ML12297A353
| ML12297A353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/2012 |
| From: | Lodge T Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environmental Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, Green Party of Ohio |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC/SECY/RAS |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-346-LR, RAS AAA-04 | |
| Download: ML12297A353 (7) | |
Text
DOCKETED USNRC October 22, 2012 - 11:54 prn OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS Docket, Hearing "Tir AAA -0+
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Terry Lodge [tjlodge5O@yahoo.com]
Monday, October 22, 2012 11:54 PM jaccomando@morganlewis.com; sburdick@morganlewis.com; Flyntz, Matthew; mfreeze@morganlewis.com; Froehlich, William; paul@beyondnuclear.org; Harris, Brian; Docket, Hearing; djenkins@firstenergycorp.com; kevin@beyondnuclear.org; Kanatas, Catherine; William Kastenberg; mkeeganj@comcast.net; tmatthews@morganlewis.com; Newell, Brian; OCAAMAIL Resource; martin.oneill@morganlewis.com; Subin', Lloyd; ksutton@morganlewis.com; Trikouros, Nicholas; Williams, Onika; Williamson, Edward; Docket, Hearing NRC Proceeding "Davis Besse 50-346-LR" (Intervenors' Motion for Reconsideration)
Motion reconsider.pdf Ladies and Gentlemen:
On behalf of the Intervenors in this case, I've been attempting for over half an hour to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the October 11, 2012 ASLB order granting FENOC's motion to strike. I continue to get an error message just inside the NRC portal and cannot correct it.
I'am attaching and proffering the Motion as evidence of my attempts to file it before the deadline. I will take the error message and its correction up with the Help Desk in the morning and try to properly file this in the EIS system on October 23.
Thank you.
Terry Lodge 1
se.c.4 - o 4 t
-Ds.- os
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-346-LR First Energy Nuclear Operating Conmpany
)
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
October 22, 2012
)
INTER VENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TION OF ASLB ORDER GRANTING FENOC 'S MOTION TO STRIKE 'INTER VENORS' REPL Y IN OPPOSITION TO FIRSTENERGY'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 4 (SAMA ANAL YSIS-SOURCE TERMS)'
Now come Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario (CEA), Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Paily of Ohio (collectively, "Intervenors"), by and through counsel, and move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to reconsider its October 11, 2012 "Order (Granting Motion to Strike)," ASLBP No. 11-907-01 -LR-BD0 1, by which the ASLB granted "FENOC's Motion to Strike Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to 'FirstEnergy's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis - Source Terms)." In entering its October 11 decision, the ASLB made a clear and material error which could not have been reasonably anticipated and which renders the decision invalid.
/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge (Ohio Bar #0029271) 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 Phone/fax (419) 255-7552 tjlodge50@yahoo.com Counsel for Intervenors MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
hi its October 11, 2012 Order, the ASLB found (p. 6) that "Contention 4, as limited by this Board and the Commission, challenges only the MAAP code generated source terms used by FENOC in performing its SAMA analysis." This was then used as the basis upon which the Board excluded the entirety of Intervenors' opposition to summary disposition of Contention 4 as "irrelevant."
But Intervenors in their summary disposition opposition did, indeed, challenge the MAAP code-generated source terms used by FENOC. hi ¶ 47 of its Statement of Material Facts, FENOC asserts the MAAP4 program has been benchmarked against Three Mile Island and other severe accident studies. Intervenors pointed out in their opposition to sunmmary disposition (and in their response to the Motion to Strike at p. 5) that the scenarios of a fatally-cracked and compromised shield building and corroded containment shell were not addressed in the course of that bench-marking. At ¶ 49 of its Statement of Material Facts, FENOC asserts that "If inputs and assump-tions are appropriate for the computer model, and sources of uncertainty are understood, then the results of that code may be accepted by a reviewer or regulator for purposes of the application."
In response, Intervenors contended on summary disposition (and in their response to the Motion to Strike at p. 6) that the inputs and assumptions for the Davis-Besse SAMA are inappropriate, leaving the sources of uncertainty to be poorly understood. At ¶¶ 53 and 54 of the Statement of Material Facts, FirstEnergy distinguishes between the source terms describing radioactivity which is contained, from those terms describing radiation leakage into the outer environment.
But those terms did not encompass a cracked and compromised shield building nor a corroded steel containment, the true state of the passive containment systems at Davis-Besse.
