ML20141L715
| ML20141L715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/2020 |
| From: | NRC/OCIO |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141L707 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA, NRC-2019-000279 | |
| Download: ML20141L715 (135) | |
Text
NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA RESPONSE NUMBER (08-2013)
RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF 2014-0488 I INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT (PA)REQUEST RESPO NSE TYPE D FINAL 171 L!.J PARTIAL REQUESTER DATE Damon Moglen PART I. - INFORMATION RELEASED D No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.
D Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section.
Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the specified group are already available for D !GROUP I public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room.
0 I GROUP A&B I
Agency records subject to the request that are contained in the specified group are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room.
0 !GROUP A&B I Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.
D Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.
0 We are continuing to process your request.
0 See Comments.
PART I.A-- FEES I D D AMOUNT° You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed.
sI Non~. Minimum fee threshold not met.
- See comments for details D You will receive a refund for the amount listed. D Fees waived.
PART 1.8 - INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE D No agency records subject to the request have been located. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)
(2006 & Supp. IV (2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist.
Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part II.
0 This determination may be appealed within 30 days by writing to the FOIA/PA Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is a "FOIA/PA Appeal."
PART I.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required)
The incoming request FOIA/PA 2014-0488 will be made available in ADAMS as ML14261A399.
Portions of documents in Group A have been marked out of scope as these infonnation do not concern Diablo Canyon and the DPO.
Records with an ML accession number are available in the NRC Library at www.nr.c.gov/reading-nn/adams.html. For assistance in obtaining any public records, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) at 1-800-397-4209 or by e-mail at PDR.
Resource@nrc.gov.
SIGNATURE* FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT ~ FF~ ~ /J /:t')
Stephanie A. Blaney (Acting FOIA O f f i c e r ) \ . Q ~ d . ; /
I NRC FORM 464 Part 1 (08-2013)
NRC FORM 464 Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA lw' (08-2013) ..,........
2014-0488
- i RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DATE
\ ..... .i ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST 10/17/2014 PART II.A - APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS GBROUP I Records subject to the request that are contained in the specified group are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the I~-----' Exemption No.(s) of the PA and/or the FOIA as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552a and/or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)).
D Exemption 1: The withheld information is properly classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958.
D Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC.
D Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute indicated.
D Sections 141-1 45 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C.
2161-2165).
D Section 147 of the* Atomic Energy Act. which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).
D 41 U.S.C.. Section 4702(b), prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals in !he possession and control of an executive agency to any person under section 552 of Title 5, U.S.C. (the FOIA), except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter of the proposal.
D Exemption 4: The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.
D The information is considered to be confidential business (proprietary) information.
D The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1).
D The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).
D Disclosure will harm an identifiable private or governmental interest.
D Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery during litigation.
Applicable privileges:
Deliberative process: Disclosure of predecisional information would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the D deliberative process. Where records are withheld in their entirety, the facts are inextricably intertwined with the predecisional information.
There also are no reasonably segregable factual portions because the release of the facts would permit an indirect inquiry into*the predecisional process of the agency.
D Attorney work-product privilege. (Documents prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation)
D Attorney-client privilege. (Confidential communications between an attorney and his/her client)
Exemption 6: The withheld information is exempted from *public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted 0 invasion of personal privacy.
D Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason (s) indicated.
(A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding (e.g., it would reveal the scope, direction, and D focus of enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take action to shield potential wrong doing or a violation of NRC req~irements from investigators).
D (C) Disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(0) The information consists of names of individuals and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal D identities of confidential sources.
- D (E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
D (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an individual.
D OTHER (Specify)
I PART 11.B - DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.25(g), 9.25(h), and/or 9.65(b) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. it has been determined that the information withheld is exempt from production or disclosure. and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The person responsible for the denial are those officials identified below as denying officials and the FOIA/PA Officer for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO).
APPEi.i.ATE OFF IClAl DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED EDD SECY IG Eliot Brenner Director, Office of Public Affairs Bl D0D LJ D LJ Appeal must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals should be mailed to the FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, ODD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 , for action by the appropriate appellate official(s). You should clearly state on the envelope and letter that it is a "FOIA/PA Appeal."
- NRC FORM 464 Part II (08-2013)
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 5:01 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
Tomorrow's news tonight - - read and delete DIABLO CANYON /Differing Professional Opinion - Extensive media interest today followed an AP story about the former Senior Resident lr:ispector's DPO currently in process and public interest groups making a copy of the DPO available online~.We talked to the LA Times, KSBY-TV (San Luis Obispo, CA), and the San Luis Obispo News Tribune explaining that the NRC encourages and welcomes differing opinions and offers several paths for staff to document their differing views. Until the NRC completes its internal review process for the DPO, the agency is unable to comment on any potential documentation that is circulating as it is not final. Once a given review is complete the agency will have a final decision on the DPO and associated documentation. We reiterated that the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri-fault earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment. We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
http://www.washingtonpost. com/national/health-science/ap-exclusive-expert-calls-f or-nuke-plant-closure/2014/08/25/e 1464372-2c6a-11e4-be9e-60cc44c01 e 7f story.html CONTINUED STORAGE RULE - We had inquiries from C-Span and Al Jazeera TV about tomorrow's affirmation of the continued storage rule . C-Span was looking for something dramatic to cover in the depths of August, while Al Jazeera was following up on the Mother Jones article from last week that said the rule would gut safety controls on nuclear waste while allowing it to sit around for a century. We dissuaded both, and clarified issues for Al Jazeera..
PEACH BOTIOM - The Baltimore Sun asked some clarifying questions about the power uprates we approved today for the plant's two operating reactors. We announced the approvals in a press release issued this morning.
PILGRIM - The Cape Cod (Mass.) Times checked with us on the plant's return to full power following the completion of repairs to a feedwater heater. The unit was back at 1GO-percent power as of Saturday afternoon.
SUSQUEHANNA - A reporter for the Citizens' Voice (of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.) wanted to know more about a public meeting we'll be conducting on Sept. 3rd near the plant. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the preliminary results of a team inspection done at Unit 2 in response to a pair of "White" Performance Indicators received by the plant.
Press releases and speeches posted:
NRC Approves Power Uprate For Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station NRC Plans Public Meeting for Sept. 3 on Results of Inspection Conducted at Susquehanna Nuclear Power Plant
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:12 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks. Victor Subject RE:
Please keep me posted ... what a storm of activity - napa eq, seismic, sewell report, dpo leak, state report AND this final review
Original Message---
From: Brenner, Eliot Just FYI. Satorius is expected to finish his decision
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 5:01 PM To: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Tomotrows News Tonight CONTINUED STORAGE RULE -After today's affirmat ion session on t he continued storage rule, OPA HQ assisted a number of reporters with obtaining and deciphering the relevant documents. These included Greenwire, CQ Roll Call, Energy Daily, Platts, BNA, Exchange Monitor Publications, Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, Engineering News Record, and Ruth Thomas. USA Today also called, but decided not to do a story.
PALISADES - It's likely an investigative story on the safety conscious work environment in the plant's security department will air today on Chicago's NBC station . OPA Region Ill provided t he reporter with our perspective on the issue last week.
MONTICELLO - Region Ill responded to questions from t he Minneapolis Star Tribune about nuclear plant license renewal beyond 60 years. We said that here is no specific policy in existence right now but it is an issue the agency is reviewing.
DIABLO CANYON /Differing Professional Opinion - The second day of news coverage continues about the former Senior Resident Inspector's DPO currently in process but released publically.<'.we spoke to KCOY-TV. NPR affiliate KPCC, Reuters, and KPRO and KPCA rad~ We said once a review is complete, the agency will have a final decision on the DPO and associated documentation. We reiterated that the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment. We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
PEACH BOTTOM - The Lancaster (Pa.) New Era sought additional information on our approval of power uprates for both units. Our approval of the uprates was announced on Monday.
INDIAN POINT- WAMC-FM (Northeast Public Radio) wanted to know more about how a new natura l gas pipeline tha t will cross part of the plant's Owner Controlled Area was being reviewed. Entergy has submitted a hazards analysis that should be made available in ADAMS later in the week .
CONTINUED STORAGE DECISION -OPA Region I responded to questions regarding t he decision from the Newburyport (Mass.) Daily News, the Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer, the Palladium-Times (of Oswego, N.Y.) and the Citizens' Voice (of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.) .
PILGRIM -WQRC-FM (of Hyannis. Mass.) did a brief recorded Interview with a Region I PAO on the plant*s return to full power last weekend . The plant had been at reduced power due to a feedwater heater leak.
Press Releases Today NRC Approves Fina l Rule on Spent Fuel Storage and Ends Suspension of Final Licensing Actions for Nuclear Plants and Renewals Social Media Today 1
Blog: Q&A with Engineer Emma Wong In Recognition of Women' s Equality Day http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2014/08/26/qa-with-engineer-emma-wong-in-recognition-of-womens-equality-day/
~~ :~;:::~ -- .no distribution outside NRC -~ no ma @f1al p1upil@lafv tu 1.e , tti agencies cedistci:*:*9n 2
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 5:06 PM To: Brenner, lliot Subject Tomorrow's news tonight -- fead and delete h1tet1 ,al 1:1se ol"lly l"\e etietl'ie1:1tieA et<Jt&i9& ~IRC Ao ~edi'ittib, *Uoo DIABLO CANYON /DPO - We continued to discuss the leaked DPO currently in process and answered questions about Boxer's pending Senate hearing and a Friends of the Earth petition to shut down the plant We spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle, Bloomberg, Energy Intelligence, TV Asahi, and Platts nucleal' We explained the DPO process and corrected reporting falsely claiming that the report was being hidden from the public. We reiterated that the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment. We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
SPENT FUEL - OPA fielded some follow-up inquiries from Nuclear Intelligence Weekly about the continued storage rule and GEIS affirmed yesterday. We also reached out to reporters from Platts and the Chattanooga Times Free Press to clarify m1scharacterizations of the rule in their stories. Region I took calls from Vermont Public Radio and the Calvert (Md .) Recorder.
BROWNS FERRY - The Athens (Ala.) News-Courier contacted Region II OPA to inquire about an automatic scram of Unit 1that occurred Tuesday evening. The reporter was told that the scram appears to have been uncomplicated and plant systems performed as expected He was advised that the residents will be following up.
CONDENSER RETUBINGS - A reporter for Platts sought our perspectives on main condenser retubing projects. The interest was prompted by the just-initiated retubing of the condenser at the FitzPatrick nuclear power plant. We emphasized that the condenser is not considered safety-related. At the same time, condenser leakage can lead to downpowers. as has been the case at FitzPatrick.
PALISADES - Chicago Public Radio followed up on the recent media reports on the safety culture in the plant's security department. A Reg ion 3 PAO provided the reporter with extensive background information on the ROP and safety culture in general and did a recorded interview on our current assessment of safety culture at Palisades and our actions going forward .
Press releases and speeches posted:
Prepared remarks of Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane at the American Nuclear Society's 8th International Conference on Isotopes Prepared remarks of Chairman Allison M. Macfarlane at the Organization of Agreement States Meeting NRC Lifts Probation for Georgia's Agreement State Regulatory Program; Heightened Oversight to Continue 3
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 3:44 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Dapas, Marc
Subject:
TNf DIABLO CANYON /DPO - We continued to discuss the leaked DPO currently in process and answered questions about Boxer's pending Senate hearing and a Friends of the Earth petition to shut down the plant .
- we spoke to the San Francisco Chronicle, Bloomberg, Energy Intelligence, TV Asahi, and Platts nuclear. ,We expla ined the DPO process and corrected reporting falsely stating that the report was being hid from the public. We reiterated that the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safety withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment. We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 4:28 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell. Scott Cc: Drirks. Victor
Subject:
TNT OIABLO CANYON /Differing Professional Opinion - There was extensive media interest today brought on by the Associated Press story about the former s~nior Resident Inspector's DPO currently in process and public interest groups making a copy of the DPO available onhne{ We provided interviews to the LA Times, KSBY-TV (San Luis Obispo, CA),
and the San Luis Obispo News T ribune'explaining that the NRC encourages and welcomes differing opinions and offers several paths for staff to document the1t differing views. Until the NRC completes its internal review process for the DPO, the agency is unable to comment on any potential documentation that is circulating as it 1s not final. Once a g iven review is complete the agency will have a final decision on the DPO and associated documentation. We reiterated that the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant wou ld protect the public and the environment. We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
2
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 5:34 PM To : Brenner. Eliot
Subject:
Tomorrow's news tonight -- read and delete rnmmal use only - no dlso 1tmt1or1 outside ,~~e no Iedistr lbotio11 DIABLO CANYON - We spoke td.. Bloomberg, LA Times, AP, the News Tribune in San Luis Obispo, KSBY-TV and Central Coast News) reporters ~bout the EDO's public release of the DPO file submitted by an employee.
We explained the lengthy file's contents and pointed to language used in the EDO response that neither we nor the DPO filer believed there was any imminent safety question raised by information in the filing.
Today PGE issued a seismic study report to the state as directed by the state legislature. The PG&E report.
press release , and additional information can be found here.
DAVIS-BESSE - The Toledo Blade informed us about a press release coming tomorrow by Beyond Nuclear and other environmental groups claiming that FENOC did not reveal information about the root cause for the propagation of laminar cracking in the shield building after it became available to them in 2012. Region 3 is working on a brief statement about the status of our review of the root cause report which was submitted to us in June and supposedly contains this information . The groups plan to submit tis issue as a contention in the license renewal proceedings.
CONTINUED STORAGE RU LE - A writer for Physics World had some questions about the continued storage rule.
SUSQUEHANNA - The Standard-Speaker (of Hazleton, Pa.) is working on a story about a proposed spinoff o1 PPL's power generation assets that would include the plant. The reporter checked with us on possible change~
should the spinoff gain approval. He also asked about the status of a proposal for a new reactor near the site.
SALEM/HOPE CREEK - Platts inquired about two Severity Level IV violations recently issued to PSEG. One involved a Senior Reactor Operator candidate who deliberately falsified application information; the other pertained to securtty issues.
CALVERT CLIFFS - The Baltimore Sun may write about the Daily Calle r story earlier in the week regarding perceived ease of access to the site. We explained the background behind the situation, emphasizing that plant security remains appropriate and is not compromised by the absence of security guards at entrance road booths. OPA posted a For The Record on plant security during the day and that was shared with the reporter.
SEABROOK- The Newburyport (Mass.) Daily News checked with us on the dismissal of a spent fuel storage contention in the plant's license renewal hearing proceeding. The ASLB panel issued the ruling in response to the recent Commission decision on the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rule.
Social Media Today Blog: Part II: Ensuring Safety in the First Temple of the Atom http://public-blog .nrc-gateway.gov/2014/09/10/part-ii-ensuring-safety-in-the-first-temple-of-the-atom/
39
From: Burnell. Scott Se nt: Thursday, August 28, 2014 7:43 AM To: Bates, Andrew; Hart. Ken; Bavol, Rochelle; Laufer. Richard; Akstulewicz. Brenda; Jimenez.
Patricia Cc: Brenner fliQ.t Haffu,gton, Holly; Savoy. Carmel Subje ct: Mornmg _no1e OPA - Continuing coverage of the Commission's vote on the Continued Storage rule leads the day's headlines, along with catchup articles on the leaked Differing Professional Opinion regarding Diablo Canyon's seismic design. Tuesday's reactor trip at Browns Ferry Unit 1 received local attention.
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 5:01 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
'Femorrows news tonight - ,ead and delete (nfernai use only - na dlstt lbotior1 outside t~RC 110 , edisti iet:1tio" CHAIRMAN INTERVIEWS-The chairman met separately today with reporters from Greenwire, the New York Times and the Washington Post to reflect on accomplishments of the past two years and look forward to the issues facing the agency. Among the areas touched on were continued storage (nee waste confidence),
climate change, Fukushima, positioning tbe agencv fot.the future. decornroissionir19 E.nd th_E}_ r..e.g11latocy structure. Diablo Canyon and the DPO our re1auons with our Senate oversight committee, her management sry1e, oroadening public engagement, SMKs and the emerging international build-own-operate issue. There is no particular target date for publication of articles that will flow from these interviews, but we would expect them to start showing up over the next few days and into next week. The chairman is scheduled to talk with bloggers at an event hosted by the ANS and meet with other reporters as a group at an event sponsored by Energy Daily week after next.
DIABLO CANYON /DPO - We continued to discuss thf> status of the leaked DPO with the ~an Lu is Obispo News Tribune and a California Energy Markets reporter We explained the DPO process and that it is not being hid from the public. We reiterated that, at this time, the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment.
We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
PALISADES - R3 OPA has worked closely for about six months with the reporters at the Kalamazoo Gazette who just completed a series of seven articles on the Palisades nuclear plant safety, history and factors that may impact its future. The series that has run through this week wrapped up with an editorial in today's paper which reflects a positive view of the NRC's recent oversight of the plant:
http //www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2014/08/safe operation of palisades nu.html LIMERICK- The Pottstown (Pa.) Mercury is working on a story updating the status of the plant's license renewal application. We brought the reporter up to speed on recent developments, including the issuance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Commission's lifting of the suspension of license renewal final decisions in conjunction with the approval of the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rule.
Separately, NBC- 10 {the TV network's Philly affiliate) checked with us on an upcoming closed meeting regarding a preliminary W Greater than Green" security-related inspection finding.
INDIAN POINT -WAMC-FM (Northeast Public Radio) aired a piece on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) review of a proposed new natural gas pipeline that would cross part of the Indian Point Owner-Controlled Area: http://wamc.org/post/proposed-pipeline-expansion-prompts-indian-point-analvsls . The story includes information on the NRC plans to provide input to the evaluation.
12
From: Usetding, Lara Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:31 PM To: Rrenner, Eliot; Harrington, Hoity
Subject:
,.NT - no early dismissal today? ;)
DIAB LO CANYON /OPO - We continued to discuss the status of the leaked DPO with tha San Luis Obispo News Tribune and a California Energy Markets reporter. We explained the DPO process and that it is not being hid from the public. We reiterated that, at this time, the NRC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment.
We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
14
From: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2014 10:25 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Press Interviews Thanks Eliot.. .. I appreciate your arranging these interviews and helping her prep for them. Enjoy the rest of your weekend . Best. Phil
-Original Message---
From. Brenner, Eliot Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 4:22 PM To; Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip
Subject:
RE: Press Interviews Very Well. the Boss stuck to the script. Should produce some good stories about her looking forward , as well as focused on her position on not letting the continued storage decision be an out for policyroak~rs to dodge a repositorv decliiion. Topics ranged from that to Diablo and the DPO, to *olobal warming , build-own-operate';
looK1ng at how to position the agency for the future, public engagement, some personal questions for featuris~
purposes (Hannah), how she's likjng the job, status of Fukushima. She didn't have to fumble for any facts of consequence.
Looking forward , I think I can get Mufson to get us an editorial board meeting. The trick is figuring out when i~
the best time to do it, perhaps after the roundtables, maybe after the IAEA General Conference.
Eliot
Original Message--
From: Niedzielski-Eichner, Phillip Sent: Friday , August 29, 2014 4:14 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
Press Interviews Eliot: how did they go today?
11
From: Mdntyre, David Sent! Friday, August 15, 2014 4:56 PM To: McIntyre, David
Subject:
Tomorrow's News Tonight DIABLO CANYON -We learned that ar( AP reporter plans to run a story as early as next week on the former senior Resident Inspector and pending differing of professional opinion. The gist of the story will be that the former SRI recommends the reactors be shut down until PG&E can demonstrate that critical pumps. valves and piping can meet higher seismic stress levels, or until the NRC approves exemptions from regulatory and license requirements. We've provided extensive information about the NRC's position that the plant is currently safe to operate as documented in the Research Information Letter. We've also explained the ongoing work to look at the plant's seismic hazard.
CALLAWAY -A reporter with the Missouri Fulton Sun asked for the plant's 2013 radioactive effluent report which OPA provided. Earlier this week we spoke to the same reporter who had follow-up questions from last, week's reported event involving tritium and cobalt detected in a ground monitoring well. We reiterated that no indications of offsite leaks or groundwater contamination had occurred.
DIABLO CANYON - A Bloomberg reporter read today's event report and we answered her questions about two of three Unit 2 emergency diesel generators being out-of-service. We explained the plant operator has replaced two faulty bolts and are currently fixing a seal leak on one EOG. Unit 1 is at full power and Unit 2 is powered down while the maintenance is completed.
PRESS RELEASE ISSUED TODAY:
NRC Meeting Aug. 26 to Discuss Proposed Language For Consolidated Accident Mitigation Rule LO
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Thursday. August 28, 2014 5;04 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
fornorroW s news tonight -- read and delete IRterRel 1:s1ee &Aly r:ie eietrie1:s1tieF1 e1:s1teiele ~JRG Re reeietrie1:s1tieR MILLSTONE - We issued a Preliminary "White" inspection finding to Millstone 3 and a Severity Level Ill Violation to both Millstone units this afternoon. The reports were released via listserv. We answer related questions from the Associated Press and The Day (of New London, Conn.).
