ML20294A148

NRC-2016-000731 - Resp 11 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed

ML20294A148
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	03/31/2017
From:	Stephanie Blaney NRC/OCIO/GEMSD/FLICB
To:	Hixson L Enformable
Shared Package
ML20294A138	List: ML20294A140 ML20294A142 ML20294A143 ML20294A144 ML20294A145 ML20294A147 ML20294A148 ML20294A149 ML20294A150 ML20294A151 NRC-2016-0007, NRC-2016-000731, Request for ML16236A019, 2014 Jan. 9 Mpg Video of the Flooding at St. Lucie, D43 MOV03976 Mpg, and ML16236A021, 2014 May 27 and 2014 June 5 E-Mails Concerning the St. Lucie Jan. 9 Reactor Auxiliary Building Flooding Vi
References
FOIA, NRC-2016-000731
Download: ML20294A148 (91)

Text

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER I

(03-2017) a..

+:

f-.Ji, f<lllGu,"-'

_o~

0 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF I 2016-0731 II 11 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST

RESPONSE

';;.+,,

........ TYPE [Z] INTERIM FINAL REQUESTER: DATE:

!Lucas Hixson DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS:

11 MAR 3 1 2017 I

Records corresponding to items 2 (records responsive to specified FOIA requests), 3 and 4 (PPT slides prepared by Larry Criscione ahead of the 10/07/2014 FOIA Public Meeting); 23 (MLI2335A059); and 29 (MLI4325A850), as further explained in the Comments Section, below.

PART I. -- INFORMATION RELEASED You have the right to seek assistance from the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison. Contact information for the NRC's FOIA Public Liaison is available at httgs://www.nrc.gov/read.ing~rm/foia/contact~foia.htrnl

[ZJ Agency records subject to the request are already available on the Public NRG Website, in Public ADAMS or on microfiche in the NRG Public Document Room.

.0 Agency records subject to the request are enclosed .

Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.

0 We are continuing to process your request.

0 See Comments.

PART I.A ** FEES NO FEES AMOUNT" You will be billed by NRG for the amount listed.

0 Minimum fee threshold not met.

II 11 You will receive a refund for the amount listed. Due to our delayed response, you will

• See Comments for details Fees waived. not be charged fees.

PART I.B -- INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE D We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA (exclusions"). 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist.

0 We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II.

Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to 0 appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination.

You may appeal this final determination within 90 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or e-mail to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, orfOIA.Resotirce@nrc.gov. Please be D sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOlA Appeal." You have the right to seek dispute resolution services from the NRC's Public Liaison, or the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS). Contact information for OGIS is available at httru,://ogis.arc.hives..9ov/about-ogis/conta.c.t-infomiation.htm PART I.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required)

In item 23, you requested MLI 2335A059, which is an email exchange among NRR staff that is already publicly available.

In item 2, you asked for copies of the records responsive to several specified requests. We note that most of the FOIA requests and the NRC's responses to them have been included in public ADAMS; we have included the ML numbers for the web packages corresponding to the FOIA request numbers, as applicable). The records that were the subject of

[continued on next page]

Signature - Freedom of Information Act Officer or Desi11nee l~.,,,,,,J /),, .r jJ1 n I Page2 of3 NRC Form 464 Part I (03-2017) [<Adttcf~atlon'Page****l Diile$t~I

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER (03-2017) 1 2016-0731 11 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 11 ACT (FOIA) REQUEST Continued RESPONSE INTERIM FINAL TYPE REQUESTER: DATE:

jLucas Hixson PART I.C COMMENTS (Continued)

II IPR 3 1 2117 j FOIA-2013-0008 (ML14065Al98) (which was appealed in 2013-0015A for lack ofa timely response and administratively closed once the agency responded to the request), 2013-0013 (ML14065A204), 2013-0127 (ML14065A224) (which was appealed in 2013-001 0A for lack of a timely response and administratively closed once the agency responded to the request), 2013-0239 (ML14065A233) (which was appealed in 2013-0018A (ML14087A357) for lack ofa timely response and administratively closed due to the settlement reached in PEER v. NRC, No. 1: l 3-cv-00942-RMC (ML l 4065A233 and MLI3352A341); 2013-0262 (which was appealed in 2013-0022A (ML15118A439) for lack ofa timely response and administratively closed once the agency responded to the request and later appealed as to the denial of information in FOIA-2015-0027 A (ML15155A891 )), and 2015-0331 (which was administratively closed when the requester did not submit a payment for fees that were estimated to exceed $250) all concern the Oconee Nuclear Station, and the risks posed by possible flooding from the Jocassee dam located upstream of the plant. Because the records were the subject of multiple FOIA requests over time, they have been reviewed by subject matter experts on several occasions and re-processed.

Ultimately, each of the following records was made available to the public in its entirety. You may find them in public ADAMS as follows:

1) ML081640244 2) ML090570779 3) ML101730329

4) ML101900305 5) ML103490330 6) ML101610083

7) MLI 11460063 8) ML091170104 9) ML082750106 The agency's initial response to FOIA-2013-0262 was not made publicly available; as such, we have enclosed the Fonn 464 response and released records (except for pages that were re-processed as part of the appeal response in FOIA-2015-0027A, which is publicly available in ADAMS as MLI5155A891, as noted above). We continue to assert exemption 5 as it incorporates the deliberative process, attorney-client, and/or work product privileges, for the material that was not released in these responses ( as reflected on the enclosed pages and/or the appendices included in ML 15 l 55A89 l ). In addition, we note that a few personal email addresses of third parties appearing on an email that Mr. Criscione (the requester in FOIA-2013-0262) had sent, which were not redacted in the FOIA-2013-0262 response to him, have been redacted here on privacy grounds, pursuant to exemption 6.

In addition, the email and accompanying letter that Mr.Criscione wrote (then) Chairman Macfarlane about Oconee, which were the responsive records in FOIA-2013-0127 and 2013-0239, were made publicly available as ML l3256A370 and MLI 3256A372, respectively, with only the author's home address and cell number redacted. Since he has provided a privacy waiver, we have enclosed copies of these two records in their entirety.

Items 3 and 4 of your request seek access to the two sets of PPT slides that Mr. Criscione sent to the NRC ahead of the October 7, 2014 FOIA Public Meeting. These slides (among other records you did not request) have also been the subject of prior FOIA requests, FOIA-2015-0018 and 2015-0019. We continue to assert exemption 5, as it incorporates the deliberative process privilege, for the redacted content from those slides, which may be found included within the final #3 package to those requests (ML15113A611). (Note that there were two different sets of slides; multiple copies of both sets appear within this package; the first set may be viewed at pages 3-81 of the PDF file; the second set may be viewed at pages 543-562 of the PDF file).

In item 29, you ask for MLI 4325A850, which is a letter that has also been the subject ofa prior request, FOIA-2016-0201.

A redacted version of the letter was made publicly available as ML16021A057. We continue to assert exemption 6 to protect the name of the letter's originator. In addition, we continue to assert exemption 5, as it incorporates the attorney-client privilege, for the portions of the letter that reflect advice provided by OGC lawyers to NRC staff, of which the letter's originator became aware as part of his official duties.

NRC Fonn 464 Part I (03*2017) Page 3 of 3-

NRC FORM 464 Part 11 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,_F..;;0..;;IA (03-2017) 1 1 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 1 2016-0731#11 1 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST DATE:

MAR 3 1 2017 I PART II.A - APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS Records subject to the request are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the FOIA exemption(s) as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552(b)).

D Exemption 1: The withheld information is proper1y classified pursuant to an Executive Order protecting national security information.

D Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC.

D Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by the statute indicated.

D Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C. 2161-2165).

D Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).

41 U.S.C. 4702(b). which prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals, except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter of the proposal.

Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or confidential commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.

The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1).

The information is considered to be another type or confidential business (proprietary) information.

[Z]

The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).

Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are normally privileged in civil litigation.

[Z] Deliberative process privilege.

D Attorney work product privilege.

[Z] Attorney-client privilege.

f7l inExemption L!J 6: The withheld information from a personnel, medical, or similar file, is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

D Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.

D (A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an open enforcement proceeding.

D (C) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(D) The information consists of names and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal identities of confidential sources.

(E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.

D (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

D Other I I PART 11.B -- DENYING OFFICIALS In accordance with 10 CFR 9.25(g) and 9.25(h) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, the official(s) listed below have made the determination to withhold certain information responsive to your request APPELLATE OFFICIAL DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED EOO SECY IStephanie A. Blaney lI FOIA Officer 11 deliberative matter in slides; PU I [Z]

IRochelle Bavol II Exec Asst to the Secy to the Commission II 2013-0262 records I [Z]

I 11 I I Appeals must be made in writing within 90 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or email to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or FOIA.Resource@nrc.gov. Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal."

NRG Form 464 Part II (03-2017) Page 1 of 1

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULA TORY COMMISSION FOIAIPA RESPONSE NUMBER (01-2015)

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2013-0262 I INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST RESPONSE INTERIM Ql FINAL TYPE L!J REQUESTER OATE Lawrence Criscione APR l 3 2015 PART I. - INFORMATION RELEASED 0 No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

D Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section.

_____,I ADAMS or on microfiche in the NRC Public Document Room.

Agency records subject to the request that are Identified In the specified group are already available in public 0 l~ROUP

======::::I. public ADAMS .

!GROUP Agency records subject to the request that are contained in the specified group are being made available in 0 \~ROUP ._____. . I. Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.

referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you .

Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been We are continuing to process your request.

D See Comments.

PART I.A - FEES A.MOUNr

$ I I 0 D You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed. IZ] None. Minimum fee threshold*not met

• See comments for detail*

You will receive a refund for the amount listed. 0 Fees waived .

PART I.B - INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Congress allowed agencies to treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions").

See 5 U.S.C. 552(c) . This is a standard notification that we give to all requesters; it should not be taken as an indication that any of these excluded records do, or do not, exist.

We have withheld certain information in the records from disclosure pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II.

Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal this determination at this time. W& will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination on your request.

0 You may appeal this final determination within 30 calendar days of the date of this response , by writing to the FOIA Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 . Please be sure to mark your letter/envelope or email that It is a "FOIA Appeal."

PART I.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page If required)

We appreciated your patience while your case was being processed.

I SIGNA.TURE . F,iifroM OF II FORMATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT OFFICER

'Roger ..'Andon NRC FORM 464 Part 1 (0 1-2015) Page 2 of 3

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIAJPA RESPONSE NUMBER (01 *2015)

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2013-0262 INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY

RESPONSE

ACT (PA) REQUEST (Continued) TYPE INTERIM [Z)FINAL REQUESTER DATE APR 1 3 2015 Lawrence Criscione PART I.C COMMENTS (Continued)

Part A: The following responsive records can be found electronically:

Records that are Available Publicly in ADAMS:

ML13256A370 ML081640244 ML090570779 ML101610083 ML13256A372 ML101730329 ML101900305 ML103490330 ML111460063 ML13039A084 NRC FORM 464 Part 1 (01 *2015) Page 3 of 3

NRC FORM 46' Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA

~-"'*

(08-2013) / " ' .......

2013-0262

. RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DATE N'ff 1 3 LUl

l

' ...... j ACT (FOIA) / PRJVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST PART II.A - APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS l..__8 ___

o RouP I Records subject to the request that are contained In the specified group are being withheld In their entirety or in part under the Exemption No.(s) of the PA and/or the FOIA as Indicated below {5 U.S .C . 552a and/or 5 U.S .C . 552{b)) .

O Exemption 1: The withheld lnfomiation is prope;1y classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958.

Exemption 2: The withheld Information relates solely to the Internal personnel rules and practices of NRC.

O Exemption 3: The withheld infomiation Is specif1C11lly exempted from public dlsclosure by statute indicated.

D Sections 141 -145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C.

2161 -2165).

D Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Ad, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).

41 U.S.C., Section 4702(b) , prohibits the disclosure or contractor proposals n the possession and control of an executive agency to any person under section 552 of Title 5, U.S.C. (the FOIA), except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter of the proposal.

0 Exemption 4: The with held lnlormetlon ls a trade sectet or commercial or financial information lhal Is being withheld for the reason(s) lndlcat d.

The lnfomnal on Is considered to be confidential business (proprietary) Information.

D The informatlon Is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nudear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1}.

The Information was submitted by a foreign source and received n confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).

D Disclosure will harm an Identifiable private or governmental nleresl 0 Exemption 5: The wlthheld nformatlon consists of lnteregency or ntreagency records that are not ava lable through discovery during lit gation.

Applicable privileges:

Dellberallve process: Disclosure of predecisional information would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the 0 deliberative process. Where records are withheld In their entirely, the lac)s are lne><lricably Intertwined with the predeclsional Information.

There also are no reasonably segregable factual portions because lhe release of the facts would permit an indirect inquiry Into the predecislonal process of the agency.

D Attorney work-product privilege. (Documents prepared by an attorney in contemplation of I Ugation) 0 Attomey-clienl privilege. {Confidential common cations between an attorney and his/her client)

Exemption 6: The wlthheld Information is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearty unwarranted 0 Invasion of personal privacy.

Exemption 7: The withheld Information consists of records compiled for law enforcemenl purposes and Is being withheld for the reason(s) Indicated.

(A) Disclosure could reasonably be, e,cpected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding (e.g.. It would reveal the scope , direction, and focus of enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take action to shield potential wrong doing or a vlolatlon of NRC requirements from Investigators),

(C) Disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(D) The information conslsts of names of individuals and other infom,alion the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal denlltles of confidential sources.

(E) Disclosure would rev el techniqu s and procedures for w enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of lhe law.

D (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety ol an ndlv dual.

OTHER (Specify)

I PART 11 .B ** DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9 .25(g), 9.25(h) , and/or 9.65{b) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure Is contrary to the public interest The person responsible for the denial are those officials identified below as denying officials and the FOIA/PA Officer for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO).

DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED EDO IEC't' 1G Brooke D. Poole Assistant General Counsel for Lgl Counsel Group B D0 Rochelle Bavol Executive Assistant Group B I J l{] [_J Appeal must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of th is response. Appeals should be malled to the FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 , for action by the* appropriate appellate official(s). You should clearly slate on the envelope and letter that lt is a "FOIA/PA Appea l."

NR C FORM 46A Pan II {D8* 2013)

Group_8_

FOIA/PA NO: 8-tJ /3-- ()J.,6 ~

RECORDS BEING RELEASED IN PART The following types ofinform~tion are being withheld:

Ex. 1 : Records properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 13526 Ex. 2:ORecords regarding personnel rules and/or human capital administration Ex. 3 :0 Infonnation about the design, manufacture, or utilization of nuclear weapons Dnformation about the protection or security of reactors and nuclear materials contractor proposals not incorporated into a final contract with the NRC.

Other .

• Ex. 4:OProprietary information provided by a submitter to the NRC OO)ller ~

• Ex. 5:~raft documents or other pre-decisional deliberative documents (D.P. Privilege)

D Records prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation (A. W.P. Privilege)

Privileged communications between counsel and a client (A.C. Privilege)

OQtber * *

• Ex. 6:0"Agency e':llployee PII, including SSN, contact infonnation, birthdates, etc.

[]'Third party Pil, including n_ames, phone numbers, or other personal infon_nation Ex. 7(A):OCopies of ongoing*investigation case files, exhibits, notes, ROl's, etc.

