ML12044A306: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 02/13/2012
| issue date = 02/13/2012
| title = Order Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staff'S Answer to Proposed Contention 4 and Setting Proposed Contention 5's Admissibility for Oral Argument
| title = Order Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staff'S Answer to Proposed Contention 4 and Setting Proposed Contention 5's Admissibility for Oral Argument
| author name = Froehlich W J, Kastenberg W E, Trikouros N G
| author name = Froehlich W, Kastenberg W, Trikouros N
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
{{#Wiki_filter:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
William J. Froehlich, Chairman Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. William E. Kastenberg In the Matter of: FirstEnergy NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
William J. Froehlich, Chairman Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. William E. Kastenberg In the Matter of:                                   Docket No. 50-346-LR FirstEnergy NUCLEAR OPERATING                        ASLBP No. 11-907-01-LR-BD01 COMPANY February 13, 2012 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
 
ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 and SETTING PROPOSED CONTENTION 5s ADMISSIBILITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Joint Intervenors) filed a motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit a newly-proposed Contention 5 regarding shield building cracking.1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff) filed answers to the proposed Contention 5 on February 6, 2012.2 Proposed Contention 5 reads as follows:
Docket No. 50-346-LR ASLBP No. 11-907-01-LR-BD01  
 
February 13, 2012 ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 and SETTING PROPOSED CONTENTION 5's ADMISSIBILITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
 
On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Joint Intervenors) filed a motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit a newly-proposed Contention 5 regarding shield building cracking.
1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff) filed answers to the proposed Contention 5 on February 6, 2012.2 Proposed Contention 5 reads as follows:
1 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012)
1 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012)
("Contention 5").
(Contention 5).
2 NRC Staff's Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) ("Staff Answer"); FENOC's Answer Opposing Intervenors' Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb.
2 NRC Staffs Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) (Staff Answer); FENOCs Answer Opposing Intervenors Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb.
6, 2012). Interveners contend that FirstEnergy's recently-discovered, extensive cracking of unknown origin in the Davis-Besse shield building/secondary reactor radiological containment structure is an aging-related feature of the plant, the condition of which precludes safe operation of the atomic reactor beyond 2017 for any period of time, let alone the proposed 20-year license period.
6, 2012).
3  On February 9, 2012, FENOC filed an unopposed motion requesting leave from the Board to file a short response to the NRC Staff's Answer.
4  FENOC requested that the Board schedule oral argument on Contention 5 should the Board deny the Motion. FENOC desires to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and the following revised contention language advanced in the NRC Staff's Answer: Is the Structures AMP adequate to address any aging effects for the shield building that are related to the cracks identified by FENOC during the October 10, 2011 reactor head replacement and subject to a root cause evaluation to be provided by FENOC on February 28, 2012 such that the shield building would be unable to perform its intended functions of: 1)protecting the steel containment from environmental effects, including wind, tornado, and external missiles, 2) providing biological shielding, 3) providing controlled release of the annulus during an accident, and 4) providing a means for collection and filtration of fission product leakage from the Containment Vessel following a hypothetical accident?
5  Rather than begin a flurry of responsive pleadings, the Board believes that oral argument would be helpful in deciding the admissibility of proposed Contention 5. The Board will therefore set this matter for oral argument at a time and place to be announced. The Board's law clerk will 