PEACH BOTIOM - The York (Pa.) Daily Record sought more information on the power uprates for both Peach Bottom units that we approved earlier in the week.
CONTINUED STORAGE RULE - The Rutland (Vt.) Herald played catch-up on the Commission decision regarding the Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel Rule. We also fact-checked a story by Vermont PUbhc Radio on the topic and clarified some points. The VPR piece may be picked up by some other NPR stations.
SUSQUEHANNA- Bloomberg News Service inquired about a downpower at Unit 2. We said it was due to the trip of a reactor recirculation pump.
DIABLO DPO - The San Luis Obispo paper ran an editorial today that was less than complimentary to the agency and contained some errors and misconceptions. Because this story has a number of moving parts that will come into better focus shortly, OPA opted to hold off on any immediate response.
Press releases and speeches posted:
NRC Issues Final Safety Evaluation Report for Callaway Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Application lS
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Thursday. September 04, 2014 4:50 PM To: HaJ:riRgtorr, ffo11y
Subject:
Tomorrow's News Tonight DIABLO CANYON - OPA Region IV sent the San Luis Obispo News Tribune a Letter to the Editor on the DPO process following claims that the NRC has not responded to a former Senior Resident Inspector's DPO. We also spoke to a Platts Nuclear reporter who asked for comment on how the agency is handling a Friends of the Earth petition to shut down the plant.
MOX -OPA HQ explained t o three reporters our process for reviewing Shaw-Areva MOX Services' request for a 10-year extension of t he construction permit, which expires next March. We received questions from the Aiken Standard, Platts and ExchangeMonitor.
SONGS- OPA Region IV contacted KUSl-1V in San Diego regarding a story broadcast last night about a letter sent by the NRC to Southern California Edison advising them we had failed to substantiate an allegation t hat employees of the company didn't provide complete and accurate infol'mation to NRC inspectors. The station broadcast a lengthy interview with local attorney Mike Aguirre, who held up the one-page letter sent to Edison, complaining that it was all the agency did to investigate possible wrongdoing by the company. He called the NRC investigation a "whitewash." We spoke to the assistant news director and pointed out the actual investigative report is 161 pages and has almost 7,000 pages of exhibits; that an exhaustive investigation was conducted over a 20-month period, involving hundreds of man-hours, and that dozens of people were interviewed. We also said we would have appreciated an opportunity to comment on any story regarding the agency and provided our contact information.
SALEM/HOPE CREEK - The News Journal (of Wilmington, Del.) had several clarifying questions on two Office of Investigations letters. One involved a Sen ior Reactor Operator candidate who delibe rately failed to disclose medically disqualifying information and t he other pertained to security-related matters. The letters were issued via listserv on Wednesday.
MID-CYCLE LETIERS - Our issuance of Mid-Cycle Assessment Letters drew interest from multiple media outlets, including WATD-FM (of Marshfield, Mass.), the Palladium-Times (of Oswego, N.Y.), t he Pottstown (Pa.) Mercury and the Citizens' Voice (of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.).
Press Releases Today NRC Issues Mid-Cycle Assessments for Nation's Nuclear Plants Social Media Today Blog: "Continued Storage" - What It Means and What it Doesn't http://public-blog.nrc-
~=: ~: : ~- -:~
gatewav.gov/2014/09/04/con ti nued-storage-what-it-mea ns-and-what-it-doesnt/
. e1, i istribution outside rt~ *: :o tidistisilrnti~ri p opnetary to news ag c,e 10
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Pruett, Troy; Hay, Michael; Clark, Jeff; Miller, Geoffrey; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Ho lly; Burnell, Scott: Mdntyre, David; Dricks. Victor Cc: Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Buchanan.
Theresa
Subject:
NRC is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanLuisObispo http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/09/05/3228909/nrc-,s-reviewing-employees-concerns.html?sp=/99/181 /182/
My Letter to the Editor ran today in the News Tribune in response to two editorials on Diablo Canyon and the DPO. Wasn't in the clips so I am emailing it. There was also another letter to the editor this morning that is in the clips.
Lara 9
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:10 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Mcintyre, David; Burnell, Scott; lJselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
per Mark, the DPO is getting signed today Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 7
From : Harring ton, Holly Sent: Wednesd ay, September 10, 2014 10:17 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: DPOemailto reporters.docx I believe we'd be giving them the URL fo r the package rather than se nding an atlachment?
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U S Nuc.lear Regulatory Commission 301.415.820 3 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:11 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
DPOemailto reporters.docx Importance: High Hello REPORTER NAME:
Based on your interest in the Michael Peck differing professional opinion story that ran a couple of weeks ago ,
I am sharing the agency's final decision that was made public today. Per the process, the Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, has made a decision on the appeal and the submitter expressed his wish to have the file publically released.
To refresh your memory, the submitter Michael Peck stated that the new Shoreline fault information should be compared to the double design earthquake (ODE) and that PG&E needed a license amendment.
The independent reviewing panel (page 3) disagrees and states, " ... an amendment to the license was not required bec ause the Shoreline fault zone ground motions do not exceed the levels eva luated in the plant's design and licensing. Further, " ... there is more than one appropriate evaluation method for evaluating the new seismic information. The Hosgri evaluation methods for structures used higher damping values than the Double Design earthquake." It goes on to say that "substituting the new seismic information into the calculation construct of the DOE would offer little insight as to how the structures , systems, and components would perform because the older techniques for overly conservative and no longer technically justified "
Also, let me draw your attention to page 5 of the attached document. Satorius says , In the appeal , you noted your agreement with the Ad Hoc Review Panel's conclusion that issues raised in the DPO do not result in a significant or immediate safety co ncern. You also state agreement that the potential ground motions for the Shoreline fault do not exceed the levels considered during licensing of the plant."
Feel free to call me w ith additional questions.
21
Lara Uselding 22
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 11:07 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
SLO Tribune editoral: September 10, 2014, NRC must shut Diablo Appropriate timing for me to send DPO to pews tribune reporter )nd editor N RC must shut Diablo 20
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:09 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Dricks, Victor Cc: Dapas, Marc;- Kennedy, Kriss Subjed: TNT DIABLO CANYON - We spoke to ~loomberg 1 AP. News Tribune San Luis Obispo, and Central Coast News reporters about the EDO's public release of the DPO file submitted by Michael Peck. We explained the lengthy file's contents and pointed to language used in document 8 provided by the EDO addressing Peck's concerns.
We explained Diablo's unique seismic licensing and design basis and highlighted there is not a safety concern with the continued safe operation of the plant.
Today PGE issued a seismic study report to the state per Assembly Bill 1632. The PG&E report , press release. and additional information can be found here.
4
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 4:28 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
TNT update DIABLO CANYON - We spoke to Bloomberg, LA Times, AP, News Tribune San Luis Obispo, KSBY-TV, Platts Nuclear, and Central Coast News reporters about the EDO's public release of the DPO file submitted by Michael Peck. We explained th~ Tengthy file's contents and pointed to language used in document 8 provided by the EDO addressing Peck's concerns. We explained Diablo's unique seismic licensing and design basis and highlighted there is not a safety concern with the continued safe operation of the plant.
Today PGE issued a seismic study report to the state per Assembly Bill 1632. The PG&E report , press release , and additional information can be found here.
1
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 7:43 AM To: Bates, Andrew; Hart, Ken; Bavol, Rochelle; Laufer, Richard; Akstulewicz, Brenda; Jimenez, Patricia Cc: Brenner. Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Savoy, Carmel; Mcintyre, David Subject M orning n01:e OPA - The news is dominated by coverage of both the EDO's decision on a differing professional opinion f
regarding Diablo Canyon and Pacific Gas & Electric's latest seismic report concerning the plant. nternat,onal news continued covering the Japanese regulator's decision to allow restart of the Sendai plant 9
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Friday, September 12. 2014 5:14 PM To: Harrington. Holly
Subject:
Tomorrow's News Ton,gnt
- ~::: ~;; :1~
I II A~ ~i&tri_ b11lioo outside NRC . pa cedistcibt1tiQR a ena propnetary to news agencies CHAIRMAN INTERVIEW COVERAGE - E&E News filed a story today based on the chairman's comments yesterday to reporters that what the Yucca Mountain issue is lacking is an applicant. A link to that story is below, followed by links to the American Nuclear Society coverage of their session with the chairman and nuclear bloggers, and a lengthy piece by nuclear blogger Rod Adams who attended the ANS session in person.
http://www.eenews.net/greenwire/2014/09/12/stories/1060005738 http:// an sn uclea rca f e.o rg/2 014 /09/11/ans-web ina r-with-n re-chairman* a 11 iso n-m acfa rla ne -a -success/
http://atomicinsights.com/continuing-conversation-nrc-chairman-macfarlane/
MILLSTONE-The Southold (Long Island) Local had questions about two Special Inspection reports issued in late August.
One concerned the dual unit loss of off-site power in May; the other was conducted to look into issues with a turbine driven aux feed pump.
SUSQUEHANNA - The Region issued a letter today returning the plant to rout ine ove rsight. The plant had been the degraded cornerstone column of the action matrix. The Press Enterprise (Bloomsburg, Pa.) is writing a short story on this.
UNIV. OF MISSOURI-CPA Region Ill briefly discussed the University's recent submittal request for an alternative decommissioning schedule for Pickard Hall with a reporter from the University's paper "The Maneater." Pickard Hall houses the Museum of Art and Archeology and is on the National Register of Historic Places. OPA also told the reporter the building remains safe and we will review the request.
Social Media Today Blog: The Latest Chapter in Diablo Canyon's Seism ic Saga http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2014/09/12/the-latest*
chapter-in -diablo-canyons-seismic-saga/
n 2
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 7:29 AM To: Bates, Andrew; Hart, Ken; Bavol, Rochelle; Laufer, Richard; Akstulewicz, Brenda; Jimenez, Patricia Cc: Brenner. .Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Savoy, carmel
Subject:
Morning note OPA -- The Chairman's comments last week at a bloggers roundtable and media event, particularly her discussion of Yucca Mountain issues, leads the weekend news. An expected confirmation vote on Commission nominees Stephen Burns and Jeffery Baran also received coverage as did Diablo Canyon seismic issues and updates on Vogtle new reactor construction.
1
From: Couret, lvonne Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:11 AM To: Brenner, Eliot Subject; FW: Blog Question Comment Posted Elliot I forgot to cc you on this blog comment/question I sent it to Lara and Scott for follow up Ivonne From: Couret, Ivonne sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 9:09 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara
Subject:
Blog Question Comment Posted Blog Question/comment from post The Latest Chapter in Oiablo Canyon's Seismic Saga:
http://sanonofresafety.org/earthquake-and-tsunam i-risks/
Where do the following facts fit within the NRC's analysis?
The USGS states no one has ever predicted a major earthquake. They do not know how The size of an earthquake fault can change AFTER an earthquake starts.
No one's can predict the g-force of a large earthquake.
Ivonne L. Couret Public Affairs Officer Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-8205 37
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:20 PM To: Mdptyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Rf AP Michael Blood Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups Not before 3. anyway.
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:20 PM To: Burnell, ~tt; Uselding, Lara~ Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE; AP Michael Blood Os: Response to press release from FOE, other groups You 're too busy this afternoon. remember?
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:57 PM To: Mdntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE:, AP Michael Blooa Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups And me, me too !
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:56 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE; AP Michael Blooa Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups HI Lara - Eliot's in a commission agenda planning meeting. He and I are going to discuss this in about 30 minutes when he gets back.
Dave From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:51 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrinoton, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David Subjecti AP Michael Blood Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups From Blood, Michael [1]
Sent: Tnursday, September 18, 2014 12:17 P~
To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
Response to press release from FOE, other groups Lara, I've attached a publicly released media announ cement below. I' m assuming you'll handle the FOIA in t he normal process. I have a few additional questions related to this, 12
I'd like to know, specifically, did the NRC and PGE coordinate to release these documents (Peck decision and seismic study) on the same day? If so, why?
The statement raises the question if the NRC and PGE "improperly worked together." Please address that directly in your response.
What rules/ regulations govern you r re lationship with PGE on these types of matters?
Did PGE have any early notice of the Peck decision, which you t old me was a confidential, internal process? Did PGE or their representatives have any access-input-advice to the deci sion-making process with the DPO?
Thanks.
For Immediate Release:
September 181 2014 Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Friends of the Earth files Freedom of Information Act request WASHINGTON, D.C. - Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied a dissent by the former chief inspector at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, Who said new seismic data show the plant may be vulnerable to earthquakes of greater magr,ltude than allowed by its license. On the same day, Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
released a long-awaited seismic study that, like the NRC's ruling, also claimed that Diablo Canyon is safe.
Was the timing a coincidence? Friends of the Earth doubts it.
Today, Friends of the Earth, joined by Public Employees for tnvironmental Responsibility, Mothers for Peace and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine whether the NRC and PG&E improperly worked together on a public relations strategy to counteract widespread news coverage of the inspector's dissent. According to the fOJA request, flied with the NRC in Washington :
The PG&E seismic report, released on the same day (as the decision on the inspector's dissent] indicates a possible relationship between the regulator and its licensee that has brought up widespread public concern regarding the independence of the regulator. There have been numerous concerns as to how the two documents could have been released simultaneously, given that [the handling of the inspector's dissent] has been kept secret.
The FOIA filing comes three days after three PG&E executives and a top staff member of the California Public Utilities Commission were removed for improperly working together to appoint the company's preferred judge to a case stemming from a September 2010 gas line explosion that killed eight people In San Bruno, California .
"You don't have to look any further than today's headlines to see that PG&E is capable of trying to improperly influence a government regulator when its profits are on the line," said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth . "Unfortunately, th~ NRC's track record on this issue shows an unfortunate tendency to put PG&E's interests before those of public safety. We want to find out to what extent PG&E and t he NRC worked together to spin the story that Diablo Canyon is safe, despite the mounting evidence that it is vulnerable to quakes more powerful than It was built to withstand."
San Luis Obispo County supervisor Bruce Gibson, a seismologist and member of the Independent Peer Review Panel for Diablo Canyon appointed by the CPUC, also questioned the timing or the release or PG&E's report.
13
"PG&E chose to finalize its entire report and release it to the public before It sought any comment from -or even contacted-the peer review panel," Gibson wrote in the San Luis Obispo Tribune. "It appears to me that PG&E's public relations staff advised them to get their story to the public before any detailed questions might be asked ."
Dr . Michael Peck, the former chief inspector at Dlablo Canyon, in June 2013 filed a dissent known as a Dlffer!ng Professional Opinion, or DPO, raising concerns that the plant might not withstand an earthquake on one of several fault lines that were not known when it was designed and built more than 40 years ago. Peck called for the shutdown of the plant until and unless PG&E could prove it is safe.
For more than a year, the NRC kept Peck's DPO secret and took no action on it. On August 25, 2014, the Associated Press revealed the existence of Peck's document, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to call a hearing to exa mine NRC's handling of t he dissent. On September 10, the NRC announced it had ruled against Peck . Within hours, PG&E released a seismic safety study the NRC had ordered in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011 ,
"PG&E's seismic safety study is one more example of lts half-century history of trying to rationalize away the extreme earthquake hazards to the Diablo Canyon reactors," said Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. " Despite three earthquake faults identified near Dl ablo, the NRC has continued to allow this devil of a plant to continue to operate."
Under federal law, the NRC has 20 days to respond to the Freedom of I nformation Act request.
AP ASSOCIATED PRESS (b)(6)
Michael R. Blood Los Angeles, Calif. http://tw itter.com/MichaelRBloo_9Ag.
- ormation contained in this communication is intended for the of the deSJ <lft!IM:P*n msk dccc6Dc6d2c3a64 38ft)cf467d9a4938 14
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday.. September 18. 2014 3:03 PM To: Blood, Michael'
Subject:
RE: Response to press release from FOE, other groups From: Blood, Michael [2]
Sent: Tnursday, September 18, 2014 12:17 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
Response to press release from FOE, other groups
- Lara, I've attached a publicly re leased media announcement below. I'm assuming you' ll handle the FOIA in the norm al process. I have a few additional questions related to this, I' d like to know, specifically, did the NRC and PGE coordinate to release these documents (Peck decision and seismic study) on the same day? If so, why?
No The stat ement raises the question if the NRC and PGE "improperly worked together." Please address that directly in your response.
We know of no collaboration between NRC and PG&E regarding the individual timing of releases . (i.e. OPO decision and state-required report)
However, we take these matters seriously and the NRC staff itself has referred the matter to the agency's Inspector General.
What rules/regulations govern your relationship w ith PGE on these types of matters?
We do not share pre-decisional information with licensees Did PGE have any early not ice of the Peck decision, which you told me was a confidential, internal process 7 Did PGE or t heir represent atives have any access-input-advice to the decision-making process with the OPO?
PG&E had no access, input. or advice on what was purely an internal matter. They were informed of the OPO decision at approximately the same time as the news media on Sep. 10.
Thanks.
For Immediate Release:
September 18, 2014 Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Friends of the Earth files Freedom of Information Act request 6
WASHI NGTON, D.C. - Last week the Nudear Regulatory Commission denied a dissent by the former chief Inspector at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, who said new seismic data show the plant may be vulnerable to earthquakes of greater magnitude than allowed by lts license. On the same day, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. released a long-awaited seismic study that, llke the NRC's ruling, also claimed that Dlablo Canyon is safe.
Was the timing a coincidence? Friends of the Earth doubts it.
Today, Friends of the Earth, joined by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Mothers for Peace and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club flied a Freedom or Information Act request to determine whether the NRC and PG&E improperly worked together on a public relations strategy to counteract Widespread news coverage of the inspector's dissent.
According to the FOlA request, filed with the NRC In Washington :
The PG&E seismic report, released on the same day [as the decision on the inspector's dissent] indicates a possible relationship between the regulator and Its licensee that has brought up widespread public concern regarding the independence of the regulator. There have been numerous concerns as to how the two documents could have been released simultaneously, given that [the handling of the inspector's dissent] has been kept secret .
The FOTA filing comes three days after three PG&E executives and a top staff member of the California Publlc Utilities Commission were removed for improperly working together to appoint the company's preferred judge to a case stemming from a September 2010 gas line explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, California.
"You don't have to look any further than today's headlines to see that PG&E Is capable of trying to improperly influence a government regulator when Its profits are on the line," said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth .
Unfortunately, the NRC's track record on this issue shows an unfortunate tendency to put PG&E's interests before those of public safety. We want to find out to what extent PG&E and the NRC worked together to spin the story that Diablo Canyon Is safe, despite the mounting evidence that it is vulnerable to quakes more powerful than it was built to withstand."
San Luis Obispo County supervisor Bruce Gibson, a seismologist and member of the Independent Peer Review Panel for Diablo Canyon appointed by the CPUC, also questioned the timing of the release of PG&E's report.
"PG&E chose to finalize Its entire report and release it to the public before It sought any comment from- or even contacted-the peer review panel," Gibson wrote in the San Luis Obispo Tribune. "It appears to me that PG&E's public relations staff advised them to get their story to the public before any detailed questions might be asked."
Dr. Michael Peck, the former chief inspector at Diablo Canyon, In June 2013 filed a dissent known as a Differing Professional 00tnion 1 or DPO, raising concerns that the plant might not withstand an earthquake on one of several fault lines that were not known when it was designed and built more than 40 years ago. Peck called for the shutdown of the plant until and unless PG&E could prove it Is safe.
For more t han a year, the NRC kept Peck's DPO secret and took no action on it. On August 25, 2014, the Associated Press revealed the elCistence of Peck's document, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to call a hearing to examine NRC's handling of the dissent. On September 10, the NRC announced it had ruled against Peck. Within hours, PG&E released a seismic safety study the NRC had ordered in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011.
"PG&E's seismic safety study is one more example of its half-century history of trying to rationalize away the extreme earthquake hazards to the Diablo Canyon reactors," said Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. " Despite three earthquake faults identified near Diablo, the NRC has continued to allow this devil of a plant to continue to operate."
Under federal law, the NRC has 20 days to respond to the Freedom of Information Act request.
AP ASSOCIATED PRESS M ichael R. Blood (b)(6J Los Angeles, Calif. http://twilter.com/MichaelRBloocrAP 7
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438fDcf467d9a4938 8
From: Brenner. Eliot Sent: Thursday. September 18. 2014 5:01 PM To: Brenner. Eliot
Subject:
Tomorrow's news tonight -- read and delete lr;:ita&nal 11&& QAly Re eietrietitie" et:ttsiele ~~RC 110 1edistlibatio11 EPR DESIGN CERTIFICATION-OPA facilitated a Finnish TV interview with NRO regarding the status of the NRC's review of Areva's EPR design certification appl ication. NRO discussed the need for additional information before an overall schedule, technical issues being discussed, and the review process as a whole.