Records that reference or ~e related to a separate ongoing investigation(s)

Ex. 7(C):OSpecial Agent or other law enforcement PII

• OPII of third parties referenced in records compiled for law enforcement purposes Ex. 7(D):OWitnesses' and Allegers' PII in law enforcement records . ..*

Confidential Informant or law enforcement information provided by other entity Ex. 7(E): []Law Enforcement Technique/Procedure used for criminal investigations Technique or procedure used for security or prevention of criminal activity Ex. 7(F): Information that could aid a terrorist or compromise security Other/Comments:

FOIA for Review FOIA #: 20 l 5*OOQ8 Partial or Final: Ei oa j) (b)(S)

Approval:

No Initials: ~

Comments: --========:::---'

Vrahoretis, Susan From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, October 12. 2012 11:40 AM To: Vra horetis, Susan

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008 - request for letter dated 09/18/12, from Lawrence Criscione to Chrm Macfarlane about Nuclear Plant Vu lnerabilities to Flooding H1 '>usan, (b)(5) l h;i11ks..

K,*,sty From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Thursday, October 11, 20 12 5:42 1PM To: Remsburg, Kristy Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Mike, Linda; Bates, Andrew; Lewis, Antoinette; Zimmerman, Jacob; Pace, Patti; Gibbs, Catina; Cermeno, Andrea; Chairman Temp

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008 - request for letter dated 09/ 18/12, from Law, ence Criscione to Chrm Macfarlane about Nuclear Plant Vulnerabilities to Flooding Thanks. Kri sty .

. *usan Su~:1 11 II. \ *r:1h u 1*di~

I <:!!:ii llllll~l* I O tfo:,* ,1i'Chain11:111 Alli~011 M. l\lact:1 1'! .:inl' l 11i t1:d :-.tut,*, N11ck:ir R..:gul,11 u1') *0111 111 i~sion t>fli tt'; OI 71>07 Ollk..: : (JO I J -11 5- 183.:J I From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 5:35 PM To: Vrahoretis, Susan

Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Mike, Linda; Bates, Andrew; Lewis, Antoinette; Zimmerman, Jacob; Pace, Patti; Gibbs, Catina; Cermeno, Andrea; Chairman Temp

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008

• request for letter dated 09/18/12, from Lawrence Criscione to Chrm Macfarlane about Nuclear Plant Vulnerabilities to Flooding If w

• c:..in furth r ssis t you in this pro ess, pie se I t us know.

Th 11~s .

rn,ty From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:26 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy; Pace, Patti; Gibbs, Catina; Cermeno, Andrea; Chairman Temp Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Mike, Linda; Bates, Andrew; Lewis, Antoinette; Zimmerman, Jacob

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13*0008

• request for letter dated 09/18/12, from Lawrence Criscione to Chrm Macfarlarne about Nuclear Plant Vulnerabilities to Flooding Kris y (b)(5)

Than you

• 11 ~:1 11 II. \ 'rnhol'('ti.

<llliL'l' ul Thainn;rn 1\lh on M. Ma 11.trlanc I I it.* I ~lat '. I\J 11l'iL'III R.:~u lin<,r) ' 11n1111iss i\m l l lli-.* ti l 1>11 7 From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:17 PM 2

To: Vrahoretls, Susan; Pace, Patti; Gibbs, Catina; Cermeno, Andrea; Chairman Temp Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Mike, Linda; Bates, Andrew; Lewis, Antoinette

Subject:

FOIA-13 -0008 - request for letter dated 09/18/12, from Lawrence Criscione to Chrm Madarlane about Nuclear Plant Vulnerabilities to Flooding Hi Susan, If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks,

/(risty Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 3

Remsburg, Kristy From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:02 PM To: FOIA Resource; KIigore, Linda Cc: FOJAPASECY Resource; Mike, Linda; Lewis, Antoinette; Bates, Andrew

Subject:

FOIA 2013-0008 Attachments: FO!A 2013 -0008.doc

• Categories: Green Category

Linda, Please see attached memo and appendices for FOIA 2013-0008. The hard copy is being sent to you interoffice mail.

This closes action for SECY.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555

• 0001 November 15, 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: FOIA/PA Caseworker, Linda Kilgore FOIA/PA Section FROM: Kristy Remsburg IRA/

FOIA Coordinator Office of the Secretary

SUBJECT:

FOIA/PA-2013-0008

_ No records subject to the request.

_ Records already publicly available. (Appendix)

_ Records being released in their entirety. (Appendix)

_ Records being withheld in part. (Appendix)*

_ Records being withheld in their entirety. (Appendix)*

_ Records to be referred to other offices/agencies/companies. (Appendix)

_ Ongoing investigation - 7A Certificati(,n attached.

_ Attached is NRC Form 496, "Report of Staff Resources for Processing FOIA Requests."

Place released records in PDR.

_ Do not place released records in PDR.

_ This is a partial response to this request.

.K_ This is the final response to this request.

.K_ This response contains sensitive security information. (Appendix A)

_ This response does not contain sensitive security information .

.K_*Foreseeable harm statement attached for Exemption 5. Provide a statement for Exemptions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7A and 7C only if not obvious.

_ A discretionary release of Information was not made In a record(s) subject to this request

_ A discretionary release of information~ made in a record(s) subject to this request.

Information was released which would have qualified for withholding under:

Exemption 2 Exemption 5 (check all that apply)

.K_ OTHER COMMENTS: Some documents have been redacted by NRR, RES and Region II but specific exemptions are not specified in response to this FOIA request. Please refer these documents to these offices and this FOIA will need to be reviewed by OGC before responding to requester.

Attachment(s):

As stated

Re: FOIA/PA-2013-0008 APPENDIX A RECORDS CONTAINING SENSITIVE SECUIRITY INFORMATION (b)(S)

Re: FOIA/PA-2013-0008 (b)(5)

(b)(5)

Remsburg, Kristy From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:05 PM To: FOIA Resource; Kilgore, Linda Cc: FOIAPASECY Resource; Mike, Linda; Lewis, Antoinette; Bates, Andrew; Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA 2013-0013 Attachments: FOIA 2013-0013.doc Categories: Green Category

Linda, Please see attached memo and appendices for FOIA 2013-0013. The hard copy is being sent to you Interoffice mail.

This closes action for SECY.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 1

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, DC 20555

• 0001 November 15, 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: FOIA/PA Caseworker, Linda Kilgore FOIA/PA Section FROM: Kristy Remsburg IRA/

FOIA Coordinator Office of the Secretary

SUBJECT:

FOIA/PA-2013-0013

-* _ No records subject to the request.

_ Records already publicly available. (Appendix)

_ Records being released in their entirety. (Appendix)

_ Records being withheld irn part. (Appendix)*

_ Records being withheld in their entirety. (Appendix)*

_ Records to be referred to other offices/agencies/comparnies. (Appendix)

_ Ongoing investigation - 7A Certification attached.

_ Attached is NRC Form 496, "Report of Staff Resources for Processing FOIA Requests."

Place released records in PDR.

_ Do not place released records In PDR.

_ This is a partial response to this request.

lL This is the final response to this request.

lL This response contains sensitive security information. (Appendix A)

_ This response does not contain sensitive security information.

_x*Foreseeable harm statement attached for Exemption 5. Provide a statement for Exemptions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7A and 7C only if not obvious.

_ A discretionary release of Information was not made In a record(s) subject to this request.

_ A discretionary release of information~ made In a record(s) subject to this request Information was released which would have qualified for withholding under:

Exemption 2 Exemption 5 (check all that apply)

_x_ OTHER COMMENTS: Some documents have been redacted by NRR, RES and Region ll but specific exemptions are not specified in response to this FOIA request. Please refer these documents to these offices and this FOIA will need to be reviewed by OGC before responding to requester.

Attachment(s ):

As stated

Re: FOIA/PA-2013-0013 APPENDIX A RECORDS CONTAINING SENSITIVE SECURITY INFORMATION (b)(5)

Re: FOIA/PA-2013-0013 (b)(5)

(b)(5)

Lewis, Antoinette From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent Friday, March 01, 2013 9:59 AM To: Remsbu rg, Kristy Cc: lewis, Antoinette; Mike, Linda

Subject:

Ri:-* REMINDER: Concurrence: FOIA-2013 -0008 - Referral Package for Documents 1 and 2

Hi, Kristy, (b)(5)

Susan

, usan H. Vrahoretis I.cgal oun el omce of hainnan Alli on . Macfarlane United 'tates uclear Regulatory ommission Office: 17D07 Office: (30 I) 415-1834 I From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Fr day, March 01, 2013 9:56 AM To: Vrahoretls, Susan Cc: Lewis. Antoinette; Mike, Linda

Subject:

'REMINDER: Concurrence: FOIA-2013-0008 - Referral Package for Documents 1 and 2 Hi Susan, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:19 PM To: Vrahoretis, Susan Cc: Lewis. Antoinette; Mike, Linda Subject~Concurrence: FOIA-2013-0008 - Referral Package for Documents 1 and 2

Hi Susan, 1 Please provide your concurrence to the recommendation by: Fridav, February 81 2013.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretory U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301 -415-1667 2

Vrahoretis, Susan From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 9:32 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy Cc: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip

Subject:

Re: FOJA-13-0008 Thanks Kristy!

Susan VrahoretIs Legal Counsel Office of the Cha rman (301) 415-1820 NOTE: This message may cont In an attomey-clien pnv1leged communication and/or attorney work product. Do not disclose without Commission authorization Sent from my NRC BlackBerry From : Remsburg, Kristy To: Vrahoretls, Susan Sent : Wed Mar 27 09:08: 14 2013

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008 Ah~t) lut lyl....(b-)(-6)_ _ _ ____,

Tn

• Caru, f(risty Kti ty Rt>m burg Of Jue of rhe S crernry U S. Nuc/ or Regulocory Commis ,on Offi e 301-415-1667 From: Vrahoretls, Susan Sent: Wedn sday, March 27, 2013 8:40 AM To: R msburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA* 13*0008 Hi Kristy, I hope you're having a good week. Fb)(6) l(b-)(6_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.I*

Thanks ,

Susan

' usan H. Vrahoreti L g I Couns *I Office of Chairman All ison M. Macfarlane United tatcs uclc r Regulatory Commission

Office: O17D07 (301) 415- I 834 Susan.V1-.1l1orcti:,@nrc.gov

[NOTE: This e-mail may contain ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS or ATTORNEY WORK-PRODUCT.

DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT COMMISSION APPROVAL.I 2

Remsburg, Kristy From: Vietti -Cook, Annette Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:44 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy Cc: Bates, Andrew Subjed: Re: Criscione Appeal Deftnalely From: Remsburg, Kristy To: Vietti-Cook, Annette Cc: Bates, Andrew Sent: frl Mar 29 10:12:47 2013

Subject:

Criscione Appeal Annette,

.I'""

-Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nucfear Regulatory Commission Office: 301 -415-1667

Vrahoretis, Susan From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 5:41 PM To: Vrahoretis, Susan

Subject:

RE: FOJA-13-0008 Hi Susan, Kristy Kristy Rem burg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301 -415-1667 From: vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 5:40 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008 Hi Kristy, (b)(5)

Thanks, usan usu n H. r11horc1i Legal Counse l OAi l' of *1111irn111n Alli on M. ocforl:in United . tate uclear Regu latory ommis. ion Otlice: 17D07

', F.-mn 't: 1,nn,Vrahordjs'ii'nrc.goy I Offi\:c: t30 IJ*11 ;-1820 I From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 1:49 PM To: Vrahoretis, Susan

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008 Hi Susan, r b)(5),(b)(6)

Let me know.

Thanks,

~

Knsty Re~sburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 01 -415 -1657 From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:33 AM To: Vrahoretis, Susan Cc: Mike, Linda; Lewis, Antoinette

Subject:

RE: FOIA-13-0008 H1 Sus n, I'm sure you have seen the appeal from Mr. Criscione. Just checking to see if you are still able to provide us FOIA 2013*

0008 referral package early next week? I will not be ,n the office on Monday bu Linda and Angle will be.

let me know.

Thanks,

~

Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office 301-415-1667 From: Vrahoretls, Susan Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:40 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA-13*0008 Hi Kristy, I hope you're having a good weekJ (b)(6)

I Thanks, Susan u a n H. Vr, horet1 Legal Counsel Office of Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane Unit d States Nuclear Regulatory Commi sion Office : O17D07 (301) 415-1834 (NOTE: This e-mail may contain ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS or ATTORN EY WORK-PRODUCT.

DO NOT RELEASE WITHOUT COMM! SIO APPROVAL]

2

Remsburg, Kristy From: KIigore, Linda Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 6:45 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

RE: FOIA 2013-0008 Hi Kristy, Thank*s for the response. SECY action will be closed.

Thanks Linda From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:02 PM To: FOIA Resource; Kilgore, Unda Cc: FOIAPASECY Resource; Mike, Linda; Lewis, Antoinette; Bates, Andrew

Subject:

FOIA 2013-0008

Linda, Please see attached memo and appendices for FOIA 2013-0008. The hard copy is being sent to you interoffice mail.

This closes action for SECY.

Please let me know If you have any questions.

Thanks, K1Jst9 Kristy Remsburg Office ~! the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 1

Remsburg, Kristy From: Kilgore, Linda .

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 6'42 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

RE* FOIA 2013-0013 Hi Kristy, Thaniks for the response. SECY action will be closed.

Judging by the number of other offices Involved, it will be awhile before the FOIA is completed.

Than~s Linda From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 5:05 PM To: FOIA Resource; KIigore, Linda Cc: FOIAPASECY Resource; Mike, Linda; Lewis, Antoinette; Bates, Andrew; Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA 2013-0013

Linda, Please see attached memo and appendices for FOIA 2013-0013. Th hard copy is being sent to you int roffice mail.

Th s closes action for SECY.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks, K1istg Kris ty Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667

Remsburg, Kristy From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:53 AM To: Vietti-Cook. Annette Cc: Bate , Andr~ ; Mi , Linda; lewis, Antoln tle

Subject:

.RE: Tihis is a FOIA Appe I for FOIA requests 2013-0126, 2013-0177, and 2013-0128 Attachments: FW: FOJNPA-2013 -00008 Referral Assignment FOlA 0008 HI Anne tte, Unfortuna ly r )(6)

I es s:

an s, Kri *ty Kristy Remsburg Offie of the S er tary U.S. Nucl or Regulatory Commission Office : 301 -415 -1667 From: Vietti-Cook, Annette Sent: friday, March 29, 2013 8:56 AM To: R msburg, Kristy; Farrington, John Cc: Doane, Margaret; Rothschild, Trip; Vrahoretis, Susan

Subject:

Fw: This Is a FOIA Appeal for FOJA requests 2013-0126, 2013-0127, and 2013-0128 Let's discuss status of there foia requests and appeal on monday From: Lawrence Criscione< m>

To: CHAIRMAN Resource; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Borchardt, Bill; Ash, Darren; Sealing, Donna; KIigore, Unda ; FOIA Resource Cc: Billi ="-""-"="""'-""-""-= =u== .,. .,'h,'":x,"i;,. .',"..."'£:,_,,___,,= = = == < m>; Louis Clark <I

!(b)(6)

~ ;;:;~:!=:=....:!:!=::=:~~~

re =~===== ; Carl Stelzer rson <locarson@tds.net>; Jim Ri.ccio

<jriccio@qreenpeace.org>; Dave Lochbaum <dlochbaum@ucsusa.org>; Tom Zeller <tom@huffingtonpost.com>;

1

Sullivan, Randy; NTEU, Chapter 208; iryll.robbins-umel@nteu.org <lryll.robbins-umel@nteu.org>

Sent: Fri Mar 29 04:05:04 2013

Subject:

This Is a FOlA Appeal for FOIA requests 2013-0126, 2013-0127, and 2013-0128 The letter attached to this email is an appeal for the refusal of the NRC to release records which were requested under FOIA/PA 201 3-0 126, 01 27, and 0128. Please note:

• The NRC has had these three FOI A requests fo r over thirty working days.

