified to the DOE spectra.

• RCPB {Class 1 Systems) qualified to ASME, Section Ill, for DOE plus accident loads {10 CFR 50.SSa).

4

Diablo Canyon Design and Licensing Bases Hosgri Fault discovered during plant construction:

• Licensee concluded that the fault was not "capable" per Part 100, Appendix A, and excluded the ground motion from the SSE safety analysis.

• PG&E prepared the Hosgri Evaluation (HE) in response to an NRC question during plant licensing.

• HE demonstrated that the plant could safety shutdown following 7.5 Mon the Hosgri fault (0.75 pga) 5

Diablo Canyon Design and Licensing Bases Hosgri Evaluation (HE):

• Used different assumptions, methodology, load combinations, and acceptance limits than the DDE/SSE.

- Did not assume coincidental accident or fire.

- Explicitly excluded RG 1.29 (SSCs qualified for the SSE).

- Some Code limits exceeded (non-liner effects).

- Included ASME, Section Ill, calculations for the RCPB, excluding LOCA loads (no accident) .

• For many SSCs, including the RCPB, seismic qualification was more limited by the DDE/SSE (0.4 pga) rather than the HE (0.75 pga).

6

Diablo Canyon Licensing Bases Long Term Seismic Program

• License Condition - Reevaluate the local seismologic within 10 years.

• Completed in 1988.

• NRC concluded that PG&E satisfied the License Condition (1991):

- Did not alter the plant design bases.

- Seismic qualification basis will continue to be the DD and the ODE (QBE & SSE) design basis plus the HE, along with associated analytical methods, initial conditions, etc.

7

New Seismic Information Seismic Reevaluation submitted to the NRC (2011):

• Concluded three local faults were "capable" of generating significantly greater ground motion (0.7 pga) than used to establish the facility SSE.

• PG&E submitted License Amendment Request (LAR) 2011-05 to change the "method of evaluation" used for the facility SSE from the DDE to the HE.

• The NRC concluded that the HE did not meet NRC requirements for the SSE. At the NRC's request, PG&E withdrew the LAR (2012).

8

N RR Disposition NRR PM directed PG&E to add the Shoreline fault to the FSARU as a "lessor case of the HE."

• The Hosgri ground motions were "previously demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of safety."

• Deferred further evaluations pending Fukishima Recommendation 2.1.

• Did not address other faults that exceeded the SSE.

9

DPO Panel

Conclusions:

"The new seismic information did not reveal a significant or immediate seismic safety concern"

• However, the DPO did not assert that significant or immediate safety concern existed at Diablo Canyon.

• The DPO was written to draw attention and promote correct actions following the agency's failure to enforce existing regulatory and statutory requirements.

• Adequate protection (nuclear safety) is presumptively assured by compliance with NRC requirements.

10

DPO Panel

Conclusions:

"The staff followed its processes for technical specification operability of plant equipment and 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations."

• However, the Panel's conclusions were based on a different facility design and licensing bases than presented in the DPO and the FSARU.

• The Panel inappropriately considered the HE as a facility SSE.

• The Panel Report did not offer explanation for the deviation.

11

What Does the Regulations Require?

10 CFR 50.71(e) and 10 CFR 50.59:

• These statutory requirements required PG&E to evaluate the new information against the "facility as described in the FSARU."

• Ensures fidelity is maintained between the functional GDC requirements, the methods used to demonstrate that the GDCs were met (10 CFR 50.34 safety analysis, as presented in the License Application, as amended), and the plant technical specifications.

12

What Does the Regulations Require?

10 CFR 50.71(e) required PG&E to updated the FSARU with the new seismic information:

• The new information was developed by PG&E.

• The new ground motions were greater than those used in the safety analysis demonstrating that GDC 2 was satisfied (design basis controlling parameter).

• The new ground motions were also greater than those used to demonstrate that ASME Code requirements were satisfied for the SSE per 10 CFR 50.SSa.

13

10 CFR 50.71 (e) 11

• • • contain all the changes necessary to reflect information and analyses submitted to the Commission by the applicant or licensee or prepared by the applicant or licensee pursuant to Commission requirement" 11

• • • shall include the effects of all changes made in the facility or procedures as described in the FSAR; all safety analyses and evaluations ... "

14

10 CFR 50.59

• Change: "A modification or addition to, or removal from, the facility or procedures that affects a design function, method of performing or controlling the function, or an evaluation that demonstrates that intended functions will be accomplished."

• Facility as described in the FSAR:

- "Evaluations or methods of evaluation included in the FSAR for such SSCs which demonstrate that their intended function(s) will be accomplished."

- "Submitted in accordance with §50.34, as amended and supplemented, and as updated per the requirements of Sec. 50. 71( e )."

15

10 CFR 50.59

• Departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses:

- "Changing any of the elements of the method described in the FSAR unless the results of the analysis are conservative or essentially the same;" or

- "Changing from a method described in the FSAR to another method unless that method has been approved by NRC for the intended application."

16

What Does the Regulations Require?

10 CFR 50.59 required PG&E to obtain a a~

amendment to the Operating License for the FSARU:

• Modification of the design basis controlling parameter (ground motions) to the existing safety analysis resulted in exceeding acceptance limits for ASME Code and current SSC seismic qualification.

• This "resulted in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction of a SSC important to safety,N {NEI 96-07).

17

What Does the Regulations Require?

10 CFR 50.59 also required PG&E to obtain an amendment to the Operating License to change the SSE methodology from the DOE to the HE:

• The HE was less conservative than the ODE.

• ""Results in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analysis" (NEI 96-07).

• Considering the Shoreline fault a "lessor case of the HE" attached the HE method of evaluation to the SSE.

18

DPO Panel Concluded:

"The new ground motions were bound by the Hosgri and the Long Term Seismic Program."

• The DPO did not dispute that the new ground motions were bound by the HE and the LTSP.

• However, this information was not relative since neither the HE nor the LTSP were part of the facility SSE (GDC 2) design bases.

• The DPO Panel Report did not include the based for using the alternant design and licensing bases.

19

The HE was not the Facility SSE The original and current FSARs were clear:

• The ODE, with supporting safety analysis, was used to demonstrate (GDC 2) SSE design basis.

• DDE/SSE design basis was implemented and controlled by the licensee using the facility Q-List.

• The DDE ground motions are used to establish SSC seismic qualification per PG&E's commitment to RG 1.29.

• The Hosgri was treated as a licensing basis commitment (beyond design bases), not attached to GDC 2 {or any other regulatory requirement).

20

The HE was not the Facility SSE

• Prior to the Panel Report, the DDE/SSE design basis was not in dispute.

• NRR and PGE initially agreed that an amendment to the license was required because the FSAR did not described the HE as the SSE.

• After the staff determined that the HE did not meet NRC requirements for the SSE (non-acceptance of LAR 11-05), NRR implemented a "work around" to the license amendment process.

21

SSC Seismic Qualification was More Limiting for the DOE

• For a given ground motion, the DDE methodology will always produce greater SSC seismic stress that the HE.

• Ground motion alone does not established seismic design basis (NRC - SSER 7). Equally important are other factors:

- Methods of analysis

- Shape of spectra

- Damping values used

- Load combinations

- Initial conditions

- Acceptance criteria, including allowable stress 22

Consequence of the Failure to Obtain an License Amendment The NRR PM's action subverted the required License Amendment Request public notice and hearing opportunities per 10 CFR 50.91:

• Substantial stake holder interest in Diablo Canyon se1sm1c issues.

• Inadequate NRC review of plant SSC response to the higher ground motions.

• Adversely affects public perception of NRC as regulator.

• Established a new precedent for discovery of conditions outside of the existing design bases.

23

DPO Panel Concluded:

"The staff followed its processes for technical specification operability of plant equipment."

• However, the Panel incorrectly assumed that the HE satisfied GDC 2 safety analysis (as described in the FSARU).

• As a result, the Panel Report did not address the specific technical issues raised in the DPO associated with use of the HE or LTSP as an "alternative analytical method" for determining operability.

24

What does the License Require?

Plant Technical Specifications required important to safety SSCs to be operable:

• Equipment needed to prevent or mitigate an accident must be capable of performing required safety functions following the SSE.

• The new seismic information called into question if this SSC functional requirement can be still be met at the higher ground motions.

• Applying the new ground motions to the existing SSE safety analysis resulted in stress exceeding the seismic qualification limits of important to safety SSCs.

25

What dose the License Require?

PG&E did not evaluate the new information against the SSE/DDE:

• Used the HE as an "alternative analytical method."

• Not permitted per IMC 0326 {Appendix C.4):

- The HE methodology will always over-predict SSC performance when compared to the FSARU SSE methodology.

- For a given ground motion, the ODE/SSE will always be more limiting for seismic qualification.

- Successful demonstration of Technical Specification SSC operability is required for continued reactor operation.

26

DPO Panel Concluded:

"The new information by itself did not alter the FSARU approach to maintain both he DDE and HE as failed conditions with respect to seismic component and piping analysis:"

• The Panel concluded that either the HE or the DDE established the limiting loads for ASME acceptance.

• Since the new ground motions were less than those assumed in the HE, then all ASME Code requirements were satisfied.

27

What Does the Regulations Require?

10 CFR 50.SSa required PG&E to met ASME, Section Ill, Code requirements for the RCPB (Class 1 Systems):

• SSE plus accident loads must be less than acceptance limits (Service Level D).

• The new seismic information resulted in a greater maximum (credible) earthquake potential than described in the FSARU SSE safety analysis. This rendered the 50.34 safety analysis nonconforming with the requirements of GDC 2, (Criteria Ill "Design Control," and XVI "Corrective Actions)."

• The nonconforming supporting safety analysis was used as input for satisfying 10 CFR 50.SSa.

28

What Does the Regulations Require?

10 CFR 50.SSa required PG&E to meet ASME, Section Ill, Code requirements:

• Applying the new ground motions (design bases controlling parameter) to the existing SSE safety analysis resulted in exceeding Code acceptance limits.

• The Code did not include provision for substitution of the HE for the SSE for seismic inputs.

• Meeting ASME Code acceptance limits for the RCPB (Class 1 Systems) was required for continued reactor operation (IMC 0326, Appendix C.11) .

29

DPO Panel Concluded:

"The lack of a formal regulatory guidance for new information appeared to contribute creating differing interpretations for the potential significance."

• The DPO limited the potential significance of the new information to the nexus between compliance and safety.

• The Enforcement Manual and Significance Determination Process should have been used to establish the actual safety significance of the issues and ensure adequate corrective actions.

30

The Current Regulatory Framework Ensures Continuity Between:

• GDC functional requirements and the design bases.

• FSAR safety analysis {10 CFR 50.34) demonstrating that the design bases satisfies the GDC functional requirements.

• Part 50, Appendix B, ensures that this design bases is maintained by the facility safety analysis and design control for individual plant SSCs.

• 10 CFR 50.71{e) ensures new information that affects the design bases/safety analysis is updated in the FSARU.

• 10 CFR 50.59 ensures fidelity is maintained between the design bases and FSAR safety analysis methods {GDCs).

31

Additional Formal Regulatory Guidance Was Available Supplemental information reinforced agency regulations to address non-conforming conditions associated new information related to natural phenomena or the failure to meet a GDC as described in the current licensing bases (FSARU):

• Letter (Leeds), supplemental information related Recommendation 2.1

• Regulatory Issue Summary RIS 2013-05,

• IMC 0326, Appendix Cl,

• Past enforcement actions (Watts Bar Flooding) 32

DPO and Nonoccurrence Processes were Ineffective Non-concurrence NCP 2012-01 addressed PG&E's inadequate operability evaluation. The Agency did not respond to the technical issues:

• Code compliance,

• Inappropriate use of HE as "alternate analytical method."

The DPO Panel created a new facility design and license bases. The Agency did adequately address the issues raised in the DPO:

• Specific criteria in 10 CFR 50.59/NEI 96.07 33

Summary DPO Panel did not fully consider the original and current facility design and licensing bases (FSAR):

• Led to incorrect conclusions related to compliance with 10 CFR 50.71{e) and 10 CFR 50.59.

• FSARU "ambiguities require corrective action and do not provide an adequate bases for deferring enforcement action.
• The lack of an immediate or significant safety issue does not provide adequate justification for failing to enforce statutory and license requirements.

34

Summary

• The NRR PMs bypassed the license amendment process:

  - A "reasonable assurance of safety," was inconsistent with current regulatory requirements (10 CFR 50.59).

• Agency work around" of the licensee amendment 11 process created potential for safety significance:

  - Inadequate agency review of the impact of new seismic information on plant SSCs (10CFR 50.59)
  - Subverting the required notice and hearing opportunity (10 CFR 50.91) 35

Summary

• Continued failure to enforce plant technical specification requirements.
• Improvements are needed to enhance agency accountability for the non-concurrence and DPO process decisions.

36

Recommend Actions

1. Disapprove the DPO 2013-002 Panel Report decision:

  - The Panel Report applied an incorrect design and licensing bases when addressing the DPO compliance issues.
  - Use of the correct facility design and licensing based substantiates the issues raised in the DPO.

2. Initiate enforcement action to address the ongoing non-compliances with Part 50, Appendix B, 10 CFR 50.59, and plant technical specifications at Diablo Canyon:

The facility continues to operate outside the bounds of the current safety analysis and design bases. PG&E has not adequately demonstrated that all technical specification required SSCs are operable. 37

Recommend Actions

3. Initiate a review to determine why the non-concurrence and the DPO processes were not effective:

  - Region IV response to NCP 2012-01 did not address the technical issues raised.
  - DPO Panel created a new licensing bases to justify past inappropriate agency actions.

38

From: Pedersen, Renee Se nt: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:30 AM To: Wertz, Trent Cc: Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon DPO

Trent, The EDO has not issued a Decision yet. We'll reach out to the EDO's office and see if we can confirm an expected issue date. Because of the interest in this case, as we've mentioned before, NRR should consider having a communication plan ready when the DPO goes public in the WIR. By process, after the decision is issued, we'll ask the submitter if he wants the case file public, which he's likely to say yes. OE will assemble the DPO Case File and ask NRR to review for release. When we have the releasable case file we'll include the ADAMS number in the WIR.

Renee From: Sewell, Margaret Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 10:23 AM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

FW: Diablo canyon DPO Marge Sewell Safety Culture Specialist Office of EnforcemenUConcerns Resolution Branch 301-415-8045 margaret.sewell@nrc.gov From: Wertz, Trent Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:13 AM To: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Diablo canyon DPO Yea, I forwarded the email I sent you then he called me back with the update. OPA was asking about it. From: Sewell, Margaret Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:11 AM To: Wertz, Trent

Subject:

RE: Diablo canyon DPO Ok ....thanks for sharing. I was out yesterday, so I guess I missed that. From: Wertz, Trent Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:06 AM To: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Diablo canyon DPO 1

Dave told me yesterday that we're expecting something in mid September. From: Sewell, Margaret Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:02 AM To: Wertz, Trent

Subject:

RE: Diablo canyon DPO Hi Trent, No, I haven't heard anything yet. I'll check with Renee to see if she's heard any news. Marge From: Wertz, Trent , Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 1:04 PM To: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

FW: Diablo canyon DPO Didn't know if Renee is here. Any word from OEDO? From: Wertz, Trent Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:09 PM To: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

Diablo canyon DPO

Renee, Has the EDO issued his decision on the Diablo Canyon DPO appeal?

Thanks, Trent L. Wertz Technical Assistant Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-415-1568 trent.wertz@nrc.gov 2

From: Pedersen, Renee Se nt: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 9:30 AM To: Sampson, Michele Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

FW: QUESTION: DPO 2013-002

Michele, I wanted to pass this along to you for additional insight. First, as I previously mentioned, Mark may want to have another meeting with the DPO Panel and the submitter. Second, although Mark has a strong enforcement background, but he may want to have OGC weigh in on this.

Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 7:31 AM To: case, Michael Cc: Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RES: QUESTION: DPO 2013-002

Mike, Your response went a long way helping me better understand how the Panel addressed the DPO issues.

was hoping for consensus. Short of consensus, I wanted to be able to clearly articulate your (the Panel) positions at the upcoming EDO meeting. I am in full agreement with you that the "new seismic information is not a new ODE or SSE.* For me, the question is not "a potential new SSE,* but what the regulations require for incorporating the new information into the FSARU. I am also in agreement that the "FSAR never says that the DOE is solely the seismic design bases for the plant." But after a word search, I would assert that the original FSAR (Amendment 85) clearly established the DE and ODE as the seismic design bases (OBE/SSE) for the plant (FSAR Sections 2.5.2.9, 2.5.4.9, 3.1.2.2 and 3.2.1). No mention at all of the Hosgri in relationship to the facility design bases. The licensee added the Hosgri to the list of seismic design bases in FSARU Section 2.5.5.9 sometime after OL. From my view, the "bases for the design" is differently than the "design bases." I completely agree that PG&E demonstrated that certain SSCs were designed to remain functional following the HE. I also agree that original plant license approval would have been unlikely without PG&E including a commitment to maintain the seismic qualification of certain SSC to the HE ground motions. But when 50.59 says "(viii) result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses," they are talking about the "design bases" established by the GDCs (or other regulatory requirements). If you haven't seen it, there is a great discussion on this relationship between the GDCs, RG 1.70, design bases, safety analysis, FSAR, 50.71 , and 50.59 in NEI 96-07. One of the major purposes of 50.59 is to ensure that a licensee comes in for approval for changes that affect this relationship (method of analysis used to demonstrate that the GDCs were met). Applying the HE methodologies to the local geology changes this relationship as approved in the license application (as amended). I agree that the HE, LTSP, or RG 1.208 methods are more appropriate tools for evaluating the new seismic information. But since the FSARU explicitly ties the DOE back to GDC 2 and the Appendix A SSE, any of these changes would "screen in" under 50.59. PG&E knew this. Thanks why the last FSARU updated didn't 1

include a 50.59 screen. Instead, PG&E justified exempting the change from 50.59 based on "NRC correspondence." As an inspector, I would think this would be fertile ground for another 50.59 violation. I previously wrote a violation after PG&E changed diesel generator testing to RG 1.9 (Rev 3). In that case, the 50.50 stated: The NRC PM told us it was OK." I am in agreement with you that the more "limiting value used to design SSCs" should be used. My understanding is that this will always be ODE/SSE. I presented a detailed technical discussion demonstrating this conclusion in both the non-concurrence and the DPO. Did we wait for the Fulushima flooding reanalysis before taking enforcement action against Watts Bar? No, given that new flood height was greater than GDC 2 "design bases flood" established in the CLB, we took enforcement action. No back fit analysis required. Remember, the GDC 2 "design bases" includes "appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena." Neither the Watts Bar flood height or DOE vibratory motion established the "design basis." These are both "controlling parameters" used to demonstrate that the "design basis" was met. In both cases, new information challenged the validity of these "controlling parameters." This new information rendered the existing GDC 2 safety analysis non-conforming with the design basis. If you feel additional discussion would be helpful, I would be happy to meet with you on Wednesday morning. Thank you again, Michael From: case, Michael . Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 3:17 PM To: Peck, Michael

Subject:

RE: QUESTION: DPO 2013-002 Hi Michael. Let me preface my remarks with what I think remains a fundamental difference in our approach. New seismic information is not a new DOE or SSE. First Question: Yes, the HE is really part of the seismic design basis. The FSAR never says that the DOE is solely the seismic design basis of the plant. It says it's equivalent to the SSE or corresponds to the SSE. Reading those sentences without inferring any additional meaning into the words, what is written is true. I also read them in context. For example, in seismic classification, it mentions the GDC and the ODE and the Hosgri but my reaction would be: "so what". Unless there is a problem with seismic classification, then don't ascribe any particular inference towards seismic design. Then there is always the reality check. PG&E maintains both the ODE and the Hosgri as their seismic design basis. Second Question: Neither the DOE nor the HE trumps one another. It's the more limiting value is used to design the SSCs. Remember the preface. New information is neither the new ODE or the new Hosgri. I had no technical problems with the method they chose to assess the new information. That assessment showed that the seismic loads would be less than those prescribe by the hybrid of the ODE and Hosgri. Nevertheless, I did have a problem that they just considered one piece of a complex picture of new information and techniques. Hence, the idea that they still may have some followup work after doing Fukushima 2.1 Third Question: 2

We approved the plant that way and it seems as if the DDE/Hosgri lash up works. New information is not a new DOE. Plugging into the DOE side of the equation would just seem to me to be a brand new requirement that I could not justify under the backfit rule or good engineering judgment. Hop this helps some! Be good out there. Best regards, The other Mike From: Peck, Michael Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 7:17 A~ To: case, Michael

Subject:

RE: QUESTION: DPO 2013-002

Mike, It looks to me that the DPO Panel Report description of the Diablo Canyon seismic design and licensing basis came from SSER 34 (almost exactly).

This description is different than provided in the FSARU. 50.59 requires us to compare the new information against the facility as described in the FSARU. NEI 98-03 specificity ties the FSARU update to the 50.34 safety analysis (provided in the license application, as amended) that demonstrated GDC 2 was met. So, I believe there are three outstanding questions:

1) Is the HE really part of the seismic design bases (as described by 50.2 & NEI 97.04)? - Considering that the FSARU clearly states that the ODE is the SSE for the facility. Per NEI 96-07, a license amendment is required before a licensee can change the method used to demonstrate how a GDC is met (when the results are less conservative that provided in the license application , as amended). Please look at the original FSAR pages attached to the DPO appeal.

2) If the HE is part of the facility design bases, then why does meeting the HE ground motions trump the requirement to also satisfy the DOE (GDC 2)? I would think that if the HE was part of the design bases, then the HE requirements would also have to be satisfied in addition to the ODE? This is particularly important since the DOE (before adjusting the design bases controlling parameter for the new ground motions) is more limiting for SSC seismic qualification than the HE.

3) Why does satisfying ASME acceptance limits (HE+ Dead Wt) meet the 50.55a requirements for the SSE (ODE + LOCA + Dead Wt)?

I'm thinking we should be able to reach consensus on this three questions. I believe if we come to agreement on the these questions, then we will also be in agreement on the other DPO issues. Michael From: case, Michael Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 8:12 AM To: Peck, Michael

Subject:

Re: QUESTION: DPO 2013-002 3

H; M;chael. I'm 08 dght now but I should be back on Monday. lsthat too late? (PS. I do think you were the driving force to get people to better see that the design basis is both the DOE and Hosgri. _Good job!) Sent from Blackberry Michael Case. From: Peck, Michael _ Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 07:29 AM Eastern Standard nme To: case, Michael Subj ect: QUESTION: DPO 2013-002

Mike, I'm planning to meet with Mr. Satoruis prior to his decision on the DPO Appeal. Do you feel that a consensus is possible on the issue? It so, would you be available to talk with me on the phone?

The Appeal is my last bit at the apple. But I'm thinking that the issues raised in the DPO will not be going away. The agency may benefit from a united position. I believe the divergence boils down to the understanding of the facility design and licensing bases, as applied to 10CFR 50.59, 50.71 (e), and Appendix B. If I start with the assumption that either the HE or DOE ground motions satisfies the seismic design bases, then I would agree with the DPO Panel's conclusions. To the best of my knowledge, I was the first one to say that Hosgri was part of the Diablo design bases (February 2011 , White Paper followed by the TIA). Apparently, this idea caught on. As you pointed out, it's now in the FSARU (based on "correspondence from the NRC"). Assuming both earthquakes make up the Diablo SSE, then does NEI 96-07 allow the HE ground motions to trump the DOE, or must both "design bases" be satisfied? I was drawing a mental comparison with the BWR LOCA. The OBA case is a large break LOCA (recirculation loop falls off). But the limiting case for peak clad temperature is a small break (instrument line). NEI 96-07 would have us conclude that the small break is part of the design bases case. The limiting value was not size of the break but the resulting peak clad temperature. In the same way, the DOE is more limiting for SSC seismic qualification than the HE. Wouldn't both "design bases" have to be satisfied? Michael Peck, Ph.D. Senior Reactor Technology Instructor TIC, 423*655-6515 4

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:28 PM To: Peck, Michael Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Michael, Can you please give me a call? I'm working at home .... l ___(b-l!5_l ___,...I From: Peck, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 12:21 PM To: Pedersen, Renee Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Renee, I'm thinking that DPO 2013-002 has not been typical, if there is any such thing as a typical DPO.

understanding that the Appeal was my last "bite at the apple." However, given the external interest, I'm sure that the DPO issues raised will go on for many years. I wouldn't be surprised if one or more intervener groups follow up with 2.309 petition request. As a result, I believe there would be a great value to reach a consensus on these issues. Having been a reactor inspector for decades, I'm still having trouble understanding why there has been so much controversy over the specific issues raised in the DPO. This controversy leads me to suspect two possible mechanisms may be at work. The first is related to poor communication of the issues and knowledge of existing agency policy, as related to these inspection issues. I'm thinking that meeting in person would go a long way to help address any communication issues. May be also breaking the issues into smaller steps would help improve folk's understanding. The second mechanisms may be related to NRC culture - Not wanting to admit a mistake had been made. wouldn't think any amount of discussion would help address the second potential mechanism. And , of course, I may just be plain wrong. If I can see were I've made a mistake, then I would request the DPO be withdrawn. Thank you, Michael From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 11:38 AM To: Peck, Michael Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Michael,

I'm sorry that there appears to have been a break down in communication on the facility design and licensing basis. We added the development of the Statement of Concerns step to the process to support clear communication and reiterated the need to check in with you from time to time, but unfortunately it looks like this may not been enough to address your concern. Do YOU feel the agency would benefit by providing your perspectives to the EDO in person? If the answer is yes, then let's see what we can do. Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 10:00 AM ' To: Pedersen, Renee; DPOPM Resource Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RES: REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Renee, Do you feel that the agency would benefit by me providing my prospective in person?

I had really hope to build a consensus with the DPO Panel. I didn't realize until I reviewed the Panel Report that they had started their deliberation based on a different understating of the facility design and licensing bases. The Panel conclusions were built on this different understanding. Prior to the Panel Report, the facility design and licensing bases had not been in dispute. However, if the Panel's design and licensing bases assumptions were correct, then I would have also agree with their conclusions. I've argued for some time that Diablo seismic issues need to be addressed in small steps. I felt that consensus could be easily reached on these smaller steps. Or at least, identify any divergence. From my view, the Panel's nine month effort to independently review these issues may have not been well spent given that they disagreed with the first step. It would have been nice to have had the facility design and licensing bases discussion back in October. Michael From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 7:29 AM To: Peck, Michael; DPOPM Resource Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal

Michael, Thanks for your thoughfulness!

We have a meeting with the EDO next week when he gets bacJ (b)(6) Ito review the appeal process. There is alot of material to review, so stay tuned. 1. . ._____._ Renee From: Peck, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:4'1 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; DPOPM Resource Cc: Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

REQUEST: DPO 2013-002 Appeal 2

Renee, I added the completed DPO cover sheet to the DPO 2013-002 Appeal file (attached). Would you mind replacing the attached file with the copy currently in ADAMS (ML14177A534). The attached file should provide a more legible copy.

Thank you, Michael From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 1:12 PM To: Satorius, Mark; Zimmerman, Roy; Leeds, Eric; Galloway, Melanie; Dorman, Dan Cc: Hilton, Nick; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret; Peck, Michael; case, Michael; Hill, Brittain; Bernhard, Rudolph

Subject:

Acceptance of DPO Appeal Importance: High In my capacity as the DPOPM, and in coordination with the Acting Director, OE, I am notifying you that we have received , screened, and accepted a DPO appeal for DP0-2013-002, involving seismic issues at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. The DPO appeal process is included in Section E of the DPO MD 10.159 Handbook. http://www.internal. nrc.gov/ADM/DAS/cag/Management Directives/md10.159.pdf In accordance with the guidance in MD 10.159, the Director, NRR will develop a written statement of views (SOVs) on the contested issues included in the appeal and provide it to the EDO (via the DPOPM). Once the DPOPM receives a SOVs from the Director, NRR, we will forward them to the EDO along with the DPO appeal package for review and issuance of a DPO Appeal Decision. In accordance with MD 10.159, the EDO has complete discretion to conduct the review of the DPO appeal in any manner deemed appropriate. As such, the EDO may choose to:

• conduct a series of interviews (including one with the submitter),
• establish another independent review of the issues, or
• implement another evaluation strategy.

The timeliness goal for the DPO Appeal Decision is 30 to 60 calendar days of receiving the DPO appeal package from the DPOPM. Please feel free to contact me or my backup, Marge Sewell, at any time during this process if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. DPOPM.Resource@nrc.gov Renee Pedersen Sr. Differing Views Program Manager (301) 415-2742 Marge Sewell Safety Culture Specialist (301) 415-8045 3

From: Weil. Jenny Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:42 PM To: Dacus, Eugene; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: SONGS OIG report? This sounds like the Diablo Canyon DPO? Is the OIG SONGS report out tomorrow too? From: Dacus, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:26 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Weil, Jenny

Subject:

RE: SONGS OIG report? Thanks Eliot. I'll let jenny know to watch for it From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:25 PM To: Dacus, Eugene

Subject:

Re: SONGS OIG report? Yeah: probably sometime t omorrow. There is a whole package of stuff includ ing mark's letter to peck that is supposed to contain the key points -- eve ryone including peck says this is not a safety issue, and we will look at our process to see if it can be improved, and oh by the way the plant is safe. From: Dacus, Eugene Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 05:18 PM To: Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

SONGS OIG report?

