2016-05-19 – NRC – Jocassee Dam – Failure to Study Dam Security – ML16201A086

2016-05-19-nrc-lake-jocassee-dam-failure-to-study-dam-security-ml16201a086

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Criscione, Lawrence
From: Criscione, Lawrence
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 7:34 AM
To: Kirkwood, Sara; Holahan, Gary; Clark, Theresa
Cc: [email protected]; ‘[email protected]
Subject: Failure to study Dam Security
Attachments: Final Response.pdf; Senator Lieberman’s letter to Hubert Bell–OIG Case 13-001.pdf
Sara et. al.,
In his response to the FOIA appeal mentioned below, Hubert Bell confirmed that his agents have not reviewed
a single study regarding whether or not the Lake Jocassee Dam is vulnerable to terrorist action or internal
sabotage.
My have concerns have always been about dams failing due to acts of nature and not from acts of
sabotage. However, given the secretive silo-ing of flooding information, there are obviously many individuals
within the NRC and the US Army Corp of Engineers who believe that there are credible security threats to
dams. That being the case, after knowing about this problem for a decade should we not at least have studied
the issue?
Is the Lake Jocassee Dam vulnerable to terrorist action? If so, should it not be guarded against the same
Design Basis Threat (DBT) used for Oconee? If not, why are we being so secretive about flood heights and
basic dam design? Is the Lake Jocassee Dam vulnerable to internal sabotage? If so, does Duke Energy
screen individuals granted access to the dam to the same level as it screens individuals granted access to
Oconee?
These questions might not have been in the OSC referral letter, but they should be answered. I will certainly
be pointing them out—and any lack of consideration of them—in my comments upon your response to the
President via the OSC.
Larry
Lawrence S. Criscione
573-230-3959
From: Lawrence Criscione [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:16 PM
To: Bell, Hubert ; Lee, David
Cc: Andoh, Roger ; Dave Lochbaum ; Paul Gunter ; Paul Blanch ; [email protected]; Tom
Devine ; Jim Riccio ; FOIA Resource ;
William R. Corcoran, Ph.D., P.E.
Subject: [External_Sender] Appeal of search adequacy for FOIA/PA‐2016‐0397
Mr. Bell,
Please accept this email as a FOIA appeal.
On October 15, 2012 I wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs (HS&GA). That letter is attached for your reference (it follows the one page letter
Senator Lieberman sent to you on Dec. 18, 2012).
On page 2 of my letter I requested that the HS&GA verify that the NRC is ensuring access to Jocassee Dam is
adequately guarded and is ensuring personnel with access to the pump storage plant at Jocassee Dam are
adequately screened for insider threats.
On page 4 of the 2012-Oct-15 letter I requested that the HS&GA ensure that after five years of assuming there
is a security threat to Jocassee Dam, the NRC has adequately assessed the minimum required threat capable of
jeopardizing the integrity of the Lake Jocassee Dam.
In early December 2012 I reiterated my concerns to the HS&GA in a joint letter with Paul Blanch which also
included Paul’s concerns regarding the natural gas pipeline near Indian Point.
On December 18, 2012 Senator Lieberman forwarded my 2012-Oct-15 letter onto you for your consideration.
On March 22, 2016 I requested under the Freedom of Information Act:
1. All studies reviewed by the Office of the Inspector General concerning the security at the Lake Jocassee
Dam.
2. All replies from the Office of the Inspector General to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security &
Governmental Affairs concerning the 2012-Dec-18 letter from Senator Lieberman to Hubert Bell.
On March 30, 2016 I received the attached response stating that no records could be found.
I find it hard to believe that your agents have never reviewed any studies concerning whether or not the security
at the Lake Jocassee Dam is adequate to protect the dam–and the downstream reactors at Oconee–from terrorist
attack and/or internal sabotage. I am therefore appealing the 2016-Mar-16 FOIA response on the grounds of
inadequate search.
