ML11266A079

Corrected NRC Staff'S Motion to Strike Portions of Intervenor'S Reply Memorandum to Staff and Applicant Oppositions to Admission of New Contention (Contains Previously Omitted References in Footnote 23)

ML11266A079
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	09/23/2011
From:	Harris B G NRC/OGC
To:	Froehlich W J, Kastenberg W E, Trikouros N G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
RAS 21107, 50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01
Download: ML11266A079 (39)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:U N I T E D S T A T E S N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R Y C O M M I S S I O NWASHINGTON, DC 20555 - 0001 September 23, 2011 William J. Froehlich, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 Nicholas G. Trikorous, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555 -0001 William E. Kastenberg, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 In the Matter of FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-346-LRA

Dear Administrative Judges:

On September 23, 2011, the NRC Staff ("Staff") transmitted to the Board and parties the " NRC Staff's Motion to Strike Portions of Intervenor's Reply Memorandum To Staff and Applicant Oppositions to Admission of New Contention ," ("Staff's Motion to Strike"). Subsequent to transmitting the Staff's Motion to Strike, the Staff identified an error in footnote 23, which omitted some references. The Staff is submitting this Corrected Motion to Strike, which contains the omitted references in footnote 23.

The Staff regrets any inconvenience this inadvertent error may have occasioned. Sincerely , Signed (electronically) by Brian G. Harris Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List

September 23, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

    )        )  FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
  )  Docket No.

50-346-LRA ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

)          )

CORRECTED NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR'S REPLY MEMORANDUM TO STAFF AND APPLICANT OPPOSITIONS TO ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTION In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(a), the Staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("Staff") files this motion to strike limited portions of "Intervenors' Reply Morandum (sic) to Staff and Applicant Oppositions to Admission of New Contention," (Intervenors' Reply") dated September 13, 2011.INTRODUCTION 1 Intervenors' Reply impermissibly includes new arguments not within the scope of the original pleading without any attempt to satisfy the standards governing late -filed contentions as set forth in 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.309(c) and (f)(2). Accordingly, these new arguments should be stricken. This proceeding concerns FirstEnergy' s August 27, 2010 application to renew its operating license for Davis -Besse for an additional twenty years from the current expiration date BACKGROUND

1 As required under 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for the Staff contacted Mr. Terry Lodge, counsel for the Intervenors, in an attempt to resolve the dispute raised in this motion. Intervenors did not agree to the relief requested in this motion and are planning on opposing the motion. Counsel for the Applicant, FirstEnergy, authorized the Staff to state that FirstEnergy does not object to the motion and plans to file a motion to strike. of April 22, 2017 .2 The Staff accepted the LRA for review, and on October 25, 2010, published a Federal Register Notice providing a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing. 3 On December 27, 2010, Joint Petitioners filed a petition to intervene .4 On March 11, 2011, the Fukushima Dai -ichi site in Japan experienced an earthquake followed by a tsunami, which damaged some of the reactors located at the site. On April 26, 2011, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("Board") admitted in part two of four originally proffered contentions. On August 11, 2011, Petitioners filed a new contention in the Davis-Besse license renewal proceeding .5The ER for Seabrook The Davis-Besse Petitioners' new contention states: 6 license renewal fails to satisfy the requirements of NEPA because it does not address the new and significant environmental implications of the findings and recommendations raised by the NRC's Fukushima Task Force Report. As required by NEPA and the NRC regulations, these implications must be addressed in the ER. 7 2 Letter from Barry S. Allen, Vice President, dated August 27, 2010, transmitting the license renewal application for Davis -Besse (Agencywide Document Access and Management System ("ADAMS") (ADAMS Accession No. ML1024505650) ("LRA") at 1.2-1. If the LRA is approved, Davis -Besse's new license expiration date would be April 22, 2037. 3 Notice of Acceptance for Docketing of the Application, Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for Facility Operating License No. NPF -003 for an Additional 20 -Year Period; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company, Davis -Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, 75 Fed. Reg. 65,528 (Oct. 25, 2010). 4 Beyond Nuclear, Citizens Environment Alliance of Southwestern Ontario, Don't Waste Michigan, and the Green Party of Ohio Request for Public Hearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene (Dec. 27, 2010). 5 Similar contentions have been filed in other proceedings involving both COL and license renewal proceedings. But only the Davis -Besse Petitioners chose not to file a contention challenging the applicable plant's LRA, ER, applicable EIS and incorporate by reference a contention filed in an unrelated proceeding. 6 It is important to note that Intervenors' Reply made no attempt to correct the Fukushima Contention to address Davis -Besse instead of Seabrook. See generally Intervenors' Reply. 7 Contention Regarding NEPA Requirement to Address Safety and Environmental Implications of The Fukushima Task Force Report ("Fukushima Contention") (Aug. 12, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11224A000) at 5 (emphasis added). Petitioners' contention simply attached the contention filed in the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal proceeding ("Seabrook"). Compare Contention in Support of Motion to Admit New Contention Regarding the Safety and Environmental implications of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report on the Fukushima Dai-ichi Accident ("Seabrook Contention ") (Aug. 11, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11223A3760 ). On September 13, 2011, the Intervenors' filed their reply to the Staff's and Applicant's answers that contained new arguments and supporting facts not present in the initial petition to add the new contention . I. DISCUSSION Under the Commission's rules, petitioners may file a reply to any answer filed in response to its petition .The Standards Governing Arguments Raised For the First Time In A Reply Brief 8 The scope of that reply, however, is not unlimited. 9[i]t is well established in NRC proceedings that a reply cannot expand the scope of the arguments set forth in the original hearing request. Replies must focus narrowly on the legal or factual arguments first present in the original petition or raised in he answers to it. New bases for [the] contention cannot be introduced in a reply brief - unless the petitioner meets the late -filing criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.309(c), (f2). In Palisades, the Commission explained that 10These pleading requirements form the cornerstone of the Commission's effort to "avoid unnecessary delays and increase the efficiency of NRC adjudication," 11 and ensure the fundamental fairness of the proceedings. 12 "Allowing new claims in a reply not only would defeat the contention -filing deadline, but would unfairly deprive other participants an opportunity to rebut the new claims." 13 8 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2). Therefore, petitioners are precluded from using a reply to present 9 See Nuclear Management Co. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI 17, 63 NRC 727, 732 (2006). 10 Id. 11 Louisiana Energy Services (National Enrichment Facility), CLI 35, 60 NRC 619, 623 (2004). 12 Palisades, CLI-06-17, 63 NRC at 732. 13 Id. entirely new facts or arguments in an attempt to "reinvigorate thinly supported contentions." 14 Any improper arguments and factual support should be stricke n.15II. Intervenors' Reply contains new arguments and factual support that should be stri cken. The relevant pages of Intervenors' Reply are attached to this Motion with new arguments and facts struck out using the "Cross Out Text" function in Adobe Acrobat. The new arguments and facts are highlighted in the table below. Bases for the Motion to Strike Location of New Information in Intervenors' Reply Description of the New Information Section Entitled "ADAMS Reveals Complete Indifference in Licensing Deliberations to Implications of Fukushima for License Renewals (sic) Applications" On page 3, strike the last two full sentences on the page, which state:

 "However, the contention is one of omission. We are challenging the completeness of FENOC's License Renewal Application and Environmental Report in their entirety, for FENOC has not incorporated any "lessons learned" from the new and significant information revealed by the NRC Near

-Term Fukushima Task Force Report dated July 12, 2011." These two sentences re -characterize Intervenors' challenge as being an omission from FirstEnergy's Davis-Besse LRA and ER, while the original language of the contention challenged Seabrook's LRA, ER, and DSEIS. The Fukushima Contention failed to challenge any FirstEnergy or Davis -Besse related document. On page 4-5, strike the last sentence of the first full paragraph and the following paragraph, which state:

 "In both cases, the Appli cant has failed to incorporate "lessons learned" from the NRC's Fukushima Task Force Near Term Report dated July 12, 2011[,] into the NEPA documents, including their respective Intervenors have added new facts not present in their original filing, apparently based on a recent review of documents existing prior to events at Fukushima Daiichi, namely the FirstEnergy LRA and 14  Louisiana Energy Services (National Enrichment Facility), CLI 32, 60 NRC 223, 224 (2004).

15 10 C.F.R. § 2.319. See, e.g., Tenn. Valley Auth. (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 an d 4), LBP-08-16, 68 NRC 361, 376 -77, 399-400, 407, 429 (2008). Environmental Reports. A PDF search on FENOC's 648 page long ER posted at NRC's website (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/davis -besse/davis -besse-enviro.pdf) for the terms "Fukushima" and "Task Force" revealed that the Fukushima Daiichi accident is mentioned nowhere throughout the entire voluminous document. Although other task forces are mentioned a few places, no mention is made of the NRC's Fukushima Task Force, created shortly after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe began on March 11, 2011, nor its Near-Term Report published on July 12, 2011. It appears that FENOC's ER, dated August 2010, has not been updated in any way, shape, or form since the catastrophe began on March 11, 2011, nor since the NRC's Fukushima Task Force Near -Term Report published its findings on July 12, 2011. Likewise, FENOC's August 2010, 1810-page License Renewal Application posted at NRC's website (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/davis -besse/davis -besse-lra.pdf) does not mention the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, nor NR's FukushimaTask Force Near -Term Report. " ER. This untimely review and assertion of facts appears to be the primary source of new information that was not pled in the Fukushima Contention. This fundamentally alters Intervenors' arguments from focusing on Seabrook's LRA, ER, and DSEIS, to Davis -Besse's LRA and ER. Seabrook and Davis -Besse are not similar, involve different reactor designs, different locations , different environmental concerns, and different documents. Intervenors should not be allowed to assert information in FirstEnergy documents that the Fukushima Contention failed to identify or make any other assertions regarding their completeness or error. On page 5-6, strike the last sentence on page 5 continuing to its end on page 6, which states:

 "FENOC has not analyzed the potentially catastrophic costs and risks that could be unleashed by a very long term station black out at Davis

-Besse, whether caused by earthquake combined with flood (as has occurred at Fukushima Daiichi) or some other internal or external cause."