• For fi ve of the seven records involved in the requests, ADAMS numbers were provided by me when I made my requests (MLI I 1460063, ML100780084, ML101610083, ML101900305, ML091170104).

• Two of the records were fonnal correspondence between the NRC and a licensee (ML ! I 1460063, ML I0 16 10083).

• One of the records was an internal NRC memo requesting a Generic Issue (MLl 01 900305).

• One of the records was an internal NRC study on dam fai lures (ML I00780084).

• One of the records was a Non-Concurrence Form submitted on correspondence with a licensee (ML091I70 I04).

• One of the records was a 2012-09-18 email sent lo the NRC Chairman and another was a letter attached to that emaiI.

All these records should have been easily located and--within thirty working days--readily reviewed and released. I can see no reason for not being able to release these records within the thirty working days allotted by the FOIA process.

The attached letter involves seven documents, three FOIA request,; (20 13-0 126, 0 I 27 & 01 28). and lwo appeal authorities (SECY and OEDO). You may treat Lhis as one appeal or divide as best suits your needs. All I ask is that I get an answer by May 13, 2013 so that, if all the documents requested are not provided in their entirety, I can continue on with the next step of the appeal process in accordance with IOCFR §9.29(c).

Since I am submitting a F'OIA Appeal. by definition I believe the RC is not obeying the Freedom of Info rmation Act. Please note that I believe this disobedience is due to either a lack of understanding of the FOIA process/exemptions on the part of various NRC staff members, a lack of leadership on the part of various NRC managers, o lack of allocated resources, or a combination of these factors. I do not believe that anyone involved in the FOIA process at the NRC is guilty of criminal behavior. Nothing in this letter is meant to be an allegation of criminal wrong doing. Please do not tum Lhis letter over to the Office of the Inspector General as "Allegation Material". If anyone is concerned with opinions 1ex press in the attached FOIA Appeal, I ask that in the spirit of an Open and Collaborative Work Environment they engage me and attempt Lo understand my opinions and my reasons for those opinions. Misconstruing constructive criticisms of our various policies and programs as allegations of criminal "'ffongdoing is counterproductive. Passing another so-called "Allegation" on to the Inspector General in my name does nothing but waste his resources and the taxpayers' money. If I have an Allegation of criminal wrongdoi ng to make, I will come forth to the Inspector General and make it rnyseff.

Although r live in Springfield, IL, I work in Rockville, MD. Please do not send documents to my home in Springfield, IL as I will not get them in a timely manner. Please send all written correspondence to me via email at I.SCriscinne(a hotmail.com. If your processes wi ll not allow you to do this, then please contact me via phone or email and I will come by the FOIA desk to pick up the correspondence.

If you cannot accept this attached FOIA Appeal via emai l, please call me today at 573-230-3959 and I will bring a hard copy by the FOIA office or wherever it must be delivered.

2

Thank you, Larry Lawrence S. Criscione, PE "Human experience shows that people. not organizations or management systems, get things done."

3

Remsburg, Kristy From: KIigore, Linda Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:14 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: ~emsburg, Kristy; Kilgore, Linda

Subject:

FW: FOWPA-2013-00008 Referral Assignmen*

Attachments: *2013-0008.pdf Greetings, Is there anything new on the status of this referral? We have 3 requests which involve the same 2 records and cannot close requests 2013-0008, 2013-0013 and 2013-0127 until we receive a response from SECY Thanks Linda From: Admln, Admin mail

• ia.r ur e Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: Kllgorc:Unda Subject jFOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment AR f rral for F IA/P 00 i b ingn igned to Y n January 25 2013.

Remsburg, Kristy From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 8:40 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA-13*0008 Hi Kristy, 1 bane vrn ,*ce bavioo a oaod week 1(6)(6)

Thanks, Susan Su an H. Vrahor ti L gal Couns I om of Chai rm n Allison M. Ma farlan Unit d late Nu I r R ulatory Commi Ion Office: O17D07 (301 415*1834 Susan,Ycaboretis@nrr,11ov fNOTE: Thi *mail m y ont in A'IT RNEY-CLIENT COMMUN ICATIO Sor ATIOR EV W RK-PRODUCT.

00 NOT REL.EASE WITHOUT COMMISSIO APPROVAL]

Remsburg, Kristy From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:43 AM To: Kilgore, Linda Subject ' RE: FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Thanks Linda I will pass along to Annette .

Kristy Kris ty Remsburg Office of the Secretory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From : Kilgore, Linda .

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:42 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy Subject )RE: FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Non-Responsive Record Linda From : Remsburg, Kristy -

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 11:30 AM To: Kilgo~, Unda

Subject:

S£: FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Thanks Linda,

!Non-Responsive Record Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office : 301 -415-1667 From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:47 AM To: Remsgurg, Kristy

Subject:

)RE: FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment

Because there were 3 requests, we logged the incoming as 3 separate appeals. I am attaching the copy that relates, specifically to the SECY records.

Thanks Linda From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:10 AM To: Kilgore Linda SubjectKRE: FOINPA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Hi Linda, 1We also received the appeal from Mr. CriscionE Thanks for the infc ) 1wi ll pass along to Annette.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301 -415 -1667 From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 10:03 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

)RE: FOINPA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Thanks so much.

FYI, we have received an appeal today regarding FOIA 2013-0127, for lack of response , i. e. , the delay in i]

responding. The appeal included the Chairman, and other NRC officials the e-maill so you may hear about it. l(b)(5)

From: Remsburg, Kristy .

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 9:55 AM To: Kilgore Linda

Subject:

~; FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Hi Linda, Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 2

From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:14 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: RemsJwrg, Kristy; Kilgore, Linda Subjectif FW: FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Greetings, 1 Is there anything new on the status of this referral? We have 3 requests which involve the same 2 records, and cannot close requests 2013-0008, 2013-0013 and 2013-0127 until we receive a response from SECY.

Thanks Linda From: Admln, Admin [ ilt :i

• r Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: Kilgor~Unda

Subject:

lFOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment A Referral for FOlA/PA-201 -00008 i being a igned to ECY on January 25, 2013.

3

Remsburg, Kristy From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 6:21 AM To: fOIAPASECY Resource

Subject:

INon Res ponsive tand FOIA 2013-0008 Hi Kristy, Please call me about this when you have a chance. I will be here until around 3:30 today.

Thanks Linda 415-5775 From: FOIAPASECY Resource Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 5:47 PM To: KIigore, Linda Cc: Bates- Andrew* Mik Linda* Lewis Antoinette Subject Non esponsive and FOIA 2013-000fl Importance: Hig Hi Linda, Let me know.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiss ion Office: 301 -415-1667 Non Kespons1ve

Non Responsive 2

Remsburg, Kristy From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:41 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource

Subject:

' FW: FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Attachments: 2013-0008.pdf Categories: Green Category Hi Kristy, Has the Chairman's office completed the review of the records yet? We have completed the other records related to this case. It would be great if we could close the request soon.

Thanks Linda From: Admin, Admin [1]

Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: Kilgore. Unda SUbJect!iFOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment A Referral for FOIA/PA-2013-00008 is being assigned lo ECY on January 25, 2013.

Remsburg, Kristy From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Tu sday, April 30, 2013 10:48 AM To: fOIAPASECY Resource

Subject:

' FW: FOWPA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment - status Hello Kristy, Have you heard anything new regarding the 2 Commission records?

I know lh Chairman's office had issu s. Just hoping they may have resolved them.

Thanks Linda From: FOIAPASECY Resource Sent: Tuesday, Aprll 09, 2013 9:08 AM To: Kilgore. Linda

Subject:

~E: FOINPA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Hi Linda,

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2013 6:41 AM To: FOJ APA SECY Resource subject: FW: FOWPA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment Hi Kristy, Has the Chairman's office completed the review of the records yet? We have completed the other records related to this case. It would be great if we could close the request soon.

Thanks Linda

From: Admin, Admin (mailto:foia.resource@nrc.gQy)

Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:30 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: KilgnrP. I inda

Subject:

. 1FOIA/PA-2013-00008 Referral Assignment A Referral for FOTA/PA-20 13-0000 ~ being a igned to E Y on January 25, 2013.

I 2

Remsburg. Kristy From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 9:21 AM To: Hirsch. Patricia

Subject:

' Rf Oconee/Jocassee Dam FO!As pendi ng office response regarding 2 Commission records

Pat, Can I call you about this?

Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415 -1667 From: Hirsch, Patricia Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:33 PM To: Remsburo. Kristy

Subject:

FW 'Oconee/Jocassee Dam FOJAs pending office response regarding 2 Commission records

??? I know nothing!!!????

Pat Hirsch Assistant General Counsel for Legal Counsel, Legislation and Special Projects Alternate Agency Ethics Official Offic e of General Counsel Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ma ll Stop 0 -15 D21 301-415-0563 L.S.Nll(~ ..

,,,,_'A'YA,J>I, d,Jw-l;oo ; , -

From: Sealing, Donna Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:49 AM To: Hirsch, Patricia Cc: Kilgore, Linda Subject; FW: Oconee/Jocassee Dam FOIAs pending office response regarding 2 Commission records

Pat.

If we could get these two records back we could close five requests . Anything you can do to help with this would be greatly appreciated .

Thanks, Donna From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Fr day, May 10, 2013 10:35 AM To: Seallno. Donna Subject~Oconee/Jocassee Dam FOIAs pending office response regarding 2 Commission records Donna, (b)(S)

Thanks Linda 2

Remsburg. Kristy From: FOIAPASECY Resou rce Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:53 AM To: Yrahoretis, Susan

Subject:

FW: FOIA/ PA 2013-00239 - For yo ur info rmation Attachments: 2013-0239.pdt Hi Susan, Please see attached FOIA request. W e are not be ing assign ed but it was forwarded to us as info rmation. Two documents requeste d in this request pe rtai n to the referral package you have - FOIA 2013 -0008 .

I"'"'

Let me know.

Th anks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U. S. N.uclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From: Kilgore, Lindo Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 10:31 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: Kilgore. Linda; Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

(FW: FOINPA-2013-00239

• For your information Although the responsive records related to this request are already In FOIA, the attached new request is being sent for your information because it relates to an open office action in another request.

The request lists 2 records (items 11 -12) that are still pending in response to a referral for re-review in FOIA

')(')13-0008.

Thanks Linda From: Admin, Admin I.Ll.l.lii!.!!il~o~:f~o i~,!.!Jr~lo!.Llol=.J!.i.:.=

Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2013 6:52 AM To: FOIA Resource Cc: KU.gore. Linda

Subject:

\ FOINPA-2013-00239 Action Item/Instructions You ha e been a igned a tion n th in oming I requ t a ai l bl at:

ION# MLl3l27A295

Offices Assigned Action on May 8, 2013 OIS The OIS FOl A/PA Specialist for this request is indicated in the "cc" to this e-mail.

The FOIA/PA request should be processed in accordance with the standard instructions (How to Respond to an lnitial FOIA Request) at ML060590485. You are encouraged to ask for a scoping discussion with the requester when you believe it will be beneficial. You are encouraged to ask for assistance in perform ing adequate ADAMS searches if you are having difficulty doing a search. Your initial estimate of search and review time and the volume of records is required within four (4) working-days from the date of this transmittal e-mail.

NRC Form 496, "Report of Staff Resources for Processing FOIA/PA Requests" is now avai lable on Informs fo r your use.

2

Remsburg, Kristy From: Remsburg, Kri sty Sent: Frid y, May 31, 2013 11:08 AM To: Hirsch, Patricia

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FO!As 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Hi Pat, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Of/ ice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301 -415-1667 From: Hirsch, Patricia Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:14 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Importance: High Do you know about this? We need to move this one! So let's talk! Thanks!

From: Sealing, Donna Sent: Thursday, May 301 2013 11:47 AM To: Hirsch, Patricia

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Importance: High

Pat, Thanks for your help.

Donna From: Hirsch, Patricia Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 11:37 AM To: Sealing, Donna

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Yes, looks okay- what is the document that secy needs to decide on?

From: Sealing, Donna Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:50 AM

To: Hirsch, Patricia SUbject: FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Importance: High Hi Pat, I told Darren I'd coordinate with you and reply to Mr. Lochbaum after the meeting we had yesterday. Here's what I propose to send to him. Could you please take a look at it and let me know if you have any changes/comments, Thanks, Donna

' Mr. Lochbaum, (b)(:>)

Donna Sealing (301) 415-5804 From: Ash, Darren Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:13 AM To: Sealing, Donna Cc: Olive, Karen; Pretzello, Andrew; Bell, Marvin; Donnell, Tremaine; Rheaume, Cynthia

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Donna, Thank you very much.

Darren From

• Sealing, Donna Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 10:09 AM To: Ash, Darren Cc: Olive, Karen; Pretzello, Andrew; Bell, Marvin; Donnell, Tremaine; Rheaume, Cynthia

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Good Morning Darren ,

2

• we will open his two new appeals and send acknowledgement letters to him on those. I will respond back to Mr. Lochbaum and cc you once I coordinate with Pat Hirsch. As you probably know we are having a meeting tomorrow and I hope to make progress on these requests.

Donna From: Ash, Darren Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:12 AM To: Sealing, Donna Cc: Pearson, Laura; Rheaume, Cynthia; Olive, Karen

Subject:

FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Donna, Good morning. I received the message below from Mr. Lochbaum. Could you please look into the status. If you would prefer to get back to him directly, as opposed to me, please do. Please cc me on the reply.

1'hank you ,

Darren From: Dave Lochbaum [mailto:Dl ochbaum@ucsusa.org1 Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:51 PM To: Ash, Darren

Subject:

Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 May 23, 2013 Darren Ash Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dear Mr. Ash:

NRC website http://wv.iw.nrc.gov/reading-nn/foia/foia-privacv.html designates you as the NRC Chief FOlA Officer. I am communicating with you in that capacity.

On October 9, 2012, I submitted a FOIA request to the NRC that was accepted that day and assigned no.

FOIA/P A-2013-0008. I requested a single record and identified its date, its author, and its addressee. As of th is morning, I still have not received that record. Prior to February 6, 2013, I contacted the FOIA officer and was told that this single document had been obtained and had gone to the Commission for determination whether it could be released and, if so, under what conditions. The FOIA officer offered to released other rci;ords in the meantime with partial responses. I was confused by this offer because f'd requested a single letter and envisioned partial releases being words or sentences thereof. By letters dated February 6, 20 l 3, February 20, 2013, and April 9, 2013, [ received Partial Responses l , 2, and 3 respectively. They turned out to be some of the documents listed as references to the single letter I requested. But l've still not received that single letter or determination why it is being withheld.

On February 6, 2013, J submitted a FOIA request to the NRC that was accepted that day and assigned no.

FOIA/PA-2013-00 1106. I sought emails to/from an NRC staffer regarding a specific subject matter. As of this morning, this request remains open.

The aforementioned NRC website states this disclaimer:

"Due to the high volume of FOIA requests received as a result of the unexpected events in Japan, response times to requests may be longer than normal." My calendar shows me that the "unexpected events" in Japan 3

occurred more than two full years ago, not recently. The NRC's ability to hid behind thi s excuse seems to have faded a long time ago.

1am appealing to you to take whatever actions are needed to get me the records I requested as provided for by the FOIA law.

