ML14251A609

Intervenors Motion to Amend and Supplement Contention No. 7 on Worsening Shield Building Cracking and Inadequate AMPs in Shield Building Monitoring Program

ML14251A609
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	09/08/2014
From:	Lodge T J 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
50-346-LR, ASLBP 11-907-01-LR-BD01, RAS 26459
Download: ML14251A609 (27)

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

)Docke t No. 50-346-L FirstEne rg y Nuclea r Ope rating Company)September 8, 2014 Davis-B esse Nuc lear Power Station, Unit 1

))INTERV ENORS' MOTION TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT CONTENTION NO. 7 ON WORSENING SHIE LD BUILDING CRACKI NG AND INADEQUATE AMPS IN S HIELD BUILDING MONITORING PROGRAM 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 move to amend a nd supplement their September 2, 2014 "Motion to Admit Contention No. 7 on W orsening Shield Building Cra cking and I nadequa te AMPs in Shi eld B uild-ing Monitoring Prog ram." FirstEne rg y Nuclea r Ope rating Company ("F ENOC") has modified its Ag ing Ma nag ement Plans ("A MPs") within its S hield Building Monitoring Prog ram in re sponse to a worse ning c rac king pr oblem in the rea ctor Shield Building at the Da vis-Be sse Nucle ar Power Station, Unit 1 ("Da vis-Be sse"). /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 MEMORAN DUM AMENDED CONTENTION I nterve nors amend the ir contention filed on Septembe r 2, 2014, by adding wording (italicized) as follows:

FEN OC's revisions to the AMPs in its Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram, dated July 3, 2014, acknow ledg e not only the risk, but the re ality , of ag ing-rela ted 1 cra cking propag ation - that is, worsening - in the alre ady sever ely cra cked Shield Building , an admission which bring s the issue within the scope of this L icense Renewa l Application proc eeding. FEN OC's proposed modifica tions to i ts Shi eld B uilding Monitoring Prog ram AMPs, reg arding the scope (ar eas of the Shield Building to be examined), sample size (number of tests to be perf ormed), a nd the fre quency of its surveillance activities, are woef ully inadequa te. Signific antly more c ore bor es, as we ll as a broa der dive rsity of compleme ntary testing me thods should be require d, and at a much g rea ter fr equenc y than FE NOC has propose

d. The c rac king phe nomena must be identified, ana ly zed and addr essed within the F inal Supplemental Environmental I mpact Statement for the lice nse re newa l both in the consideration of alternati ves to granting the 20-ye ar license e xtension for Davis-Be sse as well as in the Seve re Acc ident Mitigation Alternatives analysis (SAMA). The crack ing problems do not support a conclusion that there is "reasonable assurance" that Davis-Be sse can be operated in a manne r protective of the public health and safety under the A tomic Energy Act during the 20-y ear proposed license exte nsion period.

BAC KGROUND I n L BP-12-27 (De cembe r 28, 2012), the A tomic Safety and L icensing Boa rd re jected I nterve nors' Contention 5 and its associate d amending and supplementa l filings, see king considera tion of widespre ad laminar cra cking and other concr ete da mag e in the Shield Building walls to be viewe d as ag ing-rela ted problems fa lling within the par ameter s of this license re newa l See FENOC's "Re ply to Requ est fo r Ad dit ion al I nfo rmati on f or the Review o f t he Da vis-Bess e 1 Nucl ear Power Sta ti on, Un it No. 1, Lic ens e Re newa l Ap pli cat ion (T AC No. M E464 0) and Lic ens e Re newa l Ap pli cat ion Am end m ent No. 51 ," Da vis-Bess e Nuc le ar Power Sta ti on, Un it No. 1, Docket No. 50-346, Lic ens e Number NP F-3, s ent by FENOC to the at te nti on o f t he Document Cont rol Des k at t he U.S. Nucl ear Regula tor y Com m is si on o n J uly 3, 2 014, per 10 CFR 54, Encl osu re: Da vis-Bess e Nuc le ar Power Sta ti on, Un it No. 1 (Da vis-Bess e), Let te r L-14-224, Enc los ure s 1 and 2, ADAM S No. M L141 84B18 4 (her ei naf te r r ef er enc ed a s "FENOC's RAI Let te r, J uly 3, 2 014").

proce eding:. . . I nterve nors must point t o the spec ific wa y s in which the Shield Building Monitoring AMP is wrong or inade quate to ra ise a g enuine dispute with F ENOC's L RA.This they have f ailed to do.

Intervenors have provided no support for th eir argum ent that t he cracking (1) is aging-related , and (2) preve nts safe ope ration of the pla nt. These claims amount to bare asser tions, which the Commis sion has made c lear "ar e insuffic ient to support a contention.". . . H oweve r, a pe titioner "'must prese nt sufficient infor mation to show a g enuine dispute' a nd rea sonably 'indicating that a fur ther inquiry is appropr iate.'"(Emphasis adde d). Id., L BP-12-27 at 30 (32 of .pdf

). Howeve r, in their "Motion for Admission of Contention No. 7" filed Septembe r 2, 2014, I nterve nors exposed the distinct chang e of position of F ENOC. Applicant now c oncede s that signific ant mistakes wer e made in remedia tion and in understanding the implications of the cra cking phenomena which we re f irst noticed in 2011. FEN OC's latest, "ice-we dg ing" cra cking propag ation root ca use is an admission that the Shield Building cra cking is ag ing-rela ted, which bring s it withi n the scope of this L RA proce eding. FEN OC acknow ledg ed wor sening cra cking in Aug ust-September 2013; on July 8, 2014, FEN OC provided, at long last, the supposed root ca use of this worsening , or " propag ating ," c rac king - ice-wedg ing, pe r PI I's 9/11/13 RC A-2. So nea rly at the end of this L RA adjudicatory proce eding , FEN OC has admitted what wa s clea r to I nterve nors since 2011: the c alculations of NRC staff eng ineer s which sug g est that the Shield Building is permea ted by cra cking which thre atens the c ontinued usefulness a nd stability of the structure itself, and the bur g eoning evidenc e of inc rea sing c rac king, must be c oncede d validity

, and ther e ar e ser ious questions surrounding the basis for g ranting a 20-y ear extension of Davis-Be sse's oper ating life which must be a djudicated in this license r enew al proc eeding.FAC TS WHIC H REQUIRE EXPANDED NEPA C ONSIDERATION AND/OR UNDERCUT A FINDING OF 'REAS ONABLE AS SURANC E' The doc ument identified as " ," the "F ull Appare nt Cause Evalua tion"(her einaf ter "FACE") which is par t of the F ENOC RAI L etter da ted J uly 3, 2014 but not 2 disclosed to the ASL B, I nterve nors and the public until J uly 8, 2014, is the focus of this filing

.The fa cts which justify rew orking of the NEPA doc ument for the lice nse extension, and which additionally underc ut a finding of "r easona ble assura nce" that the public hea lth and safe ty would be ade quately protec ted during the proposed 20-y ear license e x tension term ar e many.1. Water is satu ratin g the shi eld buildin g walls, but n ot all sou rces have been considered FEN OC's consultant, Perfor mance I mprovement I nterna tional ("PI I"), c onducted the investiga tion and compilation of the Appa rent Cause Evaluation. PI I lear ned that ther e is wate r saturating the Shield Building concr ete a t 10 inches of de pth. FACE, p. 34/98 of .pdf. I n 2012, FEN OC or its contrac tors seale d bore hole s made for investiga tion into t he cr acking , and wa ter from within the walls appe are d in them.