Intervenors assert for the first time in the reply that FirstEnergy has not analyzed the costs and risks of a long term station blackout ("SBO"). The Fukushima Contention failed to raise the issue of long-term SBO for Davis-Besse , originally, and should not now be allowed to raise it in their reply. On page 6, strike the sentence beginning with "Despite," which states:

 "Despite the lessons to be learned, and applied at Davis

-Besse in its LRA and ER SAMA analyses, from the significant new information coming from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe (which began Intervenors raise the issue of incorporating information from the events at Fukushima Daiichi into the Davis -Besse LRA and ER. Here, again, Intervenors did not identify a single on March 11, 2011, just ten days after the March 1, 2011 ALSB oral prehearing in Port Clinton, Ohio[,] for this proceeding), such as reflected in the Near -Term Task Force Report dated July 12, 2011, FENOC has done no such updated SAMA analyses." dispute with Davis -Besse LRA or ER in the Fukushima Contention. They should not be allowed to repair their facially deficient contention in the reply. On page 6-7, strike the last sentence on the page beginning at "it is precisely" through page 7 with the sentence ending with "climb even higher," which states:

 "[I]t is precisely the new and significant information revealed by the NRC Near

-Term Task Force Report about the catastrophic consequences that could be unleashed by a long term station black -out, due to an earthquake and flood (as by a seiche on Lake Erie, immediately adjacent to Davis -Besse, in fact, in the early 1970s, during Davis-Besse's early construction activities, just such a seiche occurred on -site, causing significant flooding), that needs to be incorporated into new, carefully executed FENOC SAMAs. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe, months ago, had a ballpark figure of $200 billion in property damage, recovery costs, etc. Since estimated radioactivity releases have been revised upward a number of times since March 11 th, and since even this $200 billion ball park figure is already months old, and radioactivity releases have continued sinc e then, even this catastrophic figure will likely climb even higher." Intervenors raise both new arguments and facts in their reply. The Fukushima Contention contained no assertions regarding the potential for seiches at Lake Erie or the flooding which Intervenors assert occurred during the construction of Davis -Besse. As such , these "new facts" should be stricken from the reply. Similar to other arguments regarding the applicability of the Fukushima Contention to Davis-Besse, Intervenors failed to argue or articulate any of these arguments in the original filing and should not be allowed add new arguments to support the deficient contention. Instead of focusing narrowly on the scope of the contention as Intervenors originally proffered it to this Board, Intervenors' Reply attempts to recast, re -argue, and add additional bases to support their original ly deficient new contention. Intervenors' Reply quite simply seeks to substitute it s original contention with a contention that at least purports to address FirstEnergy's LRA and ER. Intervenors have previously been warned by this Board about the perils of filing documents without sufficient review and failing to comply with the regulatory requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.323 , 16 they have elected to disregard the Board's prior warnings as non-consequential. As the Staff addressed in its answer, Intervenors ' wholesale substitution of Seabrook and NextEra for Davis -Besse and FirstEnergy whether done in an "errata" or a reply brief fundamentally undermines the fairness of the proceeding for all the parties .17 The identified passages from Intervenors' Reply as identified in the table above do not legitimately amplify their previous arguments and should be stricken .18For example, Intervenors waited until their reply to mention FirstEnergy, Davis -Besse, the Davis-Besse LRA, or the Davis-Besse ER and merely characterize this as responding to allegations that their contention lack s specificity. Intervenors explain that they have now conducted a cursory word search of the LRA and ER and not found any references to the terms "Fukushima" and "Task Force" related to the Fukushima Dai -ichi event. 19 Similarly, Intervenors ' other references , like seiches 20 16 Licensing Board Order (Granting Motion To Strike and Requiring Re -filing of Reply) (Feb. 18, 2011) at 4 (unpublished). (granting motion to strike portions of Intervenor's Reply). In particular, the Board emphasized the importance of complying with 10 C.F.R § 2.323(d), which states that: on Lake Erie and its complaints regarding Davis -Besse , were never raised in the original Fukushima contention. Intervenors' Reply simply seeks to amend its facially deficient Fukushima contention and add new support without any showing that it meets Accuracy in filing. All parties are obligated, in their filings before the presiding officer and the Commission, to ensure that their arguments and assertions are supported by appropriate and accurate references to legal authority and factual basis, including, as appropriate, citations to the record. Failure to do so may result in appropriate sanctions, including striking a matter from the record or, in extreme circumstances, dismissal of the party. (emphasis added) 17 NRC Staff's Answer In Opposition To Motion To Admit New Contention Regarding The Safety And Environmental Implications Of The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Task Force Report On The Fukushima Dai -Ichi Accident, at 5-6 (Sep. 6, 2011). 18 Louisiana Energy Services, CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224 -25. 19 Intervenors' Reply at 4. 20 Seiches are "an oscillation of the surface of a landlocked body of water (as a lake) that varies in period from a few minutes to several hours." WEBSTER'S II NEW COLLEGE DICTIONARY 1024 (3d ed. 2005). that late filing criteria under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(c) or (f)(2). Allowing Intervenors, here, to argue that they did not need to address either the LRA or the ER and to add additional facts defeats the fundamental fairness of the proceeding and the Commission's clear guidance to intervenors. The Commission has warned intervenors that they need to be prepared to meet the high standards of participating in a n NRC proceeding. The Commission stated that: As we have stressed previously, our contention admissibility and timeliness rules require a high level of discipline and preparation by petitioners, 'who must examine the publicly available material and set forth their claim and the support for their claim at the outset.'21Quite clearly, Intervenors ' Reply demonstrated the lack of discipline and preparation that this Board explained would not be acceptable going forward. 22 Each of these issues could have been identified in a pleading that challenged the LRA and ER for Davis -Besse, as each of the other intervenors did in other similarly situated cases, including Beyond Nuclear in the Seabrook proceeding. 23 21 Amergen Energy Co., L.L.C. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI 7, 69 NRC 235, 271-72 (2009) (quoting Louisiana Energy Services, L.P., CLI-04-25, 60 NRC at 224 -25. As such, the references to specific issues for Davis -Bess e, FirstEnergy, and the Davis-Besse LRA and ER should be stricken from Intervenors' Reply . 22 See FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP11 -13, 73 NRC ___ (April 26, 2011) (slip op. at 7 - 8); Licensing Board Order (Granting Motion To Strike and Requiring Re -filing of Reply) (Feb. 18,2011) at 4 (unpublished). (granting motion to strike portions of Intervenor's Reply). 23 Comparing the Fukushima contentions filed in the other proceedings, only the Intervenors in Davis-Besse chose to forego challenging the application and ER at issue. See Intervenors' Reply. But compare Seabrook Contention; Riverkeeper, Inc. and Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc. New Contention Regarding NEPA Requirement To Address Safety And Environmental Implications Of The NRC Fukushima Task Force Report (Aug. 11, 2011) (ADAMS Accession No. ML11229A712) (filed in the Indian Point Proceeding). For the foregoing reasons, the new arguments and facts should be stricken from Intervenors' Reply. CONCLUSION Respectfully submitted, Signed (electronically) by ____________________ Brian G. Harris Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop - O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555 Telephone: (301) 415 -13 92 E-mail: brian.harris@nrc.gov Date of signature: September 23, 2011 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

    )        )  FIRSTENERGY NUCLEAR OPERATING CO.
 )  Docket No.

50-346-LRA ) (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

)          )   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "CORRECTED NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF INTERVENOR'S REPLY MEMORANDUM TO STAFF AND APPLICANT OPPOSITIONS TO ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTION

" and Letter to Board from Brian G. Harris in the above -captioned proceeding have been served on the following by Electronic Information Exchange this 23rd day of September, 2011. William J. Froehlich, Chair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 E-mail: william.froehlich@nrc.gov Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Mail Stop: O -16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 E-mail: OCAAmail.resource@nrc.gov Nicholas G. Trikorous, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 E-mail: nicholas.trikorous@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Stop: O -16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov William E. Kastenberg, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 E-mail: william.kastenberg@nrc.gov David W. Jenkins, Esq. First Energy Service Company Mail Stop A -GO-15 76 South Main Street Akron, OH 44308 E-mail: djenkins@firstenergycorp.com Hillary Cain, Law Clerk Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop: T -3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 -0001 E-mail: hillary.cain@nrc.gov Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Stephen Burdick, Esq. E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Alex Polonsky, Esq. E-mail: apolonsky@morganlewis.com Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Timothy Matthews, Esq. E-mail: tmatthews@morganlewis.com Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com Derek Coronado Citizens Environmental Alliance (CEA) of Southwestern Ontario 1950 Ottawa Street Windsor, Ontario Canada N8Y 197 Email: dcoronado@cogeco.net Michael Keegan Don't Waste Michigan 811 Harrison Street Monroe, Michigan 48161 E-mail: Beyond Nuclear mkeeganj@comcast.net 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400 Takoma Park, MD 20912 Paul Gunter E-mail: paul@beyondnuclear.com Kevin Kamps Email: Kevin@beyondnuclear.com Anita Rios Green Party of Ohio 2626 Robinwood Avenue Toledo, Ohio 43610 Email: rhannon@toast.net Brian G. Harris

/Signed (electronically) by/

Counsel for the NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O -15 D21 Washington, DC 20555 -0001 (301) 415-1392 E-mail: Brian.Harris@nrc.gov