3 Contention 5 at 11.
Interveners contend that FirstEnergys recently-discovered, extensive cracking of unknown origin in the Davis-Besse shield building/secondary reactor radiological containment structure is an aging-related feature of the plant, the condition of which precludes safe operation of the atomic reactor beyond 2017 for any period of time, let alone the proposed 20-year license period.3 On February 9, 2012, FENOC filed an unopposed motion requesting leave from the Board to file a short response to the NRC Staffs Answer.4 FENOC requested that the Board schedule oral argument on Contention 5 should the Board deny the Motion. FENOC desires to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and the following revised contention language advanced in the NRC Staffs Answer:
4 FENOC's Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staff's Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 9, 2012). Counsel for FENOC certified under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other parties regarding this request. Id. at 2, n.4. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOC's request to file a responsive brief. Id. Counsel for Joint Intervenors similarly indicated that Joint Intervenors would not oppose FENOC's request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Joint Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading. Id.
Is the Structures AMP adequate to address any aging effects for the shield building that are related to the cracks identified by FENOC during the October 10, 2011 reactor head replacement and subject to a root cause evaluation to be provided by FENOC on February 28, 2012 such that the shield building would be unable to perform its intended functions of: 1)protecting the steel containment from environmental effects, including wind, tornado, and external missiles, 2) providing biological shielding, 3) providing controlled release of the annulus during an accident, and 4) providing a means for collection and filtration of fission product leakage from the Containment Vessel following a hypothetical accident?5 Rather than begin a flurry of responsive pleadings, the Board believes that oral argument would be helpful in deciding the admissibility of proposed Contention 5. The Board will therefore set this matter for oral argument at a time and place to be announced. The Boards law clerk will 3
Contention 5 at 11.
4 FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 9, 2012). Counsel for FENOC certified under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other parties regarding this request. Id. at 2, n.4. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOCs request to file a responsive brief. Id. Counsel for Joint Intervenors similarly indicated that Joint Intervenors would not oppose FENOCs request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Joint Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading. Id.
5 Staff Answer at 16.
5 Staff Answer at 16.
contact the parties to arrange a mutually convenient time and place to hold said oral argument.


contact the parties to arrange a mutually convenient time and place to hold said oral argument.
It is so ORDERED.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                      /RA/
William J. Froehlich, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland February 13, 2012


__________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of                               )
William J. Froehlich, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 
                                                )
 
FIRST ENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING                 )
Rockville, Maryland February 13, 2012 
COMPANY                                     )             Docket No. 50-346-LR
 
                                                )
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) )
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)   )
FIRST ENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING )
                                                )
COMPANY )   Docket No. 50-346-LR  
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.
)
Office of Commission Appellate                   Office of the Secretary of the Commission Adjudication                                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M                                 Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission               Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                         Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov                         E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel          U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.              Mail Stop O-15D21 Mail Stop T-3F23                                  Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001                        Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov William J. Froehlich, Chair                      Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.
 
Administrative Judge                              E-mail: lloyd.subin@nrc.gov E-mail: william.froehlich@nrc.gov                Brian Harris, Esq.
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staff's Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5's Admissibility for Oral Argument) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic  
E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros                            Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
 
Administrative Judge                              E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov                Brian P. Newell, Paralegal E-mail: brian.newell@nrc.gov William E. Kastenberg Administrative Judge                              OGC Mail Center : OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov FirstEnergy Service Company.
Information Exchange.  
Hillary Cain, Law Clerk                          Mailstop: A-GO-15 E-mail: hillary.cain@nrc.gov                      76 South Main Street Matthew Flyntz, Law Clerk                        Akron, OH 44308 E-mail: matthew.flyntz@nrc.gov                    David W. Jenkins, Esq.
 
Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop O-7H4M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001  
 
E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 William J. Froehlich, Chair
 
Administrative Judge 
 
E-mail: william.froehlich@nrc.gov
 
Nicholas G. Trikouros Administrative Judge E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov
 
William E. Kastenberg
 
Administrative Judge E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov
 
Hillary  Cain, Law Clerk
 
E-mail: hillary.cain@nrc.gov Matthew Flyntz, Law Clerk
 
E-mail: matthew.flyntz@nrc.gov
 
Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-16C1 Washington, DC  20555-0001
 
Hearing Docket
 
E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission  
 
Mail Stop O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Edward L. Williamson, Esq.
E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.  
 
E-mail: lloyd.subin@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.  
 
E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Catherine Kanatas, Esq.
E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov Brian P. Newell, Paralegal  
 
E-mail: brian.newell@nrc.gov
 
OGC Mail Center :
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov FirstEnergy Service Company.
Mailstop: A-GO-15  
 
76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 David W. Jenkins, Esq.
E-mail : djenkins@firstenergycorp.com
E-mail : djenkins@firstenergycorp.com


Docket No. 50-346-LR ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staff's Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5's Admissibility for Oral Argument) 2 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius  
Docket No. 50-346-LR ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument)
 