As to the basis for this appeal, 1 caJI your attention to a recent court decision available online at http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-

/PDFs/Legal/CRE W%20v. %20FEC%20%28Comm issioners%20Corre pondence%29/Opi nion CREW vs r-EC r~ correspondence DC Ci rcuit 04 2 2013.pdf?nocdn= I The NRC did promptly acknowledge my FOIA requests. But I call your attention to the text in the paragraph at the top of page I I of this court decision:

The statutory requirement would not make a lot of sense if, as the FEC argues, the agency were merely required to stale within 20 working days its future intent to eventually produce documents and claim exemptions."

And I call your attention to the text at the bottom of page 11 :

"Under the FEC's theory, an agency could respond to a request with_in 20 working days in terms not susceptible to immediate administrative panel - by simply stating, in essence, that it will produce documents and claim exemptions over withheld documents in the future. Then the agency could process the request at its leisure, free from any timelines."

Sound familiar? 1t sounds all too familiar to me, substituting NRC for FEC and leaving all the rest the same.

I call your attention to the court's language in the first paragraph on page 16:

"As to actual production, FOIA requires that the agency make the records promptly available," which depending on the circumstances typically would mean within days or a few weeks of a "determination," not months or years."

4

Produce document within da s or a fi w eks not month or ear -- that' what thi court ruled agencie are r quired to d lo ti f th ir I gal bligation under F I .

In FOIA/PA-2013-0008, I ought a single record . I requ sted that r cord on crober 9, 2012 -- 226 days ago or 32 week ago or 7.5 month ago. I have not received the ingle record I reque ted.

FOIA/PA-20I -0106 a ubmitted on Februar 6, 2013 ** 106 da ag r I we k ag or 3.5 month ago. J have not re ei ed any rec rds yet.

I appeal to ou to rectify thi matter a promptly as po ibl .

Jt certainly appear to me that the R i not meeting its legal obligation under the F IA la . l have blindcopied th R ' ffi e ofth In pector General on thi mail to mak th m av are of this apparent R wrongdoing.

incerely, David Lochbaum Director uclear Safi ty Proje t nion f one med cienti t P Bo 15316 hattanooga, 423 46 -927'> fice

. (b )(6) j::e II 5

Bates, Andrew From: Vietti-Cook, Annette Sent: Friday, May 31 , 2013 12:46 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy Cc: Mike, Linda; Bates, Andrew

Subject:

FW' Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Attachments : 2013-0106-FinalResponse pdf

' Wha t Is t he first item she is referring to?

From: Sealing, Donna Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:30 AM To: Dave Lochbaum (DLochbaum@ucsusa.org)

Cc: Ash, Darren

Subject:

FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013*0008 and 2013*0106 Mr. Lochbaum ,

I'd like to provide you an update on the status of the FOIA requests you addressed in your May 23, 2013 e-mail to Mr. Ash.

FOINPA 2013-0008: We are still coordinating the release of this document with the Office of the Secretary.

Please be advised that as soon as we receive a releasab11ity determination regarding the record we will provide a response to you .

FOINPA 2013-0106: This request was closed on Apnl 1, 2013. The OIG withheld the records in their entirety under Exemption 7A due to their ongoing investigation. A scanned copy of our response is attached.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions regard ng these requests Donna Sealing (301 ) 415-5804 From: Dave Lochbaum [majlto:DLochbaum@ucsusa.org]

Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:51 PM To: Ash, Darren

Subject:

Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Ma 23 20 13 ecutiv Dire I r for orporate Management R gulatory ommi ion

Dear Mr. Ash:

R bsite http://www.nr .go Ir ading-rm/foi foia-pri acy.html designat ll s th Officer. I am communicating with you in that capacity.

On ct b r 9 2012, I submitted a OIA request to th that was ace pted that da and a igned no.

FOi PA-2013-0008. I reque ted a ingle record and identified its date, its author, and its addre ee. A of thi morning I still ha e not recei ed that record. Prior to ebruary 6.2013 I contacted the FOi officer and was told that thi single document had en obtained and had gon to th ommis i n for determination whether it

could be released and, if so, under what conditions. The FOIA officer offered to released other records in the meantime with partial responses. I was confused by this offer because I'd requested a single letter and envisioned partial releases being words or sentences thereof. By letters dated February 6, 20 13, February 20, 20 13, and April 9, 20 13, I received Partial Responses I, 2, and 3 respectively. They turned out to be some of the documents listed as references to the single letter I requested. But I've still not received that single letter or determination why it is being withheld.

On February 6, 2013, I submitted a FOIA request to the NRC that was accepted that day and assigned no.

FOINPA-201 3-001106. I sought emails to/from an NRC staffer regarding a specific subject matter. As of this morning, this request remains open.

The aforementioned NRC website states this disclaimer:

"Due to the high volume ofFOIA requests received as a result of the unexpected events in Japan, response times to requests may be longer than nonnal." My calendar shows me that the "unexpected events" in Japan occurred more than two full years ago, not recently. The NRC's ability to hid behind tnis excuse seems to have faded a long time ago.

I am appealing to you to take whatever actions are needed to get me the records r requested as provided for by the FOIA law.

As to the basis for this appeal, I call your attention to a recent court decision avai lable online at hUp://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-

/PDFs/Legal/CREW%20v.%20FEC%20%28Commissioners%20Correspondence%29/0pinion CREW vs FEC re correspondence DC Circuit 04 2 20.13.pdf?nocdn= I The NRC did promptly acknowledge my FOIA requests. But I call your attention to the text in the paragraph at the top of page 11 of this court decision:

"The statutory requirement would not make a lot of sense if, as the FEC argues, the agency were merely required to state within 20 working days its future intent to eventually produce documents and claim exemptions."

And I call your att.ention to the text at the bottom of page 11:

"Under the FEC's theory, an agency could respond to a request within 20 working days in terms not susceptible to immediate adminjstrative panel - by simply stating, in essence, that it will produce documents and clajm exemptions over withheld documents in the future. Then the agency could process the request at its leisure, free from any timelines."

Sound familiar? It sounds all too familiar to me, substituting NRC for FEC and leaving all the rest the same.

2

I call your attention to the court's language in the first paragraph on page l 6:

"As to actual production, FOIA requires that the agency make the records "promptly available," which depending on the circumstances typically would mean within days or a few weeks of a "determination," not months or years."

Produce documents within days or a few weeks, not months or years -- that's what this court ruled agencies are required to do to satisfy their legal obligations under FOIA.

In FOJNPA-2013-0008, I sought a single record. I requested that record on October 9, 2012 -- 226 days ago or 32 weeks ago or 7.5 months ago. I have not received the single record I requested.

FOIAIPA-2013-0106 was submitted on February 6, 2013 -- I 06 days ago or l 5 weeks ago or 3.5 months ago. I have not received any records yet.

I appeal to you to rectify this matter as promptly as possible.

It certainly appears to me that the NRC is not meeting its legal obligations under the FOIA law. I have blindcopied the NRC's Office of the Inspector General on this email to make them aware of this apparent NRC wrongdoing.

Sincerely, David Lochbaurn Director, Nuclear Safety Project Union of Concerned Scientists PO Box 153 16 Chattanooga, TN 37415 423 468-9272 office (b)(5l cell 3

--*------------------------w___,. . __._. . . . . . .,. ____________

• IRC ?ORM 4,4 Port I r, i:;.2t *21 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POIA/PS. RESPONS! NUMBER o> ...... 20D-0l06 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF

/ ~'\II.

• ~ INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY

\ . ..... / : ACT(PA)REQUEST RESPONSE TYPE f"7l FINAL l.!'..J PARTIAL REQUESTER David Lochbaum APR O1 -2H3 PART I.** INFORMATION RELEASED D No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.

D Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Commen1s section rpp l()ES Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the llsted appendices are already av table for public inspect on nd copying at the NRC Public Document. Room 1APl'tN01~s Agency records subject to the request hat are identified in the listed appendices are being made evadable for 1_ public inspect10n and copying at the NRC Public Document Room Enclosed i$ information on how you may obtain access; to and the charges; f-0r copying records located at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville IP1 e. Rockville, MO 20852-2738.

IIAPP£N01Cf;S II Agency records subJeCI to I.he reques1 are enclosed D referred Records subject to the request that conta n nformatlon originated by or of Interest to another Federal agency have been to I.hat agency (see comments section) tor a disclosure determination and direct response to you.

D We are continuing to process your request

[ZJ See Comments.

PART I.A ** FEES AMOUNT" sl 0 You will be blUed by NRC tor the amount listed. 0 None. Minimum fee threshold not met.

' Se..__e_eo_m_me_nl-*__,

for delluls D You will receive a refund for the arnount listed. [2l Fees waived.

PART 1.8 - INFORMATION NOT LOCA TEO OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE No agency records subject to the request have been located, For your information, Congress excluded three d screte categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)

(2006 & Supp. IV (2010), This response s limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of thEt FOlA This Is a standard notification that s g ven to all our requesters and should not be taken as an ind1cat1on that e,ccluded records do, or do no . exist.

Certain infonnation in the requested records Is being withheld from disdoslfre pursuant to the exemptions described n and for the reasons stated In Part II. /

[Z] Th,s determina ,on may be oppealed wrth,n 30 days oy wrIhng to the FOIA/PA Officer. U S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornm1ss1on, Washmgton, DC 20555-000 Clearly state on the envelope and n the letter that 111s a "FOIAIPA Appeal*

PART I.C COMMENTS ( Uu attached Comments continuation page if n,qulred)

Records relating to FOIA-20 l .i-0 I 06 are being withheld in their en1irety under Exemption 7A due 10 an ongoing OIG investigaiion.

NR C FORM ~54 Pan I ( 1().2012)

MRC FORM 464 Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA OATi; IC-2011/

RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION 2013-0106 ~ Ol ?013 ,

ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST PART II.A - APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS tPPENOICES Records su~ect lo lhe reqtaesl lhal are described In lhe enclosed Appendices are being wllhheld In their entirety or ln pan under the I Exemption o.(s) ot the PA and/or the FOIA as Indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552a and/or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)).

Exempuon 1: The withheld intormalion Is properly classified pursuant to Execulive Order 12958.

Exemption 2: The withheld Information relates solely to the rntemal oersonnel r~es and practices of NRC.

Exemption 3: The withheld information Is specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute Indicated Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act. which prohibits the disclosure of Resrnaed Data or Formerly Restricted Oata (42 u.s.c 2161 -2165),

Section 14 of the Atomic Eneryy Act, wllieh prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U S.C, 2167).

41 U.S.C.. Section 253b, subsection (m)(1). prohlbtts 1h11 disclosure ol contractor proposals In the possession and control of an executive agency to any pe rson under section 552 of r,ue 5. U.S.C. (the FOIA), except when incorporated into the contract between tho :agency and the submitter of the proposal.

Exemption ~: The wllhheld lntormatiorn Is a trade secret or commercial or financial information lhal is being with held for the reason(s) indlcaled.

The information Is considered to be confidential business (proprietary) information.

The Information Is considered to be p<oprietary because It concerns a licensee's. or applica11I's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nucIear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1 )

D The Information was swmltted by a foreign source and receiveo In confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).

Exemption 5:

Disclosure wlll harm an 1dentlf1able private or govemmenlal Interest.

The withheld lnlormallon, consists of mteragency o Intra agency records that are not available lhrough discovery during lltigatlor..

Applicable privileges*

Deliberative process: Disclosure of prsdecislona I inlormat,on would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of deas essel'ltial to lne deh~ ratlve pro~ess* Where records are wlthheld m their entirety. tne tacts are rnextncabiy mlertwined with the p<edeclslonal l11format1on There also are no reasonably segregable factual portions bec.iuse the release of the lacts would permll an Indirect Inquiry ,nto the predec1sionaI proce:;s ot lhe agency.

Attomey worit-product prNllege. (Oocumenls prepared by an attorney In contennplatlon of lltlgatlon)

D Anomey-cfienl privilege. (Confldenllal communlcatlons between an attorney and his/her chent)

Exemption 6: The whhheld informatlon Is exempted lrom pubOc disctosure because its dlsdosure would resu~ ma clearty unwarranted Invasion of personal prl\facy.

0 Exemption 7: The withheld information consists ot records compiled !or law enforcement purposes and Is bein11 w~hheld for the rea;son(s)

Indicated.

[Z] (A) Dlsclosure could reasonably be expect~d lo intertere with an enforcement proceeding (!!.g.. II would reveal the scope. d!rec~on. and locus of entorcement efiona. and thus coulo possibly allow recipients 10 take acilun to shield potenUal wrong doing or a v,0Ia11on of Nrl:

0 requirements from nvesligators).

(C) Disclosure could constitute an unwarran ti,d ,nvasion ot personal privacy.

O (OJ identities The Information consists of names of Individuals and other Information the disclosure ot which ~o uld reasonably be expected to re veal o confidential sources.

0 (El Disclosure would reveal lechnlques and procedures for law enforcement Investigations or ,>rosecutions, or guldehnes 1na1coul:i reasonably be ex,>ected to n,t. ClrCumvention of tne law.

D IF) 0Isclosure couId reasonably b o~pectocr 10 ondango, tho ltte or physical saf~1y of an lndMdual 0 OTHER isoecity) f PART I1.B ** Oi:NYING Oi=FICIALS Pursuanl to 10 CFR 9.25(~) 9.25fh] , andi,o r 9.65/b) of the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations it has bee., detarmin<Jd tr.at the mformatio,, wlthhe d Is exempl from 01oouction or dIs:::csur: . and that Its oroducuon or drsclosure Is contrarv to me publr:

interest The oerson responsible fo: tne deniai are those offl-:;ials ioentli1ed oetow as denyino officials and ths r'OIAl?A Office r fo- any denials that may be appealed\:) Iha Executive D1re:to: ior Ooeratbn s IEDOJ.

• I A0 P:LL;,-;;: :,==1: 1, .*

Dc: NYING OFFICIAL TITLc/OFFICE R: CORDS DENlc:CI EDO SE:~ '"7('"

Joseph A . M,Mi lian !OIG*Asst. ln sp~:to: General for ln vesti!!' ations 1FOIA- 2fl L~-0l06 all records iO,...... Li 'I'/

I i ' I LJ, n

~ I

~

.A.ppsal must be made in writing within 30 cays of receipt of th is rasoor.ss . Apoea ls should be malled to the =OIA/Privacy A~ Offic;.-,

U.S. Nucisar Re~ulatory Comm ission , Washington . DC 20555-000 , for a:tIon by the appropr.ate appellate ofitcral\s ). You shouic' clea rl y sta(e on I 9 eIwalope and letter that It Is a "FOIA/?A Appea, "

Vrahoretis, Susan From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Mond ay, June 03, 2013 2:16 PM To: Vrahoretis, Susan

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013 -0008 nd 2013-0106 Great! Thanks for the update.

Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 2:11 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Kristy, (b)(5)

' us11n U 11 Lega l rfi ' 11 Iii Oil

• M fart 11 Unite, tear Regu latory oinmi i n ornce l*-1111Lil : u,w1.Vnihore1is/i111rc g y I ( llkl.l: ( 0 1)4 15-1 20 I From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:11 PM To: Vrahoretls, Susan

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Thank you!

Kri ty Kristy Remsburg

Office of the Secretory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office; 301*415-1667 From: Vrahoretis, Susan Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 3:01 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Bates, Andrew

Subject:

RE: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013*0106 Thanks, Susan From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 1:07 PM To: Vrahoretls, Susan Cc: Vietti-Cook, Annette; Bates, Andrew

Subject:

FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 H1 Susan, Forwarding this to you re: FOIA 2013-0008.