Id. PI I conclude s that coating the outer w alls of the Davis-B esse Shield B uilding has "

preve nted a f inite amount of moisture from lea ving the structure. Until this moisture dissipates it contributes to the water acc umulation mechanism require d for I ce-Wedging." Id. at 35/98 of .pdf.

A petrog raphic examination of the core samples was a lso conducted.

Id. at 34/98 of .pdf.

I nspection under a Scanning Electron Mic roscope (SEM) re veale d the pre sence of microc rac ks.Id. A quantitative appr oach w as deve loped to assess the micr ocra ck density in the core samples.Id. At multipl e depths, e vidence of F ree ze-Thaw da mag e and e vidence of wa ter tra nsport in the form of Ettring ite cry stals formation and micr ocra cks ema nating from pore s was found.

Id. The NRC ADAMS No. M L141 84B18 4.2 maxi mum microcra ck density was ne ar the outer most lay er of the conc rete (within the first 2 in).

The microc rac ks emana ting f rom pores a t the laminar c rac k locations wer e pre sent at a lowe r density than shallower locations.

Id. On ac count of the w ater detec tion insi de the bor es, the water analy sis, and the pre sence of microc rac ks emana ting f rom pores a t depths up to 10 in, the prese nce of excess water was c onfirmed.

Id. Ettringite is a hy drous ca lcium aluminium s ulfate mineral. F ENOC asser ted in its Februa ry 2012 Root Cause Analy sis that when ettring ite is found lining the a ir voids in shield buil ding c oncre te it "sug g ests long-term exposure to moisture migr ating throug h the conc rete." RRCA at 25.

Owing to a hig h content of sa lt within t he structur e's wa lls, there is an ong oing w ater-borne c orrosive e ffe ct which e x cee ds the corr osion from outside the Shield Building. FACE, p.

39/98 of .pdf. The prese nce of corr osive ag ents has ser ious impl ications for r ebar embedde d in the Shield Building walls: Corrosion of embe dded metal is one of the main ca uses of fa ilure of c oncre te structure s (ACI 201.2R, ACI 222R). The c ritical ele ments neede d for c orrosion to occ ur are water , ox y g en, and c hloride ions, which in turn make s permea bility the main conc rete proper ty that influence s corr osion resistance. The hig h alkalinity (pH>12.5) of the concr ete pr otects the thin iron-oxide film on the surfac e of the steel, thus making the steel passive to cor rosion."F ENOC-Da vis-Be sse Nucle ar Powe r Station, Unit 1, S ubmittal of Contractor Root Cause Assessment Report - Sec tion 1," ADAMS No. ML 12138A037, pp. 180-181/257 of .pdf.

3 I n "I nterve nors' Third Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 At 1 80-181/257 of .pdf , 201 2 Revis ed Ro ot Caus e Ana lysis by PI I: "Corr osi on o f e m bed ded 3 m et al is one of th e main c aus es of fa il ure of con cr et e s tr uct ure s (ACI 201.2R, ACI 222 R). T he cr it ic al el ements nee ded fo r c orr osi on t o oc cur ar e wat er , oxygen, and chl ori de i ons , whi ch i n tur n mak es per m eab il it y the main c onc re te pr ope rt y that in fl uen ces cor ros ion re si st anc e. T he high al kalin it y (pH>12.5) of th e c onc re te pr ote ct s t he t hin ir on-oxi de f il m on t he s urf ace of th e st eel , th us making the s te el pas si ve to c orr osi on."

(Shield Building Cracking)" (J uly 16, 2012), they pointed out that there w as no examination of admitted cra cking of the Shield Building Dome, or the below-g rade Shield Building w alls in the 2011-2012 investig ation, despite the re velation that the shield building dome , built in 1973, was seale d in 1976 but not before it had display ed cr acking (so three y ear s' worth of w ater soaking into dome, flowing down side wa lls occurr ed). Mor eover , NRC RAI s in late 2011/ear ly 2012 asked a bout the "B liz zard of 1977," w hich was ne arly as troublesome a s the "B liz zard of 1978."

Water inflow throug h the Shield Building dome might ha ve contr ibuted to water in the walls which, once the blizz ards a nd other fr eeze-thaw eve nts init iated cr acking , propag ated it via ice

-wedg ing. A s I nterve nors war ned in 2012, the whitewa shing of the Shield Building has now locked the w ater in the walls. Thus, eve ry time it freezes, a nother 0.4 to 0.7 inche s of circ um-fer ential ice-wedg ing c rac k sprea ding ta kes plac e, as I nterve nors pointed out in their September 2, 2014 filing. This is ag ing-rela ted, it ge ts worse with ea ch winter fre eze-thaw cy cle.I n PI I's 2012 Revised Root Cause Ana ly sis, FENOC asse rts that a wa terproof ing membrane was installed below-g rade on the shield building e x terior. RRCA p. 33. The RRCA also reve als that the dec ision was taken in 1969 to not seal the inter ior or exterior of the shield building, nor the below-g rade shield building wa lls. S o the Shield Building was lef t wide open to damag ing w ater infiltration, from above , the sides, and be low, as we ll as inside-out, probably for economic r easons. De spite these moisture intrusion pathway s dating to 40 y ear s ag o, FEN OC persists in excluding from the A MP discussion any examination of the dome or the be low-g rade shield building wa lls. Cracks in the dome, fa iled seala nt on the dome exterior, and c erta inly the seala nt-lacking , deg rade d water-bar rier a t the base, a nd unseale d below-g rade Shield Building walls, are all vulnera biliti es to wate r inflow to the SB w alls, that could worse n ice-wedg ing c rac k propag ation. PI I conclude s that "the [ext erior Shield B uilding] coating has ef fec tively blocked out external wate r intrusion and locke d in moist ure or water exis ting in the struc ture prior to the coating. This condition will have an impact on the moisture move ment and distribution within the shield building wa ll as descr ibed." F ACE, p. 41/98 of pdf.