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius                             Citizens Environmental Alliance (CEA) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW                         of Southwestern Ontario Washington, D.C. 20004                             1950 Ottawa Street Stephen Burdick, Esq.                               Windsor, Ontario Canada N8Y 197 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Alex Polonsky, Esq.                                 Green Party of Ohio E-mail: apolonsky@morganlewis.com                   2626 Robinwood Avenue Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.                             Toledo, Ohio 43610 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Martin ONeill, Esq.                               Dont Waste Michigan E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com               811 Harrison Street Timothy Matthews, Esq.                             Monroe, Michigan 48161 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com                   Michael Keegan Brooke Leach, Esq.                                 E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net E-mail: bleach@morganlewis.com Jane Diecker, Esq.                                 Terry J. Lodge, Counsel for CEA, Dont E-mail: jdiecker@morganlewis.com                      Waste Michigan, and Green Party of Ohio Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary                        316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520 E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com                    Toledo, OH 43604-5627 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 Takoma Park, Md. 20912 Kevin Kamps E-mail : kevin@beyondnuclear.org Paul Gunter E-mail : paul@beyondnuclear.org
1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Stephen Burdick, Esq.
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint ]
E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Alex Polonsky, Esq.  
Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day of February 2012 2}}
 
E-mail: apolonsky@morganlewis.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.  
 
E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Martin O'Neill, Esq.
E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com Timothy Matthews, Esq.  
 
E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com Brooke Leach, Esq.
E-mail: bleach@morganlewis.com Jane Diecker, Esq.
 
E-mail: jdiecker@morganlewis.com Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary
 
E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com Citizens Environmental Alliance (CEA)
 
of  Southwestern Ontario
 
1950 Ottawa Street
 
Windsor, Ontario Canada  N8Y 197 Green Party of Ohio 2626 Robinwood Avenue
 
Toledo, Ohio  43610
 
Don't Waste Michigan 811 Harrison Street Monroe, Michigan  48161
 
Michael Keegan
 
E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net Terry J. Lodge, Counsel for CEA, Don't Waste Michigan, and Green Party of Ohio  
 
316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520  
 
Toledo, OH 43604-5627  
 
E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400  
 
Takoma Park, Md. 20912 Kevin Kamps E-mail : kevin@beyondnuclear.org Paul Gunter  
 
E-mail : paul@beyondnuclear.org
 
[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint ]                                     Office of the Secretary of the Commission  
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland  
 
this 13 th  day of February 2012}}

Latest revision as of 18:09, 6 February 2020

Order Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staff'S Answer to Proposed Contention 4 and Setting Proposed Contention 5's Admissibility for Oral Argument
ML12044A306
Person / Time
Site: Davis Besse Cleveland Electric icon.png
Issue date: 02/13/2012
From: William Froehlich, Kastenberg W, Nicholas Trikouros
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21905, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01
Download: ML12044A306 (5)
v • d • e


Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

William J. Froehlich, Chairman Nicholas G. Trikouros Dr. William E. Kastenberg In the Matter of: Docket No. 50-346-LR FirstEnergy NUCLEAR OPERATING ASLBP No. 11-907-01-LR-BD01 COMPANY February 13, 2012 (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO RESPOND TO NRC STAFFS ANSWER TO PROPOSED CONTENTION 5 and SETTING PROPOSED CONTENTION 5s ADMISSIBILITY FOR ORAL ARGUMENT On January 10, 2012, Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Dont Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio (Joint Intervenors) filed a motion with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to admit a newly-proposed Contention 5 regarding shield building cracking.1 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff) filed answers to the proposed Contention 5 on February 6, 2012.2 Proposed Contention 5 reads as follows:

1 Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Jan. 10, 2012)

(Contention 5).

2 NRC Staffs Answer to Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety Implications of Newly Discovered Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 6, 2012) (Staff Answer); FENOCs Answer Opposing Intervenors Motion for Admission of Contention No. 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb.

6, 2012).

