ML20294A149

NRC-2016-000731 - Resp 12 - Interim, Agency Records Subject to the Request Are Enclosed

ML20294A149
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	04/18/2017
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: ML20294A149 (51)

Text

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER (03-2017)

I

,_,,C.,,_v,.f'IAi:Gu<-t',._

!-~\ '°\ 2016-0731 12 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 11 I

,  ; INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE

......... *ft'"' 0

~..,, INTERIM FINAL TYPE REQUESTER: DATE:

!Lucas Hixson DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS:

II PFR 1 f 2011 I

Records corresponding to items 4 7 (ML16216A707), 48 (ML16216A712), and 62 (ML16244A008), 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 https://www.nrc.gov/reading_-rm/foia/contact-foia.html Agency records subject to the request are already available on the Public NRG Website, in Public ADAMS or on microfiche in the

[Z] NRG Public Document Room.

[Z] 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.

[Z] We are continuing to process your request.

[Z] See Comments.

PART I.A -- FEES NO FEES AMOUNT*

You will be billed by NRG for the amount listed.

[Z] Minimum fee threshold not met.

II II 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 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.

[Z] 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

[Z] 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, or FOIA.Resource@nrc,gov. Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA 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 htti;:1s://ogis.archives.gov/about-ogis/contact-information.htm PART I.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required)

This interim response addresses three more of the records (or groups ofrecords) enumerated in your request. Please note that, since the date of your request, these records have been removed from ADAMS. However, because the NRC was able to locate the records by their accession numbers when your request was received, we have processed the records.

[continued on next page]

Signat~- Freedom of Information Act Qjificer or Desianee l o/~£J~n~~-(JA U

I I Page 2 of 3 NRG Form 464 Part I (03-2017) l'it1ii:~nuat1on*Paaeil belete Continuation Page

NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER (03-2017) 1 2016-0731 11 12 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST Continued RESPONSE TYPE 0 INTERIM FINAL REQUESTER: DATE:

!Lucas Hixson II APR1820ll I PART I.C COMMENTS (Continued)

The record responsive to item 47 of your request consists of a June 10, 2013 email from an NRC staff member (who has furnished a privacy waiver) to various NRC staff and NTEU Chapter 208, which the staff member then forwarded to Chairman Macfarlane and her Legal Assistant on June 13, 2013. We have enclosed a redacted version of this record.

Consistent with the manner in which the PPT slides (items 3 and 4 of your request) that were addressed in interim response

1. 11 were redacted, certain portions of the email have been redacted, and the attachment withheld in its entirety, on the basis of exemption 5, as it incorporates the deliberative process privilege. This attachment was previously denied in response to FOIA-2015-0020.

The record responsive to item 48 of your request consists of an email, dated March 29, 2013, transmitting to the Chairman and various NRC staff, including in the FOIA Office, a letter in which he seeks to appeal the failure to respond timely to three FOIA requests (FOIA-2013-0126, 2013-0127, and 2013-0128) that this same NRC staff member (who has provided a privacy waiver) or other third party individuals, have filed. This appeal letter included 16 enclosures, many of which are already available to the public as noted below, or are enclosed herein:

Enclosure l: Incoming request, FOIA-2013-0126 (ML13044A481)

Enclosure 2: Acknowledgment letter for FOIA-2013-0126 (enclosed)

Enclosure 3: Incoming request, FOIA-2012-0128 (ML12030Al05)

Enclosure 4: Acknowledgment letter for FOIA-2012-0128 (ML12363A094)

Enclosure 5: Form 464 response to FOIA-2012-0128#1 (MLI 6216A 712)

Enclosure 6: Incoming request, FOIA-2012-0325 (ML12263A087)

Enclosure 7: President Obama's Memorandum on the FOIA (https://www.dol.gov/dol/foia/2009_FOIA_ memo.pdf)

Enclosure 8: Attorney General Holder's Memorandum on the FOIA (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/

legacy /2009/06/24/foia-memo-march2009 .pdf)

Enclosure 9: List ofNRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jocassee Dam (this list has been attached to multiple documents that are publicly available, and is part of the Boxer letter included in ML16244A008 that is addressed in this response as well).

Enclosure 10: Incoming request, FOIA-2013-0127 (ML13044A486)

Enclosure 11: Acknowledgment letter for FOIA-2013-0127 (enclosed)

Enclosure 12: Acknowledgment letter for FOIA-2013-0034 (enclosed) 3: Incoming request, FOIA-2013-0008 (ML12283A329) 4: Incoming request, FOJA-2013-0013 (ML12290A070) 5: Incoming request, FOIA-2013-0128 (ML091170104) 6: Acknowledgment letter for FOIA-2013-0128 (enclosed)

The record responsive to item 62 consists of an email from this same NRC staff member (who has provided a privacy waiver) to Commissioner Ostendorff, in which he fonvarded an email exchange he had had with another NRC staff member and attached several other records. This email and the attached records were previously released in part as MLl 5l28A61 O; we have revisited the material that had been redacted pursuant to exemption 5 as it incorporates the deliberative process privilege. We continue to assert exemption 6 for a cell # of another NRC staff member. The record, with content restored, is enclosed. The November 14, 2012 letter to Senator Boxer is also enclosed with the author's PII restored, in light of the privacy waiver he furnished.

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

NRC FORM 464 Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA (03-2017)

I 2016-0731 # 12

'¥'

~

'+.,

f

\~...........?i

.d-i RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST I

DATE:

APR 1 8 2017 I

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.G. 552(b)).

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

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

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

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

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

41 U.S.G. 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 GFR 2.390(d)(1).

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

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

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

0 Deliberative process privilege.

Attorney work product privilege.

Attorney-client privilege.

Exemption 6: The withheld information from a personnel, medical, or similar file, is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result 0 in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

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

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

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

(0) 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.

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

I Other 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 AP PELLATE OFFICIAL DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED EDO SECY I Stephanie A. Blaney II FOIA Officer I I3rd party PII (cell number) I 0 I Bernice C. Ammon II Assistant General Counsel (LC, L & SP)

II predecisional deliberations I 0 I 11 II 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

Criscione, Lawrence From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Thursday, June 13. 2013 10:30 AM To: Macfarlane, Allison Cc: Vrahoretis. Susan

Subject:

Your Reputation Attachments: POP for Dam Related FOIA Releases.doc Chairman Macfarlane, (b)(5) \

L----------------------------------- / As far as the public i s concerned, these individuals are nameless bureaucrats. Yours is the name on the letter. Any redactions applied to it will be assumed to have been made with your blessing. Any delay in the release of that letter !which is already 7 months overdue) will be assumed to have come from your indecision. These things might not be fair, but they are some of the costs which come with the burdens and privileges of leadership.

You have a duty to keep the American public openly informed about potential liabilities to their health and safety from commercial nuclear reactor plants. You also have a duty to safeguard sensitive information that might be damaging to the security of our nation's reactor plants. Sometimes these duties might conflict .

(b/l:J/

Hopefully you recognize that the above information is vitally important for the American public to make an informed decision as to whether or not the risks posed to nuclear reactor plants by upstream dam failures is being adequately evaluated and addressed. And hopefully you recognize that th is information should be shared with the American public.

There are some within NRR and RES who agree with me that the above information should be shared with the public. However, there are some w ho disagree. These people claim that the above three items could be helpful to terrorists.

If we must withhold any and aU information t hat might be helpful to a t errorist, then we w ill fatally impact our ability to be an open and transparent regulator. A terrorist wishing to fly a plane into the Empire State Building would find t he flight schedules posted on Southwest Airline's websit e t o be beneficial in determ ining the optimum plane to hi-jack for their mission, but hopefully you recognize it as ludicrous for the FAA to demand that Southwest Airlines pull down their flight schedules. A line must be drawn somewhere.

With regard to nuclear reactor plants, a line has been drawn. It was dr awn with Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data 142 U.S.C. 2161-2165). And it was drawn with Section 147 of t he Atomic Energy Act, w hich prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167) . The above three items (i.e. dam failure probabilities, specifics of nuclear power events caused by dam fa!lure, and flood elevations resulting from dam failure) fall outside of t hat line. That is, there is no legal requirement for withholding the above three items from the American public.

It is my position that some personnel in NRR, RES and NSIR are caving in to what President Obama termed "speculative or abstract fears" in his January 21, 2009 memo on the freedom of Information Act. That is, they are allowing speculative or abstract fears regarding terrorist targeting concerns of dams to prevent the NRC from openly sharing with the American public grave safety concerns regarding the vulnerability of NRC regulated nuclear reactor plants to dam failures from natural disasters.

It is your decision as to how my 2012-09-18 letter to you Is redacted. I believe you have no legal requirement to redact anything from it and, under the Freedom of Information Act and under President Obama's inauguration day memo on the FOIA, you have an ob!lgation to release the letter unredacted. Whatever dec ision you make will reflect on your personal reputation and will have no bearing on the reputations of the nameless (i.e. nameless to the public) bureaucrats in NRR, RES, NSIR and OGC who advised you.

If you would like to meet with me to discuss these matters, I am open to meet with you any time this week or next.

Very respectfully, Larry Criscione Reliability & Risk Engineer RES/ORA/OEGIB From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:35 AM To: Monninger, John; Correia, Richard; Beasley, Benjamin Cc: Kim, Grace; Pearson, Laura; Rothschild, Trip; Donnell, Tremaine; Albert, Michelle; Hirsch, Pat; Wilson, George; Boska, John; Ammon, Bernice; Kilgore, Linda; Cook, Christopher; Coe, Doug; Kauffman, John; NTEU, Chapter 208; Sullivan, Randy; Ferrante, Fernando; Mitman, Jeffrey; O0onnell, Edward; Perkins, Richard

Subject:

l(b)(S)  !

Rich/John, (b)(5) J do not expect my input to have much weight on your decisions. But for what it 's worth, my opinion on how to address my outstanding appeals is to follow the President's (i.e. January 21, 2009) and Attorney General's (i.e. March 19, 2009) guidance that "The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with o clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails" and, recognizing the doubt inherent by the necessity of requiring!(b)(S) l let openness prevail and release the documents J seek without redaction.

The purpose of this email, however, is not to suggest to ou how to handle current! (b)(S)

~

• but rather to provide you my input regarding ...(b_l<_si_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___.

In its wisdom, Congress provided within the freedom of Information Act a solution tor the withholdlng of information which the NRC believes to be useful to enemies of the United States. That solution is Exemption 3:

(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute (other than section 552b of this title), if that stotute -

(A) (i) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue; or (ii) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld; and (BJ if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specificolly cites to this paragraph.

2

What Congress intended for the NRC to do with regard to udam failure probabilities, specifics of nuclear power events caused by dam failure, and flood elevations resulting from dam failure" was NOT for mid level public servants (e.g. Boska and Wilson) to subjectively decide that this important information (i.e. important for the public to assess the risks associated with their local nuclear power plant) cannot be released to the public, but rather for the NRC to come to the Congress with the request for a specific statute authorizing the withholding of the supposed security sensitive information . Then, through open legislative processes, for the Congress to decide the merits of withholding the security sensitive information against the benefits from having open access to this important SAFElY related information. Congress would undoubtedly put some restriction on the withholding of the information (e.g. very specifically defining what falls under the statute, clear criminal penalties for the unauthorized release of the information) which would ensure that it is well understood as to precisely what must be withheld under the statute and by whose authority.

My suggesting for going forward is for the NRC to petition Congress to provide an "Exemption 3 statute" regarding (1)

Dam failure probabilities, (2) Specifics of nuclear power events caused by dam failure, and (3) Flood elevations resulting from dam failure. If the NRC is unwilling to do t his, then I believe we must ask ourselves "why?". If this information truly affects public safety and security, then it deserves a specific statute. If we are unwilling to request a statute, it might be because the real reason we are withholding this information is "because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears" .

My other suggestion going forward is to require portion marking on all documents designated "Official Use Only" or some other designation limiting public disclosure. It is unfair to the NRC staff to have to sort through OUO documents and, individually with fractured guidance (see ML12313A0S9 for examples) decide what is and what is not DUO. Rather what should be occurring is the person designating the document DUO should portion mark each paragraph which contains OUO and each paragraph which does not contain any OUO. Documents should be designated so that it is precisely clear to the reader what paragraphs cannot be released and what paragraphs are fuUy releasable.

I am available to.. 5 I

_ _) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ if you believe my input would be beneficial.

l<b_l <

V/r, Larry Lawrence S Cnsc1one RcllDb1lity & Ris~ Lnginccr RES/ORAIOEGIB Cnur.:h Street Bu,ldmg Mail Stop :?A07

<JO I) 2, 1-7<,0) 3

(b)(5)

March 29, 2013 1412 Dia! Court Springfield, ll 62704 Allison Macfarlane, Chairman Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission BiU Borchardt, Executive Director for Operations (EDO)

Darren Ash, Chief Freedom of Information Act Officer United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555*0001

SUBJECT:

Appeal for refusal to release documents requested under FOIA/PA Requests 2013-0126, 2013-0127, and 2013-0128

Dear Dr. Macfarlane,

Ms. Vietti-Cook, Mr. Borchardt and Mr. Ash:

This letter is an appeal for FOIA/PA 2013-0126 and FO!A/PA 2013-0127 which is being submitted in accordance with 10 CFR §9.2S(j):

If the NRC does not respond to a request within the 20 working-day period, or within the extended periods described in paragraph (b) of this section, the requester may treat that delay as a denial of the request and immediately appeal as provided in§ 9.29(a) or sue in a Federal District Court as noted in§ 9.29(c}.

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 I requested five records from the NRC:

• ML103490330, Oconee Nuclear Site, Units l , 2, and 3. Oconee Response to Confirmatory Action letter (CAL) 2-10-003, dated Nov. 29, 2010

• ML111460063, Oconee Nuclear Site, Units 1, 2, and 3. Response to Confirmatory Action Letter

{CAL) 2-10-003, dated April 29, 2011

• ML100780084, Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam Risk Analysis

• ML101610083, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, - External Flood Commitments

• Ml101900305, Identification of a Generic External Flooding Issue Due to Potential Dam Failures My incoming FOIA request is included as Enclosure 1.

On February 13, 2013 I was sent an Acknowledgement letter informing me it would take longer than 20 days for me to receive my response and informing me that the NRC was assigning tracking number 2013-0126 to my request. As of the date ofthis letter, it has been 44 days since FOIA/PA 2013-0126 was received by the NRC. I have included the NRC's 2013-02-13 acknowledgement letter to me as .