PI I conclude s that "[w]

hile application of the coating has ef fec tively preve nted wate r from ente ring the shield building, its application has a lso prevente d a finite a mount of moisture from lea ving the structure (fa ilure mode 6). U ntil thi s moisture dissipates it provides the water acc umulation mechanism requir ed for I ce-Wedging , and ther efor e is identified as Causa l Fac tor 2." F ACE, p. 55/98 of .pdf. PI I rea ched this conc lusion after a dmitti ng g rave ly mistaken assumptions at the time the decision to coat the Shield B uilding wa s taken:

The pre sence of moisture is inhere nt in any concr ete struc ture, a nd as in the ca se of the shield building, it wa s not believed to pose a ny challeng es to the coa ting e ffor t.Water discover ed in plug g ed bore s prior to coa ting a pplication was be lieved to have enter ed fr om the outside environment, howe ver the possibili ty of existi ng water within the shield building wa s posed as fe asible. Howe ver, the belief w as that had the water come f rom inside of the shield building, the amounts discovere d wer e small enoug h to prese nt no adver se ef fec t to the shield buildi ng.FACE, p. 63/98 of .pdf

.Until the moist ure w ithin the walls "dissipates, it provides the wate r ac cumulation mecha nism required f or ice-we dg ing, a nd there fore is identified as the Contributing Cause to the laminar c rac king pr opag ation." Id., p. 65/98 of .pdf. The moisture level in the Shield Building concr ete incr ease d from 65% a s measure d in 2011 to 90-100% as mea sured in 2013.

Id., 76/98 of.pdf.2. There is an issu e of f act as to wheth er the Sh ield Bui lding conform s to its l icensing basis PI I conclude s that "[a] review of e ng ineer ing a naly sis documentation develope d following the initial laminar cra ck condition, demonstrate d that the shield building re mained structura lly adequa te for the controlling load ca se(s) a nd is in compliance to the c urre nt desig n and licensing bases." FACE, p. 55/98 of .pdf. This statement is highly suspect, and pr obably false.I n a May 8, 2012 email from Timothy Riley of NRC's offic e of O CA to Ohio's two U.S.

Senators (Exh. A here to), Riley noted that FE NOC "c oncluded in its Shield Building Root Cause Report dated F ebrua ry 27, 2012, that the SB [Shield Building], with the laminar cr acking in its walls, was ope rable but non-confor ming to the c urre nt desig n and licensing bases with re g ard to the desig n stress ana ly sis methodology , and the torna do allowable stre ss values."

I n an NRC I nspection Report c overing the per iod Dece mber 1, 2011 throug h May 9, 2012, ref ere nced in the Riley email, the NRC confirms that the Shield B uilding cr acking meant that the building f ailed to meet its licensing basis: For the Dire ct Cause CA No. 2, the licensee will develop an e ng ineer ing pla n to re-establish desig n and licensing basis for the SB. Henc e, the lice nsee w ill meet their proce dure r equire ments for a ddressing the Dire ct Cause (Refer ence NOB P-L P-2011,"F ENOC Cause Ana ly sis"). B ased upon the proposed a ctions and ong oing N RC reviews for this are a, the NRC team c oncluded that the c ontinued capa bility of the SB to pe rfor m the desig n safe ty functions would be a ssured. I n particula r, the NRC L RA review s will include an e valuation of the pr og ram for monitoring of the shield building cr acking. The NRC team also confir med that that license e had a ssigne d site staff (e.g., owner s) to eac h Direc t Cause CA with rea sonable due dates.ADAMS no. ML 12173A023.

I n "I nterve nors' F ifth Motion To Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking)" (Aug. 16, 2012), the I nterve nors amasse d considera ble evidenc e mostly g leane d from F OI A re quests conce rning depar tures of the Shield Building f rom Davis-Be sse's cur rent lice nsing ba sis (CL B). For example, Document B

/23 [11/17/11; Davis-Be sse Containment Sy stem Primary Steel Containment and Shield Building. (1 pag e)], at Pag e 28 of 101 on PDF counte r, conta ins the statement that "[t]

he shield building w as desig ned to withstand forc es g ener ated by desig n bases se ismic events," but this assertion is cha lleng ed, if not outrig ht undermined, by Document B

/1's reve lations. I nterve nors cited NRC's admission, "The exis ting as-f ound condition of cra cking in the concr ete of the shield building ha s raised que stions on the ability of the struc ture to maintain its ability to perfor m its design func tions under conditions that would introduce a ctive for ces (such as a seismic event or potentially rapid c hang es in the environmenta l conditions)," as supportive of its call for a hear ing on the merits of these issues.

At pp. 41-42 fr om I nterve nors' Doc ument B/26 [11/22/11; Em ail from A. Sheikh, NRR to E. Sanchez Santiag o, RI I I on Questions for the Confe renc e Call. (1 pag e)] [beginning on Pag e 39 of 101 on PDF c ounter], at p. 41 [NRC staffe r] Sheikh's states: "The lice nsee is using numerous assumptions in his sum mary repor t and ca lculations that are not describe d in the UFSAR and A CI 318-63, and still calls it a desig n basis calc ulation. Can the licensee provide justification for this approa ch." Fr om I nterve nors' Doc ument B/36 [12/02/11; Em ail from B. L ehman, NRR to S. Sakai, NRR et al. FW: Davis Be sse POP. (2 pag es)] [which beg ins at Pag e 52 of 101] [commencing at Pag e 55 of 101 on PDF counter]: "The licensee still has unre solved questions to answer reg arding the desig n basis of the plant. B asica lly , when the SB was built the requir ements and codes it wa s built under wer e for an uncr acke d building. B eca use the building is now cra cked, the question of whethe r the SB still meets the re quirements as state d in the FSAR [Final Safety Analy sis Report]

and licensing basis needs to be evalua ted."

I n I nterve nors' sec tion discussing Doc ument B/44 [12/13/11; Em ail from M. Ga lloway , NRR to A. Sheikh, NRR et al., RE: Davis-B esse Shield B uilding. (1 pa g e)], at Pag e 66 of 101 on PDF counte r, they observe d that "Abdul Sheikh admits 'Davis B essee [sic] shield building has not been de signe d for c ontainment acc ident pressure and temper ature.'" A bdul Sheikh also stated in Docume nt B/26 that "I am conc erne d that the conc rete will fail in this reg ion due to bending in this reg ion even unde r small loads."