I also find it hard to believe that neither the NRC nor any other federal agency has ever assessed the adequacy
of the security of the Lake Jocassee Dam; however due to the regulatory gaps described in my 2012-Oct-15
letter (e.g. FERC regulates the Lake Jocassee Dam but has no mandate to ensure it is protected to the same
design basis threat as the downstream nuclear reactor plants which it would flood) I do recognize it is possible
that both FERC and the NRC have avoided addressing security issues surrounding the dam. However, if that is
the case (i.e. if neither FERC nor the NRC has adequately studied whether the Lake Jocassee Dam poses a
security threat to the Oconee reactors) I would expect that you would have reported back to the HS&GA that
you found a gap in the regulatory domains of FERC and the NRC.
Therefore, I find it hard to believe that FOIA 2016-0397 would find no records. I would expect either that your
agents satisfactorily determined the existence of at least one security study showing the Lake Jocassee Dam is
adequately guarded against sabotage or that you reported back to the HS&GA that there is currently an
outstanding concern regarding whether the security at the FERC regulated dam is adequate to ensure the
security of the downstream NRC regulated reactors.
Please ensure your agents conduct an adequate search for the records requested under FOIA/PA 2016-0397.
Thank you,
Larry
Lawrence S. Criscione
573-230-3959
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 14:42:02 -0400
Subject: FOIA/PA-2016-0397 Final Response
Dear Mr. Criscione: Please find attached NRC’s final response to your FOIA request, FOIA/PA-2016-00397.
Please take a moment to help us improve our FOIA processes, and let us know what your experience has
been. Just click on this embedded link: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/foia-user-survey.html. Once you
have completed the survey, just click the “SUBMIT” button and your survey response will be returned to us.
Thank you,
Freedom of Information, Privacy & Information Collections Branch
Customer Service Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer
Mail Stop: T-5F09
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
[email protected] Ph: 301-415-7169 Fax: 301-415-5130
NRC FORM 464 Part I (OIG) U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FOIA RESPONSE NUMBER
(12·2015)
/”Rto”‘-<., I 2016-0397 II l I ~~% RESPONSE TO FREEDOM OF ; ' ~ !~ . ) INFORMATION ACT (FOIA) REQUEST RESPONSE D 0 INTERIM FINAL ....... TYPE REQUESTER: DATE: !Lawrence Criscione li~ a o ze• 1 DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTED RECORDS: All studies reviewed by the OIG regarding security at Lake Jocassee Dam and all replies from the OIG to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs concerning the December 18, 2012letter from Senator Lieberman to Hubert Bell. PART I. -INFORMATION RELEASED Agency records subject to the request are already available in public ADAMS or on microfiche in the NRC Public Document Room. 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. D We are continuing to process your request. 0 See Comments. PART I.A •• FEES AMOUNT' 0 $11 II You will be billed by NRC for the amount listed. None. Minimum fee threshold not met. "See Comments for details D You will receive a refund for the amount listed. Fees waived. PART I.B -INFORMATION NOT LOCATED OR WITHHELD FROM DISCLOSURE 0 We did not locate any agency records responsive to your request. Note: Agencies may treat three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records as not subject to the FOIA ("exclusions"). 5 U.S.C. 552(c). This is a standard notification given to all requesters; it should not be taken to mean that any excluded records do, or do not, exist. We have withheld certain information pursuant to the FOIA exemptions described, and for the reasons stated, in Part II. D Because this is an interim response to your request, you may not appeal at this time. We will notify you of your right to appeal any of the responses we have issued in response to your request when we issue our final determination. You may appeal this final determination within 30 calendar days of the date of this response by sending a letter or email to the FOIA Officer, at U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, or [email protected] Please be sure to include on your letter or email that it is a "FOIA Appeal." PART J.C COMMENTS ( Use attached Comments continuation page if required) r-====~~- '"'- ----~ • ••••••~ •••••CTOR GENERAL FOR INVESnGATIONS, OIG -3l:~- ~:::::::::::... NRC Form 464 Part I (OIG) (12-2015) Page 2 of 2 Mr. Hubert I3ell Inspector General Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ollke or the Inspector General I (b)(7)(C) I I ~ 55 5 Rockvill~ Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Dear lnspcc!Or General Bell: .. ... . ~ . December 18. 2012 Instead of seriously considering the safety issues, the NRC Inspector General's agents went after the person raising the concerns. 1 am enclosing a copy of a letter I received from Mr. Lawrence S. Criscione regarding safety concerns by the U.S. Nuckar Regulatory Commi$sion (NRC.) The concerns are in regards to the Oconee Nuclear Station uno Jocassee Dam. The allegation claims that the NRC is aware of safety issues at these two facilities, and has fa iled to act appropriately. t\s I have no way of ascertaining the basis for these allegations. I have enclosed thi'i letter for your consideration . Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sinc erely . :J:eU:::: Chairmnn 1412 Dial Court Springfield, II. 62704 Sen Nuclear Station, it stands
to renson that the .security, operations and maintenance personnel at the }ocassce Dam
pumped storage station should be held to the same background checks and periodic
rt’aS!>Cssmcnts as similar personnel at the Oconee Nuclear Stat1on and other reactor plants.
