ML12278A040

Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Fenoc'S Motion to Strike 'Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Firstenergy'S Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 4 (SAMA Analysis - Source Terms).'

ML12278A040
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	10/04/2012
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
SECY RAS
References
RAS 23576, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01
Download: ML12278A040 (13)

Text

UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSION Before the At om ic Saf ety and Licensin g Board I n the Matter of First Energy Nuclear Ope rating Company (Da vis-Be sse Nucle ar Powe r Station, Unit 1)) Docke t No. 50-346-L R)October 4, 2012) *****INTERV ENORS' RE SPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO FENOC'S MOTION TO STRIKE 'INTERV ENORS' RE PLY IN OPPOSITION TO FIRS TENERGY'S MOTION FOR SUMMAR Y DISPOSITION OF CONTENTION 4 (SAMA A NALY SIS - SOURCE TERMS)'Now come Be y ond Nuclea r, Citiz ens Environment Allianc e of Southwester n Ontario (CEA), Don' t Waste Michiga n, and the Gr een Par ty of Ohio (c ollectively , "I nterve nors"), by and throug h counsel, a nd reply in oppositi on to "FE NOC's Motion to St rike I nterve nors' Reply in Opposition to 'FirstEnerg y's Motion for Summary Disposition of Cont ention 4 (SAMA Analy sis- Source Terms)." FirstEne rg y miscasts the scope of Contention 4 and permissible responsive arg uments and hides behind pr ocedur al rig idity to avoid substantive justice.

Up for de termination is this version of Contention 4, dealing with source te rm issues, specifie d here in the ruling of the full Commissi on: Petitioners challeng e the c omputer code used to deter mine source terms in the SAMA analy sis, the Modular Acc ident Analy sis Progre ssion (MAAP) code. Petitioners arg ue that the SAMA a naly sis mini miz es the potential a mount of radioac tive rele ase in a sever e ac cident bec ause sour ce te rms used in the ana ly sis were g ener ated by the MAAP code. Mor e spec ifically , Petitioners claim that the MAAP code is an industry code tha t"has not be en validate d by the NRC," and that it g ener ates ra dioactive r elea se fr actions that are "consistently smaller for key radionuc lides than the re lease fra ctions specifie d in NUREG-1465 a nd its rece nt revision for hig h-burnup irr adiated nuc lear fuel." Petitioners g o on to state that the sourc e ter m used in the ana ly sis "results in lower c onsequenc es than would be obtaine d from NUREG-1465 rele ase f rac tions and relea se dura tions." They additionally claim that "MAA P ge nera tes lower r elea se fr actions than those de rived a nd used by NRC in [sever e ac cident] studies such as NUREG-1150."

Petitioners' cha lleng e to the use of the MAAP code is substantively identical to the source term cha lleng e ra ised in Seabrook. For the re asons outlined in our Seabrook decision, Petitioners' sourc e ter m claims are wea k, but beca use the B oard is the appropr iate ar biter of suc h fac t-specif ic questions of conte ntion admissibi lity , we de fer to the B oard on a dmission of thi s limi ted aspe ct of the SAMA c ontention.

FirstEnergy Nuclear Ope rating Company (Da vis-Be sse Nucle ar Powe r Station, Unit 1), CL I-12-08 at p. 20 (2012).

The thrust of I nterve nors' re sponse in opposition t o summary dispositi on of Contention 4 was pa rticularly focuse d on what F ENOC ca lls "Ba sis 2": that "the ra dionuclide re lease fra ctions g ener ated by MAAP 'ar e consistently smaller for key radionuc lides than the re lease fra ctions specifie d in NUREG-1465' and re sult in 'anomalously low' ac cident conse quence s." F ENOC's Motion for Summary Disposition p. 3.