Eliot, Know anything about any talking points for the imminent release of a SONGS OIG report?

Eugene Dacus Acting Director, Congressional Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1776 Cell:  ! (b)(6) Fax: 301-415-8571 E-mail: euge ne.dacus@nrc.gov 13

From: Benner, Eric Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:40 AM To: Helton, Shana; Powell, Amy; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Friends of the Earth has posted the document on its website at: www.foe.org/diablo From: Benner, Eric Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:02 AM To: Helton, Shana; Powell, Amy; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Perfect ... thanks. From: Helton, Shana Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:56 AM To: Powell, Amy; Benner, Eric; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Gene asked Mark about the timeline at the 8:30am this morning in a side-bar (I didn't hear the response) - I suggest we discuss at this morning's COS meeting following the affirmation session. Thank you. Shana From: Powell, Amy Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:54 AM To: Benner, Eric; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO I know only that it is in appeal with the EDO. Eliot. given your adventures with this already this week, do you have a sense of timeline from OEDO for wrapping up? If not. we can check with OEDO. Amy From: Benner, Eric Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:50 AM To: Powell, Amy; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Amy. is there a schedule for when the DPO is expected to be completed? From: Powell, Amy Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:01 PM 17

To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Importance: High All-(b)(5)

Thanks, Amy Amy Powell Associate Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Congressional Affairs Phone: 301-41 5-1673 18

From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:50 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Wertz, Trent Cc: Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: DPO Looks okay to me As you've probably noted to the reporter before. once the OEDO decides on the appeal. the submitter will be asked if he wants the record made public. Assuming he says yes, there will be a SUNSI review to redact any sensitive information. Since this is an extensive record on this DPO. we anticipate the SUNSI review could take some time. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 12:47 PM To: McIntyre, David; Wertz, Trent Cc: Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: DPO Ok so I propose responding back to reporter with , let me know your thoughts: The DPO process in an internal, non-public process. The DPO submitter has rights, including the right to privacy over this issue. The DPO submitter has a key role in determining whether or not the DPO and Director's decision become available publicly. So far that decision has not been rendered nor made publically available. From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:02 AM To: Wertz., Trent Cc: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE : DPO Thanks. Lara - that means it is not yet final. Dave From: Wertz., Trent Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:55 AM To: McIntyre, David

Subject:

Re: DPO Still with the Edomite Sent via My Workspace for iOS On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 9:24: 14 AM, "McIntyre, David" <David.Mclntvre@nrc.gov> wrote: Trent - what's the current status of the Diablo DPO? 37

Sent via My Workspace for iOS On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 at 9:12:48 AM, "Uselding, Lara" <Lara.Uselding@.nrc.gov> wrote: Hello: hearing from Mike Blood .. . can we see what we can say? Thanks for your help From: Blood, Michael (mailto:mblood@ap.org1 Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:47 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

RE: DPO Lara, Can you confirm it has been filed? From: Uselding, Lara (mailto:Lara.Uselding@nrc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:58 PM To: Blood, Michael

Subject:

Re: DPO We can't provide a document that hasn't been issued Michael Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Blood, Michael (mailto:mblood@ap.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 06:00 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

RE: DPO Lara, Please provide me with more explanation. Why isn't this a public document? Under what legal basis are you withholding it? From: Uselding, Lara (mailto:Lara.Uselding@nrc.gov] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:57 PM To: Blood, Michael subject: Re: DPO When this issue is resolved and if there is a document to be made public, you will get it. Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Blood, Michael (mailto:mblood@ap.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 01:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara subject: FW: DPO Lara, Just making sure my question hasn't been lost. I requested a copy of Mr. Peck's DPO. If you can send me a copy of the document , please do. (Eliot suggests below there might be a disclosure issue.) If you cannot, please notify me th at is the case and provide an explanation of why t he document cannot be released. Thank you, 38

From: Brenner, Eliot [2] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:54 PM To: Blood, Michael; Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara subject: Re: DPO Michael: your point of contact on all things diablo canyon is Iara uselding, who I have copied on this message. I believe she emailed you about one of the issues raised by Peck, but you haven't gotten back to her. I think victor has also reached out t o you on this subject . Before you write anything on this subject it is important that you talk to Iara about peck's assertion on personnel matters. We're checking on the process for making these things public. If it becomes public, you'll get it. Eliot Eliot Brenner Director, Office of Public Affairs US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Protecting People and the Environment ~~ S~ ckber~ From : Blood, Michael [3] Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:32 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

DPO Eliot, Victor, Please send me a copy of the DPO filed by Mr. Peck. Thank you, AP ASSOCIATED PRESS Michael R. Blood mblood@ap.org Los Angeles, Calif. 213-346-3116 (O) I (b)(6) l(C) 39

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 10:04 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Agreed, this can be a small excerpt of what we have already been doing. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 9:57 AM To: Markley, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Thanks Mike, that is good input and we can easily manage that. We aren't planning to create an entirely new and separate comm plan for this item as we have ONE living comm plan on Diablo. Our plan was to add this as a section to the comm plan . For next week and distribution purposes, we can add a timeline to the attachep talking points and Q &A. We can then send that along with the comm plan to all involved parties. I left you a voicemail but will try you again today. Appreciate the input, Lara From: Markley, Michael Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 8:52 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT This should follow the normal format of process for communications plans. In particular, we should have a timeline for notifications and actions beginning and after "time O" for the report being sent to California r\n example would be the ANO Stator drop. http://fusion.nrc.gov/edo/team/CPM/CommPlans/Lists/Communication%20Plans/Attachments/51/AN0%20com m%20plan%20update%206 19 2014%20rev1 .pdf A couple of points would be EDO, OPA, and OCA notifications and communicating to the Commission (e.g .. CA briefing, CA Note?, etc.). Some of these questions need to be asked in order to include them in the communications plan. Mike From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:09 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Thanks. I have sent this to Lauren Gibson and Joe Sebrosky for their input if they have time. I'll be sure we get that piece right.

Lara From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:01 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael

Subject:

Re: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT After a quick read, I suggest revising to note PG&E has to incorporate the new info into the seismic hazard re-analysis the plant must perform in response to the S0.54f letter. The current narrative suggests t he JLD does the re-analysis. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell (b}(6} From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 04:53 PM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael

Subject:

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Eric: The Region has put together the attached messaging and Q&A for the report we expect to receive next week. We want to share that with you and get your insights prior to us briefing Marc Dapas Monday morning. Could you take a look and let me know your thoughts? Remember, this is what I will use to respond to questions next week from the public and reporters. OPA's plan is to NOT issue a press release, or a blog but to take questions as they come in. We already have a communications plan on Diablo so the attached will be incorporated into the existing comm plan. No other action is needed on that front. We can have a call to discuss strategy with the involved parties from RIV and HQ at your convenience. Lara l ~clding l \ '\., k ,. Rq;1il,1t,>r.) ( ommi-,11>1 '\.l{I l 1'11 " \', l<l"111 I\ \1lin*w1, l,x.1, 8 17.200. 15 19 lara.u,clding(a nrc.gO\ 2

From: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:14 PM To: Powell, Amy; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Amy: I assume we have this request in writing ... probably an e-mail. Assuming so, will you please have your staff walk the letter and document around to the Commission offices, per our procedures? I am confident the Chairman will have no problems and will want to see a quick response. Thanks. Phil From: Powell, Amy Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:01 PM To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Well, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Importance: High All-(b)(5)

Thanks, Amy Amy Powell Associate Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Congressional Affairs 5

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:22 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Mcintyre, David; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Someone has posted DPO online Importance: High

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

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 20141 :15 PM To: Markley, Michael: Walker, Wayne; Buchanan. Theresa: Alexander, Ryan Cc: Sebrosky, Joseph; Case, Michael; Davis, Jack; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Someone has posted DPO online Importance: High Can someone verify if what Mothers for Peace Jane Swanson has sent out to media and the public is the actual DPO? See her link to below: From: Jane Swansor([mailto:~ (b)6 Sent: Monday, August-25, 20 4 12:30 PM To: Swanson Jane

Subject:

MORE on AP story Detailed information about NRC Inspector Dr. Peck's Differing Professional Opinion is at http://libcloud .s3.amazonaws.com/93/5a/8/4821 /Diablo_Canyon_Seismic_DPO. pdf It is at the heart of the AP story.

---

Original Message-----

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11 : 12 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael Cc: Sebrosky, Joseph; Case, Michael; Davis, Jack; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: DPO story has run Importance: High

All, FYI, it appears that the DPO regarding Diablo Canyon is now running in the AP. As you know, the process is still pending within the NRC. A final decision has not been made and the DPO process is a non-public process, in part, because the submitter has privacy rights. Only the submitter of the DPO can release the information to the public.

Mike The entire email string may be found as document

---

Original Message----- F/25 in interim response #3 to FOIA/PA-2014-0488 From : Uselding, Lara (ML15033A278).

14

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:52 PM To: Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

FW: See this Q about 120 days..... From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:42 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara Cc: Wero., Trent; Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Arrighi, Russell

Subject:

RE: See this Q about 120 days.....

Scott, DPO timeliness has been an issue over the years. DPOs can be very complex and take time to fully evaluate to support an informed decision. Based on past practice, we are currently revising the DPO MD to reflect more flexibility than the current 60 - 120-day description in the MD.

DPO appeal 1s described as 30 - 60 days. Here are excerpts from the revised DPO MD currently out for comment. Ensure that the DPO process is executed timely, consistent with the (1) importance of prompt action on the issue, (2) safety significance of the issue, (3) complexity of the issue, and (4) priority of other work activities affecting the availability of participants. Because the scope and complexity of DPOs can vary widely, the timeliness expectations for dispositioning DPOs and DPO appeals are expressed as goals. It is important to ensure that issues receive a thorough and credible review. Schedules should factor in a number of circumstances, including the importance of prompt action on the issue, the safety significance of the issue, the complexity of the issue, and the priority of other work activities affecting the availability of DPO participants. Because these circumstances can vary widely, it may require longer than 120 calendar days to resolve a DPO and longer than 80 calendar days to resolve a DPO appeal. Similarly, circumstances may warrant prompt action and resolving a DPO in less than 120 calendar days or a DPO appeal in less than 80 calendar days. From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:28 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RE: See this Q about 120 days..... Renee; How appropriate would it be to generically mention the DPO process can include appeals of decisions reached within 120 days? 3

Scott From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 3:24 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

See this Q about 120 days ..... Importance: High From:1sewell, Abigail M [4] Sent: fJ!onday, August 25, 2014 1:58 PM To: Useldi ng, Lara

Subject:

FW: Diablo canyon: Secret document details federal safety inspector's alarm over plant's vulnerability t Importance: High Hi Lara - I'm temporarily back on the nuclear beat and wanted to reach out for comment on this document Friends of the Earth released today re. Diablo Canyon. Specifically, they say the NRC should have ruled on it within 120 days of filing. Can you respond to that? I can be reached at 213-237-4538. Regards, Abby Sewell From: Kate Colwell [mailto :kcolwell@foe.org] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 9:16 AM To: Sewell, Abigail M

Subject:

Dlablo canyon: Secret document details federal safety Inspector's alarm over plant's vulnerability t http://www.foe.org/news/n ews-releases/20 14-07 -d ia b Io-can yo n-secret-d ocu ment-deta i ls-federal-safety-a Ia rm For Immediate Release: August 25, 2014 Expert

Contact:

Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor, (202) 352-4223, dmoqJen@foe.org Communications Contacts: EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org (East Coast) Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911, bw.deadline@gmajLcom (West Coast) Diablo Canyon: Secret document details federal safety inspector's alarm over plant's vulnerability to earthquakes Agency expert says reactors must be shut until proven safe WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an expJosjye document kept secret for a year, a former federal Inspector charges that the Dlablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California is more vulnerable to earthquakes than initially known and should be shut down until Pacific Gas & Electric Co. can prove Its safety. The Associated Press reported today that Dr. Michael Peck, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's former senior resident inspector at Diablo Canyon, in July of 2013, filed an extraordinary and sharp dissent over the agency's decision to let the plant's twin reactors keep running despite the failure of both PG&E and the NRC to conduct a rigorous safety analysis and take action to address newly identified seismic risks. Diablo Canyon sits on the central California coast, near San Luis Obispo, in close proximity to faults that seismic studies show could trigger an earthquake stronger than the reactors and internal equipment were bui lt to withstand. 4

From: Powell, Amy Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:01 PM To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot Note: The attachment is publicly

Subject:

Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO available as part of the DPO 2013-002 Attachments: Boxer 2_Enclosure.pdf case file (ML14252A743). Importance: High A ll - (b)(5)

Thanks, Amy Amy Powell Associate Director U. S. Nuclear Reg ulatory Commission Office of Congressional Affairs Phone: 301-415-1673 1

From: Benner, Eric Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:05 AM To: Powell, Amy; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Commissioner Ostendorff supports release as proposerl From: Powell, Amy Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:01 PM To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacu!:.i1 Eugenej Helton, Shanai Roth!:.ichild1 Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo canyon DPO Importance: High All-(b)(5)

Thanks, Amy Amy Powell Associate Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Congressional Affairs Phone: 301-415-1673 13

From: Powell, Amy Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:17 PM To: Bubar, Patrice; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot; Bupp, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Thanks Patty - Having now heard from all offices, OCA will deliver. Thank you AP From: Bubar, Patrice Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:07 PM To: Powell, Amy; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; castleman, Patrick; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot; Bupp, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO Commissioner Magwood has no objection to this plan and supports the transmittal letter as drafted - providing\ the appropriate context. Patty Bubar Chief of Staff Office of Commissioner William D. Magwood U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1895 From: Powell, Amy Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:01 PM To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; castlernan, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo canyon DPO Importance: High All - (b)(5) 3 Note: The entire email appears in the prior email string.

Fro m: Helton, Shana Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:07 PM To: Powell, Amy; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo Canyon DPO

Amy, The Chairman has no objection to this plan.

Thank you, Shana From: Powell, Amy Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 6:01 PM To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; castleman, Patrick; Bubar, Patrice; Benner, Eric Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Helton, Shana; Rothschild, Trip; Weil, Jenny; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Request from Sen. Feinstein for Diablo canyon DPO Importance: High All - (b)(5)

Thanks, Amy Amy Powell Associate Director 3

From: Vietti-Cook, Annette Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:41 PM To: Dacus, Eugene; Powell, Amy; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

FW: Seismic Safety at Diablo Canyon fyi

---

Original Message-----

From: RulemakingComments Resource Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:59 PM To: Poole, Brooke Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Julian, Emile; Giitter, Rebecca

Subject:

FW: Seismic Safety at Diablo Canyon

Brooke, The following e-mail below is representative of the currently 478 form e-mails we have received via the Rulemaking Comments Resource inbox in support of the Diablo Canyon de facto license amendment petition that was received earlier.

SECY will be saving these comments to add as limited appearance statements when a docket for the Diablo Canyon LA proceeding is fully established.

---

Original Message-----

From: Carrie Mann (mailto:cmann@foe.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1 :49 PM To: RulemakingComments Resource

Subject:

Seismic Safety at Diablo Canyon

Dear Chairman Macfarlane:

It has come to my attention that the former Senior Resident Inspector at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant filed a differing professional opinion with the NRC in which he recommended that the Commission shut Diablo Canyon while addressing the fact that the reactors and internal equipment are no longer correctly tested and licensed given new earthquake information that exists in regard to the Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults which surround the plant. It is unconscionable that the NRC has allowed Diablo Canyon to continue operating without fully analyzing seismic threats to the reactors. It is also astonishing to me that your agency has not only failed to act on this report but has suppressed the publication of the report despite the request by the author that his paper be made public. I understand that Friends of the Earth has now petitioned the agency to close the reactors and to force Pacific Gas and Electric to undergo a public licensing review should they wish to continue to operate these reactors. I strongly support this petition and ask that you take immediate action to comply. As a geologist, I am sure that you are aware that USGS technical staff posit that the Shoreline, Los Osos, San Luis Bay, and Hosgri faults could be connected, potentially causing larger earthquakes than Diablo Canyon was designed to withstand. According to PG&E itself, the Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults could all produce ground motion beyond that considered as the basis for both Diablo's license and safety evaluation. 9

This means that the reactors and internal equipment have not been tested and certified to withstand the kind of earthquakes that we now know are possible in the area. This is unacceptable. If there were a proposal to build reactors on the Diablo Canyon site today, there is no way, knowing what we do now, that it would be accepted. Don't let what we didn't know decades ago be an excuse for keeping people and the environment at risk today. The NRC must shut the Diablo Canyon reactors down until and unless Pacific Gas & Electric can prove through a public licensing process that the plant can withstand the seismic activity that we now know exists throughout the area. Sincerely, Carrie Mann 20005 10

From: Dudek, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:56 AM To: Satorius, Mark; Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan; Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Dricks, Victor; Johnson, Michael; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Dacus, Eugene; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Walker, Wayne; Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong; Hill. Brittain; Burnell, Scott; Weil, Jenny; Uselding, Lara; Uttal, Susan; Kanatas, Catherine; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Pedersen, Renee; Williamson, Edward; Moreno, Angel; Buchanan, Theresa; McIntyre, David

Subject:

Additional DPO Meeting Documentation Attachments: DCPP DPO Key Messages.docx Please see the attached to help facilitate the communications. Michael I . Dudek I OEDO Executive Technical Assistant U.S. NRC

Michael.Dudek@nrc.gov I ~ : (301) 415-6500 I BB (b)(6)

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Satorius, Mark Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:20 AM To: Satorius, Mark; Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan; Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Dricks, Victor; Johnson, Michael; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Dacus, Eugene; Dudek, Michael; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Walker, Wayne; Manely, Kamal; Li, Yong; Hill, Brittain; Burnell, Scott; Weil, Jenny; Uselding, Lara; Uttal, Susan; Kanatas, catherine; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Pedersen, Renee; Williamson, Edward; Moreno, Angel; Buchanan, Theresa; McIntyre, David

Subject:

DPO- see attachment When: Wednesday, August 27, 201411:00 AM-ll~ C-05:00) Eastern Time (US & canada). Where: 0 1764 Bridgeline 877-518-7201 passcode~ # << File: Diablo Communication Plan - Rev O (8-26-14).docx >> 8/27/ 14 jkreuter x1700

DCPP DPO Key Messages:

• The NRC really appreciates members of the staff bring issues like this to its attention
• We encourage the use of non-concurrences and the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) process
• We review all non-concurrences and DPOs thoroughly
• It is a healthy and necessary part the regulatory process
• In the end, all of our regulatory decisions are better because of this process
• We do also have an obligation to protect the individual(s) submitting non-concurrences and DPOs
• The DPO process is a non-public process
• It is a strictly contirolled and formalized process
• Persons serving on the DPO Panels are independent of the issues raised in the DPO
• Upon disposition of the DPO via a Director's decision, the DPO submitter has appeal rights to the EDO
• While the DPO is under review or appeal, NRC is prohibited from engaging in discussions with external stakeholders regarding the specifics of the of the DPO submittal
• After the EDO's decision, the individual has the right to make the DPO case file public to the extent that personal privacy information and SUNSI information is not contained in the DPO
• Regarding the DPO for Oiablo Canyon, we will be as open and scrutable as we can be while protecting the privacy rights of the individual
• At present, we do not know the source of the public release of the Diablo CanyonDPO submittal
• We can, however, comment on a few aspects of our review o A Director's Decision has been made and the DPO is under appeal to the EDO o We expect to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 o Following the appeal decision, we will seek permission from the DPO submitter to release the DPO case file o We would expect the public release to be in early to mid-October, if authorized
• Regarding the operational status of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 o The plant remains within its design and licensing basis o We have no current operability concerns o We would also note that there were no adverse impacts on the units from the recent earthquake in the Napa Valley

From: Vietti-Cook, Annette Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 4:08 PM To: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip; Helton, Shana; Gilles, Nanette; Schwartzman, Jennifer; Vrahoretis, Susan; Brenner, Eliot; Dacus, Eugene; Powell, Amy; Harrington, Holly; Doane, Margaret; Brock, Kathryn; Galloway, Melanie; AMMGroupCalendar Resource Cc: Hart, Ken; Bavol, Rochelle; Laufer, Richard; Shea, Pamela; Akstulewicz, Brenda; Jimenez, Patricia

Subject:

RE: FOCD and Diablo Canyon Communication Planning {bX5)

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Pace, Patti On Behalf Of Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:54 PM To: Helton, Shana; Gilles, Nanette; Schwartzman, Jennifer; Vrahoretis, Susan; Brenner, Eliot; Dacus, Eugene; Powell, Amy; Harrington, Holly; Doane, Margaret; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Brock, Kathryn; Galloway, Melanie; AMMGroupcalendar Resource

Subject:

FOCD and Diablo canyon Communication Planning When: Friday, September 05, 2014 3:00 PM-3:45 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern nme (US & canada). Where: 017F22 All - please see request from Phil, below. Please determine the appropriate person from your office to attend, given the topic and forward the meeting invitation as needed. If you have a conflict, please let me know directly. Thanks, Patti Pace X1750 "The Commission has, or will soon have, before it two high visibility issues: (1) the Foreign Ownership, Control, and Domination and (2) Diablo Canyon Seismic Risks. Will you please invite OCA, OPA, OGC, SECY, and OEDO to a 45 minute staff-level discussion this week on how we will be prepared to respond, in particular, to anticipated strong interest from the Hill for background information? The outcome would be a path forward for discussion with the Commission offices early next week. Thanks. Phil" 11

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:58 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR Just an early heads up, sorry. We are in an all hands mtg w Marc Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:56 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR We can tweet; we can do a media advisory; we can do email. We can give\$LO News tribuneh bit of an early heads up, but what do you mean exclusive? Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:55 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR I'd like to give an exclusive tc David Snead at SLO News Tribune: .thoughts? Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817 200 1519 From : Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:53 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR Ok, let's talk at 9am. R4 can call my direct line. That is after my session with the ch;iirman so I should have the 17th floor comments. RPfresh my memory on rollout plans. Since we have the whole megilla( ,~,hat about an email to reporters with a linb From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:45 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Dricks, Victor 23

From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:56 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR We can tweet; we can do a media advisory; we can do email. We can giva SLO News tribune\a bit of an early heads up, but what do you mean exclusive? Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.41S..8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:55 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR I'd like to give an exclusive tt1 David Snead at SLO News Tribunt:: .thoughts? Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:53 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR Ok, let's talk at 9am. R4 can call my direct line. That is after my session with the chairman so I should have the 17th floor comments. Refresh my memory on rolfout plans 'Since we have the whole megilfa, what about an email to reporters with a link( From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:45 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR I have a diablo state report strategy ca ll w HQ at 7:30 cent ral time on what I can say tomorrow so let's talk before or after that if possible Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:28 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR 15

Mark Satori us just came down with a copy of his letter to Peck. He confirmed Peck has said he wants the whole package to go public. It's slated to go public tomorrow. I don't know what that does to our time table. Perhaps we all need to talk in the morning? Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:25 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Fw: Draft WIR I have absolutely no clue what a WIR is. Wow, it's real? From : Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:22 PM To: Sampson, Michele; Galloway, Melanie Cc: Segala, John; Sewell, Margaret; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR Thanks Michele!! We are working on the ADAMS record as we speak. I'll send you the ML number as soon as I get it From: Sampson, Michele Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:18 PM To: Galloway, Melanie Cc: Pedersen, Renee; Segala, John

Subject:

Draft WIR Melanie, Attached is a draft W IR for the DPO Appeal Decision. Trent Wertz in NRR has reviewed it and I've incorporated his comments. Renee is putting together the public case file and will provide the ML number when it is available. I have a placeholder in the W IR at the end to include that information. Please let me know if you have any comments , or any additional information that you may need. Thank you , Michele Sampson, Chief Licensing Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division Mail Stop 3WFN-14A44 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Phone: 301-287-9077 16

From: Schwartzman, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:46 AM To: Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

FW: Prep for media meeting tomorrow (b)(5) From: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:35 PM To: Schwartzman, Jennifer; Goode, Catina Cc: Helton, Shana

Subject:

RE: Prep for media meeting tomorrow (b)(5) From: Schwartzman, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:41 PM To: Goode, Catina Cc: Helton, Shana; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip

Subject:

Prep for media meeting tomorrow 3 documents attached: i:I. ~~~~~~~~~(~b)(~5)~~~~~~~~---' Jennifer Schwartzman Holzman Policy Advisor for Public Affairs and International Engagement Office of Chairman Macfarlane +1-301-415-2317 jennifer.schwartzman@nrc.gov 2

From: McIntyre, David Se nt: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Sounds like a fun day.

---

Original Message-----

From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:54 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo From Jen: It's my understanding that Thursday's meeting is going to deal with the technical issues associate~ with the Shoreline fault and an update of what's going on with the DPO, and that Phil has requested a separate meeting (as yet unscheduled) to address messaging on Diablo and the foreign ownership issue - to which he's asked that OPA, OCA, and assorted others be invited. Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203

---

Original Message-----

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Chairman brief on Diablo Hello: I left a voicemail for Scott as I heard from a RIV staffer that the Chairman wants a brief on all thing! Diablo this Thursday. Do you know about this and if so, will someone from HQ OPA sit in on that? Lara

---

Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1 :03 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

I'm out today and tomorrow Sorry, should have updated my voicemail. Haven't heard anything about a chairman brief. Check w/Holly? Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6) I 18

From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:30 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Galloway, Melanie; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor

Holly, I like your revisions. Looks good to me.

Renee From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Attached is a draft final version based on you r feedback. I'd like to send it to the Chairman's Office today. Please let me know if additional revisions are needed. Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:54 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

Re: Draft Letter to the Editor That is my understanding especially since the DPO was released to the public already. in this case, wouldn't that affect decision? Same person's NCPs were publically released and have been discussed with locals at public meetings about Diablo. Lara RIV OPA Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:40 AM To: Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy 1

Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Renee - can you speak to Melanie's question? It was my understanding that release would occur if the requested wished - once it was scrubbed for security/sensitive information. Holly Harrington Senior Leve l Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Galloway, Melanie Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:13 PM To: Pedersen, Renee; Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor My only comment is that the letter implies in 3 places that the only consideration in public release is whether the submitter would like the information released. But isn't there also consideration from an agency standpoint as to whether we want public release? Maybe not in this case but in general. And I wouldn't want to leave an impression that the only consideration is with the views of the submitter. Before stating that we will provide a public link to the DPO case file, we should ensure that we agree it can all be released. From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:10 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Galloway, Melanie; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor

Holly, Here are my comments on the article. I tried to put a link to the DPO MD under the words about DPO guidance, but it wouldn't link in the redline strikeout mode. You may want to do this, because the message is that we are in process!

Please let me know if you have any questions. Renee From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:40 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Draft Letter to the Editor To clarify- we assume you will share this with whomever else need to also review it. We will share a final (if it gets to that point) with the Chairman's Office. Holly Harrington 2

From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 1:33 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Public release of state report activities/timeline I doubt all the l's will be dotted and t's crossed for posting tomorrow, just my experience. Previous OK of the letter to 1 the editor does not, unfortunately, indicate smooth sailing on the 17 h floor for a blog post. Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Useldlng, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:43 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Public release of state report activlties/timeline Importance: High Here's what's going to go down tomorrow on PG&E end. I'd like to be able to put our blog up tomorrow afternoon and be able to include info on the DPO. Anyone able to share our proposed strategy with EDO office to see if they think they could issue it tomorrow? Lara From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 11:19 AM To: Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wlttick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, Catherine; OKeefe, Neil; Uhle, Jennifer; Lund, Louise

Subject:

irnfo: status of public release of Diablo canyon State of California report To all, Based on my discussions with Philippe Soenen of PG&E, PG&E is targeting the public release of the State of California report for 11 :00 am Pacific time (2:00 pm eastern) on 9/10/1 4. PG&E intends to do the following :

• Issue an announcement
• Issue a press release
• Make the document publicly available on their website
• Provide a hard copy to the County
• Walk a copy of the report to us to be provided to the document control desk in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4 requirements 10

On a different note, Mike Markley, Eric Oesterle. and I briefed Jennifer Uhle on the status of Diablo seismic issues using the attached briefing sheet No action required on your part. Thought you should know. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Joe Sebrosky 301-41 5-11 32 11

I From: Weil. Jenny Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:08 AM To: Powell, Amy; Moreno, Angel Cc: Dacus, Eugene; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Diablo DPO Yup, we got word yesterday that this was officially going to be California Day.