September 13, 2011UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter of First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) (Regarding the Renewal of Facility Operating License NPF-003 for a 20-Year Period))Docket No. 50-346 ) ) ) ) *****INTERVENORS' REPLY MORANDUM TO STAFF ANDAPPLICANT OPPOSITIONS TO ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTIONPursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(2), the Intervenors hereby replyto the oppositionssubmitted by the Applicant, First Energy Nuclear Operating Company ("FENOC") and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") Staff to Intervenors' new contention seeking consideration of the environmental implications of the Fukushima Task Force Report. Intervenors respectfully submit that the arguments by Applicant and the NRC Staff regarding the timeliness and admissibility of the contention are without merit and the contention should be admitted.The arguments raised by the applicant and the NRC Staff in response to Intervenors'contention are similar or identical to arguments made by the applicant and staff in response to Fukushima Task Force Report-related contentions that were filed in other reactor licensing proceedings on the same day. Intervenors attach and incorporate by reference a Reply Memorandum which addresses the most common arguments that are made in the responses and was prepared by counsel for intervenors in the Turkey Point, Vogtle, and Watts Bar cases. The 1Reply Memorandum also discusses the effect of the NRC Commissioners' recent decision regarding the Emergency Petition that was submitted by Intervenors and many other intervenors and petitioners in April 2011. Union Electric Co., d/b/a/ Ameren Missouri (Callaway Plant, Unit2) et al., , CLI-11-05, __ NRC __ (Sept. 96, 2011) ("CLI-11-05"). 2Reply as to Public's Burden to Show Necessityfor Changing Scope of NEPA ConsiderationThe point repeatedly ignored by the Applicant and Staff is that the burden placed onIntervenors or other members of the public to trigger consideration of new information is quite low, particularly when the NEPA process is, as here, not even consummated at the DEIS stage. "To [require an EIS], a plaintiff need not show that significant effects will in fact occur ... raising substantial questions whether a project may have a significant effect is sufficient." (Emphasis supplied). Anglers of the Au Sable v. U.S. Forest Service, Case #05-10152-BC (E.D. Mich. N.D.2005) at 13-14, citing Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 1149-50 (9th Cir.The Reply Memorandum was prepared by the attorneys who represent the intervenors 1or petitioners in those cases: Diane Curran (counsel for the intervenor in the Diablo Canyon license renewal proceeding and Watts Bar operating license proceeding), Mindy Goldstein (counsel for some of the intervenors in the Vogtle and Vogtle Turkey Point COL proceedings), and Jason Totoui (counsel for some of the intervenors in the Turkey Point COL proceeding).Because the applicant and the NRC Staff have not had an opportunity to address 2the effect of CLI-11-05 on the timeliness and admissibility of Intervenors' [Petitioners'] contention, Intervenors [Petitioners] would not object to a response by the applicant and the Staff to their arguments regarding the relevance of CLI-11-05 to their contention. 1998) (EIS required if "substantial questions are raised" about effects on environmental quality). The Court must not "substitute [its] judgment of the environmental impact for the judgment of the agency, once the agency has adequately studied the issue." Crounse Corp. v. InterstateCommerce Comm'n, 781 F.2d 1176, 1193 (6th Cir. 1986). However, "[i]t is [the Court's] role . .. to determine whether the agency has, in fact, adequately studied the issue and taken a 'hard look' at the environmental consequences of its decision." Id. The harm NEPA seeks toprevent is complete when the agency makes a decision without considering information NEPA requires be placed before the decision-maker and public. Sierra Club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497,500 (1st Cir. 1989). "The injury of an increased risk of harm due to an agency's uninformed decision is precisely the type of injury {NEPA} was designed to prevent." Comm. to Save the RioHondo v. Lucero, 102 F.3d 445, 448-49 (10 Cir. 1996).th ADAMS Reveals Complete Indifference in Licensing DeliberationsTo Implications of Fukushima for License Renewals ApplicationsVarious sections of NRC staff's response claim that this new contention lacks 3specificity to this Davis-Besse license extension proceeding. However,the contention is one of omission. We are challenging the completeness of FENOC's License Renewal Application and Environmental Report in their entirety, for FENOC has not incorporated any "lessons learned" from the new and significant information revealed by the NRC Near-Term Fukushima Task Force Report dated July 12, 2011. It is FENOC's legal responsibility under NEPA to incorporateP. 4, "I. Intervenors Failed to Raise a Challenge to Davis-Besse's License Renewal Application 3or Environmental Report;" p. 14, "III. The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Issue;" p. 17, "B. The NEPA Contention Does Not Identify the Specific Portions of the Application It Challenges;" p. 19, "The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Contention with Respect to Severe Accidents;" p. 22, "D. The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Challenge to the SAMA Analysis;" and p. 24, " 2. The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Dispute on Any Specific SAMA." such new and significant information, as it is NRC's legal responsibility to incorporate such new and significant information in its own NEPA related documents, such as the DSEIS (Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement) for the Davis-Besse license extension that is scheduled soon to be published, by October 2011 (see http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/lice nsing/renewal/applications/davis-besse.html#licrenapp). The contention is a contention of omission. A contention of omission is a claim, in the words of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vi), that "the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law . . . and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief." It was reasonable and appropriate for Intervenors to incorporate by reference the contention filed in the Seabrook license renewal application proceeding, to which intervenor Beyond Nuclear is also a party with standing, just as the organization is also a party to this Davis-Besse license renewal application proceeding. In both cases, the Applicant has failed to incorporate "lessons learned" from the NRC's Fukushima Task Force Near Term Report dated July 12, 2011 into the NEPA documents, including their respective Environmental Reports. A PDF search on FENOC's 648 page long ER posted at NRC's website (http://www.n rc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/davis-besse/davis-besse-enviro.pdf) for the terms "Fukushima" and "Task Force" revealed that the Fukushima Daiichi accident is mentioned nowhere throughout the entire voluminous document. Although other task forces are mentioned a few places, no mention is made of the NRC's Fukushima Task Force, created shortly after the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe began on March 11, 2011, nor its Near-Term Report published on July 12, 2011. It appears that FENOC's ER, dated August 2010, has not been updated in any way, shape, or form since the catastrophe began on March 11, 2011, nor since the NRC's Fukushima Task Force Near-Term Report published its findings on July 12, 2011. Likewise, FENOC's August 2010, 1810-page License Renewal Application posted at NRC's website (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/application s/davis-besse/davis-besse-lra.pdf) does not mention the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe, nor NRC's Fukushima Task Force Near-Term Report.Regarding NRC staff's response at Section III.C., The NEPA Contention Does Not Raisea Material Issue/The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Contention with Respect to Severe Accidents (pages 19 to 22), Intervenors once again point out that NRC's GEIS (Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, posted at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/), in its Main Report/Volume 1, likewise contains no updated reflecting NEPA significant "lessons learned" from the Fukushima Nuclear Catastrophe, as reflected in the NRC Near-Term Task Force Report (as of now, a Davis-Besse specific "Supplement" to the GEIS has not yet been produced, published, or posted to its website by NRC staff). This is a significant omission that needs to be corrected to comply with NEPA. This isNRC's responsibility, not Intervenors'.Regarding NRC staff's response at Section III.D., The NEPA Contention Does Not Raisea Material Issue/The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Challenge to the SAMA Analysis, 1. NEPA Does Not Require Implementation of Mitigation Measures, (pages 22-24), NRC staff argues that NEPA does not require that SAMA mitigation measures be implemented. However, NEPA does require that the costs and risks of not implementing mitigation measures be analyzed. FENOC has not analyzed the potentially catastrophic costs and risks that could be unleashed by a very long term station black out at Davis-Besse, whether caused by earthquake combined with flood (as has occurred at Fukushima Daiichi) or some other internal or external cause. Without examining the consequences that would result from a long term station blackout, meltdown, and catastrophic radioactivity release into the environment, FENOC has violated its legally binding NEPA obligations. Despite the lessons to be learned, and applied at Davis-Besse in its LRA and ER SAMA analyses, from the significant and new information coming from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe (which began on March 11, 2011, just ten days after the March 1, 2011 ASLB oral pre-hearing in Port Clinton, Ohio for this proceeding), such as reflected in the NRC Near-Term Task Force Report dated July 12, 2011, FENOC has done no such updated SAMA analyses. Given that the ASLB has not scheduled hearings on the admitted contentions (including SAMA contentions) in this proceeding until far into the future, and given that Davis-Besse's current operating license does not expire until March, 2017, there is plenty of time for FENOC to carry out such updated SAMAs based on the significant and new information contained in the NRC Near-Term Task Force Report. To not do such updated SAMA analyses is a dereliction of FENOC's NEPA-related obligations.Regarding NRC staff's response at Section III.D., The NEPA Contention Does Not Raisea Material Issue/The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Challenge to the SAMA Analysis, 2. The NEPA Contention Does Not Raise a Material Dispute on Any Specific SAMA (pages 24 to 27), it is precisely the new and significant information revealed by the NRC Near-Term Task Force Report about the catastrophic consequences that could be unleashed by a long term station blackout, due to an earthquake and flood (as by a seiche on Lake Erie, immediately adjacent to Davis-Besse; in fact, in the early 1970s, during Davis-Besse's early construction activities, just such a seiche occurred on-site, causing significant flooding), that needs to be incorporated into new, carefully executed FENOC SAMAs. The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Catastrophe, months ago, had a ballpark figure of $200 billion in property damage, recovery costs, etc. Since estimated radioactivity releases have been revised upward a number of times since March 11th, and since even this $200 billion ball park figure is already months old, and radioactivity releases have continued since then, even this catastrophic figure will likely climb even higher. This is the very heart of the SAMA NEPA requirement, to determine if such catastrophic expenses can be prevented through relatively inexpensive fixes to the Davis-Besse vulnerabilities that could lead to such catastrophic damages. Yet FENOC has refused to undertake any such post-Fukushima "lessons learned" analysis. NRC's SDEIS will only be the weaker because of this, a violation of NEPA, since the new and significant information is at hand and ready to be applied here - thanks to the NRC Near-Term Task Force Report, for startersThe Allegedly Missing Fukushima-Driven RulemakingAt fn. 12 of its response, the NRC Staff complains that it was not served a copy of theIntervenors' petition for rulemaking in light of the Fukushima Task Force report and the disaster itself. Intervenors will file that for record, but they attach hereto the email transmission to the NRC of August 11, 2011, by means of which they prove it was timely submitted to the NRC, and as well, the NRC's acknowledgement of receipt thereof. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of September 2011. /s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge (OH #0029271) 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 (419) 255-7552 Fax (419) 255-8582Tjlodge50@yahoo.comCounsel for Intervenors REPLY MEMORANDUM REGARDING TIMELINESS AND ADMISSIBILITY OF NEW CONTENTIONS SEEKING CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS OF FUKUSHIMA TASK FORCE REPORT IN INDIVIDUAL REACTOR LICENSING PROCEEDINGS