To meet their bur den on summary dispositi on, I nterve nors ca me forw ard w ith a fac tual showing that Davis-B esse's plant-unique shield building c rac king a nd containment shell corr osion phenomena w ere cate g orica lly excluded from conside ration within FENO C's SAMA analy sis. FirstEnerg y's experts assumed in the ana ly sis that "for Da vis-Be sse, appr ox imately 90% of the c ore da mag e seque nces involve a ccide nts in which the containment retains its structural int egrity . . . and the r emaining 10% would be the result of e arly containment fa ilure and other events." "I nterve nors' Reply in Opposition t o FirstEne rg y's Motion for Summary Disposition of Cont ention 4 (SAMA Analy sis - Source Te rms)" a t 10, quoting F ENOC's Motion for Summary Disposition ("MSD") at p. 26. Jux taposed a g ainst this assumpti on, I nterve nors provided e vidence from the NRC's own e ng ineer s that in the event of e ven a mild ea rthquake or a re actor disaster whic h produce d highe r-than-normal hea t and pre ssure within the shield building, collapse of up to 90% of the shield building conc rete was possible and tha t FENO C's SAMA candida tes conseque ntly wer e mer ely theore tical and not pre dicated on f act. Id. at 11, 19.

FEN OC's objection is at best a te chnica l claim of lac k of notice a nd should be overr uled beca use the e vidence and ar g ument are within the scope of Contention 4.

A. The Evid ence and Argum ent Ar e Within S cope of the Contention I nterve nors' e vidence and ar g ument in oppositi on to the MSD are w ell within the scope of the c ontention. The orig inal contention was c onsiderably rec ast and re written by the ASL B and the Commission.

The scope of Contention 4 was established by the L icensing Boa rd, which stated: Using the J oint Petit ioners' ow n words whe never possible, we re cast Contention Four as follows:

"The Environmental Report (ER) is inadequate beca use it undere stimates the true c ost of a seve re a ccide nt at Davis-B esse in violation of 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(C)(3)(I I)(L) [sic] and F urther A naly sis by the Applicant, [FirstEner g y], i s called f or bec ause of: (1) "Minimi zation of the potential amount of ra dioactive mate rial re lease d in a seve re a ccide nt" by "using a sourc e ter m . . . based on ra dionuclide re lease fra ctions. . . which ar e smaller f or key radionuc lides than the re lease fra ctions specifie d in NRC guidanc e";(2) "Use of a n inappropria te air disper sion model, the straig ht-line Gaussian plume," that "doe s not allow considera tion for the fa ct that winds for a g iven time period may vary spatially , . . . ignor es the pre sence s of Gre at L akes 'sea br eeze'circ ulations which drama tically alter a ir flow patter ns," fa ils to account for "hot spots of ra dioactivity

" ca used by "plumes blowing . . . offshore over L ake E rie," and is based on "

meteorolog ical inputs . . . collecte d from just one site - at Da vis-Be sse itself;" and (3) Use of "inputs that minimiz ed and ina ccur ately ref lected the economic conseque nces of a seve re a ccide nt,"spec ifically particle siz e and c lean-up costs for urban a rea s.Memorandum a nd Orde r, ASL BP No. 11-907-01-L R-BD 01, pp. 49-50 (slip. op. May 26, 2011).

I nterve nors' opposition to the MSD legitimately focuse s on subsection (1), a nd they articula ted fac ts sugg esting that FEN OC seriously undere stimated the true c ost of a seve re a ccide nt at Davis-Be sse by calc ulating the oretica l source te rms which g rossly undere stimate the radionuc lide fra ctions relea sed in the eve nt of a shield building f ailure w hich diffe r fr om the passive equip-ment failure s predicte d by NRC staff eng ineer s. The scope of the c ontention, then, was set by the ASL B, a nd within that broad scope , I nterve nors have postulated fac tual disputes which pre clude summary dispositi on. "As long as new statements ar e within the scope of the initial contention and dire ctly flow fr om and ar e foc used on the issues and a rg uments raised in the A nswers, fairne ss is achieve d throug h the consider ation of these ne wly expressed ar g uments."

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (I ndian Point Nuclear Gene rating Units 2 and 3), Doc ket Nos. 50-0247-L R and 50-286-L R, ASL BP No. 07-858-03-L R-BD 01 at 41 (p. 43 of .pdf) (July 6, 2011).