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

From: Powell, Amy Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:48 AM To: Weil , Jenny

 *c c: Dacus, Eugene; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Diablo DPO At Chairman's mtg - Oiablo DPO going public this morning. Do you have it? Are you plugged in for Hill notifications? CC'ing Eliot who has the whole package if you need it. Amy Powell Associate Director Office of Congressional Affairs U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301-415-1673 Sent from my Blackberry 5

From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:22 AM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002 is now public Thanks Eliot From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:21 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Weil, Jenny; Dacus, Eugene; Powell, Amy

Subject:

FW: DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002 is now public Importance: High OCA" if you have not already, you can notify the Hill this stuff is public. However, the link apparently is working only within the agency, so you might want to send them the PDF package that I forwarded to you. OPA will notify reporters at noon EDT. Eliot From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:10 AM To: Satorius, Mark Cc: Galloway, Melanie; Sampson, Michele; Segala, John; Zimmerman, Roy; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Dorman, Dan; Hilton, Nick; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

FYI: DPO case File-DP0-2013-002 is now public Importance: High

Mark, Just wanted to let everyone know that the DPO Case File is now publicly available. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Renee From: Hasan, Nasreen Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:04 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; Sewell, Margaret

Subject:

DPO case File-DP0-2013-002 Document is publicly available now. View /\DAMS pg Properties ML14252A743 Open ADAMS pg Document (DPO Case File-DP0-20 13-002 (Public).) T/Ulll f< J'()II, Na:.reen Ha.rnn A d111i11istrath*e As.\ i.Wmt 12

Office of E 1~forceme11t l ocatiou I Mail.vtop: 0-4A l SA Office #: (301)415-2741 Fax: (3() /)415-3431 13

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:50 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

FW: DPO Case file now public FYI From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:47 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO Case file now public It's there now. 5

tJ US NRC ADAMS Common Web Interface* Microsoft lntemet Explorer provided by USNRC @Q

• I , http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/

File Edit View Favorites Tools Help w Favorites ! t~ US NRC ADAMS Common We... Web-based .A.DA~IS J Folder View II Content Search Advanced Search I ADAMS << ** Download i:] Properties ~ Export D Report

  .::.I f".J Recent Released Documents *                     [ JHide Package Contents
          .::.I ,_] September 2014 Document Title 1.. .J September 10, 2014 DPO Case File-DP0-2013-002 (Public).

lJ J September 09 , 2014

                  .+/-J              September 08, 2014                  09/25/2014 Corrosion rates for Fitness for
                  .tJ L J September 05 , 2014                          Service (FFS) evaluations of buried pipe

tJ J September 04, 2014 NUREG-2157 Vol 1, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of l:.t:J .] September 03, 2014 Spent Nuclear Fuel: Final Report."

                  %1       .J September 02, 2014 August 2014 July 2014

B _J May 2014

          !J ( .J April 2014

_J December 2013 J November 2013

          .+/-J _) October 2013
           ,I         l    I, , ... ,_')(\~')

6

From: Uselding, Lara Se nt: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:24 AM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Burnell, Scott; Sebrosky, Joseph

Subject:

RE: BLOG Great' Will do Also Scott has the State report blog for review along with Joe Sebrosky From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:23 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott Cc: McIntyre, David

Subject:

RE: Email to reporters on DPO case file now public Lara: this is fine. proceed at noon with notifications to reporters. Thank you . From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:19 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David

Subject:

RE: Email to reporters on DPO Case file now public I would save it as a PDF then so it cannot be altered Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:18 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly Cc: McIntyre, David

Subject:

Email to reporters on DPO case file now public Importance: High Yep, just tested this and a hyperlink won't work for my email to reporters. Holly, if you are fine, I will just send an attachment to the below email. The hyperlink works for me because I'm on an NRC computer but won 't work for non-NRC folks: Hello REPORTER NAME: Based on your interest in the Michael Peck differing professional opinion story that ran a couple of weeks ago, I am sharing the agency's final decision that was made public today. Per the process, the Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, has made a decision on the appeal and the submitter expressed his wish to have the file publically released . 9

To refresh your memory, the submitter Michael Peck stated that the new Shoreline fault information should be compared to the double design earthquake (DDE) and that PG&E needed a license amendment. The independent reviewing panel (document 8, page 3) disagrees and states, " ... an amendment to the license was not required because t he Shoreline fault zone ground motions do not exceed the levels evaluated in the plant's design and licensing." Further, " ... there is more than one appropriate evaluation method for eva luating the new seismic information. The Hosgri evaluation methods for structures used higher damping values than the Double Design earthquake." It goes on to say that "substituting the new seismic information into the calculation construct of the DDE would offer little insight as to how the structures, systems, and components would perform because the older techniques for overly conservative and no longer technically justified." Also, let me draw your attention to page 5 of the attached document. Satorius says, "In t he appeal, you noted your agreement with the Ad Hoc Review Panel's conclusion that issues raised in the DPO do not result in a significant or immediate safety concern. You also state agreement that the potential ground motions for the Shoreline fault do nol exceed the levels considered during licensing of the plant." Satorius continues in paragraph 4 with, "A compelling basis for my conclusion is drawn from our meeting on July 30, 2014, when you and I agreed that there is not now nor has there been an immediate or significant safety concerns associated with this Diablo Canyon issue." Feel free to call me with additional questions. Lara Uselding From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:13 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO Case file now public Still not visible in the public website ADAMS. From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:11 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

FYI: DPO Case file now public FYI, the DPO Case File is now public. From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:55 AM To: Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pedersen, Renee; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael Entire email may be found as document

Subject:

draft DPO comm Plan M/75 in interim response #5 in FOIA/PA Importance: High -2014-0488 (ML15224A774).

Everyone, Good morning. Attached please find a draft of the DPO Comm plan that was discussed at the 8:30 call this AM .

This is provided to you for comment. Please note that it reflects real-time action on the DPO Appeal and 10

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:56 AM To: McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

Fw: draft DPO (0mm Plan Attachments: Draft mini-Comm Plan on DCPP DPO.docx Importance: High FYI Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6) I From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 09:54 AM To: Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pedersen, Renee; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

draft DPO comm Plan Everyone, Good morning. Attached please find a draft of the DPO Comm plan that was discussed at the 8:30 calf this AM. This is provided to you for comment. Please note that it reflects real-time action on the DPO Appeal and incorporates comments from the discussion this morning on the AB-1632 Seismic Report. Much of the Q&A comes from the "living-DCPP Comm Plan" that is being maintained by RIV (the highlighted questions are troublesome to NRR/DORL but we understand that RIV prefers to maintain these). I have included a question at the end about whether new information in the AB-1632 report could impact the DPO conclusions. Also note that the Comm Plan does not contain a timeline as we are already real-time. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. f vCo 'R. O~e,vle, Acting Branch Chief NRR/D0RL/ LPL4-1

    ~**

301-415-1014 (~!.c l 1

 ;~V r'
  ~'

Q .~

DRAFT - 6FFle lAL tJSE 6NLY Sl!!f4SITrO'I!'! lf4Tl!'!"-f4ll<L lf4F6ftM>ltTl8f4 He, F6R p~sue RELEA8e.- Communications Plan - Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest Differing Professional Opinion and Appeal

Background

The former SRI at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) submitted non-concurrence papers (NCPs) in January 2011 and January 2012, followed by a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) in July 2013 detailing a disagreement with the NRC about how new seismic information should be compared to the plant's current seismic license requirements. DPO 2013-02 restated the issues presented in NCP 2012-01 and added a concern that a license amendment was needed incorporate the Shoreline fault into Diablo Canyon's FSAR as described in the RIL 12-01 cover letter. The added concern was that the NRC did not review or take action on the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults. In accordance with Management Directive 10.159, a DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel was established to review the DPO submittal, meet with DPO submitter, and issues a DPO report including conclusions and recommendations regarding disposition of the issues presented in the DPO. The panel completed its report in May 2014 and a decision on the DPO was rendered in letter dated May 29, 2014, to the DPO submitter. The DPO submitter appealed the decision to the EDO in accordance with the NRCs DPO process. The EDO completed his consideration of the DPO appeal on September 9, 2014, concluding that he was in agreement with the original decision. The purpose of this communication plan is to provide key messages associated with the EDO's decision on the DPO appeal and public release of the DPO Case File. Key Messages:

1. The NRC appreciates members of the staff bring issues like this to its attention

2. The NRC encourages the use of non-concurrences and the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO} process

3. The NRC reviews all non-concurrences and DPOs thoroughly and believes that this is a healthy and necessary part the regulatory process

4. The NRC believes that, in the end, all of our regulatory decisions are better because of this process

5. The NRC has an obligation to protect the individual(s) submitting non-concurrences and DPOs and takes that obligation seriously

6. The DPO process is a non-public process and it is a strictly controlled and formalized process

7. Persons serving on the DPO Panels are independent of the issues raised in the DPO

8. Upon disposition of the DPO via a Director's decision, the DPO submitter has appeal rights to the EDO

DRAFT - 6FFl81.tct tl81!E 8Ul::V 8EU8"1VE IHfEfU4AL IP4F8ftMATl8P4 '48T F6R PtJBLle RELEASE

9. While the DPO is under review or appeal, NRG is prohibited from engaging in discussions with external stakeholders regarding the specifics of the of the DPO submittal

10. After the EDO's decision on the appeal, the DPO submitter has the right to make the DPO case file public to the extent that personal privacy information and SUNSI information is not contained in the DPO 11 . Regarding the DPO for Diablo Canyon, the NRG has been and will continue to be as open and scrutable as possible while protecting the privacy rights of the individual

12. The NRC does not know the source of the public release of the Diablo Canyon DPO submittal prior to the EDO rendering a decision on the appeal

13. The NRG can, however, comment on a few aspects of the DPO appeal review o A Director's Decision has been made and the DPO appeal to the EDO has been finalized o The EDO and the DPO submitter have both agreed that the issues raised in the DPO do not present an immediate safety concern for Diablo Canyon o The NRC has sought permission from the DPO submitter to allow the DPO case file to be made publicly available and the DPO submitter has agreed o We would expect the public release of the DPO case file to be within a few days of the EDO's appeal decision

14. Regarding the operational status of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 o The plant remains within its approved design and licensing basis o There are no current operability concerns resulting from the DPO o The recent earthquake in the Napa Valley did not reach Diablo Canyon - it was neither felt nor detected Communication Team The primary responsibility of the communication team is to ensure that it conveys a consistent, accurate, and timely message to all stakeholders. The team consists of the project management, technical , and communication staff named below.

Team Member Position Organization Telephone Troy Pruett Division Director (Acting) RIV/DRP 817-200-1291 Wayne Walker Branch Chief R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1148 Ryan Alexander Sr. Project Engineer R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1195 Sr. Resident Inspector - Thomas Hipschman R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Resident Inspector - John Reynoso R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Thomas Farnholtz Branch Chief RIV/DRS/EB1 817-200-1243

DRAFT - 6f'P:lelAL tJ91!! eNt'(

             !l!!r~SITl't'E INTERNAL IHfiORMAllON NOT fiOR fltJBLle RELEASE Jon Ake                       Senior Seismologist       RES/DE/SGSEB                 301-251-7695 Eric Oesterle                 Acting Branch Chief       NRR/DORL/LPLIV               301-415-1014 Balwant Singal                DCPP Project Manager      NRR/DORL/LPLIV               301-415-3016 Renee Pedersen                DPOPM                     OE/CRB                       301-415-2742 Scott Burnell                 Public Affairs Officer    OPA                          301-415-8204 Angel Moreno                  Congressional Affairs     OCA                          301-415-1691 Amy Powell                    Associate Director        OCA                          301 -415-1673 Victor Oricks                 Public Affairs Officer    RIV                         817-200-1 128 Lara Uselding                 Public Affairs Officer    RIV                         817-200-1519 Bill Maier                    State Liaison Officer     RIV                         817-200-1267 Non-concurrence and DPO Questions

[NOTE - this information is generally NON-PUBLIC, but is provided as background only] NOTE: General FAQs on the DPO Program are included on the DPO Web site (look under Employee Resources- Employee Concerns.

1. Was the former DCPP SRI reassigned because he flied two non-concurrences?

No. Michael Peck was not reassigned. He applied for an instructor position in his area of expertise at the NRC's technical training center in Chattanooga, TN, at about the time he submitted his non-concurrence in accordance with the Non-Concurrence Process described in MD 10.158. He was competitively selected for this sought-after position, and reported to his new assignment in September 2012. Resident inspector assignments are limited to 7 years to ensure objectivity. It is common for resident inspectors to apply for their next job when a desirable position comes open.

2. When were the non-concurrences filed?

Two non-concurrences were filed by the DCPP SRI. 11/7/11. The OCPP SRI submitted NCP 2011-103, on inspection report 05000275; 323/201104. 1/26/12. The DCPP SRI submitted NCP 2012-01 , on inspection report 05000275; 323/201105.

3. What were the non-concurrences?

DRAFT 61-filCIAL tl!f 6f4LY 9!f491Trtl! IN'f!IU~AL lf~fi6ftMATl6f4 f46'f l'Oft fltll!tle ftl!Ll!A!I! Both non-concurrences involve the same subject; regulatory actions in response to the discovery of the Shoreline Fault. NCP 201 1-103 was filed by the DCPP SRI on the basis that no violation was issued (as he had submitted in the draft report) related to operability evaluation of the Shoreline fault in Report 2011-04. NCP 2011-103 was dispositioned finalizing the violation in IR 2011-05 issued on 2/14/12. (The employee requested that the NCP be non-public.) NCP 2012-01 was filed by the DCPP SRI because the SRI believed the violation in NRC IR 2011-05 should be for an inadequate operability evaluation of the Shoreline Fault rather than not doing an operability evaluation until June 2012. The SRI believed the facility should be shutdown or the license amended to reflect the Shoreline fault. NCP 2012-01was discussed with NRC stakeholders representing NRR/DE, NRR/DORL, RIV, and RES. NCP 2012-01 was dispositioned as a multi-office staff position which concluded that a violation for having no operability evaluation from January 2011 to June 2011 existed because the licensee completed the RIS 2005-020 immediate (interim) operability evaluation in June 2011 . Additionally, the offices involved in NCP 2012-01 acknowledged that a final operability evaluation could not be completed by the licensee until the NRC decided what requirements and methods should be applied to new seismic information. At the time of Inspection Report 2011-05 issuance it was expected that the requirements and methods would be addressed in a License Amendment Request that was under consideration . However, by 3Q/2012, enough progress had been made on RIL 2012-01 for NRR and RES to conclude that the LTSP method of analysis used in the immediate operability assessment was sufficient to evaluate the Shoreline fault and that the Shoreline Fault should be considered a lesser included case of the Hosgri event. (The employee supported public release of the NCP ADAMS ML 121A173.)

4. When was the OPO filed?

July 18, 2013. The former DCPP SRI filed Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) 2013-02 associated with the regulatory response following the discovery of the Shoreline Fault. NRC employees are encouraged to file a DPO if they believe an agency decision is in error. The DPO process is in keeping with the agency's open and collaborative working environment.

5. What is the DPO?

DPO 2013-02 restated the issues presented in NCP 2012-01 and added a concern that a license amendment was needed incorporate the shoreline fault into Diablo Canyon's FSAR as described in the RIL 12-01 cover letter. The added concern was that the NRC did not review or take action on the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults.

6. What is the status of the DPO?

DRAFT - eFFlelAL ~8E @ULY Sf!H81f1Vf! IUTE!fU4AL IHP:6RMATl6H f46T Feft f'~Btle fitELE/cSE A decision on the DPO was issued by the Office Director for NRR on May 29, 2014 consistent with the NRC's process included in MD 10.159. The DPO submitter appealed this decision to the EDO on June 23, 2014, and the appeal was thoroughly evaluated by the EDO and decision on the appeal was rendered on September 9, 2014. As part of the agency's open and collaborative work environment, the NRC has established the DPO program as a means for employees to have their concerns reviewed by high level managers. The DPO Program is a formal process that allows all employees and contractors to have their differing views on established, mission-related issues considered by the highest level managers in their organizations, i.e., Office Directors and Regional Administrators. The process also provides managers with an independent, three-person review of the issue (one person chosen by the employee). After a decision is issued to an employee, he or she may appeal the decision to the Executive Director for Operations (or the Chairman for those offices reporting to the Commission).

7. Will the decision regardi111g the DPO be made public?

The NRC supports openness and will include a summary of the* disposition of the DPO in the Commission's Weekly Information Report included on the NRC Web site (see Commission Documents under the Document Collections in the NRC Library). The DPO submitter has been contacted regarding the EDO's decision on the DPO appeal and has communicated support for the public release of the DPO Case File (with appropriate redactions). The DPO Case File should be publicly available within a few days of the EDO's DPO appeal decision.

8. Was the SRI wrongfully reassigned after filing two non-concurrences and a DPO?

No. As noted in Q&A #1 above, the SRI applied for and was selected to a highly sought instructor position at the NRC's Technical Training Center. The NRC does not tolerate retaliation for engaging in the NCP or the DPO Program and both MDs reiterate this policy and direct employees to resources in the event they believe that they have been retaliated against.

9. Would the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision change based on the new seismic information found in the State of California report?

PG&E, the licensee for Diablo Canyon, is providing a report to the State of California that includes the results of its most recent evaluation of the seismic hazards for the Diablo Canyon facility. The NRC understands that the report will be provided to the State of California on September 10, 2014, and that a copy will be provided to the NRC as well. Prior to performing a detailed review of this report, the NRC is not able to ascertain whether the new seismic information contained in the report would change the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision. The NRC understands that PG&E plans to incorporate the findings from this report into their ongoing analysis required by the NRC Post-Fukushima task force recommendations that are due in March 2015. The NRC believes this more rigorous analysis will provide the most accurate assessment of faults affecting the DCPP. In addition, the NRC

DRAFT 8FFlelAL USE 6NLY 8!rt911flVE lrt"fERUAL IUF8RMA"fl@U run F8R Pt:18Ll8 RELEA8E staff's review of the new seismic information in the report notes that PG&E's evaluation concludes that the ground motions resulting from the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant. NRC Resident Inspectors and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's corrective action process assessment of new preliminary information concerning DCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information indicates reasonable assurance of public health and safety after a seismic event. The NRC staff will continue to review the new information provided in the report in accordance with the NRC's inspection process. The NRC will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the new information associated with the Faults around DCPP cause NRC to question PG&E's conclusions.

From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:36 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR Most recently posted was Sept 3 for week ending Aug 22 - so two weeks. That should be moot though if the package goes public tomorrow From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:35 PM To: Uselding, Lara; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR I do not know. We will probably find out in the morning. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:28 PM To: McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR When is this WIR expected to go out? Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:26 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Viet, r; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR In this context, Weekly Information Report. Something v, ~ used to contribute a list of press releases and media inquiries to. It's a public SECY paper. From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:25 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; C *icks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Fw: Draft WIR I have absolutely no clue what a WIR is. Wow, it's rec ? From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:22 PM To: Sampson, Michele; Galloway, Melanie Cc: Segala, John; Sewell, Margaret; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR Thanks Michele!! We are working on the ADAMS record as we speak I'll send you the ML number as soon as I get it. 7

From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:38 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR The WIR 1s probably moot now. It was going to be the only public accounting of the DPO IF Peck said he didn't want "the package" made public. From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:37 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Uselding, Lara; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR I'm unclear how the WIR relates to what Mark Satorius called "the package," which contains the summary, the original DPO, the DPO panel review to Eric, Eric's decision, Peck's appeal and Mark's letter. According to Mark, they working to rapidly make "the package" public tomorrow in ADAMS Hol ly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:35 PM To: Uselding, Lara; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR I do not know. We will probably find out in the morning. From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:28 PM To: McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR When is this WIR expected to go out? Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:26 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: Draft WI R In this context. Weekly Information Report. Something we used to contribute a list of press releases and media inquiries to. It's a public SECY paper. 3

From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:25 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Fw: Draft WIR I have absolutely no clue what a WIR is. Wow, it's rea l? From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:22 PM To: Sampson, Michele; Galloway, Melanie Cc: Segala, John; Sewell, Margaret; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR Thanks Michelel! We are working on the ADAMS record as we speak. I'll send you the ML number as soon as I get it. From: Sampson, Michele Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:18 PM To: Galloway, Melanie Cc: Pedersen, Renee; Segala, John

Subject:

Draft WIR

Melanie, Attached is a draft WIR for the DPO Appeal Decision. Trent Wertz in NRR has reviewed it and I've incorporated his comments.

Renee is putting together the public case file and will provide the ML number when it is available. I have a placeholder in the WIR at the end to include that information. Please let me know if you have any comments, or any additional information that you may need. Thank you, Michele Sampson, Chief Licensing Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division Mail Stop 3WFN-14A44 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Phone: 301 -287-9077 4

Office of the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) Items of Interest EDO Decision on Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) 2013-002 Appeal: Diablo Canyon Seismic Issues (DPO 2013-002) On September 9, 2014, the Executive Director for Operations (EDO) issued a decision on the appeal of DPO 2013-002, concerning seismic issues at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP). The DPO submitted on July 19, 2013, stated that DCNPP had performed less than adequate corrective actions to incorporate new seismic information into the current licensing basis and that the licensee failed to demonstrate operability of the plant technical specification required structures, systems, and components. A DPO review panel was established on September 3, 2013. On April 3, 2014, the results of the panel's independent review were provided to the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). The panel concluded that whille the DCNPP licensing history was complex and unique, the new seismic information would not exceed the levels of ground motion already considered during the design and licensing of the plant. Based on review of the panel's report and input from the DPO submitter, the Director, NRR, issued his decision on May 29, 2014, concluding that there was not a significant or immediate concern with seismic safety at DCNPP and that the licensee and staff had followed appropriate processes for technical specification operability of plant equipment and Title 1O Code of Federal Regulations 50.59 evaluations with a reasonable technical and safety rationale. The Office Director's decision was appealed to the EDO on June 23, 2014. The EDO's decision on the appeal supported both the DPO panel's technical conclusions and the Office Director's decision. The EDO noted that the DPO raised awareness of the complexity of the DCNPP seismic licensing basis, but also illustrated the need for the agency to ensure there are clear guidelines for staff and licensees regarding how changes in natural hazards should be evaluated for all licensees. The public records for this DPO are available in the DPO case file package in ADAMS (MLXXXXXXX).

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:35 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Vict or

Subject:

RE: Draft WIR They said they will give me draft PR one hour before they issue to keep "close hold." I expect that at 10 a.m. pacific time and will share once I have it. Per Joe Sebrosky, "PG&E is targeting the public release of the State of California report for 11 :00 am Pacific time (2:00 pm eastern) on 9/10/1 4. PG&E intends to do the following :

• Issue an announcement
• Issue a press release
• Make the document publicly available on their website
• Provide a hard copy to the County
• Walk a copy of the report to us to be provided to the document control desk in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4 requirements" From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:16 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; McIntyre, David; Oricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR Scott, you don't need t i be on the call. Lara: 11 central or pacific? I t hought PGE was going at 11am Pacific. From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 05:03 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR I'll be in NRO Commission meet ing unless you fee l I need to be in discussion. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell (b)(6) From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:59 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Draft WIR Let's talk at 9am . I kind of like giving him a couple o f hours lead time. Laura do you know how to reach him in o ff hours7 Like at maybe 7-Sam Pacific? 14

From: Schwartzman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:06 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David Subje ct: RE: diablo Thanks Lara. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:05 PM To: Schwartzman, Jennifer; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David

Subject:

RE: diablo Agree - after talking to Victor we agreed not to mention the DPO for the below reason and other optics. I just wrapped a call with NRR, research, OGC and others on the comm plan which will dictate what I can say in a blog. It's looking like I won't be able to get a blog to you all today so hopefully we can have one ready to go for Thursday at least. There is still much discussion within the agency on how much we want to say at this point when f;:ir.P.rl with ;:i 1 nnn n;:ini:> rP.oort . From: Schwartzman, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 2:03 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara

Subject:

RE: diablo Lara . will look for your option 2. In the meantime, I think it might be wise to flip the two subjects around so we focus on the actual safety issue (or lack thereof) first before we address the DPO which is not about a safety issue. Also, we can't mention Peck by name unless he opts to publicly release, right? From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 1:47 PM To: Schwartzman, Jennifer Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara

Subject:

diablo Jen: Tomorrow PG&E puts out its new seismic report, and there is at least some prospect that the DPO decision, at least in summary form, will be made public. Pre-emptively, please take a gander at this as a possible blog that wraps the two together. The blog's DPO language may have to be modified depending on how that unfolds. I am off the grid until about 4 p.m. for a medical appointment and then should be back reading email again. Eliot The NRC's Executive Director for Operations - the agency's senior technical manager -- has released a final decision in a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) filed by an agency staffer about the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The decision concluded the issue raised in the DPO was not a safety issue, and noted all involved -- incuding the employee - agreed safety was not an issue. 1

The DPO is one of many paths available for employees to formally document their views. While some suggested the agency hid its decision from public view, in reality the decision was made public when the formal review process reached its conclusion. The submitter, Michael Peck, is a current NRC employee and former inspector at the plant. He has twice previously used what is known as the non-concurrence process to share his professional opinion and that file is publically available. In all three instances, the agency's technical experts declined to endorse the inspector's position. In the final decision cover letter, Satorious said," XXXXXX ." Peck's issues involve the discovery of the "Shoreline Fault," located just a few hundred yards offshore from the plant in 2008. In 2011 , the plant operator, PG&E submitted a detailed analysis of the newly discovered fault to the NRC. Both PG&E's analysis and the NRC's independent review reached the same conclusion - the Shoreline fault's shaking potential falls within what the Diablo Canyon reactors are already designed to withstand from another fault, known as the Hosgri fault. Under PG&E's long-term seismic program, it must share any new seismic related information as it becomes available. Today PG&E issued a report to the state as required by the California state legislature and also shared a copy with the NRC. In 2006, the California Energy Commission required plants to assess the vulnerability of the state's nuclear power plants to seismic hazards. As part of the assessment, PG&E performed 2-D and 3-D mapping on and offshore the area near the plant. This is a different methodology than what was used to assess the Shoreline fault. Based upon NRC staff's preliminary review of the newest report, there is no new information to suggest that there is an immediate safety concern. NRC Resident Inspectors have looked at the licensee's operability assessment that was performed as a result of the new seismic information and so far there is no new information that would lead the NRC to conclude that continued safe operation of Diablo Canyon is challenged. However, j ust as was done with the review of the Shoreline fault information in 2011 , the NRC will conduct a more thorough review of the new information. The seismic report is XXXX-thousand pages and contains a lot of new technical information that will need to be analyzed to independently verify the calculations against the requirements of Research Information Letter (RIL) 12-01 "Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant from the Shoreline Fault Zone." In the RIL, NRC determined that the maximum ground motion expected at Diablo from a seismic event occurring along the Shoreline fault would be bounded by (less than) the shaking that would be generated by the Hosgri fault. This new seismic information will also be used to respond to the NRC's request for every U.S. nuclear power plant to re-analyze their earthquake hazards following Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident. PG&E's response is due to the NRC in March 2015. 2

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:10 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Uselding, Lara

Subject:

FW: action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report Holly, Lara; How does the highlighted text below change our consideration of an "all in one" blog post on Diablo?I Scott

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

From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1 :25 PM To: Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Wrona, David; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred Cc: Weil , Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report To all, The purpose of this email is to request your comments on the attached draft communication plan associated with PG&E's pending release of a report to the State of California related to seismic issues. PG&E has indicated to the staff that the report will include an updated evaluation of the Shoreline Fault and concludes that the Shoreline Fault is more capable than assumed in PG&E 2011 report that was provided to the NRC. Comments from Jon Ake, Britt Hill would be appreciated by noon tomorrow. I will incorporate their comments and provided the product to the Region IV by COB tomorrow. (Britt I tried to capture some of your comments that you have provided and also some verbal comments that Jon provided me) I understand that Tom Hipschman will talk to PG&E to confirm when they intend to issue the report to the State of California. PG&E previously indicated that it would be between 8/28 and 9/8. Tom believes that PG&E is now leaning towards issuing the report on 9/8 or 9/9. Once Tom confirms the target date for issuance of the report, the folks on distribution for this email will be informed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be working with DORL and the JLD to coordinate headquarters review of the communication plan.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301-415-1132 11

From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Update So we have three things I think we want to pull together (If I'm following this):

1. the DPO

2. The PG&E report

3. Background on our seismic work to date Only the first two are time sensitive, but it's not clear to me the timing will be in sync. So we need to chat (perhaps on the call Thursday) about how to kill all these birds with one stone. Also to remember, any blog post will have to go to the 17th floor, so we have to build in time for that to occur ... just ask Victor where his siren blog post is ... :-(

Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203

---

Original Message-----

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:17 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Update Per the below status on state report I want to wait and write a blog to correspond with its release. So for now, no blog coming from me on Diablo

---

Original Message-----

From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:12 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal ; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Wrona, David; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report The licensee stated they are now looking at September 9 or 10 for the release of the report, and stakeholder outreach the day before. Tom

---

Original Message---

From: Sebrosky, Joseph Full version of bottom email may be found in Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:25 AM interim response #3 in FOIA/PA-2014-0488 (ML15033A280). 7

From: M cIntyre, David Se nt: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:42 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Dricks, Victor; Useld ing, Lara; Harrington, Ho lly; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Anticipating Need for Public Release o f DPO Case File Attachments: Releasability Review of DPO Case Files-2014.docx Importance: Hig h FYI From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:27 PM To: Wertz., Trent Cc: Sewell, Margaret; Solorio, Dave; Arrighi, Russell; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott; Sampson, Michele; case, Michael; Holahan, Patricia

Subject:

Anticipating Need for Public Release of DPO case File Importance: High Trent, Normally we wait until the case is complete and then ask the employee if they want the DPO Case File public and if so, begin the process for discretionary release. Because we want to be able to address this issue as soon as possible, and because it is likely that the employee will want the DPO Case File public when the process is complete, we are asking for NRR support in reviewing documents for discretionary release before we build the final DPO Case File pdf. Please use the enclosed procedures to get a j ump start on the releasibility review. Please review:

• The DPO submittal
• The DPO Panel report
• The DPO Decision
• The DPO appeal
• The Statement of Views When Mark issues the decision, we will assemble the records in a pdf and ask you to create a redacted record (if necessary).

