ML12273A008
| ML12273A008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/2012 |
| From: | Shadis R Friends of the Coast, New England Coalition |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23533, 50-443-LR, ASLBP 10-906-02-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12273A008 (20) | |
Text
September 28, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR-BD01 (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS REPLY TO NRC STAFFS ANSWER AND TO NEXT ERAS ANSWER TO INTERVENORS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NEW CONTENTION CONCERNING SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98, Edgecomb, Maine 04556
- - 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket No. 50-443-LR NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR-BD01 (Seabrook Nuclear Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS REPLY TO NRC STAFFS ANSWER AND TO NEXT ERAS ANSWER TO INTERVENORS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NEW CONTENTION CONCERNING SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(h)(1), and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board)
April 4, 2011 Initial Scheduling Order, the Friends of the Coast and New England Coalition (Friends/NEC or we) hereby provides its Reply to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (NRC Staff Answer t and NextEra Answer to Friends/NECs motion for leave to file a new contention regarding NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra), plans to manage Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR). 1 in 1
Friends of the Coast and New England Coalitions Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety- Related Concrete Structures (Aug.
27, 2012) ADAMS Accession No. ML12241A061)
- - 3 concrete at the Seabrook Nuclear Station (Seabrook) during the license renewal period.
Where assertions in NextEras Answer and NRC Staffs Answer coincide, Friends/NEC responds accordingly with a single response.
In its Answer, NRC Staff asserts that while some of the claims in Friends/NECs proposed new contention (ASR Contention) meet the NRCs contention admissibility standards, the entirety of the contention is unjustifiably late and therefore should not be allowed. NRC Staffs lateness charge appears to rest entirely on its view that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Meeting Transcript (ML12207040 - Attached) on which the ASR Contention relies as a supporting basis document contains no new or materially-different information; and that Friends/NEC had access to the same or similar information many weeks NRC Staff concludes that the Atomic safety and Licensing Board (Board) should not admit the ASR Contention under the Commissions regulations. NRC Staff adds somewhat gratuitously, Nevertheless, the NRC Staff views ASR as an important issue which ...the Staff is thoroughly reviewing outside of this hearing. One should hope so, but this statement is, as is NRC Staffs tedious recounting of both its CLB and LRA review efforts, immaterial. Friends/NEC does not in its proposed new contention take issue with the NRC Staffs review, nor is the ASLB charged with oversight of the NRC Staffs review. Friends/NEC takes issue with the adequacy of the licensees ASR monitoring
- - 4 program as an adequate tool to manage aging of ASR-affected concrete structures thyat have a safety function.
Friends/NEC discusses in the following Reply why NRC Staff is altogether wrong in their characterization of the basis for the Friends/NEC proposed new contention, on whether the contention is timely, and whether the ACRS transcript contains new or materially-different information.
II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural and Historical Context -
B. The NRCs Review of ASR at Seabrook The NRC staffs review of ASR at Seabrook Station parallels that of Friends/NEC in that NRC Staff has been considering NextEras reports and responses to requests for additional information , and monitoring NextEras progress in fully characterizing and address the long-term effects of the ASR concrete degradation mechanism at Seabrook Station. NextEra signaled an opinion of sufficiency of examination and analysis by filing an ASR Monitoring Plan as a Supplement to its Concrete Structures Aging Management Plan on May 14, 2012. On July 10, 2012, NRC technical staff reported to the ACRS their dissatisfaction with numerous elements in NextEras review of the ASR problem. Friends/NEC regards this status report as new, materially different information, sufficiently proximate and relevant to NextEras filing of its ASR Monitoring Plan to form a basis for a new contention, which in short says that the ASR
- - 5 Monitoring Plan has no credible scientific underpinning and further, it wont work, so it wont meet the requirements of NRC regulation.
While not agreeing that Friends/NECs Motion for Leave to File a New Contention was timely, nonetheless NRC Staff apparently agrees with Friends/NECs assessment of the ASR Monitoring Program, Currently, the Staff does not believe that NextEras plans to manage ASR are adequate.
The Staff will continue its review of the most recent update to the LRA, the ASR AMP, and only renew the license when it concludes that NextEra has provided a reasonable assurance that it will adequately manage effects of aging from ASR during the period of extended operation. [Emphasis added]
Page 16, NRC Staffs Answer to Intervenors Motion for Leave to File New Contention Concerning Safety-Related Concrete Structures III. DISCUSSION A. NRC Staff Incorrectly Asserts that the ASR Contention Does Not Meet the Timeliness Requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2).
NRC Staff appears to rest its assertion that the ASR Contention does not meet the timeliness requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) entirely on its view that the ACRS July 10, 2012 Meeting Transcript on which the ASR Contention relies as a principal supporting basis document contains no new
- - 6 or materially-different information; and that Friends/NEC had access to the same or similar information many weeks.