Thanks,

~

Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From: Vietti-COOk, Annette Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:46 PM To: Remsburg, Kristy Cc: Mike, Linda; Bates, Andrew

Subject:

FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 What is the first Item she 1s referring to?

From: Sealing, Donna Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 11:30 AM To: Dave Lochbaum (Q.Lo- hba1,1m~vGilsa.org)

Cc: Ash, Darren

Subject:

FW: Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 Mr. Lochbaum, I'd like to provide you an update on the status of the FOIA requests you addressed in your May 23. 2013 e-mail to Mr Ash.

2

FOIA/PA 2013-0008. We are still coordinating the release of this document with the Office of the Secretary. Please be advised that as soon as we receive a releasability determination regarding the record we will provide a response to you.

FOIA/PA 2013-0106: This request was closed on April 1, 2013. The OIG withheld the records in their entirety under Exemption 7A due to their ongoing investigation. A scanned copy of our response is attached.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions regarding these requests.

Donna Sealing (301 ) 41 5-5804 From: Dave Lochbaum [mailto:DLochbaum@ucsusa.org)

Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:51 PM To: Aslh, Darren

Subject:

Appeal regarding FOIAs 2013-0008 and 2013-0106 May 23, 2013 Darren Ash Deputy Executive Director for Corporate Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Dear Mr. Ash:

NRC website http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ foia/foia-privacy.html designates you as the NRC Chief FOIA Officer. I am communicating with you in that capacity.

On October 9, 2012, I submitted a FOIA request to the NRC that was accepted that day and assigned no.

FOIAIPA-2013-0008. J requested a single record and identified its dJate. its author, and its addressee. As of thi s morning, I still have not received that record. Prior to February 6, 2013, I contacted the FOIA officer and was told that this single document had been obtained and had gone to the Commission for determination whether it could be released and, if so, under what conditions. The FOIA officer offered to released other records in the meantime with partial responses. I was confused by this offer because J'd requested a single letter and envisioned partial releases being words or sentences thereof. By letters dated February 6, 2013, February 20, 2013, and April 9, 2013, I received Partial Responses I, 2, and 3 respectively. They turned out to be some of the documents listed as references to the single letter I requested. But I've sti ll not received that single letter or determination why it is being witW1eld.

On February 6, 2013, I submitted a FOIA request to the NRC 1hat was accepted that day and assigned no.

FOIA/PA-2013-001106. I sought emails to/from an NRC staffer regarding a specific subject matter. As of this morning, this request remains open.

The aforementioned NRC website states this disclaimer:

"Due Lo the high volume of FOIA requests received as a result of the unexpected evems in Japan, response times to requests may be longer than normal." My calendar shows me that the "unexpected events" in Japan occurred more than two full years ago, not recently. The NRC's ability to hid behind this excuse seems to have faded a long time ago.

I am appealing to you to take whatever actions are needed to get me the records I requested as provided fo r by the FOIA law.

As to the basis for this appeal, I call your attention to a recent court decision available online at 3

ht1p* \\\\\\ t: 111.f

• Pl>f !. I \.'!Ml CR  ::01o~hl lllllllli,,1011.:r!'.0 0:!0l 11m.-:-p111JJ\.*m:c- o:!iJ Op1111!.!!.)_J_ ({ I \\

,, 11 ( r'-' cu111.."V2)1di.:nLC' Ul' l11Lt1it (l.f 2 :!013.pd1'.11\11.:d11 I The NRC did promptl) acknowledge my FOIA requests. But I call your attention to the lexl in the parugruph at the top of page 11 of this court decision:

"The statutory requirement would not make a lot of sense it: as the FEC argues. the agency were merely required to stale within 20 v.orking days its future intent to eventually produce documt:nts and claim exemptions."

And I call your attention to the text at the bottom of page I I:

"Under the FEC's theory, an agency could respond to a request within 20 working days in tcnns not susceptible to immediate administrative panel - by simply stating, in essence, that it will produce documents and claim exemptions over withheld documents in the future. Then the agency could process the request at its lei *ure, free from any timclines.

Sound familiar? It sounds all too familiar to me, substituting RC for f l:C and leaving all the rest the same.

I calI your attention to the court's language in the first paragraph on page 16:

"As to actual production, FOIA requires that the agency make the records "promptly available," which depending on the circumstances typically would mean within days or a few weeks of a "determination," not months or years."

Produce documents within days or a few v.ceks, not months or years -- that's what this court ruled agencies are required to do to satisfy their legal obligations under FOi/\.

In FOi NPA-2013-0008, I sought a single r~ord. I requested that record on October 9, 2012 -- 226 days ago or 32 weeks ago or 7.5 months ago. I have not received the single record I requested.

4

FOIA/PA-20 13-0106 was submitted on February 6, 2013 -- 106 da sago or 15 w ek ago or 3.5 months ago. I have not received any records yet.

I appeal to you to rectify this matter as promptly as possible.

It certainly appears to me that the R is not meeting its legal obligations under the FOIA law. I have blindcopied the NR ' Office of the Inspector General on this email to make them aware of this apparent NRC wrongdoing.

incerely, David Loc hbaum Director, Nuclear afety Project Union of Concerned cientisl PO Box 15316 Chattanooga, TN 37415 423 468-9272 office (b)( l cell 5

Remsburg, Kristy From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Wednesday, June OS, 2013 8:21 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

Q.E: FOIA PA-2013-0008 and Appeal 2013-00lSA Attachments: AMM response_FOIA-13-0008_6 3 13.pdf; NRC 496A SECY referral appeal 2013-00lSA.pdf; NRC 496A 2013-0008 SECY referral.pdf Pat only sent the memo. The memo was addressed lo you so you should get a response from the office I assume, but I'll send what I have.

From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:11 AM To: Kilgore, Linda

Subject:

RE: FOIA PA-2013-0008 and Appeal 2013-0015A Did she forward the original referral package also? If so , I need a copy of the referral sheet withe response and memo please.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. N.uclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301 -415-1667 From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7:13 AM To: FOIAPASECY Resource Cc: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA PA-2013-0008 and Appeal 2013-00lSA Good morning, Thanks Linda

(b)(5)

NRC FORM'96A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA

{ 0-2012) 20 13-0008 NUMBER REFERRAL RELATED TO FOIA/PA REQUEST DATE 0 INITIAL REQUEST D APPEAL 0 )/25/2013 OFFICE TO: FOIA COORDINATOR -- Kristy Remsburg y TELEPHONE FROM: FOIA/PA SPECIALIST - Linda !Kilgore (30 I) 415-5775 We are referring the record(s) identified below or on the attached list for appropriate action, as noted. Please complete the actions indicated and return this referral and the record(s) to this office within 10 days of your receipt of this referral. If you have any questions regarding this matter. telephone the FOIAIPA Specialist.

D Provide your office's concurrence or nonconcurrence in the The subject request has been appealed for initial denial of recordlsl.

originating office's recommendations for disclosure or A copy of the appeal. denial response (with bracl(etea recora(s)) and withholding for each identified record . lnltlal request are attached. Please have your office conduct another review of each appealed record and provide a new disclosure Provide a disclosure determination/recommendation for each determination/recommendation or reaffirm the Initial determination.

record which was identified by another office as a record for which your office is responsible and which is subject to this request.

The subject request has been appealed for lack of response.

Plea:;e provide a prompt re:;pon5e to the initial FOIA request or LJ The attached record(&) and/or bracketed nformatlon was referred to the NRC for review by another agency advise when a response may be expected and explain the reasons for the delay. A copy of the appeal and initial request are attached.

The subject request has been appealed for adequacy of search.

Please have your office conduct anolher search for records 0 Records that you provided this office In response to the FOIA request are being returned to you for furtther review/ responsive to this FOIA. A copy of the appeal letter Is attached to assist you in your search for additional records.

clarification for reasons noted in the COMMENTS section below.

The subject request has been appealed for initial dernial of fee waiver.

A copy of the appeal, denial, and Initial request are attached. When The enclosed records are being returned because they were determined to be outside the scope of this request, or the the appeal response has been signed, please forward it to the request was administratively dosed without providing records FOiAIPA Section for dispatch to the requester.

to the requester.

The subject request has beer) appealed for initial det11ial of record(s)

A copy of the appeal, denial response (with bracketed record(s)) and Complete NRC Form 496, "Report of Sta:ff Resources for Processing FOIA requests ." Initial reqtJJest are attached. \II/hen the appeal response has been signed, please forward it to the FOIA/PA Section for dispatch to the requester.

Other required action as noted in the COMMENTS section below.

If you have 11ny que. lions, pica c contact me. Thank , Linda OFFICE RESPONSE SIGNATURE - FOIA COORDINATOR CATE NRC FORM 496A (10-2012)

NRC FORM 496A U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA 110-20121 2013-00ISA NUMBER REFERRAL RELATED TO FOIA/PA REQUEST DATE INITIAL REQUEST [Z] APPEAL 05 . 0/201 OFFICE TO: FOIA COORDINATOR - Kristy Rem burg SE Y TELEPHONE FROM: FOIA/PA SPECIALIST - Linda Kilgore (30 1)4 15-5775 We are referring lhe record(s) identified below or on the attached list for appropriate action, as noted, Please complete the actions indicated and return this referral and the record(s) to this office within 10 days of your receipt of this referral. If you have any questions regarding this matter, telephone the FOINPA Specialist.

Provide your office's concurrence or nonconcurrence in the The subject request has been appealed for Initial denial of record s .

origin ting office's recommendations for disclosure or A copy of the pp al, denial response (with rac e e recor (s and withholding for each identified record . initial request are attached. Please have your office conduct another review of each appealed record and provide new disclosure Provide a disclosure determination/recommendation for each determlna,tlonlrecommendallon or reaffirm the Initial determination.

record which was dentified by another office as a record for which your office Is re ponsible and which Is subject to this requesL The subject request has been appealed for lack of response.

Please provide a prompt respons to the Initial FOIA request or The attached record(s) and/or bracketed information was referred to the NRG for review by another agency advise when a response may be expected and explain lhe reasons for the de ray, A copy of the appeal and initial request are attached.

The subject request has been appealed for adequacy of search, Please have your office conduct another search for records Records that you provided this office In response to the FOIA request are being returned to you for further review/ responsive to this FOIA. A copy of the appeal letter is attached to clariflcallon for reasons noted In the COMMENTS section ass st you In your search for additional records.

below, The subject request has been appealed for initial denial of fee waiver.

A copy of the appeal, denial, and lnllial request are anached When The enclosed records are being returned because they were determined to be outside the scope of this request, or the the appeal response has been signed, please forward tt to the request was adminlstratlvely closed without providing records FOIA/PA Section for dispatch to the requester.

to the requester.

The subjeci request has been appealed for Initial denial of ecord s .

A copy of the appeal, denial response (with rac ete recor (s ) and Complete NRC Form 496, "Report of Staff Resources for Processing FOIA requests." Initial request are attached . When the appeal response has been signed, please forward it to the FOIA/PA Section for dispatch to the requester, Other required action as noted In the COMMENTS section below.

COMMENTS/DESCRIPTION OF REFERRED RECORDS A referral for re-review of 20 13-0008 was cnt to F. Y on 1/25/13. Meanwhile, we provided the respons1.-s per aining to all other items. o date we haven I received a response from the office regarding the ow the requ ter has filed an appeal for lack of response (20 l 3-00 I SA) becaus h hos not yet received all the records. A copy of the appeal and initial request is enclosed.

ll'you have m1y questions, plea e contact me. Thanks, Linda OFFICE RESPONSE SIGNATURE ** FOIA COORDINATOR DATE NRC FORM 496A (10-2012)

Remsburg, Kristy From: Kilgorre, Linda Sent: Wednesday, June OS, 2013 12:17 PM To: Remsbu rg, Kristy

Subject:

RE: FOIA PA-2013 -0008 and Appeal 2013 -00lSA - question re 6/3 memo re record 2 Attachments: AMM response_FOIA 0008_6 3 13.pdf; 9-18-12 letter.pdf Importance: High Hi Kristy, Thanks so much, Linda From: Remsburg, Kristy Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:37 AM To: KIigore, Linda

Subject:

RE: FOIA PA-2013-0008 and Appeal 2013-0015A Thank you Linda . I haven't gotten it yet from Susan.

• Thank you for closing us out for 0008 and 001 SA.

Have a great day!

Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office: 301-415-1667 From: Kilgore, Linda Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 8:21 AM To: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

RE: FOIA PA-2013-0008 and Appeal 2013-0015A

Pat only sent the memo. The memo was addressed to you so you should get a response from the office I assume, but I'll send what I have.

From: Remsburg, Kristy ,

Sent: Wednesday, Jun 05, 2013 8:11 AM To: Kilgore, Linda

Subject:

RE: FOIA PA-2013*0008 and Appeal 2013-00lSA Did she forward the orig inal referra l package also? If so, I need a copy of the referral sheet withe response and memo please.

Thanks, Kristy Kristy Remsburg Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office

• 301 -415-1667 From: Kflgore, Linda Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2013 7: 13 AM To: FOlAPASECY Resource Cc: Remsburg, Kristy

Subject:

FOIA PA-2013-0008 and Appeal 2013-00lSA

~ FROFAIA§,

Thanks Linda 2

,Beas!.,ey, Benjamin From: Criscione,La11UTence Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:25 PM To; Macfarlane, AOison: clemer@osc.gov: Bell, Hubert; Lee, David; Zobler, Marian; Wiggins, Jim Cc: matt_buckham@demint.senate.gov; homeland.security@mail.house.gov:

mlchael.kiko@mail.house.gov; peter.spencer@mail.house.gov; vaferie_manak@epw.senate.gov; nathan_mccray@epw.senate.gov; devon.hill@mail.house.gov; gracela.tatane@mall.house.gov; stephen.salsbury@mail.house.gov; ]im_mcgee@hsgac.senate.gov; marty.gelfand@mall.house.gov; vic.edgerton@mall.house.gov; mlchal.freedhoff@mall.house.gov: Bernhard, Rudolph; Ferrante, Fernando; Hanna, John; Kanney, Joseph; Kozak, Laura; Loveless, David; Marksberry, Don; Mitman, Jeffrey: Passehl, Dave; Schmidt, Wayne; Vaughn, Stephen; Wood, Jeffery; Zoulis, Antonlos; Galloway, Melanie; Giitter, Joseph; Leeds. Eric; Wilson, George; Perkins, Richard; Bens!, Michelle; Philip, Jacob; Sancaktar, Selim; Ottenberg, Geoffrey; EUis, Kevin; Beasley, Benjamin:

Demoss. Gary. Coyne, Kevin; Coe, Doug; Correia, Richard

Subject:

Inadequately Sized Flood Wall at Oconee Nuclear Station Could Lead to Fukushima Scenario in the Event o( a Failure of the Lake Jocassee Dam Attachments; Jocassee Dam Failure Concerns.pd!; References.pdf Chairman Macfarlane, Please see the attached letter. I apologize for its length but it is written for a broad audience and concerns some technically complex Issues with six years of regulatory background.

The risk that a core meltdown will occur at the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) ls ten times greater than at similarly designed US reactor plants and the risk of a containment breach leading to slgnlflcam public dose ls 500 times greater.

ONS lies eleven mlles downstream of the Lake Jocassee Dam. Since 2006 the NRC has known of a harrowing liability: a failure of Jocassee Dam would lead to all three reactors at ONS melting down within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> and a potential breach of the containment buildings within 68 hours7.87037e-4 days <br />0.0189 hours <br />1.124339e-4 weeks <br />2.5874e-5 months <br />. This Is very similar to the events which occurred at Fukushima Dal-lchi In 2011.