NRR should be prepared with their communication plan. The summary will go out in the Weekly Information report with a link to the public ADAMS record. OPA may to proactively address the case. Please speak with Dave McIntyre or Scott Burnell. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. Renee

Releasability Review of DPO Case Files

1. When the DPO is complete, the DPOPM will get input from the DPO submitter on whether they would like the DPO Case File non-public or public (with or without release of his or her identity).

2. If the DPO submitter does not want the DPO Case File made available to the public, then the DPO Case File will be profiled as non-public in ADAMS and normally made available to all NRC viewers. (There may be instances where it is appropriate to identify limited NRC viewers.)

3. If the DPO submitter would like discretionary release of the DPO Case File to the public, the organization responsible for the subject of the DPO is also responsible for performing a releasability review to support the discretionary release of the DPO Case File. (Note:

Notwithstanding an individual's preference for public release of a DPO Case File, it is management's responsibility to determine whether public release (with or without redactions) is appropriate.

4. The OD/RA in the organization responsible for the subject of the DPO is also responsible for making the decision on the discretionary release of the DPO Case File (with or without redactions).

5. The OD/RA should identify a point of contact (POC) to assist and coordinate the releasability review of the DPO Case File (with or without redactions).

6 . The POC may receive guidance from staff knowledgeable in the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA), including the FOIA/PA Officer, OIS and the Assistant General Counsel Legal Counsel, Legislation and Special Projects, Office of General Counsel (OGC).

7. The releasability review should be performed in accordance with current agency practices and guidance, including the NRC Policy For Handling, Marking, and Protecting Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI), MD 3.4, "Release of Information to the Public," and Yellow Announcement 2009-054, "New Freedom of Information Act Procedures."

8. Although DPO Case Files might be eligible for withholding under FOIA Exemption 5 because they reflect views, analysis, and recommendations that constituted part of the deliberative process, the releasability review should apply the "foreseeable harm" standard consistent with the current FOIA procedures included in Yellow Announcement 2009-054.

9. As directed by President Obama in his Memorandum on FOIA issued on January 21 , 2009,

   The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."

10. The releasability review should consider the age, content, and character of the document in determining whether the agency reasonably foresees that the disclosure would harm an interest under FOIA Exemption 5.

11 . Consistent with the goal of Exemption 5, the review should consider whether the names, titles, etc. of persons included in the DPO Case File (other than the DPO submitter who requested public release) be redacted to avoid inhibiting the open, frank, and candid exchange of opinions. In particular, the POC will contact individuals named or otherwise identified by position or function from the write-up regarding their desire for having specific identifying information redacted , as appropriate, in order to avoid a chilling effect during internal deliberations.

12. Consistent with the goal of Exemption 5, the review should consider the need to protect against public confusion by disclosure of reasons and rationale that are not in fact actual reasons for agency decisions. The DPO submitter's personal opinions and concerns in the submittal will be reviewed against the agency's evaluation in the DPO panel report and OD's/RA's final decision in light of the agency decision reflected regarding the subject of the DPO.

13. The releasability review shall be coordinated with the Assistant General Counsel Legal Counsel, Legislation and Special Projects (LC), OGC when DPO Case Files include attorney-client information or attorney work-product. The Assistant General Counsel, LC will coordinate the review with other Assistant General Counsels as necessary (e.g ., the Assistant General Counsel Materials Litigation and Enforcement, OGC when the DPO Case File involves enforcement issues). DPO Case Files will not be released without the concurrence of OGC. (An email can be used to document OGC approval.)

14. The releasability review shall be coordinated with 01 when DPO Case Files include investigative information and OE when DPO Case Files involve an enforcement action.

DPO Case Files will not be released without the concurrence of 0 1or OE, as applicable. (An email can be used to document 0 1or OE approval.)

15. If the DPO Case File cannot be fully disclosed, NRC should make partial disclosures of nonexempt information unless the redactions would leave only essentially meaningless words or phrases.

16. If the DPO Case File should be withheld in its entirety due to the predecisional nature, the OD/RA should consider discretionary release (with or without redactions) when the malter is complete (e.g., after the enforcement process is complete).

17. The organization responsible for the subject of the DPO is also responsible for creating a redacted DPO Case File, if necessary. Redacted DPO Case Files will be profiled in ADAMS similar to the original DPO documents and will use the same document name, followed by the annotation, "-Redacted, Public."

18. A cover sheet will be included for a redacted DPO Case File to indicate that the record has been redacted e.g ., "This record has been redacted prior to discretionary release." Because the release is discretionary and not based on a FOIA request, the cover sheet should NOT reference any specific FOIA Exemption.

19. The DPO Case File should be profiled in ADAMS using ADAMS Template OE-011 , and filed in the DPO folder in the ADAMS main library.

20. If it takes substantial time to create a redacted DPO Case File, the non-public DPO Case File should be issued first and the redacted DPO Case File can be added to ADAMS at a later time.

21 . When the releasability review is complete, the OD/RA will provide feedback to the DPO submitter when redactions are warranted or when a decision is made to withhold the entire document. This includes informing the DPO submitter that the decision to withhold the entire document may be revisited when agency actions are complete, i.e., after the enforcement process is complete.

22. The POC should email the ADAMS accession number for the final package to the DPO submitter and DPOPM.Resource@nrc.gov.

From: McIntyre, David Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 9:24 AM To: Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: FRIDAY COS Meeting I Commission 18th Floor Conference Room I don't believe I'm supposed to - I'm just to get Phil the revised talking points by then . From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:13 AM To: McIntyre, David

Subject:

FW: FRIDAY COS Meeting I Commission 18th Floor Conference Room Can you confirm you are to attend? Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:40 PM To: castleman, Patrick; Benner, Eric Cc: Pace, Patti; Akstulewicz, Brenda; Belmore, Nancy; Bozin, Sunny; Cermeno, Andrea; Goode, catina; Helton, Shana; Herr, Linda; Jimenez, Patricia; Lepre, Janet; Mayberry, Theresa; Powell, Amy; Pulley, Deborah; Riddick, Nicole; Rothschild, Trip; Temp, WCO; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Dacus, Eugene; Powell, Amy; Hart, Ken; Laufer, Richard; McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Jones, Bradley

Subject:

FRIDAY COS Meeting I Commission 18th Floor Conference Room I {b)(Si Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner Chief of Staff Office of Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1750 I phillip.niedzielski-eichner@nrc.gov

IBEST COPY AVAILABLE From: Burnell, Scott Se nt: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:21 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Munson, Clifford; Sebrosky, Joseph; Williams, Megan; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas

Subject:

RE: Scott/Joe; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot I can take care of talking to OGC, please send me the revised version. Thanks. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:16 PM To: Munson, Clifford; Sebrosky, Joseph; Williams, Megan; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Scott/Joe; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot Ok, I'm making this change and one other and will send Joe bar" tho , ..... 0 ..+ ..,.,,... ;,....... +.... """'"' i-..y OGC. From: Munson, Clifford Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11 :13 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Williams, Megan; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Miehe Cc: Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas

Subject:

RE: Scott/Joe; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot I agree Joe. Cliff From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:59 AM To: Williams, Megan; Munson, Clifford; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael Cc: Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas

Subject:

FW: Scott/Joe ; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot Megan, Cliff, Eric, and Mike, Attached is the latest version of the blog that includes Scott's comments that removes some language that had me concerned. I still have one issue:

• The blog indicated that the staff will "independently verify the calculations." I don't believe this is correct. Can we say the staff will "independently assess the information in the report." I do not believe we are going to do a complete independent verification of all the calculations which, in my opinion the sentence implies.

Lara, Is someone from OGC looking at the language given the FOE petition? Joe

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:13 AM To: Pedersen, Renee; Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: DPO Case file now public Still not visible in the public website ADAMS. From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:11 AM To: Oesterle, Eric; Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

FYI: DPO Case file now public FYI, the OPO Case File is now public. From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:55 AM To: Buchanan, Theresa; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Hill, Brittain; Sebrosky, Joseph; Pedersen, Renee; Pruett, Troy; Williams, Megan Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

draft DPO comm Plan Importance: High

Everyone, Good morning. Attached please find a draft of the DPO Comm plan that was discussed at the 8:30 call this AM.

This is provided to you for comment. Please note that it reflects real-time action on the OPO Appeal and incorporates comments from the discussion this morning on the AB-1632 Seismic Report. Much of the Q&A comes from the "living-DCPP Comm Plan" that is being maintained by RIV (the highlighted questions are troublesome to NRR/DORL but we understand that RIV prefers to maintain these). I have included a questidti at the end about whether new information in the AB-1632 report could impact the DPO conclusions. Also note that the Comm Plan does not contain a timeline as we are already real-time. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Erlo'R. o~ev~ Acting Branch Chief NRR/D0RL/ LPL4-1 301-415-1014

From: Burnell. Scott To: Ganoway. Mclarne Cc: Segala. John; Oesterle Enc; McIntyre. David

Subject:

FW: Comm Plan for DPO & Appeal Date: Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:50: 15 AM Attachments: Dralt m1n1-comm Piao on ocpp PPO Onal.docx imaaeoo3.ono Importance : High Hi Melanie; Here's the information OPA is working from regarding the DPO. Scott From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:32 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, catherine; OKeefe, Neil

Subject:

Comm Plan for DPO & Appeal Importance: High

Everyone, Attached for your use and for Region to fold into their "living DCPP Comm Plan" is the DPO & Appeal Comm Plan. It has been extensively coordinated with the Comm Plan for the PG&E Seismic Report (AB 1632) that is being issued today. The EDO has provided his decision on the DPO Appeal and the IDPO Case File has been made public. As a result of these actions, we are issuing this DPO Comm Plan for timely use. If you have any questions please contact me. Thanks.

Ev0'R. o~Le, Acting Branch Chief NRR/D0RL/LPL4-1 301-415-1014 From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:44 AM

To: Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, Catherine; OKeefe, Neil

Subject:

info: status of diablo canyon state of california report regarding seismic issues To all, PG&E is still scheduled to release their State of California report at 11 :00 am pacific, 2:00 pm eastern. Attached is the communication plan that is associated with this effort. Please note that it indicates that an NRC blog is possible. OPA is working on developing the blog language separately from the attached communication plan. Other items Eric Oesterle is leading the effort to finalize a communication plan associated with the DPO given that the DPO, the DPO response and the DPO appeal decision will likely be made publicly available in the short term . A draft has been provided to a smaller audience for their comment. Let me or Eric know if there are any questions.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky 301-415-1132

6flf'ICIAL t:l!E OtRY

            !!!NSl'fl't'I! IN'fl!ftHAL INfi6ftMA'fl6N - NO'f f'Oft l't:ll!tle ft!!L!!AS!

Communications Plan - Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest Differing Professional Opinion and Appeal

Background

The former SRI at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) submitted non-concurrence papers (NCPs) in January 2011 and January 2012, followed by a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) in July 2013 detailing a disagreement with the NRG about how new seismic information should be compared to the plant's current seismic license requirements. DPO 2013-02 restated the issues presented in NCP 2012-01 and added a concern that a license amendment was needed incorporate the Shoreline fault into Diablo Canyon's FSAR as described in the RIL 12-01 cover letter. The added concern was that the NRC did not review or take action on the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults. In accordance with Management Directive 10.159, a DPO Ad Hoc Review Panel was established to review the DPO submittal, meet with DPO submitter, and issues a DPO report including conclusions and recommendations regarding disposition of the issues presented in the DPO. The panel completed its report in May 2014 and a decision on the DPO was rendered in letter dated May 29, 2014, to the DPO submitter. The DPO submitter appealed the decision to the EDO in accordance with the NRCs DPO process. The EDO completed his consideration of the DPO appeal on September 9, 2014, concluding that he was in agreement with the original decision. The purpose of this communication plan is to provide key messages associated with the EDO's decision on the DPO appeal and public release of the DPO Case File. Key Messages:

1. NRG strives to establish and maintain an environment that encourages all NRG employees and contractors to raise concerns and differing views promptly without fear of reprisal through various mechanisms. The free and open exchange of views or ideas conducted in a non-threatening environment provides the ideal forum where concerns and alternative views can be considered and addressed in an efficient and timely manner that improves decision making and supports the agency's safety and security mission.

2. The NRG appreciates members of the staff bring issues like this to its attention

3. The NRG encourages the use of non-concurrences and the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) process

4. The NRC reviews all non-concurrences and DPOs thoroughly and in accordance with agency guidance (MD 10.158, MD 10.159) and believes that this is a healthy and necessary part the regulatory process

5. The NRG believes that, in the end, all of our regulatory decisions are better because of this process

OfflCIAL tJSE ONLY SEf~Sl'fTt'E IN'f'EfmAL IHfO"MA'f'ION - ,~e'f' fie" f'tJBLIC "ELEASE 6 . The NRC does not tolerate retaliation against employees who engage in our processes for raising differing views (i.e., Open Door Policy, NCP, and DPO Program).

7. Persons serving on the DPO Panels are independent of the issues raised in the DPO

8. Upon disposition of the DPO via a Director's decision, the DPO submitter has appeal rights to the EDO

9. While the DPO is under review or appeal, NRC is prohibited from engaging in discussions with external stakeholders regarding the specifics of the of the DPO submittal

10. After the EDO's decision on the appeal, the DPO submitter can request that the DPO Case File be made public. Management performs a review consistent with agency policies to support discretionary release. Regarding the DPO for Diablo Canyon, the NRC has been and will continue to be as open and scrutable as possible while protecting the privacy rights of the individual 11 . The NRC does not know the source of the public release of the Diablo Canyon DPO submittal prior to the EDO rendering a decision on the appeal

12. The NRC can , however, comment on a few aspects of the DPO appeal review o A Director's Decision has been made and the DPO appeal to the EDO has been finalized o The EDO and the DPO submitter have both agreed that the issues raised in the DPO do not present an immediate safety concern for Diablo Canyon o The NRC has sought permission from the DPO submitter to allow the DPO case file to be made publicly available and the DPO submitter has agreed o We would expect the public release of the DPO case file to be within a few days of the EDO's appeal decision

13. Regarding the operational status of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 o The plant remains within its approved design and licensing basis o There are no current operability concerns resulting from the DPO o The recent earthquake in the Napa Valley did not reach Diablo Canyon - it was neither felt nor detected Communication Team The primary responsibility of the communication team is to ensure that it conveys a consistent, accurate, and timely message to all stakeholders. The team consists of the project management, technical, and communication staff named below.

Team Member Position Organization Telephone Troy Pruett Division Director (Acting) RIV/DRP 817-200-1291 Wayne Walker Branch Chief R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1148 Ryan Alexander Sr. Project Engineer R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1195

Of'f'ICIAL tJSE ONLY SEHSl'fl¥E nnEIU4AL lf4F6FtM1'c'fl6N - f40'f FOFt f'tJBtle RELEASE Sr. Resident Inspector - Thomas Hipschman R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Resident Inspector - John Reynoso R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Thomas Farnholtz Branch Chief RIV/DRS/EB1 817-200-1243 Jon Ake Senior Seismologist RES/DE/SGS EB 301-251-7695 Eric Oesterle Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORL/LPLIV 301-415-1014 Balwant Singal DCPP Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPLIV 301-415-3016 Renee Pedersen DPOPM OE/CRB 301-415-2742 Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer OPA 301-415-8204 Angel Moreno Congressional Affairs OCA 301-415-1691 Amy Powell Associate Director OCA 301-415-1673 Victor Dricks Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1128 Lara Uselding Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1519 Bill Maier State Liaison Officer RIV 817-200-1267 Non-concurrence and DPO Questions [NOTE - this information is generally NON-PUBLIC , but is provided as background only] NOTE: General FAQs on the DPO Program are included on the DPO Web site (look under Employee Resources-Employee Concerns.

1. Was the former DCPP SRI reassigned because he filed two non-concurrences?

No. Michael Peck was not reassigned. He applied for an instructor position in his area of expertise at the NRC's technical training center in Chattanooga, TN, at about the time he submitted his non-concurrence in accordance with the Non-Concurrence Process described in MD 10.158. He was competitively selected for this sought-after position, and reported to his new assignment in September 2012. Resident inspector assignments are limited to 7 years to ensure objectivity. It is common for resident inspectors to apply for their next job when a desirable position comes open.

2. When were the non-concurrences filed?

Two non-concurrences were filed by the DCPP SRI. 11/7/11 . The DCPP SRI submitted NCP 2011 -103, on inspection report 05000275; 323/201104 .

6FFlelAL tJSE 6NLY 9Ef.31't'l't'E n*'t'EfmAL n*FeRMA't'let* - N6't' F6R JltJBUe RELEASE 1/26/12. The DCPP SRI submitted NCP 2012-01 , on inspection report 05000275; 323/201105.

3. What were the non-concurrences?

Both non-concurrences involve the same subject; regulatory actions in response to the discovery of the Shoreline Fault. NCP 2011-103 was filed by the DCPP SRI on the basis that no violation was issued (as he had submitted in the draft report) related to operability evaluation of the Shoreline fault in Report 2011-04. NCP 2011-103 was dispositioned finalizing the violation in IR 2011-05 issued on 2/14/12. (The employee requested that the NCP be non-public.) NCP 2012-01 was filed by the DCPP SRI because the SRI believed the violation in NRC IR 2011-05 should be for an inadequate operability evaluation of the Shoreline Fa ult rather than not doing an operability evaluation until June 2012. The SRI believed the facility should be shutdown or the license amended to reflect the Shoreline fault. NCP 2012-01was discussed with NRC stakeholders representing NRR/DE, NRR/DORL, RIV, and RES. NCP 2012-01 was dispositioned as a multi-office staff position which concluded that a violation for having no operability evaluation from January 2011 to June 2011 existed because the licensee completed the RIS 2005-020 immediate (interim) operability evaluation in June 2011 . Additionally, the offices involved in NCP 2012-01 acknowledged that a final operability evaluation could not be completed by the licensee until the NRC decided what requirements and methods should be applied to new seismic information. At the time of Inspection Report 2011 -05 issuance it was expected that the requirements and methods would be addressed in a License Amendment Request that was under consideration. However, by 30/2012, enough progress had been made on RI L 2012-01 for NRR and RES to conclude that the LTSP method of analysis used in the immediate operability assessment was sufficient to evaluate the Shoreline fault and that the Shoreline Fault should be considered a lesser included case of the Hosgri event. (The employee supported public release of the NCP ADAMS ML121A173.)

4. When was the DPO filed?

July 18, 2013. The former DCPP SRI filed Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) 2013-02 associated with the regulatory response following the discovery of the Shoreline Fault. NRC employees are encouraged to file a DPO if they believe an agency decision is in error. The DPO process is in keeping with the agency's open and collaborative working environment.

5. What is the DPO?

DPO 2013-02 restated the issues presented in NCP 2012-01 and added a concern that a license amendment was needed incorporate the shoreline fault into Diablo Canyon's FSAR as

6FFlel>'<L t:JSE 6NLY SEHSl'fl't'E IN'fEIU~>'<L INF6ffM>'<'fl6H - N6'f F6ff flt:JBLle RELE>'<SE described in the RIL 12-01 cover letter. The added concern was that the NRC did not review or take action on the Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults.

6. What is the status of the OPO?

A decision on the DPO was issued by the Office Director for NRR on May 29, 2014 consistent with the NRC's process included in MD 10.159. The DPO submitter appealed this decision to the EDO on June 23, 2014, and the appeal was thoroughly evaluated by the EDO and decision on the appeal was rendered on September 9, 2014. As part of the agency's open and collaborative work environment, the NRC has established the DPO program as a means for employees to have their concerns reviewed by high level managers. The DPO Program is a formal process that allows all employees and contractors to have their differing views on established, mission-related issues considered by the highest level managers in their organizations, i.e., Office Directors and Regional Administrators. The process also provides managers with an independent, three-person review of the issue (one person chosen by the employee). After a decision is issued to an employee, he or she may appeal the decision to the Executive Director for Operations (or the Chairman for those offices reporting to the Commission).

7. Will the decision regarding the OPO be made public?

The NRC supports openness and will include a summary of the disposition of the DPO in the Commission's Weekly Information Report included on the NRC Web site (see Commission Documents under the Document Collections in the NRC Library). The DPO submitter has been contacted regarding the EDO's decision on the DPO appeal and has communicated support for the public release of the DPO Case File (with appropriate redactions). The DPO Case File should be publicly available within a few days of the EDO's DPO appeal decision.

8. Was the SRI wrongfully reassigned after filing two non-concurrences and a DPO?

No. As noted in Q&A #1 above, the SRI applied for and was selected to a highly sought instructor position at the NRC's Technical Training Center. The NRC does not tolerate retaliation for engaging in the NCP or the DPO Program and both MDs reiterate this policy and direct employees to resources in the event they believe that they have been retaliated against.

9. Would the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision change based on the new seismic information found in the State of California report?

PG&E, the licensee for Diablo Canyon, is providing a report to the State of California that includes the results of its most recent evaluation of the seismic hazards for the Diablo Canyon facility. The NRC understands that the report will be provided to the State of California on September 10, 2014, and that a copy will be provided to the NRC as well. Prior to performing a detailed review of this report, the NRC is not able to ascertain whether the new seismic

6FFlelAL t:191: eNLY 9EN91Tl'fl! INTEfitNAL INF6fitMATION - NOT 1-0fi! flt:IBLIC fitEL!A9E information contained in the report would change the DPO panel's conclusions or the DPO appeal decision. The NRC understands that PG&E plans to incorporate the findings from this report into their ongoing probabilistic seismic hazards analysis required by the NRC Post-Fukushima task force recommendations that are due in March 2015. The NRC believes this more rigorous analysis will provide the* most accurate assessment of faults affecting the DCPP. In addition, the NRC staff's review of tlhe new seismic information in the report notes that PG&E's evaluation concludes that the ground motions resulting from the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant. NRC Resident Inspectors and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's corrective action process assessment of new preliminary information concerning DCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information indicates reasonable assurance of public health and safety after a seismic event. The NRC staff will review the new information provided in the report in accordance with the NRC's inspection process. The NRC will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the new information associated with the Faults around DCPP cause NRC to question PG&E's conclusions.

From: Burnen. Scott To: uselcJlna. Lara; Sebrosky. Joseph Cc: Williams. Megan; Munson Clifford; Oesterle. Eric; Markley. M1chae1

Subject:

RE: Scott/Joe ; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot Date: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:17:31 PM Joe; From my perspective the blog's main points are aligned with the key messages we've already agreed on. We do need to keep the blog's language as simple as possible, but please let me know if we've omitted something important. Thanks. Scott From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:43 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Burnell, Scott Cc: Williams, Megan; Munson, Clifford; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: Scott/Joe ; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot Importance: High Ok, I'll get page count from Megan easy enough. PLEASE NOTE I've used nothing we haven"t put in our comm plan. Please do a quick review and work with Scott Burnell or myself who can help you understand "blog speak" vs. technical jargon. For this to go up in the morning, the Chairman will need it before too late today to review. From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:38 AM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Williams, Megan; Munson, Clifford; Oesterle, Eric; Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE : Scott/Joe ; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot Lara. You note that the document is 1000 pages. Can you ask Megan to give you an accurate page count. I would also feel more comfortable if Megan. Cliff. Eric. and Mike were given an opportunity to comment before the blog went live. Joe From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:03 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Sebrosky, Joseph

Subject:

Scott/Joe ; review of blog prior to sending to Eliot Importance: High This complete email (with redacted attachment) may be found as document G/11 in interim response #3 in FOIA/PA-2014-0488 (ML15033A280).

From: Burnell Scott To: Sebroskv Joseph: Stovall Scott; Munson. Clifford; w,111ams. Megan; J.l....Y.Q.oq_; fhpschman. IhQn1as; ~

                 ~      ; Oesterle enc; Sinaal sa1wa11t: Md[klcv. Michael; Ji1ckson Diane; Pifraqcesco Nicholas; ~
                 ~ useldmg. Lara; OKeefc. Neil; Farnholtz. Thomas: Kanatas. Cathenne; RothlOGCl Day1d; ~

KMlal; Reynoso. Jotin; Hill. Botta,n; Dudek. Michael; Bucha11an. Theresa; Kock. Andrea; weaver Itiomas; meoao!wilhams@)hotmau.com; ~  ; Keegan. Eiarnc; We11. Jenny; Moreno Angel

Subject:

RE: internal meeting to finalize diablo communication plan Date: Wednesday. September 10, 2014 7:33:22 AM Attachments: pc ca11r seismc rot comm plan 2-10-11 srb.docx Importance: High Good Morning, all; I've attached a "Track Changes" version with some plain-language edits for the key messages. I also added OCA to the distribution for their awareness. Scott

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:28 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, catherine; Roth(OGC), David; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; Buchanan, Theresa; Kock, Andrea; Weaver, Thomas; meganjwilliams@hotmail.com; Maier, Bill; Keegan, Elaine Cc: DE_calendar Resource

Subject:

internal meeting to finalize diablo communication plan When: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & canada). Where: HQ-TWFN- lOCOl-lSp Note: communication plan updated to address comments from Tom Hipschman Bridge #:\._888-677-069Q1 Passcode:G

Purpose:

To finalize the draft communication plan Outcome: Communication plan associated with Diablo Canyon State of California seismic report finalized Agenda: I. Discussion of changes

a. Incorporated inputs from Tom Hipschman, Lara Uselding, and Megan Williams (thanks for the insights)

b. First key message bullet changed based on Tom and Lara's input

c. Other changes made based on direction during the 9/9 meeting and additional

input from Megan

<< File: DC_Ca lif_seismic_ rpt comm plan 9-10-14 am revision l.docx >>

11 . Comments and resolution 111. Next steps IV. Wrapup

DRAFT - eFFlelAL tJSE 6'4LY 9Ef491fl'f'E IN'fEftNAL lf4F6ftMATl6'4 - Ne'f Feft Pt:1eue ftELEASE UPDATED: 10/02/2014 2:14 PM09!10!201 4 7:0& AM Communications Plan - Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest State of California Seismic Report (ABN-1632)

Background

California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest baseload power plants, Diablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public, safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state of the art methodologies using 2D and 3D mapping to compile this report. This is a different and more extensive data set than what was used for the 2011 Shoreline Fault evaluation. The purpose of this communication plan is to provide key messages associated with the public release of this report. Key Messages

1. NRC Resident Inspectors and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's docufllentation in

       ~orrective action process assessmentffl§...Qf new preliminary information concerning DCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information did not indicate there is an ifllfllOdiato threat toindicates reasonable assurance of public health and safety ~

it call into question through the ability of SSCs to perform their specified safety functions or necessary and related support functions after a seismic event. In addition, the NRC staff's review of the PG&E report's new seismic information ifl-tRe report notes that PG&E's evaluation concludes that the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant.

2. The NRC staff will continue to review the new information provided in the report in accordance with the NRC's inspection process. The NRC will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the new information associated with the Faults around DCPP cause NRC to question PG&E's conclusions.

3. PG&E plans to incorporate the findings from Bill 1632 report into their upcoming March 2015 seismic hazard re ongoing analysis required byas part of the NRC~ post-Fukushima task force recofllfllendationsactivities due in March 2015. The NRC believes 1

DRAFT - OFFICIAL tl!E ONLY

            !EN!ITl"f'E INTEftNAL INFOftMATIOI~ - NOT FOR fltlBLIC RELEASE this more rigorous analysis will provide the most accurate assessment of faults affecting the DCPP.