In fact, the ACRS Meeting Transcript contains information upon which Friends/NEC relies that is new and materially different in content, context, character, and materiality, from that previously available.
The statements of NRC technical staffer, Abdul Sheikh, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, in particular, are not summaries, but instead report the status and results of ASR investigation, the current respective and differing technical positions of NextEra and NRC technical personnel. The referenced statements are first unambiguous public criticisms by NRC Staff of NextEras approach to assessing the impacts of ASR at Seabrook Station.
These critical statements are material, and newly material, to the decision that the Commission must make with respect to the NextEra Seabrook LRA because they are testimony before the ACRS that must be given at least some consideration in formulating license renewal ACRS review and recommendation of ACRS to the Commission with respect to the Seabrook Station license renewal.
- - 7 The ACRS Meeting Transcript also represents the first statement, sufficiently authoritative, definitive, unambiguous so as to provide documentary basis for NECs contention to issue since NextEra filed its LRA Supplement including the ASR Monitoring Program.
NRC expert Abdul Sheikh casts his comments not as summaries, but in the present and the future. Here he validates one of two Friends/NEC primary concerns offered as basis for the ASR Contention: NextEra has not Developed Reliable Inventory and Analysis on Which to Base an ASR Monitoring Program or Aging Management Program for Affected Concrete Structures ACRS Transcript at 154 4...But I would like to 5 find out about the degradation of mechanical 6 properties of concrete. There we have some 7 difference of opinion with the applicant.
8 The applicant has stated there is no 9 change in the compressive strength of the concrete 10 due to ASR but we have searched the literature also 11 and we have found from among hundreds of appears 12 there is a difference of opinion on this issue. And 13 the consensus is that there is some reduction in 14 compressive strength of concrete due to ASR....
155 24 And also the major item which we have 156
- - 8 1 been fighting for the last so many months is our 2 opinion is that the original design was based on 3 non-ASR concrete. In that non-ASR concrete the 4 design codes provide an implicit relationship 5 between the concrete compressive strength and the 6 shear strength and the bond strength. For instance, 7 if you have a compressive strength of 100 psi it 8 tells you shear strength will be so much percentage 9 of the compressive strength. Because of the 10 cracking in the concrete the tensile strength 11 obviously is -- because cracks is reduced 12 appreciably more than the compressive strength.
13 Similarly, the elastic modulus, similarly the shear 14 strength which is a function of tensile strength.
15 I would like to note here that based on 16 our RAIs for the last 18 months the applicant has 17 finally changed their approach on this issue. And 18 applicant has finally concluded that the compressive 19 strength results alone are not sufficient to manage 20 the aging of the ASR. [emphasis added]
In lines 15 through 20, on July 10, 2012 , Mr. Shiehk makes clear that NextEras change of approach is recent [and therefore it is unlikely to have informed the ASR Monitoring Plan submitted a month earlier on May 16, 2012.]
With respect to Friends/NECs primary concern, expressed as the first basis for the ASR Contention: The Proposed ASR Structures Monitoring Program is not a Functional Effective tool for AMP, Mr. Shiehk validates one of Friends/NECs assertions regarding the ineffectiveness of the applicants offer to opportunistically inspect inaccessible or buried concrete. Mr. Shiehk, for
- - 9 the first time that Friends/NEC can discover, gives a sense of scale for concrete structures now buried and soaking in water or wet soil; in the process, as Friends/NEC said in its ASR Contention motion, pointing out how what NextEra proposes is dwarfed by the enormity of the problem:
ACRS Transcript at 158 17 As we understand now there are 19 18 structures which are affected by ASR based on the 19 extended condition investigation performed by the 20 applicant. Most of these structures are located 21 below grade and they are subjected to about 30 to 40 22 feet of groundwater. Some of these structures are 23 exposed to about 80 feet of groundwater.
24 MR. BARTON: What was that? How many 159 1 feet?
2 MR. SHEIKH: Eighty feet.
3 MR. BARTON: Eight zero?
4 MR. SHEIKH: Right.
5 MR. BARTON: Okay.
6 MR. SHEIKH: But now we understand today 7 that there are some structures which are above grade 8 and they also have ASR.
As Friends/NEC stated in the ASR Contention motion, the applicant has yet to articulate a plan for active management of ASR, such as replacing failed waterproof membrane. There is no
- - 10 sign of a cost/benefit analysis for such an undertaking and worst, no sign that NextEra has even considered it.
NRC Staff states that the Board should reject this basis for the ASR Contention because since modification in 1995, NRC regulations no longer require plans for management of aging mechanisms; only aging effects. NRC Staff correctly points out that there is no LRA requirement for active programs to mitigate aging mechanisms; only to manage aging effects.