I am not directly involved with this issue. My involvement stems from concerns of a co-worker that serious safety concerns regarding ONS are being Illegally withheld from the public under the guise of "Security-Related Information".

My knowledge of this issue comes entirely from a cursory review of documents in ADAMS. From that review it is clear that:

• Despite knowing about the significant risk posed by a failure of Jocassee Dam since 2006, no efforts have yet been taken to substantially lower those risks. Although interim actions are being taken at Duke Energy, they are not of a nature that significantly lowers the risks to a par with typical US reactor plants.

• Most of the documents pertaining to this safety concern are not publicly available due to being stamped "Security-Related Information#. However, none of these documents discuss security topics at all. Terrorism, sabotage, vandalism or any other Intruder or insider threat are not mentioned. These documents deal wholly with the failure of Jocassee Dam due to natural phenomena or latent engineering/construction flaws.

• The annual risk of core damage at ONS is on the order of lE-4/ year and the annual risk of core damage followed by containment failure is on the order of lE*S/year.

The Items below are also apparent from the documents I have reviewed, although It is possible these Items have been done and I have merely not located the documents affirming them:

1. After six yea rs, the NRC does not have an accurate risk model of ONS which takes into account the liabilities posed by a failure of Jocassee Dam.

2. After six years, the NRC does not have an accurate assessment of the probability that ONS operators can prevent a containment failure in the 49 to 58 hours6.712963e-4 days <br />0.0161 hours <br />9.589947e-5 weeks <br />2.2069e-5 months <br /> between the recession of the flood waters and the failure of the containment structures.

3. The original due date for constructing adequate flood protection was November 30, 2011. After the Fukushima Dai-ichl accident, Instead of being prioritized this due date has been extended to 2016. That's ten years after we first became aware of the liability.

Please note that the above three items are conjecture on my part as I have not been involved in any of the NRC discussions concerning this issue and it is likely there are many documents In ADAMS which I failed to find and review.

However, from the documents I have reviewed, it is apparent to me that the above statements are true. The technical staff involved in this issue (i,.e. whose names appear on the ADAMS documents) are Eric Leeds, Joseph Giitter, Melanie Galloway, George Wilson, Jeff Mitman as. well as others. I have not spoken to any of these people other than Jeff .

Mitman and my short conversation with Jeff last Thursday was merely to get an understanding of the current status of

• the Jocassee Dam/ONS flood protection ilssue (i.e. I didn't want to bother writing to you if they have broken ground and actually started installing adequate flood protection). These individuals should be able to inform you of the specifics of the Jocassee Dam issue. I have copied them on this email and encourage them to inform you of any items in my letter which a re not accurate. It is not my intent to misrepresent anybody, but being an outsider on this issue it is possible that I have.

The purpose of the attached letter is to (1) bring to your attention the issues regarding Jocassee Dam, (2) inform our congressional oversight committees of concerns I have that the NRC is not addressing the liabilities at ONS In a timely manner, and (3) bring to your attention that I support Richard Perkins' allegation that the issues surrounding Jocassee Dam have been inappropriately categorized as "Security-Related Information" .

Although as an agency we tend to refer to them in the same breath, security and safety are separate issues. All manmade structures, no matter how well built, can be destroyed by some level of terrorist action if left unprotected.

The solutions to terrorist threats are security measures that assess the credible threat and that guard access to critical areas sufficient to the assessed threat level. Construction margins and "defense-in-depth" modifications are the solutions to safety concerns not security concerns The issues regarding Jocassee Dal'T) are about construction margins -

that is, is the dam constructed to typical margins supporting a 2.BE-4/year failure rate) or to some type of exceptional margins. They have nothing to do with the necessity of whether or not security measures need to be taken to avert a terrorist threat. It the fact that ONS lies 11 miles downstream of Jocassee Dam makes it a security liability, then separate from the safety concerns discu,ssed in my letter the NRC and the Department of Homeland Security need tc secretively address security measures to protect the dam. After six years it is unacceptable to withhold vital safety liabilities from public disclosure solely because there may have been a possibility of a security threat. If there is a security vulnerability, then I would hope that it was addressed within months of us becoming aware of this issue in 2006. If anyone within the NRC believes there is still an unaddressed security liability, then separate from the safety solutions (e.g. building an adequately sized flood wall) the NRC should be e*nsuring that appropriate protective measures are in place to protect Jocassee Dam - merely withholding basic information regarding nuclear safety from public view is not the way to address a security threat.

V/r, Lawrence S. Criscione, PE NRC/RES/DRA/OEGIB 573-230-3959

September 18, 2012 1412 Dial Court Springfield, IL 62704 Chairman Allison Macfarlane US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail stop O-16G4 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Dr. Macfarlane:

Admiral Rickover served 63 years as an officer in the United States Navy- longer t han any o ther naval officer in US history and possibly longer than any US government employee. He spent the last half of his career developing the nuclear powered submarine force and commercial nuclear power. He was more experienced than anyone else with regard to the functioning of the United States' military, industrial and governmental institutions when, In 1982, he gave a speech at Columbia University in which he noted:

A major flaw in our system of government, and even in industry, ls the latitude to do less than is necessary. Too often officials ore willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong. The tendency is to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them.

On M arch 11, 2011 an earthquake and tsunami struck the Japanese nuclear facilities at Fukushima Dai-ichi. The flood walls built to protect the reactor plants were too short and the 49 foot wave that hit the plants took out the em ergency electric power. With no way to remove decay heat, over the next several days heat built up in the reactor cores until it melted the fuel, breached the steel reactor vessels, and eventually breached the containment buildings.

The utility owner - TEPCO - was aware of analyses that showed their tsunami walls were not adequately sized. But in t he spirit of Admiral Rickover's quot e, they were willing to accept and downplay situations they knew to be wrong instead of actively trying to correct them.

Why did the utility behave so i rresponsibly? Because it is human nature to focus on Immediate problems and to delay addressing "what if's". And a 49 foot tsunami was a very low probability "what if".

Please note that the reactors .at Fukushima survived both the earthquake and the tsunami. The reactors t hemse lves did not start to fail until hours later. It was the support syst ems for providing emergency cooling to the reactors which were destroyed in the earthquake.

In Oconee County, South Carolina there are three reactor plants in a plain downstream of the Jocassee Lake Dam. These reactors and their containment buildings are designed to withstand floods, tornados and earthquakes. But are their support systems?

About four times a day, each reactor at Oconee produces the equivalent energy as released in t he atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But unlike that A-bomb, instead of releasing this energy in less than a nanosecond, the equivalent energy release occurs over a six hour period allowing plant systems to remove the energy and convert It to electricity.

Following a reactor shutdown, the reactors at Oconee still produce a significant amount of energy due to the inventory of radioactive wast e nuclides stored in their cores. The energy released over the first three days is equivalent to roughly a tenth of the energy released at Hiroshima. As long as this energy is removed, there is no problem. But what if it cannot be removed? What if it builds up in the reactor cores and cont ainment buildings? Then, j ust like at Fukushima, t his energy will! cause the fuel to melt and the containment buildings to breach.

Unlike Fukushima, the fallout of radionuclides released during this accident will not mostly blow out to sea - depending on the wind they will blow towards Knoxville, Charlotte, Colum bia, Atlanta or Huntsville. Any which way they get blown, these radionuclides will fall out over agricultural lands.

The Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) is equipped with a Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) which conta ins the emergency equipment necessary to remove the decay heat during an emergency.

Just like at Fukushima, this equ ipment is protected from flooding by a flood wall, and just like at Fukushima that flood wall is Inadequately sized.

A five foot flood wall was installed around the Standby Shutdown Facility in 1984 based on an assessment that, were Jocassee Dam to fail, t he SSF would experience flood levels of 4.71 f eet .

However, according to the NRC's publicly available April 28, 2006 inspection report on Oconee:

...a December 10, 1992 Jocassee Dam Failure Inundation Study (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Project No. 2503) predicted that a Jocassee Dam failure could result in flood waters of approximately 12.5 to 16.8 feet deep at the Oconee Nuclear Site.

2

So by 1993 Duke Energy was aware that their flood wall at Oconee was 7 to 11 feet too short.

And just like TEPCO, they adapted to a situation they knew to be wrong and, instead of actively correcting the inadequately sized flood wall, they worked to downplay the problem .

On August 13, 2003 the flood wall around Oconee's Standby Shutdown Facility was breach ed in order to run a "temporary" cable. Seven hundred twenty days later (on 2005-08-03) this breach was finally corrected two months after it had been brought to the attention of the plant by the NRC's resident inspector (on 2005-06-02).

The breach of the flood wall caused the NRC Resident Inspectors at Oconee to look into the licensing basis for the flood wall and to become aware of the 1992-12-10 inundation study. The issue eventually was referred to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR).

On August 15, 2008 the Division of Operating Reactor Licensing (NRR/DORL) sent a letter to Duke Energy requesting "additional information regarding external flooding of the Oconee site, including the consequences of a Jocassee Dam failure." At this point, it appears DORL was refusing to accept a situation they suspected to be wrong and refusing to allow Duke Energy the latitude to do less than is necessary.

For reasons unknown to me, the* 2008-08-15 letter from NRR/DORL to Duke Energy has the following markings:

Limited Interna l Distribution Permitted Official Use Only - Security-Related Information There is nothing in the letter which is classified with regard to national security. There is nothing in the letter which is Safeguards. There is no discussion in the letter about any security related topics. In fact, an electronic word search of the letter only finds the word "security" in the "Security-Related Information" markings.

Why is this document for "Official Use Only"? Why is it "Security-Related Information"? Why is only "Limited Internal Distribution Permitted"? I* see nothing in the 2008-08-15 letter from NRR/DORL to Duke Energy which prevents it from being released to the public. Is "transparency" still something we've committed to?

This is not the only letter regarding Jocassee Dam which NRR has marked as security related. Is there a security concern regarding Jocassee Dam? I have seen nothing in these "security 3

related" letters regarding terrorist t hreats to the dam. All of these letters deal entirely with safety concerns from natural phenomena and latent construction or engineering liabilities.

Duke Energy responded to our 2008-08-15 letter on September 26, 2008. Duke marked its response as "Sensitive Information". Note that t hey do not use the NRC term "Security-Related Information". And just like in t he NRC's 2008-08-15 letter, the word security" does not appear in the Duke 2008-09-26 letter.

However, Duke's letter is without doubt "sensitive information". If I were Duke, I would not want the public to see this information. I would not want the public to know how I allow my nuclear managers the latitude to do less than is necessary, how my corporate officials are willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong, and how my utility succumbs to the tendency to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them. I would be very sensitive about t hese t hings if I were Duke. But I'm not Duke. And neit her are yo u: We're the NRC and as such have an obligation to transparently allow the public to see correspondence with Duke Energy regarding a significant safety concern.

In their 2008-09-26 letter, Duke provides the following scenario and analysis regarding a failure of Jocassee Dam:

Notification from Jocassee would occur before a total failure of the dam; however, for the purposes of this timeline, notification is assumed to be at the time the dam fails.

Following notification from Jocassee, the reactor(s} are shutdown within approximately 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. The predicted flood would reach ONS in approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />, at which time the SSF walls are avertopped. The SSF is assumed to fail, with no time delay, following the flood level exceeding the height of the SSF wall. The failure scenario results are predicted such that core damage occurs in about 8 to 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> following the dam break and containment failure in about 59 to 68 hours7.87037e-4 days <br />0.0189 hours <br />1.124339e-4 weeks <br />2.5874e-5 months <br />. When containment failure occurs, significant dose to the public would result.

The scenario description above does not acknowledge that the postulated flood arrives at the sffe and then recedes rather quickly. In the above scenario, ONS is no longer flooded approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> after the onset of initial flooding (10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> following failure of the dam). At this point, recovery actions can begin to mitigate the loss of AC power and thus extend the time to a potential containment breach.

4

With regard to the first paragr aph, please note that core damage occurs in about 8 to 9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> following the dam break and containment failure in about 59 to 68 hours7.87037e-4 days <br />0.0189 hours <br />1.124339e-4 weeks <br />2.5874e-5 months <br />. Also note Duke's assertion that when containment failure occurs, significant dose to the public would result.

With regard to the second paragraph, Duke appears to be suggesting that reinforcements can be sent to the plant and possibly restore equipment before containment failure. Consider the environment they will be working in though. The dam failure will not just impact the nuclear station. Roads and bridges could be washed away or blocked with downed trees and utility poles. A General Emergency will be declared at the nuclear station which will trigger an evacuation of the area. And of course the evacuation of these citizens will be severely impacted by the poor road conditions and the search and rescue operations being conducted due to the flood.

The good news, however, is the " nuclear side of this event will likely not result In any loss of life. Imminent deaths might possibly result from the dam failure, but just like at Fukushima th e nuclear aspect of the incident should be entirely contained to lost property - at least on the "tangible" side.

But probably more tragic than the tangible loss of property are the intangibles. Three reactors melting down and breaching their containments will affect nuclear utilities worldwide. Our nuclear navy, which so far has been unaffected by any loss of public confidence concerning Chernobyl and Fukushima, would likely not be so lucky were an event to occur in the US. And consider "acceptable" levels of radioactive fallout in Columbi a, Charleston or Atlanta. What will that do to home prices? What will it do to local economies? How will it affect people's mental health? Will textile manufacturers want to buy cotton from even minimally contaminated areas? Will cigarette companies buy tobacco from these areas? Will anyone buy their produce and grains? Their hogs and chickens?

Also in their 2008-09-26 Duke Energy states that they do not consider the failure of Jocassee Dam to be a credible event for which the Oconee Nuclear Station must be protected against:

When considering the overall performance history of modern rock-fill dams, there is no evidence to suggest thot a Jocassee dam failure is credible.

There are two general methods for determining "adequate protection" at nuclear plants:

determ inistic and probabilistic. The deterministic method assumes one piece of equipment fails and analyzes whether the remaining equipment can prevent core damage. Per the quote on the previous page, Duke En ergy's deterministic assessment is that a failure of Jocassee Dam 5

Human experience shows that people, not organizations or management systems, get things done.

When she received Mr. Giitter's letter, Ms. Galloway recognized that in the letter we were allowing Duke Energy the latitude to do less than what is, necessary. By his letter, we were accepting and adapting to situations we knew to be wrong. We were succumbing to the human tendency to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them. Ms Galloway also recognized that the organizations and management systems within the NRC were not getting done what needed to be done. So she, as a capable and concerned nuclear professional - not due to her significant position in the organization as a deputy division director but merely as a person determined to get things done - filed a Non-Concurrence form with the hope of revising Mr. Giitter's letter into something that actually required Duke Energy to take actions to protect its Standby Shutdown Facility from potential inundation from flood waters in the event of a failure of Jocassee Dam.

In her Non-Concurrence Ms. Galloway provides the following background information:

• No other potential initiating event at Oconee is as risk significant. The probability of core damage from a Jocassee Dam failure is three times higher than the sum total probability of core damage from all initiating events. Duke has acknowledged that, given a Jocassee Dam failure with subsequent site inundation, all three Oconee units will go to core damage; that is, given a dam failure, the conditional core damage probability (CCDP} is 1.0. Thus, for a Jocassee Dam failure frequency of 2£-4, there is o conditional core damage frequency {CCDF} of 2.0E-4 (CCDF = IEF X CCDP}.

• For a Jocassee Dam failure, using potentially optimistic assumptions, Duke estimates that containment will foll approximately 59 to 68 hours7.87037e-4 days <br />0.0189 hours <br />1.124339e-4 weeks <br />2.5874e-5 months <br /> after dam failure without mitigating actions.