Although the Commi ssion does "not allow distinctly new c omplaints to be added a t will as litiga tion prog resse s, stretching the scope of admitted conte ntions bey ond their re asonably inferr ed bounds,"

Entergy Nucle ar Gene ration Co. (Pilgrim Nuc lear Power Station), CL I-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 309 (2010) (c ited at pp. 1-2 of the FEN OC's Motion to S trike), the c rac ked shield building and c orrupted ste el liner fa ll within t hose "r easona bly inferr ed bounds." I t is not a "distinctly new c omplaint" that a hig hly-re levant data input is m issing fr om the SAMA modeling.

The scope of the SAMA litiga tion at Pil g rim Nuclea r Power Station discussed in CL I-10-11 was similarly the object of contentiousness. The Commission, noti ng the 2-1 ASL B r uling in the Pilgrim ca se, desc ribed the inc onsistent understanding of the scope of the SAMA conte ntion which had be en admitted:

The pa rties - and e ven the B oard judg es among themselves - do not ag ree on the scope of Contention 3 as admitted. L ike the B oard ma jority , Enterg y and the NRC Staff claim that Contention 3 included only challeng es to specif ic input data applied in the SAMA analy sis and not challeng es to any model embedde d in the MACCS 2 code, suc h

as the stra ight-line Gaussian plume a tmospheric dispersion model a nd the code

's economic mode

l. Enterg y and the Staff there fore conclude that the B oard ma jority proper ly reje cted Pilgr im W atch's arg uments conce rning the ade quacy of the Ga ussian plume model beca use the model is not an "input" to the MA CCS 2 code. Pilg rim Watch arg ues that the majority misint erpr eted the de cision admitting Contention 3 (L BP-06-23)and ther efor e improper ly "excluded ar eas of inquiry" that had be en admitted as pa rt of the contention, including the ade quacy of the stra ight line Ga ussian plume model.

We ag ree with Pil g rim Watch and the dissent that the majority improperly excluded the issue of the a dequac y of the stra ight-line Gaussian plume model. While the Boa rd dec ision admitt ing the contention dec lare d the contention's sc ope limited to particula r ty pes of "input data" that is ente red into the MACCS2 code, the B oard did not make a distinction between spec ific input data e ntere d into the MACCS 2 code a nd specific models embedde d in the code (such as the a tmospheric dispersion model), resulting in confusion over the contention's sc ope. Pilgr im W atch's arg uments on the adequa cy of the stra ight-line Gaussian plume model a nd the sea bree ze phenomenon appea red unde r the he ading s of "incor rec t input data" and "

Meteorolog ical Da ta" a nd, as the dissent notes, "c entra lly involved" ar g uments asserting the "limitations" of the straig ht-line Gaussian plume mode

l. Moreover , differ ent models requir e diffe rent amounts and kinds of data , with more deta iled varia ble traje ctory models requiring signific antly more da ta than that used in the stra ight-line Gaussian disper sion model.

There fore , there e asily may be an overlap be tween arguments c hallenging the sufficiency of "input data" used and challenging the model used, if the mode l does not require, allow f or, or otherwise take into account particular types of data.

I n admitting the c ontention, the Boa rd indicate d that Contention 3 included issues rela ting to plume beha vior, including whether Enterg y had "a dequate ly taken into ac count rele vant and r ealistic data with respec t to . . . meteorolog ical patter ns that would car ry the plume," and the "use of more a ccur ate da ta re lating to . . . mete orolog ic plume beha vior."Unless expressly narr owed other wise, these issues log ically may encompa ss arg uments that a model is defic ient beca use it does not take into ac count and r efle ct suffic ient ty pes of meteor ologic al information or "

data."(F irst two italiciz ations orig inal; latter empha sis added). CL I-10-11 pp. 14-15.The method by which F irstEnerg y "validate d" MAAP4 code s for the D avis-B esse SAMA lay s out a long front for fac tual challeng