Communication Team The primary responsibility of the communication team is to ensure that it conveys a consistent, accurate, and timely message to all stakeholders. The team consists of the project management, technical, and communication staff named below. Team Member Position Organization Telephone Wayne Walker Branch Chief R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1148 Ryan Alexander Sr. Project Engineer R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1195 Sr. Resident Inspector - Thomas Hipschman R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Resident Inspector - John Reynoso R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Jon Ake Senior Seismologist RES/DE/SGSEB 301-251-7695 Eric Oesterle Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORL/LPLIV 301-415-1014 Balwant Singal DCPP Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPLIV 301-415-3016 Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer OPA 301-415-8204 Angel Moreno Congressional Affairs OCA 301-415-1697 Victor Dricks Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1128 Lara Uselding Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1519 Bill Maier State Liaison Officer RIV 817-200-1267 Elaine Keegan License Renewal NRR/DLR 301-415-8517 Cathy Kanatas Attorney OGC 301-415-2321 Nick Difrancesco Japan Lessons Learned JLD 301 -415-1115 Planned Communication Activities The contents on this communication plan, supplemented by information provided by PG&E/Diablo Canyon, should be used to accomplish these actions. The table below is based on a target public release date of the report on September 10, 2014. Timeframe Action Responsible Party(ies) Sept 8 PG&E provides a draft of the report in the PG&E electronic reading room for initial staff assessment 2

DRAFT - e1-1-1e1At t:JSE ONLY SEHSl'flVE IN'fER:NAL INF6R:MA'fl6N - NOT l'Oft l't:Jl!Lle ftl!Ll!ASI! Timeframe Action Responsible Party(ies) Sept 9 PG&E notifies NRC of seismic report submittal to PG&E the state of California Sept 10 PG&E/Diablo Canyon Power Plant submit seismic PG&E report to the state of California and issue a press release Promptly Region IV notifies the Communications Team of R-IV/RPB-A (within Sept PG&E's actions as currently understood and 1O+ 1 business implements the Communications Plan day) Entirety of Communications Team notifies R-IV; NRR/DORL; applicable Senior Managers in their respective NRR/DLR; NRR/JLD reporting chain OPA; OCA; OGC OPA available to use Communications Plan to R-IV; OPA answer media inquiries. NO blog OR press release planned. Oct 3 JLD/NRO/RES completes preliminary assessment JLD/NRO/RES/RIV of published report and management decision is made if any additional actions should be taken prior to the submittal of the seismic reevaluation in March 2015. Updates to communication plan as appropriate As requested Complete a Commissioners Assistants Brief R-IV; NRR

1. Questions and Answers What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP?

Has the licensee entered this new information into the corrective action program and performed an operability evaluation? In accordance with the guidance in the October 12, 2012, letter transmitting RIL 2012-001 , PG&E has entered the new preliminary seismic information into their corrective action program. The results of the study are used to assess the impact on the current design and licensing basis of DCPP. In response to the NRC's review of the January 2011 Shoreline Fault Report, PG&E made the following commitment to the NRC:

   "If during PG&E's ongoing collection of seismic data, new faults are discovered or information is uncovered that woulld suggest the Shoreline fault is more capable than currently believed, PG&E will provide the NRC with an interim evaluation that describes actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the evaluations requested in the NRC staffs March 12, 2012, request for information (Reference 2)." Reference 2 is NRC letter to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 1O of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)

Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident," March 12, 2012. NRC Resident Inspectors, and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's documentation in 3

DRAFT - Ol'l'ICIAL t:JSI!! ONLY SENSll'l't'E INTERNAL lf~f6RMAl'l6N - NOT FOR Pt:JBtle RELEASE their corrective action process assessing new preliminary information concerning DCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information did not indicate there is an immediate threat to public health and safety nor did it call into question the ability of SSCs to perform their specified safety functions or necessary and related support functions. In addition, the NRC staff's review of the new seismic information in the report notes that PG&E's evaluation concludes that the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant. The NRC will review the new information provided in the report to the State of California including the Shoreline Fault characteristics, and the updated characteristics associated with the soil properties near the site. Tlhe NRC staff will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the NRC staff concludes that the new information associated with the Shoreline Fault causes the NRC to revisit the conclusions in the RIL.

2. Has DCPP provided the seismic report to the NRC?

Yes, in accordance with the guidance in the October 12, 2012, letter transmitting RIL 2012-001 , PG&E has provided the information to the NRC. In addition, the report was also provided to address license renewal issues (see question 8).

3. What does the new report state?

The new report includes information obtained from 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional high energy and low-energy seism ic suirveys both onshore and offshore of the DCPP site. The report provides more details on the regional faults, including more precise readings and additional data points where previously there were gaps. While a lot of the information from the previous Shoreline Fault report of 2011 was confirmed, some of the new data suggests the following :

• Reduced slip rate on the Hosgri Fault Zone and the Shoreline Fault Zone
• Postulated connecting the Hosgri and the San Simeon faults which could result in a longer, larger, but more infrequent earthquake
• T he unique geometry involved with intersecting the Hosgri Fault and the Shoreline Fault Zone results in an extension of a few kilometers, but with a lower frequency of occurrence
• Extension of the Shoreline Fault zone southern segment
• The new data does not alter the assessment of the closest approach of the Shoreline fault to DCPP which is 600 meters from the power block and 300 meters from the intake structure. Because the Shoreline fault is considered to be somewhat longer, potential earthquakes could also occur farther from the plant.
• Updated analysis for the San Luis Bay, and Los Osos faults The report concludes that the ground motions for the Hosgri and LTSP evaluations continue to bound potential ground motions from the regional faults, including the Shoreline Fault, San Luis Bay, Los Osos, San Simeon and Hosgri. The OCPP continues to operate safely within the seismic margin they were designed to withstand.

4

DRAFT - Ol'l'ICIAL tJ!l! ONLY 9ENS1'fl¥E lfffEfU~AL INf'6ftMA'fl6f~ - N6'f f'6ft litJBLle ftELEASE 4 . How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coordinated with the 50.54(f) required submittal in March 2015? PG&E plans to incorporate the findings from Bill 1632 report into their ongoing analysis required by the NRC Post-Fukushima task force recommendations due in March 2015. The NRC believes this more rigorous analysis will provide the most accurate assessment of faults affecting the DCPP. (If pushed on any "unknowns" in the report: If necessary, actions could include orders to halt operations if new information suggests there is an immediate safety concern. The NRC will fulfill its mandate to protect public health and safety). (If asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: It is important to note that DCPP is an industry leader in implementing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely in the event of a beyond design basis event).

5. Why is the report "final" for the state but "preliminary" for the NRC?

For the State, the report is final. For the NRC, this information is expected to be incorporated into the more comprehensive 50.54f analysis due to the NRG in March 2015. However, because the licensee must notify the NRC of any new seismic info, they have shared this report and an initial operability evaluation showing why the plant is safe to continue to operate. The NRC has looked at the information in the report and its preliminary assessment is that based on the information presented by PG&E the new information associated with Faults near DCPP does not result in ground motions above those from the previously considered seismic hazard.

6. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the RIL?

California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722 , Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest base-load power plants, Diablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging ; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 2D and 3D geophysical mapping techniques, which are commonly used in offshore petroleum resource exploration. These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. The NRC has requested licensees of operating nuclear power reactors to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analyses which is due for DCPP in March 2015.

7. What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP?

Based on the preliminary results of the studies that are under review, PG&E determined that 5

DRAFT - 6fifi1Clt<L t:l!E 6NL'f 9f!!N!ITro1! INT!!!"Nt<L ll~l'e"Mt<TleN - Ne'f l-6ft ftt:18Lle ftELEt<!E the Shoreline Fault Zone may be capable of producing somewhat larger earthquakes than considered in the January 2011 Shoreline report. The NRC staff is independently assessing PG&E's determination. The process outlined in the 50.54(f) letter includes a detailed analysis of new seismic information (including shoreline faults and other faults around the plant). PG&E is scheduled to provide this assessment in the March 2015 time frame. The staff will continue to review the information in the new CA 1632 report and the final results of the new data from the more rigorous analysis to be completed by March 2015. The NRC staff will take appropriate regulatory action up to and including issuing Orders to ensure safe operation of the plant.

8. Will the Report be considered in the License Renewal Process Yes. In addition to the report being developed to address California Assembly Bill 1632, PG&E is providing the report to the State of California as part of the State of California coastal zone consistency certification associated with the license renewal for DCPP. The State of California coastal zone consistency certification is considered by the NRC during the license renewal environmental review process. In addition, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) has expressed interest in the report because it is associated with a contention that is under consideration by the ASLB in the license renewal process (see ML14224A320).

6

From: Burnell, Scott To: Sebroskv. Joseph: Markley. Michael: oester!e. Enc: Kanatas. Catherine: Hloschman. Thomas: Reynoso. John: Mar101y. Kama!: Als.e...1.Wl; Munson. Clifford: QKeerc. Neil* Folk Kevin: Wrona. David; Difrancesco Nicholas: Balazik. Michael: H1pschman. Thomas: Reynoso John; s,naa1. Ba1wa11t; HIii. Brittain: Walker. Wayne: ~ J.a.ul.; Lyon. Fred Cc: wen. Jenny: 1.L...YJ2ng,; Manoly Kamal; I und. Louise: Dudek. Michael: case. Michael

Subject:

RE: action: request ror reedback on Olablo canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report Date: Tuesday, August 26. 2014 3:08:24 PM Attachments: DC ca1ir $e1sm1c rot comm plan srb docx I added a couple of key messages and some minor edits, along with a question.

---

Original Message-----

From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:25 PM To: Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Wrona, David; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report To all, The purpose of this email is to request your comments on the attached draft communication plan associated with PG&E's pending release of a report to the State of California related to seismic issues. PG&E has indicated to the staff that the report will include an updated evaluation of the Shoreline Fault and concludes that the Shoreline Fault is more capable than assumed in PG&E 2011 report that was provided to the NRC. Comments from Jon Ake, Britt Hill would be appreciated by noon tomorrow. I will incorporate their comments and provided the product to the Region IV by COB tomorrow. (Britt I tried to capture some of your comments that you have provided and also some verbal comments that Jon provided me) I understand that Tom Hipschman will talk to PG&E to confirm when they intend to issue the report to the State of California. PG&E previously indicated that it would be between 8/ 28 and 9/ 8. Tom believes that PG&E is now leaning towards issuing the report on 9/8 or 9/9. Once Tom confirms the target date for issuance of the report, the folks on distribution for this email will be informed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be working with DORL and the JLD to coordinate headquarters review of the communication plan.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301-415 -1132

           !!14!1flt ! 114?!111!14,Ct n*l'OPl!Mitc?l014 - ,.e, DRAFT - Ol'l'ICIJllt. tJS! OHL, 1'0111! l'tJ!LIC "!L!itc!!

UPDATED: 10/02/2014 2:32 P M08J2il201 4 2;47 PM Communications Plan - Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest State of CaUfornia Seismic Report (ABN-1632)

Background

California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest baseload power plants, Diablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generabng Station to a ma,or disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public, safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants In the state's energy portfolio The licensee has used the most state of the art methodologies using 20 and 3D mapping to compile this report This is different methodology than what was used for the 2011 Shoreline Fault The purpose of this communication plan is to provide key messages associated with the public release of this report. Kev Messages

• The Bill 1632 report's information supports the NRC's and PG&E's ex,stmg conclusions that Diablo Canyon's seismic basis already accounts for auakes larger than what the Shoreline fault can generate.
• Diablo Canyon will incorporate the 8111 1632 reports 1nformat1on into ,ts March 2015 seismic hazard re-analysis submittal to the NRC Communication Team The primary responsibility of the communication team is to ensure that it conveys a consistent, accurate, and timely message to all stakeholders. The team consists of the proJect management, technical, and communication staff named below.

Team Member Position OrganizaUon Telephone Wayne Walker Branch Chief R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1148

DRAFT - err1e1AL t:J!I!! el4L'f

           !1!!14!1Tl't'I!! 114Tl!!IU4AL 114reftMATlel4 - 14eT reft l't:ll!ttle ftl!!tl!!A!I!!

Ryan Alexander Sr. Project Engineer R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1 195 Sr. Resident Inspector - Thomas Hipschman R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Resident Inspector - John Reynoso R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Jon Ake Senior Seismologist RES/DE/SGS EB 301-251 -7695 Eric Oesterle Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORULPLIV 301-415-1014 Balwant Singal OCPP Project Manager NRR/DORULPLIV 301-415-3016 Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer CPA 301-41 5-8204 Jenny Weil Congressional Affairs OCA 301-415-1691 Victor Dricks Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1128 Lara Useldlng Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1519 BIii Maler State Liaison Officer RIV 817-200-1267 Dave Wrona License Renewal NRR/DLR OGC Nick DiFrancesco JLD Planned Communication Activities The contents on this communication plan, supplemented by information provided by PG&E/Diablo Canyon, should be used to accomplish these actions. Tlmeframe Action Responsible Partv(les) T- 1 PG&E notifies NRC of seismic report submittal to PG&E the state of California T=O PG&E/Dlablo Canyon Power Plant submit seismic PG&E report to the state of California and Issue a press release Promptly Region IV notifies the Communications Team of R-IV/RPB-A (within T+1 PG&E's actions as currently understood and business day) implements the Communications Plan Entirety of Communications Team notifies R-IV; NRR/DORL; applicable Senior Managers in their respective NRR/DLR; NRR/JLD reporting chain CPA; OCA; OGC CPA available to use Communications Plan to R-IV; CPA answer media inquiries. NO blog OR press release planned. Within T+2 Other actions??  ??? business days 2

DRAFT - Ol'l'lelAL t:19! 01.fL 9!14SITIV! 114T!IU4AL 1141'0ftMATl014 - 140T l'Oft l't:l!!Lle ft!L!AS! Tlmeframe Action Responsible Party(les) As re uested Com lete a Commissioners Assistants Brief R-IV; NRR

1. Question, and AnswerJ What Is the Impact of this new Information on seismic design and llcenslng of DCPP?

Has the licensee entered this new Information Into the corrective action program and performed an operablllty evaluation? As required by the NRC, as document in RIL 2012-001, PG&E has entered the new preliminary seismic information Into their corrective action program. The results of the study are used to assess the impact on the current design and licensing basis of DCPP. In response to the NRC's review of the January 2011 Shoreline Fault Report, PG&E made the following commitment to the NRC:

  ' If during PG&E's ongoing collection of seismic data, new faults are discovered or information is uncovered that would suggest the Shoreline fault is more capable than currently believed, PG&E will provide the NRC with an Interim evaluation that describes actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the evaluations requested in the NRC staff's March 12, 2012, request for information (Reference 2)." Reference 2 Is NRC letter to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status,
  ' Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)

Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident,' March 12, 2012. Region IV, including the resident inspectors, have taken an Initial review of PG&E's assessment of this new Information to verify that it does not affect the plant's ability to operate safely and to be able to remain safely shutdown following an earthquake. NRC's preliminary review is that the Diablo Canyon Units are safe to continue to operate based on:

• Based on assertions made by PG&E that the Shoreline Fault response spectra are still bounded by those for the Hosgrl and LTSP earthquakes for which the plant was previously analyzed
• The preliminary assessment by PG&E that the Shoreline Fault is capable of generating a magnitude 6.7 earthquake. As documented in the RIL the NRC staff has analyzed a scenario involving a Shoreline Fault of magnitude 6.7 and concluded that the response spectra developed by such an earthquake is bounded by the Hosgri and LTSP spectra The NRC will review the new information provided in the report to the State of California including the Shoreline Fault characteristics, and the updated characteristics associated with the soil properties near the site. The NRC staff will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the NRC staff concludes that the new information associated with the Shoreline Fault causes the NRC staff to revisit the conclusions in the RIL.

2. Has DCPP provided the seismic report to the NRC?

3

DRAFT - err1e1AL t:19! erR'I'

             !1!!!14!1TIVI!!! 114T!ftHAL 114P'6ftMATl614 - 146T refl! f't:18Ue fl!ELEJlc!E The new information, required by the state of CA AB 1632, has been provided to the NRC and shows that some previously separated segments of the Shoreline fault system are connected. These connections indicate that if the Shoreline Fault slips in the future, the earthquake from that slip might be slightly higher than previously considered possible for the Shoreline Fault. But because the Shoreline Fault is somewhat longer, potential earthquakes could also occur farther from the plant. For these reasons, PG&E continues to believe that the ground motions for the Hosgri and LTSP evaluations continues to bound potential ground motions from the Shoreline Fault.

3. How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coordinated with the 50.54(f) required submlttal In March 2015?

The NRC has reviewed the plant's corrective action program documentation for this new information. All indications are that the Shoreline fault remains bounded by the Hosgri fault for which the plant was licensed to withstand. The staff will continue to review the new information associated with the Shoreline Fault causes the NRC staff to revisit the conclusions in the RIL. tThe 1000-page document has also been given to the Japan Lessons Learned Directorate to be considered in the 50.54(1) review. Consistent with the UFSAR, the new preliminary Comment [SRl31): This phrasing Implies the information regarding regional source characterization (i.e. fault capability) and potential site JLO is performing the seismic ,,,..analysis. How about "The JLD will consider the AB 1632 report ground motion will be evaluated in accordance with the process defined by the NRC in their when It reviews Diablo Canyon's GMRS Fukushima 50.54(1) letter, through the SSHAC process and a final seismic hazard and submittal in March 2015." Ground Motion Response Spectra (GMRS) that will be submitted to the NRC by March 2015. The updated Seismic ~azaras!GMRS WIii-wouid be used as 20...input to any*~ Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA) Diablo Canyon might have to,wl:licl+-wil4)e submittee to the NRC by June 2017. (If pushed on any *unknowns* in the report: If necessary, actions could include orders to halt operations if new information suggests there is an immediate safety concern. The NRC will fulfill its mandate to protect public health and safety). (If asked what thins the plant has done since Fukushima: It is important to note that DCPP is an industry leader in implementing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely in the event of a beyond design basis event).

4. Why is the report " final" for the state but "preliminary" for the NRC?

For the state, the report is final. For the NRC, this information will is expected to be incorporated considered into the more comprehensive 50.54f analysis due to the NRC in March 2015. However, because the licensee must notify the NRC of any new seismic info, they have shared this report and an initial operability evaluation showing why the plant is safe to operate. The NRC has looked at this evaluation and its preliminary assessment is that based on the information presented by PG&E the Shoreline Fault does not exceed previously considered seismic hazards.

5. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of the Shorellne fault in 2011 prior to issuing the RIL?

4

DRAFT - or,ie1>'t ti!! OHL,

          !!f~!l"t'! lffT!IUf>'L llfrO"M>'"Olf - lfOT ro" rt1l!t1e "!L!>'!!

California Assembly 81111632 (Blakeslee. Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest baseload power plants, Diablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, to a maier disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging, to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public safety, and the economy, to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants. and to evaluate other major Issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 20 and 30 geophysical mapping techniques, which are commonly used in offshore petroleum resource exploration These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. The NRC has requested licensees to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analysis which is due for DCPP in March 2015. (Lauren, JLLO: any1h1ng to add here?)

6. What Is the Impact of this new information on seismic design and llcensing of DCPP?

Based on the preliminary results of the studies that are under review, PG&E determined that the Shoreline Fault Zone may be capable of producing slightly larger earthquakes than considered In the January 2011 report. However, the ground motions from these larger earthquakes are still bounded by the Hosgri and LTSP ground motions. Since the seismic design of OCPP considered a range of ground motions from both a double design earthquake and a Hosgrl earthquake, and the new ground motions do not exceed the Hosgri earthquake, the new information is not expected to adversely impact the seismic design of DCPP. As a result, the assessment associated with the January 2011 Shoreline Fault Report remains valid. 5

From : Burne11, Scott To: Usefd1ng Lara: Oeste,:le. Enc Cc: Walker. wavne: H1osct1man. Thomas: s1oga1 satwam: Brenner. Ehot: Markley. M1Cbae1

Subject:

Re: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Date: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:01:01 PM After a quick read, I suggest revising to note PG&E has to incorporate the new info into the seismic hazard re-analysis the plant must perform in response to the 50.54f letter. The current narrative suggests the JLD does the re-analysis. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6) From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 04:53 PM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael

Subject:

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Eric: The Region has put together the attached messaging and Q&A for the report we expect to receive next week. We want to share that with you and get your insights prior to us briefing Marc Dapas Monday morning. Could you take a look and let me know your thoughts? Remember. this is what I will use to respond to questions next week from the public and reporters. OPA's plan is to NOT issue a press release, or a blog but to take questions as they come in. We already have a communications plan on Diablo so the attached will be incorporated into the existing comm plan. No other action is needed on that front. We can have a call to discuss strategy with the involved parties from RIV and HQ at your convenience. Lara Uselding l S \.ul'i~.ir Rcgulatllr~ < 11mm1~,,un 1'\ R<. 1 Publn: *\fta11,., Rt*:,:wn I\ .\ rltng!* n I\., , 817.200.1519 lara.usclding nrc.gov

From: Burnc11, Scott To: Oesterle. Enc: Useldmo. Lara; Dncks. y,ctor

Subject:

RE: Olablo Canyon In the news Dat e: Friday. August 15, 2014 7:45:45 AM Attachments: 1maaeoo1.ona Hi Eric; A quick look in our news archive (bttp*/fwww bulletioiotelligence.com/nrc/search.aspx) shows the past few months' coverage (including today) have primarily been on Diablo's once-through cooling: bttp:llwww newtimesslo com/news/1 1304/members-of-the-diablo-canyon-iodependent-safety-com mittee-bave-asked-for-more-analys1s-of-a-oew-coohng-system/ bttp:llwww. keyt com/news/cooling-towers-for-di ablo-canyon -studied/27390488 bttp*Uwww saoluisobispo com/201 4/05/22/3076772/nrc-says-diablo-canyon-nuclear html? sp=/99/177/1 83/ One item that didn't show up in our clips focuses on the "Sewell report," which I don't think PG&E will bring up: http'//www santamariasun com/cover/11969/d1ablos-10-tbe-details-why-a-shelved-nrc-tsunami-study-is-generating-new-1nterest-about-potential-d1ablo-canyon-Oood1ng-hazards-12-years-later/ Victor and Lara probably have some more insight on how Diablo's played recently in the media. Thanks. Scott From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 7:05 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Diablo Canyon in the news Importance: High Scott. We just lost our Diablo Canyon PM to JLD and everyone in my branch, including me, are new to Diablo. We are scrambling to put together a briefing package for a drop-in that PG&E is having with NRR next Friday and I'm wondering if you could spare a few minutes to give me some short summaries of recent articles in the news regarding Diablo Canyon? If you can narrow the focus to seismic studies that may help to limit the scope. Thanks, I appreciate whatever you can help out with here. f r-(,o R . Oe¢e-r-l.e, Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORL/LPL4-1

301-415-1014

  "~

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:39 PM To: Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Diablo blog rewrite Attachments: DiabloRpt_blog_srb.docx Grade 14 .6

The Latest Chapter in Diablo Canyon's Seismic Saga Today the NRC is examining a 1,400-page report on new seismic infonnation about the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on the California coast. Pacific Gas & Electric, the plant's owner, created the report to meet part of a 2006 California law, California Assembly Bill 1632. PG&E gave the NRC the infonnation as part of an existing requirement for long-tenn seismic research about Diablo Canyon. PG&E performed state-of-the-art surveys of faults near the plant, including the Shoreline fault just offshore. Both PG&E and the NRC had examined the Shoreline fault in 2009 and 2012, concluding both times the fault could only generate a quake weaker than Diablo Canyon is already designed to safely wi thstand. The new report's more detailed information and updated analysis indicates that the Shoreline fault is both longer than previously thought and able to produce a slightly stronger earthquake. As part of its NRC requirements, PG&E must enter the new infonnation in Diablo Canyon's corrective action program to assess the report's impact on plant operations. NRC Resident Inspectors and Region IV staff have looked at PG&E's assessment and so far the infonnation provides confidence the plant can keep the public safe after a seismic event. While PG&E's new seismic infonnation adds detail about the faults in the plant's immediate vicinity, the company's evaluation reaffinns that the Shoreline faul t is not as powerful as the Hosgri earthquake Diablo Canyon must withstand. Just as with the earlier Shoreline fault reports, the NRC will thoroughly review the new information through our existing oversight methods. The agency wi ll take whatever action is appropriate if our review questions PG&E's conclusions. PG&E will also use this new information as it re-evaluates its overall seismic hazard as part of the NRC's response to the 201 1 Fukushima nuclear accident. PG&E's re-evaluation is due to the NRC in March 20 15.

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:52 PM To: Uselding, Lara; OPA Resource; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

Re: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision? Thanks. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell (b)(6) From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 04:51 PM To: Burnell, Scott; OPA Resource; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision? Yes, I took care of this From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:17 PM To: OPA Resource; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision? Lara's handling these requests. From: OPA Resource Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:16 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision?

Scott, Can you please help with the below email.

Thanks, Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-8200 opa.resource@nrc.gov From: Raab, Lauren (mailto:Lauren.Raab@latimes.com]

Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:03 PM To: OPA Resource

Subject:

Diablo Canyon nuclear plant decision? 2

Can you confirm reports that an NRC official has rejected a call to shut down Diablo Canyon, California's last remaining nuclear power plant, until it can be determined whether the facility can stand up to an earthquake off the Central Coast? I'd appreciate any details and/ or documents you can provide. In case it helps you route the question to the right person, the Associated Press is saying this: A top Nuclear Regulatory Commission official has rejected a federal expert's recommendation to shut down California's last operating nuclear power plant until it can determine whether its reactors can withstand powerful shaking from nearby earthquake faults. In a decision released Wednesday, operations executive Mark Satorius said there is no immediate or significant safety concern at the Diablo Canyon plant. Thank you very much. Lauren Raab Los Angeles Times .wol /213) 237-609~ Cell: - (b)(6) - Twitter: @raablauren 3

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:10 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph

Subject:

RE: info: status of diablo canyon state of california report regarding seismic issues Joe; That's the version I commented on before the 8:30 call - do you have the updated version handy? Scott From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:44 AM To: Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manely, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, catherine; OKeefe, Neil

Subject:

info: status of diablo canyon state of california report regarding seismic issues To all, PG&E is still scheduled to release their State of California report at 11 :00 am pacific, 2:00 pm eastern. Attached is the communication plan that is associated with this effort. Please note that it indicates that an NRC blog is possible. OPA is working on developing the blog language separately from the attached communication plan. Other items Eric Oesterle is leading the effort to finalize a communication plan associated with the DPO given that the DPO, the DPO response and the DPO appeal decision will likely be made publicly available in the short term . A draft has been provided to a smaller audience for their comment. Let me or Eric know if there are any questions.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky 301-415-1132 6

DRAFT - 6fflelAL t:19E 6NL',' Sl!!!!NSITIVI!!!! INTl!!!!"NAL INl'O"MATION - N6T f6ft flt:IBLle ft~Ll!!!!ASI!!!! UPDATED: 9/10/1410:30 eastern Communications Plan - Diablo Canyon Power Plant Topics of Interest State of California Seismic Report (ABN-1632)

Background

California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest baseload power plants, Oiablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public, safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state of the art methodologies using 20 and 30 mapping to compile this report. This is a different and more extensive data set than what was used for the 2011 Shoreline Fault evaluation. The purpose of this communication plan is to provide key messages associated with the public release of this report. Kev Messages

1. NRC Resident Inspectors and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's corrective action process assessment of new preliminary information concerning OCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information indicates reasonable assurance of public health and safety after a seismic event.

PG&E's evaluation of the new seismic information, as documented in the report, concludes that the ground motions resulting from the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon. Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant.

2. The NRC staff will review the new information provided in the report in accordance with the NRC's inspection process. The NRC will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the new information associated with the Faults around DCPP cause NRC to question PG&E's conclusions.

3. PG&E will incorporate the findings from Bill 1632 report into their upcoming March 2015 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis as part of the NRC's post-Fukushima activities.

The NRC believes this more rigorous analysis will provide the most accurate assessment of faults affecting the OCPP.