Please note that the records I have requested all fall within the scope of FOIA 2012-0128 (ML12030A105) which was submitted by Paul Koberstein on January 27, 2012 and received by the NRC on January 30, 2012. I have included Mr. Koberstein's incoming request as Enclosure 3 and the NRC's acknowledgement letter to him as Enclosure 4. So, although my FOIA request (2013-0126) is "only" 44 days old, the NRC has had Mr. Koberstein's request for 425 days and to my knowledge has still not released all the requested records. The only record of response that I can find to Mr. Koberstein's

January 27, 2012 request is a December 4, 2012 partial response (Ml12363A094) which I have included as Enclosure 5.

In his Ja~ry_2 ~.,_2009 Memorandum on the freedom of Information Act, President Obama stated:

In responding to requests under the FOIA, eKecutive branch agencies should act promptly and in a spirit af cooperation, recognizing that s11ch agencies ore servants of the public.

I realize that the NRC's FOIA office is understaffed, but taking 44 days to provide five documents - for which they were given the ADAMS Accession numbers - is not acceptable. It is not living up to the President's expectation. Additionally, the documents! requested (two letters of response by a licensee to a Confirmatory Action Letter, a letter from a licensee specifying commitments to address a significant safety concern, a technical evaluaUon on the prob.ability of dam failures, and a memorandum proposing a Generic Issue on flooding due to dam failures) are documents which should have always been public.

In his January 21, 2009 Memorandum, President Obama stated:

... agencies should toke affirmative steps to make information public. They should not wait for specific requests from the public. All agencies should use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government. Disclosure should be timely.

When the President states "what is known and done by their Government I am sure you recognize, as I do, that he would consider the five documents requested in FOIA 2013-0126 to fall under that category, The documents I requested are clearly documents which should have been made public without waiting "for specific requests from the public."

Of the records I have requested, one(~! 10]490330) has been released in ADAMS in response to FOIA/PA 2013-0116 by Carl Stelzer. Although I have not been formally informed of the release of Mll03490330 by the NRC's FO!A office, since I am now aware that it is publicly available in ADAMS, I can consider it as provided under FOIA 2013-0126 and do not need a hardcopy sent to me.

I am stil! awaiting the release of the following documents:

• Mlll1460063

• ML100780084

• ML101610083

• Ml101900305 A redacted version of ML100780084 (Ml13039A084) was released in ADAMS in response to FOIA/PA 2013-0110 by Paul Blanch, a redacted version of ML101610083 (ML130S1A896) was released in ADAMS in response to FOIA/PA 2013-0113 by Joe Carson, .and a redacted version of MU01900305 (ML13039AQ86) was released in ADAMS in response to FOIA/PA 2013-0133 by Kay Drey.

I do not agree with the redactions the NRC's Office of Nudear Reactor Regulation (NRR) applied to the documents released to Mr. Blanch, Mr. Carson and Ms. Orey. I believe NRR is abusing the scope of FOIA Exemption 7(F). FOIA Exemption 7(F) is meant to protect law enforcement informants. By broadly categorizing protection against sabotage as falling -under Exemption 7(F}, NRR is bypassing the legislative checks and balances which were meant to occur as part of the Freedom of Information Act. There is a process for redacting information which the NRC believes is useful to saboteurs. That process is to mark 2

the documents as classified materials or as Safeguards. If neither of these designations legitimately applies, then the process is to go to the US Congress and ask for a new statutory designation for which NRR can use FOIA Exemption 3. Abusing Exemption 7(f) is not what the President expects NRR to do:

The Freedom of Information Act shaufd be administered with a cfea, presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

I recognize that the way we have handled the Jocassee/Oconee issue is embarrassing. I recognize that it is embarrassing for us to admit that the original licensing for Oconee Station failed to take into account the probability of flooding due to a failure of Jocassee Dam. I recognize it is embarrassing for us to admit that the flood wall around Oconee is undersized and we have known about it since early 1994 yet have not been able to get Duke Energy to correct it. I recognize that it is embarrassing that it took over two years to route an Information Notice and a Generic Issue on flooding due to upstream dam failures. But, as the President stated, "The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears."

With regard to "speculative or abstract fears", withholding from the public- for over six years- the significant safety liability which Jocassee Dam poses to the three reactors at Oconee Nuclear Station because of vague concerns about terrorism and sabotage is giving into "speculative or abstract fears".

None of the information redacted from the documents provided to Mr. Blanch, Mr. Carson and Ms. Drey contain any reference to security matters. The weak points in the dam's construction - if there are any

- are not revealed. The physical security of the dam - if there is any - is not discussed. AU that is revealed by the redacted material is the severe SAFETY liability posed to the public by a failure of Jocassee Dam. It is the President's expectation that "In the face of doubt, openness prevails". I have much doubt about NRR's speculative and abstract fears regarding sabotage of Jocassee Dam and I expect openness to prevail. Maybe there is a legitimate security threat to Jocassee Dam, but the information redacted from the documents does nothing to make that security threat worse yet it does plenty to keep the public from being informed "about what is known and done by their Government."

I expect to receive unredacted versions of Ml100780084, Ml101610083, and ML101900305 as part of FOIA/PA request 2013-0126. If the NRC does not intend to send me unredacted versions of these three documents and if the NRC instead intends to provide me the redacted versions which were provided to Mr. Blanch, Mr. Carson and Ms. Drey, then I expect you to formally tell me in a FOIA response so that I can pursue the release of the requested documents in accordance wlth 10 CFR §2.29(c). 10 (FR §9.:tCJ(L,I Also, I expect to receive an unredacted version of Mllll460063 which to my knowledge has never been publicly released by the NRC in either an unredacted or a redacted form since being requested by Paul Koberstein 425 days ago, since being requested by Jim Riccio 191 days ago (ML12263A087}, and since being requested by me 45 days ago. I have included Mr. Riccio's request as Enclosure 6.

I recognize that, to the NRC, Paul Koberstein's and Jim Riccio's requests might seem daunting-especially given that emails fall under the documents they seek- but to delay formal correspondence between the NRC and a licensee for 425 days and 191 days respectively is unsatisfactory. The NRC should release ALL correspondence with licensees prior to getting a FOIA request for it. lf parts of the correspondence must be withheld, then it should be redacted - but a few sensitive sentences should 3

not cause an entire piece of correspondence to be withheld. That is what the Attorney General alludes to in his March 19, 2009 Memorandum:

"... agencies should readily and systematically post information online in advance of any public request. Providing mare information online reduces the need for individualized requests and may help reduce existing backlags. When information not previously disclosed is requested, agencies should make it a priority to respond in a timely manner. Timely disclosure of information is an essential component of transparency. Long delays should not be viewed as an inevitable and insurmountable consequence of high demand."

I have included the President's memo as Enclosure 7 and the Attorney General's memo as Enclosure 8 since, apparently, there are some offices within the NRC that didn't get the memo.

Also enclosed with this letter (Enclosure 9) is a five page list of documents relating to the flooding hazard which Jocassee Dam poses to the three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station. This list was originally included in a 2012-10-15 letter to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security &

Governmental Affairs and in a 2012-11-14 letter to the Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works. There are 101 documents listed on Enclosure 9. On the list I highlighted thirteen documents which were originally stamped "Official Use Only- Security-Related Information" or some similar designation which prevented them from being shared with the public. All thirteen of these documents were released under the Freedom of Information Act with no redactions, which brings into question why they were originally stamped as needing to be withheld from the public. Was it "because pubfic officials might be embarrassed by disclosure"? Was it "because errors and failures might be revealed"? Or was it "because of speculative or abstract fears'?

Also contained on Enclosure 9 are fifteen documents which were marked "Official Use Only- Security-Related Information" but have since been released with redactions claiming Exemption 7(F). Even if the redactions implemented in response to FOIA Exemption 7(F) were in fact necessary, under the President's and Attorney General's guidance these documents should have still been voluntarily shared in a redacted form prior to the submittal of a FOIA request. Additionally, there are six documents listed which I could not find electronically, and sixty documents which are internally in ADAMS but, despite Mr. Koberstein's and Mr. Riccio's requests, are still non-public. Note that these non-public documents consist of formal correspondence between the NRC and a licensee on a significant safety concern, internal NRC format memos, internal NRC analysis reports, Power Point presentations, etc. It is my position that we should not wait for Freedom of Information Act requests to release these documents; we should follow the President's and Attorney General's guidance and take "affirmative steps to make information public by posting these documents "online in advance of any public request in order to "use modern technology to inform citizens about what is known and done by their Government.

It is impossible for the public to ask for documents on an issue when they do not even know that the issue exists. By designating the flooding hazard posed by Jocassee Dam as "Security-Related Information", the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) was able to successfully keep this issue from public scrutiny for over five years - until the March 2012 public release of the highly redacted screening report for Gl-204 by the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) brought this issue to the attention of intervener groups. Once these groups realized this issue existed, they desired information on it. Was lt right for the NRC to keep this important safety concern from the public for so long? Is that what President Obama expects of us? I do not profess to be able to read the President's mind. But I do profess to be able to read and understand English. And the memo the President released on his 4

inauguration day regarding the Freedom of lnformatlon Act is verv concisely and clearly written in plain English. The President expects Open Government. If there is truly a security concern with some of the information regarding the Jocassee/Oconee issue, then the President expects us to specifically withhold those pieces of sensitive information that might enable terrorists to defeat our security defenses. But I do not believe the President expected us to withhold. in its entirety, a significant safety issue from the American people for over half a decade.

In addition to the five documents requested under FOIA 2013-0126, on Tuesday, February 12, 2013 I also requested the following documents:

• A 2012-09-18 email which! had sent to NRC Chairman Allison Macfarlane, US Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner, NRC Inspector General Hubert Bell, Deputy Inspector General David Lee, NRC General Counsel Marian Zobler, and NRC Nuclear Security and Incident Response Office Director Jim Wiggins (the subject of the email was "Inadequately Sized Flood Woll at Oconee Nuclear Station Could Lead to Fukushima 5cenorio in the Event of a Failure of the lake lacassee Dam")

• A letter dated 2012-09-18 to NRC Chairman Macfarlane which was attached to the email mentioned above (the email attachment containing the letter was entitled "Jocossee Dam Failure Concerns.pd!')

My incoming FOIA request is included as Enclosure 10.

On February 13, 2013 I was 5ent an Acknowledgement Letter informing me it would take longer than 20 days for me to receive my response and informing me that the NRC was assigning tracking number 2013-0127 to my request. As of the date of this letter, it has been 44 days since FOIA/PA 2013-012 7 was received by the NRC. I have included the NRC's 2013-02-13 acknowledgement letter to me as 1.

l was hoping my 2012-09-18 letter to the NRC Chairman would lead to a discussion on the way the agency has handled concerns regarding flood protection at the Oconee Nuclear Station, not just from a safety and security perspective but also from the perspective of transparency and Open Government.

Instead, the only response that I received from the Chairman's office was an email from her legal counsel informing me that the Chairman had referred my letter to the Inspector General. On January 17, 2013 I met with two Special Agents from the NRC's Office of the Inspector General who interrogated me under oath for several hours to assess whether there exists adequate evidence to indict me with a federal felonv1 for induding in my letter to the Chairman information which I had obtained from accessing the NRC's internal Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) and for failing to designate my letter as "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information". This criminal investigation is occurring even though:

• My 2012-09-18 letter was not sent outside the federal government. All the people to whom I sent it were either NRC employees, Congressional staffers, or the US Special Counsel. As a licensed Professional Engineer and as a federal servant it is my belief that I have a duty (as well as a right2) to report to Congressional oversight committees when I do not believe the 1 18 USC §1030, The Computer fraud ?and Abuse Act of 1984 as modified by the USA PATRIOT Act 1 The  !-!oyd-L.iFollett~ Act of 1912 was codified as 5 USC §7211- Employees' right to petition Congress: The right of employees ... to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to a committee or t.llember thereof, moy not be interfered with or denied.

5

management at my agency is adequately addressing significant safety concerns despite being internally forewarned of shortcomings for several years. 3

• None of the information contained in the letter was classified as Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data i42 use §2161-2165} nor was any of it designated as Unclassified Safeguards Information (43 use §2167).

• Although some of the documents were marked as "Official Use Only- Security-Related Information", according to the NRC's FOIA office this marking is "an unofficial administrative marking that has no legal import" and is "not indicio of any national security cfassificotion" (see Enclosure 12). Furthermore, the "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information" documents from which I quoted were not portion marked and therefore it is impossible to tell what parts of the documents were considered non-public by the NRR personnel who marked the documents.

From my reading of the relevant guidance (10 eFR §2.3904 , NRC MD 12.6,5 SECY-04-0191,6 a policy statement,' and several conflicting 8 announcements posted on internal NRC intranet pages} it is my assessment that the material contained in my letter to the Chairman is nothing the NRC is required to withhold from the public.

On October 9, 2012 Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists requested my 2012-09-18 letter to the NRC Chairman. Mr. Lochbaum's request was registered by the NRC as FOIA 2013-0008

{Ml12283A329). It is included as Enclosure 13. On October 15, 2012 Tom Zeller of the Huffington Post requested my 2012-09-18 letter to the NRC Chairman. Mr. Zeller's request was registered by the NRC as FOIA 2013-0013 (ML12290A070). It is included as Enclosure 14. Mr. Zeller also requested "expedited processing" for his request.

3 There are some who have told me my first duty is to attempt to internally address my concerns through my chain of command. However, there are plenty of technical experts within NRR who had been cittempting to internally Jddr~_;, this concern lor ~E'vN<1I ye,1Vi (e.g. Melanie GcJlloway, Jeff Mitman, Fernando Ferrante). I failed to see how I could have internally prevailed where they had not and chose instead to appeal to the Chairman and our Congressional oversight. It has been my experience from other issues je.g. the 2003-10-21 unrecognize_d~.!E Leactor shutdown ;;t ,Callaway Plant} that the NRC's internal concerns resolution processes do not function adequately, and those processes had already been unsuccessfully used by NRR personnel attempting to address this issue (e.g. ML091170104 - Galloway's non-public NCP form, Mll 10260443 - Mitman's non-public NCP form).

4 .!....OJ;f R §2 .390, Public inspection, exemptions, requ~ts for withholding.

5 Management Directive 12.6, NRC Sensitive Unclassified Information Security Program (Ml04170Q!i03}

6 SECY-04-0191, Withholding Sensitive Unclassified Information Concerning Nuclear Power Reactors from Public Disclosure (ML04231(2!!.f,])

1 NRC Policy for Handling, Marking, and Protecting Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information

{Ml052.99014b) 8 On-October 26, 2012 I wrote an 8 page email to my union representation advising them of the poor condition of the guidance for Official Use Only information. Management Directive 12.6 is from 1999 (i.e. two years prior to the drastic information handling changes resulting from the 2001-09-11 attacks) and is woefully out of date as evidenced by the need to sort through conflicting guidance in SECY papers, policy statements and intranet announcements to resolve significant questions. I also wrote a two page email on October 25, 2012 to NRC Facilities Security (the program owner for MD 12.6) detailing some of this conflicting guidance. Both these emails were captured in internal NRC ADAMS as ML12313A059. These emails had been meant to point out a problem in the hopes of reaching a dialogue to produce solutions; they were not merely meant to be finger pointing.