e. I n ¶ 47 of its Statement of Mate rial F acts, F ENOC asser ts the MAAP4 prog ram ha s been be nchmar ked ag ainst Three Mile I sland and other sever e acc ident studies. I nterve nors point out in opposi tion that the scena rios involving a f atally-cra cked a nd compromised shield building a nd corr oded conta inment shell do not appear to have been a ddresse d. At ¶ 49 of its Statement of Mate rial F acts, F ENOC asser ts that "I f inputs and assumptions are a ppropriate for the c omputer model, and sour ces of uncer tainty are understood, then the re sults of that code may be ac cepte d by a re viewer or re g ulator for purposes of the application." I nterve nors contend in opposition that the inputs and assumptions for the Da vis-Be sse SAMA are inappropria te, and that c onsequently the source s of unce rtainty are not well understood. At ¶¶ 53 and 54 of the Statement of Mater ial Fa cts, FirstEne rg y distinguishes betwee n the source terms desc ribing radioa ctivity which is containe d from those ter ms describing radia tion leakag e into the outer e nvironment. But those te rms do not include or c ountenanc e a cra cked a nd compromised shield building nor a cor roded stee l containment, the eng ineer ed char acte ristics of which ha ve cha ng ed fr om the time of its fabrica tion.FEN OC's experts opined in support of summary dispositi on that "[p]

lant-spec ific sourc e terms deve loped for SAMA a naly sis must consider a spectrum of probabilistically-sig nificant acc ident scena rios to have a ny meaning from a r isk quantification per spective. "

J oint Declar ation of Ke vin O'Kula a nd Gra nt Teag arde n in Support of FirstEner g y's Motion for Summary Dispo-sition of I ntevenor s' Contention 4 (SAMA Analy sis Source Ter ms)" (O'Kula/Te ag arde n Dec l.,"Attachment 2 to F ENOC's MSD) ¶ 44. A ccor ding to F ENOC's experts, the methodolog y used to develop sourc e ter ms for a SAMA a naly sis must acc ount for plant-unique conditions, plant desig n, support sy stem depende ncies, plant maintena nce a nd opera ting pr ocedur es, oper ator training , and the inter depende ncies a mong the se fa ctors that ca n influence the cor e dama g e fre quency (CDF) estimate for a spec ific plant.

Id. ¶ 49. I nterve nors ag ree in conce pt, and consistent with FENO C's experts' fra mework, ma intain that key plant-unique fa cts wer e omitted from the SAMA methodolog

y. I nterve nors have exposed the "g arba g e in, g arba g e out" pr oblem with FENO C's SAMA.. They have que stioned the foundational a ssumptions contained in FEN OC's broad a ttempt to nega te the pre sence of fa ctual disputes.

I nterve nors submit that FENOC made the same a rg umentative mistake in their MSD as did Enterg y in the Pilgrim ca se, i.e.: ". . . Enterg y's motion for summary dispositi on and attac hed documents addr essed se vera l Pil g rim Watch arg uments challeng ing the adequa cy of the Ga ussian plume model, nowher e sug g esting that challeng es re lated to the model should be c onsidered bey ond the scope of the a dmitted contention."

Entergy Nucle ar Gene ration Co. (Pilgrim Nuc lear Power Station), CL I-10-11 a t 16. Here , even a ssuming arguendo that I nterve nors have stray ed bey ond the scope of Contention 4, it was at the invitat ion of FE NOC , which now se eks to strike I nterve nors from the g uest list after ope ning the door. F ENOC imputes a broa d scope to Con-tention 4, which it proce eds to try to deny I nterve nors. This "hea ds-I-win-tails-y ou-lose" ta ck should be dec apitated.B. Response to F ENOC's Claim of In ter venors' F ailure to Am end Contention 4 I nterve nors ac knowledg e that they did not formally file a motion to amend Contention 4 by adding aver ments about the shield building a nd containment shell problems. B ut FirstEner g y could not have be en surpr ised by I nterve nors' re ply in oppositi on to the MSD on Contention 4.

I n their initial and supplemental filing s conce rning Contention 5 (the shield building cr acking contention), I nterve nors re peate dly commented that the struc tural problems in the shield building and stee l containment shell have implications for the Da vis-Be sse SAMA.1 The most rec ent 1 Fro m I nte rvenor s' J anu ar y 10, 201 2 "M oti on f or Adm is si on o f Co nte nti on No. 5 on Shi el d Buil din g Cracking," p.