I re!>pectfully request that the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmentgu latory Commission (FERC). I know little about FF.RC. but it is my understanding that
FERC doe~ not reqUire the facilities it regulates to be guarded against the same design basis
threats that commerc1al nuclear reactors are guCirded against. Although FF:RC’s security
requirements arc likely adequ~tc for most of the facilities it regulates. in the case of a
pumped storage dam whose sabotttge is assumed to result tn a nuclear drains
to) are pumped storag~ impounds. Within a matter of hours, Duke Energy can lower the
volume of water impounded by the Lake jocassee and Lake Keowee Dams such thdt in the
event of a failure of the Jocassee Dam the remaining volume of water impounded will not
overtop the in<~dequatcly sized tlood fall surrounding the Standby Shutdown Facility at the Oc·onee Nuclear St:ltion. There is also ancther :;olution to the security concern: shut down the three reactors at the Oconee Nucle~1r St:1tion until the flooding defenses surrounding the Standby Shutdown Facility are adequately improved. It IS understandable that the NRC cannot address the perceived security vu lnerabilities at JocassPe Oam since it does not regulate Jocassee Dam. Howe\·cr. the NRC rcgubtes the Oconee Nuclear Station and it is unconscionable that for five years rhe NRC has suspected a grave security concern and has not addressed it by requiring the three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Stat1on to be shutdown as long as the volume of water impounded in Lakes JocassE'e and KCO\'\'eE' pose a security threat to those reactors. And it is equally unconscionable thdt the NRC is going to allow this condition to continue for an additional ~hree or four years. 3 I am not convinced that there is a credible security concern regarding jocasscc DrlC.Ige
vandals with some stolen dynamite nnd a canoe? Or is it a platoon of trained underwater
demolition experts from a technologically ad\’:-~nced nation-state?
I do not know enough about dam construction, terrorism or demolition to say what the
min: mum requtred threat to jocassN• Dam is. If it is less than (e.g. teenage vandals} or
equ<~l to (e.g. a well-armed squad of terrorists) the design basis threat for the Oconee Nuclear Station, then I agree with the NRC that there ts a security concern with the Lake jocassec Dam. If. however, it is greater than the design basis threat for the Oconee Nuclear Station (e.g. underwater demolition experts from the CIA, KGB. Mossad or M16). then I do not believe there is a credible threat to jocassee Dam. I respectfully request the followi ng from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Gov0rnmcntal Affairs: 1. Ensure that after five years of assuming there is a security threat to Jocasscc Dam. the NRC hns adequately assessed the minimum required threat capable of jeopardi7ing the integrity of the Lake Jocassee Dam. 2. If the minimum required threat capable of jeopardizing the integrity or the Lake jocassee Dam is greater rhan the design basis threat for the Oconee Nudear Station. then request the NRC to cease v;ithholding frotn the public the correspondence, memos and studies concerning the safety liabilities which a failure of the Lake Jocassee Dam poses to the Oconee Nuclear Station. 3. If the minimum required threat capable of jeopardizing the integrity of the Lake Jocassee Dam is less than or equal to the design basis threat for the Oconee Nuclear Station, then request the NRC to ensure the three reactors at the Oconee Nuclear Station are in a shutdown condition whenever the combined volume of water impounded by the )ocassee and Keowee Dams is great enough to pose a noodir.g thre;~t to the Oconee Nuclear Station in the event of a failure of Jocassec Dam. Enclosed with this letter is a list of the correspondence. memos and studies concerning the saff't~· li;tbilities posed by