• Under the dam break conditions, resultant flood waters and infrastructure damage would affect public evacuation and potentially affect Emergency Operations Facility response capability. Duke has not demonstrated that its radiological emergency plan actions can be adequately implemented under these conditions.

As already mentioned, Melanie Galloway was the Deputy Director of the Division of Risk Assessment in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Hence, the language she used in her Non-Concurrence were the terms of risk professionals; for example: "given a dam failure, the conditional core damage probability (CCDP} is 1.0".

7

Conditional Core Damage Probability (CCDP} is the probability that, given a specific event , the ci rcumstances of the event will lead to damage of the reactor core. Like all probabilities, (CDP must be a number between O and 1. A value of "O" means that given only that specific event there is no chance that core damage w ill occur. A value of "l" means that given that specific event (e.g. a failure of Jocassee Dam) then core damage will certainly occur. For most initiating events {e.g. tornados, loss of offsite power, fires) the CCDP is typically a very small fraction on the order of one t en thousandth to one t enth. "1.0" might not sound big, but it's enormou.s.

The point of the last sentence of Ms. Galloway' s first bullet is that, since core damage is a certainty given a failure of Jocassee Dam, then the probability that all three reactors at Oconee will melt down is equal to the probability of the failure of Jocassee Dam. Since the p robability of failure of Jocassee Dam failing in any given year is 2E-4, the probability of the three readors at ONS melting down is 2E-4 in any given year. As a point of reference, this is a number that is about ten t imes higher than at a typical US nuclear reactor plant. How ever, the risks at Oconee are actually much worse than that due to the uncertainty about containment failure.

A nominal va lue for the probability of containment failure at US Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs) is l E-2 or 0.01. In other words, containment's survivability is nominally 99% at a US PWR. However, does anyone believe there Is a 99% chance that, after the f lood waters recede, Duke Energy will be able to restore cooling to their flood damaged facilities? Although they do have 49 to 58 hours6.712963e-4 days <br />0.0161 hours <br />9.589947e-5 weeks <br />2.2069e-5 months <br />, <eep in mind that the Infrastructure will have been significantly damaged by the flood waters. There will likely be washouts at roads and bridges and obst ructions from trees and other debris. Having met operators from ONS, I cannot discount their efforts. With luck going their way, there is certainly a chance they can succeed. But I do not have 99%

confidence In them. The operators at Fukushima weren't successful at It.

What Is your confidence in them? If you asked NRR, what would they tell you t heir confidence is? I may be wrong, but I don'lt think NRR has an official position on it. I have see n no estimates in any of the documents I have reviewed . But this is an extremely important number. It is what separates Three M ile Island from Fukushima. At Three Mile Island t he containment structure did not fail whereas at Fukushima at least one of them did. After knowing about this problem fo r over 6 years, it is negligent for the NRC to not possess a formal est imate of the probability that following a failure of Jocassee Dam the ONS employees will be able to restore h eat removal prior to containment failure. Please not e that I am not accusing NRR of negligence because, for all I know, this probability has been analyzed by the NRC and I have just not been able to locate it. However, if NRR cannot provide you a formal estimate at this point (i.e. 6 years after knowing about the ONS issue and 18 months after Fukushima) then they have been n egligent in their dut ies.

8

As feared by Ms. Galloway, the latitude provided by Mr. Giitter's 2009-04-30 letter resulted in further attempts by Oconee to downplay the problem of its inadequately sized flood wall.

By February 2010, the issues regarding Jocassee Dam and the SSF flood wall were still not yet addressed. George Wilson, the NRC's Dam Safety Officer in the Office of Nuclea r Reactor Regulation, was concerned with what he was experiencing regarding Oconee. Mr. Wilson observed that the root of the problem with Oconee was a combination of (1) overlooked items during initial plant licensing and (2) a change in knowledge regarding plant hazards. In the case of Oconee, when the reactors were licensed in the early 1970's it was ove~looked that they required protection from a failure of Jocassee Dam. As knowledge regarding plant hazards improved, it was recognized in the 1980's that a flood wall was required to protect Oconee's Standby Shutdown Facility. However, the flood height was only estimated to be 4.71 feet. As modeling and assessment procedures improved, it was recognized in the 1990's that the 5 foot flood wall was not adequate*. Mr. Wilson had concerns that similar problems might exist at other nuclear facilities and used the Oconee/Jocassee Issue as the basis for a memo requesting a Generic Issue on flooding from upstream dam failures.

Although M r. Wilson's February 2010 memo was nominally sufficient to implement a Generic Issue, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) requested additional Information. On July 19, 2010 the Division of Risk Assessment of NRR (NRR/DRA) submitted a memo to the Division of Risk Assessment of RES (RES/DRA) requesting a Generic Issue on flooding hazards due to upstream dam failures.

This memo exists in the Agencywlde Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession Number ML101900305. Like all the other documents produced by NRR regarding Jocassee Dam, this memo is stamped "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information". And like all the other documents, there are no security issues discussed anywhere in the document. The document entirely concerns safety risks associated with natural phenomena or latent hazards resulting from flaws in construction and/or enginee ring.

In August 2010 RES/ORA assembled a team which began producing a screening report for evaluating whether or not there was strong enough basis for generating a Generic Issue.

Meanwhile, NRR' s sparring with Oconee over Jocassee Dam continued. On March 15, 2010 NRR/ DRA completed a study of the Jocassee Dam and analyzed it against other large dams in order to determine a reasonable annual failure probability. Again, like all NRR documents concerning a failure of Jocassee Dam, this study was marked "Security-Related Informat ion" despite being solely concerned with the failure of Jocassee Dam due to environmental 9

phenomena and latent construction/engineering issues. No mention is made of terrorism, sabotage or vandalism. The fact that the Oconee Nuclear Station sits 11 miles downstream of Jocassee Dam is not mentiorned in the report. In fact, the report neither mentions Oconee Nuclear Station, Duke Energy, Oconee County, core damage, radioactivity nor any other indication that a breach of Jocassee Dam could lead to a nuclear accident.

The annual failure probability of Jocassee Dam that was calculated by the study was about 2.SE-4/year. That equates to: a 0.00025 probability, a 0.025% chance, or a chance of 1 in 4000 years.

What exactly is 4000 years? Four thousand years ago Rome was just an outpost along the Neolithic salt trade routes. Wolves still roamed her Seven Hills. Lions roamed the hillside where in a later millennium the Athenians would build the Parthenon. It was before Alexander, Socrates, Homer and even Achilles. The ancestors of Abraham were still eating bacon and living In Ur. Four thousand years is a long time - it is a Biblical length of time. An annual failure probability of 2.SE-4/year suggests that in this 4000 year expanse of history QM external event (e.g. a "5000-year" paleoflood, an earthquake) capable of triggering mechanisms leading to the failure of Jocassee Dam might have occurred in northwest South Carolina.

Compare this to the annual failure probability which Duke Energy uses: l.3E-S/year. That equates to : a 0.000013 probability, a 0.0013 chance, or a chance of 1 In 76923 years.

Seventy-seven thousand years ago modern men had not yet left Africa. Europe was still the domain of mammoths and Neanderthals. South Carolina is not known for its earthquakes and floods, but 77,000 years is a long time - a "Paleolithic length of time. How many risk significant earthquakes and paleofloods have occurred in Oconee County in the last 77,000 years? Duke Energy's numbers suggest only one. The NRC's numbers suggest about 20.

The NRC's annual failure frequency was based on a statistical analysis of all available data on th dams similar to Jocassee. The 5 percentile of their data was l.3E-4/year which is ten times the frequency being used by Duke Energy.

An author of the study pointed out to me that it is quite possible that the failure probability of Jocassee Dam is 1.3E-5/year, b ut from the data he's seen, from the calculations he's done, and from the Duke Energy submittals he's reviewed, he considers Duke's 1.3E-5/year estimate to be indefensible. Although it's possible the Duke number is accurate, the currently available data does not support it. Should we - as an agency - be using a failure probability which was calculated by our own risk experts and which can be defended by the available data, or should 10

we be accepting a failure rate calculated by Duke Energy which is indefensible? It depends: is it our goal to downplay this problem or to actively seek its adequate resolution?

In a June 3, 2010 letter Duke Energy provided the NRC with a summary of fifteen "External Flood Commitments" that it was implementing to mitigate the consequences of a failure of Jocassee Dam. Although all 15 commitments were important actions to take, none of them would have much appreciable impact either on lowering the failure probability of Jocassee Dam or on mitigating the consequences of a failure.

On June 22, 2010 the NRC issued a Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) directing Oconee to:

1. " ...submit to the NRC by August 2, 2010, of/ documenration necessary to demonstrate to the NRC that the inundation of the Oconee site resulting from the failure of the Jocassee Dam has been bounded." Or, in other words, perform a study and determine the worse case credible conditions that could result in a failure of Jocassee Dam.

2. "... submit by November 30, 2010 a list of all modifications necessary to adequately mitigate the inundation... "

3. "... make all necessary modifications by November 30, 2011."

To my knowledge, this letter is the first t ime the NRC gave Duke Energy a date by which they needed to actively try to correct the deficiently sized flood wall. By item 1 above Duke Energy had until 2010-08-02 to determine the highest credible water height that a failure of Jocassee Dam would produce at Oconee. By item 2 Duke Energy had until 2010-11-30 to list what modifications needed to be constructed or installed to protect the Standby Shutdown Facility from the highest credible water height. By item 3 Duke Energy needed to have the modifications completed . This letter is an example of the NRC finally taking away the latitude for Duke Energy to do less than Is necessary to correct a situation they know to be wrong.

Unfortunately the NRC later relaxed their stance and again succumbed to the tendency to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them.

Duke Energy met its 2010-08-02 deadline to provide the NRC with a bounded inundation study.

On November 29, 2010 Duke Energy informed the NRC that they would need more time to compile a list of modifications necessary to adequately mitigate the postulated inundation at Oconee due to a failure of Jocassee Dam. Duke Energy gave themselves a new due date of April 30, 2011 for determining the modifications needed and was silent on whether or not they would get these modifications done by the November 30, 2011 deadline.

11

In January 2011 Eric Leeds was preparing a letter to Oconee concerning the NRC's acceptance of the information contained in Duke Energy's 2010-08-02 Inundation study. Jeff Mitman of NRR/DRA/APOB was on the review chain for Mr. Leeds's letter and filed a Non-Concurrence form against it on 2011-01-10. Mr. Mitman's primary concern was that Duke's analysis was a "sunny day" analysis. For some reason (possibly due to possessing common sense) Mr. Mitman believes that an abnormally large amount of rainfall could Increase the probability of a failure of Jocassee Dam and that the "bounding" case for an inundation study should take the possibllity of dam failure during severe storms into account.

NRR answered Mr. Mitman's concerns in part by saying that an overtopping of Jocassee Dam due to severe rai nfall was not credible. Jocassee Lake has two saddle dikes which are the *same elevation as the top of Jocassee Dam but not as tall. NRR argued reasonably that since t hese saddle dikes are the same height as Jocassee Dam then they would overtop concurrent with Jocassee Dam. Since these saddle dikes are not as well built as Jocassee Dam, NRR postulated they should fail prior to the dam and thereby drain the reservoir by 35 feet at which point water would no longer flow over the main dam. NRR may have a point, but there is something curious about their argument : why is NRR, an office of the I\IRC, making this argument for Duke Energy? It is our role to review and challenge Duke's analysis, not to internally defend it for them. Our focus seems more on downplaying and conceallng the problem Inst ead of act ively working to get Duke Energy to correct it.

On March 10, 2011 the status of the Oconee/Jocassee issue was as follows:

1. In a January 28, 2011 letter to Oconee, Eric Leeds of NRR accepted Oconee's 2010-08-02 inundation study which was based on a "sunny day" failure of Jocassee Dam and did not consider failure modes resultant from severe rainfall or earthquakes.

2. Duke Ener gy had missed Its 2010-11-30 deadline for submitting its list of modifications for adequately protecting the Standby Shutdown Facility at Oconee Nuclear Station from a failure of Jocassee Dam and had committed to, providing this list by 2011-04-30.

3. The screening analysis for a Generic Issue on flooding due to upstream dam failures had been prepared by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research and was in "final draft" form and ready for routing.

On March 11, 2011 the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear complex in Japan was struck by a beyond design basis earthquake and SO minutes later by a 49 foot tsunami which breached its 19 ft seawall. Within a few days, three of the reactor cores at Fukushima Dai-ich i had melted down, breached their reactor vessels and exploded the buildings housing their cont ainments. The NRC recommended a 50 mile evacuation of US citizens from around the site.

12

In the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, we assumed the Fukushima Dai-ichi accidents would be a "big deal" with regard to GI 204 on flooding due to upstream dam failures; yet, incredibly, It still took an additional 10 months for GI 204 to be approved .

Part of the hold up on releasing GI 204 was the fact that many of the references for it (e.g. the correspondence with Duke Energy regarding Jocassee Dam) had been labeled "Security-Related Information" by NRR, but RES could not determine any justification for marking the GI 204 screening report as "Security-Related" since it dealt entirely with safety issues. Every time NRR requested that all "Security-Related Information" be removed from the GI 204 screening report, RES's reply (i.e. the authors) was that nothing in the report was related to security.

Prior to it s release, the screening report for GI 204 was reviewed by the Department of Homeland Security which found that none of the information related to Jocassee Dam and Oconee Nuclear Station was security sensitive. Despite this finding, the decision was made by the NRC to redact the screening report prior to releasing it to the public.

The NRC can redact anything it voluntarily releases without providing any justification.

However, when something is being involuntarily released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA} request, the NRC must provide a reason for everything which is exempted from release.

On January 4, 2012 a reporter submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for documents concerning GI 204. In response to this request, the NR C released the GI 204 screening report with heavy redactions. Many of these redactions and their justifications are nonsensical. For example, on page 9 of the report (included in redacted and unredacted form as an enclosure to this letter) t here is the following sentence:

In 2010, NRC staff produced a report that estimates a typical dam failure rate for large rock fill dams similar to the Jocassee Dom to be 2.8(10;-4/year The above sentence was redacted. The justification given for the redaction was FOIA exemption 7(F):

Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.

How is anyone' s life or physical safety in jeopardy by disclosing the NRC's estimat ed failure rate for Jocassee Dam? The only possible answer I can come up with is that someone within the 13

NRC believes that Jocassee Dam might be the object of a terrorist threat. But even if this were true (and I have seen no mention of security concerns in any document referenced by the GI 204 screening report), how would knowing the NRC's estimated failure rate help the terrorists?

Our estimated failure rate of Jocassee Dam is based entirely upon natural phenomena and construction/engineering flaws. Terrorist activity and internal sabotage were in no way included in the study that generated this estimation. Does Al Qaeda really care what the NRC's estimated failure rate due to natural phenomena is?

There are some (e.g. me) that believe the 2.SE-4/year failure rate ts being withheld from the public because It is embarrassing to the NRC and embarrassi ng to Duke Energy.

What does a 2.8E-4/year fai lure rate mean? It means that in any given year there is a probability of 0.00028 that Jocassee Dam will fail. Since, as mentioned above, the probability that a failure of Jocassee Dam will lead to the meltdown of all three reactors at Oconee, a 2.SE-4/yea r failure rate of Jocassee Dam equates to an annual probability of 0.00028 that three reactor cores will melt down in Oconee County, South Carolina.

What are the odds that one of the core meltdowns will lead to a failure of its conta inm ent building and the release of a significant amount of radioactivity? I don't have a good answer because I have yet to see a NRC or Duke Energy assessment of the likelihood that the ONS operators can restore cooling to containment within the approximately 21/2 day window pdor to containm ent failure. That's not to say this study doesn't exist, but if it does I have not seen it. I can only make assumptions.