DRAFT - 6FFlelAL t:JSE 6HL'f SENSl'flYE IN'fEftNAL INF6ftMA'fl6N - N6'f F6ft tat:J8Lle ftELEASE Communication Team The primary responsibility of the communication team is to ensure that it conveys a consistent, accurate, and timely message to all stakeholders. The team consists of the project management, technical, and communication staff named below. Team Member Position Organization Telephone Wayne Walker Branch Chief R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1148 Ryan Alexander Sr. Project Engineer R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 817-200-1195 Sr. Resident Inspector - Thomas Hipschman R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Resident Inspector - John Reynoso R-IV/DRP/RPB-A 805-595-2354 DCPP Jon Ake Senior Seismologist RES/DE/SGSEB 301-251-7695 Eric Oesterle Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORL/LPLIV 301-415-1014 Balwant Singal DCPP Project Manager NRR/DORL/LPLIV 301-415-3016 Scott Burnell Public Affairs Officer OPA 301-415-8204 Angel Moreno Congressional Affairs OCA 301-415-1697 Victor Dricks Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1128 Lara Uselding Public Affairs Officer RIV 817-200-1 519 Bill Maier State Liaison Officer RIV 817-200-1267 Elaine Keegan License Renewal NRR/ DLR 301-415-8517 Cathy Kanatas Attorney OGC 301-415-2321 Nick DiFrancesco Japan Lessons Learned JLD 301-415-1115 Planned Communication Activities The contents on this communication plan, supplemented by information provided by PG&E/Diablo Canyon, should be used to accomplish these actions. The table below is based on a target public release date of the report on September 10, 2014. Timeframe Action Responsible Party(ies) Sept 8 PG&E provides a draft of the report in the PG&E electronic reading room for initial staff assessment Sept 9 PG&E notifies NRC of seismic report submittal to PG&E the state of California 2

DRAFT - 61'1'1elAL tlS! 6NLY SENSITIVE INTERNAL INfi6ftMATl6N - N6T l'Oft l'tl!!LIC ft!L!AS! Timeframe Action Responsible Party(ies) Sept10 PG&E/Diablo Canyon Power Plant submit seismic PG&E report to the state of California and issue a press release Promptly Region IV notifies the Communications Team of R-IV/RPB-A (within Sept PG&E's actions as currently understood and 10+1 business implements the Communications Plan day) Entirety of Communications Team notifies R-IV; NRR/DORL; applicable Senior Managers in their respective NRR/DLR; NRR/J LD reporting chain OPA; OCA; OGC OPA available to use Communications Plan to R-IV; OPA answer media inquiries. Blog possible Oct 3 JLD/NRO/RES completes preliminary assessment JLD/NRO/RES/RIV of published report and management decision is made if any additional actions should be taken prior to the submittal of the seismic reevaluation in March 2015. Updates to communication plan as appropriate As requested Complete a Commissioners Assistants Brief R-IV; NRR

1. Questions and Answers What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP?

Has the licensee entered this new Information into the corrective action program and performed an operability evaluation? In accordance with the guidance in the October 12, 2012, letter transmitting RI L 2012-001 , PG&E has entered the new preliminary seismic information into their corrective action program. The results of the study are used to assess the impact on the current design and licensing basis of DCPP. In response to the NRC's review of the January 2011 Shoreline Fault Report, PG&E made the following commitment to the NRC:

   "If during PG&E's ongoing collection of seismic data, new faults are discovered or information is uncovered that would suggest the Shoreline fault is more capable than currently believed, PG&E will provide the NRC with an interim evaluation that describes actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the evaluations requested in the NRC staff's March 12, 2012, request for information (Reference 2)." Reference 2 is NRC letter to All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status, "Request for Information Pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 50.54(f)

Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident," March 12, 2012. NRC Resident Inspectors, and Region IV staff looked at the licensee's documentation in their corrective action process assessing new preliminary information concerning DCPP seismic and licensing bases. The licensee's information did not indicate there is an immediate threat to public health and safety nor did it call into question the ability of SSCs to 3

DRAFT - OFFISl>'ct tJSE ONLY SENSITl'f'E 1Nl'Eftr4AL INr'OlltMATION - NOT re" fltl8tle IU:LEA!E perform their specified safety functions or necessary and related support functions. In addition, the NRC staff's review of the new seismic information in the report notes that PG&E's evaluation concludes that the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri , San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant. The NRC will review the new information provided in the report to the State of California including the Shoreline Fault characteristics, and the updated characteristics associated with the soil properties near the site. The NRC staff will take additional regulatory action as appropriate if the NRC staff concludes that the new information associated with the Shoreline Fault causes the NRC to revisit the conclusions in the RIL.

2. Has DCPP provided the seismic report to the NRC?

Yes, in accordance with the guidance in the October 12, 2012, letter transmitting RIL 2012-001 , PG&E has provided the information to the NRC. In addition, the report was also provided to address license renewal issues (see question 8).

3. What does the new report state?

The new report includes information obtained from 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional high energy and low-energy seismic surveys both onshore and offshore of the DCPP site. The report provides more details on the regional faults, including more precise readings and additional data points where previously there were gaps. While a lot of the information from the previous Shoreline Fault report of 2011 was confirmed, some of the new data suggests the following:

• Reduced slip rate on the Hosgri Fault Zone and the Shoreline Fault Zone
• Postulated connection of the Hosgri and the San Simeon faults which could result in a longer, larger, but more infrequent earthquake
• The unique geometry involved with intersecting the Hosgri Fault and the Shoreline Fault Zone results in an extension of a few kilometers, but with a lower frequency of occurrence
• Extension of the Shoreline Fault zone southern segment
• The new data does not alter the assessment of the closest approach of the Shoreline fault to DCPP which is 600 meters from the power block and 300 meters from the intake structure. Because the Shoreline fault is considered to be somewhat longer, potential earthquakes could also occur farther from the plant.
• Updated analysis for the San Luis Bay, and Los Osos faults The report concludes that the ground motions for the Hosgri and LTSP evaluations continue to bound potential ground motions from the regional faults, including the Shoreline Fault, San Luis Bay, Los Osos, San Simeon and Hosgri. The DCPP continues to operate safely within the seismic margin they were designed to withstand.

4

DRAFT - 6FFtelAL t:JSE 6NLY 91:NSITIYE INTERNAL INF6RMATl6N - N6T f6ft: ~tll!!tLIC IU!L!A!!

4. How will the AB 1632 seismic report be coordinated with the 50.54(f) required submittal in March 2015?

PG&E plans to incorporate the findings from Bill 1632 report into their ongoing analysis required by the NRC Post-Fukushima task force recommendations due in March 2015. The NRC believes this more rigorous analysis will provide the most accurate assessment of faults affecting the DCPP. (If pushed on any "unknowns" in the report: If necessary, actions could include orders to halt operations if new information suggests there is an immediate safety concern. The NRC will fulfill its mandate to protect public health and safety). (If asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: It is important to note that DCPP is an industry leader in implementing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely in the event of a beyond design basis event).

5. Why is the report "final" for the state but "preliminary" for the NRC?

For the State, the report is final. For the NRC, this information is expected to be incorporated into the more comprehensive 50.54f analysis due to the NRC in March 2015. However, because the licensee must notify the NRC of any new seismic info, they have shared this report and an initial operability evaluation showing why the plant is safe to continue to operate. PG&E's evaluation of the new seismic information, as documented in the report, concludes that the ground motions resulting from the faults discussed in the report (i.e., Shoreline, Hosgri, San Simeon, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay) continue to be bounded by the Hosgri analysis that was used during licensing of the plant.

6. Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the RIL?

California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest base-load power plants, Oiablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state-of-the-art 20 and 30 geophysical mapping techniques, which are commonly used in offshore petroleum resource exploration. These techniques provide higher-resolution data than what was available to characterize the Shoreline Fault in the 2011 report. The NRC has requested licensees of operating nuclear power reactors to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation using up-to-date methodologies and analyses which is due for OCPP in March 2015.

7. What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP?

Based on the preliminary results of the studies that are under review, PG&E determined that 5

DRAFT - OfflelAL t:J9E er4LY

           !l!f491TIYI! INTl!ftNAL INfOftMA'flON - NO'f fOft fl't:J8Lle RELEASE the Shoreline Fault Zone may be capable of producing somewhat larger earthquakes than considered in the January 2011 Shoreline report. The NRC staff is independently assessing PG&E's determination. The process outlined in the 50.54(f) letter includes a detailed analysis of new seismic information (including shoreline faults and other faults around the plant). PG&E is scheduled to provide this assessment in the March 2015 time frame. The staff will continue to review the information in the new CA 1632 report and the final results of the new data from the more rigorous analysis to be completed by March 2015. The NRC staff will take appropriate regulatory action up to and including issuing Orders to ensure safe operation of the plant.

8. Will the Report be considered in the License Renewal Process Yes. In addition to the report being developed to address California Assembly Bill 1632, PG&E is providing the report to the State of California as part of the State of California coastal zone consistency certification associated with the license renewal for DCPP. The State of California coastal zone consistency certification is considered by the NRC during the license renewal environmental review process. In addition, the Staff will be reviewing the report to see how, if at all, it is relevant to the Staff's license renewal review. There is a contention related to the Shoreline fault and its consideration in the facility's severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis that is admitted in the license renewal proceeding (see ML14224A320; See CLl-11-11).

6

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:40 AM To: Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

Re: internal meeting to finalize diablo communication plan For the state report comm plan? That call was at 830 and wrapped up a little after 9. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell (b)(6) From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 09:38 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

Re: internal meeting to finalize diablo communication plan The pho ne line isn't working. Sent via BlackBerry Jenny Weil Congressional Affairs Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l (b)(G>  ! (cell) 301-415-1691 (office) From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 07:33 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Slngal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; OKeefe, Nell; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Roth(OGC), Dar d; ~nojy, K~mal; Reynoso, j°hn; Hill, Brittain; Dudek Michael* Buchanan. The~esa; Kock, Andrea; Weaver, Thomas <b <oJ I (bH6)  ; Maier, Bill; Keegan, Elaine; Weil, Jenny; oreno, ngei

Subject:

RE: internal meeting to finalize diablo communication plan Good Morning , all: I've attached a "Track Changes" version with some plain-language edits for the key messages. I also added OCA to the distribution for their awareness. Scott << DC_Calif_seismic_rpt comm plan 9-10-14_srb.docx>>

-----Original Appointment-----

From: Sebrosky, Joseph 9

Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 3:28 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Stovall, Scott; Munson, Clifford; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Markley, Michael; Jackson, Diane; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; OKeefe, Neil; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, catherine; Roth(OGC), David; Manoly, Kamal; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Dudek, Michael; Buchanan, Theresa; Kock, Andrea; Weaver, Thomas;! (b)(6) IMaier, Bill; Keegan, Elaine Cc: DE_calendar Resource

Subject:

internal meeting to finalize diablo communication plan When: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:30 AM-9:30 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: HQ-TWFN-lOCOl-lSp Note: communication plan updated to address comments from Tom Hipschman Bridge #: 888-677-0690 Passcode:! (b)(6)

Purpose:

To finalize the draft communication plan Outcome: Communication plan associated with Diablo Canyon State of California seismic report finalized Agenda: I. Discussion of changes

a. Incorporated inputs from Tom Hipschman, Lara Uselding, and Megan Williams (thanks for the insights)

b. First key message bullet changed based on Tom and Lara's input

c. Other changes made based on direction during the 9/9 meeting and additional input from Megan

<< File: DC_Calif_seismic_rpt comm plan 9-10-14 am revision 1.docx >>

II. Comments and resolution 111. Next steps IV. Wrapup 10

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 6:01 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph

Subject:

Re: info and action: status of diablo canyon state of california report regarding seismic issues Morning Joe; Typo below? I think you meant PG&E said March 2015 for some replies? Scott Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell (b)(6) From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 05:47 AM To: Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, Catherine; OKeefe, Neil

Subject:

info and action: status of diablo canyon state of c.alifornia report regarding seismic issues Cliff, Scott, Yong , and Megan, The purpose of this email is to:

1) inform you when you can expect to receive access to the Diablo Canyon State of California seismic report,

2) inform you that I will be sending you a scheduler for a phone call this afternoon with PG&E to discuss their feedback on whether or not they will be able to provide responses to the 6 questions we developed in the September time frame. and

3) Provide a general status of other items related to the Status of Diablo Canyon seismic issues I am copying several other folks on this email for their awareness.

Access to Report PG&E informed me over the weekend that the four of you (i.e., Cliff, Scott, Yong, and Megan) can expect to receive access to the report today (9/8) at 11 :00 am eastern time (8:00 am Pacific). PG&E is still targeting the public release of the information on 9/10. DORL has changed the tac to which you should charge your review time . The new tacs are MF4750, and MF4751 . You will be receiving an email from Philippe Soenen of PG&E that will explain how to get access through certrec. You will not be able to download or print the material. PG&E is also making arrangements for some State of California officials to review a hard copy of the report around the same time we get access. PG&E's Ability to Provide Response to 6 Questions in the September Time Frame 14

PG&E also informed me over the weekend that they will not be able to provide a response to all of the 6 questions in the attached email in the September time frame. They would like to have a phone call this afternoon to discuss which items they maybe to answer in the short term and which items may not be available until March of 2014. I will send the four of you a separate scheduler for this call. In addition to you, I will include the following individuals on the scheduler (Eric Oesterle, Mike Markley, Diane Jackson, Andrea Kock, Tom Hipschman, Wayne Walker, and Theresa Buchanan). Status of Other Items

• You should have a scheduler for an internal meeting tomorrow to discuss your insights based on a quick look at the report on whether or not changes to the communication plan or draft project plan are needed.
• There is a possibility that the DPO, the DPO recommendation, and the DPO appeal, will be made publicly available this week. DORL is working on coordinating updating the DPO communication plan based on the public availability of this information.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky 15

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:14 AM To: Mcintyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Re: Chairman brief on Diablo I can call in, of course, but if we prefer in-person then it's obviously Dave. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6)

 ----- Original Message ----

From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 09:01 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Per the morning meeting, this meeting has now been moved to THURSDAY at 11 am.

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

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:16 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo I've dealt with the Diablo seismic issues for years. Both Dave and I are working on the foreign ownership paper, for whatever that's worth. From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:16 AM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Re: Chairman brief on Diablo I think dave because this is a long runing operating issue.

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

From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:01 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Chairman brief on Diablo Ok, the one we're invited to is this Friday from 3 to 3:45. Who is best to represent OPA? Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 19

---

Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:20 PM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Understood. From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:17 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Thursday's meeting is the one we're not invited to. The one we are is yet unscheduled Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203

---

Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:09 PM To: McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo I can certainly call in to the separate meeting if it's Thursday -- both Dave and I have kept an eye on the foreign ownership issue. From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Sounds like a fun day.

---

Original Message-----

From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:54 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Chairman brief on Diablo From Jen: It's my understanding that Thursday's meeting is going to deal with the technical issues associated with the Shoreline fault and an update of what's going on with the DPO, and that Phil has requested a separate meeting (as yet unscheduled) to address messaging on Diablo and the foreign ownership issue - to which he's asked that OPA, OCA, and assorted others be invited. Holly Harrington 20

Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203

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

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Chairman brief on Diablo Hello: I left a voicemail for Scott as I heard from a RIV staffer that the Chairman wants a brief on all things Diablo this Thursday. Do you know about this and if so, will someone from HQ OPA sit in on that? Lara

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

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:03 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

I'm out today and tomorrow Sorry, should have updated my voicemail. Haven't heard anything about a chairman brief. Check w/Holly? Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6) 21

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:04 PM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

RE: Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Our usual response will serve, I'd think ... From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:02 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

FW: Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report FYI From: Sewell, Abigail M [5] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:18 AM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

FW: Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Hi Lara - Friends of the Earth is filing a petition seeking to have Diablo Canyon shut down pending a license amendment. Does NRC want to comment? Abby From: Bill Walker [mailto:ow.deadline@gmail.com! Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:03 AM

Subject:

Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report [Online: http:llwww.foe.org/newslnews-releases/2014-08-nuclear-walchdog-pelitions-federal-regulator-to-close-unsafe-diablo-canyon-nuclear-reactorsl For Immediate Release: August 26, 2014 Expert

Contact:

Damon Moglen, senior strategic advisor, (202) 352-4223, dmoglen@foe.org Communications Contacts: EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org Bill Walker. (510) 759-9911 , bw.deadline@gmail.com Nuclear watchdog petitions federal regulator to close unsafe Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors Sen. Boxer calls for hearings on NRC's failure of 'responsibility to protect public health and safety' WASHINGTON, D.C. - One day after the release of a document suppressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California is vulnerable to earthquakes, Friends of the Earth filed a petition charging that the plant is in violation of its license and must be closed immediately pending public hearings to prove it is safe. Meanwhile. the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced it will hold 43

its own hearings into the NRC's suppression of the document. Friends of the Earth's petition to the NRC charges that despite having new information that earthquake faults surrounding Diablo Canyon are capable of ground motion far greater than the reactors were designed and licensed to withstand, both Pacific Gas and Electric and the agency have failed to conduct a rigorous safety analysis and licensing review required by the agency's rules. Friends of the Earth's petition states:

         "Studies done so far indicate that the Shoreline Fault and the nearby Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults are capable of producing an earthquake with ground acceleration that far exceeds the plant's current licensing basis, posing a serious safety risk to the public and the environment near the plant... When a plant cannot operate within the specific parameters described in the current licensing basis, the (Atomic Energy Act) requires the licensee to seek a license amendment and engage in a public process with an adjudicatory hearing.'

Citing the fact that the new seismic data shows that the reactors do not meet their licensing specifications and requirements and could therefore fail catastrophically in a massive earthquake, Friends of the Earth is asking that the NRC close Diablo and convene a public review with hearings before a federal judge to assess whether or not the reactors can be run safely. The petition is similar to one Friends of the Earth filed in June 2012 that resulted in a landmark ruling that led to Southern California Edison's decision to permanently close the San Onofre nuclear reactors, where damaged equipment made it impossible for the plant to operate in accordance with its license. 'This is a really scary situation," said Damon Moglen of Friends of the Earth. 'PG&E and the NRC both know that earthquakes are possible that far surpass those for which the reactors are designed and licensed, but they have decided to look the other way. Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes at Diablo Canyon, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors to be built on this site now.* On Monday the Associated Press reported that a formal dissent by Dr. Michael Peck, formerly the NRC's senior resident safety inspector at Diablo Canyon, reveals in detail that new seismic data shows that the reactors are vulnerable to earthquakes. Peck filed his report, known as a Dissenting Professional Opinion, in July 2013 and requested it be made public, but the agency has neither released nor ruled on it, despite NRC policy that DPOs must be ruled on within 120 days. Peck's dissent says that since the 1960-era reactors were built new information has emerged about potential earthquakes in the area that means the plant is operating 'outside the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis" - in other words, in violation of its federal license. 'Continued reactor operation ...challenges the presumption of nuclear safety," Peck asserted. 'The reactors should remain shut down pending demonstration that...safety functions can be met at the higher seismic stress levels.* In response to release of the suppressed report, Environment and Public Works Committee chair Sen. Barbara Boxer announced that she would hold hearings on the situation at Diablo and said: ' The NRC's failure to act constitutes an abdication of its responsibility to protect public health and safety.' Seismic safety has been a major concern at Diablo Canyon since construction on the reactors began in 1968. Over the years, it has become increasingly clear that the reactors are surrounded by seismic faults. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 201 1, a report issued by the NRC itself ranked the Diablo Canyon reactors as the most likely in the nation to be hit by an earthquake stronger than they were designed to withstand. Bill Walker <Iba Ocadlinc Now Berkeley, CA (510) 759-99 11 Twitter: ru dcadlincnow Farchook: DcadlincNow Skypr: dcadlinrno\\ http://www.deadlinenow.com 44

From: Burnell, Scott Se nt: Friday, July 25, 2014 8:00 AM To: Gibson, Lauren

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon Seismic Studies - AB 1632 Yup, been aware of this. Happy Friday! :-) From: Gibson, Lauren Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 7:53 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Diablo canyon Seismic Studies - AB 1632

Scott, Just a heads up at this point. I'm sure that RIV Public Affairs is all over this, but it's likely to have some JLD involvement as well.

Diablo Canyon is planning to issue a seismic report in August. As the resident states in first e-mail in the chain, "The report is likely to generate significant public interest, and the licensee is considering submitting a 50.72 report, similar to when they reported the Shoreline fault in 2008."

Thanks, Lauren From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 7:01 AM To: Bamford, Peter; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Whaley, Sheena Cc: Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; Folk, Kevin; Walker, Wayne; Markley, Michael; Hipschman, Thomas; Lund, Louise; Gibson, Lauren; Munson, Clifford; Balazik, Michael; Uribe, Juan

Subject:

FW: Diablo canyon Seismic Studies - AB 1632 Sheena, and Nick, The purpose of this email is to alert you to a seismic issue on Diablo Canyon and suggest that the JLD needs to be involved in the briefing that is described in the email below from the Diablo Canyon senior resident inspector (Tom Hipschman). The email below describes a seismic report that PG&E is preparing to release in response to a California State law.

Background

I was the Diablo PM at the time of the issuance of the second research information letter that was issued on the Diablo Canyon shoreline fault report in October of 2012. This is why I was copied on the email chain below. A summary of NRG actions since the discovery of the Shoreline fault offshore of Diablo Canyon in 2008 can be found in the transmittal letter of the second NRC analysis of the fault. This letter can be found at: View ADAMS PS Properties ML120730106 Open ADAMS PS Document (Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Unit Nos. 1 and 2 - NRC Review of Shoreline Fault (TAC Nos. ME5306 and ME5307l.) 157

The letter concludes that based on NRC's independent analysis that the ground motions from the Shoreline fault are at or below those for which the plant was evaluated previously and demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of safety. The letter also states that going forward the staff will rely on insights from the response to the March 12, 2012, 50.54(f) letter and contains the following statement: If during the collection of the data, new faults are discovered or information is uncovered that would suggest the Shoreline fault is more capable than currently believed, the staff expects that the licensee will provide the NRC with an interim evaluation that describes actions taken or planned to address the higher seismic hazard relative to the design basis, as appropriate, prior to completion of the evaluations requested in the NRG staff's March 12, 2012, request for information. There are many moving parts to the seismic issue at Diablo Canyon including but not limited to California State Laws, license renewal contentions and associated legal reviews of anything associated with seismic, and continuing developments associated with differing professional views and differing professional opinions on Diablo seismic issues. Proposal At the time of the issuance of the October 2012 letter JLD was a small organization and they were consulted on the steps to address seismic issues at Diablo Canyon but the lead for coordinating headquarters activities of seismic issues was DORL. Moving forward I believe the JLD will be taking a more active role in the briefings described in the email chain below. When I was the Diablo PM, seismic issues at Diablo took close to 50 percent of my time for the year period I was assigned to the plant, and I believe close to this amount of time will be required of the headquarters PM that will be asked to coordinate these reviews for the next couple of weeks. I think the headquarters PM will be a JLD PM but I am not sure. Please let me know if you need additional background information or if you would like me to arrange a meeting between the JLD and DORL organization to bring key players up to speed on the background for the issue and to develop the plan for coordinating headquarters activities going forward given the information described below.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:06 PM To: Markley, Michael Cc: Hipschman, Thomas; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Maier, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Reynoso, John; Buchanan, Theresa; Alexander, Ryan; Bamford, Peter; Lund, Louise; Sebrosky, Joseph

Subject:

Re: Diablo Canyon Seismic Studies - AB 1632 M ike, I'm have a meeting w ith the licensee tomorrow to see if we can get an advance draft copy prior to T-0 so we can be more informed for the communications and briefi ngs. I'll al so see if we can get some additional pre-briefings for a w ider NRC audi ence. Tom Sent vi a M y Workspace for iOS 158

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 at 5:57:54 PM, "Markley, Michael" <Michael.Markley(@,nrc.gov> wrote:

All, A high-level notification/briefing is certainly welcome. There are, however, a lot of things at play here. Many pa rts of the NRC will need to quickly come into play. RIV, DORL, EMCB, JLD, NRO, and all the associated reviewers from the RIL shod be informed Not having seen the new study, it is hard to judge the options and course(s) of action. As with both RI Ls, we need to reconcile any immediate operability concerns and look at how the expected NRC evaluation fits the latest RIL and 50.54(f) expectations.

Communications and br iefings will be an immediate impact for all involved. Starting w ith the RIV and NRR Office level is fine, but we need the bases covered down to the residents and PM. Mike From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 02:52 PM To: Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Maier, Bill; Weil, Jenny Cc: Reynoso, John; Buchanan, Theresa; Alexander, Ryan; Markley, Michael; Bamford, Peter

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Seismic Studies - AB 1632

All, John and I met with Jeff Summy, Diablo Canyon, Senior Director Engineering and Projects, to discuss PG&E's upcoming submittal to the State of California concerning seismic studies per California AB 1632. PG&E plans to provide the analysis to the NRC. Diablo Canyon's 50.54 (f) seismic evaluation submittal to the NRC is due March 2015.

The report is nearing completion, and will be undergoing internal concurrence over the next several weeks. Mr. Summy is fairly confident that PG&E will submit the report near the end of August. The report will address the Assembly Bill 1632 requirements and provide further information to additional questions submitted by various stakeholders from previous iterations of the report. For example, questions by the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) Independent Peer Review Panel (IPRP) will be addressed. PG&E plans to keep the NRC informed of their progress. At T-1 , the Ed Halpin, DCPP Senior VP and CNO, would like to hold a high level call - probably with Marc Dapas and Dan Dorman. The report will include a new risk-informed, probabilistic assessment of the faults and the potential to impact Diablo Canyon. Previous analyses have been deterministic. Under the deterministic approach, the faults were not required to be analyzed for linking. The probabilistic analysis will evaluate the possibility of linking using current methodologies. The report has been independently peer reviewed as well through the SSHAC process. The report will address the Double Design Earthquake (DOE), Hosgri, Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) and the Shoreline fault. The report is likely to generate significant public interest, and the licensee is considering submitting a 50.72 report, similar to when they reported the Shoreline fault in 2008. The licensee currently believes the outcome will remain bounded by the Hosgri analysis, and that Hosgri is representative of the worst case seismic event. Mr. Summy stated that in the final report there is a possibility that the Shoreline fault could be longer than previously analyzed. Although a longer fault would have more capability, a longer fault would also distribute its energy over a larger area. If the report determines that there is new information concerning the Shoreline fault, the licensee stated that according the Research Information Letter (RIL), PG&E will have to submit this new information to the NRC. I recommend we consider the following actions: 159

1. Who should be on the Ed Halpin call at T-1? I think Marc Dapas and Dan Dorman would be appropriate. Possibly RES? The residents and the region will get a heads-up.

2. The stakeholder communication plan - the licensee plans to reach out to their stakeholders at T-1 , and plans to submit a press release and possibly a 50.72 report on T-0.

3. If PG&E is required to submit new information as required by the RIL, they are interested in knowing what the NRC's next steps would be? For example, would additional submittals be required, or would the NRC wait until the 50.54 (f) submittal?

Tom 160

From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:05 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC}, David; Kanatas, Catherine; OKeefe, Neil

Subject:

RE: info and action: status of diablo canyon state of california report regarding seismic issues Attachments: DCPP DPO Key Messages 2.docx Note: This is the same attachment as the first attachment to Renee Pedersen's 9/15/2014 2:07 PM email (earlier in this package). To all, The purpose of this email is to update you all on the status of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (OCPP) DPO Appea l decision that has been working in parallel with our efforts on the PG&E Seismic Report to State of CA. We were informed yesterday afternoon that the EDO's Decision on the DCPP DPO Appeal would be imminent. As a result, a team of NRR personnel reviewed the DPO Case File for public releasibility and determi ned that there was no information that needed to be withheld. An email was sent out to several individuals informing them that the review for public releasibility had been completed. Process wise, however, even though we have made that determination, the OPO Submitter must be asked whether or not they would like to have the DPO case released to the public. We do not yet have positive confirmation that the EDO has render a decision on the DPO Appeal. When the EDO renders decision on the DPO Appeal , contact will be made with the DPO submitter to provide that information. The OPO program office, OE, will likely take any follow on action to make the request to DPO submitter on public releasibility of case file, follow up with OIS on making DPO case file publicly available if agreed to by DPO subm itter. For additional information, key messages have been developed from the perspective of the DPO Appeal decision having been made and are attached for you info. Please let me know if you have any questions. Fvu;;R. O~e.+"'Le, Acting Branch Chief NRR/DORL/LPL4-1 301-415-1014

 ,,,..~~.\

!

• 1

' .. .. :I 10

From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 6:14 AM To: Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovall, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Singal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, catherine; OKeefe, Neil

Subject:

info and action: status of diablo canyon state of california report regarding seismic issues To all , The purpose of this email is to inform you of the current status of the Diablo Canyon State of California report that contains new seismic information. Access to Report Yesterday Cliff Munson. Scott Stovall, and Megan Williams received access to the report through an electronic reading room portal. PG&E also made arrangements for Officials from the State of California to review the report prior to its public release. Cliff, Scott, and Megan have begun their quick look review of the report. PG&E is still targeting public release of the report tomorrow (i.e., 9/10/ 14). There is an internal meeting today scheduled for 2:00 pm eastern for Cliff, Scott, and Megan to provide their insights based on their quick look review of the report and to determine what if any changes need to be made to the communication plan. Highlights of 9/9/14 PG&E Phone Call PG&E was previously provided with a list of 6 information needs that the staff believed would be necessary to calculate a seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) based on new seismic information that is believed to be in the State of California report. PG&E was requested to inform the staff if the information could be provided in the September 2014 time frame. During yesterday's phone call PG&E informed the staff that some of the information necessary to develop a SCDF based on changes to the attributes of the Shoreline, Los Osos, and San Luis Bay faults and the soil properties near the site will not be available until March of 2015. There is a short phone call scheduled for this morning at 8:30 am (eastern) with Cliff Munson to discuss the path forward for the staff's review of the State of California report information. Thoughts being considered are:

• Perform a focused deterministic calculation using PG&E's new seismic information (including the fault and soil property changes) as inputs into a staff developed model. The calculation could provide a limited updated ground motion response spectrum to be compared against the Hosgri spectrum. This calculation is limited in that it would not be a complete revision to the staff's deterministic evaluation captured in RIL 12-01 , but it is thought the information the calculation could provide could be useful in developing a recommendation to management on how to proceed.
• If the 8:30 meeting results in going forward with this recommendation the project plan will be updated to reflect this and the revised project plan will be discussed with a broader audience at the 2:00 pm eastern meeting scheduled today to discuss Cliff's, Scott's and Megan's assessment of information in the State of California report.
• DORL will brief NRR upper management on the results of yesterday's call including informing Jennifer Uhle that in the short term there is not sufficient information to calculate a seismic core damage frequency On a different note, I will be working with DORL management to develop a publicly available meeting summary to capture the highlights of yesterday's phone call with PG&E. I believe that the development of such a summary is consistent with the guidance in NRR office instruction COM-203, "Informal Interfacing and Exchange of Information with Licensees and Applicants." If such a summary is developed I will ensure that RIV, and NRO are on concurrence and that prior to release of the summary OPA is consulted.