a failure of the Lake }ocassee Dam. Most of these documents have been stamped by the NRC as "Official Use Only- Security-Related Information" despite not containing <~ny discussion of security concerns. It is my perception that the "securityrelated" concerns are merely assumed to exist; however it is possible that the I\11C has done an actual assessment that shows there is a credible security threat to the dam. If this is the case, then it is unconscionable that in five years the NRC has not done any~hing to prevent the operation of the three reactors at ONS while an unaddressed vulnerability to their security remains outstanding. 4 Copied on this letter are several industry groups and government watchdog organ1zations. There :1re some within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who will claim that it is irresponsible for me to share the information in this letter with members oft he public. To them I would note that there is nothing in this letter- other than the I 1st of documents enclosed- that is not aln•ady public knowledge. With regard to the list of documents enclosed, although these documents are stamped "Official Use Only - Security-Related Informatio n", I do not believe that the mere mention of the existence of these documents constitutes the release of"Security-Related Information''. I h <~ve copied politically active organiz<~tions on this letter because I believe their participation is vital to the proper functioning of our democ ratic and republican proces!.cs. Although it might not be appropriate to release specific infomHltion to these org:mizations from documents stamped "Sec urity-Related Information", merely informing them that after five years the NRC has failed to adequately address a perceived security threat from the LakE' )oct~sscc Dam is certainly within my rights as a citizen and my duties as a licensed profl!ssional engint>er.
Very respectfu!’.•;,
Lawrence S. Criscione, PE
573-230-3959
I “C.ill.t iou..!:.!tit’ ”’ “DillJ.cnm
Enclosure- 5 pages
C:c: Senator Susan Collins, Ranking Member. Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs
Sen ator Richard Durbin, Illinois
Congressman Pete King, Chairman, Homeland Security
Congressmun Bennie Thompson. Ranking Member. Homeland Security
Co ngres ~ ma n Prcd Upton, Chairman, Energy & Commerce
Congressman I lenry Waxman. Ranking Member, Energy & Com mere~
Chairman Allison Macf<1r lane, US Nuclear Regul:nory Commission Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner. US Office of Special Counsel Michael Corradini, American Nuclear Society Admiral )ames Ell is, Institute of Nuclear Power Operdtions Leshe Barbour, Nuclear Energy Institute David J.ochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists Scott Arney. Project on Government Oversight Louis Cl:lrk, Government Accountability Project Ken Bunting. National Freedom of Information Coali tion Tyson Siocum, Public Citizen Energy Program Jim Riccio, Greenpeace 5 Date 1994-FEB·ll 1994 ·MAR·l4 19Q4-0CT-6 1994-DE::-19 2000-MAR-15 2006-APR-28 2006·AUG 31 2006-0\ T S 2006-NOV-22 2006-0EC-20 2007-JAN-29 2007-FEB-S 2007-'E3·22 2C':J7 MAR·l 2007-MAY-3 2007-JUN-22 2007-JUN-28 2007-0CT ·l 2007-0CT 1 2007-0 C. I -1 2007-NOV-20 2008-MAY-19 2008-JUN-23 7.008-JUL-28 List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of jocassce Oilm ADAMS M lQ(,ll804 ~1 ~LO~Q?J!OJ.12 Ml06~890206 _tyltOG ns:!
MLOG:G20092
ML070440345
ML070590329
ML070610460
ML072970510
ML07:580259
Ml07:’77076S
ML072770775
MLOi:770777
Ml073241045
ML08:3S0689
ML082390669
ML082120390
Title
tetter from Albert F. Gibson, NRC, toJ. W Hampton, Duke, “Notice ofVIolat1on and
Notice of Deviation (NRC lnspectton Report Nos. 50-2 69/93-25, 50·270/93-25, and
50·287/93-25).” dated February 11, 1994
Letter from J. W. Hampton, Duke. dated March 14, 1994
Internal NRC memo documenting a meeting between Region II and NRR concerning
a hypothetical Jocilssee Dam failure.