Failure to have a plan to prevent contact of water with reactive concrete is failure to have either. As stated liberally throughout the relevant documents, old and new, as cited by Friends/NEC and NRC Staff, the presence of water is necessary for the growth of ASR degradation.
ACRS Transcript Page 154 6 As the applicant has stated in its 7 presentation in order for ASR to occur the concrete 8 structures must have alkali in the cement, reactive 9 aggregates and exposures to water. [Emphasis added]
It follows that predicting the rate of ASR effects growth is next to impossible without ascertaining the degree to which water is present. Thus the elimination of water allows the confident prediction of no growth, , unless we are after something different, once the water present in the concrete is used-up in reactive processes. Friends/NECs point is that it is bad science to
- - 11 handicap ones analysis with a huge unknown, when it can be without penalty eliminated from the equation to achieve the desired outcome.
ACRS Transcript at 160 9 As the applicant stated the 10 waterproofing membrane which was provided during 11 construction on these walls is not functioning. And 12 they don't -- Seabrook does not have a groundwater 13 dewatering system which would prevent the ingress of 14 water into the buildings It remains Friends/NECs position that NRC should reject any plan that includes operating a nuclear plant with safety-related concrete structures in a degraded condition with no consideration of mitigating actions for a 20-year PEO that doesnt commence for 20 years.
It is clear from the excerpts below that NRCs expert does not believe that NextEra has credibly captured the extent of condition of ASR degradation after more than 18-months of NextEra review and NRC Staff interaction on the issue.
Besides raising the obvious questions of competence and adequacy of of dedicated resources and process, the following excerpts give us a window on questions of timeliness. Information on ASR at Seabrook has been dribbling out at an attention span numbing slowness; in bits in pieces too small to form an adequate basis for a contention and with a measured yet halting pace that defies timeliness tied to any LRA activity, such as the subject ASR Monitoring Supplement.
- - 12 ACRS Transcript Pages 159-16 15 So, after the applicant found this 16 problem in the electrical tunnel they went into the 17 containment building. And let's go to the next 18 slide, please. And as applicant also showed this 19 picture in a different way, that there was about 6 20 feet of water in this annular space which is 4 to 6 21 inches wide.
22 Applicant has dewatered the area and you 23 know, they have observed and confirmed that the ASR 24 is present in the right side of the picture where 160 1 I'm looking which is the containment enclosure 2 building. So there is no difference of opinion as 3 far as the containment enclosure building is 4 concerned that there is ASR present.
5 However, we have been going at the area 6 which is the left side of the picture which is the 7 48-inch thick containment building. Initially the 8 applicant stated that ASR is not present in the 9 containment concrete. Recently in response to an 10 RAI the applicant informed the staff that they have 11 observed pattern cracking in the concrete in two 12 areas of the containment that was exposed to 13 groundwater.
14 Based on the walkdown information the 15 applicant determined that the containment concrete 16 may be indicative of ASR. This is the exact 17 statement from their letter. However, the applicant 18 has not performed any further reevaluation or 19 petrographic examination to confirm whether ASR is 20 present in the containment or not.
21 In addition, I am not aware of any
- - 13 22 evaluation the applicant has performed about the 23 structural integrity of the containment building if 24 there is ASR present. The reason for my concern is 161 1 that if ASR is present the concrete is going to be 2 degraded and we need to know over the long term what 3 is the effect of ASR on containment.
6 MR. SHEIKH: I don't know what the 7 extent of the problem, especially the applicant 8 position on different issues have evolved over time.
9 As I explained. You know, initially we were told 10 there's no cracking. Initially we were told there's 11 no ASR. In the recent letter they said it could be 12 indicative of ASR and they found two cracks. So I 13 don't know the extent of the problem.
14 We either need to confirm there is ASR.
15 If there is ASR they have to go through the 16 exercise to see what's the impact of it on the 17 containment.
18 MEMBER ARMIJO: Will you require core 19 samples and petrographic examination from the 20 containment to be satisfied that there is or is not 21 ASR?
22 MR. SHEIKH: Yes, either -- yes, that's 23 one way of looking at it. Because -- or if like the 24 applicant has already stated now recently that the 162 1 containment concrete may be indicative of ASR. If 2 that is the case they have to demonstrate and do 3 further work what is the impact of this ASR on 4 containment concrete.
- - 14 Friends/NEC, more than timely filing based on new materially different information , actually anticipated the emergence of new information substantiating the basis for its contention, Friends/NEC has provided that additional new information in a proposed Supplement, filed September 21, 2012.
NRC Staff mischaracterizes the Friends/NEC contention to its detriment.