INTRODUCTION T!" #$%#&'" &( )!*' R"#+, M"-&%./0$- *' )& .00%" )!" -&') 1&--&/ .%2$-"/)' -.0" */ )!" U3S3 N$1+".% R"2$+.)&%, C&--**&/ 45NRC67 S).(('8 ./0 .##+*1./)'8 %"'#&/'"' 41&++"1)*9"+,: )!" 5R"'#&/'"'67 &##&'*/2 )!" .0-**;*+*), &( 1&/)"/)*&/' )!.) <"%" '$;-*))"0 */ &9"% )<"/), NRC +*1"/'*/2 ./0 %"+*1"/'*/2 #%&1""0*/2' 41&++"1)*9"+,: )!" 5P%&1""0*/2'67 &/ S"#)"-;"% =: >?@@3 T!*' R"#+, M"-&%./0$- .+'& .00%""' )!" %"+"9./1" &( . 0"1*'*&/ *$"0 ;, )!" NRC C&--**&/"%' '!&%)+, .()"% )!" R"'#&/'"' <"%" (*+"0A U !" #E$%&'(!&#C".,#)*+*-*#A/%(% #M!00"1(!#4C.++.<., P+./): U/*) >7 ") .+3: CLIB@@B?D: EE NRC EE 4S"#)3 F: >?@@7 45CLIB@@B?D673 BACKGROUND O/ G$2$') @@: >?@@: */)"%9"/&%' ./0 #")*)*&/"%' 41&++"1)*9"+,: 5I/)"%9"/&%'67 */ &9"% )<"/), #%&1""0*/2' '$;-*))"0 -&)*&/' ./0 1&/)"/)*&/' '""H*/2 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ $/0"% )!" N.)*&/.+ J/9*%&/-"/).+ P&+*1, G1) 45NJPG67 &( /"< ./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ #%"'"/)"0 ;, )!" NRC8' K$H$'!*-. T.'H K&%1" */ *)' %"#&%): 5R"1&--"/0.)*&/' (&% J/!./1*/2 R".1)&% S.("), */ )!" >@') C"/)$%,A )!" N".%B)"%- T.'H K&%1" R"9*"< &( I/'*2!)' (%&- )!" K$H$'!*-. Q.*B*1!* G11*0"/)6 4V$+, @>: >?@@7 4)!" 5T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)673@ W!*+" )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .00%""0 )!" #.%)*1$+.%' &( ".1! */0*9*0$.+ #%&1""0*/2:

@   C&/)"/)*&/' <"%" '$;-*))"0 */ )!" (&++&<*/2 #%&1""0*/2'A  C.++.<., P+./): U/*) > 4Q&1H") N&3 D>B?XYBCOL7Z C.+9"%) C+*((' N$1+".% P&<"% P+./): U/*) X 4Q&1H") N&3 D>B?@=BCOL7Z K"%-* N$1+".% P&<"% P+./): U/*) X 4Q&1H") N&3 D>B?XXBCOL7Z W*++*.-  
>)!", .++ %"+*"0 &/ )!" (.%B%".1!*/2 1&/1+$'*&/' ./0 %"1&--"/0.)*&/' &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)3 I/ .++ ;$) &/" )!" #%&1""0*/2': )!" .##+*1./)' ./0 )!" NRC S).(( '$;-*))"0 R"'#&/'"' &/ S"#)"-;"% =: >?@@3  T!" R"'#&/'"' -.H" 9"%, '*-*+.%: *( /&) *0"/)*1.+: .%2$-"/)' <*)! %"'#"1) )& )!" )*-"+*/" ./0 )!" .0-**;*+*), &( )!" 1&/)"/)*&/'3  T!%"" 0.,' .()"% )!" R"'#&/'"' <"%" (*+"0: )!" NRC C&--**&/"%' .+'& *$"0 CLIB@@B?D: 

<!*1! 1&/).*/' +./2$.2" )!.) ;".%' &/ )!" )*-"+*/" ./0 .0-**;*+*), &( )!" 1&/)"/)*&/'3 I. INTERVENORS! CONTENTIONS ARE TIMELY G++ R"'#&/'"' .%2$" )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" /&) )*-"+, ;"1.$'" )!", .%" +.)"Z '&-" .%2$" )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' <"%" ;&)! +.)" ./0 #%"-.)$%"3 N&/" &( )!"'" .%2$-"/)' 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`*%2*+ C3 S$--"% N$1+".% S).)*&/: U/*)' @ ./0 > 4Q&1H") N&'3 D>B?>YBCOL ./0 D>B?>[BCOL7Z S&$)! T"a.' P%&b"1): U/*)' X ./0 ] 4D>B?@>BCOL ./0 D>B?@XBCOL7Z `&2)+" J+"1)%*1 \"/"%.)*/2 P+./): U/*)' X ./0 ] 4D>B?>DBCOL ./0 D>B?>=BCOL7Z ^"++"(&/)" N$1+".% P&<"% P+./): U/*)' X ./0 ] 4Q&1H") N&'3 D>B?@]BCOL ./0 D>B?@DBCOL7Z W.))' ^.%: U/*) > 4Q&1H") N&3 D?BXF@BOL7Z ./0 N&%)! G//.: U/*) X 4D>B?@YBCOL73 I/ .00*)*&/: 1&--"/)' (&% (*+"0 */ )!" (&++&<*/2 %$+"-.H*/2 #%&1""0*/2'A GP@??? Q"'*2/ C"%)*(*1.)*&/ G-"/0-"/) 4NRCB>?@?B?@X@: RIN X@D?BGI[@7Z ./0 JS^WR Q"'*2/ C"%)*(*1.)*&/ G-"/0-"/) 4NRCB>?@?B?@XD: RINBX@D?BGI[D73

XP"/0*/2 R".1)&% L*1"/'*/2 Q"1*'*&/' #"/0*/2 I/9"')*2.)*&/ &( L"&/' L".%/"0 (%&- K$H$'!*-. Q.**1!* N$1+".% P&<"% S).)*&/ G11*0"/) 4)!" 5J-"%2"/1, P")*)*&/67: <!*1! <.' (*+"0 <*)!*/ )!*%), 0.,' &( )!" K$H$'!*-. .11*0"/): &/ )!" 2%&$/0 )!.) *) <.' )&& ".%+, )& 0")"%-*/" )!" "/9*%&/-"/).+ '*2/*(*1./1" &( )!" "9"/)3 S%%,#%.2.,#P\cJ O##&'*)*&/ )& J-"%2"/1, P")*)*&/ )& S$'#"/0 L*1"/'*/2 Q"1*'*&/' ./0 P%&1""0*/2' .) [ 4M., >: >?@@73 T& )!" "a)"/) )!.) )!" NRC S).(( ./0 .##+*1./)' !.9" -.0" */1&/'*')"/) .%2$-"/)' <*)!*/ )!" #%&1""0*/2' %"2.%0*/2 )*-"+*/": ./0 '$;-*) R"'#&/'"' )!.) .%2$" ;&)! '*0"' &( )!" )*-"+*/" d$"')*&/: ./ G)&-*1 S.("), ./0 L*1"/'*/2 ^&.%0 !.' #%"9*&$'+, 0*'-*"0 '$1! 5C.)1!B>>6 ).1)*1' .' . 5'!"++ 2.-": <*)! )!" $'$.+ ')%"")B1&%/"% &$)1&-"A <!.)"9"% 2$" )!" eI/)"%9"/&%'f -.H" <*++ #%&9" <%&/236 S3-4#A(%-#MO5##S%(6!&%0#4M*a"0 Oa*0" K$"+ K.;%*1.)*&/ K.1*+*),7: L^PB?[B@@: =Y NRC ]=? .) D?>: / @D: D?X 4>??[73 > R"2.%0+" &( )!" *-#"%-**;+" ./0 */1&/'*')"/) )*-"+*/" .%2$-"/)' -.0" */ )!" #%&1""0*/2' ./0 R"'#&/'"': )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" )*-"+,3 T!" R"'#&/'"' .%2$" )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" +.)" ;"1.$'" )!", .%" ;.'"0 &/ )!" "9"/)' &( )!" K$H$'!*-. .11*0"/) )!.) &11$%%"0 -&%" )!./ )!*%), 0.,' ;"(&%" )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' <"%" (*+"03 W!*+" )!" K$H$'!*-. .11*0"/) *' %"+"9./) )& )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%): *) *' )!" *$./1" &( )!" T.'H K&%1"8' '<""#*/2 1&/1+$'*&/' %"2.%0*/2 )!" %"+"9./1" &( )!" K$H$'!*-. .11*0"/) )& NRC8' %"2$+.)&%, #%&2%.- )!.) '"%9"' .' )!" ;.'*' (&% )!" 1&/)"/)*&/'3 G' )!" C&--**&/ (&$/0 */ CLIB@@B?D: <!*+" )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 0&"' /&) b$')*(, . 2"/"%*1 NJPG %"9*"<: *) *' #&*;+" )!.) /"< ./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ .;&$)

> I/ MO5##S%(6!&%0,#)!" .##+*1./) 1&/)%&++"0 )!" 1%".)*&/ &( ./0 .11" )& )!" */(&%-.)*&/ )!.) #")*)*&/"%' $'"0 .' . ;.'*' (&% &/2&*/2 1&/)"/)*&/'3  W!*+" )!" .##+*1./)' ./0 )!" NRC S).(( 0*0 /&) 1&/)%&+ )!" 1%".)*&/ &( &% .11" )& )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%): )!" '*2/*(*1./) '*-*+.%*), *' )!.) */)"%"')"0 -"-;"%' &( )!" #$;+*1 <"%" $/.;+" )& #%"0*1) &% 1&/)%&+ )!" )*-*/2 &( )!" 0"9"+&#-"/) ./0 %"+".'" &( /"<: '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ 1&/).*/"0 */ )!" R"#&%)3 