However, thus far no dialogue has ensued and instead the NRC has labeled ML12313A059 as "Allegation Material".

As typical of the so-call~d "allegations" which others have submitted to the Inspector General in my name, no one investigating it has yet engaged me to discuss it. Since my Office Director and mv Union President have been unreceptive to mv concerns, I do not expect you to engage me to address them either. But if anyone is interested, my concerns regarding the marking and handling of SUNSI are provided in ML12313A059.

6

Admittedly, my 2012-09-18 letter to Or. Macfarlane was long (19 pages plus a two page enclosure). But the NRC has had my request for 45 days, Mr. Zeller's "expedited processing" request for 134 days, and Mr. Lochbaum's request for 140 days. It is ludicrous that it would take 140 days for the NRC to determine what parts of my 2012-09-18 letter can be released to the American public. Hopefully you recognize, as I do, that taking 140 days to respond to FOIA 2013-0008 is not living up to the President's and Attorney General's ideals of Open Government: "When information not previously disclosed is requested, agencies should make it a priority to respond in a timely manner. Timely disclosure of information is an essential component of transparency. Long delays should not be viewed as an inevitable and insurmo11ntable consequence of high demand."

I ask that you consider the Attorney General's memo and, with regard to my, Mr. Lochbaum's and Mr.

Zeller's requests, "make it a priority to respond in a timely manner. And please remember:

The Freedom of Information Act should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails. The Government should not keep information confidential merely because public officials m ight be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.

I also made a third request under the Freedom of Informat ion Act on February 12, 2013:

Ml091170104, Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3- Non-concurrence on Evaluation of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC September 26, 2008, Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commiss.ion Letter Dated August 15, 2008 Related to External Flooding I have included this request as Enclosure 15. On February 13, 2013 the NRC recorded this request as FOIA 2013-0128; I have included the NRC's acknowledgement letter as Enclosure 16.

Ms. Galloway's Non-Concurrence Form falls within the scope of both Paul Koberstein's January 27, 2012 request and Jim Riccio's September 18, 2012 request. So, although I have "only" been waiting 45 days, Mr. Koberstein has been waiting 425 days and Mr. Riccio 191 days - for a 19 page document.

Most of Ms. Galloway's Non-Concurrence Form is stamped "Official Use Only- Security-Related Information" despite not addressing any security related topics. Everything in her Non-Concurrence is a safety concern, not a security concern.

On page 17 of her Non-Concurrence Form, it is denoted that Ms. Galloway "Wants NCP Form Non-Pub!ic". It is unclear why this block was checked. Was it checked becaus.e in April 2009 Ms. Galloway was embarrassed by having the fortitude and independence to, without the benefit of the example of the Fukushima Dai-ichi accident (this was two years prior to that flooding-induced accident), stand apart from the rest of her management in NRR and insist that the flood risks posed by Jocassee Dam to the reactors at Oconee was a credible threat that needed to be rigorously vetted and addressed? Or was it checked because Ms. Galloway was aware of NRR's designation of this topic as a "Security-Related" issue and so, as part of the N RR management team (she was a Deputy Division Director), felt she could not check the block for "Wants NCP Form Public" because that could imply she was disagreeing with the "Security-Related" designation of the Jocassee/Oconee issue? These are not rhetorical questions.

These are questions you need to answer as part of processing this appeal. Why is the Non-Concurrence Form of a Deputy Division Director on a letter to a licensee concerning a serious safety issue - yet 7

containing no discussion of security vulnerabilities - being withheld from the public? Is it "because public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure"? Is it "because errors and failures might be revealed"? Or is it "because of speculative or abstract fears"?

Again, this is an appeal of a de-facto decision by the NRC to withhold from release the following documents:

1. ML111460063, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0126

2. ML100780084, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0126

3. ML101610083, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0126

4. ML101900305, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0126

5. my 2012-09-18 email to the NRC Chairman, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0127

6. my 2012-09-18 letter to the NRC Chairman, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0127

7. ML091170104, which was requested under FOIA 2013-0128 If I do not receive unredacted versions of these seven requested documents by May 13, 2013, then I intend to continue the appeal process in accordance with 10 CFR §9.29(c). So please conform to the President's and Attorney General's desires-for the clear presumption of openness prevailing in the face of doubt and for the timely processing of FOIA requests/appeals-by immediately releasing the documents I have requested.

Although I live in Springfield, IL, I work in Rockville, MO. 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 LSCrisdone@hotmail.com. If your processes will not allow you to do this, then please contact me via phone or ema\l and I wlll come by the FOIA desk to pick up the correspondence.

Very respectfully, Lawrence S. Criscione, PE (573) 230-3959 Enclosures (16)

Cc: Billie Garde, Esq., Clifford & Garde Louis Clark, The Government Accountability Project Paul Koberstein, Cascadia Times Kay Drey, Beyond Nuclear Cart Stelzer, reporter Paul Blanch, consultant Joe Carson, Affiliation of Christian Engineers Jim Riccio, Greenpeace David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Tom Zeller, Huffington Post A major flaw in our system of government, and even ;n industry, is the latitude to do less than is necessary. Too often officials are willing ta accept and adapt ta situations they know to be wrong. The tendency is to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them, -Admiral Rickover, 1982 8

Enclosure 2 of FOIA Appeal for Requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128 Ur!TLD STATES

\!l 1CLE/\R REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON O.C. ]0555-0001 February 13, 2013 FOIA/PA-2013-00126 Lawrence Criscione 1412 Dial Court Springfield, IL 62704

Dear Requester:

We received your Freedom or Information AcUPrivacy Act (FOIA/PA) request on February 13, 2013.

Your request has been assigned the following reference number that you should use in any future communications with us about your request: FOIA/PA-2013-00126 To ensure the most equitable treatment possible of all requesters, the NRC processes requests on a first-in. first-out basis. using a multiple track system based upon the estimated time it will take to process the request. Based on your description of the records you are seeking, we estimate completion of your request will be over 20 working days. We will advise you of any change in the estimated time to complete your request.

Due to the unexpected events in Japan in March 2011, the NRC is processing a larger than normal volume of FOIA requests including some that have qualified for expedited processing and have therefore been placed at the front or the queue. We are doing our best to process alt requests in a timely manner but our response times are being affected. We appreciate your understanding.

For purposes of assessing fees in accordance with our regulations (10 CFR 9.33), we have placed your request in the following category: Non-Excepted. If applicable, you will be charged appropriate fees for: Search and Duplication of Records.

A sheet has been enclosed that explains in detail the fee charges that may be applicable.

Please do not submit any payment unless we notify you to do so.

The following person is the FOIA/PA Specialist who has been assigned responsibility for your request: Linda KIigore at 301-415-5775.

If you have questions on any matters concerning your FOIA/PA request please feel free to contact the assigned FOIA/PA Specialist or me at (301) 415~ 7169.

Sincerely, ISi Donna L Sealing FOIA/Privacy Act Officer Office of Information Services

Enclosures:

Incoming Request Explanation of Fees

Enclosure 4 of FOIA Appeal for Requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128 UNITED STATE~

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtS~ION WASHIN{;1"('N, 0.C. 20555-000 i January 30, 2012 FOIA/PA-2012-00128 Paul Koberstein Cascadia Times 4037 N. Overlook Terrace Portland, OR 97227

Dear Requester:

We received your Freedom of Information AcUPrivacy Act (FOIA/PA) request on January 30, 2012.

Your request has been assigned the following reference number that you should use in any future communications with us about your request: FOIA/PA-2012-00128 To ensure the most equitable treatment possible of all requesters, the NRC processes requests on a first-in, first-out basis, using a multiple track system based upon the estimated time it will take to process the request. Based on your description of the records you are seeking, we estimate completion of your request will be over 20 working days. We will advise you of any change in the estimated time to complete your request.

Due to the unexpected events in Japan, the NRC is experiencing a larger than normal volume of FOIA requests including some that have qualified for expedited processing and have therefore been placed at the front of the queue. We are doing our best to process all requests in a timely manner but our response times are being affected. We appreciate your understanding.

For purposes of assessing fees in accordance with our regulations (10 CFR 9.33), we have placed your request in the following category: News Media Representative. If applicable, you will be charged appropriate fees for: Duplication Only.

A sheet has been enclosed that explains in detail the fee charges that may be applicable.

Please do not submit any payment unless we notify you to do so.

The following person is the FOIA/PA Specialist who has been assigned responsibility for your request: Linda KIigore at 301-415-5775.

If you have questions on any matters concerning your FOIAIPA request please feel free to contact the assigned FOIA/PA Specialist or me at (301) 415* 7169.

Sincerely, ISi Donna L. Sealing FOIA/Privacy Act Officer Office of Information Services

Enclosures:

Incoming Request Explanation of Fees

Enclosure 11 of FOIA Appeal for Requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Wf,SHINGl ON, D.C. 205 5 5-0001 February 13. 2013 FOIA/PA-2013-00127 Lawrence Criscione 1412 Dial Court Springfield, IL 62704

Dear Requester:

We received your Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) request on February 13, 2013.

Your request has been assigned the following reference number that you should use in any future communications with us about your request: FOIA/PA-2013-00127 To ensure the most equitable treatment possible of all requesters, the NRC processes requests on a first-in, first-out basis, using a multiple track system based upon the estimated time it will take to process the request. Based on your description of the records you are seeking, we estimate completion of your request will take more than 20 working days. We will advise you of any change in the estimated time to complete your request.

Due to the unexpected events in Japan in March 2011, the NRC is processing a larger than normal volume of FOIA requests including some that have qualified for expedited processing and have therefore been placed at the front of the queue. We are doing our best to process all requests in a timely manner but our response times are being affected. We appreciate your understanding.

For purposes of assessing fees in accordance with our regulations (10 CFR 9.33), we have placed your request in the following category: Non-Excepted. If applicable, you will be charged appropriate fees tor: Search and Duplication of Records.

A sheet has been enclosed that explains in detail the fee charges that may be applicable.

Please do not submit any payment unless we notify you to do so.

The following person is the FOJA/PA Specialist who has been assigned responsibility for your request: Linda Kilgore at 301-415-5775.

If you have questions on any matters concerning your FOIA/PA request please feel free to contact the assigned FOIA/PA Specialist or me at (301) 415-7169.

Sincerely, ISi Donna L. Sealing FOIA/Privacy Act Officer Office of Information Services

Enclosures:

Incoming Request Explanation of Fees

Enclosure 12 of FOIA Appeal for Requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, c.c. 2osss.0001 November 15, 2012 FOIA/PA-2013-00034 David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists PO Box 15316 Chattanooga, TN 37415

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

This is in reference to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted on November 9, 2012 (copy enclosed), in which you requested every record on any subject marked by any NRC employee as ~official Use Only" (QUO) from February 1, 2012 through April 30, 2012. Your stated intent is to conduct an "audit" of the Agency's classification practices.

After careful consideration, we have determined that your request does not "reasonably describe" the records sought, but rather is a broad, sweeping, indiscriminate request for production, lacking reasonable specificity. As such, the request fails to meet the threshold requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) and 10 C.F.R. 9.23(a)(1 )(i). "OUOn is an unofficial administrative marking that has no legal import, and only serves as an alert that the document should be reviewed before release in response to a FOIA request or other public disclosure.

Other examples of such markings are Privileged, Deliberative, FOIA Sensitive, etc. They are not indicia of any national security classiftcation, nor are they dispositive determinations as to any FOIA exemptions. Each document responsive to a FOIA request is individually reviewed and a determination as to the application of FOIA exemptions is made without regard to administrative markings such as "QUO."

Records responsive to your request could be located throughout the various Offices, Divisions, Branches, etc. of the NRC. Short of examining every paper and electronic document possessed by NRC, we could not state with any degree of confidence that all records marked "QUO" have been located. In view of the scope and nature of your request. the documents being sought, and the considerations expressed above, we conclude that your request does not meet the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(3) and 10 C.F.R. 9.23(a)(1)(i). Accordingly, no further action will be taken with respect to this request.

If you consider this response to be a denial of your request, you may appeal this determination within 30 days to the Executive Director for Operations. As provided in 10 CFR 9.29, any such appeal must be in writing, addressed to the Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is an "Appeal from an Initial FOIA Decision."

Sincerely, ISi Donna L. Seal\ng Freedom of Information AcUPrivacy Act Officer Office of the Chief Information Officer

Enclosure:

Incoming Request

Enclosure 16 of FOIA Appeal for Requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128 UNITED Sl A TES NUCLl:AR REGULATORY COMMISSION February 13, 2013 FOIA/PA-2013-00128 Lawrence Criscione 1412 Dial Court Springfield, IL 62704

Dear Requester:

We received your Freedom of Information AcVPrivacy Act (FOIA/PA) request on February 13, 2013.

Your request has been assigned the following reference number that you should use in any future communications with us about your request: FOIA/PA-2013-00128 To ensure the most equitable treatment possible of all requesters, the NRC processes requests on a first-in, first-out basis, using a multiple track system based upon the estimated time it will take to process the request. Based on your description of the records you are seeking, we estimate completion of your request will be over 20 working days. We will advise you of any change in the estimated time to complete your request.

Due to the unexpected events in Japan in March 2011, the NRC is processing a larger than normal volume of FOIA requests including some that have qualified for expedited processing and have therefore been placed at the front of the queue. We are doing our best to process all requests in a timely manner but our response times are being affected. We appreciate your understanding.

For purposes of assessing fees in accordance with our regulations (10 CFR 9.33). we have placed your request in the following category: Non-Excepted. If applicable. you will be charged appropriate fees for; Search and Duplication of Records.

A sheet has been enclosed that explains in detail the fee charges that may be applicable.

Please do not submit any payment unless we notify you to do so.

The following person is the FOIA/PA Specialist who has been assigned responsibility for your request: Linda Kilgore at 301-415-5775.

If you have questions on any matters concerning your FOJA/PA request please feel free to contact the assigned FOIA/PA Specialist or me at (301) 415-7169.