Given that ac cording to PI I in the FACE r eport, "the laminar c rac king of the shield building is unique with respe ct to reinfor ced c oncre te" (FACE, p. 63/98 of .pdf

); that FEN OC has just belatedly admitted a complete reve rsal of its forme r positions and acknow ledg ed that there is an ong oing c rac king pr oblem rela ted to an as-y et unre solved conc rete water saturation situation; t hat coa ting the e x terior of the Shield Building has "a ppare ntly" visited unexpected complications upon FEN OC; and that continued c rac king is so proba ble that a monitoring eff ort throug hout the 20-y ear license e x tension has bee n postulated, there is an issue of fa ct as to whether the Shield Building confor ms to it s curr ent licensing basis.3) Inaction is not effec tive Corrective Action The "corr ective a ction" which is propose d for the Shield B uilding is mere ly "monitoring the cr ack pr opag ation condition." FA CE, p. 66/98 of .pdf.

FEN OC's policy of opposing repa irs of small exterior cra cks may be counte rproduc tive. The a ssertion that "the shield building coating was c ompleted in October of 2012 and w ould there fore preve nt subsequent wate r intrusion" ig nores the pote ntial for new outer-w all cra cks as fissures to continue to foste r wa ter intrusion.

Id., 40/98 of .pdf. On the sa me pag e, PI I points out that "[t]he Da vis-Be sse maintenanc e rule manual states that c rac ks 1/16 in or less do not need to be re paire d." Id. FEN OC's policy ag ainst repa iring cra cks may promote the spre ad of ne w or additional exterior wall cr acking.The re medy proposed by FEN OC and PI I is mini mal expansion of bores (4 more) to try to captur e info on wha t the sever e 2013-2014 w inter we ather might have cause d to the Shield Building , to conduct annua l monitoring and sa mpling throug h 2018, then to g o to biannual monitoring a nd sampling throug h 2026, and ultimately to move to ever y-four-y ear monitoring and sampling at that point throug h 2037. FACE, pp. 67-68/98 of .pdf.

PI I admits that "there are no Correc tive Actions being implemented to mitigate a dverse conditions," only shield building monitoring a ctivities which will be trac ked throug h the Correc tive Action prog ram. F ACE, p. 70/98 of .pdf.

I n 2012, I nterve nors identified the micr ocra cking phenomena and ca lled for tests to investiga te for the m ext ensively. The PI I "Revised Root Cause Ana ly sis" of spr ing 2012 4 mentioned micro-c rac king, a nd I nterve nors petitioned for a djudication to investiga te in detail the possibili ty that the cr acking problems wer e not containe d by coating the Shield Building and that they wer e indee d ag ing-rela ted and thus within the scope of this L RA proce eding. PI I and FEN OC now admit that micro-c rac king, c aused by fre eze-thaw cy cles, is ag ing-rela ted.Contemporaneously in 2012, FENO C was discover ing e x cessive w ater prese nce in test boring holes in the Shield Building a nd not telling the ASL B, the parties to this proce eding , or the public, not even its contra ctor, PI I , which discove red the water prese nce in bor e holes in late 2013. FACE, p. 22/98 of .pdf. The two y ear s of conc ealment of the pre sence of incre ased w ater conce ntrations in the Shield Building w alls, espec ially throug h the uniquely sever e winter of htt p://pb adu pws.n rc.gov/do cs/ML1 213/ML1 2138 A037.p df 4 2013-2014, has a lmost certainly worsene d the sprea d of cr acking. PI I's September 2013 F ACE admits that there is 0.4 to 0.7 inches of circ umfere ntial cra ck g rowth per fre eze and a cknow-ledg es up to 10.8 inches of additional cra cking per two y ear s beca use of the w ater prese nce a nd ice-wedg ing it ca uses.By "I nterve nors' Third Motion to Amend and/or Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking)" (July 16, 2012), they broug ht microcra cking to the ASL B's 5 attention.

See id., pp. 3-5. I n "I nterve nors' Motion to Amend and Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cra cking)" (J uly 23, 2012), they mention micro-cr acking at 6 pp. 7-8, 27, 40, and 46.

I n "I nterve nors' Motion to Amend and Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield Building Cracking)" (J une 4, 2012), I nterve nors mentioned (a t p. 6): 7 The c onclusion that "the B liz zard of '78 did it" is viewe d with skepticism because the eng ineer ing liter ature is disputed over how for cef ul the delivery of pre cipitation must be for it to penetrate concr ete. I n an ar ticle, "Qua ntification of Water Pene tration I nto Concrete Throug h Cracks by Neutron Radiog raphy ," The 3rd ACF I nterna tional Confere nce-ACF/VCA 2008, 925, M. Ka nematsu, Ph.D., I. Maruy ama, Ph.D., T.

Nog uchi, Ph.D., H. I ikura, Ph.D. and N. Tuchiy a, re sear ch eng ineer s, found that:

[W]ater pene trates throug h the cr ack immediate ly afte r pouring and its migr ation speed a nd distribution depends on the moisture condition in the concr ete. With another de tailed ana ly sis, it i s understood that the wa ter ha s rea ched a round 50mm depth in the horizontal crac k, but 20-30mm depth in the vertica l cra ck immediately afte r pouring water. Fr om these re sult it is detecte d that water rea ches to the 25-30mm depth in few minutes af ter it is expos ed to wate r and in 30 minutes it reac hes to the 80mm. This means wate r will be supplied to the re bar w ith few minutes' sca ttered showe rs. htt p://www.be yondnuc le ar.or g/sto ra ge/3r d%20%20M oti on%20COM PLET%2 0su pp%20c ra cke 5 d%20c onc re te%2 0co nta inment%20c ont ent ion%2 0J uly%2016%2 0201 2.pd f htt p://www.be yondnuc le ar.or g/sto ra ge/4t h%20M oti on%20PI I%2 0COMP LET.pdf 6 htt p://www.be yondnuc le ar.or g/sto ra ge/J une%2 04%2020 12%20M otn%2 0to%2 0Am end%2 0Sup 7 p%20Con tn%205%20COM PLET E-1.pd f (Emphasis supplied). I nterve nors asser ted furthe r in that filing tha t Davis-B esse ha s other wa ter problems inside the shield building, pointing out that in RAI response s dated May 24, 2011 (ML 11151A90), the N RC st aff had noted a "history of g round wa ter infiltration into the annular space betwee n the conc rete shield building and stee l containment." And tha t during a 2011 AMP audit, NRC staff also re viewed doc umentation that:

[I]ndi cate d the pre sence of standing water in the annulus sand pocke t reg ion. The standing water appea rs to be a r ecur ring issue of g round wa ter lea kag e and a rea s of corr osion were observe d on the containment ve ssel. I n addition, during the audit the staff revie wed photog raphs that indica te pee ling of clea r coa t on the containment vesse l annulus are a, and de g rada tion of the moisture barr ier, c oncre te g rout, and sea lant in the annulus are a that we re installed in 2002-2003.

Id. at 47/280 of .pdf.