FOIA- Friends of the Earth and several other groups said today they have filed a FOIA because they suspect "the NRC and PG&E improperly worked together on a public relations strategy to counteract widespread news coverage" of a DPO dissent about Diablo Canyon. OPA knows of no communication with the licensee on the timing of our outreach to reporters and a seismic news release issued the same day by PG&E. We told reporters who asked both that and that NRC staff had forwarded the issue to the NRC IG. The Associated Press and Platts were among those calling about the FOE filing .
http://WWW.foe.org/news/news-releases/201 4-09-d 1d-pqe-an d-the-nrc-work-together-to-soin-news-on-d iablo-canyon -
quake-safety
NRC FORM 464 Part I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA RESPONSE NUMBER (08-2013) 2014-0488 *2 RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT(PA)REQUEST
RESPONSE
TYPE D FINAL 0 PARTIAL REQUESTER DATE Damon Moglen NOV 1 4 2014 PART I. - INFORMATION RELEASED D No additional agency records subject to the request have been located.
D Requested records are available through another public distribution program. See Comments section.
D [GROUP_ _ _] Agency records subject to the request that are identified in the specified group are already available for l..______ public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room.
[Z]
,~R~U~-=--~1 Agency records subject to the request that are contained in the specified group are being made available for public inspection and copying at the NRC Public Document Room.
0 ,~~--] Agency records subject to the request are enclosed.
D Records subject to the request that contain information originated by or of interest to another Federal agency have been referred to that agency (see comments section) for a disclosure determination and direct response to you.
0 We are continuing to process your request.
0 See Comments.
PART I.A - FEES
- I D D None. Minimum fee threshold not met.
AMOUNT*
You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed.
s* SeeI comments for details D You will receive a refund for the amount listed. D Fees waived.
PART LB-INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE D No agency records subject to the request have been located. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c)
(2006 & Supp. IV (2010). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not. exist.
0 Certain information in the requested records is being withheld from disclosure pursuant to the exemptions described in and for the reasons stated in Part II.
0 This determination may be appealed within 30 days by writing to the FOIA/PA Officer, U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001 . Clearly state on the envelope and in the letter that it is a "FOIA/PA Appeal."
PART I.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required)
The incoming request FOIA/ PA 2014-0488 will be made available in ADAMS as ML14261A399.
Portions of documents in Group A have been marked out of scope as these information do not concern Diablo Canyon and the DPO.
Records with an ML accession number are available in the NRC Library at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. For assistance in o.btaining any public records, please contact the NRC' s Public Document Room (PDR) at 1-800-397-4209 or by e-mail at PDR.
Resource@nrc.gov.
SIGNATURE
' ,* **,i'"'1NFORI ltATION ACT AND PRIVACY ACT OFFICER Roger D. Andoh NRC FORM 464 Part 1 (08-2013)
NRC FORM 464 Part II U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA/PA (08-2013) .,... ..., ...
2014-0488
¥
' ~ .;<?o.1<i
- .. RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DATE
\ ~,, ACT (FOIA) / PRIVACY ACT (PA) REQUEST MOY l 4 ZD14
...... .<F PART II.A -- APPLICABLE EXEMPTIONS l
I ____
GCROUP Records subject to the request that are contained in the specified group are being withheld in their entirety or in part under the
.__ _, Exemption No.(s) of the PA and/or the FOIA as indicated below (5 U.S.C. 552a and/or 5 U.S.C. 552(b)) .
D Exemption 1: The withheld information is property classified pursuant to Executive Order 12958.
D Exemption 2: The withheld information relates solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of NRC.
D Exemption 3: The withheld information is specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute indicated.
D Sections 141-145 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Restricted Data or Formerly Restricted Data (42 U.S.C.
2161-2165).
D Section 147 of the Atomic Energy Act, which prohibits the disclosure of Unclassified Safeguards Information (42 U.S.C. 2167).
D 41 U.S.C., Section 4702(b), prohibits the disclosure of contractor proposals in the possession and control of an executive agency to any person under section 552 of Title 5, U.S.C. (the FOIA), except when incorporated into the contract between the agency and the submitter of the proposal.
D Exemption 4 : The withheld information is a trade secret or commercial or financial information that is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.
D The information is considered to be confidential business (proprietary) information.
D The information is considered to be proprietary because it concerns a licensee's or applicant's physical protection or material control and accounting program for special nuclear material pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1 ).
D The information was submitted by a foreign source and received in confidence pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(2).
D Disclosure will harm an identifiable private or governmental interest.
Exemption 5: The withheld information consists of interagency or intraagency records that are not available through discovery during litigation.
Applicable privileges:
Deliberative process: Disclosure of predecisional information would tend to inhibit the open and frank exchange of ideas essential to the deliberative process. Where records are withheld in their entirety, the facts are inextricably intertwined with the predecisional information.
There also are no reasonably segregable factual portions because the release of the facts would permit an indirect inquiry into the predecisional process of the agency.
D Attorney work-product privilege. (Documents prepared by an attorney in contemplation of litigation)
~
D Attorney-client privilege. (Confidential communications between an attorney and his/her client)
[Z] Exemption 6: The withheld information is exempted from public disclosure because its disclosure would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
D Exemption 7: The withheld information consists of records compiled for law enforcement purposes and is being withheld for the reason(s) indicated.
(A) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to interfere with an enforcement proceeding (e.g., it would reveal the scope, direction. and D focus of enforcement efforts, and thus could possibly allow recipients to take action to shield potential wrong doing or a violation of NRC requirements from investigators).
D (C) Disclosure could constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
(D) The information consists of names of individuals and other information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to reveal D identities of confidential sources.
D (E) Disclosure would reveal techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or guidelines that could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.
D (F) Disclosure could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of an i~ividual.
D OTHER (Soecifvl I
PART 11.B - DENYING OFFICIALS Pursuant to 10 CFR 9.25(9), 9.25(h), and/or 9.65(b) of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, it has been determined that the infonnation withheld is exempt from production or disclosure, and that its production or disclosure is contrary to the public interest. The person responsible for the denial are those officials identified below as denying officials and the FOIA/PA Officer for any denials that may be appealed to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO).
APPELLATE OfflClAL DENYING OFFICIAL TITLE/OFFICE RECORDS DENIED EOO $CY IG Eliot Brenner Director, Office of Public Affairs C l thru C34 D0D D LJ LJ Appeal must be made in writing within 30 days of receipt of this response. Appeals should be mailed to the FOIA/Privacy Act Officer, ODD U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555-0001, for action by the appropriate appellate official(s). You should clearly state on the envelope and letter that it is a "FOIA/PA Appeal."
NRC FORM 464 Part II (08-2013)
From: Juliana Hoskinson <jhoskinson@bulletinintelligence.com>
Sent~ Friday, September 05, 2014 9:39 AM To: Harrington, Holly; bulletin news
Subject:
RE: NRC is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanLuisObispo Hi Holly, Thanks for the link. From what I could gather, it posted about an hour or so ago, so we wouldn't have caught it. We'll be sure to include it Monday.
Best regards, Juliana Juliana Hoskinson Director of Product Management (703) 483-6192 (work) I (703) 483-6112 (fax)
Original Message-From : Harrington, Holly [mailto:Holly.Harrington@nrc.gov)
Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 9:36 AM To: bulletin news (NRC-editors@bulletinnews.com)
Subject:
FW: NRC is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanluisObispo This was missing from the clips. Can you make sure it gets into Monday's version?
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
Original Message----*
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:32 AM To: Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Pruett, Troy; Hay, Michael; Clark, Jeff; Miller, Geoffrey; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor Cc: Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Buchanan, Theresa
Subject:
NRC Is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanluisObispo
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/09/05/3228909/nrc-is-revlewing-employees
-concerns.html?sp=/99/181/182/
My Letter to the Editor ran today in the News Tribune in response to two editorials on Diablo Canyon and the DPO. Wasn't in the clips so I am emailing it. There was also another letter to the editor this morning that is in the clips.
Lara 2
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 4:32 PM To: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Yes, that was the plan From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:16 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
FW: Draft Letter to the Editor This is good to go. Are you putting it under your namer Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Harrington, Holly sent: Wednesday, September 03, 20141:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; McI ntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Soldrio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Attached is a draft final version based o n your feedback . I'd like to send it to the Chairman's Office today. Please let me know if additional revisions are needed.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 .415.8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:54 PM .
To: Harrington, Holly; Galloway, ~elanie; Peder:5en, Renee; John~~n, Mic~~el; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patnc,a; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
Re: Draft Letter to the Editor That is my understanding especially since the DPO was released to the public already. in this case, wouldn't that affect decision? Same person's NCPs were publically released and have been di,scussed with locals at public meetings about Diablo.
l
Lara RIV OPA Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:40 AM To: Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Renee - can you speak to Melanie' s question? It was my understanding that release would occur if the requested wished - once it was scrubbed for security/sensitive information.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Galloway, Melanie Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:13 PM To: Pedersen, Renee; Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Laraj Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor My only comment is that the letter implies in 3 places that the only consideration in public release is whether the submitter would like the information released. But isn' t there also consideration from an agency standpoint as to whether we want public release? Maybe not in this case but in general. And I wouldn' t want to leave an impression that the only consideration is with the views of the subm itter. Before stating that we will provide a public link to the DPO case file, we should ensure that we agree it can all be released .
From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:10 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Galloway, Melanie; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor
- Holly, Here are my comments on the article. I tried to put a link to the DPO MD under the words about DPO guidance, but it wouldn't link in the redline strikeout mode. You may want to do this, because the message is that we are in process!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Renee 2
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:40 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor To clarify- we assume you will share this with whomever else need to also review it. We will share a final (if it gets to that point) with the Chairman's Office.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Useldfng, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
Draft Letter to the Editor We have drafted a proposed "Letter to the Editor in response to an earlier editorial and a letter to the editor at the San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/1, 126K which says, in part, that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report, "twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately just 650 yards from Dlablo Canyon." Peck is concerned "that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC " never responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."
The letter to the editor addressing primarily the issue above in red is attached. Can you please review It to ensure it is factually accurate and appropriately worded. Please send me any suggestions for changes. We wlll then run it by the Chairman's Office.
We do need to do this quickly in order for it to be relevant in the "news" world, so I apologize for the haste with which we'd like it reviewed.
Thank you!
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 3
From: Zimmerman, Roy Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 20141:51 PM To: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Well done, thx From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:23 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Attached is a draft final version based on your feedback. I'd like to send it to the Chairman's Office today. Please let me know if additional revisions are needed.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:54 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
Re : Draft Letter to the Editor That is my understanding especially since the DPO was released to the public already. in this case, wouldn't that affect decision? Same person's NCPs were publically released and have been discussed with locals at public meetings about Oiablo.
Lara RIV OPA Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From : Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 11:40 AM To: Galloway, Melanie; Pedersen, Renee; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mclntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor Renee - can you speak to Melanie's question? It was my understanding that release would occur if the requested wished-once it was scrubbed for security/sensitive information.
Holly Harrington
Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Galloway, Melanie Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:13 PM To: Pedersen, Renee; Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor My only comment is that the letter implies in 3 places that the only consideration in public release is whether the submitter would like the information released. But isn't there also consideration from an agency standpoint as to whether we want public release? Maybe not in this case but in general. And I wouldn't want to leave an impression that the only consideration is with the views of the submitter. Before stating that we will provide a public link to the DPO case file, we should ensure that w e agree it can all be released.
From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:10 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Zimmerman, Roy Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot; Holahan, Patricia; Galloway, Melanie; Solorio, Dave; Sewell, Margaret
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor
- Holly, Here are my comments on the article. I tried to put a link to the DPO MD under the words about DPO guidance, but it wouldn't link in the redline strikeout mode. You may want to do this, because the message is that we are in process!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Renee From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:40 PM To: Johnson, Michael; WIiiiamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Draft Letter to the Editor To clarify- we assume you will share this with whomever else need to also review it. We will share a final (if it gets to that point) with the Chairman's Office .
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 2
~-
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
Draft Letter to the Editor We have drafted a proposed "Letter to the Editor" in response to an earller editorial and a letter to the editor at the San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/1, 126K which says, in part, that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report, "twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately just 650 yards from Diablo canyon." Peck is concerned "that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant wi ll never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC " never responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were " hidden away and not reported to anyone."
The letter to the editor addressing primarily the issue above in red is attached. Can you please review it to ensure it is factually accurate and appropriately worded. Please send me any suggestions for changes. We will then run it by the Chairman's Office.
We do need to do this quickly In order for it to be relevant in the "news" world, so I apologize for the haste with which we'd like it reviewed.
Thank you!
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 3
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: With EDITS: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Mischaracterizations by public interest groups state the information was kept secret and that is simply not the case.
Change this sentence to read: those who suggest the decision was hidden are mistaken, Drop the word 'the" after xxx process and xxx in the next sentence Add a sentence at the end of the pgh that says xxx We have received no request from the submitter at th is writing to make the documents public.
With those changes, put it into concurrence.
11b)\G)
I*
Original Message ----
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 07:59 PM To : Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
With EDITS: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO The word on the street, as reflected in an Aug. 28 editorial entitled "NRC should respond to the Diablo report" and a Sep. 1 "Close Diablo Canyon" letter, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion and is hiding its contents. A Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) is one of many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.
To provide clarity, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the submitter, Michael Peck, and he appealed the decision resulting in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that decision is rendered the submitte r can request to have the documents publically released .
Before this process was complete, a document purporting to be Mr. Peck's DPO was published by interest groups. In keeping with our practice to protect those who want to challenge an agency decision, that document was not provided by the NRC. Mischaracterizations by public interest groups state the information was kept secret and that is simply not the case. The DPO process is an internal process and the NRC employees have a right to privacy. Until a final decision is issued, no documents would be released unless the submitter expresses an interest having them shared publically.
The NRC strives to establish and ma intain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contracto rs to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and DPOs.
The NRC expects to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will seek permission from the submitter to release the DPO case file.
1
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:19 PM To ; Uselding, Lara Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Write something short and tame and let me see it.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 07 :16 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE : DPO Hi: Holly said I could email you as I asked to revisit writing a letter to editor clarifying the DPO process to state that we aren' t hiding" anything ...this aired again in the News Tribune SLO yesterday Letter Writer Faults NRC Response To Former Official' s Claims. In a letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo (CA)
Tribune<http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/09/01/3222262/close-dlablo-canyon .html#storylink=rss> (9/1, 126K),
Debbie Highfill of Morro Bay, writes that former Oiablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector M ichael Peck, filed a report, "twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately just 650 yards from Diablo Canyon." Peck Is concerned " that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC "never responded in any way11 to Peck's assertions. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."
Any thoughts on me submitting a short, tame letter to the editor?
Lara Uselding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Affairs - Region IV, Arlington, Texas 817 .200.1519 lara.uselding@nrc.gov<mailto:lara.uselding@nrc.gov>
2
From: Brenner1 Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:55 PM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Harrington, Holly Subject; RE* Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Good, but wecannot say the dpo was leaked to the press.we can say that a document purporting to be mr. Peck's dpo was published by interest groups. In keeping with our practice to protect those who wantto challenge an agency decision, that document was not provided by the nrc. Please weave that in and let me see it again. Then, wwhen I am comfortable with it, I want it reviewed by ogc, by whoever is most familiar with the dpo process, like maybe OE, by the EDO andthen b ye jen swartzman for OCM. We mustbeexceedinglycareful withthis.
Eliot Brenner Director, Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Md. 20852 0: 301*415-8200 q - - (b-}(6-) - -
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:43 PM To; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Revlsit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO The word on the street, as reflected in an Aug. 28 editor ial entitled " NRC should respond to t he Dlablo report," and a Sep. 1 "Close Diablo Canyon" letter, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion in a timely fashion and is hiding its contents. A Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) is one many paths t he NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.
To provide clarity, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the subm itter, Michael Peck, and he appea led t he decision resulting in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that decision is rendered the submitter can request to have the document s publically released.
Before this process was complete, the differing professional opinion was leaked to the press. Mischaracterizations by public int erest groups stat e this was kept secret and that is simply not the case. The DPO process is an internal process and the NRC employees have a right to privacy. Until a final decision is issued, no documents would be publically released unless the submitter expresses an interest in doing so.
The NRC st rives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and DPOs.
The NRC expects to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will seek permission from the submitter to release the DPO case file.
l
We can*check this part with EDO's office for clarification From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 201412 :19 PM To : Useldlng, Lara Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Write something short and tame and let me see it.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 07:16 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Hi: Holly said I could email you as I asked to revisit writing a letter to editor clarifying the OPO process to state that we aren' t hiding anything ... this aired again in the News Tribune SLO yesterday Letter Writer Faults NRC Response To Former Official's Claims. In a letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo (CA)
Tribune<http ://www.sanluisobispo.com/2014/09/01/3222262/close-diablo-canyon.htmlltstorylink=rss> (9/1, 126K),
Debbie Highfill of Morro Bay, writes that former Diablo canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report,
" twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly dfscovered fault lfne that lies approximately just 650 yards from Oiablo Canyon ." Peck is concerned "that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC "never responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were
" hidden away and not reported to anyone."
Any thoughts on me submitting a short, tame letter to the editor?
Lara Uselding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission (NRC) Public Affairs- Region IV, Arlington, Texas 817.200.1519 lara.uselding@nrc.gov<mailto :lara.uselding@nrc.gov>
2
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 201412:15 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE:
One riot. One ranger.
-Original M essage---
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:12 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE:
Please keep me posted ...what a storm of activity- napa eq, seismic, sewell report, dpo leak, state report AND this final review
Original Message----
From: Brenner, Eliot Just FYI, Satorius is expected to finish his decision
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:30 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Oricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT ....Earthquake Research Continues at Oiablo Canyon I U.S. NRC Blog Just FYI, Satorius is expected to finish his decision on the DPO this week. perhaps it might be best to get a package of things and roll them up in one?
---Original Message---
From: Useldlng, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:27 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT**..Earthquake Research Continues at Diablo Canyon I U.S. NRC Blog http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2012/10/22/earthguake-research-continues-at-diablo-canyon/
In light ofl) all the media attention on the DPO and seismic concerns and 2) in anticipation of the state report, I propose we do an update to Scott's well w ritten seismic blog. So when the report hits the street in the coming days, we are prepared to provide all the complex seismic activity and analyses from our perspective .
We can discuss the HOW. Holly, perhaps it would just be an update to this blog?
Lara 1
From: Schwartzman, Jennifer Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 1:49 PM To: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: second stab at Diablo blog post Attachments: DiabloRpt_blog_srb.docx Here it is with our comments.
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 3:57 PM To: Schwartzman, Jennifer
Subject:
second stab at Diablo blog post See what you think. I'm much happier. It's now 13.9 BTW Holly Harrington Senior level Advisor Office of Publ ic Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 1
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 9:55 AM To: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: NRC is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanLuisObispo Thanks for your help pushing It through, we needed to have it run :)
- -Original Message-From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 8:36 AM To : Uselding, La ra; Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Pruett, Troy; Hay, M ichael; Clark, Jeff; Miller, Geoffrey; Brenner, Eliot; Bumell1 Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor Cc: Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Buchanan, Theresa
Subject:
RE: NRC is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanluisObispo I'll get it to Bulletin News Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
- -Original Message-From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, September OS, 2014 9:32 AM To: Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss; Pruett, Troy; Hay, Michael; Clark, Jeff; Miller, Geoffrey; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; M cIntyre, David; Drl cks, Victor Cc: Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Walker, Wayne; Alexander, Ryan; Buchanan, Theresa
Subject:
NRC is reviewing employee's concerns I Letters to the Editor I SanluisObispo http://www.sanluisobispo .com/2014/ 09/0S/3228909/nrc-is-reviewing-emp loyees-concerns.html?sp=/99/ 1&1/182/
My Letter to the Editor ran today in the News Tribune in response to two editorials on Diablo Canyon and the DPO.
Wasn't in the clips so I am emailing it. There was also another letter to the editor this morning that is in the clips.
Lara 1
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:22 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: DPOemailto reporters.docx Lara: in this note you need to be specific about where page 3 is, because the I suspect what they will be looking at is the whole package. So you may want to specify that the decision is document 8, and so it's page 3 of document 8. Second, you might also point them to the 41n paragraph.
I agree with holly, I believe we should give them a URL rather than attach the collected documents.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:11 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
DPOemaitto reporters.docx Importance: High Hello REPORTER NAME:
Based on your interest in the Michael Peck differing professional opinion story that ran a couple of weeks ago, I am sharing the agency's final decision that was made public today. Per the process, the Executive Director of Operations, Mark Satorius, has made a decision on the appeal and the submitter expressed his wish to have the file publically released.