Letter from Albert F. Gibson, NRC, to J. W. Hampton, Duke, “Notice of Viol at 1M and
Notice of Deviation (NRC Inspection Report Nos. 50·269/94-31, S0-270/94-31, Mld
50-287/ 94-31),” dated December 19, 1994
Letter from Davtd E. LaBarge, NRC, toW. R. McCollum, Jr., “Oconf:’P. Nuclear Station,
Units 1, 2, and 3 Re: Review of Individual Plant Examination of External Events (TAC
No~. M83649, M83650, and M8365l),” dJted March 15, .2000
OCONEE NUCLEAR STAT10N -INTEGRA-fO INSPECTION REPORT
05000269/2006002,05000270/200602,05000287/2006002
IR 05000269-06·016, IR 05000270-06-016, IR 05000287·06·016, on 03/31/2006,
Ocon~:>e Nuclear Station – Prefim1nary White Findmg
Oconee. Units 1, 2 & 3 .. Response to Preliminary White Finding
IR 0500026’l·06·017, IR 05000270·06-017, IR 05000287 ·06·017, Final Signi ficance
Determination for a White Finding and Notice of Violation, Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC
Ocone~. Units 1, 2. & 3, Appeal of Final Significance D€termination for White
Finding and Reply to Notic;e of VIolation; EA-06-199
Summary of Revised Fragility Evaluation Results for Jocassee Dam
Letter from Bruce H. Hamilton, Duke, to NRC, ”SE- ismic Frag11ity Study”
Manual Chapter 0609.02 Appeal Panel Recommendatio r.s (Oconf’f’ Reply to a
Notice of Vrolation and White Finding (EA-06-199))
Oconee Appeal Panel Review of Manual Chapter 0609.02 Appeal Panel Review of
Oconee Standby Shutdown Facility White Finding (EA-06-199)
Oconee. Units 1, 2 and 3- Request for NRC to Review Appeal of Final Sign ificance
Determination f~>r SSF Flood Barrier White Finding
Consideration of New Information Associated with a Final Signi ficance
Determinatior for a White Finding – OconeE’ NS
Phone calf between the NRC and Duke Energy
10/01/2007, Slides with Notes for Final ReguiP Nuclear Station- Revisions to the Selected Licensee Commitments Manual
(SlC)
Enclosure, page 1
Lic;t of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jo c:~sscc Dam
Date ADAMS Title
2008-AUG-15 Ml081640244 Information Request Pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 54( F) Related to Extprnal Flooding,
Including Failure of the Jocasst>e Dam at Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3
(TAC Nos. MD8224, MD822S, and MD8226)
200!!·AUG 26 ML08~390690 Kick Off for Risk Analysis of the Failure of the Jocassee and Keowee Dt~ms to Assess
the Potential Effects on the Safe Shutdown Facility at the Oconee Nuclear Station
2008-AUG-28 ML083300427 08/28/2008 · Summary of Closed Meeting to with Duke Energy Carolinas. UC to
Discuss the August 15. 2008, 50.54(f) LeltN on External Flooding (TAC Nos.