"I nterve nors' Motion to Amend and Supplement Proposed Contention No. 5 (Shield B uilding Cracking)" a t 12.I nterve nors submit now, as they did in 2012, that "there has bee n no considera tion nor discussion which addre sses the possibilit y that much less than the dr ama of the B liz zard might have pr oduced the damag e." F ENOC ar g ued the "Blizz ard of '78" in 2012, to deny ag ing-rela-tedness and r ender I nterve nors' c halleng es about c rac king outside the scope of this procee ding.As I nterve nors wer e sug g esting on J une 4, 2012 that g rea ter sig nificanc e should attac h to mere"sca ttered showe rs" a nd their possible influence on the cr acking issue, FEN OC was either conce aling , or, at be st, ignora nt of the sig nificanc e of, the prese nce of water in the walls.

FEN OC had found wa ter in the bore holes " in 2012," PI I repor ted on September 11, 2013.

But F ENOC had c onsidered it so little water a s to be insignific ant. And, F ENOC assumed, the water must have come in throug h the bore holes themselves, fr om the exterior SB side wa ll surfa ce, due to rain. PI I in September 2013 c onfirmed that the w ater in the walls was inter nal in nature , not sneaking in throug h the bore holes on the exterior surfa ce. A nd PI I also found that the water in the walls was sy mptomatic and a ke y cause of the ice-we dg ing c rac k propag ation. Wit hout a full-spec trum investiga tion into water sourc es, it is not li kely that the dehy dration of the Shield Building walls ca n be ac complished. This source of standing g roundwa ter identified above by I nterve nors could we ll be wicking water up into the walls. PI I in the FACE trie s to assure that the wate r in the wa lls will dissipate over time, but there is no ex planation as to how this will happen, or when. The whitewash pr events the w ater in the walls from e scaping that way.The standing water on the g round is a sourc e of w hich could we ll be moving into the wa lls.And so FEN OC, acknow ledg ed only in Aug ust-September 2013 tha t it had supposedly lear ned for the first time that the cr acking was g etting w orse. And it wa s not until J uly 2014 that the company disclosed this revela tory PI I FACE r eport to the ASL B, the I nterve nors, and the public. For two y ear s the fac ts of water saturating the Shield Building , with ice-w edg ing e ffe ct throug h the most difficult and bitterly cold winter of the 21 Century , was ke pt from the st L icensing Boa rd, I nterve nors, and the public.

LEGAL STANDAR DS a. Tim eliness of this A m ended/Supplem entation Under the ASL B pa nel's I nitial Scheduling Or der ("I SO") in this proce eding , a new contention must meet the re quirements of the former (that is, pre-Aug ust 2012) 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i) throug h (iii), which provide d that I nterve nors may submit a new conte ntion only with leave of the pre siding off icer upon a showing that: (i) The information upon which the a mended or new c ontention is based was not previously available

(ii) The infor mation upon which the ame nded or ne w contention is based is mate rially differ ent than informa tion previously available

(iii) The a mended or new c ontention has bee n submitt ed in a timely fashion base d on the availability of the subseque nt information.

8 The pre siding AL SB in this case state d at p. 12 of the I nitial Scheduling Or der, A SL BP No.11-907 L R-BD 01 (June 15, 2011) that "The B oard dire cts that a motion and propose d new c ontention shall be dee med timely under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(iii) if it is filed within six ty (60) da y s of the date when the ma terial infor mation on which it is based first bec omes ava ilable to the moving pa rty throug h service , publication, or any other mea ns."I nterve nors re spectfully submit t hat their a mendment and suppleme ntation of Contention 7 are timely filed bec ause this Motion has been f iled within six ty (60) da y s of the provision of the J uly 3, 2014 RAI letter a nd its enclosures by FEN OC's counsel on July 8, 2014. CA's May 16 posting da te and c onforms with the ASL B's I nitial Scheduling Or der. Shaw Areva MO X Servic es, Inc. (Mix ed Oxide Fuel F abric ation Fa cility), L BP-08-10, 57 NRC 460, 493 (2008). I nterve nors have also moved in a timely manner under 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2)(i)-(iii).1) Information not previously available The infor mation upon which I nterve nors' a mendment and suppleme ntal fac ts are ba sed was a vailable f or the fir st tim e whe n distributed to the ASL B a nd the par ties by FEN OC's counsel on July 8, 2014. This filing is timely as it is being ma de on the f irst business day afte r the 60 day following J uly 8, which wa s September 6, 2014, whic h fell on a w eeke nd. 10 C.F.R.

t h Lic ens ing Boar d Or der (Initi al Sch edu li ng Order) a t 1 2 (J une 15, 2011) (unpu bli she d)8[he re ina ft er I SO].

§ 2.306(a)

. Although the ASL B pa nel stated in its J uly 25, 2014 order in this case that 9 FEN OC's modifications to Davis-B esse's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram we re pr ovided on J uly 3, 2014, Amendment No. 51 to the Da vis-Be sse L RA actua lly was distributed on Jul y 8, 2014. (See also fn. 1, infra). I nterve nors could not file this contention re g arding modifications 1 0 to Davis-B esse's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram until they wer e plac ed in the public domain on J uly 8.I f a c ontention satisfies the timeliness require ment of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f

)(2)(iii), then, by definition, it is not subject to 10 C.F.R. 2.309(c), which spec ifically applies to nontimely filings.The thre e (f)(2) fac tors are not mere e labora tions on the "g ood cause" fa ctor of § 2.309(c)(1)(I), since "g ood cause" to file a nontimely contention may have nothing to do with the fac tors set forth in (f)

(2). Entergy Nucle ar Vermont Y ankee , LLC , and Entergy Nucle ar Operations, Inc

.(Ve rmont Yanke e Nuc lear Power Station), L BP-06-14, 63 NRC 568, 573 (2006).

2) Materially different information The infor mation upon which this new conte ntion is based is materially differ ent than information pre viously available prior to J uly 8, 2014. The Atomic Safe ty and L icensing Boa rd ("A SL B") pane l itself indicated as muc h in its own J uly 25, 2014 ruling by pointing out this opportunity for I nterve nors to file a ne w contention. I n the J uly 25 order , the ASL B w rote: "T he l ast day of th e pe ri od s o co m put ed i s i ncl ude d un le ss it is a Sa tur day or Sund ay, a Fe der al 9 le gal hol ida y at t he p la ce wher e t he a ct ion or event is to occ ur, or a d ay upon whic h, be cau se of an e m er gency clos ure of th e Fe der al gov er nm ent in Wa shi ngton, DC, NRC Head qua rt er s do es not ope n f or bus ine ss, in whi ch e vent t he p er iod ru ns u nti l t he e nd o f t he n ext day th at is not a Sat urd ay, Sunda y, Feder al le gal hol ida y, or emergency cl osu re."T he L ic ens ing Boar d ac knowled ged in the J uly 25, 2014 or der th at th e J uly 3, 2 014 le tt er fr om 1 0 FENOC's cou nse l t o t he ASL B and par ti es "i s da te d J uly 8, 2 014. Enc los ure 1 t o t he l et te r i s dat ed J uly 3, 2 014." Or der , fn. 89.