26: "I f t he s hie ld bui ldi ng los es it s a bil it y to pe rf orm it s s af et y- and se cur it y-re la te d f unc ti ons , Davis-Besse sho uld be imm edi at el y shut down, of cou rs e. Bu t t his very ris k, the pot ent ia l l oss of shi el d bu il din g safe ty and sec uri ty fun ct ion over t ime, is exa ct ly the kind of ana lysis th at sho uld be inc lud ed i n FENOC SAM A ana lyses re gardi ng the Davis-Bess e l ic ens e e xte nsi on. S uch ana lyses have no t b een don e. Si m il ar ly, th e po te nti al fo r Da vis-Bess e's c ra cked sh ie ld bui ldi ng to c aus e it s e ar ly re ti re m ent , be for e i ts cur re nt li cen se exp ir at ion in 201 7, or bef ore it s e xte nde d 20 37 l ic ens e exp ir at ion pr opos ed b y FENOC, shou ld be a ddr ess ed b y FENOC's r el ia bil it y anal yses, a nd i ts ene rgy ref ere nce in a cra cking contention pleading appea red in "I nterve nors' F ifth Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking)," f iled Aug ust 16, 2012. I t was filed a few wee ks after the appe ara nce of FEN OC's amende d SAMA in a J uly 16, 2012 letter with attac hments (Attachme nt 5 to FENOC's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention 4), within the 60-day window allowed by ASL B or der f or conte ntion amendment.

Although the y did not launch a f ormal motion to amend the SAMA contention, in that cr acking contention pleading on Aug ust 16, I nterve nors indisputably put FENO C on notice of SAMA implications stemmi ng from the f ailures to ac count for the curr ent state of de teriora tion of the shield building and the steel conta inment. And this was not the first time.

al te rna ti ves ana lyses."Fro m "I nte rvenor s' Four th Mo ti on t o Am end and/or Supp le m ent Pro pos ed Co nte nti on No. 5 (Sh ie ld Buil din g Cracking),"

fi le d J uly 23, 2012 , p. 4 4: "I nte rvenor s ur ge tha t t hei r c ra cked co ncr et e con ta inment and Severe Acci den t M it igati on Al te rna ti ves (SAM A) c ont ent ion s a re in ext ri cab ly int er li nked be cau se FENOC as sumes a fun ct ion ing sh ie ld bui ldi ng in i ts SAM A ana lyses. Given t he sever e c ra cking and o the r d egrada ti on o f t he s hie ld bui ldi ng, tha t a ssu m pti on n o l onger h old s wa te r."Fro m "I nte rvenor s' Fif th Mo ti on t o Am end and/or Supp le m ent Pro pos ed Co nte nti on No. 5 (Sh ie ld Buil din g Cracking),"

fi le d August 16, 2012 , pp. 31-32: "NRC r epo rt s t hat th e s hie ld bui ldi ng is sup pos ed t o co nta in ra dio act ivit y, so t hat it ca n be 's wept and fi lt er ed' bef ore re le ase to th e e nviro nm ent.But the re is le giti m at e c onc er n t hat th e c ra cks in th e s hie ld bui ldi ng m ight a ll ow di re ct le akage to t he envir onment b ef ore 's weep ing and fi lt er ing' c an b e c ar ri ed o ut. FENOC's Feb rua ry 28, 2 012 roo t c aus e re por t d ocu m ent s c ra cking tha t p ene tr at es the shi el d bu il din g near ly one-half of it s t hic kness (dep end ing on whe the r t he c ra ck is loc at ed a t a th ic ker sh oul der , or on t he main body of th e s ide wal l) th rou gh its wal l t hic kness (in some cas es, nea rl y 16 inc hes dee p). I f t he s hie ld bui ldi ng fai ls , as que st ion ed b y NRC's Pet e Her nan dez abo ve, and NRC's Abdul She ikh bel ow, i t a ppe ar s t o be an ope n qu est ion how much hazar dous ra dio act ivit y m ight e sca pe i nto th e e nviro nm ent.I n t his se nse , th e s hie ld bui ldi ng cra cking is al so S AMA-re la te d, f or FENOC's Severe Acci den t Mi ti gatio n Al te rna ti ves ana lyses und oubt edl y assumed an in ta ct and fu nct ion al shi el d bu il din g, not t he sever el y crac ked one of dou btf ul fun ct ion al it y that exi st s i n r eal it y. I n f act , NRC co ncl ude s pa ge 2 by acknowl edging th is: T he e xis ti ng as-fou nd c ondi ti on o f c ra cking in t he c onc re te of th e s hie ld bui ldi ng has ra is ed q ues ti ons on t he a bil it y of t he s tr uct ure to m ai nta in it s a bil it y to pe rf orm it s de si gn fun ct ion s un der con dit ion s t hat woul d i ntr oduc e a ct ive f orc es in the st ruc tur e (suc h as a s ei smic event or pot ent ia ll y rapi d ch anges i n en viron m ent al con dit ion s)."Fro m id. p. 5 8: "An i ncr eas e i n t her m al out put hol ds p ote nti al envir onmenta l a nd s af et y implic at ion s f or bot h I nte rvenor s' SAM A and cr acked c onc re te con ta inment con te nti ons."