MD8224, MD8225. and MD8226)
:>008-AUG-28 ML082550290 Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas. Oconee Flood Protection and the JocassPP
Dam Hatard
2008-SEP-6 ML082250166 OconPP. Nuclear Station – Communication Plan for lnforlllation Request Related to
Failure Frequencies for the Jocassee Pumped Storage Dam (Joca~~PP Dam) at thP
OconE’e Nuclei!r Station and Potential Gt-neric tmphcat1ons
2008·SEP-26 ML0827S0106 Oconee, Units 1, 2 and 3 · Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Request
2008-NOV·S ML09:0607&1 11/0S/08 Summary of Closed Meeting with Duke on External Flooding Issues,
including failure of the Jocassee Dam, at Ocon£>e Nucle<~r Stanon, Units 1, 2, and 3 2008-NOV·S ML0833906SO 2C08·DEC-4 ML09:420319 2008 ·DEC·4 ML09048()(\44 ?009-FE13·3 Ml 090280474 2009-AI'R-6 Ml092170104 2009-APR-9 ML09:0301 7~ 2009-APR-30 Ml090570779 11/0S/2008 Meet ing Slides, "Oconee Site Flood Protection," NRC Meeting with Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC 12/04/2008 Mel'ting Summary, Meeting to Discuss External Flooding at Oconee Nuclear Station (Reissuance, with Error on Page 3 Corrected) OconeP Nuclear Station. External Flood NRR Meeting, Rockville, MD, D~cem ber 4, 2008 Briefing Package for Commissioner Lyons Visit to Oconee on February 4, 2009 Oconee NuciPar Station, Units 1. 2 And 3 · Non-concurrence on Evaluation of Duke Energy Carolinas, llC Septembl'r 26, 2008. Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission LettE'r Dated August 15, 2008 Related to External Flooding Oconee External Flooding Briefing for Commissioner Janko OconPe Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3, Evaluatio'l of Duke Energy Carolinas Seotembcr 26, 2008, Response to External Flooding, Including Failure of the Jocassee Dam 2009·MAY ·11 ML092940769 05/11/2009 Summary of Closed Meeting with Duke Energy Carol1nas, LLC, to D1scuss Preliminary Results of the Recent Inundation and SensitiVIty Studies Concern.ng Failure of the Jocassee Dam and Resultant Flood1ng at Oconee Nuclear Station, 1, 2, and 3 2009·MAY 11 ML090820470 5/11/2009 Notice of Forthcoming Closed MePting with Duke Energy Cdrolinas, LLC, to Discuss Sensitivity Studies Concerning Failure of the Jocassee Dam & Resultant Flooding at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Unit 1, 2, & 3 2009-MAY· l l ML091380424 OconeE' Nuclear Station, Slides for Closing Meeting May n . 2009 with Duke on the Ocont>e Flooding Issue
2009·MAY·20 Ml091470265 Oconee, Units 1, 2 & 3, Request for Extension of Duke Response Time to Referenced
Letter
2009·MAY·26 Ml091480116 E-mail re Bnefing Package for ViSit to Jocassee Dam on June 23, 2009
2009·JUN·l Ml091590046 Oconee, Units 1, 2, and 3, Request to Withhold Sensitive Information in
Presentation Materials Left with Staff
2009-JUN· l O ML09168019S Oconee. Units 1, 2, and 3 ·Interim 3Q-Day Response to Reference 2.
Enclosure, page 2
Date
2009-JUN-11
2009-JUN-25
2C09·JL:l·9
2009-JUL-28
2009-AUG-12
2009·AU(;·27
2009-SEP 25
2009-0CT-28
2009 -NOV-30
2009-U~C-4
2C10·JAN-6
2010-JAIHl
2010-JAN-15
2010-JAN-29
2010-FEB-8
2010·FE8·26
2010·MAR·S
2010·MAR·15
2010-MAR-18
2010-APR-14
2010·MAY·27
2ClO·JUN· l
2ClO·JvN·3
2010·JU~ · 22
20 lO·JU’-1 ·29
2010 JUL-7
2010-JUL-19
List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jocassee Dam
ADAMS
M L091620669
Ml091760072
ML092020480
ML092230608
ML09C570117
ML092380305
ML09~7 10344
ML093080034
ML09::380701
M L09C680737
Mll0C2809S4
Ml100150066
Ml100210199
Mll0(l271591
ML100470053
Mll00610674
Mll05430047
ML100780084
ML100810388
ML100760109
Mll0l600468
Mll0!750619
Mll01610083
MllO~ 730329
Ml10::.890803
ML10!880768
ML10l90030S
Title
6/11/09 Summary of Closed Meeting wtth Duke Carolina to Distuss External
Flooding at Oconee
NRC Site V1sit to the Oconee Nuclear Station on June 15, 2009
Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3, Finai6Q-Day Response to Reference 2