To the extent that I nterve nors have proff ere d Contention 6 in advance of future modifications to the rele vant AMPs that they assume will occur as a r esult of the re cently identified structura l problems, it is premature. The Boa rd notes that the modifica tions to Davis-B esse's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram, a nticipated by the I nterve nors, wer e provided on July 3, 2014 in Amendment No. 51 to the Da vis-Be sse L RA. Specific intervenor conce rns re g arding specific portions of L RA Amendment No. 51 may be submitt ed to the B oard in a timely manner for its consider ation as spec ified by our I nitial Scheduling Orde r.1 1 Wit h the J uly 3, 2014 "modifica tions to Davis-Be sse's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram," FEN OC saw it as nec essar y to modify its moni toring prog ram due to rec eiving confirma tion from its contractor , PI I , in Aug ust-September, 2013 tha t there w as pre viously undetec ted cr acking , and wor sening cra cking , in the Shield Building. PI I's "F ull Appare nt Cause Evaluation" ("F ACE") r epre sents signific ant, new, ma terial infor mation.3) Timeliness of the amended or ne w contention This new conte ntion has been submitted in a timely fashion, within six ty (60) da y s of the availability of the subseque nt information, namely , the J uly 8, 2014 notification to the ASL B a nd the par ties of modifications to Davis-B esse's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram, a ccompa nied by the disclosure of PI I's "F ull Appare nt Cause Evalua tion.".ADMISS IBILITY CRITE RIA Contentions mus t meet the admissibility criter ia set for th in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)

, which re quires ea ch conte ntion to: (1) provide a spe cific state ment of the issue of la w or fa ct to be ra ised; (2) provide a brie f explanation of the basis for the contention; (3) de monstrate that the issue raised in the c ontention is withi n the scope of the proc eeding; (4) demonstra te that the issue MEM ORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying I nte rvenor s' Mo ti on f or Adm is si on o f Co nte nti on 1 1 No. 6 o n Shi el d Bui ldi ng Concr et e V oid , Cra cking and Br oken Reb ar Pro ble m s), Fir st Ener gy Nucl ear Oper ati ng Co mpany (Da vis-Bess e Nuc le ar Power Sta ti on, Un it 1), Docket No. 50-346-LR, ASLBP No. 11-907-01-LR-BD01, J uly 25, 2014 , Page 16 , in te rna l c it at ion s omitt ed.

raised in the c ontention is material to the finding s the NRC must m ake to support the lice nsing action; (5) pr ovide a c oncise stateme nt of the alleg ed fa cts or expert opinions in support of the petitioner's position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hea ring; and (6)provide suff icient information to show that a g enuine dispute e x ists with t he applica nt/licensee on a mater ial issue of law or fac t, with refe renc e to spec ific disputed portions of the a pplication.

A fa ilure to meet a ny of these c riteria r ender s the contention inadmissible. 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(I)-(vi). These admissibili ty criter ia ar e addr essed in turn be low.1) Specific stateme nt of the issue of law or fact to be raised The propose d contention appe ars be low. Amended w ording appea rs in italics.

FEN OC's revisions to the AMPs in its Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram, da ted J uly 3, 2014, acknow ledg e not only the risk, but the re ality , of ag ing-rela ted cr acking propag ation - that 1 2 is, worsening - in the alre ady sever ely cra cked Shield B uilding, an a dmission which brings the issue within the scope of this L icense Renewa l Application proce eding. FEN OC's proposed modifications to its S hield Building Monitoring Prog ram AMPs, reg arding the scope (ar eas of the Shield Building to be examined), sample size (number of tests to be per formed), and the fre quency of its surveillance activities, are woef ully inadequa te. Signific antly more c ore bor es, as well as a broade r diversity of compleme ntary testing me thods should be require d, and at a much g rea ter fr equenc y than FE NOC has propose

d. The c rac king phe nomena must be identified, analy zed and addr essed within the F inal Supplemental Environmental I mpact Statement for the license r enew al both in the consideration of alternati ves to granting the 20-y ear license exte nsion for Davis-Besse as well as in the Sev ere Ac cident Mitigation Alternatives analysis (SAMA). The crack ing problems do not support a conclusion that t here is "reasonable assurance" that Davis-Besse can be ope rated in a manner protec tive of the public health and safety under the A tomic Energy Act during the 20-y ear proposed lice nse ex tension period.

The F ACE evalua tion provided as Enc losure 2 to FE NOC's Jul y 3 RAI letter ve rifies to a deg ree of scientific cer tainty , ag ing-rela ted cr acking is spreading throug h the Shield Building walls, which buttresse s I nterve nors' Septembe r 2, 2014 Contention 7 filing a nd ensure s that this issue falls within the scope of this L icense Renewa l Application proce eding. FEN OC's proposed See "FENOC's RAI Let te r, J uly 3, 2 014," E ncl osu re 2. 1 2 modifications to its S hield Building Monitoring Prog ram AMPs, reg arding the scope (ar eas of the Shield Building to be examined), sample size (number of tests to be per formed), and the fre quency of its surveillance activities, are woef ully inadequa te. Signific antly more c ore bor es, as well as a broade r diversity of compleme ntary testing me thods should be require d, and at a much g rea ter fr equenc y than FE NOC has propose

d. The c rac king phe nomena must be identified, analy zed and addr essed within the F inal Supplemental Environmental I mpact Statement for the license r enew al, both as par t of the Sever e Ac cident Mitiga tion Alternatives ana ly sis (SAMA) and as pa rt of the c onsideration of a lternatives to a 20-y ear opera ting lice nse extension. .

Moreove r, the pre sence of unre solved and c ontinuing cr acking of the Shield Building

, which per forms seve ral ke y safe ty and prote ctive func tions relative to the Da vis-Be sse nuclea r rea ctor, should be he ld not to suffice to provide "

adequa te assura nce" as re quired by 10 C.F.R. § 54.29: A re newe d license ma y be issued by the Commiss ion up to the full term authorized by

§ 54.31 if the Commissi on finds that: (a) Actions have been ide ntified and ha ve bee n or will be take n with respec t to the matters identified in Para g raphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section, such tha t there is rea sonable a ssuranc e that the a ctivities authorized by the re newe d license w ill continue to be conduc ted in acc ordanc e with the CL B, a nd that any chang es made to the plant' s CL B in order to c omply with this parag raph a re in a ccor d with the Act and the Commi ssion's reg ulations. These matter s are: (1) mana g ing the eff ects of a g ing dur ing the period of e x tended ope ration on the functionality of structure s and compone nts that have be en identified to re quire re view under § 54.21(a)(1); . . . .