11

Status of Other Items

• There is a possibility that the DPO, the DPO recommendation, and the DPO appeal, will be made publicly available this week. DORL is working on coordinating updating the DPO communication plan based on the public availability of this information.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky 12

From: Oesterle, Eric Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:09 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Stovall, Scott Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manely, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

RE: info: status of actions associated with with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault Attachments: Diablo seismic process key messages_srb+ero.docx Note: This is the same attachment as the second attachment to Renee Pedersen's 9/15/2014 2:07 PM email (earlier in this To all, package). Attached are the updated Key Messages. They incorporate comments from OPA and Mike Hay. And they retain bullets on the expected submittal date of PG& Seismic Report to CA and to NRC as we'll need these key messages up to and following those dates (i.e., 9/10). Eric From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:35 AM To: Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Stovall, SCott Cc: Well, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manely, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; case, Michael; Burnell, SCott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, catherine; Pedersen, Renee

Subject:

info: status of actions associated with with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault To all. The purpose of this email is to provide you with a status of items associated with the Diablo Canyon seismic review related to status of the project plan to review new seismic information and the latest information regarding a Chairman briefing. Project Plan for Reviewing New Seismic Information Attached is the revised project plan for reviewing new seismic information. The document shows the changes made from the last revision (you can accept all changes if you are not interested in the changes). The major changes from the last version are:

• Changes made to include expectations that in addition to changes in Shoreline Fault information the State of California report will also include new information relative to the San Luis Bay and Los Osos faults.
• Recognition that today (9/3) PG&E has been provided with expected information needs for the staff to perform a preliminary assessment of the new seismic information and request to PG&E that they inform 20

the staff on whether or not they will be able to provide the information by 9/22 (see attached email to PG&E) During discussions I had with PG&E about the attached email they indicated that they could support a public meeting in the September time frame if the NRC believed such a meeting was necessary to discuss the State of California report. DORL senior management does not currently believe such a public meeting is necessary, therefore, a public meeting is not currently reflected in the attached project plan. In addition , PG&E has confirmed that they will be providing electronic reading room access to the State of California and key NRC reviewers on 9/8/14, ahead of the tentative public release of the report on 9/10. The NRC individuals for which will be requesting access are: Cliff Munson, Scott Stova ll, Yong Li , and Megan Williams. The purpose of the electronic reading room review is to identify changes to the communication plan and project plan ahead of the public release of the State of California report on 9/10/14. Chairman Briefing At her request a briefing of the Chairman has been scheduled from 9:15 (eastern time) to 10:00 am tomorrow (9/4) to answer her questions relative to the DPO and how the NRC will review the new seismic information.

• The participants in the briefing are: - Neil O'Keefe (RIV), Cathy Kanatas (OGC). Cliff Munson (NRO),

Kamal Manely (NRR/DE) , Mike Markley (DORL), Scott Stovall (RES) , and Renee Pedersen (OE).

• A draft copy of the slides will be provided to all on distribution for this email around 1:00 pm eastern today. Key staff will be requested to provide their comments on the draft slides by COB today so that the slides can be revised early tomorrow morning in time for the 9: 15 briefing and a quick review by the EDO's office prior to the 9: 15 eastern time briefing.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the above.

Thanks, Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301 -4 15- 1132 21

From: Keegan, Elaine Se nt: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:58 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manely, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manely, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas Subje ct: RE: action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault I just have one commenUquestion on the comm plan. I just became a member of this team and don't have the history of it that everyone else does but when I read Question 5 and then read the response, the response doesn't answer the question as it is currently phrased. Question 5 asks why the NRC didn't discover the length of the fault in 201 1, however the response provides an explanation of what PG&E did in response to CA Assembly Bill 1632. Should the NRC have discovered the length of the fault by reviewing PG&E's 2011 report or should the licensee have discovered it as a result of the work done for Bill 1632? Did the licensee discover the fault by using the most state-of-the-art seismic studies? Elaine ELAINE M KEEGAN SR. PROJECT MANAGER DIVISION OF LICENSE RENEWAL, NRR U 5. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION 301-415-8517 From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent : Friday, August 29, 2014 10:28 AM To: Hlpschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manely, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manely, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo canyon shoreline fault To all, The purpose of this email is to request your review and comment on the following documents associated with the Diablo Canyon State of California seismic report that will include new information related to the Shoreline Fault: 1) an updated draft communication plan, 2) a draft project plan, and 3) a one page briefing sheet developed by DORL on the topic. The email also provides you with a listing of other Diablo Canyon seismic issues that will likely require resources from the headquarters and RIV to review. Communication Plan 28

• The communication plan has been updated to reflect that we will not have access to the report until two days prior to its public release scheduled for 9/10/14. It also includes an updated proposed key message from Tom Hipschman based on this approach.

Project Plan

• The attached draft project plan was developed to attempt to capture the expectations for review of the report including the review team, review documents, and schedule. The project plan includes the assumption that PG&E will be providing an interim evaluation of actions taken or planned based on the new seismic information in accordance with the guidance found in the October 12, 2012, letter to PG&E. The expectation that PG&E will provide such an evaluation has been communicated to PG&E by both me and Wayne Walker.
• Eric Oesterle, Diane Jackson, Sheena Whaley, Wayne Walker, and Jon Ake, your feedback on the project plan is particularly important. Please let me know if I need to arrange a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the approach. Jon, I recognize that you are out of the office next week but any feedback before you leave would be greatly appreciated.
• Eric Oesterle, Balwant Singal, Nick Difrancesco, Kamal Manoly, Yong Li, Cliff Munson, Britt Hill, Jon Ake, Wayne Walker, Theresa Buchanan, Megan Williams, and Tom Hipschman, you are currently listed as supporting the review of the report. This was a guess on my part and subject to management revision.
• Diane Jackson and Cliff Munson, the project plan proposes the involvement of John Stamatokos (contractor) in the review because of his history and knowledge associated with Diablo seismic issues. Any feedback on the proposal to have John involved would be appreciated.

One Pager

• DORL developed the attached one-pager to be used as a communication tool for senior management. Your feedback on this document would also be appreciated.

Other Issues

• Friends of the Earth petition o OGC is coordinating the effort to respond to the recently received Friends of the Earth Petition relative to Diablo Canyon seismic issues.
• DPO o The Office of Enforcement will likely be asking for key people to review the DPO decision, when it is available, for sensitive information so that it can be provided to the public.

Your comments on the attached documents are appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301-415-11 32 29

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 1:11 PM To: Hay, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Sebrosky, Joseph; Hipschman, Thomas; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault You are correct. The 4 th bullet should state:

• Licensees also use their Probabilistic Risk assessments (PRAs) to assess the risk impacts and whether certain SSCs may remain PRA functional Mike From: Hay, Michael Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:52 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Sebrosky, Joseph; Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; case, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo canyon shoreline fault Overall key messages looked good to me. Only comment I have is the statement that licensee's use PRA to assess functionality and operability of plant SSC's. It is my understanding our guidance does not allow this and t he NRC has writ ten a number of violations that I am aware of when this practice is identified. Maybe we do allow it for assessing things like seismic that I am not aware of? Mike From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:40 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; case, Michael; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo canyon shoreline fault Reordering/adding to the key messages 30

From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:28 AM To: Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo canyon shoreline fault To all, The purpose of this email is to request your review and comment on the following documents associated with the Diablo Canyon State of California seismic report that will include new information related to the Shoreline Fault: 1) an updated draft communication plan, 2) a draft project plan, and 3) a one page briefing sheet developed by DORL on the topic. The email also provides you with a listing of other Diablo Canyon seismic issues that will likely require resources from the headquarters and RIV to review. Communication Plan

• The communication plan has been updated to reflect that we will not have access to the report until two days prior to its public release scheduled for 9/10/14. It also includes an updated proposed key message from Tom Hipschman based on this approach.

Project Plan

• The attached draft project plan was developed to attempt to capture the expectations for review of the report including the review team , review documents, and schedule. The project plan includes the assumption that PG&E will be providing an interim evaluation of actions taken or planned based on the new seismic information in accordance with the guidance found in the October 12, 2012, letter to PG&E. The expectation that PG&E will provide such an evaluation has been communicated to PG&E by both me and Wayne Walker.
• Eric Oesterle, Diane Jackson, Sheena Whaley, Wayne Walker, and Jon Ake, your feedback on the project plan is particularly important. Please let me know if I need to arrange a meeting on Tuesday to discuss the approach. Jon, I recognize that you are out of the office next week but any feedback before you leave would be greatly appreciated.
• Eric Oesterle, Balwant Singal, Nick Difrancesco, Kamal Manoly, Yong Li, Cliff Munson, Britt Hill, Jon Ake, Wayne Walker, Theresa Buchanan, Megan Williams, and Tom Hipschman, you are currently listed as supporting the review of the report. This was a guess on my part and subject to management revision.
• Diane Jackson and Cliff Munson, the project plan proposes the involvement of John Stamatokos (contractor) in the review because of his history and knowledge associated with Diablo seismic issues. Any feedback on the proposal to have John involved would be appreciated.

One Pager

• DORL developed the attached one-pager to be used as a communication tool for senior management. Your feedback on this document would also be appreciated.

Other Issues

• Friends of the Earth petition 31

o OGC is coordinating the effort to respond to the recently received Friends of the Earth Petition relative to Diablo Canyon seismic issues.

• DPO o The Office of Enforcement will likely be asking for key people to review the DPO decision, when it is available, for sensitive information so that it can be provided to the public.

Your comments on the attached documents are appreciated. Please let me know if you have any questions. Joe Sebrosky Senior Project Manager Japan Lessons-Learned Division Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation joseph.sebrosky@nrc.gov 301-415-1132 32

From: Uselding, Lara Se nt: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:47 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault Yes , thanks From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 9:40 AM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault Reordering/adding to the key messages From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:28 AM To: Hipschman, Thomas; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Difrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovich, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; Williams, Megan; Farnholtz, Thomas

Subject:

action: request for feedback on documents associated with Diablo Canyon shoreline fault This entire email, in redacted form, may also be found as document To all, G/32 in interim response #3 in FOIA/PA-2014-0488 (ML15033A280). The purpose of this email is to request your review and comment on the following documents associated with the Diablo Canyon State of California seismic report that will include new information related to the Shoreline Fault: 1) an updated draft communication plan, 2) a draft project plan, and 3) a one page briefing sheet developed by DORL on the topic. The email also provides you with a listing of other Diablo Canyon seismic issues that will likely require resources from the headquarters and RIV to review. Communication Plan

• The communication plan has been updated to reflect that we will not have access to the report until two days prior to its public release scheduled for 9/10/14. It also includes an updated proposed key message from Tom Hipschman based on this approach.

Project Plan

• The attached draft project plan was developed to attempt to capture the expectations for review of the report including the review team, review documents, and schedule. The project plan includes the assumption that PG&E will be providing an interim evaluation of actions taken or planned based on the new seismic information in accordance with the guidance found in the October 12, 2012, letter to 36

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:40 AM To: Kanatas, Catherine; Uttal, Susan; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel; Burnell, Scott Cc: Oesterle, Eric; Sebrosky, Joseph; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan FYI From: Evans, Michele Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:31 PM To: Lund, Louise; Markley, Michael Cc: Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan Please see below. From: Dorman, Dan Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:28 PM To: Dapas, Marc Cc: Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Diablo canyon Communication Plan Thanks Marc. I have also discussed our alignment wit h Michele and Jennifer. We'll work with DORL. From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:04 PM To: Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Diablo canyon Communication Plan I just talked to Trish Holahan and she is aligned with our finalizing the communication plan for internal stakeholder consumption. She has been briefed on the matter by Renee Pedersen and we all agree that we can communicate that a decision was reached by Eric Leeds and that decision, at the DPO submitter's request, is under appeal to the EDO. We would not engage in any discussion with the external stakeholder regarding the specifics of the DPO submittal, or the DPO decision by Eric, other than to bridge to the overarching safety message reflected in Eric's decision, i.e., consistent with the conclusions documented in the Research Information Letter, the agency does not currently have a safety concern with the structures, systems, and components necessary to reach and maintain safe shutdown, being able to perform their intended function should the site experience an earthquake from the Shoreline fault. I have asked Mike Hay (acting DRP Deputy) to reach out to Mike Markley and convey that we are less focused on what eventually gets posted on the internal NRC webpage, than on getting a finalized product out to the selected number of internal stakeholders who will be involved in external stakeholder interactions. We will be factual in nature in response to questions and convey information that is already in the public domain such that we don't create a credibility gap. 42

From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:50 PM To: Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal Cc: Jarriel, Lisamarie; Markley, Michael; Lund, Louise; Oesterle, Eric; Holahan, Patricia; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Uttal, Susan; Kanatas, Catherine; Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Sebrosky, Joseph; Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Manely, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; Hay, Michael; Pruett, Troy; Kennedy, Kriss; OKeefe, Neil; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Briefing on seismic issues at Diablo Canyon for Sen. Feinstein's staffers Hello everyone, Yong and Kamal are available tomorrow to brief Sen. Feinstein's staffers by phone. The discussion will be broad since the DPO is still in process (even though it's publicly available). We won't be discussing the DPO with the congressional staffers. - Jenny 46

From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:13 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Yep. thanks. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:10 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Yes, how about: As is the case with any petition received, the NRC will review it according to its procedures and respond accordingly. From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:06 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report I would respond that as is the case with any petition of this nature, it will be dealt with in the normal process for handling such matters, or something to that effect. From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:02 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel

Subject:

FW: Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report FYI From: Sewell, Abigail M [6] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:18 AM To: Uselding, Lara

Subject:

FW: Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Hi Lara - Friends of the Earth is filing a petition seeking to have Diablo Canyon shut down pending a license amendment. Does NRC want to comment? Abby From: Bill Walker [7] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:03 AM

Subject:

Petition filed to shut Diablo canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report 50

[Online: http:llwww.foe.orglnews/news-releases/2014-08-nuc/ear-watchdog-petitions-federal-regulator-to-c/ose-unsafe-diablo-canyon-nuclear-reactorsl For Immediate Release: August 26, 2014 Expert

Contact:

Damon Moglen, senior strategic advisor, (202) 352-4223, dmoglen@foe.org Communications Contacts: EA Dyson, /202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911, bw.deadline@gmail.com Nuclear watchdog petitions federal regulator to close unsafe Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors Sen. Boxer calls for hearings on NRC's failure of 'responsibility to protect public health and safety' WASHINGTON, D.C. - One day after the release of a document suppressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California is vulnerable to earthquakes, Friends of the Earth filed a petition charging that the plant is in violation of its license and must be closed immediately pending public hearings to prove it is safe. Meanwhile, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced it will hold its own hearings into the NRC's suppression of the document. Friends of the Earth's petition to the NRC charges that despite having new information that earthquake faults surrounding Diablo Canyon are capable of ground motion far greater than the reactors were designed and licensed to withstand, both Pacific Gas and Electric and the agency have failed to conduct a rigorous safety analysis and licensing review required by the agency's rules. Friends of the Earth's petition states:

           *studies done so far indicate that the Shoreline Fault and the nearby Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults are capable of producing an earthquake with ground acceleration that far exceeds the plant's current licensing basis, posing a serious safety risk to the public and the environment near the plant... When a plant cannot operate within the specific parameters described in the current licensing basis, the (Atomic Energy Act) requires the licensee to seek a license amendment and engage in a public process with an adjudicatory hearing."

Citing the fact that the new seismic data shows that the reactors do not meet their licensing specifications and requirements and could therefore fail catastrophically in a massive earthquake, Friends of the Earth is asking that the NRC close Diablo and convene a public review with hearings before a federal judge to assess whether or not the reactors can be run safely. The petition is similar to one Friends of the Earth filed in June 2012 that resulted in a landmark ruling that led to Southern California Edison's decision to permanently close the San Onofre nuclear reactors, where damaged equipment made it impossible for the plant to operate in accordance with its license. 'This is a really scary situation," said Damon Moglen of Friends of the Earth. "PG&E and the NRC both know that earthquakes are possible that far surpass those for which the reactors are designed and licensed, but they have decided to look the other way. Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes at Diablo Canyon, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors to be built on this site now." On Monday the Associated Press reported that a formal dissent by Dr. Michael Peck, formerty the NRC's senior resident safety inspector at Diablo Canyon, reveals in detail that new seismic data shows that the reactors are vulnerable to earthquakes. Peck filed his report, known as a Dissenting Professional Opinion, in July 2013 and requested it be made public, but the agency has neither released nor ruled on it, despite NRC policy that DPOs must be ruled on within 120 days. Peck's dissent says that since the 1960-era reactors were built new information has emerged about potential earthquakes in the area that means the plant is operating 'outside the bounds of the existing Diablo Canyon design basis and safety analysis' - in other words, in violation of its federal license. 'Continued reactor operation ...challenges the presumption of nuclear safety,' Peck asserted. "The reactors should remain shut down pending demonstration that...safety functions can be met at the higher seismic stress levels." In response to release of the suppressed report, Environment and Public Works Committee chair Sen. Barbara Boxer announced that she would hold hearings on the situation at Diablo and said: "The NRC's failure to act constitutes an abdication of its responsibility to protect public health and safety.' Seismic safety has been a major concern at Diablo Canyon since construction on the reactors began in 1968. Over the years, it has become increasingly clear that the reactors are surrounded by seismic faults. In the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, a report issued by the NRC itself ranked the 51

Diablo Canyon reactors as the most likely in the nation to be hit by an earthquake stronger than they were designed to withstand.

  ~

Bill \\ all.er dha l>cadlinc !'Ion lkrkcl<*~, CA (510) 759-99 1 I Twitter: (a dcadlin(*ncm Facchook: l>c:1dli11c~on Sk~*r<*: dcadlincncH\ http://www.deadlinenow.com 52

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 1:57 PM To: Weil, Jenny; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: OGC rep for our call tomorrow on Diablo Thanks! From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:06 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: OGC rep for our call tomorrow on Diablo Hi Lara, I think it went up to Marg ie because the Commission had to vote on approving the release of the report. I'll see if there's someone at a lower level that could call in. -Jenny From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 18, 2014 12:44 PM To: Weil, Jenny; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

OGC rep for our call tomorrow on Diablo Hello Jenny: would you invite the OGC person who helped you with the Congressional version of the Sewell report to join our call tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. central time? Lara Usclding l \ \u, \c.:11 Rcg.11lat,ll': ( *0111rnh,1,,n /\l{l ! l't1blt( ,\ i'la11, lfrg1n11 I \. \rhngwn. I t:\as 8 17.200. 1519 lara.usclding(wnrc.gov 62

From: Jones, Henry Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 10:16 AM To: Burnell, Scott Cc: Erwin, Kenneth; Cook, Christopher

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon NRC Fact Sheet Note: ML111290158 is publicly Attachments: DiabloCanyonNRC_FactSheet_ML111290158.pdf available in ADAMS. Forwarded FYI. From: Patrick J. Lynett [8] Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 6:05 AM To: Jones, Henry

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon NRC Fact Sheet Hi Henry-Hope that all is we ll. I had a conversatio n with Chris and Mike Fliegel today about Diablo - particularly about the elevation at which any safety related facilities get wet. The relevant elevations are in the attached for a refresher. The main question is whether the intake structure is considered a safety related structure since there are Back Up Cooling pools. I assume that the answer is no, and that the critical elevation is +48 feet MLLW.

Thanks, Pat From: Christopher J. Bender [9]

Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2014 12:49 PM To: Patrick J. Lynett; I (b)(6)

Subject:

Diablo Canyon NRC Fact Sheet Mike and Pat, Some useful info ... Chris Christopher J. Bender Ph.D., P.E., D.CE Senior Engineer, Coastal Engineering

  -      TAYLOR            ENCINEERING,                   INC .

10151 Deerwood Park Blvd., Bldg. 300, Suite 300 Jacksonville, FL 32256 Phone (904) 731-7040 68

Direct (904) 256-1338 Fax (904) 731-9847 0

                                 ' i * , I nlorntdllon If you have received thrs r.

/,It hough

• nlo'J e delete the *PS ' Jt 311 ag, ~1 I of ou, P r r e~saoP\ ~ncf ~

              ,. 11 , mt 1e r 1ec~1pt and/or use                                           'lJ, H ,111 r il  COflP5
                                                                                                       , *~ ~11vfo,s 69

From: Lund, Louise Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:38 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Dorman, Dan; Evans, Michele; Wertz, Trent; Markley, Michael; Lantz, Ryan

Subject:

RE: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric Got it ... thanks. From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:37 AM To: Markley, Michael; Lantz, Ryan; Lund, Louise Cc: Dorman, Dan; Evans, Michele; Wertz, Trent

Subject:

RE: Drop-ln1w/ Pacific Gas & Electric Thx. We talked about the need for a comm plan of some type for the report and the DPO. Trent is going to talk to Renee Pederson to get some bullets on the DPO messages. Please work with him to establish a mini comm plan and update OPA. Thanks in advance, Jennifer From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:08 AM To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer; NRR-OWFN-13020-lSp; Lund, Louise; Hiland, Patrick; Davis, Jack; Oesterle, Eric; Slngal, Balwant; case, Michael; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: NRR_ET_Activity Resource; Bamford, Peter; Nichols, Chelsea; Schwarz, Sherry; Cohen, Sharl; DE_calendar Resource; DORLCAL Resource; Flanders, Scott; Whaley, Sheena; Kock, Andrea; NRR_JLD Resource; Lubinski, John; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Manoly, Kamal

Subject:

RE: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric It is still a drop-in. I am told the bridge line was added to allow for PG&E contractors to participate, if needed.

---

Original Appointment-----

From: HIiand, Patrick On Behalf Of Dorman, Dan Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:52 AM To: Markley, Michael

Subject:

FW: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric When: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00 Eastern Time (US & canada). Where: 0-13020 (Bridgeline: 888-452-5138; Passcode:

                                                           \b)o)

Mike. can you confirm this will be a teleconference vs. drop-in? I received a revised scheduler this a.m., and the room location has been crossed out and phone number highlighted?

---

Original Appointment----- The rest of this string may be found as document M/54 From: Dorman, Dan of interim response #5 in FOIA/PA-2014-0488 Sent: Tuesday, August OS, 2014 9:59 AM (ML15224A774).

To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer; NRR-OWFN-13020-lSp; Lund, Louise; Hiland, Patrick; Davis, Jack; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; case, Michael; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: NRR_ET_Activity Resource; Bamford, Peter; Nichols, Chelsea; Schwarz, Sherry; Cohen, Shari; DE_calendar Resource; DORLCAL Resource; Flanders, Scott; Whaley, Sheena; Kock, Andrea; NRR_JLD Resource; Lubinski, John; Ross-Lee,

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:39 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Lantz, Ryan; Lund, Louise Cc: Dorman, Dan; Evans, Michele; Wertz, Trent; Oesterle, Eric; Walker, Wayne; Singal, Balwant

Subject:

RE: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric Will do. From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:37 AM To: Markley, Michael; Lantz, Ryan; Lund, Louise Cc: Dorman, Dan; Evans, Michele; Wertz, Trent

Subject:

RE: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric Thx. We talked about the need for a comm plan of some type for the report and the DPO. Trent is going to talk to Renee Pederson to get some bullets on the DPO messages. Please work with him to establish a mini comm plan and update OPA. Thanks in advance, Jennifer From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:08 AM To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer; NRR-OWFN-13D20-15p; Lund, Louise; Hiland, Patrick; Davis, Jack; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Case, Michael; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: NRR_ET_Activity Resource; Bamford, Peter; Nichols, Chelsea; Schwarz, Sherry; Cohen, Shari; DE_Calendar Resource; DORLCAL Resource; Flanders, Scott; Whaley, Sheena; Kock, Andrea; NRR_JLD Resource; Lubinski, John; Ross-Lee, MaryJane; Manoly, Kamal

Subject:

RE: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric It is still a drop-in. I am told the bridge line was added to allow for PG&E contractors to participate, if needed.

---

Original Appolntment-----

From : Hiland, Patrick On Behalf Of Dorman, Dan Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 9:52 AM To: Markley, Michael

Subject:

FW: Drop-In w/ Pacific Gas & Electric When: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:00 PM-2:00 PM (UTC-05:00 Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: 0 -13D20 (Bridgeline: 888-452-5138; Passcode: (b)(6) Mike, can you confirm this will be a teleconference vs. drop-in? I received a revised scheduler this a.m., and the room location has been crossed out and phone number highlighted? he rest of this email string may be found as

---

Original Appointment----- document M/54 of interim response #5 in FOIA/PA-From: Dorman, Dan 2014-0488 (ML15224A774).

Sent: Tuesday, August OS, 2014 9:59 AM To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer; NRR-OWFN-13D20-15p; Lund, Louise; Hiland, Patrick; Davis, Jack; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Singal, Balwant; Case, Michael; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford Cc: NRR_ET_Actlvity Resource; Bamford, Peter; Nichols, Chelsea; Schwarz, Sherry; Cohen, Shari; DE_Calendar Resource;

From: Johnson, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:35 AM To: Dapas, Marc; Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Kennedy, Kriss

Subject:

RE: DPO story has run Thanks Marc. Would someone resend me the talking points. I want 1i hfloor to be up to speed. Mike From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 2:47 PM To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Johnson, Michael; Kennedy, Kriss

Subject:

RE: DPO story has run Just learned from our PAO (Lara Uselding) that Peck's DPO has been posted online by Jane Swanson (Diablo Canyon Mothers for Peace), so it's out there in the public domain for all to see. Eliot has asked Lara to generate a blog posting so that we are at the ready should there be a barrage of media interest. Should also have mentioned in my previous e-mail on this subject that the talking points/key messages we have prepared builds from the key messages developed by NRR back when Eric signed out his decision on the DPO. You may recall that Mr. Peck had asked us to make the DPO submittal public and we needed to wait to hear back from him as to whether he would appeal the DPO decision to the EDO (which he of course has) since it would still be predecisional pending EDO decision on the appeal. All rendered moot by Peck sharing the subject DPO with Mothers for Peace and their making it public. From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 1:10 PM To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Johnson, Michael; Kennedy, Kriss

Subject:

FW: DPO story has run FYI regarding the DPO filed by Michael Peck. Looks like Peck gave the DPO submittal to the AP reporter. Of note, the news story does say that 'The document [Peck's DPO submittal), which was obtained and verified by the Associated Press, does not say the plant itself is unsafe". But it also notes that Peck, in the DPO submittal, states, "Continuing to run the reactors challenges the presumption of nuclear safety." The news story also makes reference to the NRC conclusion that the shoreline fault is bounded by the Hosgri fault, i.e., the greater ground motion accelerations associated with the shoreline fault are "at or below those for which the plant was evaluated previously", referring to the Hosgri fault. The next statement in the story is "Peck, who holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering and is now a senior instructor at the NRC's Technical Training Center in Tennessee, declined to comment on the filing [Research Information Letter that documents our safety conclusion]." In my view, the story at least noted by inference the inconsistency in Peck's characterization as to whether there is a legitimate safety issue with the shoreline fault ground accelerations. Will be interesting to see the reaction to the licensee's analysis (once it becomes public) that is being provided to the State of California in the next few days which concludes that the shoreline fault is "more energetic" and has a greater capacity than previously assumed , albeit, still bounded by the Hosgri fault.

We have been focusing on key messages and an updated communication plan in anticipation of significant media interest/external stakeholder reaction to the licensee analysis for the State.