A motion to st rike is the mec hanism for see king the remova l of information fr om a pleading or other submission that is "irrele vant." Private Fue l Storage, L.L.C. (I ndepende nt Spent Fuel Storag e I nstallation), L BP-05-20, 62 NRC 187, 228 (2003). Howe ver, the information provided by I nterve nors was hig hly rele vant to their conte ntion that the SAMA source term ana ly sis was faulty and thus incomplete. I nterve nors re sponded to the MSD within the scope of the SAMA conte ntion as set by the ASL B a nd the Commiss ion. Moreove r, a r eply may provide "

leg itimate amplification" to a pr offe red c ontention.

PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 & 2), L BP-07-4, 65 NRC 281, 299-302 (2007). CONCLUSION What is at stake in Contention 4 i s whether FEN OC's Severe Acc ident Mitigation Analy sis ("SAMA")

assig ns rea listi c and me aning ful values to the a ccide nt scena rios which might bef all Davis-B esse so that ther e has be en the r equisite "ha rd look" a t the costs and bene fits of possible cha ng es to Davis-B esse's phy sical plant and a ssociated ope rations. This discussion is of conc ern unde r the NEPA, whic h require s public disclosure and disc ussion of miti g ation alterna tives. The har m which I nterve nors see k for the N RC, as reg ulator, to avoid, is proce dural: that all rea sonable a lternative mitig ation scena rios be anticipa ted and a ddresse d in the SAMA analy ses. I nterve nors' re ply to FENO C's MSD is replete with statements prope rly made within the scope of the initial shield buil ding c rac king c ontention.

2 FEN OC is lega lly incorre ct in its move 2 Had t he NRC S ta ff wei ghed in to cr it iqu e t he S AMA a s I nte rvenor s ha ve, it woul d no t h ave had to fa ce a motio n t o st ri ke. FENOC has abu sed th e SAM A ana lysis by lea ving two st ruc tur al fa il ure s a nd ass oci at ed c onc er ns c om ple te ly out of it. But th e St af f, wh ic h or igina te d t he r is k esti m at es of shi el d to strike them.

More than tha t, the Boa rd must addre ss the specte r of a n at-wor st technica l omissi on by I nterve nors to amend Contention 4, eve n as they have pr oduced e vidence of a sig nificant cra cking and conta inment conce rns for the SAMA. I f it "looks g enuinely plausible that inclusion of an a dditional factor or use of other assumptions or models may chang e the c ost-benef it conc-lusions for the SAMA ca ndidates eva luated," the SAMA analy sis must be re fined. Entergy Nuclear Gene ration Co. (Pilgrim Nuc lear Power Station), CL I-10-11, 71 NRC 287, ___ (2010)(slip op. at 39). I nterve nors have provided important informa tion which, if incorpor ated into the SAMA, would induce ve ry differ ent re sults. I t would be anomalous for the ASL B to de ny that the scope of the c ontention forbids inclusion and consider ation of such e vidence , mere ly beca use no for mal motion to amend Contention 4 was filed. The L icensing Boa rd should not acc ede to the Staf f's insistence upon hy per-technica l vigilant enf orce ment of the rule s simply beca use they are the rules, to the de t-riment of the a g ency's supposed mandate to protect public he alth, safe ty , and the e nvironment.