To refresh your memory, the submitter Michael Peck stated that the new Shoreline fault information should be compared to the double design earthquake (ODE) and that PG&E needed a license amendment.
The independent reviewing panel (page 3) disagrees and states, " ... an amendment to the license was not required because the Shoreline fault zone ground motions do not exceed the levels evaluated in the plant's design and licensing." Further, " ... there is more than one appropriate evaluation method for evaluating the new seismic information. The Hosgri evaluation methods for structures used higher damping values than the Double Design earthquake." It goes on to say that "substituting the new seismic information into the calculation construct of the ODE would offer little insight as to how the structures, systems, and components would perform because the older techniques for overly conservative and no longer technically justified."
Also, let me draw your attention to page 5 of the attached document. Satorius says, "In the appeal, you noted your agreement with the Ad Hoc Review Panel's conclusion that issues raised in the DPO do not result In a significant or immediate safety concern. You also state agreement that the potential ground motions for the Shoreline fault do not exceed the levels considered during licensing of the plant.
Feel free to call me with additional questions.
Lara Uselding 1
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 3:55 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Dricks, Victor; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: DPO Scott. would you check with Trent Wertz on Monday for us just to understand where they are at? Wouldn 't think something 1s ready to release next week as it needs a SUNS! review still. ...
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:48 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor; Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David
Subject:
Re: DPO That would be all I'd suggest. I have nothing further on the DPO Sent from an NRC Blackbe rry Scott Burnell I (b)(6) I From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 03:45 PM To: Oricks, Victor; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
FW: DPO EYI
!..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _cb_)<6_i _ _ _ _ _ _ _....! Any update on the DPO just for awareness sake?
From: ~lood, Michael [manto:mblood@ap.org].
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 2:38 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
RE: DPO Hello Lara, I expect my story on Oiablo Canyon and Michael Peck's DPO to run shortly. You have previously told me the document is "non-public."
If you have any further comment, please let me know asap and no later than Monday, Aug. 18.
Also, Victor Dricks raised an apparent issue involving Peck's departure from Diablo Canyon . He told me in a telephone call there was something that needed to be corrected. Please explain.
The story will say that Peck recom mends t he reactors be shut down until PG&E can demonstrate that critical pumps, valves and piping ca n meet higher seismic stress levels, or 12
until the NRC approves exemptions from regulatory and license requirements. His concern stems from 2011 PG&E research that fou nd three nearby faults (Shoreline, Los Osos and San Luis Bay) ca n produce significantly more ground shaking th an was used in the plant's design (safe shutdown earthquake).
Thank you.
Michael Blood, AP From: Uselding, Lara [3]
Sent: WedAesdaX-1 JY!_y 23, 2014 10:06 AM To: Blood, Michael
Subject:
RE: DPO Hello Michael: The Differing Professional Opinion process in an internal. non-public process. The DPO submitter has rights , including the right to privacy over this issue. The DPO submitter has a key role in determining whether or not the DPO and Director's decision become available publicly. So far that decision has not been rendered nor made publically available. If the submitter wants it to be made publically available. 1t would undergo a SUNS! review to redact any sens1t1ve information La ra
-~-- ----
From: Blood, Michael [4]
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 7:47 PM To: Usetding, Lara
Subject:
RE: DPO Lara, Can you confirm it has been filed?
From: Uselding, Lara [mailto:Lara.Uselding@nrc.gov)
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 7:58 PM To: Blood, Michael
Subject:
Re: DPO We can't provide a document that hasn't been issued Michael Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public. Affairs 817*200-1519 From; Blood, Michael [5]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 06:00 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
RE: DPO Lara, Please provide me with more explanation. Why isn't this a public document? Under what legal basis are you withholding it?
13
From: Uselding, Lara [ mailto:Lara.Uselding@nrc.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:57 PM To: Blood, Michael
Subject:
Re: DPO When this issue is resolved and if there is a document to be made public, you will get it.
Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817
- 200-1519 Frol1l: Blood, Michael [6] '
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 01:23-f>M""
To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
FW: DPO Lara, Just making sure my question hasn' t been lost . I request ed a copy of Mr. Peck's DPO. If you can send me a copy of t he document, please do. (Eliot suggest s below there might be a di sclosure issue.) If you cannot, ple ase notify me that is the case and provide an explanation of why the document cannot be released . Thank
- you, Michael: }/our point of contact on all things diablo canyon is Iara uselding, who I have copied on t his message. I believe sbe e1Tfailed you about one of the issues raised by Peck, but you haven 't gotten ba ck to her. I t hink victor ha s also rea ched out to you on this subject. Before you write anything on this subject it is Importa nt that you talk to Iara about peck's assertion on personnel matters.
We 're checking on the process for making these things public. If it becomes public, you'll get it.
Eliot Eliot Bren ner Director, Office of Public Affa irs US Nuclear Regu latory Commission Protecting People and the Environment 301 415 8200 c:I (b)(6)
Sent from my Blackberry From'\ ~lood . Michael (mailto*mbloog@ap.org]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11 :32 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
DPO Eliot, Victor, Please send me a copy of the DPO filed by Mr. Peck.
Thank you, 14
AP ASSOCIATED PRESS Michael R. Blood mblood@ap.org Los Angeles, Calif. 213-346-3116 (O)
I (b)(6) !(C) msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438fficf467d9a4938 LS
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 5:09 PM To : Burnell, Scott; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker. Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Ehot; Markley, Michael
Subject:
RE: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Thanks I have sent this to Lauren Gibson and Joe Sebrosky for their input if they have time I'II be sure we get that piece right Lara From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:01 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael
Subject:
Re: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT After a quick read, I suggest revising to note PG&E has to incorporate the new info into the seismic hazard re-analysis th e plant mu st perform in response to lhe 50.54f letter. The cu rrent narrative suggests the JLD does the re-analysis.
Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell lb)(6)
From : Useldlng, Lara Sent: Thursday, August 21, 20M 04:53 PM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael
Subject:
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Eric: The Region has put together the attached messaging and Q&A for the report we expect to receive next week. We want to share that with you and get your insights prior to us briefing Marc Dapas Monday morning.
Could you take a look and let me know your thoughts?
Remember, this is what I will use to respond to questions next week from the public and reporters . OPA's plan is to NOT issue a press release, or a blog but to take questions as they come in. We already have a communications plan on Diablo so the attached will be incorporated into the existing comm plan. No other action is needed on that front.
We can have a call to discuss strategy with the involved parties from RIV and HQ at your convenience.
Lar,1 L'sdding
- ' C 1 ~* I ,, I I') 11** 1*,, ' 'Ii, I
'I. ' t.! 1 1 I\ .rh ',
81 7.100. 151 '1 lara.usd<linu(u nrc.gO\
7
From: Brenner. Eliot Sent; Sunday, August 24, 2014 12:27 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
FW: COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Attachments: STATE REPORT MESSAGING.docx Importance: High From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 4:53 PM To: Oesterle, Eric Cc: Walker, Wayne; Hipschman, Thomas; Singal, Balwant; Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Markley, Michael
Subject:
COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY ON STATE REPORT Importance: High Eric: The Region has put together the attached messaging and Q&A for the report we expect to receive next week. We want to share that with you and get your insights prior to us briefing Marc Dapas Monday morning.
Could you take a look and let me know your thoughts?
Remember, this is what I will use to respond to questions next week from the public and reporters. OPA's plan is to NOT issue a press release, or a blog but to take questions as they come in. We already have a communications plan on Diablo so the attached will be incorporated into the existing comm plan. No other action is needed on that front.
We can have a call to discuss strategy with the involved parties from RIV and HQ at your convenience.
Laro Useldfog
' I R *. l uti,* \ \ I 'nll"')ll I', ,rH )
'I l*ll, ' II I{,,, IHI I\ \, hll!.lCll!I, I \:~"
817.200.1519 larn.ul.elding@nrc.gov 1
DRAFT Talking Points: State Report 09/30/2014 10;26 AM
- As required by the NRC, as docwnented in the RIL, PG&E has entered the new preliminary seismic info into their Corrective Action Program. The results of the study are used to assess the impact on the current design and licensing basis of DCPP.
In response to the NRC~'i review ofthe January 201 1 Shoreline Fault Report. PG&E made the following commitment to the NRC:
"If during PG&E's ongoing collection ofseismic data, new faults are discovered or information is uncovered that would suggest the Shoreline fault is more capable than currently believed, PG&E will provide the NRC with an interim evaluaJion that describes actions taken or planned lo address the higher seismic hazard relative lo the design basis, as appropriate. prior to completion of the evaluations requested in the NRC staffs March 12, 2012, request/or information (Reference 2). 11 Where Reference 2 is NRC feller lo All Power Reactor Licensees and Holders of Construction Permits in Active or Deferred Status. "Request of Information Pursuant to Title JO of the Code of Federal Regularions 50.54(/) Regarding Recommendations 2.1, 2.3, and 9.3 of the Near-Term Task Force Review of Insights.from the Fukushima Dai-lchi Accident,"
March 12. 2012
- The NRC performed an independent deterministic analysis of new seismic infonnation provided by PG&E in 2011 relating to the Shoreline fault. NRC's conclusions are documented in Research Information Letter (RTL) 12-01 , dated October 10, 20l2 (publically available in ADAMS ML121230035). NRC determined that the maximwn ground motion expected at DCPP from a seismic event occurring along the Shoreline fau lt would be bounded by previous analyses of expected ground motion for seismic events associated with the Hosgri fauH and PG&E 's Long Tenn Seismic Program (LTSP) ground motion response spectra.
- Region IV, including the Resident Inspectors, have taken an initial review of PGE' s initial operability evaluation of the new information to verify it does not affect the plant's ability to operate safely and be able to remain safely shutdown following an earthquake.
- The new information, required by the state of CA AB 1632, has been presented to the NRC as a condition of the RlL and shows that the Shoreline fault is longer and more capable. (Simply put, it produces more energy over a wider area which is why the NRC agrees that it is still bounded by the Hosgri.)
- The initial operability evaluation does not invalidate the NRC's standing assessment that the plant is built to withstand a 7.5 mag earthquake or .75 ground motion on the Hosgri.
The RIL documents the NRC's assessment of the seismic hazard at DCPP. The Hosgri fault which was reviewed by the NRC, still bounds the Shoreline FauJt even now it
appears the shoreline fault is more capable. Further analysis on site by PG&E and has determined that DCPP is stilJ within its design to withstand the longer, more capable shoreline fault. (It produces more energy over a wider area which is why the NRC agrees that it is still bounded by the Hosgri.)
- Because th is is a complex technical issue, there will be additional review by the seismic experts at HQ. This new information will also be evaluated by the Japan Lessons Learned Directorate and incorporated into the 50.54f review being conducted as part of the post-Fukushima actions and due in March 2015.
- In addition. a longer-term review is underway by the License renewal staff to determine whether an amendment to the 2011 issued Draft EIS (ML# ....) is needed.
0 and A:
What will the NRC do with this new information?
The NRC has reviewed the plant's operability evaluation provided by PG&E. AJl indications are that the Shoreline fault remains bounded by the Hosgri fault for which the plant was built and licensed to withstand. This new information does not negate or invalidate the NRC's assessment laid out in the RIL and therefore the plant remains safe to operate.
The 1000-page document has also been given to the Japan Lessons Learned Directorate to be incorporated into the 50.54f review. Consistent with the UFSAR, the new preliminary information regarding regional source characterization (i.e. fault capability) and potential site ground motion will be evaluated in accordance with the process defined by the NRC in their Fukushima 50.54(f) letter, through the SSHAC process and a final Seismic Hazard and Ground Motion Response Spectra (GMRS) will be submitted to the NRC by March 2015. The updated Seismic Hazards/GMRS will be used as input to an updated Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment (SPRA), which will be submitted to the NRC by June 2017.
(Ifpushed on any *'unk()wns ** in the report: If necessary. actions could include orders to hair operations ifthe new information suggests there is an immediate safety concern. The NRC will fulfill its mandate to protect public health and safety.)
(/f asked what things the plant has done since Fukushima: It is important to note that DCP P is an industry leader in implementing FLEX which was a post-Fukushima industry initiative to have extra equipment available remotely in the event ofa beyond design basis event.)
\Vby are you saying this report is preliminary?
For the state, the report is final. For the NRC, this information will be incorporated into the more comprehensive 50.54f analysis due to the NRC in March 2015. However, because the licensee
must notify the NRC of any new seismic info, they have shared this report and an initial operability evaluation showing why the plant is safe to operate. The NRC has looked at this evaluation and agrees based on the info that the Hosgri bounds all seismic events.
Why didn't the NRC discover the length of the faults when it did its seismic review of the Shoreline fault in 2011 prior to issuing the RIL?
California Assembly Bill 1632 (Blakeslee, Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) directs the California Energy Commission to assess the potential vulnerability of California's largest baseload power plants, Diablo Canyon Power Plant and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, to a major disruption due to a seismic event or plant aging; to assess the impacts of such a disruption on system reliability, public safety, and the economy; to assess the costs and impacts from nuclear waste accumulating at these plants; and to evaluate other major issues related to the future role of these plants in the state's energy portfolio. The licensee has used the most state of the art methodologies using 2D and 3D mapping. This is different methodology than what was used for the 2011 Shoreline Fault.
Toe NRC has requested licensees to submit a seismic hazard reevaluation osing up-to-date methodologies and analysis which is due for DCPP in March 2015. (Lauren, JLLD: anything to add here?)
What is the impact of this new information on seismic design and licensing of DCPP?
Based on the preliminary results of the studies that are under review, it has been determined that the Shoreline Fault Zone may be more capable than summarized in the January 2011 report. but the deterministic response spectra are still bounded by those for the Hosgri and LTSP earthquakes. Therefore, the conclusions remain the same and there is no adverse impact on the seismic design of DCPP. As a result. the assessment associated with the January 2011 Shoreline Fault Report remains valid.
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 7:54 AM To: Bates, Andrew; Hart, Ken; Bavol, Rochelle; Laufer, Richard; Akstulewicz, Brenda; Jimenez, Patricia Cc: Brenner. Eliot Harrington, Holly; Savoy, Carmel Subject Morning note OPA -- An array of outlets, primarily California media, covered the leaked Differing Professional Opinion (minus the ongoing staff review and response) regarding Diablo Canyon's seismic design. Mostly financial media noted the NRC's approval of an uprate for both Peach Bottom units, while Wisconsin outlets discussed the revised tax valuation for the permanently closed Kewaunee plant.
1
From: Mcintyre, Davi d Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:42 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Vtetor Subjed~ RE: BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT....Earthquake Research Continues at Diablo Canyon I U.S. NRC Blog I just spoke to Trent Wertz in NRR and Renee Pedersen in OE. Renee will ask NRR to commence its documents review under the assumption that Peck will want the DPO record made public, so that we can respond more quickly once Mark Satorius finishes his review of Peck's appeal.
Mark's schedule indicates mid-September for that decision. but Eliot says Mark told him today he hopes to finalize it this week. Once he does, there will be a high-level summary of the DPO and its resolution for publication in the Weekly Information Report, which is public. Renee thinks that the SUNSI review process should not take very long, and that if NRR starts It now, we could be ready to release it within a couple days of Mark's decision.
---Original Message-From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:20 PM To: McIntyre. David
Subject:
PN: BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT. ... Earthquake Research Continues at Diablo Canyon I U.S. NRC Blog
Original Message----
From : Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:13 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE : BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT.... Earthquake Research Continues at Diablo Canyon I U.S. NRC Blog I'd rather do a new post that contains and links back to the previous post. Can Scott and Lara get together to figure out how to make this happen? I assume we're on a shortish time frame if a decision is being made at the end of the week?
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
Original Message-----
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11 :30 AM To; Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Cc: Dricks. Victor
Subject:
RE: BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT....Earthquake Research Continues at Diablo Canyon I U.S. NRC Blog Just FYI , Satorius is expected to finish his decision on the OPO this week. perhaps it might be best to get a package of things and roll them up in one?
---Original Message--
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday , August 26, 2014 11:27 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell. Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
BLOG IN PREP FOR STATE REPORT....Earthquake Research Continues at Diablo Canyon I U.S.
NRC Blog http:/ /public-blog .nrc-gateway.gov/2012/ 10/22/earthg uake-research-continues-at-diablo-canyon/
In light of 1) all the media attention on the DPO and seismic concerns and 2) in anticipation of the state report, I propose we do an update to Scott's well written seismic blog. So when the report hits the street in the coming days, we are prepared to provide all the complex seismic activity and analyses from our perspective.
We can discuss the HOW. Holly, perhaps it would just be an update to this blog?
Lara 2
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:10 PM To: Brenner. Eliot Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil. Jenny; Moreno, Angel Subject RE; Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Yes . how about:
As ts the case with any petition received , the NRC will review rt according to its procedures and respond accordingly From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:06 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Oricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel
Subject:
RE: Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppresslon of w histleblower report I would respond that as is the case with any petition of this nature, it will be dealt with in the normal process for handling such matters, or something to that effect From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:02 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott Cc: Dricks, Victor; Weil, Jenny; Moreno, Angel
Subject:
FW: Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistlebtower report FYI From: ~well, Abigail M [7]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:18 AM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
FW: Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report Hi Lara - Friends of the Earth is filing a petition seeking to have Diablo Canyon shut down pending a license amendment.
Does NRC want to comment?
Abby From: Bill Walker [ma1lto:bw.deadline@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:03 AM
Subject:
Petition filed to shut Diablo Canyon; Boxer calls hearings into suppression of whistleblower report
[Onlme: htlp:llwww.foe.org/news/news*releases/2014-08-nuc/ear*watchdoq*pelft10ns.federal-regulator-to-close-unsafe-diab/o-canyon-nuc/ear-reactorsl For Immediate Release: August 26, 2014 Expert
Contact:
2
Damon Moglen, senior strategic advisor, (202) 352-4223, dmoglen@foe.org Communications Contacts:
EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org Bill Walker. {510) 759-9911 , bw.deadhne@qma1l.com Nuclear watchdog petitions federal regulator to close unsafe Diablo Canyon nuclear reactors Sen. Boxer calls for hearings on NRC's failure of 'responsibility to protect public health and safety' WASHINGTON, D.C. - One day after the release of a document suppressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California is vulnerable to earthquakes, Friends of the Earth filed a petition charging that the plant is in violation of its license and must be closed lmrnedlately pending public hearings to prove it is safe. Meanwhile. the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee announced it will hold its own hearings into the NRC's suppression of the document.
Friends of the Earth's petition to the NRC charges that despite having new information that earthquake faults surrounding Diablo Canyon are capable of ground motion far greater than the reactors were designed and llcensed to withstand, both Pacific Gas and Electric and the agency have failed to conduct a rigorous safety analysis and licensing review required by the agency's rules. Friends of the Earth's petition states:
- studies done so far indicate that the Shoreline Fault and the nearby Los Osos and San Luis Bay faults are capable of producing an earthquake with ground acceleration that far exceeds the plant's current licensing basis. posing a serious safety risk to the public and the environment near the plant. . When a plant cannot operate within the specific parameters described 1n the currenl licens1ng basis, the (Atomic Energy Act) requires the licensee to seek a license amendment and engage in a public process with an adjudicatory hearing."
Citing the fact that the new seismic data shows that the reactors do not meet their licensing specifications and requirements and could therefore fail catastrophically ln a massive earthquake, Friends of the Earth is asking that the NRC close Oiablo and convene a public review with hearings before a federal judge to assess 'M'!ether or not the reactors can be run safely.
The petition is similar to one Friends of the Earth fifed in June 2012 that resulted in a landmark ruling that fed to Southern California Edison's decision to permanently close the San Onofre nudear reactors, where damaged equipment made It impossible for the plant 10 operate 111 accordance 'Mth its license.
"This is a really scary situation,* said Darnon Moglen of Friends of the Earth. *PG&E and the NRC both know that earthqualles are possible that far surpass those for which the reactors are designed and licensed, but they have decided to look the other way. Given the overwhelming risk of earthquakes at Oiablo Canyon, federal and state authorities would never allow nuclear reactors to be built on this site now."
On Monday the Associated Press reported that a formal dissent by Dr. Michael Peck. formerly the NRC's senior resident safety inspector at Oiablo Canyon.
reveals in detail that new seismic data shows that the reactors are vulnerable to earthquakes. Peck filed his report, known as a Dissenting Professional Opinion. in July 2013 and requested it be made public. but the agency has neither released nor ruled oo it. despite NRC policy that DPOs must be ruled on within 120 days.
Peck's dissent says that srnce the 1960-era reactors were built new information has emerged about potential earttiquakes 1n the area that means the plant ts operating "outside the bounds of the existing Diabfo Canyon design basis and safety analysis* - in other words, in violation of its federal license.