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

From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 10:47 AM To: Walker, Wayne; Buchanan, Theresa; Alexander, Ryan; Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Dricks, Victor; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

DPO story has run Just posted AP Exclusive: Expert Calls for Nuke Plant Closure By Michael R. Blood Associated Press, August 25, 2014 LOS ANGELES (AP) - A senior federal nuclear expert is urging regulators to shut down California's last operating nuclear plant until they can determine whether the facility's twin reactors can withstand powerful shaking from any one of several nearby earthquake faults. Michael Peck, who for five years was Diablo Canyon's lead on-site inspector, says in a 42-page, confidential report that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not applying the safety rules it set out for the plant's operation. The document, which was obtained and verified by The Associated Press, does not say the plant itself is unsafe. Instead, according to Peck's analysis, no one knows whether the facility's key equipment can withstand strong shaking from those faults - the potential for which was realized decades after the facility was built. Continuing to run the reactors, Peck writes, "challenges the presumption of nuclear safety." Peck's July 2013 filing is part of an agency review in which employees can appeal a supervisor's or agency ruling - a process that normally takes 60 to 120 days, but can be extended. The NRC, however, has not yet ruled. Spokeswoman Lara Uselding said in emails that the agency would have no comment on the document. The NRC, which oversees the nation's commercial nuclear power industry, and Diablo Canyon owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co., say the nearly three-decade-old reactors, which produce enough electricity for more than 3 million people annually, are safe and that the facility complies with its operating license, including earthquake safety standards. 2

PG&E spokesman Blair Jones said the NRC has exhaustively analyzed earthquake threats for Diablo Canyon and demonstrated that it "is seismically safe." Jones said in an email that the core issue involving earthquake ground motions was resolved in the late 1970s with seismic retrofitting of the plant. The disaster preparedness of the world's nuclear plants came into sharp focus in 2011 , when the coastal Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan suffered multiple meltdowns after an earthquake and tsunami destroyed its power and cooling systems. The magnitude-9 earthquake was far larger than had been believed possible. The NRC has since directed U.S. nuclear plants to reevaluate seismic risks, and those studies are due by March 2015. The important of such an analysis came into sharp focus on Sunday when a magnitude 6.0-earthquake struck in Northern California's wine country, injuring scores of residents, knocking out power to thousands and toppling wine bottles at vineyards. Environmentalists have long depicted Diablo Canyon -the state's last nuclear plant after the 2013 closure of the San Onfore reactors in Southern California - as a nuclear catastrophe in waiting. In many ways, the history of the plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco on the Pacific coast and within 50 miles of 500,000 people, has been a costly fight against nature, involving questions and repairs connected to its design and structural strength. What's striking about Peck's analysis is that it comes from within the NRC itself, and gives a rare look at a dispute within the agency. At issue are whether the plant's mechanical guts could survive a big jolt, and what yardsticks should be used to measure the ability of the equipment to withstand the potentially strong vibrations that could result. The conflict between Peck and his superiors stems from the 2008 discovery of the Shoreline fault, which snakes offshore about 650 yards from the reactors. A larger crack, the Hosgri fault, had been discovered in the 1970s about 3 miles away, after the plant's construction permits had been issued and work was underway. Surveys have mapped a network of other faults north and south of the reactors. According to Peck's filing, PG&E research in 201 1 determined that any of three nearby faults - the Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay - is capable of producing significantly more ground motion during an earthquake than was accounted for in the design of important plant equipment. In the case of San Luis Bay, it is as much as 75 percent more. Those findings involve estimates of what's called peak ground acceleration, a measurement of how hard the earth could shake in a given location. The analysis says PG&E failed to demonstrate that the equipment would remain operable if exposed to the stronger shaking , violating its operating license. 3

The agency should shut the facility down until it is proven that piping, reactor cooling and other systems can meet higher stress levels, or approve exemptions that would allow the plant to continue to operate, according to Peck's analysis. Peck disagreed with his supervisors' decision to let the plant continue to operate without assessing the findings. Unable to resolve his concerns, Peck in 2012 filed a formal objection, calling for PG&E to be cited for violating the safety standards, according to his filing . Within weeks, the NRC said the plant was being operated safely. In 2013 he filed another objection, triggering the current review. The NRC says the Hosgri fault line presents the greatest earthquake risk and that Diablo Canyon's reactors can withstand the largest projected quake on it. In his analysis, Peck wrote that after officials learned of the Hosgri fault's potential shaking power, the NRC never changed the requirements for the structural strength of many systems and components in the plant. In 2012, the agency endorsed preliminary findings that found shaking from the Shoreline fault would not pose any additional risk for the reactors. Those greater ground motions were "at or below those for which the plant was evaluated previously," referring to the Hosgri fault, it concluded. Peck, who holds a doctorate in nuclear engineering and is now a senior instructor at the NRC's Technical Training Center in Tennessee, declined to comment on the filing. Earthquake faults and nuclear power plants have been uneasy neighbors in the state for decades. The Humboldt Bay plant in Northern California, which was within 3,000 yards of three faults, was shut down in 1976 to refuel and reinforce its ability to withstand possible earthquakes. Restarting it became more difficult and costly than projected - it never reopened.vgd PG&E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http://www.pge.com/abouUcompany/privacy/customer/ 4

From: Evans, Michele Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:50 PM To: Dorman, Dan; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Importance: High For your awareness, there is a phone briefing at 3:30 today for a staffer from Feinstein's office. Mike Markley - acting DORL deputy as well as knowledgeable BC regarding Diablo will join Kamal and Yong Li on the call. From: Hiland, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:29 PM To: Evans, Michele Cc: Manoly, Kamal

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Importance: High I'm assuming this is in regards to the Diablo Canyon article on seismic? From: Manoly, Kamal Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:56 PM To: Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Yong and I will be in conference with the senate staffer at 3:30 this afternoon. Kamal Manoly From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:35 PM To: U, Yong; Manely, Kamal Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? You're the best! I'll send a scheduler. From: U, Yong Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:22 PM To: Weil, Jenny; Manely, Kamal Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Kamal and I can accommodate the phone call at 3 30 PM ( I canceled my other appointment). The rest of this email string may be found From: Weil, Jenny as document M/51 of interim response #5 Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1: 10 PM in FOIA/PA-2014-0488 (ML15224A774). To: Manely, Kamal; Li, Yong

From: Dapas, Marc Se nt: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:34 PM To: Dorman, Dan Cc: Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

Re: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan Thanks Dan Marc Dapas Sent from NRC Blackberry From : Dorman, Dan Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 02:28 PM To: Dapas, Marc Cc: Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Diablo canyon Communication Plan Thanks Marc. I have also discussed our alignment with Michele a,,u Jennifer. We'll work with DORL. From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:04 PM To: Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Communication Plan I just talked to Trish Holahan and she is aligned with our finalizing the communication plan for internal stakeholder consumption. She has been briefed on the matter by Renee Pedersen and we all agree that we can communicate that a decision was reached by Eric Leeds and that decision, at the DPO submitter's request, is under appeal to the EDO. We would not engage in any discussion with the external stakeholder regarding the specifics of the DPO submittal, or the DPO decision by Eric, other than to bridge to the overarching safety message reflected in Eric's decision, i.e., consistent with the conclusions documented in the Research Information Letter, the agency does not currently have a safety concern with the structures, systems, and components necessary to reach and maintain safe shutdown, being able to perform their intended function should the site experience an earthquake from the Shoreline fault. I have asked Mike Hay (acting DRP Deputy) to reach out to Mike Markley and convey that we are less focused on what eventually gets posted on the internal NRC webpage, than on getting a finalized product out to the selected number of internal stakeholders who will be involved in external stakeholder interactions. We will be factual in nature in response to questions and convey information that is already in the public domain such that we don't create a credibility gap.

From: Lund, Louise Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:42 PM To: Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan One of the key messages that Mike and I were discussing that needs to be reiterated is that Michael Pecks concerns regarding Diablo Canyon were evaluated by a team of seismology and structural engineering experts. His concerns received a very thorough review by experts with the appropriate and specific techn ical background. From: Evans, Michele Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:31 PM To: Lund, Louise; Markley, Michael Cc: Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan Please see below. From: Dorman, Dan Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:28 PM To: Dapas, Marc Cc: Evans, Michele; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan Thanks Marc. I have also discussed our alignment with Michele and Jennifer . We'll work with DORL. From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:04 PM To: Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Communication Plan I just talked to Trish Holahan and she is aligned with our finalizing the communication plan for internal stakeholder consumption. She has been briefed on the matter by Renee Pedersen and we all agree that we can communicate that a decision was reached by Eric Leeds and that decision, at the DPO submitter's request, is under appeal to the EDO. We would not engage in any discussion with the external stakeholder regarding the specifics of the DPO submittal, or the DPO decision by Eric, other than to bridge to the overarching safety message reflected in Eric's decision, i.e., consistent with the conclusions documented in the Research Information Letter, the agency does not currently have a safety concern with the structures, systems, and components necessary to reach and maintain safe shutdown, being able to perform their intended function should the site experience an earthquake from the Shoreline fault. I have asked Mike Hay (acting DRP Deputy) to reach out to Mike Markley and convey that we are less focused on what eventually gets posted on the internal NRC webpage, than on getting a finalized product out to the selected number of internal stakeholders who will be involved in external stakeholder interactions. We will be factual in nature in response to questions and convey information that is already in the public domain such that we don't create a credibility gap. 1

From: Lund, Louise Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:26 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Markley, Michael; Lantz, Ryan

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan Got it ... thanks From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:23 PM To: Lund, Louise; Markley, Michael; Lantz, Ryan

Subject:

FW: Diablo Canyon Communication Plan See the guidance below regarding messages about Diablo. From: Dapas, Marc Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:04 PM To: Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Diablo Canyon Communication Plan I just talked to Trish Holahan and she is aligned with our finalizing the communication plan for internal stakeholder consumption. She has been briefed on the matter by Renee Pedersen and we all agree that we can communicate that a decision was reached by Eric Leeds and that decision, at the DPO submitter's request, is under appeal to the EDO. We would not engage in any discussion with the external stakeholder regar,ding the specifics of the DPO submittal, or the DPO decision by Eric, other than to bridge to the overarching safety message reflected in Eric's decision, i.e., consistent with the conclusions documented in the Research Information Letter, the agency does not currently have a safety concern with the structures, systems, and components necessary to reach and maintain safe shutdown, being able to perform their intended function should the site experience an earthquake from the Shoreline fault. I have asked Mike Hay (acting DRP Deputy) to reach out to Mike Markley and convey that we are less focused on what eventually gets posted on the internal NRC webpage, than on getting a finalized product out to the selected number of internal stake*holders who will be involved in external stakeholder interactions. We will be factual in nature in response to questions and convey information that is already in the public domain such that we don't create a credibility gap.

From: Markley, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:04 AM To: Evans, Michele; Dorman, Dan; Lund, Louise; Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? FYI From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 6:02 PM To: Manoly, Kamal; LI, Yong; Markley, Michael Cc: Hiland, Patrick; Moreno, Angel; Ross-Lee, MaryJane

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Dlablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Thanks again to you all for participating. Shortly after the briefing, the final Commission vote approved providing the DPO to Sen. Feinstein as "not for public disclosure." Amy Powell sent it to Trevor and Harsh. Just wanted to share their feedback from the briefing: From: Desai, Harsh (Feinstein) Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:32 PM To: Powell, Amy; Higgins, Trevor (Feinstein) Cc: Well, Jenny

Subject:

RE: Dlablo Canyon document request The briefing was useful, though we certainly understand the position NRC Is in - considering the decision is not final and public. Thank you Jenny (and all) for setting it up on a short notice. Harsh S. Desai Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) From: Higgins, Trevor (Feinstein) Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4: 25 PM To: Powell, Amy; Desai, Harsh (Feinstein) Cc: Weil, Jenny

Subject:

RE: Diablo Canyon document request Thank you, Amy. We respect the pre-decisiona l nature of the document. The rest of this email string may be found From: Manoly, Kamal as document M/51 of interim response #5 Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:05 PM in FOIA/PA-2014-0488 (ML15224A774). To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane Cc: LI, Yong; Hiland, Patrick; Weil, Jenny; Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Yong and Kamal joined with Mike Markley from DORL and Jenny Weil from CA in a conference call with two members of Senator Feinstein staff. They were seeking staff input following the release of AP report on the DPO filed by Dr. Peck on seismic concerns related to the Diablo Canyon NPP. We informed the staffers that the DPO process is not yet completed and, as such, we cannot discuss its details. However, we made an effort 1

From: Evans, Michele Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:11 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan Cc: Lund, Louise; Hiland, Patrick

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Briefing went pretty straightforward. From: Hiland, Patrick Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 7:11 AM To: Evans, Michele

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? fyi From: Manoly, Kamal Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:05 PM To: Ross-Lee, MaryJane Cc: Li, Yong; Hiland, Patrick; Weil, Jenny; Markley, Michael

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Yong and Kamal joined with Mike Markley from DORL and Jenny Weil from CA in a conference call with two members of Senator Feinstein staff. They were seeking staff input following the release of AP report on the OPO filed by Dr. Peck on seismic concerns related to the Diablo Canyon NPP. We informed the staffers that the OPO process is not yet completed and, as such, we cannot discuss its details. However, we made an effort to elaborate on staff's activities with regard to seismic hazard since licensing of the plant. We discussed the Research Information Letter (RIL) report addressing the seismic hazard associated with the Shoreline Fault discovered several years ago as well as the current effort in conjunction with 50.54 (f) letter on NTIF recommendation 2.1. We conveyed that the plant was evaluated against the Hosgri fault which is the largest known seismic hazard contributor to the site and exceeds the postulated hazard from the Shoreline Fault. We reaffirmed that the plant still meets its seismic design basis (OE & DOE) and in conformance with the criterion established for the evaluation of safety related structures and components against a postulated Hosgri ground motion. We provided them with the link to the RIL report for their reference. Ka mal Manoly Senior Level Technical Advisor for Structural Mechanics Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 301-415-2765 From: Ross-Lee, MaryJane Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 4:18 PM To: Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong Cc: HIiand, Patrick

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Oiablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Importance: High Please provide a short summary of the call by the division directors meeting tomorrow if possible. Thanks. Mary Jane Ross-Lee (MJ)

Deputy Director, Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OWFN 9Hl US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1t Office: 301-415-3298 Cl) Mobile: I (b)(6) /

• e-mail: mary1ane.ross- ee@nrc.gov From: Manely, Kamal Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:56 PM To: Hiland, Patrick; Ross-Lee, MaryJane

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Yong and I will be in conference with the senate staffer at 3:30 this afternoon. Kamal Manoly From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:35 PM To: Li, Yong; Manely, Kamal Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? You're the best! I'll send a scheduler. From: Li, Yong Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:22 PM To: Weil, Jenny; Manely, Kamal Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Kamal and I can accommodate the phone call at 3:30 PM ( I canceled my other appointment). From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:10 PM To: Manoly, Kamal; Li, Yong Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

FW: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Importance: High Hello Kamal and Yong, Looks like the staffers are on a time crunch. I think Yong is tied up after 2 pm today? Is there any time to squeeze in a phone call this afternoon to give them some information for their boss?

Thanks, Jenny From: Desai, Harsh (Feinstein) Desai@feinstein.senate.gov

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:55 PM To: Weil, Jenny; Higgins, Trevor (Feinstein) Cc: Moreno, Angel 2

Subject:

RE: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm? Importance: High Hello Jenny - The Senator has asked us to provide her with an update today. Can w e schedu le a phone call t oday? Any time after 3 w orks. Thank you Harsh S. Desai Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA) From: Weil, Jenny [10] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:53 PM To: Higgins, Trevor (Feinstein); Desai, Harsh (Feinstein) Cc: Moreno, Angel

Subject:

Re: Briefing on Diablo Canyon -- Tomorrow at 2 pm ? Hello Trevor and Harsh, Are you available tomorrow at 2 pm for a phone briefing on Diablo Canyon? I'm cc'ing Angelo Moreno, who is going to be taking over Region IV plants (which includes Diablo Canyon). So you will be hearing from him in the future. Let me know if tomorrow works, and I'll send a scheduler. Jenny Jenny Weil Congressional Affairs Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-4 5- 691 office) (b)(6l 8/ackBerry) 3

From: Evans, M ichele Sent: Wednesd ay, August 27, 2014 10:13 AM To: Dorman, Dan Cc: Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

FW: action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report Report release is now targeted for September 9 or 10.

---

Original Message-----

From: Lund, Louise Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:03 AM To: Uhle. Jennifer: Evans. Michele

Subject:

FW: action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report With the multitude of e-mails, didn't know if you saw this one from Tom Hipschman ...

---

Original Message-----

From: Hipschman, Thomas Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 3:12 PM To: Sebrosky, Joseph; Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Wrona, David; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report The licensee stated they are now looking at September 9 or 10 for the release of the report, and stakeholder outreach the day before. Tom Entire email is available in interim

---

Original Message----- response #3 in FOIA/PA-201 4-0488 From: Sebrosky, Joseph 'ML15033A279)

Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:25 AM To: Markley, Michael; Oesterle, Eric; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Manoly, Kamal; Ake, Jon; Munson, Clifford; OKeefe, Neil; Folk, Kevin; Wrona, David; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Singal, Balwant; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Lyon, Fred Cc: Weil, Jenny; Li, Yong; Manoly, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

action: request for feedback on Diablo Canyon communication plan associate with State of California seismic report To all, The purpose of this email is to request your comments on the attached draft communication plan associated with PG&E's pending release of a report to the State of California related to seismic issues. PG&E has indicated to the staff that the report will include an updated evaluation of the Shoreline Fault and concludes that the Shoreline Fault is more capable than assumed in PG&E 2011 report that was provided to the NRC. 1

From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:34 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Jackson, Diane; Franovich, Mike

Subject:

Re: seismic update That's a good one too! We will be ready to discuss. Sent from NRC blackberry Andrea Kock (b)(6) From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 04:15 PM To : Kock, Andrea

Subject:

RE: seismic update Thanks. I forgot to add where are we on SFP. Thx J From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:42 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Morris, Scott; Jackson, Diane Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Franovich, Mike

Subject:

RE : seismic update Jennifer- Sounds good. We should also update you on our final screening decisions for the plants that were conditionally screened in. I've copied Nick and Mike so they can work to get something on your calender. Andrea Kock, Acting Deputy Director Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ph. 301-415-2368 From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 2:18 PM To: Morris, Scott; Jackson, Diane; Kock, Andrea

Subject:

seismic update Everyone is thrilled with all the great work the team had done and progress you guys have made. I also heard the Chairman briefing by Cliff on Diablo went well today. Thanks for that. Can I get an update on the seismic issues early next week. No need for slides. I have written down issues that you were working on and wanted to hear the resolution or path forward. The matters are: ESEP template contents ESEP review (what that entails and level of effort)

IPEEE plants that screen out, are we asking licensees to do any ESEP Final answer on doing anything beyond 2 x SSE for ESEP Any plant specific issues that industry owes us information Anything else you think is worthy of an update. I am thinking a quick 30 m in or so. Is that okay? Thanks in advance, Jennifer 2

From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 5:56 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: seismic update Me too although I'll miss NRR and all the people there. There good news is there is so much movement in the agency that I'm sure we'll all cross paths again soon! Andrea Kock, Deputy Director, Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Office of New Reactors United States Nuclear Reuglatory Commission Rockville, MD 301-415-2368 From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 6:09 PM To:: Kock, Andrea

Subject:

RE: seismic update Thanks very much Andrea . I appreciate ,t. Glad that you are over there permanently. Jennifer From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:34 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer Cc:: Jackson, Diane; Franovlch, Mike

Subject:

Re: seismic update That's a good one too! We will be ready to discuss. Sent from NRC blackberry Andrea Kock I (b)(6) From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 04:15 PM To: Kock, Andrea

Subject:

RE: seismic update Thanks. I forgot to add where are we on SFP. Thx J From: Kock, Andrea Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:42 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Morris, Scott; Jackson, Diane Cc: Difrancesco, Nicholas; Franovich, Mike

Subject:

RE: seismic update Jennifer- Sounds good. We should also update you on our final screening decisions for the plants that were conditionally screened in. I've copied Nick and Mike so they can work to get something on your calender. 1

From: Davis, Jack Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 8:07 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer

Subject:

RE: Uhle Seismic Briefing Prep Ok. I will chat with you today. J From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 6:09 PM To: Davis, Jack

Subject:

RE: Uhle Seismic Briefing Prep You know best but I would like to ensure that we are not bringing in a whole group of new people that need to come up to speed. There are some in NRR/DE that I would like to talk about with you if that is okay. J From: Flanders, Scott Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 6:04 PM To: Davis, Jack; Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Kock, Andrea; Bowen, Jeremy; Jackson, Diane; Whaley, Sheena; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

RE: Uhle Seismic Briefing Prep Similarly, if Pat and Joe attend, it would be useful to invite John Monninger and John Tappert as well. Scott From: Davis, Jack Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 5:37 PM To: Uhle, Jennifer Cc: Kock, Andrea; Bowen, Jeremy; Jackson, Diane; Whaley, Sheena; Flanders, Scott; Difrancesco, Nicholas

Subject:

Uhle Seismic Briefing Prep Hi Jen, For the seismic briefing this Friday, I've asked Sheena to start the presentation off and go over the programmatic/licensing activities and the high-level plan for the ESEP reviews (including review team construct) followed by Diane going through the more technical details (e.g., catalog, etc.). In addition, I think that we should invite DE and DRA to the briefing since we will be talking about the review teams and the senior oversight teams. DE and DRA were particularly interested in the make-up of these teams and how the construct would support NRR technical staff in the review. Unless you have reservations, I'm going to invite Pat Hiland/MJ, and Joe Giitter to the meeting.

Thanks, Jack From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 2:18 PM To: Morris, Scott; Jackson, Diane; Kock, Andrea

Subject:

seismic update

From: Johnson, Michael Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 12:53 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Dorman, Dan

Subject:

Re: info: status of public release of Diablo Canyon State of California report Thanks. From my blackberry. From: Uhle, Jennifer Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 09:59 PM To: Dorman, Dan; Johnson, Michael

Subject:

FW: info: status of public release of Diablo Canyon State of California report Dan/Mike, The licensee plans to issue the seismic report developed for the state of California at 11 :00 am pacific time (2:00 eastern) tomorrow. We have a communication plan that is underway. RIV and OPA are involved. In addition, PG&E plans to:

• Issue an announcement
• Issue a press release
• Make the document publicly available on their website
• Provide a hard copy to the County
• Walk a copy of the report to us to be provided to the document control desk in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4 requirements Thanks Jennifer

From: Morris, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 7:26 AM To: Uhle, Jennifer; Evans, Michele; Dorman, Dan Cc: Howe, Allen

Subject:

Fwd: EDO Briefing Package for September 10, 2014 Attachments: Non-OUO EDO Brief.pdf; OUO EDO Brief.pdf Note the Diablo Canyon report

---

Forwarded Message ----------

From: HOO Hoc <HOO.Hoc@nrc.gov> Date: Sep 10, 2014 5:43:41 AM

Subject:

EDO Briefing Package for September 10, 2014 To: HOO Hoc <HOO.Hoc@nrc.gov> Good morning. Mark Abramovitz Headquarters Operations Officer U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phone: 301-816-5100 Fax: 301-816-5151 email: hoo.hoc@nrc.gov secure email: hool@nrc.sgov.gov

       / U.S.NRC f ',yt<<flllf fw,-1, ,'111( 1/,, I Jlrl l Uffl , 111

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Operations Center

                                         *** Event Sunimary ***

Date Ra11,:e: 09109/20 /4 - 09//()/2014 49879 DIABLO CANYON This Event has been updated!!! 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B) UNANALYZED CONDITION 50.72(b)(3)(v)(A) POT UNABLE TO SAFE SD 3/6/14

• UNANALYZED CONDITION REGARDING POTENTIAL TORNADO MISSILE DAMAGE TO EMERGENCY DIESEL EXHAUST PLENUM: Diablo Canyon identified a nonconforming condition involving the susceptibility of EOG ventilation exhaust plenums Installed in Unit 1 and Unit 2 to potential missile damage generated by a tornado during a licensing basis review.

Compensatory measures are being developed. 09/9/14 - UPDATE: The list of equipment affected by the unanalyzed condition from tornado missile damage to Include the Unit 1 and Unit 2 480 VAC switchgear and battery/Inverter equipment. An additional reporting criteria for the above referenced equipment was added. 50437 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AGREEMENT STATE 09/09/2014

• HUMBOLDT MOISTURE DENSITY GAUGE IN VEHICLE INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT: Woodlands Fire Department was at the scene of a traffic accident Involving a vehicle transporting a gauge containing radioactive material. The gauge was a Humboldt 5001 EZ moisture/Density gauge containing a 10 mllllcurie Ceslum-137 source and a 40 mlllicurle Americium-241 source. No Injuries to Individuals Involved In the event were reported. Traffic on the road the vehicles were traveling on was closed for more than 1.5 hours.

50438 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AGREEMENT STATE 9/9/14

• STUCK SHUTIERS ON TWO PROCESS GAUGES: While taking a tank out of service for repairs the licensee was unable to close the shutters on two Ohmart Vega model SH-F2 level gauges each containing 500 mllllCurles of Cesium-137.

50439 CAMERON MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS 21 .21 (d)(J)(i) DEFECTS AND NONCOMPLIANCE 9/9/14

• PART 21 REPORT
• DEFECTIVE BARTON DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE SWITCHES: The defect being reported Is arn out of specification thread on the screws that depress the switch operating plunger which can cause a change in the switch setpoint by approximately 8.4%.

Werl11esd<{I', September 10, 10/4 Page Inf I

09//0/2014 U.S. Nuclear Reg11/11t11ry Commin'io11 Oper11titms Ce_nter Event Report Power Reactor Event# 49879 Site : DIABLO CANYON Notification Date I Time: 03/06/2014 19:33 (EST) Unit: 1 2 Region: 4 State: CA Event Date / Time: 03/06/2014 09:06 (PST) Reactor Type: [1) W-4-LP,[2) W-4-LP Last Modification: 09/09/2014 Containment Type: DRY AMB DRY AMB NRC Notified by: ADAM PECK Notifications: TOM ANDREWS R4DO HQ Ops Officer: PETE SNYDER Emergency Class : NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR Section:

50. 72(b)(3)(ii)(B) UNA NALYZED CONDITION

50. 72(b)(3)(v)(A) POTUNABLETOSAFESD Unit Scram Code RX Grit lnit Power Initial RX Mode Curr Power Current RX Mode 1 N No 0 Cold Shutdown 0 Cold Shutdown 2 N Yes 100 Power Operation 100 Power Operation UNANALYZED CONDITION REGARDING POTENTIAL TORNADO MISSILE DAMAGE TO EMERGENCY DIESEL EXHAUST PLENUM "The condition described below is being reported as an unanalyzed condition per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B) and per the guidance of NUREG-1022, Rev. 3.

"On 03/06/2014 at 0906 PST, Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) identified a nonconforming condition involving the Emergency Diesel Generator (EOG) ventilation exhaust plenums installed in Unit 1 and Unit 2. Specifically, the radiator exhaust plenums and exhaust piping need to be re-evaluated to ensure adequate protection against flying debris that could be generated by a tornado.
"The occurrence of such an event is highly unlikely and there is no imminent concern regarding severe weather involving tornados. The EDGs are located inside the power plant structure and are capable of performing their safety function . Compensatory measures are being developed to address the associated nonconformance.
"This event does not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
"The licensee informed the NRC Resident Inspector."
***UPDATE PROVIDED BY RUSS CRUZEN TO JEFF ROTION AT 2245 EDT ON 09/09/2014 * * *
"This condition does not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.
"Based on an extent of condition review being performed for this event, the issue identified in the original event notification 49879 has also been determined to similarly affect the ventilation systems associated with the Unit 1

09/10/2014 U.S. 'tl(:/ear Regulawry Commi:.1,/011 Oper11tiom Center £11e111 Report and 2 Vital 480 volt AC switchgear and battery/inverter equipment.

"The condition described in this update is being reported as an unanalyzed condition per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(ii)(B) and as an event or condition that could have prevented the fulfillment of a safety function per 10 CFR 50.72(b)(3)(v)(A).
"Compensatory measures are being developed to address the associated condition.
"The licensee informed the NRC Resident Inspector."

Notified R4DO (Azua)

,..0..,91..,.IO..,.V,..W...l... 4.____ _ _ _ _..:_ U:.::

                                              .S..:_

• N..:_

                                                    ..:_11c'-'-lea
                                                                .:..c'-'-r-'-'-

Re 111/atory Commission Operations Center £vent Rep_or_t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Pa,:e I _ This Event is not for public disclosure until 09/17/2014. Agreement State (AGR) Event# 50437 Rep Org: TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Notification Date / Time: 09/09/2014 17:52 (EDT) Licensee: EARTH ENGINEERING, INC. Event Date / Time: 09/09/2014 (CDT) Last Modification: 09/09/2014 Region: 4 Docket#: City: HOUSTON Agreement State: Yes County: License #: 05206 State: TX NRC Notified by: ART TUCKER Notifications: RAY AZUA R4DO HQ Ops Officer: JEFF ROTION FSMEEVENTSRESOURCE EMAIL Emergency Class: NON EMERGENCY 10 CFR Section: AGREEMENT STATE AGREEMENT STATE REPORT - HUMBOLDT MOISTURE DENSITY GAUGE IN VEHICLE INVOLVED IN A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT The following information was provided by the State of Texas via email:

   "On September 9, 2014, the Agency [Texas Department of State Health Services] was notified by the Woodlands Fire Department that they were at the scene of a traffic accident [on roadway FM 2978 near Magnolia, TX]

involving a vehicle transporting a gauge containing radioactive material. The gauge was a Humboldt 5001 EZ moisture/density gauge containing a 1O millicurie Cesium-137 source and a 40 millicurie Americium-241 source. The licensee contacted the Agency and stated one of their trucks was stopped behind a tractor trailer when it was struck from behind by a truck. Neither the gauge nor the transportation package was damaged in the event. No injuries to individuals involved in the event were reported. Traffic on the road the vehicles were traveling on was closed for more than 1. 5 hours. The licensee stated the dose rate on contact with the transportation container was 0.5 millirem per hour, which is normal. The Transport Index for the container was 0.2. The licensee stated the gauge would be taken back to their facility and inspected. No individual received any significant exposure to radiation due to this event. Additional information will be provided as it is received in accordance with SA-300." Texas Incident No.: 1-9230 ............**........................................................*.*.........**.*..*.****..*.*....******************.**...****}}