2) Provide a brief e xplanation of the basis for the contention I n light of the reve lations in August-Septe mber 2013 of pr eviously undetec ted cr acks a nd the conc lusion that they wer e wor sening (propa g ating), I nterve nors cha lleng e the a dequac y of FEN OC's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram AMPs proposed f or the 2017-2037 lice nse extension period. Specifica lly , FEN OC's testing f reque ncy is inadequate , and may become less adequa te over time (via re laxed, less freque nt testing). T he Shield Building walls are saturate d with water , and ther e is no forma l expl anation as to how tha t circumstanc e, which he lps to cause cra cking of the c oncre te walls, will be re medied. I n light of r ece ntly-misidentified cra cking , which wa s undere stimated, investiga tory inspections and conc rete sample ana ly sis must take place on a more fre quent basis than biannua lly or eve ry fourth y ear , which F ENOC proposes.

The number of cor e bore s to be examined should be signific antly incre ased ove r the mea g er number propose d by FEN OC. Vast ar eas of the Shield Building surfa ce a rea , and volume, would fall outside of F ENOC's Monitoring Prog ram AMPs, as cur rently construed, in lig ht of the meag er sa mpling prog ram propose

d. The scope of the testing should also be sig nificantly expanded.Given the importanc e of the Shield Building to ra diologica l containment, such a s the proper functioning of the Emer g ency Ventilation Sy stem, as we ll as a biolog ical shield, and a 1 3 tornado a nd missil e shield, and thus to public health, saf ety , and envir onmental protec tion, and 1 4 Davis-B ess e Nuc le ar Power Sta ti on/Lic ens e Re newa l Ap pli cat ion/T ech nic al I nfo rmati on, 1 3 sec ti on 2.3.3.13 Emergency V ent il at ion Syste m. Page 2.3-88 [184/1,81 0 on pdf cou nte r]. T his doc um ent , da te d August 30, 2010 , ap pea rs to have no t b een pos te d at ADAMS nor as si gned an ML number. Ho wever, i t i s po st ed a t t he f oll owin g link on NRC' s we bsi te: htt p://www.nr c.gov/rea ct ors/op er at ing/l ic ens ing/r ene wal/a ppl ic at ion s/davis-bes se/davis-bes se-lr a.pd f. At s ect ion 2.4.1 CONT AI NMENT (IN CLUDI NG CONT AI NMENT V ESSEL, S HI ELD 1 4 BUI LDI NG, AND CONT AI NMENT I NT ERNAL ST RUCT URES)-SEI SMIC CLASS I , of th e Davis-Bess e Nuc le ar Power Sta ti on/Lic ens e Re newa l Ap pli cat ion/T ech nic al I nfo rmati on, FENOC st at es: "T he S hie ld Buil din g is a con cr et e s tr uct ure sur rou ndi ng the Cont ai nm ent V ess el.I t i s de si gned to pr ovide b iol ogical shi el din g duri ng normal op er at ion and fr om hypoth et ic al acc ide nt con dit ion s. T he b uil din g provide s a m ean s f or col le ct ion and fi lt ra ti on o f f is si on p rod uct le akage fro m th e Con ta inment V ess el fo ll owin g a hypothe ti cal ac ci den t t hro ugh the Em er gency V ent il at ion Syste m , an engine er ed s af et y feat ure des igned f or tha t p urp ose. I n ad dit ion , th e bui ldi ng provide s e nviro nm ent al pr ote ct ion fo r t he Co nta inment V ess el fr om adver se in considera tion of the alre ady sever e, and w orsening , cra cking of the Shield Building , these inadequa cies in the Monitoring Prog ram AMPs are unacc eptable, a nd must be rec tified.3) Demonstration that the issue raised in the contention is withi n the scope of the procee ding FEN OC has re verse d its former position on cra cking of the Shield Building and conside rs there to be ag ing-rela ted risks of cr acking propag ation. As previously noted, 10 C.F.R. § 54.29 allows a lice nse re newa l if the Commis sion finds that "(a)

Actions have been ide ntified and ha ve been or will be taken . . . suc h that there is reasona ble assura nce tha t the activities authorized by the re newe d license w ill continue to be conducte d in acc ordanc e with the CL B, a nd that any chang es made to the plant' s CL B in orde r to comply with this parag raph a re in a ccor d with the Act and the Commi ssion's re g ulations." These matters include "

(1) mana g ing the eff ects of a g ing during the per iod of extended opera tion on the functionality of structure s and compone nts. . . ."

Respecting the NEPA portions of the c ontention, I nterve nors see k Severe Acc ident Mitigation Alterna tives (SAMAs). F ENOC's consulting contra ctor, PI I , considers the cra cking of the Da vis-Be sse Shield Building to be "unique."

FACE, p. 63/98 of .pdf. Since the cr acking is clea rly site-spec ific, NEPA re quires SAMAs as a Categ ory 2, site-spec ific, consider ation. 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(c)

(3)(ii)(L). SAMAs are the only Categ ory 2 issue with respec t to severe acc idents. Florida Power &

Light C o. (Turke y Point Nuclear G ener ating Plant, Units 3 & 4), L BP-01-6, 53 NRC 138, 160-161 (2001).

Respecting a more serious inquiry into alternatives to continued ope ration of Da vis-at m osp her ic con dit ion s a nd e xte rna l miss il es." Pa ge 2.4-3 [263 of 1,81 0 on PDF co unt er]T his Davis-B ess e NPS/LRA/T ech. I nfo. doc um ent , da te d August 201 0, i s po st ed a t htt p://www.nr c.gov/rea ct ors/op er at ing/l ic ens ing/r ene wal/a ppl ic at ion s/davis-bes se/davis-bes se-lr a.pd f.

Be sse, it is a g iven that the Commissi on may acc ord substantial weig ht to FENOC's pr efe renc es and ec onomic g oals. Nuclear Manage ment Co., LLC (Monticello Nucle ar G ener ating Plant), L BP-05-31, 62 NRC 735, 753 (2005). B ut an ag ency must not craft a set of alter natives so narr owly as to rende r it a for eg one conc lusion that the proposed ac tion will be deemed supe rior.Exe lon Generation Company (Ear ly Site Permit for Clint on ESP S ite), L BP-05-19, 62 NRC 134, 158 n.77 (2005). NE PA does not require an applica nt to look at every conce ivable alter native, but rather require s only considera tion of fea sible, nonspeculative, r easona ble alter natives.Respecting the compromised Shield B uilding, "r easona ble consider ation of alter natives" should mean that a n acc urate economic c osting of the repla ceme nt of the Shield Building should be included in the NEPA a naly sis, along w ith other reme dial steps, such as r eplac ement of por tions of the re inforce d concr ete wa lls. "Reasonable alterna tives for lice nse re newa l proce eding s are limit ed to discre te options that are f easible te chnica lly and ava ilable commer cially , as we ll as the GEI S requireme nt that the "no-a ction" alter native addr ess ene rg y conser vation. Entergy Nucle ar Operations, Inc. (I ndian Point Nuclear Gene rating Units 2 & 3), L BP-08-13, 68 NRC 43, 205 (2008).L eg alistically , I nterve nors' c ontention controver sies fall we ll within t he scope of this L RA proce eding.4. Demonstration that the issue raised is material to t he findings the NRC must make to support the licensing action The NRC is mandated by the Atomic Ener g y Act and N ational Environmental Policy Act to provide re asonable assura nce of public health and sa fety , and envir onmental protec tion, during the proposed 20-y ear license e x tension at Davis-B esse, a nd to take a "