Sincerely, ISi Donna L. Sealing FOIA/Privacy Act Officer Office of Information Services

Enclosures:

Incoming Request Explanation of Fees

Criscione. Lawrence From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:44 AM To; FOIA Resource; Ash, Darren; Sealing, Donna; Kilgore, Linda

Subject:

FW: This is a FOIA Appeal for FOJA requests 2013-0126, 2013-0127, and 2013-0128 Attachments: Errata - FOJA Appeal for 2013-0126 0127 and 0128.pdf Linda/Donna/Darren:

Early this morning I sent you a FOIA Appeal for requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128. That document had an error on page

3. Please replace that document with the attached document. I apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this has caused.

Thank you, Larry Criscione 573-230-3959 From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 7:40 AM To: Correia, Richard; Beasley, Benjamin Cc: Kauffman, John

Subject:

FW: This is a FOIA Appeal for FOIA reQuests 2013-0126, 2013-0127, and 2013-0128 Ben/Rich:

Attached is an Appeal for FOIA Requests 2013-0126, 0127 & 0128. These requests were submitted by me 45 days ago but the requested documents were never provided.

I don't need any action from either of you on this. FOIA appeals go to the EDO and the SECY so I'm just passing this your way in case it somehow comes down to you from above. I wouldn't normally expect a FOIA appeal to get much attention outside ofOGC and DEDO, but these concern the Jocassee/Oconee issue so I wanted you to be aware of them in case these are mentioned to Brian.

Please call me if you have any questions. I will be working in the fourth floor simulator most of the day, so the bc~t way to reach me is my cell phone (S 73-230-3959).

Thanks, Larry From: Lawrence Criscione fmai ltQ;_lscriscione(cr hotmail.co m]

Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 4:05 AM To: CHAIRMAN Resource; Vietti-Cook, Annette; Borchardt, Bill; Ash, Darren; Sealing, Donna; Kilgore, Linda; FOIA Resource Cc: Billie Garde; s::hepherd,rocliffordgarde.com; Louis Clark; paul@timesma.; Kay Drey; earl Stelzer; Paul Blanch; Joe Carson; Jim Riccio; Dave Lochbaum; Tom Zeller; Sullivan, Randy; NTEU, Chapter 208; irl!.[.robbins-umel@nteu.org

Subject:

This is a FOIA 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 SRC to release records which were requested under FOIA/PA 2013-0126, 0127, and 0128. Please note:

• The NRC has had these three FOIA requests for over thirty working days.

• For five of the seven records involved in the requests, ADAMS numbers were provided by me when I made my requests (MLI I 1460063, ML100780084, MLI0l610083, ML101900305, ML091170104).

• Two of the records were formal correspondence between the NRC and a licensee (MLI I 1460063, MLI 01610083).

• One of the records was an internal NRC memo requesting a Generic Issue (MLI01900305).

• One of the records was an internal NRC study on dam failures (ML I 00780084).

• One of the records was a Non-Concurrence Form submitted on correspondence with a licensee (ML09 I I 70104).

• One of the records was a 20 I2*09-18 email sent to the N RC Chairman and another was a letter attached to that email.

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 requests (20I3-0126, 0127 & 0 l 28), and two appeal authorities (SECY and OEDO). You may treat this as one appeal or divide as best suits your needs. All I ask is that J 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 IO CFR §9.29(c).

Since l am submitting a FOIA Appeal, by definition I believe the NRC is not obeying the Freedom of Information 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, a lack ofallocated 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 turn this letter over to the Office of the Inspector General as "Allegation Material". If anyone is concerned with opinions I express in the attached FOIA Appeal, I ask that in the spirit of an Open and Collaborative Work Environment they engage me and attempt to understand my opinions and my reasons for those opinions. Misconstruing constructive criticisms of our various policies and programs as allegations of criminal wrongdoing 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 wrongdoing to make. I will come forth to the Inspector General and make it myself.

Although I 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.SCriscionc(dhotmail.com. If your processes will 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 email, 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.

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

2

Criscione, Lawrence From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:53 PM To: Ostendorff, William; Magwood, William Cc: Boska, John; Hiland, Patrick; Evans, Michele; Pascarelli, Robert; Wilson, George; Bartley, Jo nathan; Cook, Christ opher; M iller, Ed; Cheok, Michael; Chen, Yen-Ju; Beasley, Benjamin; Merzke, Daniel; Coffin, Stephanie; Skeen, David; See, Kenneth; Monninger, John; Perkins, Richard; Bensi, M ichelle; Philip, Jacob; Sancalctar, Selim; Galloway, Melanie; Mitman, Jeffrey; Ferrante, Fernando; Bubar, Patrice; Tappert, John

Subject:

Your Meeting Today Concerning Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam Attachments: 2012-12-lO_Briefing_on_Oconee_Flood ing.pdf.pdf; Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee.pdf.pdf; 2009-04-06.pdf Commissioner Ostendorff, It came to my attention today that you and Commissioner Magwood were being briefed by NRR on the flooding vulnerabilities posed to the reactors at Oconee from a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam . Attached to this email are the "Commissioner Briefing Notes" prepared by NRR. Also attached are a 2012-11-14 letter from me to the Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works (E&PW) and an April 6, 2009 Non-Concurrence Form w hich a Deputy Division Director at NRR/DRA (Melanie Galloway) submitted against NRR's pusillanimous treatment of the Oconee/Jocassee concerns.

I do not know exactly what you were told during your briefing today, but if it was limited to the "Commissioner Briefing Notes" then you did not receive all the pertinent fact s.

A major concern of mine, which I addressed in my attached letter to the E&PW, is that, in all the internal documents I have uncovered regarding NRR briefings of the Commissioners on the Jocassee/Oconee flooding issue, the actual risk numbers ca lculated by NR R/DRA are never mentioned and neither is the 2008-09-26 Duke Energy timeline concerning the predicted failure sequence which would occur at Oconee following a catastrophic failure of the Lake Jocassee Dam (for the context of t he quot e below, see p. 10 of Attachment 2 of ML082750106):

The following flood time line is based on the results of the 1992 Inundation Study. In this scenario the dam is assumed to fail at time zero. Notification from Jocassee would occur be/ore o total failure of the dam; however, for purposes of this timeline, notification is assumed to be at the same time the dam fails. Following notification from Jocossee, 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 overtopped. 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.

Hopefully you recognize that the above scenario is very similar t o what occurred at Fukushima when a tsunami overtopped their inadequately sized flood wall and disabled their st andby shutdown equipment. Why the above scenario does not ever appear in Commissioner briefing packages, I do not understand. This seems to me like something you would want to know.

Another thing you should know is the annual probability of failure calculated by NRR/DRA for Jocassee Dam . That number is 2.8E*4/year, which is of the same order of magnitude of a 49 foot tsunami striking the Japanese coast at Fukushima . Given this calculated probability of dam failure and the Duke Energy timeline quoted above, it appears that the inadequately sized flood wall at Oconee presents a very similar hazard to the American public as the inadequat ely

sized flood wall at Fukushima presented to the Japanese public. Is this not something of which NRR should be informing the Commissioners?

As noted by Dr. Ferrante in the ema il t rail below, NRR is not a monolithic institution. Specifically, NRR/DRA has a very different position on the Jocassee/Oconee issue as NRR/DORL. See the attached Non-Concurrence from Melanie Galloway as an example.

I do not know who was at your briefing today, but from the invitation attached to this letter it appears that neither were the key personnel from NRR/DRA !Galloway, Mitman, Ferrante) nor were the authors of the Gl-204 Screening Report (Perkins, Bensi, Philip, Sancaktar) invited to attend. It might be helpful to your understanding of the Jocassee/Oconee issue if you were to speak to Ms. Galloway regarding her 2009-04-06 Non-Concurrence, Dr. Ferrante and Mr. Mitman regarding their 2010-03-15 Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam, and Richard Perkins regarding his ordeal in routing and releasing the screening analysis for Gl-204 on flooding due to upstream dam failures.

After over 60 years of military service, Admiral Rickover noted:

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

The NRC first identified the undersized flood wall at Oconee Nuclear Station in March 1994. !tis my concern that the reason this issue is taking more than two decades to address is that Division Directors at NRR have been willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong. As noticed by Ms. Galloway in April 2009, the tendency in NRR was to downplay the Jocassee/Oconee problem instead of actively trying to correct it. The public looks to the NRC Commissioners to curtail this latitude to do less than is necessary" and to ensure the NRC staff transparently addresses concerns in a timely manner.

I appreciate you taking an interest in this issue and requesting a briefing by NRR. I am concerned, however, that your briefing might not have adequately detailed the vulnerabilities faced at Oconee.

V/r, Larry Lawrence S. Criscione Reliability & Risk Analyst RES/DRA/OEGI B 573-230-3959 If a subordinate always agrees with his superior, he is a useless part of the organization, From: Ferrante, Fernando Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:58 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc: Mitman, Jeffrey Subject.: RE: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee In understand, and I think the folks who were involved in it understand as well. l just worry that other folks will look at our affiliations and assume "NRR" means the specific folks listed in the letter.

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:42 AM To: Ferrante, Fernando Cc: Mitman, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee

Thanks Fernando. Jeff sent me the PSA and PSAM papers last month.

When I use "NRR" I mean the dominant position that won out. Hopefully most people understand that in an agency of 4000 people there is no one true NRC position or one true NRR position. Over the past five years it has bothered me to no end that a legitimate FOIA exemption is "pre-decisional information" and that the NRC is able to use it to conceal the internal debate process. I think the public should be able to FOIA the varying NRC positions on issues and to understand how things are internally debated and decisions arrived at.

From: Ferrante, Fernando Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:04 AM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc: Mitman, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee Larry, Thanks for the opportunity to review this letter. For the most part, the facts related to activities I am directly aware of are correct. Regarding the Information Notice (IN) that NRR authored on dam failure probabilities, I will give you some more background information that will hopefully help further clarify the discussion.

The IN came as a direct result of the Oconee/Jocassee issue. Jim Vail. a retired NRR/DRA/APOB staff, was in charge of developing it (with support from the NRR staff in charge of releasing generic communications in NRR/DPR/PGCB) under guidance from Melanie Galloway, then NRR/DRA Deputy Director. Sometime in 2009, I took over the responsibility of re-writing and issuing the IN (in the same manner l was tasked with rewriting NRR's original submittal to RES regarding the creation of what would eventually become Gl-204 ). Since the beginning, there was a lot of resistance and internal struggle regarding this IN. In order to have the IN released I made sure to build consensus between NRR/DRA, NRR/DE, RES/ORA (which had produced an internal dam failure report which supported the information that eventually went into the IN). and others. As more NRC Offices lined up to be included in the IN, the concurrence process started to take longer and this ended up indeed being an exceedingly long turnover for a generic communication. The Gl-204 process continued in parallel until it became bogged down with some of the issues you described in the letter. At some point a presentation was made in an NRR LTIET meeting, and the directive for the IN became to coordinate its release with the release of the Gl-204 report. Because of the delays in the Gl-204 report, this added another 6 months to a year of the release of the IN itself. At some point, when it became clear both releases were imminent, I was asked if the IN should be reclassified as . NON-PUBLIC/SECURITY RELATED," which I rejected on the basis that no information was contained in the IN which was covered in both NRR and NRC guidance regarding the withholding of information. Hence, the IN was eventually released publicly.

I should add that. as part of an effort to publicly release and discuss information that was created during the development of the dam failure report by RES/DRA, two papers were submitted. accepted , and presented at PRA conferences (the most recent in Helsinki. 2012} with concurrence from both NRR/DRA and RES/DRA staff (I can send these papers to you if you are interested). Both papers were reviewed internaffy and, similar to the IN. contained no information that went against guidance regarding withholding of information. Both papers relied in part on data developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers {USACE) which does restrict public release of certain portions of their dam databases, but we followed their guidelines and contacted USACE to make sure no inadvertent release was made. This papers follow the same methodology discussed in the internal NRR/DRA document you referred to in the letter (M L 100780084) which, to my knowledge, is the closest we have come to a more official position on the dam failure rate issue (which was, at least in part, the intent I had when the document was created).

I'm sharing the above information to make sure that readers who are totally unfamiliar with the issue (inside or outside of NRC ), get a clear picture of how NRR/DRA dealt with some of the issues we were faced during the Oconee/Jocassee issue. In several parts of the letter, certain positions regarding the release of information or level of importance the issue deserved are attributed to "NRR" as a whole (e.g .. " ... there was a strong push by NRR to force RES to remove all OUO-SRI material from the screening report for Gl-204.") which I don't think were shared by all staff or Divisions within NRR I am concerned this may be misconstrued by readers who are

completely unaware of the challenges the Oconee/Jocassee issue presented to the technical staff to mean all staff within NRR shared these positions.

Thank you.

Fernando Ferrante, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

Division of Risk Assessment (ORA)

PRA Operational Support Branch (APOB}

Mail Stop: 0-10C15 Phone: 301-415-8385 Fax: 301-415-3577 From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent~ Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:23 AM To: Zimmerman, Jacob; Vrahoretis, Susan Cc: Beasley, Benjamin; Coe, Doug; COrreia, Richard; Galloway, Melanie; Mitman, Jeffrey; Ferrante, Fernando; Wilson, George; Leeds, Eric

Subject:

FW: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee Jacob/Susan: Please forward the attached letter to the Commission staff whom you believe should be aware of it.

I have copied on this email some of the NRR staff men1ioned in the letter. Please let me know if I am mis-portraying any of your positions. Please feel free to forward this letter to whomever you believe needs to see it.

Vlr.

Larry Criscione 573-230-3959 From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9: 15 AM To: 'valerie_manak@epw.senate.gov'; 'nathan_mccray@epw.senate.gov'

Subject:

Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee Please see the attached letter to the Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works.

November 14, 2012 1412 Dial Court Springfield, IL 62704 Barbara Boxer, Chairman us Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20510-6175

Dear Senator Boxer:

There are three reactors in Oconee County, South Carolina which face a risk of meltdown and containment failure that is highly similar to the accident which occurred in Japan in March 2011. The staff of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has known about these risks since 2007 but has yet to adequately address the issue. I am writing to you because the Commissioners of the NRC failed to bring up the three Oconee Nuclear Station reactors during their March 15, 2012 testimony at the US Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works hearing and because it is unclear to me whether or not the Commissioners are fully aware of the vulnerabilities at Oconee.

The vulnerability posed to the reactors concerns a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam, which is upstream of the Oconee Nuclear Station. The NRC has known since 20061 that the flood wall at Oconee Nuclear Station is 7 to 12 feet too low to protect against the predicted flood height that would occur were Jocassee Dam to catastrophically fail. like the reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi, the reactors themselves at Oconee and their containment buildings are designed to survive earthquakes and flooding. However, their support systems - that is, the emergency standby equipment needed to safety shut them down and remove decay heat from their cores

- are vulnerable to failure due to flooding which overtops their flood walls. The difference between Oconee and Fukushima is the source of the flood: a dam break instead of a tsunami.