- continued reactor operation ...challenges the presumption of nuclear safety: Peck asserted. "The reactors should remam shut down pending demonstration that...safety functions can be met at the higher seismic stress levels."
In response to release of the suppressed report, Environment and Pubfic Works Committee chair Sen. Barbara Boxer announced that she would hold hearings on the situation at Diablo and said: "The NRC's failure to act constitutes an abdication of its responsibility to protect public health and safety:
Seismic safety has been a major concern at Diablo Canyon since construction on the reactors began in 1968. Over the years, it has become increasmgly clear that the reactors are surrounded by seismic faults. In the aftennath of the Fukushima disaster in 2011, a report issued by the NRC itself ranked the Diablo Canyon reactors as the most likely ln the nabon to be hit by an earthquake stronger than they were designed to withstand.
3
Bill \\ a Iker dha lll'ad lin c ~O\\
lh.'rkck~
- C \
(510) 759-9911 T\\ itrcr: fit <lcat.llincnm, Facchook: l)cadlincNm,
~kypl': <lca<llineno\\
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday. August 27, 2014 9:03 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
RE: i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO Theres also an effort to convene an EDO-level discussion , and we're invited . I suggested Lara and Dave or myselt.
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:02 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mdntyre, David
Subject:
i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO How about 10 a.m. in my office, with RIV on the phone?
4
From: Dricks, Victor Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:34 AM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO ok Victor Dncks Senior Public Affairs Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission/ Region IV 1600 E. Lamar Blvd .
Arlington, Texas 76011 (817) 200-1128 (Office)
I (b)(6:1 I (Cell)
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:32 AM To: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO You guys should just call in to my direct number From: Dricks, Victor Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:24 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David
Subject:
RE: i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO Willdo l Victor Dricks Senior Public Affairs Office r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission/ Region IV 1600 E. Lamar Blvd .
Arlington, Texas 76011 (817) 200-1128 (Office)
! {b)(6) I (Cell)
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:02 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Dricks, Victor; Useldlng, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David
Subject:
i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO How about 10 a.m. in my office. with RIV on the phone?
2
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:37 AM To: Dricks, Victor; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David
Subject:
Re: i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO Yes, t hat works Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817 200*1519 From: Dricks, Victor Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 08:24 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David
Subject:
RE: i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO Willdol Victor Dricks Senior Public Affairs Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission/ Region IV 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.
Arlington, Texas 76011 817 200-1128 (Office)
\b)(6) (Cell)
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:02 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
i'd like to have a quick conversation on the DPO How about 10 a.m. In my office, with RIV on the phone?
From: Uselding. Lara Sent Thursday, August 28, 2014 2:21 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
LETIERTOEDITOR SLOTRIB.docx Attachments: LETTERTOEDITOR SLOTRIB.docx 1
In an August 28 editorial, entitled *'NRC should respond to the Diablo report, the Tribune staff says it is disappointing the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its employee's differing professional opinion in a timely fashion. A Di ffe ring Professional Opinion (DPO) is one many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, including: Open Door Policy and Non-Concurrence Process (formal & informal methods}.
To provide clarity, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the submitter, Michael Peck. and that decision was appealed by the submiuer. Therefore the appeal is under review by the head of the NRC 's Director of Operation. Once that decision is rendered the submitter can request to have the documents released publically.
To correct an error in the editorial, the staff state "he submitted a "differing professional opinion*, to the NRC in 2012, which contains much of the information in the leaked document referring to the FOE press release and public release of the document. Had the staff checked with their reporter with whom the NRC spoken to about this, they would know that in fact, the former Senior Resident inspector (SRl) submitted non-concurrence papers (NCPs) in January 2011 and January 2012, followed by a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) in July 2013 detailing a disagreement with the NRC about how the new seismic information (Shoreline fault) should be compared to the plant's current seismic license requirements.
These non-concurrence papers are public record and have been discussed at numerous public meetings held in SLO to provide members to the local community opportunities to ask questions about the plant with the regulator.
The NRC strives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and DPOs.
The NRC expects to complete the appeal in m id-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will seek permission from the submitter to release the DPO case file.
The former Senior Resident filed the DPO associated with the regul atory response following the discovery of the Shorel ine Fault. In April 2009 the NRC issued Research Infom1ation Letter (RIL) 09-01, " Preliminary Deterministic Anal ysis of Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon NPP from Newly Identified Shoreline Fault." This was an independent study of potential impacts of the Shoreline Fault. The NRC concluded that adequate seismic margin existed and the plant was safe to operate.
The NRC concluded that it was appropriate to use the same methods and criteria as was used for the Long-Term Seismic Program/Hosgri to evaluate the Shoreline fault. This was because the Shoreline Fault frequency and peak ground acceleration at the plant were below what LTSP/ Hosgri would produce at the plant.
The former SRI did not agree. The NRC encourages members of the staff to share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. Again. the submitter is currently with the NRC as an instructor at the training center in Tennessee.
Fron,: Uselding. Lara Sent Thursday, August 28, 2014 10:26 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
BROCH URE RIL.docx Attachments: BROCHURE RIL.docx l
RIL 09-001 JAPAN LESSONS LEARNED
- The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in RIL 09-001 and was based on information available at the time. The NRC found
- The NRC staff issued a request for additional infonnation to all nuclear U.S.NRC
, ,tfl:l)'\ l \ l t "- J\ 1 *(' 1 ' \IIUll,11 \lnH, 11)\l\t1,,1n~
Pru t,*,*t i11,i: P,*u1*fr <1111/ th ,* E>> 1*i,*1111>11t*11t the Shoreline fault's maximum power plants on March 12, 2012, to predicted shaking is less than what initiate several actions as a result of lessons learned from the Fukushima NRC REvlEw OF S8SMC HAZARD the plant was previously analyzed for.
Dai-chi accident in Japan: AT THE DIABLO CANYON POVVER RIL 12-001
- RIL 12-01 , "Confinnatory Analysis of
- Conduct "walkdowns" of all nuclear PLANT FROM lliE SHORELINE Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon power plants to verify flooding and FAULTZONE seismic protection features Power Plant from the Shoreline Fault Zone," updates the NRC's evaluation based on infom,ation PG&E provided in January 2011 , as well as a staff visit to Diablo Canyon.
- The NRC continues to conclude that ground shaking from the Shoreline fault's earthquake scenarios are less than the HE and LTSP ground motion levels for which the plant was previously evaluated and demonstrated to have reasonable assurance of safety 2.5 , - - -- -- - - , - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - , - Reevaluate flooding and seismic
- ~SD,drvll hazard and design using present day
§ 2.0 ---
- - 1.TPSp,f-CNf"I
~.-., ......
-- ti..-:~, ...... methods and guidance g This brochure provides an overview of l'! u
- The DCPP seismic hazard reevaluation, the NRC's review of the Shoreline fault
~ scheduled to be submitted by March zone near Diablo Canyon. It also
< 1.0 2015, will assess all known faults in the places the Shoreline fa ult review in
~ context with the NRC's request that all area (i.e., not limited to just the Cl) 0.5 Shoreline fault) using a process similar U.S. nuclear power plants reanalyze to what is done for siting new reactors. seismic hazards based on lessons 0.0 ~
o., 1 10 100 learned from the Fukushima Dai-ichi Frequency (Ht)
For additional information contact the accident in Japan.
Comparison of Hosgri and L TSP Office of Public Affairs. Phone: (301)
Spectra to NRC Deterministic 415-8200 or email: opa@nrc.gov Evalu ation Results (Prepared November 2012)
DIABLO CANYON POWER - Hosgri Earthquake (HE) ground SHORELINE FAULT motion level, which is based on an PLANT SEISMIC earthquake from the Hosgri fault BACKGROUND which was discovered in 1971 .
~ The HE ground motion level is
- Nuclear power plant designs 0.75g peak ground acceleration consider earthquake effects by anchored at 100 Hz based on a providing margins against ground 7.5 magnitude earthquake 5 motion levels at the plant site. kilometers from the site
- The ground motion levels show )- Diablo Canyon's design was how much energy (measured in modified so that sufficient
'g,' or percent of Earth's gravity) is equipment survives the HE to transmitted at different shaking safely shutdown the plant and frequencies keep the nuclear fuel cool
- Designers use ground motion levels to analyze how structures
- Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) and equipment respond during an - The plant's original license earthquake required seismic reevaluation in
- Diablo Canyon is licensed to three 10 years earthquake ground motions (most - The LTSP was initiated to meet plants have two) this license condition
- Design Earthquake (DE) ground The LTSP spectrum has been
- In November of 2008, plant owner motion is the biggest earthquake Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) used to evaluate seismic margins informed the NRC it had identified a the plant is allowed to continue operating through previously unknown fault during Comparison of OE, DDE, Hosgrl, and LTSP Ground Motion Specira collaborative research with the U.S.
25 **
- .,. The DE ground motion level is - - -
- LSTP Spornum Geological Survey (USGS)
- Ho"Jf* SPo<trum 0.2g anchored at 100 Hz -
!:!)
2.0 - - 00( Sp<<trllm
- - OE Spwrum
- The Shoreline fa ult is approximately Double Design Earthquake (DOE), .§ 600 meters from the reactor and 300 ground motion is the shaking level ~ 15 meters offshore at which all safety related equipment must remain functional I
~ 1.0
- The NRC's first assessment of the Shoreline fault was detailed in
>-' The DOE ground motion level is i Research Information Letter (RIL) double the amplitude of the DE (0.4g peak ground acceleration anchored at 100 Hz) v, OS 00 0,1
- 10 100 09-001 , "Preliminary Deterministic Analysis of Seismic Hazard at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant from Frequency (Hz) Newly Identified 'Shoreline Fault""
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:46 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: TNT - no early dismissal today? :)
(b)(6)
How did the interviews go?
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 2:44 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: TNT - no early dismissal today? :)
I've been too busy, and it's aboLit time for folks to start folding tents. I will not make bedcheck phonecalls.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 3:31 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
TNT - no early dismissal today? : )
DIABLO CANYON /DPO - We continued to discuss~ tstatus of the leaked DPO with the ~an Luis Obispo News Tribune and a California Energy Markets reporter. We explained the DPO process and that it is not being hid from the public. We reiterated that, at this time, th RC continues to conclude the plant is built to safely withstand the effects of a Hosgri earthquake and that the plant would protect the public and the environment.
We pointed to the Research Information Letter as the basis for this.
13
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:43 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO The word on the street, as reflected in an Aug. 28 editorial entitled " NRC should respond to the Diablo report," and a Sep. 1 "Close Diablo Canyon" letter, is that t he Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion in a timely fashion and is hiding its co ntents. A Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) is one many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting t hei r differing views, including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.
To provide clarity, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the submitter, Michael Peck, and he appealed the decision resulting in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that decisio n is rendered the submitter can request to have the documents publically re leased.
Before this process was complete, the differing professional opinion was leaked to the press. Mischaracterizations by public interest groups state this was kept secret and t hat is simply not the case. The DPO process is an internal process and the NRC employees have a right to privacy. Until a final decision is issued, no documents would be publically released unless the submitter expresses an interest in doing so.
The NRC strives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and co nt ractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fea r of negative co nsequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regu latory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concu rrences and OPOs.
The NRC expect s to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will seek permission from the submitter to release the DPO case file.
We can check this part with EDO's office for clarification From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:19 PM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Write something short and tame and let me see it.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 07:16 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Hi: Holly said I could email you as I asked to revisit writing a letter to editor clarifying the DPO process to state 0
that we aren't "hiding anything ... this aired again in the News Tribune SLO yesterday 8
Letter Writer Faults NRC Response To Former Official's Claims. In a letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/1 , 126K), Debbie Highfill of Morro Bay, writes that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report, "twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately just 650 yards from Diablo Canyon.* Peck is concerned "that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it.** But the NRC "never responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."
Any thoughts on me submitting a short, tame letter to the editor?
l : 1r;i L ..;clding I " ' _ I{ 1, I ~ 11111 ,,1° 'H(
\ II ,~. f!II I\ \11 I ' ,1 I , 1, lt1ra.USl'lt.l111g1u rm:.gov 9
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:40 PM To: Uselding, Lara Cc; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: LEITER TO EDITOR FOR CONCURRENCE I will attempt to run this through the cast of thousands for review Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
Original Message--
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:14 PM To: Harrington, Holly Cc: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
LETIER TO EDITOR FOR CONCURRENCE Holly: Per Eliot, here is the revised letter to the editor in response to a second editorial in the News Tribune:
TODAY'S CLIPS: Letter Writer Faults NRC Response To Former Official's Claims. In a letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/1 , 1261<), Debbie Highfill of Morro Bay, writes that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report, utwice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately just 650 ya rds from Diablo Canyon.* Peck is concerned "that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC "never responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."
LEITER TO THE EDITOR:
The word on the street. as reflected in an Aug. 28 editorial entitled "NRC should respond to the Diablo report" and a Sep. 1 "Close Diablo Canyon" letter, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion and is hiding its contents. A Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) is one of many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.
To provide clarity, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the submitter, Michael Peck, and he appealed the decision resulting in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that decision is rendered the subm itter can request to have the documents publically released.
Before this process was complete, a document purporting to be Mr. Peck's DPO was published by interest groups. In keeping with our practice to protect those who want to challenge an agency decision, that document was not provided by the NRC. Those who suggest the decision was hidden are mistaken. The DPO process is 1
an internal process and NRC employees have a right to privacy. Until a final decision is issued, no documents would be released unless the submitter expresses an interest having them shared pubtically.
NRC strives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and DPOs.
The NRC expects to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will seek permission from the submitter to release the DPO case file. We have received no request from the submitter at this writing to make the documents public.
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 12:19 PM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Write something short and tame and let me see it.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 07:16 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Revisit thoughts on a letter to editor RE: DPO Hi: Holly said I could email you as I asked to revisit writing a letter to editor clarifying the DPO process to state that we aren't uhiding" anything ... this aired again in the News Tribune SLO yesterday Letter Writer Faults NRC Response To Former Official's Claims. In a letter to the editor of the San Luis Obispo (CA) T ribune<http://www. san tuisobisoo.com/2014/09/01 /3222262/close-diablo-canyon.htm l#storyl ink =rss>
(9/1, 126K), Debbie Highfill of Morro Bay, writes that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector Michael Peck, filed a report, "twice , recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately just 650 yards from Diablo Canyon." Peck is concerned that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC unever responded in any way" to Peck's assertions. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."
Any thoughts on me submitting a short. tame letter to the editor?
Lara Uselding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Affairs - Region IV, Arlington, Texas 817.200.1519 lara.useldinq@nrc.gov<mailto:lara.useldinq@nrc.gov>
2
From; Harrington, Holly Sent Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:54 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott Subject; RE: Chairman brief on Diablo From Jen: It's my understanding that Thursday's meeting is going to deal with the technical issues associated with the Shoreline fault and an update of what's going on with the DPO, and that Phil has requested a separate meeting (as yet unscheduled) to address messaging on Diablo and the foreign ownership issue - to which he's asked that OPA, OCA, and assorted others be invited.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 .415.8203
---Original Message-----
F rom: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PM To Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Chairman brief on Diablo Hello: I left a voicemail for Scott as I heard from a RIV staffer that the Chairman wants a brief on all things Diablo this Thursday. Do you know about this and if so, will someone from HQ OPA sit in on that?
Lara
Original Message----
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:03 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
I'm out today and tomorrow Sorry, should have updated my voicemail. Haven't heard anything about a chairman brief. Check w/Holly?
Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I lb)(6) I 1
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Johnson, Michael; Williamson, Edward; Pedersen, Renee Cc: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre. David; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
Draft Letter to the Editor Attachments: TODAY.docx We have drafted a proposed "Letter to the Editor" in response to an earlier editor ial and a letter to the editor at the San Luis Obispo (CA) Tribune (9/1, U6K which says, in part, that former Diablo Canyon Senior Resident Inspector M ichael Peck, filed a report, "twice, recommending that, because the plant is potentially so dangerous, it should be shut down until proven safe from seismic activity from a newly discovered fault line that lies approximately Just 650 yards from Diablo Canyon." Peck is concerned " that the piping carrying the critical cooling water at the plant will never withstand the severe shaking generated by a fault line so close to it." But the NRC never responded in any w ay" t o l>eck's asserl1ons. They were "hidden away and not reported to anyone."
The letter t o the editor addressing primarily the issue above in red is attached. Can you please review it to ensure it is factually accurate and appropriately worded. Please send me any suggestions for changes. We will then run it by the Chairman's Office.
We do need t o do this quickly in order for it to be relevant in t he "news" world, so I apologize for the haste with which we' d like it reviewed.
Thank you!
Holly Harrington Senior Level Adviso r Office of Public Affai rs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 1
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The word on the street, as reflected in an Aug. 28 editorial entitled "NRC should respond to the Oiablo report" and a Sep. 1 "Close Diablo Canyon" letter, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion and is hiding its contents. A Differing Professional Opinion IDPO) is one of many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, Including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.
To provide clarity, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the submitter, Michael Peck, and he appealed the decision resulting in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that decision is rendered the submitter can request to have the documents publically released .
Before this process was complete, a document purporting to be Mr. Peck's DPO was published by interest groups. In keeping with our practice to protect those who want to challenge an agency decision, that document was not provided by the NRC. Those who suggest the decision was hidden are mistaken.
The DPO process is an internal process and NRC employees have a right to privacy. After a final decision is issued, documents may be made public if the submitter agrees.
NRC strives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and OPOs.
The NRC expects to com plete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will seek permission from the submitter to release the DPO case file. We have received no request from the submitter at this writing to make the documents public.
From: Mcintyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 7:53 AM To; Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Ho lly
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Solomonic wisdom may be called for. :-)
There is major overlap. Diablo is an operating plant issue, but with a seismic emphasis which recently we've bundled under Japan issues. FOCD is handled out of NRR (operating plants) primarily, but with major involvement of NRO because it has featured prominently in the STP and Calvert Cliffs COL adjudications.
- Original Message---
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:16 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo I've dealt with the Diablo seismic issues for years . Both Dave and I are working on the foreign ownership paper. for whatever that's worth .
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:16 AM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: Chairman brief on Diablo I think dave because this is a long runing operating issue.
- Original Message - -
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:01 PM To Brenner, EHot; McIntyre, David, Burnell, Scott
Subject:
FW: Chairman brief on Diablo Ok, the one we're invited to is this Friday from 3 to 3:45 Who is best to represent OPA?
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 .415.8203
Original Message----
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:20 PM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Understood.
4
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:17 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot SubJect: RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Thursday's meeting is the one we're not invited to. The one we are is yet unscheduled Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 .415.8203
--Original Message--
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:09 PM To: McIntyre. David; Harrington. Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo I can certainly call in to the separate meeting if it's Thursday -- both Dave and I have kept an eye on the foreign ownership issue.
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Sounds like a fun day.
Original Message---
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2 .54 PM To. Uselding, Lara ; Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo From Jen: It's my understanding that Thursday's meeting is going to deal with the technical issues associated with the Shoreline fault and an update of what's going on with the DPO, and that Phil has requested a separate meeting (as yet unscheduled) to address messaging on Oiablo and the foreign ownership issue - to which he's asked that OPA, OCA, and assorted others be invited.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
-Original Message--
5
From: Uselding. Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Chairman brief on Diablo Hello: I left a voicemail for Scott as I heard from a RIV staffer that the Chairman wants a brief on all things Diablo this Thursday . Do you know about this and if so, will someone from HQ OPA sit in on that?
Lara
- Original Message--
From* Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:03 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
I'm out today and tomorrow Sorry, should have updated my voioemail. Haven't heard anything about a chairman brief. Check w/Holly?
Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6) I 6
From: Mdntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:02 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diabfo Per the morning meeting, this meeting has now been moved to THURSDAY at 11 am.
- -Original Message--
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 03. 2014 6:16 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Olablo I've dealt with the Diablo seismic issues for years. Both Dave and I are working on the foreign ownership paper. for whatever that's worth.
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:16 AM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: Chairman brief on Diablo I think dave because this is a long runing operating issue.
- Original Message ---
From: Harrington, Holly Sent. Tuesday, September 02, 2014 10:01 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
FW: Chairman brief on Diablo Ok, the one we're invited to is this Friday from 3 to 3:48 Who is best to represent OPA?
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
--Original Message- -
From: Burnell. Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:20 PM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Uselding , Lara; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE : Chairman brief on Diablo Understood.
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday , September 02, 2014 3:17 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot 11
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo Thursday's meeting is the one we're not invited to. The one we are is yet unscheduled Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
--Original Message---
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 3:09 PM To: McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo l can certainly call in to the separate meeting if it's Thursday -- both Dave and I have kept an eye on the foreign ownership issue.