hard look" at environ-mental impacts, as by making predic tive safe ty finding s and conduc ting a n environmenta l

analy sis reg arding the safe ty and envir onmental impacts of the 20-y ear license e x tension.The Shield Building at Davis-B esse is cr itical to radiolog ical conta inment during rea ctor emer g encie s, such as meltdowns or othe r ra dioactive r elea ses. I t can f ilter radioa ctivity to a cer tain extent before it is expelled to the ext erna l atmosphere, a nd it is also essential to defending the I nner Stee l Containment Vessel, and Rea ctor Pressur e Ve ssel ag ainst ext erna l threats, such a s tornadoe s or missiles. The Shield Building f urther pr ovides biologic al shielding during normal opera tions. (See fns. 12 and 13 infra).The seve re, a nd finally-admitted incre ased c rac king of the Shield Building threa tens to fail the Shield Building from per forming its vit al desig n safe ty and envir onmental func tions. I nterve nors cha lleng e the a dequac y of F ENOC's Shield Building Monitoring Prog ram AMPs to g uara ntee the Shield B uilding fulfills its vital safety functions, as re quired by applicable laws and reg ulations.

Also, the NEPA document r equire s a re alistic Severe Acc ident Mitigation Alterna tives analy sis which includes among its assumpti ons a flaw ed Shield Building which may not meet its curr ent licensing basis (CL B). The re quisite decisions on the issues raised by this contention are dir ectly materia l to a license e x tension decision for D avis-B esse. 5. Concise statement of the allege d facts or expe rt opinions i n support of the petitioner's position and on w hich the petitioner intends to rely at hearing I nterve nors incorpor ate he rein by ref ere nce a nd re-alleg e as if w ritten here in "I nterve nors'Motion for Admission of Contention No. 7 on W orsening Shield Building Cra cking and I nadequa te AMPs in Shi eld B uilding Monitoring Prog ram," and the se ction infra entitled "F acts Which Require Expanded NEPA Consideration and/or U nderc ut a Finding of 'Rea sonable Assuranc e.'" 6. Showing of a genuine dispute between the lice nsee on a m aterial issue of law or f act, with reference to specific disputed portions of the application There are sever al g enuine disputes. F ENOC's cr edibility as nucle ar ma nag er a nd opera tor of Da vis-Be sse is broug ht squarely into focus by the re velations that the root ca use(s) (for ther e have be en two prior to the c urre nt "appa rent c ause") do not ade quately encompa ss or explain the cra cking phenomenon.

There is a dispute over w hether Davis-B esse c onforms to its curre nt licensing basis (CL B) mere ly by providing a slig htly more e ng ag ed monitoring prog ram. Part of that dispute is how and why FEN OC intends principally to take samples f rom are as whe re the re a lrea dy are known cr acks, a s opposed to sampling f rom a more dispersed se t of locations on the Shield Building exterior.

The scope of ca usation of the wa ter satur ation within the Shield Building wa lls is disputed; I nterve nors contend tha t insufficiently-inclusive ana ly sis of potential water source s has been unde rtake n. There is a dispute over w hether the SAMA portion of the NEPA doc ument for the lice nse rene wal must take c og nition of the deterior ating state of the Shield B uilding. The re is a dispute over w hether the NEPA-r equire d "har d look" at alter natives to a 20-y ear license e x tension has been a chieve d in light of the r ever sal of position by FEN OC that admits the cra cking problems are likely to be per manent and inc rea singly intrusive into the structural integ rity of the Shield Building.CONCLUSION I f F ENOC ca nnot assure D avis-B esse's safe ty , then the plant must be per manently shut down, not g rante d a 20-y ear license e x tension. I t has bec ome incre asing ly clea r that Da vis-Be sse fails the re asonable assura nce of adequa te protec tion test, given its Shield Building

's ag ing-rela ted deg rada tion, its sever e and w orsening cra cking , and its susceptibility to not properly perf orm vital desig n functions. FE NOC ca nnot be allowed to e ndang er the public throug hout its reg ion by opera ting Da vis-Be sse for 20 a dditional y ear s in such a deg rade d, and wor sening , state.WHEREFORE , Petitioners pray the Atomic Safe ty and L icensing Boa rd pane l allow the amendments a nd supplementation as explained her einabove , and that it admit Contention 7 as amende d and supplemente d for f ull adjudication.

Exe cuted ac cording to 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)/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 CONSULTATIO N P URSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b)

Under signe d counsel he reby cer tifies that he made a since re a ttempt to consult wit h opposing c ounsel for the Nuclea r Reg ulatory Commi ssion St aff and for FirstEne rg y Nuclea r Oper ating Company in an ef fort to re solve the conc erns r aised in the for eg oing Motion. Counsel for F irstEnerg y Nuclea r Ope rating Company indicated in an e mail on September 8, 2014 that FEN OC would oppose I nterve nors' Motion. Counsel for the NRC Staff state d that the Staff did not oppose I nterve nors' rig ht to file this Mot ion, give n the ASL B's mention of the possibilit y in its J uly 25, 2014 order , but reser ved the r ight to oppose it upon re view.

Exe cuted in Ac cord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

/s/ Terry J. L odg e Terr y J. L odg e Counsel for I nterve nors 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

)Docke t No. 50-346-L FirstEne rg y Nuclea r Ope rating Company)September 8, 2014 Davis-B esse Nuc lear Power Station, Unit 1

))CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE I here by cer tify that a copy of the for eg oing "I NTERVENORS' MOTI ON TO A MEND AND SUPPL EMENT CONTEN TI ON NO. 7 O N WORS ENI NG SHI EL D B UI L DI NG CRACKI NG AND I NADEQ UATE AMPS I N SHI EL D B UI L DI NG MONI TORI NG PROGRAM" was deposited in the N RC's Electronic I nformation Exchang e this 8 day of t h September, 2014 a nd was ser ved upon all par ties of re cord.Exe cuted in Ac cord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

/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-27-