Aside from that difference, the predicted accidents are eerily similar in both their timing sequence and their probability of an unmitigated release of radioactivity to the surrounding countryside.

On September 18, 2012 I wrote a letter to NRC Chairman Macfarlane detailing my concerns regarding the vulnerability posed by Jocassee Dam to the Oconee reactors. Three days after sending my letter, I was informed by my branch chief that he was directed to fill out a NRC Form 183 on me for not adequately designating my letter as "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information". Four weeks after sending my letter I was informed by the Chairman's 1

See pp. 5-9 of the "Oconee Nuclear Station Integrated Inspection Report 05000269/2006002, 05000270/200602.

05000287/2006002". This report is in the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under "Accession Number" ML061180451. Most of the documents I refer to in this letter are non-public and the most efficient way to request them from the NRC is to refer to the ADAMS Accession Number.

legal counsel that my letter had been referred to the NRC's Office of the Inspector General.

Other than these two instances, I have not had any other discussions regarding my letter and am unsure if the Chairman or any of the other Commissioners have read my letter or are aware of the details of my concerns.

I have been directed by the NRC not to further distribute my 2012-09-18 letter because it is not properly designated. I have also been directed to no longer send NRC documents to Congressional staffers without going through my chain of command and the NRC's Office of Congressional Affairs. However, I did copy you on that 2012-09-18 letter, and Valerie Manak and Nathan McCray of the E&PW staff should have electronic copies of it.

Since becoming involved in the Jocassee/Oconee issue in 2007, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has designated all internal and external correspondence regarding this issue as "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information". This designation not only prohibits the American public from knowing about the grave risks which Jocassee Dam poses to the reactors at Oconee, but, as I will explain below, this designation has also inhibited internal discussion of these concerns within the NRC.

In a September 26, 2008 letter to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (ML082750106), Duke Energy provided a harrowing timeline of what would occur at the Oconee Nuclear Station (ONSI were Jocassee Dam to catastrophically fail. Despite the fact that this time line appears in a Wikipedia article on Oconee Nuclear Station, since the NRC considers the Duke Energy letter to be "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information" I cannot quote the letter here. But the scenario provided in the 2008-09-26 Duke Energy letter is essentially the scenario that occurred at Fukushima Oai-ichi except, instead of a tsunami being the source of water overtopping the known inadequately sized flood wall, the source of water at ONS is a flood resulting from the failure of Jocassee Dam.

Prior to the 2011-03-11 tsunami, it was believed that the annual probability of a 45 foot tall tsunami reaching Fukushima Dai-ichi was on the order of once in every 100,000 years. It is now widely held that the annual probability is more likely around once in every 1,000 years.

In the 1980's it was believed the annual probability of Jocassee Dam failing was on the order of one chance in 100,000. 2 However, by 2007 the US NRC believed the actual number was more on the order of one chance in 10,000. 3 When the five Commissioners testified before your committee on March 15, 2012, members of the staff at the US NRC believed that the three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station faced a risk eerily similar to what occurred at Fukushima Dai-ichi. Vet none of the Commissioners mentioned that fact when Senator Barrasso brought up the Union of Concerned Scientists' 1 1.3E-5/year was the failure frequency Duke Energy used in some of its risk assessments.

3 2.9E-4/year is the failure rate the NRC has calculated for large rock-filled dams similar to Jocassee.

1

report on the vulnerability of US plants to Fukushima type disasters. Were the Commissioners withholding information from your committee? I don't believe so. I think what actually has happened is that crucial information has been withheld from them. They cannot testify before Congress about vulnerabilities of which they themselves have not been made fully aware.

To me, the most important tool the public has for ensuring good regulation and safety is accurate information. 1n a democratic republic such as ours, openness and transparency are essential in providing our citizens and t heir elected officials with the accurate information they need to make informed decisions.

To my knowledge, concerns that the flood wall at the Oconee Nuclear Station was too small first surfaced internally at Duke Energy in late 1993 and first made it to the NRC's attention in February 1994. The NRC dismissed the concerns in September 1994 as "not credible" because of an inappropriately low assumption regarding the failure rate of Jocassee Dam.

The issue regarding the inadequately sized flood wall resurfaced in March 2006. While attempting to defend a violation he had written against Duke Energy for inadequately controlling a two year breach in the flood wall (Ml061180451), one of the NRC Resident Inspectors at Oconee Nuclear Station began researching the regulatory requirements for the flood wall.

In 2007 NRR's Division of Risk Assessment (NRR/DRA) determined that the annual failure probability of dams similar in construction to Jocassee is around 2.SE-4/year, which equates to 4

a chance of once in every 4000 years (ML100780084). These might seem like good odds, but, given that a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam will lead to a Fukushima scenario in South Carolina, these odds make the risk of a significant accident and radiat ion release at Oconee Station about 100 times greater t han the risks associated with a typical US commercial nuclear reactor.

In 2008 the NRC sent Duke Energy a 10CFRS0.54(f} request (M L081640244) to obtain the necessary information to adequately determine if the risks posed to Oconee Nuclear Station by Jocassee Dam were acceptable. A l 0CfRS0.54(() request is a rare occurrence and it undoubtedly got the attention of the Commissioners. However, because by this time the NRC was stamping all documents concerning Jocassee Dam as "Official Use Only - Security-Related Information" (OUO-SRI), it did not get the attention of the public.

My primary reason for bringing t he Jocassee/Oconee issue to your attention is because, to me, it is an example of how lack of discipline regarding transparency has allowed a significant issue to go uncorrected for over six years and counting, with the current deadline for resolution still four years away. I believe that NRR's stamping of all documents concerning Jocassee Dam as 4

Mll00780084 is dated 2010-03-15. This is the formalized version of research and calculations performed in 2007 by Ferrante and Mitman of NRR/DRA.

3

"OUO-SRI" has not only prevented the public scrutiny necessary for our democratic and republican institutions to properly function, but has also inhibited the internal flow of information within the NRC and thereby has been detrimental to both public safety and security.

Duke Energy's response to the NRC's 10CFRS0.54(f) request was, like the original request, withheld from the public under the guise of security. This response is the document which contains the Fukushima-style timeline regarding what would occur to the three reactors at Oconee were Jocassee Dam to catastrophically fail. 5 It is unclear to me whether or not any of the Commissioners reviewed this document. It is ludicrous to expect the Commissioners to review every piece of correspondence received by the NRC - they have a staff of over 4,000 federal employees to assist with that. But I would assume that all important issues make it to their attention during their periodic briefings. However, based on the documents I have reviewed, I question the exact level of detail which they have received regarding the Jocassee/Oconee issue during their briefings from NRR.

On February 3, 2009 Commissioner Peter Lyons traveled to South Carolina to tour Jocassee Dam and Oconee Nuclear Station. In the briefing book prepared from him by NRR (ML090280474) there is a 25-line summary detailing the flooding issues. The 2008-08-15 10CFRS0.54{f) request is mentioned in this summary. However, what did not make it into this summary is NRR/DRA's estimate that the failure rate of Jocassee Dam is about 2.SE-4/year and that in their 2008-09-26 response to the 20CFR50.54(f) request Duke Energy admitted that a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam would li'kely lead to the meltdown of all three reactor cores at the Oconee Nuclear Station and possibly the failure of the containment structures.

On February 20, 2009 two engineers from NRR's Division of Risk Assessment, Fernando Ferrante and Jeffrey Mitman, began routing an Information Notice (IN 2012-02) concerning the risks posed to some nuclear reactor sites due to dam failures. The purpose of this information notice (ML090510269} was:

... to alert addressees of a potentially nonconservative screening value for dam failure frequency that originated in 198D's reference documents which may hove been referenced by licensees in their probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) for external events.

Using a nonconservative screening value for dam failure frequency to evaluate the need for on additional detailed analysis may result in underestimating the risks to the plant associated with external flooding or loss of heat sink from the failure of upstream and 5 t cannot quote from Duke Energy's 2008-09-26 letter without the NRC daiming that this letter to you is now "Official Use Only - Security*Related Information" which must only be provided through their Office of Congressional Affairs (NRC/DCA). I respectfully suggest that your staff request ML082750106 and ML112430114 from NRC/OCA. The Fukushima-style timeline appears on p. 10 of attachment 2 of MLOB2750106 and on pp. 8*9 of ML112430114. It is also quoted on the fourth page of my 2012-09*18 letter to NRC Chairman Macfarlane.

4

downstream dams or levees. The NRC expects that recipients will review the information for applicability to their facilities and consider actions, as appropriate, to avoid similar problems.

Please note that this Information Notice was being routed more than two years prior to Fukushima occurring. That is, two years prior to the 2011-03-11 flooding-induced triple reactor accident at Fukushima, the NRC was aware that certain US plants might face a similar scenario were dams upstream of them to fail. However, this information notice was not released until more than three years later (March 5, 2012 which was nearly a year after Fukushima). The reason this information notice took more than three years to route was because of the controversial nature of NRR's indecisiveness regarding how to address the flooding vulnerabilities at Oconee and also because of the debate over whether dam break effects on nuclear reactors is a security concern which needs to be w ithheld from the American public.

In the past year, I have encountered many people, both within the NRC and external, who are adamant that the vulnerability which a failure of Jocassee Dam poses to the reactors at Oconee is a security liability which must be kept from the public. Although I am sympathetic to the desire not to broadcast our security liabilities, I have no tolerance for using concerns over security as a pretext for withholding important safety vulnerabilities from the public. When the Jocassee/Oconee issue first came to light in an April 28, 2006 publicly available inspection report, the issue was not being withheld. At some point in 2007 the NRC, either at the request of Duke Energy or on their own accord, decided to begin withholding from the public all correspondence regarding the safety liability posed by a failure of Jocassee Dam.

Is Jocassee Dam a credible target for terrorists and/or saboteurs? I don't know. But it does make sense to me that, in 2007, the NRC might reasonably want to withhold information regarding Jocassee/Oconee while they determined whether or not a security vulnerability existed and whether or not security measures were required to be put into place to protect it.

What does not make sense to me, however, is that in 2012 we are still withholding from the public information on a vital safety concern under the guise of "Security-Related Information".

After five years, have we not addressed the security concerns?

It is unreasonable to me that a government agency is allowed to withhold a significant public safety concern from the public under the guise of security, yet then not, after 5 years, do any meaningful study of the issue to determine if, in fact, a security vulnerability does exist and what must be done to remove it. Is there a security concern or isn't there? If there is, why, after five years, has it not been addressed? If there is not, then why, after five years, are we still withholding vital information from the public under the guise of security?

In April 2009, NRR was in the process of responding to Duke Energy regarding resolution of the Jocassee/Oconee issue. As part of the routing of that response, NRR's Division of Risk Assessment was asked for their concurrence. The Deputy Director of NRR/DRA, Melanie Galloway, refused to initial her concurrence block and instead submitted a Non-Concurrence 5

form {ML09117010) on April 6, 2009. Like all documents regarding Jocassee/Oconee, Ms.

Galloway's Non Concurrence form is stamped "QUO-SRI" and I cannot quote from it. But a deputy division director submitting a Non-Concurrence is rare; this is a process that is mainly used by lower level staff, and even for them it is rare. Had Ms. Galloway's Non-Concurrence form -which in no way concerns security vulnerabilities - been publicly available, it would have likely gained the attention necessary to get the Jocassee/Oconee issue resolved in a timely manner.

Had intervener groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists been given access to Melanie Galloway's Non-Concurrence form via publicly available ADAMS, then they would have likely been able to counter the pressure which Duke Energy was placing on NRR. With dozens of their own engineers, lawyers and hired contractors, Duke Energy was able to convince NRR that, in order for improvements to Oconee's flooding defenses to be required, the NRC needed to probabilistically show that Jocassee Dam placed an inordinate risk upon the three reactors at Oconee. Pressure from the Union of Concerned Scientists and other intervener groups, however, would have likely convinced NRR that, per Duke Energy's operating license for the Oconee reactors, in order for Duke Energy to be allowed to continue to operate the three reactors at Oconee they needed to deterministically show that these reactors were adequately protected from a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam.

On April 9, 2009 Chairman Jaczko was briefed by NRR on the Jocassee/Oconee issue. I don't exactly know what was said at this briefing. The briefing slides {ML091030172) mentioned that new calculations concerning the failure frequency of Jocassee Dam suggested that core damage frequency (i.e. the annual probability that a meltdown will occur) for the reactors at Oconee might be non-conservative by an order of magnitude. What is not mentioned in the slides is Duke Energy's Fukushima-style scenario jcontained in their 2008-09-26 letter) of what would occur at Oconee Nuclear Station were Jocassee Dam to catastrophically fail.

On January 6, 2010 the leadership of NRR met to discuss the Jocassee/Oconee issue (Ml100280954). The purpose of the meeting was whether NRR should issue an order to Oconee requiring them to, in a timely manner, mitigate the risks posed by a failure of Jocassee Dam, or whether NRR should merely issue another 10CFRS0.54{f) request for information and potentially follow up with an order later. The "Cons" listed for the "10CFR50.54(f) option" were that it was not as enforceable as an order and that it had a slower response time for resolution of the external flooding issue. The "Cons" listed for the "order option" were that there was the potential for a public hearing and that an order required signature authority. In other words, to go the route of an order, the Commission and the public would need to be made aware of the risks which Jocassee Dam posed to Oconee. Despite the slower response time, NRR opted to go the route of the 10CFRS0.54(f) letter and avoid the Commission and public scrutiny an order would entail.

In February 2010 - using information provided by Ferrante and Mitman of NRR/DRA- George Wilson submitted an informal memorandum to the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory 6

Research (RES) requesting that a Generic Issue be assigned to investigate whether external flooding concerns, similar to those posed by Jocassee Dam to the three reactors at Oconee, existed elsewhere in our nation's fleet of 104 commercial reactor plants. George Wilson was the Dam Safety Officer in NRR's Division of Engineering (NRR/DE). At the time, we (i.e.

RES/DRA/OEGIB) deemed Mr. Wilson's February 2010 memo to be too speculative and inflammatory to make it an official agency record; however, I have a copy of it if your committee staff requires it. This memo is an example of just how serious mid-level staffers in the various divisions of NRR viewed the Jocassee/ Oconee issue. Keep in mind, this is over a year prior to the Fukushima accidents, yet the staff within NRR were presciently predicting the nuclear catastrophe that could occur were an inadequately sized flood wall to be overtopped allowing the flooding of the standby shutdown equipment necessary to remove decay heat from the reactor cores and containment buildings. Unfortunately it does not appear the managers at NRR were providing the Commissioners all the details of the NRR staff's concerns.