])!" "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#+*1.)*&/' &( )!" K$H$'!*-. .11*0"/) -., 51&-" )& +*2!)6 ./0 %"d$*%" 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ 5.' #.%) &( )!" &/2&*/2 #%"#.%.)*&/ &( .##+*1.)*&/B'#"1*(*1 NJPG 0&1$-"/)'6 <*)! %"'#"1) )& */0*9*0$.+ %".1)&% +*1"/'" .##+*1.)*&/'3 CLIB@@B?D,#'+*# &#3 .) X?3  G) )!*' #&*/) */ )*-": /"*)!"% )!" C&--**&/ /&% )!" NRC S).(( !.' ,") $/0"%).H"/ *)' */0"#"/0"/) NJPG &;+*2.)*&/' )& 1&/'*0"% )!" d$"')*&/ &( <!")!"% )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 1&/')*)$)"' '$1! /"< ./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ )!.) -$') ;" 1&/'*0"%"0 */ */0*9*0$.+ %".1)&% +*1"/'*/2 0"1*'*&/'3  ^, '$;-*))*/2 )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)B;.'"0 1&/)"/)*&/' <*)!*/ )!*%), 0.,' &( )!" *$./1" &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%): )!" I/)"%9"/&%' !.9" )*-"+, %.*'"0 )!"*% 1&/1"%/ %"2.%0*/2 )!*' (.*+$%" )& '.)*'(, NJPG3      S&-" R"'#&/'"' .+'& .%2$" )!.) )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) *' /&) 5/"<6 (&% #$%#&'"' &( ."*/2 )*-"+*/": ;"1.$'" )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) *' '*-#+, . 1&++"1)*&/ ./0 '$--.%, &( "a*')*/2 (.1)'3   S%%,#%.2.,#KPL R"'#&/'" 4T$%H", P&*/)7 .) @@B@> 41*)*/2 N"('3%( #S'-'%0#P"4%(#C".#4P%.*%*" I'+./0 N$1+".% \"/"%.)*/2 P+./): U/*)' @ ./0 >7: CLIB@?B>Y: Y> NRCE: '+*# &#3 .) Y 4S"#3 X?: >?@?77Z NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) X[BX[3  ^$) )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 0&"' /&) -"%"+, 1&-#*+" ./0 &%2./*g" 1"%).*/ #%"B"a*')*/2 */(&%-.)*&/: <*)!&$) ($%)!"% ./.+,'*'3  T& )!" 1&/)%.%,: */ )!" <&%0' &( &/" .##+*1./): )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) *' . 5'!&%) )"%- ./0 +&/2 )"%- - -$70!0#"8#'3%#$%00" 0#'3-'#&- #+%#$%-( %) (%&- )!" K$H$'!*-. .11*0"/)36 KPL R"'#&/'" )& J-"%2"/1, P")*)*&/ .) ] 4M., >: >?@@7 4"-#!.'*' .00"073 S&-" R"'#&/'"' .%2$" )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" 5#%"-.)$%"6 ;"1.$'" )!" C&--**&/ -., 5-&&)6 &% 5/"2.)"6 )!" %"+*"( )!", '""H3  S%%,#%.2.,#KPL R"'#&/'" 4T$%H", P&*/)7 .) >BX: NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4Q*.;+& C./,&/7 .) @@3  ^$) ($)$%" .1)*&/ ;, 

)!" C&--**&/ *' &/+, . #&*;*+*),: ./0 )!" C&--**&/ !.' /&) 2$.%./)""0 )!.) *) <*++ D).H" .1)*&/ ;"(&%" +*1"/'*/2 0"1*'*&/' .%" -.0": .' %"d$*%"0 ;, NJPG3 W!")!"% )!" C&--**&/ -*2!) .00%" )!" 1&/1"%/' &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) .) '&-" #&*/) */ )!" ($)$%" *' *--.)"%*.+3 T!" %"+".'" &% 0"9"+&#-"/) &( /"< ./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/: /&) ($)$%" #&*;+" .2"/1, .1)*&/: )%*22"%' )!" C&--**&/8' /&/B0*'1%")*&/.%, 0$), $/0"% NJPG3 T!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" /&) &/+, )*-"+,: ;$) .+'& -"") )!" %"d$*%"-"/)' (&% 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ &( /&/B)*-"+, 1&/)"/)*&/' */ @? C3K3R3 h >3X?F4174@73 M&') *-#&%)./)+,: I/)"%9"/&%' !.9" 2&&0 1.$'" (&% (*+*/2 )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .()"% )!" %"+".'" &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)3 \*9"/ )!" +.1H &( 1&-#+")" #$;+*1 */(&%-.)*&/ *$"0 (%&- V.#./ */ )!" .()"%-.)! &( )!" .11*0"/): ./0 2*9"/ )!" (.1) )!.) )!" T.'H K&%1" <.' 1!.%)"%"0 ;, )!" NRC C&--**&/"%' <*)! )!" '#"1*(*1 #$%#&'" &( ."-;+*/2 */(&%-.)*&/ .;&$) )!" .11*0"/) ./0 '$;b"1)*/2 *) )& ./.+,'*' ;, '&-" &( )!" -&') !*2!+, d$.+*(*"0 -"-;"%' &( )!" NRC S).((: *) <.' "-*/"/)+, %".'&/.;+" (&% I/)"%9"/&%' )& .<.*) ./0 0"#"/0 $#&/ )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) (&% )!" 1&/)"/)*&/'3 I/ '$-: )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" )*-"+, ;"1.$'" )!", .%" /"*)!"% +.)" /&% #%"-.)$%"3 G00*)*&/.++,: .' )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' #%&9*0": )!", .+'& -"") )!" "*2!) %"d$*%"-"/)' (&% )!" 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ &( /&/B)*-"+, 1&/)"/)*&/' */ @? C3K3R3 h >3X?F4174@73 II. NEPA REQUIRES THE SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, OR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

T!" .##+*1./)' ./0 )!" NRC S).(( 0"9&)" '$%#%*'*/2+, +*))+" .))"/)*&/ )& %"'#&/0*/2 )& )!" $/0"%+,*/2 ;.'*' (&% )!" 1&/)"/)*&/'A )!.) NJPG %"d$*%"' )!" "/9*%&/-"/).+ %"#&%): 0%.() "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#.1) ').)"-"/): &% (*/.+ "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#.1) ').)"-"/) 41&++"1)*9"+,: )!" 5NJPG Q&1$-"/)'67 */ ".1! #%&1""0*/2 )& ;"

='$##+"-"/)"0 */ +*2!) &( )!" '*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/ 1&/).*/"0 */ )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)3  M&') &( )!" NRC S).(('8 R"'#&/'"' -.H" )!" ;.%"') -"/)*&/ &( NJPG: <!*+" -./, .##+*1./)' #%&9*0" &/+, . 1$%'&%, ./0 (+.<"0 )%".)-"/) &( )!" +.<3  T!"*% ')%.)"2*"' (&% "9.0*/2 NJPG (.++ */)& )!%"" ;.'*1 1.)"2&%*"'A  4@7 .))"-#)' )& .9&*0 .++ )%".)-"/) &( '.("), *$"' <*)!*/ )!" 1&/)"a) &( NJPG ;, "-#+&,*/2 ./ &9"%+, /.%%&< 0"(*/*)*&/ &( "/9*%&/-"/).+ "(("1)' )& "a1+$0" )!&'" *-#.1)' )& #$;+*1 '.("),: 4>7 -*'1!.%.1)"%*g.)*&/' &( )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .' 1&/)"/)*&/' &( */.0"d$.1, %.)!"% )!./ &-**&/: ./0 4X7 .))"-#)' )& '!*() )!" .2"/1,8' NJPG %"'#&/'*;*+*)*"' &/)& )!" '!&$+0"%' &( I/)"%9"/&%'3  W!"%" )!"