Aspirationally, FENOC's experts opined in support of summary disposition that the methodology used to develop source terms for a SAMA analysis must account for plant-unique conditions, plant design, support system dependencies, plant maintenance and operating procedures, operator training, and the interdependencies among these factors that can influence the core damage frequency (CDF) estimate for a specific plant,' But key plant-unique facts were omitted from the methodology used to develop source terms. This created a "garbage-in, garbage-out" scenario in Davis-Besse's MAAP source term output. The MAAP code could only produce results as good as the factual assumptions underlying it.
The assumed facts for MAAP calculation underestimated the true cost of a severe acci-dent at Davis-Besse. They prompted grossly underestimated radionuclide fractions which would be released in the event of a shield building failure which did not incorporate the passive equipment failures of the shield building and the steel containment shell which were predicted by NRC staff engineers. Contrary to the ASLB's holding, the Intervenors did "challenge... the MAAP code generated source terms used by FENOC in performing its SAMA analysis." Inter-venors challenged the "input data" inserted into the MAAP program from which source terms were derived. The Commission held in the Pilgrim case that where there is no "distinction between specific input data entered into the MACCS2 code and specific models embedded in the code (such as the atmospheric dispersion model),.... there easily may be an overlap between arguments challenging the sufficiency of 'input data' used and challenging the model used, if the model does not require, allow for, or otherwise take into account particular types of data."
(Emphasis in original). Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-
"'Joint Declaration of Kevin O'Kula and Grant Teagarden in Support of FirstEnergy's Motion for Sunmmary Disposition of Intevenors' Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis Source Terms)" (O'Kula/Tea-garden Decl.," Attachment 2 to FENOC's MSD) ¶ 49.
10-11, 14-15,71 NRC 287,309 (2010).
Intervenors challenged the sufficiency of input data used in the MAAP model since that model did not account for the shield building cracking and containment structure corrosion.
FENOC extensively discussed the genesis and preferred content requirements of its MAAP data; Intervenors then responded by properly critiquing FENOC's lack of faithfulness to its ostensible standard, meeting FENOC's admirable avidity with the gritty facts at the plant. Accordingly, the I
facts and arguments raised by Intervenors in opposition to summary disposition of Contention No. 4 should not have been stricken. They should now be fully considered and in the Board's forthcoming decision on FENOC's motion.
Conclusion A properly supported motion for reconsideration must identify errors or deficiencies in the presiding officer's determination indicating the questioned ruling overlooked or misappre-hended some legal principle or decision that should have controlling effect. Private Fuel Storage, L.L. C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-00-3 1, 52 NRC 340, 342 (2000).
WHEREFORE, Intervenors pray the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board reconsider its October 11, 2012 Order and upon reconsideration, that it reverse that Order and restore Interve-nors' facts and arguments to the record for inclusion in deliberations over the dispositional ruling.
Is/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge (Ohio Bar #0029271) 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 Phone/fax (419) 255-7552 tjlodge50@yahoo.com Counsel for Intervenors UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of First Energy Nuclear Operating CompanyV (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
)
)
Docket No. 50-346-LR October 22, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We hereby certify that a copy of the "INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDER-ATION OF ASLB ORDER GRANTING FENOC'S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENORS' REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO 'FIRSTENERGY'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 4 (SAMA ANALYSIS - SOURCE TERMS)' "was sent by me to the following persons via electronic deposit filing with the Commission's EIE system on the 22nd day of October, 2012:
Administrative Judge William J. Froehlich, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wjfl @nrc.gov Administrative Judge Dr. William E. Kastenberg Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wekl@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Nicholas G. Trikouros Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ngt@ cnrc.gov Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Catherine Kanatas catherine.kanatas@cnrc.gov Brian G. Harris E-mail: Brian.Harri s@nrc. gov Lloyd B. Subin lloyd.subin@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Michael Keegan
Don't Waste Michigan 811 Harrison Street Monroe, MI 48161 E-mail: mkeeganj wcomcast.net Stephen.. Burdick Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington., D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-5059 Fax: 202-739-3001 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Timothy Matthews, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5830 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: tmatthews@amorganlewis.com Respectfuilly submitted,
/s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge (Ohio Bar #0029271) 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 Phone/fax (419) 255-7552 tj lodge50@yahoo.com Counsel for Intervenors