Interveners contend that FirstEnergys recently-discovered, extensive cracking of unknown origin in the Davis-Besse shield building/secondary reactor radiological containment structure is an aging-related feature of the plant, the condition of which precludes safe operation of the atomic reactor beyond 2017 for any period of time, let alone the proposed 20-year license period.3 On February 9, 2012, FENOC filed an unopposed motion requesting leave from the Board to file a short response to the NRC Staffs Answer.4 FENOC requested that the Board schedule oral argument on Contention 5 should the Board deny the Motion. FENOC desires to address on the record its concerns related to the new arguments and the following revised contention language advanced in the NRC Staffs Answer:

Is the Structures AMP adequate to address any aging effects for the shield building that are related to the cracks identified by FENOC during the October 10, 2011 reactor head replacement and subject to a root cause evaluation to be provided by FENOC on February 28, 2012 such that the shield building would be unable to perform its intended functions of: 1)protecting the steel containment from environmental effects, including wind, tornado, and external missiles, 2) providing biological shielding, 3) providing controlled release of the annulus during an accident, and 4) providing a means for collection and filtration of fission product leakage from the Containment Vessel following a hypothetical accident?5 Rather than begin a flurry of responsive pleadings, the Board believes that oral argument would be helpful in deciding the admissibility of proposed Contention 5. The Board will therefore set this matter for oral argument at a time and place to be announced. The Boards law clerk will 3

Contention 5 at 11.

4 FENOCs Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to the NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 on Shield Building Cracking (Feb. 9, 2012). Counsel for FENOC certified under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b) and Initial Scheduling Order Section G.1 that it consulted with the other parties regarding this request. Id. at 2, n.4. Counsel for the NRC Staff indicated that the Staff does not oppose FENOCs request to file a responsive brief. Id. Counsel for Joint Intervenors similarly indicated that Joint Intervenors would not oppose FENOCs request, provided FENOC does not oppose an opportunity for Joint Intervenors to file a rebuttal pleading. Id.

5 Staff Answer at 16.

contact the parties to arrange a mutually convenient time and place to hold said oral argument.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/RA/

William J. Froehlich, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland February 13, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

FIRST ENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING )

COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-346-LR

)

(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument) have been served upon the following persons by Electronic Information Exchange.

Office of Commission Appellate Office of the Secretary of the Commission Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-7H4M Mail Stop O-16C1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mail Stop O-15D21 Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Edward L. Williamson, Esq.

E-mail: edward.williamson@nrc.gov William J. Froehlich, Chair Lloyd B. Subin, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: lloyd.subin@nrc.gov E-mail: william.froehlich@nrc.gov Brian Harris, Esq.

E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikouros Catherine Kanatas, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: catherine.kanatas@nrc.gov E-mail: nicholas.trikouros@nrc.gov Brian P. Newell, Paralegal E-mail: brian.newell@nrc.gov William E. Kastenberg Administrative Judge OGC Mail Center : OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov E-mail: wek1@nrc.gov FirstEnergy Service Company.

Hillary Cain, Law Clerk Mailstop: A-GO-15 E-mail: hillary.cain@nrc.gov 76 South Main Street Matthew Flyntz, Law Clerk Akron, OH 44308 E-mail: matthew.flyntz@nrc.gov David W. Jenkins, Esq.

E-mail : djenkins@firstenergycorp.com

Docket No. 50-346-LR ORDER (Denying Unopposed Motion for Leave to Respond to NRC Staffs Answer to Proposed Contention 5 and Setting Proposed Contention 5s Admissibility for Oral Argument)

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Citizens Environmental Alliance (CEA) 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW of Southwestern Ontario Washington, D.C. 20004 1950 Ottawa Street Stephen Burdick, Esq. Windsor, Ontario Canada N8Y 197 E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Alex Polonsky, Esq. Green Party of Ohio E-mail: apolonsky@morganlewis.com 2626 Robinwood Avenue Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Toledo, Ohio 43610 E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Martin ONeill, Esq. Dont Waste Michigan E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com 811 Harrison Street Timothy Matthews, Esq. Monroe, Michigan 48161 E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com Michael Keegan Brooke Leach, Esq. E-mail: mkeeganj@comcast.net E-mail: bleach@morganlewis.com Jane Diecker, Esq. Terry J. Lodge, Counsel for CEA, Dont E-mail: jdiecker@morganlewis.com Waste Michigan, and Green Party of Ohio Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary 316 N. Michigan Street, Suite 520 E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com Toledo, OH 43604-5627 E-mail: tjlodge50@yahoo.com Beyond Nuclear 6930 Carroll Avenue Suite 400 Takoma Park, Md. 20912 Kevin Kamps E-mail : kevin@beyondnuclear.org Paul Gunter E-mail : paul@beyondnuclear.org

[Original signed by Christine M. Pierpoint ]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 13th day of February 2012 2

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML12044A306&oldid=2464145"