R"'#&/'"' 0& .00%" NJPG: )!", */1&%%"1)+, 1+.*- )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" ;.'"0 $#&/ /& '*2/*(*1./) &% /"< */(&%-.)*&/3 N&/" &( )!"'" .%2$-"/)' !.' -"%*)3 G3 T!" R"'#&/'"' M*'1!.%.1)"%*g" )!" P$;+*1 S.("), I$"' R.*'"0 */ )!" C&/)"/)*&/' )& G9&*0 G00%"*/2 NRC8' R"'#&/'*;*+*), )& C&/'*0"% T!"'" I$"' */ )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)'3 G /$-;"% &( R"'#&/'"' 1+.*- )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" */.0-**;+" ;"1.$'" )!", 5.)).1H6 &% '""H ./ 5&9"%!.$+6 &( NRC %"2$+.)*&/'3 S%%#%.2.#KPL R"'#&/'" 4T$%H", P&*/)7 .) @YB>X: J/)"%2, R"'#&/'" 4I/0*./ P&*/)7 .) @[B>@: U/*').% R"'#&/'" 4C.+9"%) C+*(('7 .) =B@?: NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4Q*.;+& C./,&/7 .) FB@>: NRC S).(( 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) @=: >?B>>: T`G R"'#&/'" 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) @Y3 G' )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' -.H" 1+".%: I/)"%9"/&%' 0& /&) 1!.++"/2" )!" .0"d$.1, &( NRC %"2$+.)*&/' )& #%&)"1) #$;+*1 !".+)! ./0 '.("), $/0"% )!" G)&-*1 J/"%2, G1)3 I/')".0: )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' d$"')*&/ )!" '$((*1*"/1, &( )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' ;"1.$'" )!&'" 0&1$-"/)' -.H" (.1)$.+ 0")"%-*/.)*&/' )!.) 1&-#+*./1" <*)! NRC '.("), %"2$+.)*&/' <*++ "/'$%" )!.) "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#.1)' &( %".1)&% .11*0"/)' <*++ ;" 5SMGLL:6 ./0 )!" NRC8' T.'H K&%1" !.' 1.++"0 '$1! 0")"%-*/.)*&/' */)& d$"')*&/ */ *)' R"#&%)3 YNJPG %"d$*%"' 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ &( )!" '.("), %*'H' #&'"0 ;, /$1+".% %".1)&%' ;"(&%" (*/.+ .2"/1, .1)*&/3 I/0""0: ./ "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#.1) ').)"-"/) -$') ;" #%"#.%"0 <!"/"9"% . -.b&% ("0"%.+ .1)*&/ -., !.9" . '*2/*(*1./) "(("1) &/ )!" !$-./ "/9*%&/-"/)3 ]> U3S3C3 h ]X>@ %'#0%93 T!" )"%- 5!$-./ "/9*%&/-"/)6 -$') 5;" */)"%#%")"0 1&-#%"!"/'*9"+, )& */1+$0" )!" /.)$%.+ ./0 #!,'*1.+ "/9*%&/-"/) ./0 )!" %"+.)*&/'!*# &( #"&#+" <*)! )!.) "/9*%&/-"/)36 ]? C3K3R3 h @D?[3@D3 M&%"&9"%: )!" )"%- 5"(("1)6 *' ',/&/,-&$' <*)! 5*-#.1):6 ./0 */1+$0"' )!" "1&+&2*1.+ 4'$1! .' "(("1)' &/ /.)$%.+ %"'&$%1"' ./0 &/ )!" 1&-#&/"/)': ')%$1)$%"': ./0 ($/1)*&/*/2 &( .(("1)"0 "1&',')"-'7 .' <"++ .' )!" ."')!")*1: !*')&%*1: 1$+)$%.+: "1&/&-*1: '&1*.+: ./0 !".+)! *-#.1)' &( . #%&#&'"0 .1)*&/3 ]? C3K3R3 h @D?[3[3 T!" 0"2%"" )& <!*1! . #%&b"1) -., .(("1) #$;+*1 !".+)! &% '.("), *' )!$' . -.b&% 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ $/0"% )!" ').)$)"3 S%% ]? C3K3R3 h @D?[3>Y3 T!"%"(&%": )!" R"'#&/'"'8 .))"-#)' )& 0*'-* )!" /$-"%&$' #$;+*1 !".+)! ./0 '.("), *$"' %.*'"0 ;, )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) .' ;"*/2 )!" '$;b"1) &( ./ *-#"%-**;+" %$+" 1!.++"/2" .%" $/.9.*+*/2: .' )!", &;'1$%" )!" /"1".%, %&+" #$;+*1 !".+)! ./0 '.("), *$"' #+., */ )!" "a.-*/.)*&/ &( . #%&b"1)8' "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#.1)' $/0"% NJPG3 I/1%"0*;+,: '&-" .##+*1./)' /&) &/+, %".0 )!" ./.+,'*' &( 5'.("),6 *$"' &$) &( NJPG: ;$) .))"-#) )& .9&*0 .00%"*/2 I/)"%9"/&%'8 1+.*-' ;, ($%)!"% .%2$*/2 )!.) ;"1.$'" )!"%" *' 5/& -"/)*&/ &( ./, "/9*%&/-"/).+ %"9*"<': "*)!"% ;, .##+*1./)' &% ;, )!" S).((6 )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 1.//&) #%&9*0" '$##&%) (&% )!" 1&/)"/)*&/: 5<!*1! '""H' )& %.*'" "/9*%&/-"/).+ 1+.*-' .2.*/') )!" eNJPG Q&1$-"/)f36 KPL R"'#&/'" .) >XZ '%%#-$0"#J/)"%2, R"'#&/'" .) >X 4."%)*/2 5)!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 0&"' /&) 0*'1$ NJPG *$"' .) .++67: NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) X?3 NJPG %"d$*%"' '$##+"-"/).)*&/ &( . NJPG Q&1$-"/) <!"/"9"% )!"%" *' '*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/ %"+"9./) )& ["/9*%&/-"/).+ 1&/1"%/' ./0 ;".%*/2 &/ )!" #%&#&'"0 .1)*&/ &% *)' *-#.1)'3 ]? C3K3R3 h @D?>3F4174@74!!73 T!" .##+*1./)'8 #&'*)*&/ )!.) NJPG %"d$*%"' )!" 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ &( /"< */(&%-.)*&/ (&% '$##+"-"/).)*&/ #$%#&'"' &/+, <!"%" '$1! 0&1$-"/)' %"("%"/1" '#"1*(*1 5"/9*%&/-"/).+ %"9*"<'6 *' $/(&$/0"0 ./0 !.' /& '$##&%) */ )!" +.<3 ^3 T!" R"'#&/'"' M*'1!.%.1)"%*g" I/)"%9"/&%'8 NJPG C&/)"/)*&/' .' C&/)"/)*&/' &( I/.0"d$.1, R.)!"% T!./ &( O-**&/3 T!%&$2!&$) )!" R"'#&/'"': .##+*1./)' -.H" /$-"%&$' %"("%"/1"' )& I/)"%9"/&%'8 .++"2"0 (.*+$%" )& #&*/) )& '#"1*(*1 (+.<' */ )!" NJPG 0&1$-"/)'3 S%%,#%.2.: KPL R"'#&/'" .) >]B>DZ J/)"%2, R"'#&/'" .) >DB>=Z U/*').% R"'#&/'" .) @FB>?: /3 @>3 K&% "a.-#+": K+&%*0. P&<"% c L*2!) 45KPL67 .%2$"' )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/8' %"("%"/1" )& )'$/.-* %*'H' ./0 '"*'-*1 '"*1!"' 0&"' /&) 0*'#$)" )!" (*/0*/2' &( T$%H", P&*/)8' K*/.+ S.("), G/.+,'*' R"#&%) 45KSGR67 ./0 )!.) )!" KSGR 0"-&/')%.)"' )!.) )!" $/*)' .%" /&) 9$+/"%.;+" )& )'$/.-*'3 T!"%"(&%": .11&%0*/2 )& KPL: I/)"%9"/&%'8 (+&&0*/2 ./0 '"*'-*1 #%&)"1)*&/ 1&/1"%/' 0& /&) %.*'" ./, 0*'#$)" &/ . '*2/*(*1./) *$" <*)! )!" .##+*1.)*&/3 S%% KPL R"'#&/'" .) >]3 KPL ($%)!"% .%2$"' )!.) I/)"%9"/&%'8 1&/1"%/' <*)! %"'#"1) )& '#"/) ($"+ #&&+ 1&&+*/2 0& /&) 0"-&/')%.)" ./, 2"/$*/" -.)"%*.+ 0*'#$)" <*)! )!" .##+*1.)*&/ ;"1.$'" )!"'" *$"' .%" '$((*1*"/)+, .00%""0 */ )!" GP@??? QCQ3 S%% KPL R"'#&/'" .) >D3 KPL8' .%2$-"/)' 1&-#+")"+, -* )!" -.%H ./0 .%" /&)!*/2 -&%" )!./ ./ .))"-#) )& %"B1!.%.1)"%*g" )!" 1&/)"/)*&/ .' &/" &( */.0"d$.1, %.)!"% )!./ &( &-**&/3 J9"/ . 1$%'&%, %".0*/2 &( I/)"%9"/&%'8 1&/)"/)*&/ -.H"' *) .;$/0./)+, 1+".% )!.) *) *' . 1&/)"/)*&/ &( &-**&/3 T!" 1"/)%.+ )!%$') &( )!" 1&/)"/)*&/ *' )!.) )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 1&/')*)$)"' 5'*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/6 $/0"% NJPG ./0 )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' /""0 )& ;" '$##+"-"/)"0 .11&%0*/2+,3 T!" 0*'#$)" *' /&) )!.) '#"1*(*1 #&%)*&/' &( )!" NJPG FQ&1$-"/)' 1&/).*/ . (+.<"0 ./.+,'*' &% %".1! (.+'" 1&/1+$'*&/': ;$) %.)!"% )!.) )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' (.*+ "/)*%"+, )& 1&/'*0"% )!" (*/0*/2': %"1&--"/0.)*&/': ./0 1&/1+$'*&/' &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)3 T!"%"(&%": )!" R"'#&/'"'8 "((&%)' )& 0*'-* )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' ;.'"0 &/ )!" 1&/)"/) &( '#"1*(*1 '"1)*&/' &( )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' ./0 .%2$-"/)' )!.) )!&'" '"1)*&/' 0& /&) 0"-&/')%.)" . 2"/$*/" -.)"%*.+ 0*'#$)" .%" <*)!&$) -"%*)3 C3 G##+*1./)' J%%&/"&$'+, C&/(+.)" I/)"%9"/&%'8 R"'#&/'*;*+*)*"' $/0"% NJPG W*)! T!&'" &( )!" G2"/1,3 G##+*1./)' .))"-#) )& 1&/(+.)" I/)"%9"/&%'8 %"'#&/'*;*+*)*"' $/0"% NJPG <*)! )!&'" &( )!" .2"/1, ;, .%2$*/2 )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' -$') "a#+.*/ */ 0").*+ !&< )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' '!&$+0 $'" )!" */(&%-.)*&/ 1&/).*/"0 */ )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)3 K&% */')./1": KPL .%2$"' )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/ 50&e"'f /&) *0"/)*(, ./, "%%&% */ ./, &( e)!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)8'f ./.+,'"'6 ./0 )!.) *) 5#%&9*0"e'f /& */(&%-.)*&/ */0*1.)*/2 )!.) )!" #%&;.;*+*), &% 1&/'"d$"/1"' &( ./, .11*0"/) '1"/.%*& *' 2%".)"% )!./ .' .""0 */ )!" eNJPG Q&1$-"/)'f:6 <!"%" *) 1&/1"%/' )!" 1&/'"d$"/1"' &( 0"'*2/ ;.'*' .11*0"/)': 1&/'"d$"/1"' &( '"9"%" .11*0"/)': ./0 ./.+,g*/2 )!" 1&') ./0 ;"/"(*)' &( '"9"%" .11*0"/) -*)*2.)*&/ .+)"%/.)*9"' 45SGMG673 KPL R"'#&/'" 4T$%H", P&*/)7 .) >FBX?: XXZ NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) XY3 T!*' .%2$-"/) !*2!+*2!)' . ($/0.-"/).+ -*'$/0"%')./0*/2 &( I/)"%9"/&%'8 0$)*"' $/0"% NJPG ;, #&'*)*/2 )!.) ;"(&%" )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' -$') ;" '$##+"-"/)"0: I/)"%9"/&%' -$') 0"-&/')%.)" 4@7 )!.) )!" /"< */(&%-.)*&/ <*++: */ (.1): %"'$+) */ 0*(("%"/) &% 2%".)"% "/9*%&/-"/).+ "(("1)' )!./ )!&'" 0"'1%*;"0 */ )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' ./0: 4>7 #%"1*'"+, !&< )!" 1&/1+$'*&/' */ )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' '!&$+0 %".03 S%%#J/)"%2, R"'#&/'" .) >X 45I/)"%9"/&%' 0& /&) *0"/)*(, <*)! )!" %"d$*'*)" '#"1*(*1*), ./, '$;')./)*.+ 1!./2"' */ )!" "/9*%&/-"/).+ ./.+,'*' &( )!"