On June 22, 2010 NRR issued a Confirmatory Action Letter to Duke Energy (MLl0l 730329) requiring them to (1) by August 2, 2010 provide an estimate of the volume of water impounded by the Lake Jocassee Dam to be used for flood height analyses at Oconee Nuclear Station, (2) by November 30, 2010 provide a list of modifications to be made at Oconee to adequately protect the plant from flooding due to a fa ilure of the Lake Jocassee Dam, and 13) by November 30, 2011 have the provided modifications in place.

On July 19, 2010, NRR sent a formal memo to RES requesting a Generic Issue on flooding of nuclear power plant sites following upstream dam failures (Mll01900305). In August 2010, the Operating Experience and Generic Branch (RES/DRA/OEGIB) of the Division of Risk Assessment in the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research began working on a screening analysis report for what would become Gl-204 (Generic Issue 204). In my opinion, the 2010-07-19 memo and the attendant screening report are evidence of the NRC staff identifying a significant vulnerability and striving to get it addressed. Please note that this issue was being forwarded without the hindsight of the Fukushima accident and entirely due to the analysis of the NRR staff and their determination to pro-actively address an issue significant to the safety of about a fifth of our nation's nuclear reactor plants.

On August 2, 2010, Duke Energy provided the NRC with an estimated volume of water to be assumed impounded by the Lake Jocassee Dam. Their estimate was a "sunny day" estimate.

For reasons not understood by myself and other staff engineers at the NRC, Duke Energy believes that a failure of Jocassee Dam during an inordinately heavy rainfall (such as the one experienced in Senator Sanders' state in 2011 as the remnants of Hurricane Irene blew over parts of Vermont and New York) is not a credible scenario. In January 2011, Jeff Mitman of NRR/DRA challenged this assumption through the Non-concurrence process (ML110260443).

On November 29, 2010, Duke Energy informed the NRC that it was giving itself an additional 6 months to provide the list of modifications needed to protect the three reactors at Oconee from a failure of the Lake Jocassee Dam (ML103490330). Despite this issue being over four 7

years old in its current incarnation (and over 161/2 years old from its 1994 incarnation), NRR did not object to Duke's 6 month extension.

By March 10, 2011 (the eve of the earthquake and tsunami in Japan), RES/DRA/OEGIB had drafted its screening analysis report for Gl-204 and submitted it for routing. As you are well aware, on March 11, 2011 flooding induced from a tsunami disabled the emergency equipment at the Fukushima Oai-ichi reactors leading to the meltdowns of three reactor cores and the destruction of the buildings housing their containments. In the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, we assume that the accident in Japan would add a sense of urgency to the approval of Gl-204 and the addressing of the flooding concerns at Oconee. Instead, it inordinately delayed both. I am in no position to completely understand what occurred, but from my second-hand vantage point it appears that the management at NRR viewed the true vulnerability exposed by Fukushima not to be the flooding issue at Oconee but rather their multi-year mismanagement of getting it addressed.

On April 29, 2011 Duke Energy provided the NRC the list of modifications it intended to do at Oconee to protect against a failure of Jocassee Dam (ML111460063). In this letter, Duke Energy extended the NRC's due date for implementation of the modifications from Nov. 30, 2011 to a nebulous commitment of 30 months after the approval of the modification plans by the NRC and FERC (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission).

So, as of April 29, 2011 - seven weeks after the Fukushima accidents - the NRC's deadline for adequately protecting the Oconee reactors from a failure of Jocassee Dam had slid from November 30, 2011 to some indefinite time in roughly mid-2014.

As noted many times to your committee, the NRC has issued orders to all 104 reactor plants to make modifications based on the lessons learned from the Fukushima accident. What has likely not been noted to your committee is that the NRC has allowed Duke Energy to slide their mid-2014 due date for protecting Oconee from a Jocassee Dam failure to 2016 in order to conform with the Fukushima deadlines given to the other US reactor plants. But the three reactors at Oconee are different from the rest of the US fleet. Unlike the other 101 reactors, the three reactors at Oconee had a known external flooding concern that, over nine months prior to the Fukushima accident event occurring, had a November 30, 2011 deadline set (i.e. the 2011-11-30 deadline was established in a 2010-06-22 letter which was delivered to Duke Energy nearly 9 months prior to the 2011-03-11 tsunami occurring). The 2016 deadline is reasonable for the other 101 reactors because this was a new issue for them. But for the three reactors at Oconee, by the time the post-Fukushima orders came out they were already 5 years into the external flooding issue and had a deadline for modifications already set. Does it make sense that their already generous deadline be extended to match everyone else's?

The history I have provided you is little known within the NRC. Because of supposed security concerns, the Jocassee/Oconee issues are not discussed at All Hands Meetings. The issues are not discussed in sessions at the NRC's annual Regulatory Information Conference (RIC). The 8

issues do not appear in articles of Platts, or at American Nuclear Society conferences, or in online nuclear discussion groups, or in Union of Concerned Scientists biogs. Because of the QUO-SRI designation of all correspondence regarding this issue, there is virtually no internal oversight within the NRC to make sure NRR is properly handling this issue. And because of the QUO-SRI designations there was a strong push by NRR to force RES to remove all OUO-SRI material from the screening report for Gl-204.

like briefing packages for the Commissioners, Generic Issue screening reports are typically released to the public as part of the NRC's commitment to transparency. But it must be remembered that these reports are not written for public consumption - they are written for internal use. Briefing packages to the Commissioners are written to concisely inform the Commissioners of important points on key issues. Generic Issue screening reports are written to inform the screening panel members of the issues. Being that the Commissioners and the NRC staff are all authorized to view QUO-SRI documents, why would we water down our internal reports by removing all QUO-SRI material and thereby share less information with ourselves? I do not know the answer to that, but I have a suspicion.

When NRR knows a document - such as a Generic Issue screening report or a Commissioner briefing package - is going to eventually be released to the public, they prefer it be released without redactions. Redactions are a "red flag" for intervener groups like Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists. If the Fukushima-style timeline from Duke Energy's 2008-09-26 letter were to appear in a briefing book for Commissioner Apostolakis' trip to Oconee, then NRR knows that, when that briefing book is eventually released with a paragraph from the "External Flooding" section redacted, David Lochbaum will be asking his connections on Capitol Hill to request the redacted section. To avoid this, NRR essentially "pre-redacts" it by not even including it in the first place. Unfortunately, in doing this they keep the Commissioners from obtaining vital information that the Commission needs to know to make important decisions.

And likewise for the screening panel for Generic Issue 204. Richard Perkins, the lead author of the "Screening Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures" (ML112430114), was under constant pressure from NRR to remove the 2008-09-26 Duke Energy timeline from his report (he has a foot tall stack of internal NRC email correspondence to document it). Richard Perkins came to the NRC from the Department of Energy where he worked on the annual certification process for assuring the safety and reliability of America's nuclear weapons. He is a graduate of the National War College and was used to working with Top Secret and Special Compartmentalized Information (TS-SCI) on a daily basis. To him, the notion that the screening panel for Gl-204 did not have a "need to know" the accident timeline from Duke Energy's 2008-09-26 letter was absolutely ludicrous. He has rhetorically asked me on many occasions, "Why would we want to redact this information from our internal report?"

On September 14, 2012 Richard Perkins submitted a letter to the NRC's Inspector General alleging that the NRC had "intentionally mischaracterized relevant and noteworthy safety 9

information as sensitive, security information in an effort to conceal the information from the public." I assume the NRC's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is investigating his complaint but am unaware of their findings. Given the NRC OIG's proclivity for narrowly focusing on procedural processes and not questioning the broader intent of those processes, I am doubtful that the OIG investigation will be conducted with a broad enough questioning attitude to adequately investigate Mr. Perkins' claims.

On September 12 & 13, 2011, Commissioner Apostolakis visited Jocassee Dam. In the NRR prepared briefing book for that visit (ML11244A024), the 25 line description of the External Flood section provided to Commissioner Lyons had shrunk to 9 lines. Although Commissioner Apostolakis' visit was a mere six months after Fukushima, no mention of Duke Energy's Fukushima-style timeline from their 2008-09-26 letter was made in the briefing book. Nor was there any mention of the failure probability of Jocassee Dam being in the same range as the probability of a 45 foot tsunami hitting the Fukushima DaHchi site.

On February 1, 2012 Commissioner Svinicki visited Jocassee Dam. NRR's briefing book for that visit (ML12026A549) contains a whole page on the External Flooding issue, yet does not mention the facts that (1) the issue has gone on for six years, (2) the Duke Energy accident timeline is very similar to Fukushima, (3) the flooding probability is similar to Fukushima, (4)

NRR had assigned Duke Energy a 2011-11-30 deadline nine months prior to Fukushima, (5) seven weeks after Fukushima that 2011*11-30 deadline was extended by Duke Energy to mid-2014, and (6) the deadline for Duke Energy's propose modifications to their flooding defenses was later moved to 2016 to match the Fukushima action plan for all the plants without known flooding hazards. These are things that, were I Commissioner Svinicki, I would like to know before visiting Oconee - and, for that matter, before testifying before your committee on March 15, 2012.

On February 16, 2012 Duke Energy came to NRC headquarters for a "Drop-in Visit" with Bill Borchardt, the NRC's Executive Director for Operations (EDO). NRR's briefing book for that visit (ML12039A217) contains a page on the External Flooding issue which is similar to the one provided to Commissioner Svinicki. I do not know if Mr. Borchardt is aware of the true risk that Jocassee Dam poses to the three reactors at Oconee, but if all he knows is the summary in his briefing book, then there is much which he is unaware of yet needs to know.

On March 15 all five Commissioner testified before your committee at the Hearing on Post-Fukushima U.S. Reactor Safety. None of the Commissioners mentioned the fact that three reactors in Oconee County, South Carolina face a similar risk as was faced by the reactors at Fukushima Dai-ichi on March 11, 2011. I believe they did not mention it to your committee because it has been kept from them themselves.

On July 11, 2012 Duke Energy again visited Mr. Borchardt for a "Drop-in Visit" and on August 7, 2012 they dropped in on the Commissioners. As before, the briefing books supplied for these 10

visits (ML12188A071 & ML12206A325) did not mention the true risks posed by Jocassee Dam or the delays in resolving these risks.

If you believe the issues I have brought forward in this letter are of interest to your committee, then I respectfully suggest your staff seek answers to the following:

1. What is the official NRC determination as to the best estimate of the annual failure frequency of Jocassee Dam? How does this failure frequency compare to the annual frequency of a tsunami similar to the one in Japan on 2011-03-11 which caused the flooding induced nuclear accident at Fukushima Dai-ichi?

2. What is the official NRC position regarding whether or not a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam is a credible risk for which Duke Energy must deterministically show that the three reactors at Oconee Nuclear Station are adequately protected?

3. What is the official NRC position regarding whether or not the current flooding defenses at Oconee are adequate and what, if any, improvements need to be made?

4. What is the official NRC position regarding the most likely accident sequence at Oconee Nuclear Station were Jocassee Dam to catastrophically fail? How does this accident sequence compare to the March 2011 accident at Fukushima?

5. Assuming the catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam, what is the NRC's best estimate of the likelihood that the operators at Oconee Nuclear Station would be able to restore cooling to the reactors prior to the containment buildings failing? What are the differences between the Oconee reactors and the Fukushima reactors that leads the NRC to believe the Oconee operators will be able to successfully restore cooling prior to containment failures? Has the NRC conducted any formal studies to estimate the success rate of Duke Energy's mitigation strategies to prevent containment failures in the event of a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam? If so, when were these studies conducted and what were the results?

6. Has the US NRC or any federal agency conducted an assessment to determine if Jocassee Dam is adequately protected from terrorist threats? If so, what were the results of the assessments? Is access to Jocassee Dam adequately guarded from terrorist attack? Are the employees at the Jocassee Hydro-Electric Facility screened for inside saboteurs to the same level at which nuclear workers at the Oconee reactors are screened? Is it necessary to continue to withhold from the public vital safety information concerning the risks which a failure of Jocassee Dam poses to the three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station?

7. Do the Commissioners believe that, prior to their March 15, 2012 testimony before the US Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works, they were adequately informed of the vulnerability which Jocassee Dam poses to the reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station?

8. When does the US NRC intend to release to the public their correspondence concerning Jocassee Dam and Oconee Nuclear Station? What is the justification for continuing to withhold this information from the American public and from public intervener groups 11

such as the Union of Concerned Scientists? Does the NRC believe it would benefit from a review of its handling of the Jocassee/Oconee issue conducted by intervener groups?

Enclosed with this letter is a list of NRC correspondence, memos and studies regarding the Jocassee/Oconee issue. As can be seen from the enclosed list, this issue has festered in its current incarnation since 2006 and was originally brought forward to the NRC in 1994. Please note that most of the documents on the enclosed list are being withheld from the American public.

Although I am convinced the risks of a nuclear accident at Oconee are at least an order of magnitude greater than at a typical US reactor plant, I am not yet convinced that these risks are unacceptable. And although I do not know enough about nuclear security to judge whether or not all the security issues have been adequately addressed, at this time I do not believe a credible security threat to Jocassee Dam e)(ists. I am not appealing to your committee with safety or security concerns. My concern is transparency, and how the lack of it has not only impeded this issue from getting the public scrutiny which it requires but may also be impeding this issue from getting the appropriate scrutiny from the Commissioners of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Very respectfully,

• '\ .1.-(.... ...... . * . * * . ,*

Lawrence S. Criscione, PE Reliability & Risk Engineer Operating E,cperience & Generic Issues Branch Division of Risk Assessment Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5 73-230-3959 Enclosure Cc: Senator James lnhofe, Ranking Member, Committee on Environment & Public Works Senator Thomas Carper, Chairman, E&PW Subcommittee on Clean Air & Nuclear Safety Senator John Barrasso, Ranking Member, E&PW Subcom. on Clean Air & Nuclear Safety Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Chairman, E&PW Subcommittee on Oversight Senator Mike Johanns, Ranking Member, E&PW Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Allison Macfarlane, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12

List ofNRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of ]ocassee Dam Date ADAMS Title 1994-FEB-11 letter from Albert F. Gibson, NRC, to J. W. Hampton, Duke, "Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/93-25, 50-270/93-25, and 50-287/93-25)," dated February 11, 1994 1994-MAR-14 Letter from J. W. Hampton, Duke, dated March 14, 1994 1994-0CT-6 Internal NRC memo documenting a meeting between Region II and NRR concerning a hypothetical Jocassee Dam failure.