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Tuesday , September 02, 2014 3:03 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE : Chairman brief on Diablo Sounds like a fun day,
---Original Message--
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:54 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott Subject RE: Chairman brief on Diablo From Jen: It's my understanding that Thursday's meeting is going to deal with the technical issues associated with the Shoreline fault and an update of what's going on with the DPO, and that Phil has requested a separate meeting (as yet unscheduled) to address messagmg on Diablo and the foreign ownership issue - to which he's asked that OPA, OCA, and assorted others be invited.
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
Orig inal Message-From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 2:07 PM To : Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Chairman brief on Diablo 12
Hello: I left a voicemail for Scott as I heard from a RIV staffer that the Chairman wants a brief on all things Diablo this Thursday. Do you know about this and if so, will someone from HQ OPA sit in on that?
Lara
--Original Message---
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 1:03 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
I'm out today and tomorrow Sorry, should have updated my voicemail. Haven't heard anything about a chairman brief. Check w/Holly?
Sent from an NRG Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b),6) I 13
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:17 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo But WJ e wan s o ca 1n.
Given the overlap, if call in is available, perhaps no harm in both of us participating.
--- Original Message--
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 8:58 AM To: McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Chairman brief on Diablo Sorry, at the core an operating reactor/dpo matter. not seismic.
Original Message ---
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Wednesday , September 03, 2014 02:57 PM To: McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Chairman brief on Diablo Ok. In my view, at the core this is a DPO issue, not a true seismic matter.
--- Original Message - -
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 01 :53 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo I'm content to defer to Scott.
- -Original Message-From: Burnell, Scott Sent Wednesday, September 03, 2014 6:16 AM To: Brenner, Eliot: Harrington. Holly; McIntyre. David
Subject:
RE: Chairman brief on Diablo I've dealt with the Diablo seismic issues for years. Both Dave and I are working on the foreign ownership paper, for whatever that's worth .
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent. Wednesday, September 03, 2014 12:16 AM To: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre. David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: Chairman brief on Diablo I think dave because this is a long runing operating issue.,
- Original Message -----
s
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:25 PM To: Schwartzman, Jennifer; Niedz1elsk1-E1chner, Phillip Cc: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
Letter to the Editor Attachments: lettereditorfinal).docx This was written by (and will be signed by) Lara Uselding in our Region IV OPA. She feels strongly we should push back on t his erroneous coverage. This letter has been reviewed by, well, a cast of thousands, and the language has been OK'd.
(I've actually sent it back for final, final review.) But this should be considered largely final. Please review and let me know your sentiments . ..
- Thanks, Holly Harrington Senior level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
The word on the street, as reflected in an Aug. 28 editorial entitled " NRC should respond to the Diablo report" and a Sept. 1 "Close Oiablo Canyon letter, is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has not answered one of its current employee's differing professional opinion and is hiding its contents. This is incorrect .
A Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) is one of many paths the NRC encourages staff to use for officially documenting their differing views, including an Open Door Policy and a Non-Concurrence Process.
Consistent with our guidance for implementing the DPO process, a decision was rendered by the Nuclear Reactor Regulation Director to the submitter, Michael Peck, and he appealed the decision, which resulted in additional review from the Executive Director of Operations. Once that review is complete and a decision is rendered, a su mmary will be posted on the NRC public web site as part of the Comm ission's Weekly Information Report. In addition, if the submitter asks to have the documents publically released, the summary will include a link to the DPO Case File (subject to appropriate redactions, according to agency requ irements).
This process is not yet complete and there is no final decision. However, a document purporting to be Mr. Peck's DPO was published by interest groups. We do not release predecisional documents and we protect those who want to challenge an agency decision. This document did not come from the NRC. To be clear, the NRC is following its rules related to DPOs.
NRC strives to establish and maintain an open collaborative work environment that encourages all employees and contractors to promptly speak up and share concerns and differing views without fear of negative consequences. It is a healthy and necessary part of the regulatory process and the agency has an obligation to protect the individuals submitting non-concurrences and DPOs.
The NRC expects to complete the appeal in mid-September 2014 and following the appeal decision, the staff will ask the submitter whether he would like public release of the DPO Case File.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 2:46 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Region3 RA speaking before Lochbaum/joumalists- DIABLO Attachme nts: [Untitled].pdf Putting this on your radar
Original Message----
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 1:38 PM To: Chandrathil, Prema
Subject:
dpo Prema: I would use this to answer DPO and Peck questions. AS for discussing Diablo, let me give you 3 main points she can speak from and then leave it at that. She can always direct reporters to me here in Region IV for additional questions as we will want to know if they are planning to write stories.
Lara From* Chandrathil. Prema Sent: Thursday , August 21 , 2014 9:00 AM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
RE: Send me a blurb It's for the Society for Environmental Journalists.... the moderator has had questions specifically about Diablo Canyon and their seismic evaluations. It will be all journalists in the audience. Thanks for anything you can share with me. Prema Nuclear Power in Fukushima's Wake Seen by proponents as a promise and opponents as a peril, nuclear power and its global prospects have fundamentally changed after the triple meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Or have they?
Nations like Germany and Italy have decided to give up on the atom altogether, while others such as the U.S.
and Japan and developing economies like China and Vietnam have decided to stick with their nuclear energy programs. Amid tightening safety rules, increasing competition from currently cheaper natural gas and elevated concerns over greenhouse gases, the panelists will discuss the outlook and issues for nuclear power in the U.S. and abroad.
Moderator: James Simms II , Freelance Writer/Television and Radio Commentator; and 2013-2014 Scripps Journalism Fellow, Center for Environmental Journalism, Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Colorado at Boulder Speakers:
Steven Kraft, Senior Technical Advisor, Nuclear Energy Institute Dave Lochbaum, Director, Nuclear Safety Project, Union of Concerned Scientists Hannah Northey, Energy Reporter, Greenwire Nuclear Regulatory Commission representative TBA
- The NRC really appreciates members of the staff bring issues like this to its attention
- We encourage the use of non-concurrences and the Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) process
- We review all non-concurrences and DPOs thoroughly
- It is a healthy and necessary part the regulatory process
- In the end, all of our regulatory decisions are better because of this process
- We do also have an obligation to protect the individual(s) submitting non-concurrences and DPOs
- The DPO process is a non-public process
- It is a strictly controlled and formalized process
- Upon disposition of the DPO via a Director's decision, the DPO submitter has appeal rights to the EDO
- While the DPO is under review or appeal, NRC is prohibited from engaging In discussions with external stakeholders regarding the specifics of the of the DPO submittal
- After the EDO's decision, the individual has the right to make the DPO case file public to the extent that personal privacy information and SUNSI information is not contained in the DPO
- Regarding the DPO for Diablo Canyon, we will be as open and scrutable as we can be while protecting the privacy rights of the individual
- At present. we do not know the source of the public release of the Diablo CanyonDPO submittal
- We can, however, comment on a few aspects of our review o A Director's Decision has been made and the DPO is under appeal to the EDO o We expect to complete the appeal ln mid-September 2014 o Following the appeal decision. we will seek permission from the DPO submitter to release the DPO case file o We would expect the public release to be in early to mid-October, if authorized
- Regarding the operational status of Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 o The plant remains within its design and licensing basis o We have no current operability concerns o We would also note that there were no adverse impacts on the units from the recent earthquake in the Napa Valley
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 10:55 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington. Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
RE: Do we want a blog post with link to DPO?
W1lldo From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:52 AM To: Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
Re: Do we want a blog post with link to DPO?
Let's dr,:ift one, hopefully linking t o the decision, then sho p It upstairs.
From ; Harrington, Holly Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 10:42 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
RE : Do we want a blog post with link to DPO?
I don't know . I' ll let others weigh in . It might not be hard to turn the letter t o the editor into a blo g post, especially since it's been largely approved .
Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office o f Public Affairs U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~01.415 .8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 9:49 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
Do we want a blog post with link to DPO?
AnothEl!' editorial ran over the weekend stating we haven't responded and are hiding DPO. Would a blog be useful?
3
Diablo Canyon In the News Reports that the NRC has been hiding a document raisi ng safety concerns about the Dinblo Canvnn nuclear pom.~r plant . located on the Paci lie coast near San Luis Obispo, can be laid to rest. Today, NRC Executive Director of Operatjons, Mark Satorious released a finaJ decision O'i the matter and reaffinned the plant is safe to operate.
The document known as a differing professional opinion is one of many paths avrulable for employees to fonn ally document their views. In past weeks. public interest groups falsely claimed that NRC hid this particular document even though it was still in process for fear that its contents would be known.
The submitter, Michael Peck, is a current NRC employee and former inspector at the plant. He has previously used the non-concurrence process lo share his professional opinion and that file is publically available. In all three instances, the agency' s position did not support the inspector's understanding of the plant' s seismic licensing basis.
In the final decision cover letter, Satorious said, **
Peck's issues involve the discovery orthe "Shoreline Fault," located just a few hundred yards offshore from the plant in 2008. In 20 11 , the plant operator. PG&E submitted a detailed analysis of the newly discovered fault to the NRC. Both PG&E' s analysis and the NRC's independent re vie\\ reached the same conc lusion - Shoreline 's shaking potential falls within what the Oiablo Canyon reactors are already designed to withstand. Per PG&E's long-tenn seismic program, they are required to share any new seismic relate<l information as it becomes available.
Today PG&E issued a report to the state as required by California Asscmbh Bil l 1632 and has also shared a copy with the NRC. In 2006, the California Energy Commission required plants to assess the vulnerability of the state's nuclear power plants to seismic hazards. As part of the assessment. PG&E performed 2-0 and 3-0 mapping on and offshore the area near the plant. This is a different methodology than what was used to assess the Shoreline fault.
Based upon NRC staffs preliminary review of the report, there is no new information to suggest that there is an immediate safety concern. NRC Resident Inspectors have looked at the licensee's operability assessment that was performed as a result of the new seismic information and so far there is no new information that would lead the NRC to conclude that continued safe operation of Diablo Canyon is challenged.
However. just as was done with the review of the Shoreline fault information in 20 It , the NRC will do a more thorough review of the new information. The seismic report is XX.XX-thousand pages and contains a lot of new technical information that will need lo be nm through our analytical models to independently verify the calculations against the Research Information Letter (RIL) 12-01 Confirmatory Analysis ofSeismic lfazard at the Diablo Canyon Power PLant.fvm the Shoreline Fault Zone. "
ln the RIL. NRC determined that the maximum ground motion expected at Diablo from a seismic event occurring along the Shoreline faul t would be bounded by previous ana]yses of expected ground motion for seismic events associated with the Hosgri fault and PG&E*s Long Term Seismic Program.
This new seismic information will also be used to respond to the NRC's request for every U.S.
nuclear power plant to re-analyze their earthquake hazards following Japan 's Fukushima nuclear accident. PG&E's response is due to the NRC in March 201 S.
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 11:11 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: DRAFT blog I'm running around here for concurrence A holder fo, inserting what he says when we see the letter_ This blog would go up IF his letter gets released and after the state report is. Issued Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 8l72001519 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:08 AM To : Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: DRAFT blog I'm running around here for concurrence I am in the senate confirmation hearinE{ Is that a quote from mark's letter?
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:55 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
DRAFT blog I'm running around here for concurrence FYI . this is what I'm prepping ....
It can always be modified depending on timing of dpo and state report release
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 12:12 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: Strategy Call Thanks ' Let me know what time might work best for you all and I could just call into your office From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:03 AM To: Uselding, Lara Cc: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: Strategy Call Ok.
From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 11:42 AM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Harrington, Holly; McIntyre, David; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Strategy Call Hello Eliot: I know you are busy traveling and getting back today . When you have a moment, could we discuss having a quick brainstorming call later this afternoon with the purpose of proposing a communications strategy to deal with DPO decision and pending state report? I would really appreciate this.
Lara L ,ctding I ' ' * 'I I'* "' I ,:--1,1 '
1'i 17 :!Wl. 1519 lara.u~clding/11 nrc.gov 1
From; Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 12:43 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Mcintyre, David; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly; Dricks. Victor
Subject:
Public release of state report activities/tirneline Attachments: nrr dd 9-9 diablo brief.docx Importance: High Here s what's going to go down tomorrow on PG&E end I'd like to be able to put our blog up tomorrow afternoon and be able to include info on the DPO. Anyone able to share our proposed strategy with EDO office tn see 1f they think they could issue rt tomorrow?
Lara From: Sebrosky, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 11:19 AM To: Markley, Michael; Munson, Clifford; Stovatr, Scott; Kock, Andrea; Williams, Megan; Li, Yong; Oesterle, Eric Cc: Weil, Jenny; Manely, Kamal; Lund, Louise; Dudek, Michael; Case, Michael; Burnell, Scott; Hay, Michael; Franovlch, Mike; Whaley, Sheena; Bowman, Gregory; Bowen, Jeremy; Moreno, Angel; Balazik, Michael; S1ngal, Balwant; Farnholtz, Thomas; Kanatas, Catherine; Hipschman, Thomas; Reynoso, John; Ake, Jon; Folk, Kevin; DiFrancesco, Nicholas; Balazik, Michael; Reynoso, John; Hill, Brittain; Walker, Wayne; Uselding, Lara; Buchanan, Theresa; Keegan, Elaine; Jackson, Diane; Wittick, Brian; Harris, Brian; Roth(OGC), David; Kanatas, Catherine; OKeefe, Neil; Uhle, Jennifer; Lund, Louise
Subject:
info: status of public release of Dlablo Canyon State of California report To all Based on my discussions with Philippe Soenen of PG&E, PG&E is targeting the public release of the State of California report for 11 :00 am Pacific time (2:00 pm eastern) on 9/10/14. PG&E intends to do the following
- Issue an announcement
- Issue a press release
- Make the document publicly available on their website
- Provide a hard copy to the County
- Walk a copy of the report to us to be provided to the document control desk in accordance with 10 CFR so 4 requirements On a different note. Mike Markley Enc Oesterle, and I briefed Jennifer Uhle on the status of Diablo seismic issues using the attached briefing sheet No action required on your part. Thought you should know.
Let me know 1f you have any questions Thanks.
Joe Sebrosky 301-415-11 32 1
9/9/14 NRR/DD Briefing
Purpose:
To inform Jennifer of the current status of Diablo Seismic issues including inability to calculate seismic core damage frequency (SCDF) in the near term .
Outcome: Clear understanding of current st~tus and direction as appropriate provided Agenda:
I. Background
- a. 8/28/14 received direction from NRR/DD to consider using CEUS approach for assessing new Diablo Canyon seismic information (i.e., calculate seismic core damage frequency (SCDF)
- b. Project plan developed for reviewing State of California report information
- d. 9/4/14 Chairman briefed including SCDF approach
- e. 9/8/14 PG&E informs staff that updated curves to calculate SCDF will not be available until March 2015 PGA
- .r:>t. - _.,..,,... .... - - - c.-
- 11. Current status
- a. Project plan being revised to consider following approach
- i. Qualitative discussion of changes to SCDF based on sensitivity information in State of California report ii. Focused updated deterministic calculation using NRC developed ground motion model iii. Determination on whether in-structure response spectra analysis discussed in DPO can be performed by PG&E using new information Ill. Other issues
- a. Status of review of State of California report
- i. Updates on when report will be made publicly available
- b. Status of release of DPO Information
- c. Status of Friends of the Earth Petition IV. Next steps V. Wrapup
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:45 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; M cIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
Re: Draft WIR I have a d1ablo st ale report strategy call w HQ at 7:30 central lime on what I can say tomo rrow so let's talk before or after that if possible La ra Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 81 7-200 1519 From : Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:28 PM To : Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: Draft WIR Mark Satorius Jllst ca me down with a copy of hi s letter to Peck. He conf irmed Peck has said he wa nts the whole pa ckage to go public It 's slated t o go public t omorrow. I don't know what that does to ou r time table . Perhaps we all need to t alk in t he morning?
Holly Harringt on Senior Level Advisor Office of Publ ic Affai rs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:25 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Fw: Draft WIR I have absolutely no clue what a WIR is. Wow, it's real?
From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:22 PM To: Sampson, Michele; Galloway, Melanie Cc: Segala, John; Sewell, Margaret; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Draft WIR Thanks Michele!! We are working on the ADAMS record as we speak. I'll send you the ML number as soon as I get it.
From: Sampson, Michele Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:18 PM To: Galloway, Melanie Cc: Pedersen, Renee; Segala, John
Subject:
Draft WIR 1
- Melanie, Attached is a draft WIR for the DPO Appeal Decision. Trent Wertz in NRR has reviewed it and I've incorporated his comments.
Renee is putting together the public case file and will provide the ML number when 1t is available. I have a placeholder in the WIR at the end to include that information. Please let me know if you have any comments, or any additional information that you may need.
Thank you ,
Michele Sampson, Chief Licensing Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division Mail Stop 3WFN-1 4A44 Washington, D C. 20555-0001 Phone: 301-287-9077 2
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:01 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Sco tt; M cintyre, David; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
Re: Draft WIR Depending on the t iming of the release- which I'd very much like to know-reporters are going to be inu ndated w PGEs state report starting at 11am cent ral. No t for sure how t his is going t o be received . PGE is issui ng a press re lea'>e and report t hen .. BIG news Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From : Harrington, Holly Sent: T uesday, September 09, 2014 03;56 PM To: Usetding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McI ntyre, David; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: Draft WIR We can tweet; we can do a media advisory: we can do email We ca n give 1SLO News lrtbune ,a bit of an early heads uµ,
b ut w hat do yo u mean exclusive?
Holly HMrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301 415.8203 From : Uselding, Lara Sent: T uesday, September 09, 2014 4:55 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
Re: Draft WIR I'd like to give an exclusive t4 David Snead at SLO News Tribune t hought s?
Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From : Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:53 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
Re: Draft WIR Ok, let's talk at 9am . R4 ca n calf my direct line. That 1s after my session with t he chairman so I should have the 17t h floor comments. Refresh my memory on rollout plans. Since we have t he whole megilla. what about an email to repor ters w,th a link?
20
From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:45 PM To: Harrington, Holly; Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
Re: Draft WIR I have a diablo state report strategy ca ll w HQ at 7:30 central lime on wha t I ca n say tomorrow c,o let's talk before or after that if possible Lara Uselding NRC Region 4 Public Affairs 817-200-1519 From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 03:28 PM To : Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: Draft WIR Mark Sa torius Just came down with a co py of his letter to Peck. He confirmed Peck has said he wants the whole package to go public. It's slated to go public tornorrow. I don't know what that does to our t ime table . Perhaps we all need to tat~
,n the morning?
Holly Harrington Senior level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415 .8203 From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 20 14 4:25 PM To: Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Fw: Draft WIR I have absolute ly no clue what a WIR is. Wow, it's real?
From: Pedersen, Renee Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 04:22 PM To: Sampson, Michele; Galloway, Melanie Cc: Segala, John; Sewell, Margaret; Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: Draft WIR Thanks Michele!! We are working on the ADAMS record as we speak. I'll send you the ML number as soon as I get it.
From: Sampson, Michele Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 4:18 PM To: Galloway, Melanie Cc: Pedersen, Renee; Segala, John
Subject:
Draft WIR
- Melanie, Attached is a draft W IR for the DPO Appeal Decision. Trent Wertz in NRR has reviewed it and I've incorporated his comments.
21
Renee is putting together the public case file and will provide the ML number when it is available. I have a placeholder in the WIR at the end to include that information. Please let me know if you have any comments, or any additional information that you may need.
Thank you ,
Michele Sampson, Chief Licensing Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Spent Fuel Storage and Transportation Division Mail Stop 3WFN-14A44 Washington , D.C. 20555-0001 Phone: 301-287-9077 22
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 1:57 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Schwartzman, Jennifer Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; McIntyre, David
Subject:
RE: diablo And option 2 and one that Victor and I discussed. is to NOT include anything on the DPO- especially if nothing 1s available tomorrow that we can release. SO I'm rewriting the blog to just focus on the state report and new seismic info. If you give me a bit I'll send that around . .
From: Brenner, Eliot Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 U:47 PM To: Schwartzman, Jennifer Cc: Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David; Uselding, Lara
Subject:
diablo Jen: Tomorrow PG&E puts out Its new seismic report, and there is at least some prospect that the DPO decision, at least in summary form , will be made public. Pre-emptively, please take a gander at this as a possible blog that wraps the two together. The blog's DPO language may have to be modified depending on how that unfolds.
I am off the grid until about 4 p.m. for a medical appointment and then should be back reading email again.
Eliot The NRC's Executive Director for Operations - the agency's senior technical manager - has released a final decision in a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO) filed by an agency staffer about the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The decision concluded the Issue raised in the DPO was not a safety issue, and noted all involved
-- incuding the employee - agreed safety was not an issue.
The DPO is one of many paths available for employees to formally document their views. While some suggested the agency hid its decision from public view, in reality the decision was made public when the format review process reached its conclusion.
The submitter, Michael Peck, is a current NRC employee and former inspector at the plant. He has twice previously used what is known as the non-concurrence process to share his professional opinion and that file .
is publically available. In all three instances, the agency's technical experts declined to endorse the inspector's position.