@?#%&#&'"0 I/0*./ P&*/) +*1"/'" %"/"<.+ .1)*&/ %"'$+)*/2 (%&- )!" T.'H K&%1" %"1&--"/0.)*&/'673 C&/)%.%, )& )!" .##+*1./)'8 .%2$-"/)': I/)"%9"/&%' 1.%%, &/+, )!" &;+*2.)*&/ &( '!&<*/2 )!.) )!" /"< */(&%-.)*&/ .) *$" *' 5'*2/*(*1./):6 5%"+"9./) )& "/9*%&/-"/).+ 1&/1"%/':6 ./0 !.' 5;".%*/2 &/ )!" #%&#&'"0 .1)*&/36  ]? C3K3R3 h @D?>3F3  ^"1.$'" I/)"%9"/&%' -"") )!*' ;$%0"/: NRC !.' )!" %"'#&/'*;*+*), )& 1&/0$1) '$##+"-"/).+ "/9*%&/-"/).+ ./.+,'"' ./0 %"#&%) )!" %"'$+)' */ )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)3  I/ )!*' */')./1": !&<"9"%: .##+*1./)' '""H )& %"d$*%" I/)"%9"/&%' )& '$##+, )!"'" ./.+,'"'3 G' 1&$%)' !.9" -.0" .;$/0./)+, 1+".%: 5e*)f *' )!" .2"/1,: /&) ./ "/9*%&/-"/).+ #+.*/)*((: )!.) !.' . i1&/)*/$*/2 0$), )& 2.)!"% ./0 "9.+$.)" /"< */(&%-.)*&/ %"+"9./) )& )!" "/9*%&/-"/).+ *-#.1)' &( *)' .1)*&/':8 "9"/ .()"% %"+".'" &( ./ eJG &% JISf36  F(!% )0#"8#'3%#C$%-(4-'%(#6.#D"/+%&:: >>> K3X0 DD>: DDF 4F)! C*%3 >???7 4d$&)*/2 W-(/#S;(! 20#D-/#T-0:#F"(&%#6.#G(!++$%: =>@ K3>0 @?@Y: @?>X 4F)! C*%3 @F[?77Z S%%#-$0" T%<M"-:#T(!+%#6.#I '%(!"(: =?[ K3X0 DF>: =?DB=?= 4F)! C*%3 >?@?7Z D-6!0#6.#C"$%/- : D>@ K3>0 ==@: =Y@ 4F)! C*%3 @FYD7 45eCf&-#+*./1" <*)! NJPG *' . #%*-.%, 0$), &( "9"%, ("0"%.+ .2"/1,Z ($+(*++-"/) &( )!*' 9*).+ %"'#&/'*;*+*), '!&$+0 /&) 0"#"/0 &/ )!" 9*2*+./1" ./0 +*-*)"0 %"'&$%1"' &( "/9*%&/-"/).+ #+.*/)*(('3673  G' )!" K*%') C*%1$*) %"-.%H"0 */ D1+"!0#6.#U.S.#D%;'.#"8#A2(!&.: @?> K3X0 @>YX: @>F@ 4@') C*%3 @FF=7: 0*'1$*/2 )!" #$;+*18' %&+" $/0"% NJPGA   S$1! '#"1*(*1' .%" /&) %"d$*%"0j3 eTf!" #$%#&'" &( #$;+*1 #.%)*1*#.)*&/ %"2$+.)*&/' *' '*-#+, )& i#%&9*0" /&)*1"8 )& )!" .2"/1,: /&) )& i#%"'"/) )"1!/*1.+ &% #%"1*'" '1*"/)*(*1 &% +"2.+ 1!.++"/2"' )& '#"1*(*1 #%&9*'*&/'8 &( )!" 0&1$-"/) */ d$"')*&/j3 M&%"&9"%: NJPG %"d$*%"' )!" .2"/1, )& )%, &/ *)' &</ )& 0"9"+&# .+)"%/.)*9"' )!.) <*++ i-*)*2.)" )!" .09"%'" "/9*%&/-"/).+ 1&/'"d$"/1"'8 &( . #%&#&'"0 #%&b"1)3  R"+%('0" #6.#M%'3"4#V-$$%7#C!'!=% 0#C"1 &!$: ]F? U3S3 XX>: XD@ 4@F[F73

_"%": I/)"%9"/&%' !.9" -") )!"*% ;$%0"/ */ 0"-&/')%.)*/2 )!.) )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 1&/).*/' /"< ./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ )!.) *' %"+"9./) )& "/9*%&/-"/).+

@@1&/1"%/' ./0 !.' . ;".%*/2 &/ )!" #%&#&'"0 .2"/1, %"2$+.)&%, .1)*&/3   T!$' NRC !.' )!" 0$), )& "9.+$.)" )!*' /"< */(&%-.)*&/ ./0: */ 1&/b$/1)*&/ <*)! .##+*1./)': #%"#.%" '$##+"-"/).+ NJPG Q&1$-"/)' )!.) %.)*&/.++, 1&//"1) )!" (.1)' (&$/0 )& )!" 1!&*1"' -.0"3  B1($! 2'" #T(1&:#L! %0#6.#U !'%)#S'-'%0: XY@ U3S3 @D=: @D[ 4@FY>7 4!&+0*/2 )!.) )!" .2"/1, -$') 1&/'*0"% 5%"+"9./) (.1)&%'6 ./0 .%)*1$+.)" 5. %.)*&/.+ 1&//"1)*&/ ;")<""/ )!" (.1)' (&$/0 ./0 )!" 1!&*1"' -.0"673   T!*' '.-" ($/0.-"/).+ -*'$/0"%')./0*/2 &( NJPG $/0"%-*/"' .##+*1./)'8 .%2$-"/)' %"+.)*/2 )& SGMG'3  G##+*1./)' ."%) )!.) )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' /""0 /&) ;" '$##+"-"/)"0 <*)! %"2.%0 )& )!" SGMG ./.+,'"' ;"1.$'" &/+, )!%&$2! . %$+" 1!./2" BB <!*1! I/)"%9"/&%' .%" #%"1+$0"0 (%&- %"d$"')*/2 */ )!*' (&%$- BB 1./ )!" T.'H K&%1" %"1&--"/0.)*&/' &/ )!*' *$" ;" 1&/'*0"%"03  S%%,#%.23: KPL R"'#&/'" 4T$%H", P&*/)7 .) XD3  G' 0*'1$"0 .;&9": )!*' .))"-#) )& '!*() )!" (&1$' )& )!" NRC %"2$+.)*&/' *2/&%"' )!" 1+".% %"d$*%"-"/)' &( NJPG3  G##+*1./)'8 ($%)!"% .%2$-"/) )!.) )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' (.*+ )& 0"-&/')%.)" )!.) )!" 1&')B;"/"(*) ./.+,'*' '") &$) */ )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' (&% )!" #%&#&'"0 .1)*&/ <*++ ;" .(("1)"0 ;, *-#+"-"/).)*&/ &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) (.*+' (&% )!" '.-" %".'&/3  S%%,#%.23: KPL R"'#&/'" .) XY3  I) *' /&) I/)"%9"/&%'8 %"'#&/'*;*+*), )& "a#+.*/ !&< )!" 1&')B;"/"(*) ./.+,'*' 1&/).*/"0 */ )!" NJPG Q&1$-"/)' <&$+0 1!./2"3  T!.) %"'#&/'*;*+*), +*"' <*)! )!" NRC3   K*/.++,: )& )!" "a)"/) )!" .##+*1./)' .%2$" )!.) NJPG8' '$##+"-"/).)*&/ %"d$*%"-"/)' 0& /&) .##+, )& "/9*%&/-"/).+ %"#&%)' 45JR'67: 0%%,#%.23: KPL R"'#&/'" .) X@: )!*' .%2$-"/) .+'& (.*+'3  S$1! . ')%.*/"0 */)"%#%").)*&/ &( )!" NJPG #%&1" .' *) .##+*"' )& NRC 0"1*'*&/B-.H*/2 *' $/)"/.;+" (&% )!%"" %".'&/'3  K*%'): )& .##+, )!*' */)"%#%").)*&/ <&$+0 %"'$+) */ /& 1&/1"*9.;+" )%*22"% (&% )!" NRC )& '$##+"-"/) *)' NJPG  
@>Q&1$-"/)' <!"/ '*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/: "a1+$0"0 (%&- 1&/'*0"%.)*&/ ./0 ./.+,'*' */ )!" JR: ;"1&-"' .9.*+.;+" */ .09./1" &( JIS #$;+*1.)*&/3 N&% 1&$+0 I/)"%9"/&%' 1&-#"+ '$1! .1)*&/: .' )!", <&$+0 ;" )*-"B;.%%"0 (%&- (*+*/2 /"< 1&/)"/)*&/' .++"2*/2 )!" /""0 )& '$##+"-"/) . 0%.() &% (*/.+ JIS ;"1.$'" '$1! */(&%-.)*&/ <.' .9.*+.;+" <"++ ;"(&%" )!&'" 0&1$-"/)' <"%" #%"#.%"03   G' -"/)*&/"0 .;&9": )!*' ),#" &( 5C.)1!B>>6 -$') ;" #%"1+$0"0 */ &%0"% )& "/'$%" )!.) NRC #%&1""' 1&-#+, <*)! NJPG3   S3-4#A(%-#MO5##S%(6!&%0,#=Y NRC .) D?>3  S"1&/0: )& #%"1+$0" "9.+$.)*&/ &( '*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/ */ )!" JR <&$+0 +*-*) )!" NRC8' .;*+*), )& .0"d$.)"+, ./0 )*-"+, 1&/'*0"% ./0 %"'#&/0 )& /"< */(&%-.)*&/ %"+.)*9"+, ".%+, */ )!" 0"1*'*&/B-.H*/2 #%&1": ;"(&%" . '*2/*(*1./) .-&$/) &( )*-" ./0 %"'&$%1"' .%" "a#"/0"0 */ (*/.+*g*/2 )!" #%&b"1) ./0 0"9"+&#*/2 )!" 0%.() ./0 (*/.+ JIS (&% )!" .1)*&/3 T!*%0: 2*9"/ )!.) )!" NRC %"+*"' !".9*+, &/ )!" 1&/)"/)' &( )!" JR )& #%"#.%" *)' JIS: /&) */1+$0*/2 '$1! */(&%-.)*&/ &% ./.+,'*' */ )!" JR <&$+0 1%".)" )!" #&)"/)*.+ (&% '*2/*(*1./) 0"(*1*"/1*"' */ )!" %"'$+)*/2 JIS3  T!*' <&$+0 */1%".'" )!" +*H"+*!&&0 (&% ($)$%" +*)*2.)*&/ ;, #.%)*"' '""H*/2 )& 1$%" )!"'" 0"(*1*"/1*"'3  K&% .++ )!"'" +"2.+ ./0 #%.1)*1.+ %".'&/': .##+*1./)'8 .%2$-"/) )!.) '$##+"-"/).)*&/ 0&"' /&) .##+, )& .++ NJPG Q&1$-"/)': */1+$0*/2 JR': 1.//&) ')./03 Q3 T!" R"'#&/'"' I/1&%%"1)+, C+.*- )!" C&/)"/)*&/' G%" ^.'"0 U#&/ N& S*2/*(*1./) N"< I/(&%-.)*&/