"'I f the law supposes that,' said Mr. B umble, '- the law is a ass - a idiot. I f that's the e y e of the law, the law is a bac helor; and the worst I wish the law is that his ey e may be opene d by experience - by experience

.'" Char les Dicke ns, Oliver Twist , chapte r 51, p. 489 (1970)

.WHEREFORE , I ntevenor s pray the ASL B de ny FirstEne rg y's "Motion to Strike."

bui ldi ng fai lur e, a nd r eveal ed c orr osi on t o t he i nne r s te el con ta inment vessel , re m ai ns l oyal t o FENOC's agenda. Howe ver, t he a gency's "re spo nsi bil it y is no t s imply to s it bac k, like an umpire , an d r eso lve advers ar y conte nti ons . . . Rat her , it m ust it sel f t ake th e i nit ia ti ve of c ons ide ri ng enviro nm ent al value s a t every dis ti nct ive an d co m pre hen si ve sta ge of t he p roc ess beyond the st af f's e valuat ion and re comm end at ion." Calv ert Cli ff s Coo rdi nat ing Comm., I nc. v. US Ato mic Ene rgy Comm'n , 449 F.2d 1109 , 111 9 (D.C. Cir. 197 1).-1 0-

/s/ Terry J. L odg e Terr y J. L odg e (O hio Ba r #0029271) 316 N. Michig an St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 Phone/fax (419) 255-7552 tjlodge50@

y ahoo.com Counsel for I nterve nors-1 1-UNITED STAT ES O F AMERICA NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSION Before the At om ic Saf ety and Licensin g Board I n the Matter of First Energy Nuclear Ope rating Company (Da vis-Be sse Nucle ar Powe r Station, Unit 1)

.) Docke t No. 50-346-L R)October 4, 2012) *****CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE We here by cer tify that a copy of the "I NTERVENORS' RESPONSE I N OPPOSI TI ON TO F ENOC'S MOTI ON TO STRI KE I NTERVENORS' REPL Y I N OPPOSI TI ON TO'F I RSTENERGY'S MOTI ON F OR

SUMMARY

DI SPOS I TI ON OF CONTENTI ON 4 (SAMA ANAL YSI S - SOURC E TERMS)' " wa s sent by me to the following persons via elec tronic deposit filing with the Commi ssion's EI E sy stem on the 4th day of Oc tober, 2012:

Administrative J udg e Wil liam J. Fr oehlich, Chair Atomic Safety and L icensing Boa rd Panel U.S. Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wjf1@nrc.g ov Administrative J udg e Dr. Willi am E. Ka stenberg Atomic Safety and L icensing Boa rd Panel U.S. Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: wek1@nr c.g ov Administrative J udg e Nicholas G. Tr ikouros Atomic Safety and L icensing Boa rd Panel U.S. Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ng t@nrc.g ov Offic e of the Secre tary U.S. Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion Rulemaking s and Adjudica tions S taff Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: hear ingdoc ket@nrc.g ov Offic e of the Gene ral Counsel U.S. Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Catherine K anata s cathe rine.ka natas@nr c.g ov Br ian G. Ha rris E-mail: Br ian.Har ris@nrc.g ov L loy d B. Subin lloy d.subin@nrc.g ov Offic e of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion Mail Stop:

O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaa mail@nrc.g ov Michae l Keeg an Don't Waste Michig an 811 Har rison Street

-1 2-Monroe, MI 48161 E-mail: mkeeg anj@comc ast.net Stephen J. Bur dick Morg an, L ewis & Boc kius L L P 1111 Pennsy lvania Ave nue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: 202-739-5059 Fa x: 202-739-3001 E-mail: sburdick@morg anlewis.c om Timothy Matthews, Esq.

Morg an, L ewis & Boc kius L L P 1111 Pennsy lvania Ave nue, N.W.Washington, DC 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5830 Fa x: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: tmatthews@morg anlewis.c om Respectf ully submitt ed,/s/ Terry J. L odg e Terr y J. L odg e (O hio Ba r #0029271) 316 N. Michig an St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 Phone/fax (419) 255-7552 tjlodge50@

y ahoo.com Counsel for I nterve nors-1 3-