In the final decision cover letter, Satorious said,** XXXXXX ."
Peck's issues involve the discovery of the "Shoreline Fault ," located just a few hundred yards offshore from the plant in 2008. In 2011 , the plant operator, PG&E submitted a detailed analysis of the newly discovered fault to the NRC. Both PG&E's analysis and the NRC's Independent review reached the same conclusion - the Shoreline fault's shaking potential falls within what the Diablo Canyon reactors are already designed to w ithstand from another fault, known as the Hosgri fault.
Under PG&E's long-term seismic program, it must share any new seismic related information as it becomes available. Today PG&E issued a report to the state as required by the California state legislature and also shared a copy with the NRC. In 2006, the California Energy Commission required plants to assess the vulnerability of the state's nuclear power plants to seismic hazards. As part of the assessment, PG&E 7
performed 2-0 and 3-0 mapping on and offshore the area near the plant. This is a different methodology than what was used to assess the Shoreline fault.
Based upon NRC staffs preliminary review of the newest report, there is no new Information to suggest that there is an immediate safety concern. NRC Resident Inspectors have looked at the licensee's operability assessment that was performed as a result of the new seismic information and so far there is no new information that would lead the NRC to conclude that continued safe operation of Oiablo Canyon is challenged.
However, just as was done with the review of the Shoreline fault information in 2011 , the NRC will conduct a more thorough review of the new information. The seismic report is XXXX-thousand pages and contains a lot of new technical information that will need to be analyzed to independently verify the calculations against the requirements of Research Information Letter (RIL) 12-01 Confirmatory Analysis of Seismic Hazard at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant from the Shoreline Fault Zone."
In the RIL, NRC determined that the maximum ground motion expected at Diablo from a seismic event occurring along the Shoreline fault would be bounded by (less than) the shaking that would be generated by the Hosgri fault.
This new seismic information will also be used to respond to the NRC's request for every U.S. nuclear power plant to re-analyze their earthquake hazards following Japan's Fukushima nuclear accident. PG&E's response is due to the NRC in March 2015 8
From: Burnell. Scott Sent Wednesday. September 10, 2014 8:34 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; McIntyre, David; Harrington, Holly; Uselding, Lara; Dricks, Victor Cc: Oesterle, Eric
Subject:
DPO comm plan I'm told by reliable sources that NRR is updating the plan to account for the EDO decision and we'll see it this morning.
Sent from an NRC Blackberry LScott Burnell (b)(6) 7
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:45 AM To: McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Diablo DPO lS public in ADAMS Yes, I agree.
Sent frorn an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b)(6)
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 101 2014 09:42 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: Diablo DPO IS public in ADAMS But it IS public as of yesterday. They JUst won't be able to fmd 1t via our nrc gov website unttl later today.
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 9:42 AM To: Mcintyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Re: Diablo DPO IS public in ADAMS I wo uld imagine someone's given ADAMS staff a nudge to imm ediately replicate it to t he public sit e.
Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell I (b1(6)
From: McIntyre, David Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 09:39 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Diablo DPO IS public rn ADAMS Lara, et al - The DPO is public in Adams at ML14252A743. It was dated yesterday (9/9) and date to be released is yesterday (9/9). It does not yet come up in web-based Adams, which has a 1-day delay; however, anyone who has direct adams access can already find it. (eg., Platts. I imagine) 1
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:21 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Ready for review by Chairman STATEREPORTblogFINAL.docx Attachments: ST ATEREPORTblogFINALdocx l
Diablo Canyon In the News By Lara Uselding and Scott Burnell Today PG&E issued a repon to the state as required by California Assembly Bill 1632 and has also shared a copy with the NRC. In 2006, the bill required the California Energy Commission to assess the vulnerability of the state's nuclear power plants to seismic hazards and plant aging among other things. As part of the assessment. PG&E performed state-of-the-art seismic studies on and offshore the area near the plant.
The methodology used for the state report is different than was used to assess the Shoreline fault after it was discovered in 2008. New seismic information in the state-required report indicates that the Shoreline fault is both longer than previously thought and able to produce a stronger earthquake. Previously, PG&E provided Region IV with an operability evaluation after entering the new infonnation in their correcti ve action program to assess the impact on systems.
structures. components and plant operations.
NRC Resident fnspectors and Region IV staff have looked at PG&E 's operability evaluation and the infonnation did not indicate there is an immediate threat to public health and safety nor did it call into question the abi lity of systems, structures, and components to perform their safety funct ions. Wnile the new seismic infonnation gathered by PG&E adds detail about the Shoreline fault's length and strength. the company's eval uation reaffirms that the Shoreline fault is not as powerful as the Hosgri earthquake Diablo Canyon must withstand.
Just as the NRC reviewed the Shoreline fauJt information in 2009 and 2012. the agency will thoroughly review the new information through our inspection process. The 1.400-page seismic report contains new technical infom1ation that will be reviewed by staff.
PG&E will also use this new information in providing an overall seismic hazard re-analysis to the NRC as part of the agency' s response to the 201 1 Fukushima nuclear accident. PG&E's re-analysis is due to the NRC in March 20 15.
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:30 PM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
FW: Ready for review by Chairman STATEREPORTblogFINAL.docx Attachments: STATEREPORTblogFINALdocx Note: This is the same attachment as the one attached to Lara Uselding's 09/10/2014 2:21 PM email.
I understa nd you OK'd this? It's grade 16 and kind of mess .,. Whatever Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affairs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203 From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 2:21 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Burnell, Scott Cc: Harrington, Holly
Subject:
Ready for review by Chairman SfATEREPORTblogFINAL.docx
From: Dricks, Victor Sent: Thursday, September 11. 2014 8:26 AM To: Dapas, Marc; Kennedy, Kriss: Pruett, Troy; Uselding, Lara; Brenner. Eliot
Subject:
FW: NRC again rebuffs inspector's concerns of quake safe ty at Diablo Canyon FYI Victor Dricks Senior Public Affa irs Officer U.S. Nuclea r Regulatory Commission / Region IV 1600 C. Lama r Blvd.
Arlingt on, Texas 76011 817 200-1128 {Office) lb)(6J (Cell)
For immediate release: September 10, 2014 Expert
Contact:
Damon Moglen, Friends of the Earth: (202) 352-4223, dmoglen@foe.org Communications Contacts:
Kate Colwell, (202) 222-0744, kcolwell@foe.org (East Coast)
Bill Walker. (510) 759-9911, bw.deadline@gmail.com (West Coast)
WASHINGTON, D.C. -After suppressing a safety inspector's report for more than a year, federal regulators are continuing to brush aside his warning that the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant may not be safe from an earthquake stronger than the aging plant was designed to withstand.
Today the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission notified Friends of the Earth that It has dismissed the Diffennq Professional Opinion filed in June 2013 by Dr. Michael Peck, who was then chief resident inspector at the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, on the Pacific coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Peck wrote that new seismic data, unknown when the plant was built more than 40 years ago, show that the NRCand Pacific Gas & Electric Co. can no longer be sure the plant ts safe to operate. He said since the plant is now in violation of its federal operating license, it should be shut down pending additional safety studies.
Friends of the Earth, which has filed a petition with the NRC to shut the plant and conduct an adjudicated relicensing hearing with public participation, said the decision is deeply disturbing, especially since it comes before the long-awaited release of PG&E's long-overdue seismic safety study.
A statement from Damon Moglen, senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth:
For over a year, the NRC has kept secret the recommendation of its then-Resident Inspector that the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant is operating in violation of its license and should be shut down until proven safe. Now that the Associated Press has penetrated the NRC's veil of secrecy, the agency announced that it has denied Dr. Michael Peck's recommendation, without affording anyone else an opportunity to contribute evidence or expert opinion to inform that decision.
37
Fortunately the Atomic Energy Act did not empower the NRC to be a dictator and make highly contested decisions behind closed doors. Under the Act, the public has a voice. Friends of the Earth has raised that voice in its petition to the NRC. The regulator must provide the public a chance to hear the facts, weigh the evidence and give input on this vital issue of health and safety.
Diablo Canyon could never be built on such an earthquake-prone site today. It should not be allowed to operate for another day without being closed and subjected to a full public safety review.
Bill \ \ ,tll,cr tlha lh*acllinl' ~O\\
B(*rl,t'il'~. CA (5 10) 759-99 11 I\, ilcrr: a tlc:ulli nl'nm, Facdmol<: Ocadli nc~on
\k~ pt*: tlcatllinc.*no" http://www.deadlinenow.com 38
From: Dricks, Victor Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 8;27 AM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
FW: PG&E's report on seismic safety at Diablo Canyon: the disturbing truth FYI Victor Dricks Se nio r Public Affairs Officer U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission I Region IV 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.
Arfing ton, Texas 760 11 (817) 200-1128 (Office)
I (b H6! I (Cell)
For immediate release: September 10, 2014 Expert
Contact:
Damon Moglen, Friends of the Earth: (202) 352-4223, dmoglen@foe.org Communications Contacts:
Kate Colwell, (202) 222-0744, kcolwell@foe.org (East Coast)
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911 , bw.deadline@gmail.com (West Coast)
PG&E's report on seismic safety at Diablo Canyon: the disturbing truth Friends of the Earth: Alarming findings should trigger immediate closure of nuclear plant WASHINGTON, D.C. - Pacific Gas and Electric Co. released today its long-awaited, state-mandated seismic safety study of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, with disturbing findings that Friends of the Earth says should result in immediate closure of the plant.
The study finds that the nearby Shoreline Fault. only discovered a few years ago, is far longer than previously assumed (
the longer the fault, the more energy it can release in an earthquake). And PG&E now concedes that it should be assumed that the Shoreline Fault may connect lo other nearby faults that surround the Diablo Canyon reactors; such linked faults can mean a far greater potential for ground motion/shaking. An earthquake on one fault could trigger a quake on an interconnected fault, producing a larger quake than one fault alone.
"Decrepit reactors on an array of active seismic faults is a recipe for disaster." said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor at Friends of the Earth. "PG&E is trying to spin the facts and asking the public to blindly trust them. But the facts are clear:
the plant's two aging reactors - designed in the 1960s and built in the 1970s -- are surrounded by dangerous earthquake faults that were unknown at the time of construction, and these faults are capable of far stronger shaking than the plant was designed and built to withstand."
David Freeman. a nuclear power expert who is fonner head of the federal Tennessee Valley Authority. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District , said PG&E has issued a "self-serving statement that puts safety last and its profits first."
5
From: Uselding. Lara Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 9:30 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE:
Is our blog going up today?
From : Brenner, Eliot Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 8:19 AM To: Uselding, Lara; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
Re: PG&E's report on seismic safety at Diablo canyon: the disturbing truth Saw t hat.
From : Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 09:17 AM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
FW: PG&E's report on seismic safety at Diablo canyon: the disturbing truth FOE characterize the report with more info about the Shoreline fault as we proposed in the blog For immediate release: September 10, 2014 Expert
Contact:
Damon Moglen, Friends of the Earth: (202) 352-4223, dmoqlen@foe.org Communications Contacts:
Kate Colwell, (202) 222-0744, kcolwell@foe.org (East Coast)
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911, bw.deadline@gmail.com (West Coast)
PG&E's report on seismic safety at Oiablo Canyon: the disturbing truth Friends of the Earth: Alarming findings should trigger immediate closure of nuclear plant WASHINGTON, O.C. - Pacific Gas and Electric Co. released today its Jong-awaited, state-mandated seismic safety study of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, with disturbing findings that Friends of the Earth says should result in immediate closure of the plant.
The study finds that the nearby Shoreline Fault. only discovered a few years ago, is far longer than previously assumed (
the longer the fault, the more energy it can release in an earthquake). And PG&E now concedes that it should be assumed that the Shoreline Fault may connect to other nearby faults that surround the Dlablo Canyon reactors; such linked faults can mean a far greater potential for ground motion/shaking. An earthquake on one fault could trigger a quake on an interconnected fault, producing a larger quake than one fault alone.
- oecrepit reactors on an array of active seismic faults is a recipe for disaster," said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor at Friends of the Earth. "PG&E is trying to spin the facts and asking the public to blindly trust them. But the facts are clear:
the plant's two aging reactors - designed in the 1960s and built in the 1970s - are surrounded by dangerous earthquake faults that were unknown at the time of construction, and these faults are capable of far stronger shaking than the plant was designed and built to withstand."
David Freeman, a nuclear power expert who is former head of the federal Tennessee Valley Authority, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District , said PG&E has issued a "self-serving statement that puts safety last and its profits first."
"It has taken six years for PG&E to acknowledge the risks of the Shoreline fault first identified in 2008. Why has the utility withheld this information for years when it involves such dramatic risk to the public?" asked Freeman, now a special advisor to Friends of the Earth.
Freeman added: "Unfortunately, this seems very much in character for the company responsible for the safety failures that led to the San Bruno natural gas line disaster. This is a 'safety' report by a company that has been indicted by the federal government for its corporate disregard for safety.
Friends of the Earth has filed a petition with the NRG calling for the closure of Diablo Canyon because new seismic data shows that the plant is no longer in compliance with its license and licensing basis and is not safe. The petition says federal regulators and the utility must either undertake an adjudicated public relicensing process to prove that the plant is safe or PG&E should get on with the work of Immediately replacing power from Diablo Canyon with safe, clean renewable energy.
A r.w Bill \\, r1lker dim Ucadlinl' ~'"'
Berk ck~, ( ,\
(510) 759-9911 T" ittcr: "deadliraco*m Fa<*chook: Dt.*,ullinc"o"
"-' r,c: dead linen ow http://www.deadlinenow.com 2
From: Harrington, Holly Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 1:52 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Burnell, Scott Cc: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
this is approved by the chairman's office and OK by me. Let me know quickly if there are any issues Attachments: DiabloRpt_blogfinal.docx Holly Harrington Senior Level Advisor Office of Public Affa irs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301.415.8203
From: Uselding. Lara Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 11:5 5 AM To: Brenner, Eliot
Subject:
RE: FOE comments on Diablo Canyon seismic report Our release of info was entirely independent on the release of a PGE report .
From: Dolley, Steven [8]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:26 AM To: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: FOE comm ents on Diablo canyon seismic report Hi Victor, Elaine Hiruo ts off this week. I' m going to add brief mention of this to her story on Diablo Canyon.
Does NRC have any response to or comment on FOE's allegations?
My deadline is 5 pm Eastern today for Inside NRC.
- Thanks, Steve Steven Dolley Managing Editor, Inside NRC PLATTS McGRAW HILL FINANCIAL 202-383-2166 steven.dollev@platts.com From: Kate Colwell [9]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:02 AM To: Dolley, Steven
Subject:
Did PG&E a nd the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo canyon quake safety?
http://www. foe org/news/news-releases/201 4-09-d 1d-pg e-a nd-the-nrc-work-togethe r-to-spin-news-on-d rablo-ca nyon-g uake-safety For Immediate Release:
September 18, 2014 Expert Contacts:
Ben Schreiber, (202) 352-4223, bschreiber@foe.org Dave Freeman, (310) 902-2147, greencowboysdf@gmalLcom 31
Communications Contacts:
EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730 1 edyson@foe.org (East Coast)
BIil Walker, (510) 759-9911, bw.deadline@gmait.com (West Coast}
Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Friends of the Earth files Freedom of Information Act request WASHINGTON, o.c. - Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied a dissent by the former chief inspector at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, who said new seismic data show the plant may be vulnerable to earthquakes of greater magnitude than allowed by Its license. On the same day, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. released a long-awaited seismic study that, like the NRC's ruling, also claimed that Diablo Canyon is safe .
Was the timing a coincidence? Friends of the Earth doubts it.
Today, Friends of the Earth, joined by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Mothers for Peace and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine whether the NRC and PG&E improperly wor1<ed together on a public relations strategy to counteract widespread news coverage of the inspector's dissent.
According to the FOIA request, filed with the NRC in Washington :
The PG&E seismic report, released on the same day [as the decision on the inspector's dissent] indicates a possible relationship between the regulator and its licensee that has brought up widespread public concern regarding the independence of the regulator. There have been numerous concerns as to how the two documents could have been released simultaneously, given that [the handling of the inspector's dissent] has been kept secret.
The FOIA filing comes three days after three PG&E executives and a top staff member of the California Public Utilities Commission were removed for improperly working together to appoint the company's preferred judge to a case stemming from a September 2010 gas line explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, California.
"You don't have to look any further than today's headlines to see that PG&E is capable of trying to Improperly Influence a government regulator when its profits are on the line," said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth.
Unfortunately, the NRC's track record on this issue shows an unfortunate tendency to put PG&E's interests before those of public safety. We want to nnd out to what extent PG&E and the NRC worked together to spin the story that Dlablo Canyon is safe, despite the mounting evidence that It is vulnerable to quakes more powerful than it was built to withstand."
San Luis Obispo County supervisor Bruce Gibson, a seismologist and member of the Independent Peer Review Panel for Diablo Canyon appointed by the CPUC, also questioned the timing of the release of PG&E's report.
PG&E chose to finalize Its entire report and release it to the public before It sought any comment from-or even contacted-the peer review panel ,~ Gibson wrote in the San Luis Obispo Tribune. "It appears to me that PG&E's public relations staff advised them to get their story to the public before any detailed questions might be asked ."
Dr. Michael Peck, the former chlef inspector at Diablo Canyon, In June 2013 filed a dissent known as a Dlffer(ng Professional Opinion, or DPO, raising concerns that the plant might not withstand an earthquake on one of several fault lines that were not known when it was designed and built more than 40 years ago. Peck called for the shutdown of the plant until and unless PG&E could prove it is safe.
For more than a year, the NRC kept Peck's DPO secret and took no action on it. On August 25, 2014, the Associated Press revealed the existence of Peck's document, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to call a hearing to examine NRC's handling of the dissent. On September 10 1 the NRC announced it had ruled against Peck. Within hours, PG&E released a seismic safety study the NRC had ordered in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster In March 2011.
"PG&E's seismic safety study is one more example of its half-century t,istory of trying to rationalize away the extreme earthquake hazards to the Diablo Canyon reactors," said Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. "Despite three earthquake faults identified near Dlablo, the NRC has continued to allow this devil of a plant to continue to operate."
Under federal law, the NRC has 20 days to respond to the Freedom of Information Act request.
- If#
32
Friends of the Earth fights to create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who /fve and work near them.
If you would rather not receive future communications from Friends of the Earth, let us know by clicking here Friends of the Earth, 1100 15th Street NW 11th Floor. Washington, DC 20005 United States tr,11*1.,1.011 c.onta1r,ed '" t111s !"'('-.sag<',, 111(t:1 *f'J1;d only lor lhe rer101ent and m;iv tie a confdf:'nf*ill allomey-cJient ccm111un,cation c11 n,ay o:i 1,.:'1.*, se bo
,,, ,,,1\. l'* ',no c , , ~*1 'r(l,'I' 1J1sc,csure. H ti*' *e,~rt of t"*S mcssagt> ,s noi the! nto11dC{I rcc1p1en: o, ;u1 (*mpl(lyce 0, '\J( "t '~"' 1*
,,~,r,- '"~i th, ,*,e!:'s,q<> 1, 111,, 111,-*'ldec ,~-.* , , ,v;,w that ;;rw d1s~e,111n,;1Jon c* c,,py*fl(l **I th,~ comm * ,r- ~ 1 , , ,,n,t>'O It \'!li, nav, r;,*.<' ; <! th1<; r 0111mun1ca11, ,r ,n en,,r Dlf'.;se> 111*11*1'<l1arel) not,rv u.; y .- , ' 'w . '" 11 g It 1ron1 vow <.vmp, ,ter McGrav, 14111 r,m,r.c:;;11 ro~., ..
- tw: *11hl ~1 n,e* 1'.O ,tf*pl11 ~l>le local 13w to rnnmtm ,, ~- c contfln l of ;my fl fl, ,, r 1nronn:1t1on sen: :nor fr 011, tJlr.Gr~w H*tl ' 111.,1 ,1
" n1;,il ric1t1,,,~*;e5 *111 h ,. ., , er 111 ?f'<,1pient 01 the *nessage By senrh119 ele(;lro11w 1111*sr,agt! o* 1nfon1111110 * , 1na11< 131 e-m,111
.,,1,, ,,s ' h*~ :<,*11,i. 1 ;irP. cnnse11t11 1*1 I< Mr.Graw Hill 1"11rnnc1al pror.<'!S!:.snq any of vnuc per*:011ill dat.1 the1e111 0
33
From: Burnell. Scott Sent Thursday. September 18. 2014 2:20 PM To: McIntyre, David; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly Subjed:: RE: AP Michael Blood Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups Not before 3, anyway From: McIntyre, David Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 2:20 PM To: Burnell, Scott; Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: AP Michael Blood Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups You're too bL1sy this afternoon, remember?