Oconee, Submittal of Selected Licensee Commitments Manual SLC Revision
Oconee Flood Protection and thE’ Jocas.spe Dam Hazard Basis for NRC Allowing
Continued Operation
Oconee, Slides for Closed Meeting Regarding External Flood Technical Meetang On
August 27, 2009
Site Visit Observation on 09/25/2009 by Joel Munday for Ocon(‘t’
10/:’R/09 Slides for Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2. and 3 · Meeting Slides ·
E!Cternal Flood NRC Technical Meeting
OconP.P. Nuclear Station, Units l, 2, and 3, Oconee External Flood Analyses and
Msociated CorreC1ive Action Plan
12/04/09 Summary of Oosed MeE-ting to Discuss the Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.,
09/26/08 Response to NRC’s August I S, 2008 SO.S4(f) letter on External Flooding at
OconeE’
01/06/2010 Briefing to the Executive Team on the Oconee Nuclpar Station External
Flooding Issue
Request Addittonallnformation Regarding the Oconee External Flooding Issue
Ocone!’. Units 1, 2 and 3 · Additionallnformatton Rega~ding Postulated External
Flood Threat Issues
Evaluation of Duke Energy Carolina, llC (Duke), November 30, 2009, Response to
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) l etter Dated Apnl 30, 2009, Related to
External Flooding At Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, And 3 (Oconee)
Oconee, Units 1, 2, & 3, External Flood. Response to Request for Additional
Information
OconeP, Units 1, 2, & 3, External Flood Revised Commitment Letter
Oconee Nuclear Stat1on, Units 1, 2, & 3, Letter From Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
Regarding Ext ernal Flood. Response to Request For Additional Information
Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam Risk Analy!>is
Prepare Briefing Book and Material fo r Eric lPeds for the Dukt> Fleet MPeting on
March 18, 2010
Generic Failure Rate Evaluation for Jocassee Dam
oconee. Units 1, 2 Be 3, Response to Requested Information on the Protection
Against External Flooding Including a Postulated Failure of the JocassP!’ Dam
OUO • Communicatton Plan For Issuance of Conf:rmiltory Action Letter To Duke For
Oconee· External Flooding June 2010
OconeE> Nuclear Station, Untts 1, 2, and 3, • External Flood CommitmPnt•
Oconee, Units 1, 2 & 3, Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL 2· 10·003), Commitments to
Address External Flooding Concerns
06/29/2010 Summary of Closed Meeting With Duke Energy Carohnas, LLC. to
Discuss External Flooding at Oconee
OUO ·IR OS000269·10.002, 05000270-10·006, 05000287-10·006; 01/01/2010 •
03/31/2010; Oconee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2 and 3; lntenm Compensatory
Mt>asures for External Flood
Identification of a Generic External Flooding Issue Due to Potential Dam Faalures
Enclosure. page 3
Date
2010-AUG-2
20l0-0CT·20
2010-0CT 26
2010-N0\1·29
20ll·JA’J-S
20:1-JAN·lO
20~1-JAN -28
List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Failure of Jocassee Dam
ADAMS
ML102170006
ML102910480
ML102990064
ML103490330
Mlll0180609
ML110260443
ML110280153
Title
Oconee Units 1, 2, & 3, Response to Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) 2·10·003
NRC Assessment of Oconee External Flooding Issue (October 18, 2010)
NRC Staff Assessment of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Oconee ExtNni\1 Flood1ng
Issue (TAC NOS. ME4441, ME4442, and ME4443)
0<"onee Nuclear Site, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee Response to Co"lf:rmatory Action Lcttc:>r (CAL) 2·10·003
Enclosure 1, Ocont-e> Nuclear Station, Major Projt-ct Plans
Non-concurrence on Oconee Assessment Letter
Staff Assessment of Duke’s Response to Confirmatory Action Letter Regarding
Duke’s Comm1tments To Address EKtcrnal Flooding Concerns At The Oconee
NuciPar Station, Units 1. 2. And 3 (ONS) (TAC NOS. ME3065. MF3066. and ME3067)