1994-DEC-19 letter from Albert F. Gibson, NRC, to J. W. Hampton, Duke, "Notice of Violation and Notice of Deviation (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50-269/94-31. 50-270/94-31, and 50-287/94-31)," dated December 19, 1994 2000-MAR-15 Letter from David E. LaBarge, NRC, to W.R. Mccollum, Jr., "Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Re: Review of Individual Plant Examination of External Events (TAC Nos. M83649, M83650, and M83651)," dated March 15, 2000 2006-APR-28  ;'1,'. L06: 180,F, I OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION - INTEGRATED INSPECTION REPORT 05000269/2006002,05000270/200602,05000287/2006002 2006-AUG-31 I._i.080780: .. 3 IR 05000269-06-016, IR 05000270-06-016, IR 05000287*06-016, on 03/31/2006, Oconee Nuclear Station - Preliminary White Finding 2006-0CT-5 Ml062890206 Oconee, Units 1, 2 & 3

• Response to Preliminary White Finding 2006-NOV-22 ~~[06326028) IR 05000269-06-017, IR 05000270-06-017, IR 050002.87-06-017, Final Significance Determination for a White Finding and Notice of Violation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2006DEC-20 Ml063620092 Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3, Appeal of Final Significance Determination for White Finding and Reply to Notice of Violation; EA-06-199 2007-JAN-19 Ml070440345 Summary of Revised Fragility Evaluation Results for Jocassee Dam 2007-FEB-5 Letter from Bruce H. Hamilton, Duke, to NRC, "Seismic Fragility Study" 2007*FEB-22 ML070590329 Manual Chapter 0609.02 Appeal Panel Recommendations {Oconee Reply to a Notice of Violation and White finding !EA-06-1991) 2007-MAR*l ML070610460 Oconee Appeal Panel Review of Manual Chapter 0609.02 Appeal Panel Review of Oconee Standby Shutdown facility White finding (EA-06-199) 2007-MAY*:I Ml072970510 Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Request for NRC to Review Appeal of Final Significance Determination for SSF Flood Barrier White Finding 2007 JUN-22 Ml071580259 Consideration of New lnformation Associated with a Final Significance Determination for a White finding - Oconee NS 2007-JUN-28 Phone call between the NRC and Duke Energy 2007-0CT*l ML072770765 10/01/2007, Slides with Notes for Final Regulatory Assessment of Oconee Flood Barrier Issue 2007-0Ci-1 ML072770775 Dam Failure Information 2007-0CT-1 Ml072770777 Questions and Answers Related to Oconee Flood Barrier 2007-NOV-20 ML073241045 Reconsideration of Final Significance Determination Associated with Standby Shutdown Oconee Facility Flood Barrier White Finding 2008-MAY-19 ML081350689 Briefing Package For Drop-In Visit By Duke Energy Chief Nuclear Officer With Chairman Klein And Commissioner Jaczko On May 21, 2008 2008-JUN-23 ML082390669 Proposal for a Risk Analysis of the Failure of the Jocassee and Keowce Dams to Assess the Potential Effects on the Safe Shut Down Facility of the Oconee Nuclear Station, South Carolina 2008-JUL-28 ML082120390 Oconee Nuclear Station - Revisions to the Selected Licensee Commitments Manual (SLC)

Enclosure, page 1

List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure uf Jocassee Dam Date ADAMS Title 2008-AUG-15 ML081640244 Information Request Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(F) Related to External Flooding, Including Failure of the Jocassee Dam at Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (TAC Nos. MD8224, MD8225, and MD8226) 2008-AUG-26 ML082390690 Kick Off for Risk Analysis of the Failure of the Jocassee and Keowee Dams to Assess the Potential Effects on the Safe Shutdown Facilrty at the Oconee Nuclear Station 2008-AUG-28 ML083300427 08/28/2008 - Summary of Closed Meeting to with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC to Discuss the August 15, 2008, 50.S4(f) Letter on External Flooding (TAC Nos.

MD8224, MD8225, and M08226) 2008-AUG-28 ML082550290 Meeting with Duke Energy Carollnas, Oconee Flood Protection and the Jocassee Dam Hazard 2008-SEP-6 ML082250166 Oconee Nuclear Station - Communication Plan for Information Request Related to Failure Frequencies for the Jocassee Pumped Storage Dam (Jocassee Dam) at the Oconee Nuclear Station and Potential Generic Implications 2008-SEP-26 ML082750106 Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Response to 10 CFR 50.S4(f) Request 2008-NOV-5 ML091060761 11/05/08 Summary of Closed Meeting with Duke on External Flooding Issues, including failure of the Jocassee Dam, at Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 2008-NOV-5 ML083390650 11/05/2008 Meeting Slides, "Oconee Site Flood Protection," NRC Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 2008-DEC-4 ML091420319 12/04/2008 Meeting Summary, Meeting to Discuss External Flooding at Oconee Nuclear Station (Reissuance, with Error on Page 3 Corrected) 2008-DEC-4 ML090480044 Oconee Nuclear Station, External F!ood NRR Meeting, Rockville, MD, December 4, 2008 2009-FEB-3 ML090280474 Briefing Package for Commissioner Lyons Visit to Oconee on February 4, 2009 2009-APR-6 ML091170104 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 And 3 - Non-concurrence on Evaluation of Duke Energy Carolinas, LlC September 26, 2008, Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Letter Dated August 15, 2008 Related to External Flooding 2009-APR-9 ML091030172 Oconee External Flooding Briefing for Commissioner Jaczko 2009-APR-30 ML090570779 Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, Evaluation of Duke Energy Carolinas September 26, 2008, Response to External Flooding, Including Failure of the Jocassee Dam 2009-MAY-11 ML092940769 05/11/2009 Summary of Closed Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to Discuss Preliminary Results of the Recent Inundation and Sensitivity Studies Concerning Failure of the Jocassee Dam and Resultant Flooding at Oconee Nuclear Station, l, 2, and 3 2009-MAY-1 l ML090820470 5/11/2009 Notice of Forthcoming Closed Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to Discuss Sensitivity Studies Concerning Failure of the Jocassee Dam & Resultant Flooding at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, & 3 2009-MAY-ll ML091380424 Oconee Nuclear Station, Slides for Closing Meeting May 11, 2009 with Duke on the Oconee Flooding Issue 2009-MAY-20 ML091470265 Oconee, Units 1, 2 & 3, Request for Extension of Duke Response Time to Referenced Letter 2009-MAY-26 ML091480116 E-mail re Briefing Package for Visit to Jocassee Dam on June 23, 2009 2009-JUN-l ML091590046 Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3, Request to Withhold Sensitive Information in Presentation Materials Left with Staff 2009-JUN-10 ML091680195 Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Interim 30-Dav Response to Reference 2.

Enclosure, page 2

List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jocassee Dam Date ADAMS Title 2009-JUN-l l ML091620669 6/11/09 Summary of Closed Meeting with Duke Carolina to Discuss External Flooding at Oconee 2009-JUN-25 ML091760072 NRC Site Visit to the Oconee Nuclear Station on June 15, 2009 2009-JUL-9 ML092020480 Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3, Final 60-Day Response to Reference 2 2009-JUL-28 Ml092230608 Oconee, Submittal of Selected licensee Commitments Manual SLC Revision 2009-AUG* 12 M L09057011 7 Oconee Flood Protection and the Jocassee Dam Hazard Basis for NRC Allowing Continued Operation 2009-AUG-27 Ml092380305 Oconee, Slides for Closed Meeting Regarding External Flood Technical Meeting On August 27, 2009 2009-SEP-25 ML092710344 Site Visit Observation on 09/25/2009 by Joel Munday for Oconee 2009-0CT-28 ML093080034 10/28/09 Slides for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Meeting Slides -

EKternal Flood NRC Technical Meeting 2009-NOV-30 Ml093380701 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee External Flood Analyses and Associated Corrective Action Plan 2009-DEC-4 Ml090b80737 12/04/09 Summary of Closed Meeting to Discuss the Ouke Energy Carolinas, LLC.,

09/26/08 Response to NRC's August 15, 2008 50.54(f) Letter on External Flooding at Oconee 2010-JAN-6 Mll00280954 01/06/2010 Briefing to the Executive Team on the Oconee Nuclear Station EKternal Flooding Issue 2010-JAN-11 ML100150066 Request Additional Information Regarding the Oconee External rlooding Issue 201D*JAN-15 ML100210199 Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Additional Information Regarding Postulated External Flood Threat Issues 2010-JAN-29 ML100271591 Evaluation of Duke Energv Carolina, LLC (Duke), November 30, 2009, Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRCJ Letter Dated April 30, 2009, Related to External Flooding At Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, And 3 (Oconee) 2010-FEB-8 ML100470053 Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3, External Flood, Response to Request for Additional Information 2010*FEB26 Ml100610674 Oconee, Units 1. 2, & 3, fxternal Flood Revised Commitment Letter 2010-MAR-5 Ml103430047 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, & 3, Letter From Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Regarding External rlood, Response to Request For Additional Information 2010-MAR-15 Ml 100780084 Generic failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam Risk Analysis 2010-MAR-18 Ml 100810388 Prepare Briefing Book and Material for Eric Leeds for the Duke rlect Meeting on March 18, 2010 2010-APR-14 ML100760109 Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam 2010-MAY-27 Ml101600468 Oconee, Units l, 2 & 3, Response to Requested Information on the Protection Against External rlooding Including a Postulated Failure of the Jocassee Dam 2010-JUN-1 ML101750619 OUO - Communication Plan For Issuance of Confirmatory Action Letter To Duke for Oconee - External Flooding June 2010 2010-JUN-3 ML101&10083 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, - External Flood Commitments 2010-JUN-22 ML101730329 Oconee, Units 1, 2 & 3, Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL 2-10-003), Commitments to Address External Flooding Concerns 2010-JUN-29 ML101890803 06/29/2010 Summary of Closed Meeting With Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, to Discuss EKternal Flooding at Oconee 2010-JUL-7 ML101880768 DUO - IR 05000269-10-002, 05000270-10-006, 05000287-10-006; 01/01/2010-03/31/2010; Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3; Interim Compensatory Measures for External Flood 2010-JUL-19 ML101900305 Identification of a Generic External Flooding Issue Due to Potential Dam Failures Enclosure, page 3

List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jocassee Dam Date ADAMS Title 2010-AUG-2 ML102170006 Oconee Units 1, 2, & 3, Response to Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 2-10-003 2010-OCT-20 ML102910480 NRC Assessment of Oconee External Flooding Issue (October 18, 2010) 2010-OCT-26 ML102990064 NRC Staff Assessment of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Oconee External Flooding Issue (TAC NOS. ME4441, ME4442, and ME4443}

2010-NOV-29 ML103490330 Oconee Nuclear Site, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee Response to Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL} 2-10-003 2011-JAN-5 ML110180609 Enclosure 1, Oconee Nuclear Station, Major Project Plans 2011-JAN-10 MLI10260443 Non-concurrence on Oconee Assessment Letter 2011-JAN-28 Mll10280153 Staff Assessment of Duke's Response to Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding Duke's Commitments To Address EMternal Flooding Concerns At The Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, And 3 {ONS) {TAC NOS. ME3065, ME3066, and ME3067) 2011-MAR-5 ML103410042 Supplement to Technical Basis for Allowing Oconee Nuclear Station to Remain in Operation Through November 2011, Associated with the External Flooding Issues 2011-MAR-15 Mlll0740482 Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures 2011-APR-29 Mlll 1460063 Oconee Nuclear Site, Units 1, 2, and 3, Response to Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 2-10-003 2011-AUG-16 Ml11229A710 E-mail re Briefing Package for Visit to Oconee Nuclear Power Plant on September 12-13, 2011 2011-AUG-18 Mll 1174Al38 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2. and 3, Assessment of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC April 29, 2011, Response to Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding Modifications to Address hternal Flooding Concerns (TAC Nos. ME6133, ME6134, and ME6135) 2011-AUG-31 Mll 12430114 Screening Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures 2011-SEP-1 ML11244A024 Briefing Package for Visit to Oconee Nuclear Power Plant on September 12-13, 2011 2011-OCT-3 ML11278Al 73 Oconee Nuclear Station (ONSl, Units 1, 2, and 3, Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Necessary Modifications to Enhance the Capability of the ONS Site to Withstand the Postulated Failure of the Jocassee Dam 2011-OCT-17 Ml11294A341 Oconee Nuclear Station (ONSl. Units 1, 2, and 3, Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Necessary Modifications to Enhance the Capability of the ONS Site to Withstand the Postulated Failure of the Jocassee Dam 2011-DEC-16 Mlll3500495 Screening Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures_redacted 2012-JAN-26 ML12026A549 Briefing Package for Commissioner Sviniclc.i Visit to Oconee on February 1. 2012 2012-JAN-31 ML12026A254 Communication Plan for Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Following Issuance of Gl-204 2012-FEB-3 ML12039A239 Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Request for Withholding from Public Disclosure Duke Energy letter Dated May 20, 2009 Involving Postulated Failure of the Jocassee Dam 2012 -FEB-9 Mll2039A217 Briefing Package Request for Meeting with Duke Energy on February 16, 2012 Enclosure, page 4

List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jocassee Dam Date ADAMS Title 2012-FEB-17 ML12053A016 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC - Recommended Revisions to the Oconee Nuclear Station Section of NRC's Screenlng Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failure 2012-FEB-23 ML12058A236 02/23/12 Summary of a Teleconference between the US NRC and Duke Energy Regarding Comments made by Duke Energy Concerning the Issuance of the Screening Analysis Report for Generic Issue 204 2012-MAR-5 ML090510269 NRC Information Notice 2012-002 Potentially Nonconservative Screening Value For Dam Failure Frequency In Probabilistic Risk Assessments 2012-MAY-15 ML12129Al86 Oconee Nuclear Station. Units 1, 2, and 3

• Request for Additional Information Regarding Modifications to Address the External Flooding Concerns (TAC NOS.

ME7970, ME7971, AND ME7972) 2012-JUN-14 ML12167A372 Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3, Response to Requests for Additional Information Regarding Modifications to Address External Flooding Concerns 2012-JUL-11 Ml12215A327 07/11/2012 licensee Non-Public Meeting Slides on Oconee External Flood Mitigation 2012-JUL-11 ML12188A07l Briefing Package for Meeting with Duke Energy on July 11, 2012 2012*AUG-7 ML12206A325 Briefing Book for Meeting with Duke Energy on August 7, 2012 2012-SEP-20 ML12268A404 Communication Plan for Flooding September 2012 2012-SEP-20 ML12219Al63 Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Response to Questions Regarding Modifications to Address External Flooding Hazards (TAC Nos. ME7970, ME7971, AND ME7972)

Enclosure, page 5

Criscione, Lawrence From: Herr, Linda Sent: Tuesday. January 08, 2013 2:35 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Perfect, thank you for your patience!