From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, september 18, 2014 1:57 PM To: Mcintyre, Davidi Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly
Subject:
RE: AP Michael Blood Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups And me. me too l From: McIntyre, David Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:56 PM To: Uselding, Lara; Brenner, Eliot; Harrington, Holly; Burnell, Scott
Subject:
RE: AP Michael Blood Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups Hi Lara - Ehot's in a commission agenda planning meeting. He and I are going to discuss this in about 30 minutes when he gets back.
Dave From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 1:51 PM To: Brenner, Eliot; Harrinaton, Holly; Burnell, Scott; Mcintyre, David
Subject:
(AP Michael BloocJl,Qs: Response to press release from FOE, other groups From( Blood, Michael [mailto:mblood@ap.org)
Sent: TTmrsday, September 18, 2014 12:17 PM' To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
Response to press release from FOE, other groups Lara, I've attached a publicly released media announcement below. I' m assuming you' ll handle the FOIA in the normal process. I have a few additional questions related to this, 12
I'd like to know, specifically, did the NRC and PGE coordinate to rel ease t hese docum ents (Peck decision and seismic study) on t he sa me day? If so, why?
The st at ement raises th e quest ion if the NRC and PGE "improperly worked t ogether. Please address that directly in your response.
What rules/regulations govern your relationship wit h PGE on th ese types of matters?
Did PGE have any early notice of the Peck decision, which you t old me was a confidential, internal process? Did PGE or their representatives have any access-input-advice to th e decisioo-making process with the DPO?
Thanks.
For Immediate Release:
September 18, 2014 Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Friends of the Earth files Freedom of Information Act request WASHINGTON, D.C. - Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied a dissent by the former chief inspector at the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, who said new seismfc data show the plant may be vulnerable to earthquakes of greater magnit ude than allowed by its license. On the same day. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
released a long-awaited seism ic study that, like the NRC's ruling, also claimed that Diablo Canyon is safe.
Was the timing a colnddence? Friends of the Earth doubts it.
Today, Friends of the Earth, joined by Publtc Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Mothers for Peace and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine whether the NRC and PG&E improperly worked together on a public relations strategy to counteract widespread news coverage of t he Inspector's dissent. According to the FOTA request, filed with the NRC in Washington:
The PG&E seismic report, released on the same day [as the decision on the inspector's dissent] indicates a possible relationship between t he regulator and its licensee that has brought up widespread public concern regarding the independence of the regulator. There have been numerous concerns as to how the two documents could have been released simultaneously, given that [the handling of the inspector's dissent] has been kept secret.
The FOIA filing comes three days aft.er three PG&E executives and a top staff member of the California Public Utilities Commission were removed for improperly working together to appoint the company's preferred judge to a case stemming from a September 2010 gas line explosion t hat killed eight people 1n San Bruno, California.
"You don't have to look any further than today's headlines to see that PG&E is capable of trying to improperly influence a government regulator when Its profits are on the line, " said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth. Unfortunately, the NRC's track record on this issue shows an unfortunate tendency to put PG&E's interests before those of public safety. We want to fjnd out to what extent PG&E and the NRC worked together to spin the story that Dlablo Canyon is safe, despite the mounting evidence that It is vulnerable to quakes more powerful than It was built t o withstand. "
San Luis Obispo County supervisor Bruce Gibson, a seismolog1st and member of the Independent Peer Review Panel for Diablo Canyon appointed by the CPUC, also questioned the timing of the release of PG&E's report.
l3
"PG&E chose to finalize its entire report and release it to the public before it sought any comment from-or even contacted-the peer review panel," Gibson wrote in the San luls Obispo Tribune. "It appears to me that PG&E's public relations staff advised them to get their story to the public before any detailed questions might be asked ."
Dr. Michael Peck, the former chief inspector at Diablo Canyon, in June 2013 filed a dissent known as a Differing Professional Opinion, or DPO, raising concerns that the plant might not withstand an earthquake on one of several fault lines that were not known when it was designed and built more than 40 years ago. Peck called for the shutdown of the plant until and unless PG&E could prove It is safe.
For more than a year, the NRC kept Peck's DPO secret and took no action on it. On August 25, 2014, the Associated Press revealed the existence of Peck's document, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to call a hearing to examine NRC's handling of the dissent. On September 10, the NRC announced it had ruled against Peck. Within hours, PG&E released a seismic safety study the NRC had ordered In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011.
"PG&E's seismic safety study is one more example of its half-century history of trying to rationalize away the extreme earthquake hazards to the Dlablo Canyon reactors," said Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace . "Despite three earthquake faults identified near Diablo, the NRC has continued to allow this devil of a plant to continue to operate. "
Under federal law, the NRC has 20 days to respond to the Freedom of Information Act request.
AP ASSOCIAlED P~
Michael R. Blood Los Angeles, Calif.
msk dccc60c6d2c3a6438filcf467d9a4938 14
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday.-September J 8 2~ 3:00 PM To : 'steven.dolley@platts.com' Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
FW: FOE comments on Diablo Canyon seismic report Hello Steve '
We know of no collaboration between NRG and PG&E regarding the individual timing of releases . (1.e. DPO decision and state-require report)
However, we take these matters seriously and the NRC staff itself has referred the matter to the agency's Inspector General.
Lara I :1rn Usclding 11, lh **td.11111, I *l'T I , 1, *" '\ I'(. I
,, , t' t 1 R.:g,,i, I\ \r lrnµ1u11. I' \.J, 81 7.~00 151 ')
lara.usdd111g(u nrc .gll \
From: Dolley, Steven (mailto:steven.dolley@platts.com]
Sent: Thursday, 5eptember 18, 2014 10:26 AM To: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
RE: FOE comments on Diablo canyon seismic report Hi Victor, Elaine Hiruo is Qff this week. I'm going to add brief mention of this to her story on Diablo Canyon.
Does NRC have any response t o or comme nt on FOE's allegations?
My deadline is 5 pm Eastern today tof Inside NRc:
- Thanks, Steve Steven Dolle y Mana ging Editor, Inside NRC PLATTS McGRAW H*Ll FlN.AHClAl 202-383-2166 steven.dolley@platts.com 9
From: Kate Colwell [10]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 10:02 AM To: Dolley, Steven
Subject:
Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
http://www. foe.o rg/news/news-re Ieases/2014-09-d id-pge-a nd-the-nrc-worl<-together-to-sp,n-news-on-diablo-canyon-gua ke-safety For Immediate Release:
September 18, 2014 Expert Contacts:
Ben Schreiber, (202) 352-4223, bschreiber@foe.org Dave Freeman , (310) 902-2147, greencowboysdf@gmail.com Communications Contacts:
EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org (East Coast)
Bill walker, (510) 759-9911, bw.deadllne@gmail.com (West Coast)
Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Friends of the Earth files Freedom of Information Act request WASHINGTON, D.C. - Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commisslon denied a dissent by t he former chief inspector at the Dlablo Canyon nuclear plant, who said new seismic data show the plant may be vulnerable to earthquakes of greater magnitude than allowed by its license. On the same day, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. released a long-awaited seismic study t hat, llke the NRC's ruling, also claimed that Diablo Canyon ls safe.
Was the timing a coincidence? Friends of the Earth doubts It.
Today, Friends of the Earth, j oined by Public Employees for Environ mental Responsibil ity, Mothers for Peace and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine whether the NRC and PG&E Improperly worked together on a public relations strategy to counteract widespread news coverage of the inspector's dissent.
According to the FOIA request, filed with the NRC in Washington ;
The PG&E seismic report, released on the same day [as the decision on the fnspector's dissent] indicates a possible relationship between the regulator and Its licensee that has brought up widespread public concern regarding the independence of the regulator. There have been numerous concerns as to how the two documents could have been released simultaneously, given that [the handling of the inspector's dissent) has been kept secret.
The FOIA filing comes three days after three PG&E executives and a top staff member of the California Public Utilities Commission were removed for im properly working together l o appoint the company's preferred judge to a case stemming from a September 2010 gas llne explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, California.
"You don't have to look any further than today's headlines to see t hat PG&E is capable of trying to improperly lnnuence a government regulator when Its profits are on the line, said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth .
H "Unfortunately, the NRC's track record on this issue shows an unfortunate tendency to put PG&E's interests before those of public safety. We want to find out to what extent PG&E and the NRC worked together to spin the story that Diablo Canyon is safe, despite the mounting evidence that it is vulnerable to quakes more powerful than It was built to withstand."
San Luis Obispo County supervisor Bruce Gibson, a seismologist and member of the Independent Peer Review Panel for Dlablo Canyon appointed by the CPUC, also questioned the t imj ng of the release of PG&E's report.
"PG&E chose to finalize Its entire report and release It to the public before it sought any comment from-or even contacted-the peer review panel," Gibson wrote in the San Luis Obispo Tribune. "lt appears to me that PG&E's public relations staff advised them to get their story to the public before any detailed questions might be asked.
Dr. Michael Peck, the former chief inspector at Diablo Canyon, in June 2013 filed a dissent known as a Differing Professional Qo1n1on, or OPO, raising concerns that the plant might not withstand an earthquake on one of several fault lfnes that were 10
not known when it was designed and built more than 40 years ago. Peck called for the shutdown of the plant until and unless PG&E could prove it is safe.
For more than a year, the NRC kept Peck's DPO secret and took no action on it. On August 25, 2014, the Associated Press revealed the existence of Peck's document, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to call a hearing to examine NRC's handling of the dissent. On September 10, the NRC announced it had ruled against Peck. Within hours, PG&E released a seismic safety study the NRC had ordered in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011.
"PG&E's seismic safety study is one more example of its half-century history of trying to rationalize away the extreme earthquake hazards to the Diablo Canyon reactors," said Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. "Despite three earthquake faults identified near Diablo, the NRC has continued to allow this devil of a plant to continue to operate."
Under federal law, the NRC has 20 days to respond to the Freedom of Information Act request.
Friends of the Earth fights to create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use, and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.
If you would rather not receive future communicattons from Friends of the Earth. let us know by clicking here.
Friends of the Earth, 1100 15th Street MN 11th Floor. Washington. DC 20005 United States T'It 111 o , - ,. , , d 11 !his r11essiige 1s nte11dfld only forthc rec1piellt and may I.le a conf,denual attorney r.11!.'nt con111wo,c;Jlioi1 *,r m:w othcrw1 ., ~**
1l' ,, <J*'~ -111d conklEntt:il ,,,, J p ,, -~ ' , ,<.cl ,sur,? If the r,;,ader of this message,., n01 lhc imend.::d rer.1p1t>m. or ;ir. em1.>10 " * , .- _ ,11' !'. 11,: t J 1;,,11,iu 1*11 -nessagt. t, thr 1111c*iCIP.d *ec,~,cnt µ11:,;s., . -
- 1 n cl,sscm,narto,, or COPVil'l\l (Jf , ,- -* , or, 1,:. *,lrtrllj proniMed II vn*, t,~,
"11 *;,*'J * ,,., , ,,,.,.,n,r:,wor ,n , t)r pl~asc rrnt'T'et.h~Mty l'\!:ltny us by rcpt ,n de,ehnri ii frol' 1<)~* ,.omr111* r M" r ,, ;i,. Hill ;:,, *,,,, 11, ~rrv, rm r~Jhl
- i*f* 1,I 1r, 11,p:11,<<hl,* I x,11,.; *, to mon1101 ... * :,S me r.onl<>nr ot ;my electromc m :, , ., * , , h,,,. sm,* t<. 111 fll)l\1 '.le *,t., H,11 ru,,1, 11 ill , ,,I ""'?S vi ll*t*1,1 "t * ; ~ " ' " er >r rec,;,., Ill ol lhe message By !".tHIU1ng ~tec:ron,c l'l~ss:i,~P. "' 1nfo m1m,011 :o . **r * , *1a1" n1*11t
_*_ . , * ~ ,,.,. ...~ i ,illit 11* t ,.on~em,nq to M,. ,1o11V H,11 rlr,anc.1al pmcP.S!>lriQ any of your or>r,;1)f1r<I d,:lta lhere*r 11
From: Uselding, Lara Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 4:03 PM To: Brenner, Eliot Cc: Dricks, Victor
Subject:
perhaps we could pitch Eileen some story ideas She*s now at Argus media
- r From: Elfeen O'Grady [11]
Sent: Thursday, -Septemner 18, toi42:2iPM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
RE: Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Dfablo Canyon quake safety?
(b)(6)
--=---------- --- -- -- -- -
From: Uselding, Lara [12]
Seni :211ursday, September 18, 2014 2:04 PM To: ~ O'Gracfy
Subject:
RE: D -id PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Great, thanks. How's it going over there?
Lara From: Eileen O'Grad~ (mailto:eileen.oqrady@arqusmedia.com)
Sent: Thursday, SepttJmber 18, 2014 2:03 PM To: Uselding, Lara
Subject:
RE: Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Thanks, Lara . la m not planning to write unless ordered by editors. I do ubt th is is something Argus would get into, but I' m still new here so I co uld be wrong. I will keep this response.
From: Uselding, Lara [13]
Sent;_Thursdav, September 18, 2014 1:59 PM To:'E.ileen o*Grady -
Subject:
R ~ E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Hello again: In case you were looking for a response ,
We know of no collaboration between NRC and PG&E regarding the individual timing of releases (i.e. DPO dedsion and state-require report) .
However. we take these matters seriously and the NRC staff itself has referred the matter to the agency s Inspector General Lara L::,ra Usclding I ** 1, I,. '!(, *1dai,1l" l ',11 if, .. ,, .~~r,t *.
2
I "t I I ,....
Xl7.200. l .519 bra.uM.:ldincJ" nrc.ucn From: Eileen O'GradNmail=ogrady@argusmedia.com]
Sent: Thursday, September , ~Q_:27 AM To: Dricks, Victor; Uselding, Lara -
Subject:
FW: Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Victor/ Lara : just a heads up in case you have not seen today From: Kate Colwell [14]
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 9:01 AM To: Eileen O'Grady
Subject:
Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Dlablo Canyon quake safety?
http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/201 4-09-did-pge-and-the-nrc-work-together-to-spin-news-on-dlablo-canyon-guake-safetv For Immediate Release:
September 18, 2014 Expert Contacts:
Ben Schreiber, (202) 352-4223, bschreiber@foe. org Dave Freeman, (310) 902-2147 , greencowboysdf@qmail.com Communications Contacts:
EA Dyson, (202) 222-0730, edyson@foe.org (East Coast)
Bill Walker, (510) 759-9911, bw ,deadline@gmail .com (West Coast)
Did PG&E and the NRC work together to spin news on Diablo Canyon quake safety?
Friends of the Earth files Freedom of Information Act request WASHINGTON, O.C. - Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dented a dissent by the former chief inspector at the Dlablo Canyon nuclear plant, who said new seismic data show the plant may be vulnerable to earthquakes of greater magnitude than allowed by its license. On the same day, Pacific Gas & Eleclrlc Co. released a long-awaited seismic study that, like the NRC's ruling, also claimed that Dlablo Canyon Is safe .
Was the timing a coincidence? Friends of the Earth doubts it.
Today, Friends of the Earth, joined by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Mothers for Peace and the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club filed a Freedom of Information Act request to determine whether the NRC and PG&E improperly worked together on a public relations strategy to counteract widespread news coverage of the inspector's dissent.
According to the FOIA request, filed with the NRC In Washington :
The PG&E seismic report, released on the same day [as the decision on the inspector's dissent] indicates a possible relationship between the regulator and its licensee that has brought up widespread public concern regarding the Independence of the regula tor. There have been numerous concerns as to how the two documents could have been released simultaneously, given that [the handling of the Inspector's dissent) has been kept secret.
The FOlA filing comes three days after three PG&E execulives and a top staff member of the California Public Utilltles Commission were removed for Improperly working together to appoint the company's preferred judge to a case stemming from a September 2010 gas line explosion that killed eight people in San Bruno, California.
3
"You don't have to look any further than today's headlines to see that PG&E is capable of trying to improperly Influence a government regulator when Its profits are on the line," said Damon Moglen, Senior strategic advisor for Friends of the Earth .
"Unfortunately, the NRC's track record on this issue shows an unfortunate tendency to put PG&E's Interests before those or public safety, We want to find out to what extent PG&E and the NRC worked together to spin the story that Diablo Canyon Is safe, despite the mounting evidence that it is vulnerable to quakes more powerful than It was built to withstand ."
San Luis Obispo County supervisor Bruce Gibson, a seismologist and member of the I ndependent Peer Review Panel for Diablo Canyon appointed by the CPUC, also guestfoned the timing of the release of PG&E's report.
" PG&E chose to finalize its entire report and release it to the public before it sought any comment from-or even contacted-the peer review panel," Gibson wrote in the San Luis Obispo Tnbune. It appears to me that PG&E's public relations staff advised them to get their story to the public before any detailed questions might be asked."
Dr. Michael Peck, the former chief inspector at Diablo Canyon, In June 2013 filed a dissent known as a Differing Professional Opinion, or DPO, raising concerns t hat the plant might not withstand an earthquake on one of several fault lines that were not known when it was designed and built more than 40 years ago. Peck called for the shutdown of the plant until and unless PG&E could prove it is safe.
For more than a year, the NRC kept Peck's DPO secret and took no action on it. On August 25, 2014, the Associated Press revealed the existence of Peck's document, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer of California to call a hearing to examine NRC's handling of the dissent. On September 10, the NRC announced It had ruled against Peck. Within hours, PG&E released a seismic safety study the NRC had ordered In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March 2011.
"PG&.E's seismic safety study Is one more example of its half-century history of trying to rationalize away the extreme earthquake hazards to the Diablo Canyon reactors," said Jane Swanson, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. "Despite three earthquake faults identified near Diablo, the NRC has contfnued to allow this devil of a plant to continue to operate."
Under federal law, the NRC has 20 days to respond to the Freedom of Information Act request.
- If#
Friends of the Earth fights to create a more healthy and just world. Our current campaigns focus on promoting clean energy and solutions to climate change, keeping toxic and risky technologies out of the food we eat and products we use~ and protecting marine ecosystems and the people who live and work near them.
If you would rather not receive future communications from Friends of the Earth, let us know by cl1cking here Friends of the Earth. t tOO 15th Street t,/IN 11th Floor, Washington. DC 20005 United States This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http: \\Ww.symanteccloud.com ntained in this email and its attachments is confidential and may be the subject of legal, professional or o privilege. It is intende o med addressees and may not be disclosed to anyone else witho rgus Media. If you are not the named addressee you must no
- e... distribute, copy, r' e contents of this email and should destro) it immediately. Whilst Argus Media takes caret from electronic virus attack or other hannful event. the firm gives no warranty lhat this
- me uding any anachmems to it) 1s * ** s or orher harmful maner and accepts n or any loss or damage resulting !Tom the recipient receiving, opening or using
- ,:-o,:: r-!<Jclia L"mi rPci, '"'111!1 house , l 1~, s* ,.,,1111 Streei, uo1,don ":ClV 4L'll f, , *1d , t: ,-.d ~. ~11,1:a1 11J n1 1'1 ~lale:, 1 C'ornp,my r1t-9islra1.1011 Nr,, !* ~~5 34 A'f Fr:,, .~t *at~Cll tJc1 1:r; .!." ~14<:l \
4
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more infonnation please visit http://www.svmantcccloud.com This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more infonnation please visit hrtp://www.svmanteccloud.com
,u*".),:1 M1*(l ,1 t,imi teci, A:-9,,s Ho1Jse, !7':l <;t John Sr.rec-t, London EC'lV '11.W
!**(f':H:v1*,,d ;n !:'.ng1cm,l and ~la1eos, Com9ony Registration No : 1*,l. '"d 4 V,\'J R<*q t r ,,i ;,,11 r~o: GB 2:C 'l 7 149 41 This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.svmant~ccloud .com This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more infonnation please visit http://w\.\w.svmanteccloud.com e contained in this email and its attachments is confidential and may be the subject of legal, professional or other privilege. It is inten e e named addressees and may not be disclosed to anyone else without co O edia. If you are not th~ named addressee you m isclose, distribute, co contents of this email and should destroy it immediately. Whilst Argus Media take stems from electronic virus attack or other harmful event, the lirm gives no warran
- essage (including any attachments
- of any virus or other harmful matter and responsibility for any loss or damage resulting from the recipient receiving. openi it.
AJ91,; MPcJ ,, ; rr.~ted, A:.gus Ho*., ze. t"S ,:. Jor:11 °:t,* 1--<'t, 1,c111don l'ClV ,H,\1 1'1 1i"'"' Pei .:i E.*w:r.ncl and wales. ('r1n,p.-r1l ~<'HiH1,;1, ~,, ~*o : ;r <.2~11
- 11 * ,.., * * ,* i~m :,<J: CB _:1 71-1 °> ~l This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.svmantcccloud.com 5