2011-MAR-S Mll03410042 Supplement to Technical Basis for Allowing Oconee Nuclear Station to Remain in
Operation Through November 2011, Associated with the External Flooding Issues
2011-MAR 1!> M Ll10/40482 Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear Power Plant
Sites Follow1ng Upstream Dam Fa1lures
2011-APR-29 Mllll460063 Oconee Nuclear Site, Units 1, 2, and 3, Response to Confirmatory Action Letter
(CAL) 2-10·003
201l·AUG·16 Mlll229A710 E-mail re Briefing Package for Visit to Oconee Nuclear Power Plant on September 12·
13, 2011
2011-AUt;-18 ML11174A138 OconPe Nuclear Station, Umts 1, 2, and 3, Assessment of Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC
April29, 2011, Response to Confirmatory Action Letter Regardmg Modifications to
Address External Flooding Concerns (TAC Nos. ME6133, ME6134, and ME6135)
20l1-AUG-31 ML112430114 Screening Analysis Report for the Proposed GPneric Issue on Flooding of Nuclear
Power Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failures
2Cll·S:f’-1 ML 11?44A024 Brie fine Package for Visit to Oconee Nuclear Power Plant on September 12 ·13, 2011
2011-0CT-3 ML11278A173 Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS), Units 1. 2, and 3. Response to Requests for
Additional Information Regarding Necessary Modifications to Enhance the
Capability of the ONS Site to Withstand the Postulated Failure of the Jocassee Dam
20: 1-0::i-17 ML11294A341 Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS). Units 1. 2. and 3, Response to Requests for
Additionallnformat •on Regarding Necessary Modifications to Enhanc~ the
Capability of the ONS Site to Withstand the PostulatE-d Failure of the Jocassee Dam
2011-DE::-16 ML1B500495 Screenmg Analysis Report for the Proposed Generic Issue on Flooding of Nuclear
Power Plant S1 tes Following Upstream Dam Failures_redacted
2012-IAN-26 Mll2C26A549 Briefing Package for Commissioner Svinlcki Visit to Oconee on February 1. 2012
20 12-JAN-31 ML12026A254 Communication Plan for Oconee Nuclear Station (ONS) Following Issuance of Gl -204
2012 rfB-3 Mll2C39A239 Oconet>, Units 1. 2 and 3 · Request for Withholding from Public Disclosure Duke
EncrRv Letter Dated May 20, 2009 Involving Postulated Failure of the JocasseP Dam
2012HG·9 ML12C39A217 Briefing Pilckage Request for Mel:’ting with Duke Energy on Febru<~rv 16, 2012 Enclosure, page 1 List of NRC Correspondence, Memos and Studies Regarding Fuilure ofjocasst>P. Dam
Date ADAMS Title
201.2 ‘E[: 17 ML120S3A016 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC- Recommended Revisions to the Oconee Nuclear
Station Section of NRC’s Scret-ning Analysis Report for the Propost>c1 Generic Issue
on Flooding of Nuclear Plant Sites Following Upstream Dam Failure
20l2·FEB-23 Mll20S8A236 02/23/12 Summary of a Teleconft-rPn::e between the US NRC and Duke Energy
Regarding Comments made by Duke Energy Concerning th!’ Issuance of the
Screening Analysis Report for Generic Issue 204
2012 · M~ting Slides on Oconep External Flood
Mitigation
Briefing Paclc;~gP. for Meeting with Ouke Energy on July 11, 2012
Briefing Book for Meeting w ith Duke Energy on August 7, 2012
Communication Plan for Flooding September 2012
OconeP. Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 – Response to Questions Rt>p,tlrding
Modifications to Address External Flooding Hazards (TAC Nos. ME7970. ME7971,
AND ME7972)
Enclosure. page 5
Case Title:
Origination Doclink: ·j
OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Memos to File
Prepared by.i (bX7)(Cl j 011081101 J
Release of NRC Security Case Number:
Related Documents ·by RES
Employee
c 13 001
Subject: OIG Receipt of Letter from U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, dated December 18, 2012, LIEBERMAN
Report Date: 12/18/2012
Narrative:
Status: Closed Edit Authorization:
Request Review:
Approval:
OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1