---

Original Message-----

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 1:14 PM To: Herr, Linda

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Thanks. The 13th is a good day. I will put it on my calendar.

---

Original Message-----

From: Herr, Linda Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 9:01 AM To: Criscione, Lawrence

Subject:

RE : Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Importance: High Hi Larry:

I have scheduled Feb 13. 2013 from 9:30-10:00am - although I was able to look at your calendar, the entire month of February is marked "tentative," so if the 13th doesn't work for you we'll try again:)

Thank you!!

Linda

---

Original Message-----

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 11 :54 AM To: Herr, Linda

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff I'll be in Illinois on January 22 and 23rd. I am next back in Rockville on January 30th. I've sent you a sharing invitation for my Outlook Calendar. It is up to date through the end of February.

Thanks, Larry

---

Original Message---*-

F rom: Herr, Linda Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:35 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Importance: High Hi Larry:

I know we've played with your meeting a couple of times already and I apologize - Cmr. Ostendorff will now be on travel the week of 1/14 thru 1/18 so may I ask your indulgence and move you one more time? Are you available on Jan 22 at 9:30am; 1:30pm or 3:00pm or on Jan 23 at 9:30am or 1:30pm? If not, please suggest days/times you are available so we can reschedule Jan 17th.

Thank you - again, I apologize.

Regards, Linda

---

Original Message-----

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent Monday, December 31, 2012 9:30 AM To: Herr, Linda Subject RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff

Linda, The later time works for me. Should I plan on meeting with the Commissioner from 1:30 to 2:00pm?

Larry

---

Original Message-----

From: Herr, Linda Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 11:03 AM To: Criscione, Lawrence

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Morning Lawrence:

Could I request that we moved your meeting to 1:30-2:00pm on the 17th? If that doesn't work for you, we'll leave it at the time it currently is scheduled 1:00-1:30pm.

Thank you for your consideration.

Happy Holidays!!

Linda

---

Original Message-----

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:20 PM To: Herr. Linda

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Thank you From: Herr, Linda Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:19 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc:Tappert,John

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Perfect, have scheduled you from 1:00-1:30pm on Cmr. Ostendorffs calendar in his office OWFN-18 G1.

---

Original Message----

From: Criscione, Lawrence

Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 1:16 PM To: Herr, Linda Cc: Tappert, John

Subject:

RE: Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Yes itwould.

From: Herr, Linda Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 201212:14 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc: Tappert, John

Subject:

Meeting re: Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam w/Cmr. Ostendorff Good Afternoon Lawrence:

Would January 17th from 1:00-1 :30pm work for you?

Thank you, Linda 301-415-1759 From: Tappert, John Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:36 PM To: Herr. Linda

Subject:

FW: Your Meeting Today Concerning Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam Linda Please arrange for a meeting in early January. Thanks John R. Tappert, P.E.

Chief of Staff Office of Commissioner William C. Ostendorff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1811 (office)

!(b)(6) I (mobile)

(301) 415-1757 (fax)

From: Tappert, John Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 10:17 AM To: Criscione. Lawrence Cc: Herr, Linda

Subject:

RE: Your Meeting Today Concerning Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam Larry, Sounds good. I will ask Linda to look for an opportunity in the New Year and we will confirm with you. Thanks John John R. Tappert, P.E.

Chief of Staff Office of Commissioner William C. Ostendorff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1811 (office)

!(6)(6) I (mobile)

(301) 415-1757 (fax)

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent Tuesday. December 11, 2012 4:41 PM To:Tappert,John

Subject:

RE: Your Meeting Today Concerning Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam John, Thank you for the invitation. Unfortunately I leave tonight for IUinois and will not be returning until January 8th.

If the Commissioner would be willing to meet with me in January, I would like to meet with him. My Outlook Calendar is up to date through Easter. If you or Linda could put me on the Commissioner's schedule in January, I would appreciate it.

Larry From: Tappert, John Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 3:07 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc: Herr, Linda Subject RE: Your Meeting Today Concerning Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam Larry Thank you for your email. The Commissioner received a briefing yesterday that was based on the first attachment of your email. Consistent with his open door policy, he would be happy to meet with you if you would like. He has some open time on his calendar at the end of next week - Thursday afternoon or Friday -

or Linda Herr, our senior administrative assistant, can arrange for another time. Please let us know. Thanks.

John John R. Tappert, P.E.

Chief of Staff Office of Commissioner William C. Ostendorff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (301) 415-1811 (office)

!(b; ~ (mobile)

( 1) 41 5-115(fax)

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Monday, December 10, 2012 6:53 PM To: Ostendorff, William; Magwood, William Cc: Boska. John; Hiland. Patrick: Evans, Michele; Pascarelli, Robert; Wilson, George; Bartley, Jonathan; Cook, Christopher; Miller, Ed; Cheok, Michael; Chen, Yen-Ju; Beasley, Benjamin; Merzke, Daniel; Coffin, Stephanie; Skeen, David; See. Kenneth: Monninger, John; Perkins, Richard; Bensi. Michelle; Philip, Jacob; Sancaktar.

Selim; Galloway, Melanie; Mitman, Jeffrey; Ferrante. Fernando; Bubar, Patrice; Tappert, John

Subject:

Your Meeting Today Concerning Flooding at Oconee from Jocassee Dam Commissioner Ostendorff, It came to my attention today that you and Commissioner Magwood were being briefed by NRR on the flooding vulnerabilities posed to the reactors at Oconee from a catastrophic failure of Jocassee Dam. Attached to this email are the "Commissioner Briefing Notes" prepared by NRR. Also attached are a 2012-11-14 letter from me to the Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works (E&PW) and an April 6, 2009 Non-Concurrence Form which a Deputy Division Director at NRR/DRA {Melanie Galloway) submitted against NRR's pusiUanimous treatment of the Oconee/Jocassee concerns.

I do not know exactly what you were told during your briefing today, but if it was limited to the "Commissioner Briefing Notes then you did not receive all the pertinent facts.

A major concern of mine, which I addressed in my attached letter to the E&PW, is that, in all the internal documents I have uncovered regarding NRR briefings of the Commissioners on the Jocassee/Oconee flooding issue, the actual risk numbers calculated by NRR/DRA are never mentioned and neither is the 2008-09-26 Duke Energy timeline concerning the predicted failure sequence which would occur at Oconee following a catastrophic failure of the Lake Jocassee Dam (for the context of the quote below. seep. 10 of Attachment 2 of ML082750106):

The following flood timeline is based on the results of the 1992 Inundation Study. In this scenario the dam is assumed to fail at time zero. Notification from Jocassee would occur before a total failure of the dam; however, for purposes of this timeline, notification is assumed to be at the same 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 overlapped. 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.

Hopefully you recognize that the above scenario is very similar to what occurred at Fukushima when a tsunami overtopped their inadequately sized flood wall and disabled their standby shutdown equipment. Why the above scenario does not ever appear in Commissioner briefing packages, I do not understand. This seems to me like something you would want to know.

Another thing you should know ls the annual probability of failure calculated by NRR/DRA for Jocassee Dam.

That number is 2.BE-4/year, which is of the same order of magnitude of a 49 foot tsunami striking the Japanese coast at Fukushima. Given this calculated probability of dam failure and the Duke Energy timeline quoted above, it appears that the inadequately sized flood wall at Oconee presents a very similar hazard to the American public as the inadequately sized flood wall at Fukushima presented to the Japanese public. Is this not something of which NRR should be informing the Commissioners?

As noted by Dr. Ferrante in the email trail below, NRR is not a monolithic institution. Specifically, NRR/DRA has a very different position on the Jocassee/Oconee issue as NRR/DORL. See the attached Non-Concurrence from Melanie Galloway as an example.

I do not know who was at your briefing today, but from the invitation attached to this letter it appears that neither were the key personnel from NRR/DRA (Galloway, Mitman, Ferrante) nor were the authors of the Gl-204 Screening Report (Perkins, Bensi, Philip, Sancaktar) invited to attend. It might be helpful to your understanding of the Jocassee/Oconee issue if you were to speak to Ms. Galloway regarding her 2009-04-06 Non-Concurrence, Dr. Ferrante and Mr. Mitman regarding their 2010-03-15 Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam, and Richard Perkins regarding his ordeal in routing and releasing the screening analysis for Gl-204 on flooding due to upstream dam failures.

After over 60 years of military service, Admiral Rickover noted:

A major flaw in our system of government, and even in industry, is the latitude to do less than is necessary.

Too often officials are willing to accept and adapt to siluations they know to be wrong. The tendency is to downplay problems instead of actively trying to correct them.

The NRC first identified the undersized flood wall at Oconee Nuclear Station in March 1994. It is my concern that the reason this issue is taking more than two decades to address is that Division Directors at NRR have been willing to accept and adapt to situations they know to be wrong. As noticed by Ms. Galloway in April 2009, the tendency in NRR was to downplay the Jocassee/Oconee problem instead of actively trying to correct it. The public looks to the NRC Commissioners to curtail this "latitude to do less than is necessary" and to ensure the NRC staff transparently addresses concerns in a timely manner.

I appreciate you taking an interest in this issue and requesting a briefing by NRR. I am concerned, however, that your briefing might not have adequately detailed the vulnerabilities faced at Oconee.

Vlr, Larry Lawrence S. Criscione Reliability & Risk Analyst RES/ORA/OE GIB 573-230-3959 If a subordinate always agrees with his superior, he is a useless part of the organization.

From: Ferrante, Fernando Sent: Thursday, November 15, 20121:58 PM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc: Mitman, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee In understand, and I think the folks who were involved in it understand as well. I just worry that other folks will look at our affiliations and assume "NRR" means the specific folks listed in the letter.

From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 11 :42 AM To: Ferrante, Fernando Cc: Mitman, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee Thanks Fernando. Jeff sent me the PSA and PSAM papers last month.

When I use "NRR" I mean the dominant position that won out. Hopefully most people understand that in an agency of 4000 people there is no one true NRG position or one true NRR position. Over the past five years it has bothered me to no end that a legitimate FOIA exemption is "pre-decisional information" and that the NRC is able to use it to conceal the internal debate process. 1think the public should be able to FOIA the varying NRG positions on issues and to understand how things are internally debated and decisions arrived at.

From: Ferrante, Fernando Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 8:04 AM To: Criscione, Lawrence Cc: Mitman, Jeffrey

Subject:

RE: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee

Larry, Thanks for the opportunity to review this letter. For the most part, the facts related to activities I am directly aware of are correct. Regarding the Information Notice (IN) that NRR authored on dam failure probabilities, I will give you some more background information that will hopefully help further clarify the discussion.

The IN came as a direct result of the Oconee/Jocassee issue. Jim Vail, a retired NRR/DRA/APOB staff, was in charge of developing it (with support from the NRR staff in charge of releasing generic communications in NRR/DPR/PGCB) under guidance from Melanie Galloway, then NRR/DRA Deputy Director. Sometime in 2009, I took over the responsibility of re-writing and issuing the IN (in the same manner I was tasked with rewriting NRR's original submittal to RES regarding the creation of what would eventually become Gl-204). Since the beginning, there was a lot of resistance and internal struggle regarding this IN. In order to have the IN released I made sure to build consensus between NRR/ORA, NRR/DE. RES/ORA (which had produced an internal dam failure report which supported the information that eventually went into the IN), and others. As more NRC Offices lined up to be included in the IN, the concurrence process started to take longer and this ended up

indeed being an exceedingly long turnover for a generic communication. The Gl-204 process continued in parallel until it became bogged down with some of the issues you described in the letter. At some point a presentation was made in an NRR LT/ET meeting, and the directive for the IN became to coordinate its release with the release of the Gl-204 report. Because of the delays in the Gl-204 report, this added another 6 months to a year of the release of the IN itself. At some point, when it became clear both releases were imminent, I was asked if the IN should be reclassified as "NON-PUBLIC/SECURITY RELATED," which I rejected on the basis that no information was contained in the IN which was covered in both NRR and NRC guidance regarding the withholding of information. Hence, the IN was eventually released publicly.

I should add that, as part of an effort to publicly release and discuss information that was created during the development of the dam failure report by RES/ORA, two papers were submitted, accepted, and presented at PRA conferences (the most recent in Helsinki, 2012) with concurrence from both NRR/DRA and RES/DRA staff (I can send these papers to you if you are interested). Both papers were reviewed internally and, similar to the IN, contained no information that went against guidance regarding withholding of information. Both papers relied in part on data developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) which does restrict public release of certain portions of their dam databases, but we followed their guidelines and contacted USACE to make sure no inadvertent release was made. This papers follow the same methodology discussed in the internal NRRIDRA document you referred to in the letter (ML100780084) which, to my knowledge, is the closest we have come to a more official position on the dam failure rate issue (which was, at least in part, the intent I had when the document was created).

I'm sharing the above information to make sure that readers who are totally unfamiliar with the issue (inside or outside of NRG), get a clear picture of how NRR/DRA dealt with some of the issues we were faced during the Oconee/Jocassee issue. In several parts of the letter, certain positions regarding the release of information or level of importance the issue deserved are attributed to "NRRft as a whole (e.g .. ~ ... there was a strong push by NRR to force RES to remove all OUO-SRI material from the screening report for Gl-204.") which I don't think were shared by all staff or Divisions within NRR. 1am concerned this may be misconstrued by readers who are completely unaware of the challenges the Oconee/Jocassee issue presented to the technical staff to mean all staff within NRR shared these positions.

Thank you.

Fernando Ferrante, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Division of Risk Assessment (ORA) PRA Operational Support Branch (APOB) Mail Stop: 0-10C15 Phone: 301-415-8385 Fax: 301-415-3577 From: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 10:23 AM To: Zimmerman, Jacob; Vrahoretis, Susan Cc: Beasley, Benjamin; Coe, Doug; Correia, Richard; Galloway, Melanie; Mitman. Jeffrey; Ferrante, Fernando; Wilson, George; Leeds. Eric

Subject:

FW: Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolutton of Flooding Concerns at Oconee Jacob/Susan: Please forward the attached letter to the Commission staff whom you believe should be aware of it.

I have copied on this email some of the NRR staff mentioned in the letter. Please let me know if I am mis-portraying any of your positions. Please feel free to forward this letter to whomever you believe needs to see it.

V/r, Larry Criscione 573-230-3959

f;rom: Criscione, Lawrence Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 9:15 AM To: 'valerie_manak@epw.senate.gov'; 'nathan_ mccray@epw.senate.gov'

Subject:

Lack of Transparency Impeding Resolution of Flooding Concerns at Oconee Please see the attached letter to the Senate Committee on the Environment & Public Works.