T!" .##+*1./)' .+'& 1+.*- )!" 1&/)"/)*&/' .%" */.0-**;+" ;"1.$'" I/)"%9"/&%' !.9" (.*+"0 )& #%"'"/) 5'*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/:6 .' %"d$*%"0 ;, @? C3K3R3 h D>3XF4174973 S%%,#%.23: J/)"%2, R"'#&/'" 4I/0*./ P&*/)7 .) >@B>DZ KPL R"'#&/'" 4T$%H", P&*/)7 .) X?BX]Z U/*').% .) @]B@[Z PJK R"'#&/'" 4L"9,7 .) @XB@]3 T!" 1&/)"/)*&/': !&<"9"%: .%" ;.'"0 $#&/ )!" /"< ./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ 1&/).*/"0 */ )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%)3 T!" G##+*1./)'8 "((&%)' )& $'" )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) )& '$##&%) . 1+.*- )!.) )!"

@XT.'H K&%1" *)'"+( 0*0 /&) *0"/)*(, '*2/*(*1./) %"2$+.)&%, 1!./2"' )!.) %"#%"'"/) '*2/*(*1./) /"< */(&%-.)*&/ */ )!" 1&/)"a) &( NJPG %"d$*%"-"/)' .%" '*-#+, */1&%%"1)3  M./, &( )!" R"'#&/'"' .%2$" )!.) )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) 0&"' /&) #%"'"/) /"< 

./0 '*2/*(*1./) */(&%-.)*&/ ;"1.$'" *) 0*0 /&) 1&/1+$0" )!.) )!" %"1&--"/0"0 0"'*2/ ;.'*' 1!./2"' .%" /"1".%, .) )!*' )*-"3 S%%,#%.2.,#NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) >[: T`G R"'#&/'" 4W.))' ^.% >7 .) >X: NRC S).(( R"'#&/'" 4Q*.;+& C./,&/7 .) @X3 T!*' .%2$-"/) *2/&%"' )!" (.1) )!.) '$1! . 1&/1+$'*&/ *' #%&9*'*&/.+: )!.) *' )& '., )!.) )!" T.'H K&%1" .$-"0 )!" NRC <&$+0 -.H" )!" %"1&--"/0"0 %"2$+.)&%, %"(&%-'3 T!$': )!" T.'H K&%1" (&$/0 )!.) 1$%%"/) %"2$+.)&%, %"d$*%"-"/)' 1./ '$##&%) . %".'&/.;+" .$%./1" (*/0*/2 5$/)*+ )!" .1)*&/' '") (&%)! ;"+&< !.9" ;""/ *-#+"-"/)"06 ./0 )!.) 1&/)*/$"0 &#"%.)*&/ &( "a*')*/2 /$1+".% #+./)' 0&"' /&) #&'" ./ *--"0*.)" )!%".) )& #$;+*1 !".+)! ./0 '.("),3 T!.) )!" R"#&%) 1&/).*/' #%&9*'*&/.+ ').)"-"/)' 0&"' /&) 0")%.1) (%&- &% 1&/)%.0*1) )!" ""/)*.+ -".2" &( )!" T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) )!.) )!" NRC8' #%&2%.- &( /- )-'"(7 '.("), %"2$+.)*&/' %"d$*%"' '*2/*(*1./) ')%"/2)!"/*/2 */ &%0"% )& #%&9*0": &9"% )!" +&/2 )"%-: .0"d$.)" #%&)"1)*&/ &( #$;+*1 !".+)! ./0 '.("),3 X I) *' )!*' +&/2"% )"%-: !.%.,#)!" /"a) ]? ,".%' &% -&%": )!.) *' .00%""0 ;, )!" NRC8' +*1"/'*/2 #%&1" ./0 ;, )!" .&1*.)"0 NJPG Q&1$-"/)'3 CONCLUSION K&% )!" (&%"2&*/2 %".'&/': )!" .##+*1./)'8 ./0 NR S).((8' &##&'*)*&/' )& )!" K$H$'!*-. T.'H K&%1" %"+.)"0 1&/)"/)*&/' '$;-*))"0 ;, I/)"%9"/&%'3 X S%%#T.'H K&%1" R"#&%) .) @[ 45G' /"< */(&%-.)*&/ ./0 /"< ./.+,)*1.+ )"1!/*d$"' .%" 0"9"+&#"0: '.("), ')./0.%0' /""0 )& ;" %"9*"<"0: "9.+$.)"0: ./0 1!./2"0: .' /"1".%,: )& */'$%" )!.) )!", 1&/)*/$" )& .00%" )!" NRC8' %"d$*%"-"/)' )& #%&9*0" %".'&/.;+" .$%./1" &( .0"d$.)" #%&)"1)*&/ &( #$;+*1 !".+)! ./0 '.("),3 T!" T.'H K&%1" ;"+*"9"': ;.'"0 &/ *)' %"9*"< &( )!" */(&%-.)*&/ 1$%%"/)+, .9.*+.;+" (%&- V.#./ ./0 )!" 1$%%"/) %"2$+.)*&/': )!.) )!" )*-" !.' 1&-" (&% '$1! 1!./2"367

@]R"'#"1)($++, '$;-*))"0:

E$%&'(" !&-$$7#0!2 %)#+7# Q*./" C$%%./: J'd3 _.%-&/: C$%%./: S#*"+;"%2 c J*'"/;"%2: L3L3P @Y>= M S)%"") NW: S$*)" =?? W.'!*/2)&/: Q3C3 >??X= T"+"#!&/"A 4>?>7X>[BXD?? K.1'*-*+"A 4>?>7X>[B=F@[ JB-.*+A 01$%%./k!.%-&/1$%%./31&- E$%&'(" !&-$$7#0!2 %)#+7# M*/0, \&+0')"*/ T$%/"% J/9*%&/-"/).+ L.< C+*/*1 J-&%, U/*9"%'*), S1!&&+ &( L.< @X?@ C+*()&/ R&.0 G)+./).: \G X?X>> P!&/"A 4]?]7 Y>YBX]X> K.aA 4]?]7 Y>YBY[D@ J-.*+A -.2&+0'k"-&%,3"0$

E$%&'(" !&-$$7#0!2 %)#+7# V.'&/ T&)&*$ J9"%2+.0"' L.< C"/)"% PO ^&a >=FX W*/)"% _.9"/: KL XX[[X 4D=@7D=[B=Y]? V.'&/k"9"%2+.0"'+.<3&%2

S"#)"-;"% @X: >?@@

September 13, 2011UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardIn the Matter of First Energy Nuclear Operating Company (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1))Docket No. 50-346 ) ) ) *****CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI hereby certify that copies of "INTERVENORS' REPLY MORANDUM TO STAFFAND APPLICANT OPPOSITIONS TO ADMISSION OF NEW CONTENTION" have been served on the following persons via Electronic Information Exchange this 13th day of September, 2011: Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 William J. Froehlich, Chair Administrative Judge E-mail: William.froehlich@nrc.gov Nicholas G. TrikourosAdministrative 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 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 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 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20004 Stephen Burdick, Esq. E-mail: sburdick@morganlewis.com Alex Polonsky, Esq. 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 Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com Lisa Harris, Legal Secretary E-mail: lisa.harris@morganlewis.com /s/ Terry J. Lodge Terry J. Lodge (OH #0029271) 316 N. Michigan St., Ste. 520 Toledo, OH 43604-5627 (419) 255-7552 Fax (419) 255-8582Tjlodge50@yahoo.comCounsel for Intervenors ~ !"#~$"#~$! %&&%~ !' ' ~ !~ !#$$%~&$'(~))'*+))',,.$/ 0/ 1-,/ 2&)+'$*3+*4,5~))'*+))'-"6%78!$64 / ,,-#-"-&'7+)9:*7;;<0 ="1-7+)9:*7;<:0-="1$-' ' '~'"6"~"$"5~ !"##&##'#&)*+ ,)!-+ ,)!- ~ "#$"$!$"% &%$&'%$!($$"#&$$~!""$# )*+,&-.  !"#$%&""'"'"+,+-.-/#01$2/#01$2}}