Si nce I personally know some of the ONS operators having served with some in the navy and having met others at functions of the Professional Reactor Operator Society, I am willing to give them better odds than the Fukushima operators. I'll give them 2 to 1 odds. That is, for each reactor they have a 67% chance of being successful in restoring cooling prior to containm ent failure. Please keep in mind the conditions they will be working under. A "tsunami" of water from the dam break has breached their inadequately sized f lood wall and flooded out all their normal equipment. They have no installed electric power an d much of the installed mecha nlcal equipment in unusable due to having their electric motors flooded. Unanticipated equipment that was not st aged before the dam break will need to be brought in over a severely compromised infrastructure and through an evacuating populace.

A 67% chance of success integrated over three reactor plants gives a 70% chance that at least one containment building will fail. This yields an annual frequency of 2E-4/year that a 14

significant release of radioactivity will occur in Oconee County, South Carolina. Those are odds that are about 500 times greater t han at a typical US reactor plant. Yet these are still relatively good odds for the people of Oconee County. They are equivalent to the odds of being dealt a four of a kind. Most poker players have never been dealt a four of a kind and probably never will.

However, these are the annual odds. That is, the people of Oconee County live with these odds every year. Integrated over the 22 years the ONS reactors have left on their licenses, the probability becomes 0.43% or about the chance of being dealt a straight. Being dealt a straight Is rare, but I personally beat twice those odds on the first poker hand I was ever dealt. As a thirteen year old summer camper, my first poker hand ever was a flush. My poker career has gone downhill ever since, but I know from personal experience that being dealt a hand that beats a straight is credible.

Nonetheless, a straight is a really good hand. As long as I had the chips, I'd keep up with the ante if I were holding a straight.

But risk involves more than just probability. Risk also involves hazard. I would be willing to bet a few hundred dollars on a straight, but I certainly wouldn't "bet the farm" on It. And the NRC should not allow Duke Energy to bet all the farms in Oconee County on It.

However, there is more to gambling than risk. There is also reward. And the rewards from Oconee Nuclear Station should not be Ignored.

The greatest rewards from ONS are paid out to the people who hazard the greatest risk: the residents of Oconee County, South Carolina. I have no datai to back up any of the Items below, but based on my professional experience (I have worked at eight rural reactor plants and have visited seven others) I am confident of the following:

1. Oconee Nuclear Station is likely the largest employer in Oconee County and the salaries and wages paid there are likely double the average salary and wage rate for typical residents of the county.

2. ONS likely pays more in property taxes than any other entity in the county and ls responsible for a significant portion of the funding of the county's public schools.

3. For every Duke Energy employee at ONS, there is likely a non-Duke employee in the county who receives a significant portion of their livelihood from either doing business directly with ONS or with the families of employees who work at ONS.

15

Would I be willing to bet my life and the lives of my family on a straight for the rewards mentioned above - or for any rewards for that matter? Of course not. But Oconee Nuclear Station isn't gambling with anyone's life. The accident scenario at Oconee takes over two days to unfold and, even once it occurs, it is unlikely to release significant doses in terms of public health. What is being hazard is people's property. And although Duke Energy could not pay me enough to compensate me for the health of my family, they could certainly pay me for the loss of my home or the loss of my farm.

As a citizen I'm not opposed to Duke Energy not doing anything. As long as the shareholders of Duke Energy, the residents of Oconee County, the citizens of neighboring counties and states, and the elected representatives at the local, state and federal level are all aware of the: risks and are willing to accept them, then I have no problems with them betting their futures. on a

straight". If there are affected people who have an issue with the risks at ONS, there are a variety of means which Duke can employ to lower their risk by "improving their hand" (e.g.

construct a flood berm around the site) or lower their risk by lowering the hazard (e.g. fund an Insurance policy that covers the property losses of an accident). As long as the approach taken is transparent to the citizens involved, I do not care what solutions are implemented - I trust our democratic and republican institutions to more fairly deal with the public than a secretive commission of scientists crunching risk calculations.

However, as a regulator I am very concerned about what has been occurring. The decision to do nothing has not been formally made but rather has occurred by default due to bureaucratic ineptitude. I have encountered no documentation that, after knowing about this problem for six years, the NRC has:

1. Determined a baseline risk for the ON$ reactors which takes into account the NRR/DRA/APOB estimated probability of a failure of Jocassee Dam and an analysis of Duke Energy's ability to restore cooling prior to containment failure.

2. Set a hard and fast due date for Duke Energy to implement modifications at ONS to adequately protect the facility from a failure of Jocassee Dam (other than the 2011-11-30 due date which in the end was not hard and fast)

3. Informed the external stakeholders (e.g. the citizens of Oconee County, the American public, the US Congress, other nuclear utilities, and many other specific groups that would directly suffer from a reactor accident In the US) about the risks they face due to a failure of Jocassee Dam.

Maybe the NRC has done all of the above, but from my research it appears to me the only thing to which the NRC has committed is keeping this issue from public scrutiny.

16

A 2E-4/year annual chance of a reactor accident leading to containment failure is something the NRC must address. "Acceptance sets the standard" and we cannot allow 2E-4/year to be the standard. Integrated over the 104 US Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs), 2E-4/year becomes 2.0E-2/year. That is a 2% annual chance that a core meltdown and containment breach will occur resulting in a significant release of radioactivity to the public (something that has not yet occurred in over fifty years of commercial nuclear power in the United States when one accounts for th~ fact that neither the 1966 core melt at Fermi plant nor the 1979 core melt at Three Mile Island involved a containment breach).

As mea ns of comparison, a 2% annual chance 1s once in every 50 years. Integrated over the 439 operating commercial reactors worldwide, a 2E-4/year probability becomes an 8.3% chance which is once in every 12 years. If you count Fukushima as three separate accidents and add it to Chernobyl, then an accident every 12 years is about what we have experienced in the past fifty years.

Can our national nuclear enterprise accept a core meltdown and cont ainment failure once every 12 years worldwide and once every 50 years in Ameri1ca? It cannot; consider the current decommissioning plans of Japan and Germany as evidence. Consider the post-Chernobyl shutdown orders in Italy. Consider the current state of new reactor construction in America, Britain, Canada and even France.

But even If we-as an agency- cannot accept 2E-4/year across the US industry, we - as a nation

- certainly can accept that risk at one three-unit site in South Carolina. The issue I have, however, is that the actual Commissioners of the US NRC need to be the ones deciding whether or not we - as a nation - accept the risks which Jocassee Dam poses to our nuclear enterprise, and the Commissioners need to be transparently making that decision in front of the external stakeholders:

1. The applicable US congressional oversight committee,s

2. The federal, state and local representatives of Oconee County, the neighboring counties and the neighboring states

3. The shareholders of Duke Energy and all nuclear utilities

4. The venders of reactor plants

5. The residents of Oconee County and the citizenry of the United States

6. The international operators of nuclear reactors whom we expect to adequately mitigate risks to their plants and who thusly expect the same of us.

17

professional engineer and as a public servant I have a duty to the citizens of this country to address my concerns regarding the NRC's handling of the Jocassee Dam issue with the staffs of our congressional oversight committees. There are some who might say it is irresponsible to distribute "Security-Related Information". If there is really a security threat to Jocassee Dam then it needs to be actively addressed; merely withholding safety-related information from Congress and thereby impeding the handling of nuclear safety issues is not an acceptable way of addressing security threats.

Very respectfully, Lawrence S. Criscione, PE Reliability and Risk Engineer Operating Experience and Generic Issues Branch Division of Risk Analysis Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research NRC/RES/DRA/OEGIB 573-230-3959 pages Cc: Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Sen. Joseph Lieberman, US Senate Comm. on Homeland Security & Governmental Affaiirs Sen. Susan Collins, US Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs Sen. Barbara Boxer, US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Sen. James lnhofe, US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works rd Rep. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina's 3 District Rep. Fred Upton, Energy & Commerce Committee Rep. Henry Waxman, Energy & Commerce Committee Rep. Peter King, Committee on Homeland Security Rep. Bernie Thompson, Committee on Homeland Security Rep. Darrel Issa, Committee on Oversight & Government Reform Rep. Elijah Cummings, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Carolyn Lerner, US Office of Special Counsel Hubert Bell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector General Marian Zobler, Nuclear Regulatory Commission General Counsel James Wiggins, NRC Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response 19

• -: i r .11 . : :l J ~, :. t ~=J __ -.1.1 ~ £ ...,,.

• t -- ~

_ :- .. r :.. . L ..

,__ _____________________ _,lDukc 2008, a11 2. p.1O).

In \he Oconee Nuclear Station IPEE!: subMlrtal (ONS 1995. p.5.27), the licensee estimates that the conditional core damage frequency resulting trom llooding dae to failure of I.he Joc-assee Dam ,s i.0(1 o-6J/year (ONS 1995, p. 5-27). The contribu\,on to core darnage frequency from prec,pitation-induced exl~rnat flooding is considered negiigible (ONS 1995, p. 5-18). The licensoe notes lhat this external flood core-damage frequency is ol tne same m1:19nitude as other severe accident events (e.g..

earthquakes, fires). Consequently, in lhe IPEEE. the licensee concluded that external nood1ng doe~

not pose severe ac::ident vulnerability (ONS 1995. p 5-27)

Tilt:: aforementioned estimate of conditional core-damage frequency is based on an eslimc11e (made by the licensee} that the probability of a random failure of Jocassee Dam is 1.3(10- 5 )/ye.ir (ONS 1995, p.

5-21). This failure rato includes fai,ures duo lo seepage, embankment sltdes, .ind structural failure of the foundation or atiutments. II does no1 include failures due 10 earthquakes (not deemed credible) or ovel1opping (ONS 1995, p.5-21). (b)(7)(F)

(b)(7 J(F)

This NRC estimate is w1 or er o magntlude arger ara e es ,ma e repo c , Oconee Nuclear Station IPEEE submittal. The database used by NRC st.>tr to calculate the estimated failure rate inch.ides failures due to ovc*topp1ng, inlernal erosion, and settlement. Due to a lack of ear1hquake-lnduced failures artccling dams with characteristics similar to Jocassee Dam, the database does nol contain failures due to seismic events.

As Illustrated above, seveml uncertainties oxl!il with r~gard to the nsk posed to Oconee Nuclear Station due lo uoslream dam failure. In particular, uncorto1nty e,usls about the flood levels at the silo tnnl would result from failure of Jocassee Dam. Moreover, hazard due lo external flooding was "screened oul" in Iha IPEEE based on a sulf,clenlly small contribulion lo core damage fr&quency as calculated at the time. However, uncertainty exi$tS about the appropriate prooab:llty of darn li\ilure that snould be used in computing the contril>ution of external fiood,ng to core damage frequency. This is 1ltus1rated by the disparate results o' the separate analyses described above that differ l>y an order of magnitude in esltmatlng lhe probability of fa,ture or Jocal:see Dam.

2.3. Applicability of Proposed Generic Issue to Multiple Plants It is notable tnat an exclusive rev*ew of FSAR and IPEEE suorrntta!s would not necessarily indicate a potential probiem due to external flocdi119 hazard in either o! I.he above-described cases (1.1::.. Fort Cc1lhoun S:ation or Oconee Nlrclea~ Station). Problems at Fort Calhoun Slalic.,n were recognized because of an NRC inspection that identified an apparent violation of Technical Specification 5.8.1.a for failure to maintain adequate procecures to protect the plant during external fioodbg events (USNRC 2010b) Al Oconee Nuclear Station, attention was drawn lo the elevated consequence from external nood,ng after staff 1denltfied a performance deficiency during maintenance aclivtlies that involved the installat:on of temporary c/eci:ical cables through an opening in lhe Rood protection wall (USNRC 2006b, p. 1). This performance deficiency wa~ or particular concern when coupled wil11 flooding estimc1tcs that are significantly higher tha11 previously assumed (USNRC 2006a}. Thus, in these two cases, identification of fioc,d-related ,ssL;eS resulted from particular scrutiny and analysts of flood 9

Enclosure, page 1

Not for Public Release The above tirneline assumes that Oconee Nuclear Station is notified at the same time the dam fails.

The licensee considers this assumption to be conservative because the plant expects notification before the darn fails (the dam is monitored 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, 7 days a week). The licensee notes that the, above timeline does not account for the recession of floodwaters, which is postulated to occur 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> following darn failure (5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> following onset of flooding at the site) (Duke 2008, att 2, p.10).

In the Oconee Nuclear Station IPEEE submittal (ONS 1995, p.5.27), the licensee estimates that the conditional core damage frequency resulting from flooding due to failure of the Jocassee Dam is 7.O(10-6)/year (ONS 1995, p. 5-27). The contribution to core damage frequency from precipitation-induced external flooding is considered negligible (ONS 1995, p. 5-18). The licensee notes that this external flood core-damage frequency is of the same magnitude as other severe accident eve111ts (e.g.,

earthquakes, fires). Consequently, in the IPEEE, the licensee concluded that external flooding does not pose severe accident vulnerability (ONS 1995, p. 5-27).

The aforementioned estimate of conditional core-damage frequency is based on an estimate (made by the licensee) that the probability of a random failure of Jocassee Dam Is 1.3(10- 5)/year (ONS 1995, p.

5-21 ). This failure rate includes failures due lo seepage, embankment slides, and structural failure of the foundation or abutments. It does not include failures due to earthquakes or overtopping (ONS 19*95, p.5-21). In 2010, NRC staff produced a report that estimates a typical dam failure rate for la~9~.1 1

rock fill dams similar to the Jocassee Dam to be 2.8(1 o- 4 )/yead (USN RC 201 0c). This NRC estimate Is an order of magnitude larger than the estimate reported in the Oconee Nuclear Station IPEEE submittal. The database used by NRC staff to calculate the estimated failure rate includes failures due to overtopping, Internal erosion, and settlement. Due to a lack of earthquake-induced failures affecting dams with characteristics similar lo Jocassee Dam, the database does not contain failures due to seismic events.

As illustrated above, several uncertainties exist with regard to the risk posed to Oconee Nuclear Station due to upstream dam failure. In particular, uncertainty exists about the flood levels at the site that would result from failure of Jocassee Dam. Moreover, hazard due to external flooding was "screened out" In the IPEEE based on a sufficiently small contribution to core damage frequency as calculated at the time. However, uncertainty exists about the appropriate probability of dam failure that should be used in computing the contribution of external flooding to core damage frequency. This is Illustrated by the disparate results of the separate analyses described above that differ by an order of magnitude in estimating the probability of failure of Jocassee Dam.

2.3. Applicability of Proposed Generic Issue to Multiple Plants It is notable that an exclusive review of FSAR and IPEEE submittals would not necessarily indicate a potential problem due to external flooding hazard in either of the above-described cases (i.e., Fort Calhoun Station or Oconee Nuclear Station). Problems at Fort Calhoun Station were recognized because of an NRC inspection that identified an apparent violation ofTechnical Specification 5.8.1.a for failure to maintain adequate procedures to protect the plant during external flooding events (USNRC 201 Ob). At Oconee Nuclear Station, attention was drawn to the elevated consequence from external flooding after staff identified a performance deficiency during maintenance activities that involved the installation of temporary electrical cables through an opening in the flood protection wall (USNRC 2006b, p. 1). This performance deficiency was of particular concern when coupled with flooding estimates that are significantly higher than previously assumed (USNRC 2006a). Thus, in these two cases, identification of flood-related issues resulted from particular scrutiny and analysis of flood 9

Enclosure, page 2