Says NRC Staff :
On August 29, 2012, FOTC/NEC filed the ASR Contention in this proceeding. The ASR Contention asserts:
The NextEra Energy Seabrook License Renewal Application, as amended by the Structures Monitoring Program Supplement-Alkali-Silica Reaction Monitoring [Program]. . . fails to demonstrate . . . that the effects of aging on structures and components subject to an aging management review (AMR) are adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis (CLB) for the period of extended operation.
In fact, what Friends/NEC filed included the legal basis for the contention:
The NextEra Energy Seabrook License Renewal Application, as amended by the Structures Monitoring Program Supplement-Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) Monitoring, (dated May 16, 2012 and provided to Friends/NEC in NRC Staff Disclosures, July 6, 2012) fails to demonstrate as required by Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, Section 21(a)(3), of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 54.21(a)(3)), that the effects of aging on structures and components subject to an aging management review (AMR) are adequately managed so that the intended function(s) will be maintained consistent with the current licensing basis (CLB) for the period of extended operation.
- - 15 Next, NRC Staff ignores Friends/NECs two stated basis of the ASR Contention and goes to evaluating eight subsets effectively undermining the relevance and materiality of the ACRS Meeting Transcript that Friends/NEC invoked as supporting basis.
NECs base issues are as stated in the ASR Contention Motion:
(1) First-The Proposed ASR Structures Monitoring Program is not a Functional Effective tool for AMP:
And (2) Second; NextEra has not Developed Reliable Inventory and Analysis on Which to Base an ASR Monitoring Program or Aging Management Program for Affected Concrete Structures NRC Staff goes on to say that, FOTC/NEC assert eight bases for the ASR contention , which involve:
(1) the lack of baseline inspections Actually, this aspect is not about inspections, it is about the lack of a baseline from which to measure ASR growth; something to which the ACRS transcript alludes.
(2) the inadequacy of visual inspections, Visual inspection of surface indications alone is not [an]
adequate gauge [of] the status [of] internal chemical processes such as ASR. Actually, this aspect refers to the inability of visual inspections alone to DETECT the presence of ASR; not as the NRC Staffs references to old information would have it, the necessity of other processes to CONFIRM the presence of ASR detected by visual inspection. Theres a big difference. The Staff also noted in the ACRS Transcript at 170 that it is a well-known fact that the visual examination cannot rule out the presence of ASR. and it is the first time NRC technical Staff has said this that Friends/NEC is aware of through public
- - 16 documents. The documents the NRC Staff cites as documents publicly available prior to the Staffs ACRS presentation all speak to CONFIRMATION, for example, on November 18, 2011, the NRC issued Information Notice (IN) 2011-20 which states, ASR can be identified as a likely cause of degradation during visual inspection by the unique craze, map or patterned cracking and the presence of alkali-silica gel. . . . However, ASR-induced degradation can only be confirmed by optical microscopy performed as part of petrographic examination of concrete core samples. IN 2011-20 further states, Once visual indications of ASR-induced concrete degradation have been identified, additional actions to evaluate and monitor the condition . . . may include confirming the presence of ASR through microscopic examination of concrete cores. Again, visual may not DETECT presence of ASR equals visual inspection program may not catch all ASR v. additional actions needed to CONFIRM visual indications equals visual indications need to be CONFIRMED as they may be false positives. This is a big difference.
The remaining several aspects are similarly mischaracterized, which has the effect of setting up straw men; not reflective of the Friends/NEC filing. The Board should ignore NRC Staffs misshapen criticisms and focus on what Friends/NEC actually filed and its authenticity as witnessed by cold reason, NextEras ASR Monitoring Supplement, and the ACRS Meeting Transcript upon which Friends/NECs proposed new contention is substantially based.
- - 17 In defense of its failure to recognize ASR when visual indications were first found back in 2009 during walk down of aging management review, (AMR) -subject structures, NextEra pleads that ASR was not expected because Seabrook Station was the first nuclear plant to experience ASR. This excuse is entirely lame and specious. Surely NextEra is not proposing that Seabrooks nuclear aspects somehow ward off ASR or that Seabrook is the first large industrial structure to be made of concrete. More directly troubling is NextEras insistence that it will now rely on visual indicators to detect the presence of ASR when it took close to a year to identify the first indications as ASR- despite Seabrook Stations purported consulting with concrete experts; and despite indications by experts on the NRC staff and elsewhere that visual inspections cannot rule out the presence of ASR. It should be noted that Friends/NEC did not, contrary to NextEras Answer move that the Board do anything about NextEras failure to file a complete and accurate application, even though they knew that they had un-quantified concrete degradation of purportedly unknown causation in safety-related structures subject to AMR.
NextEra complains that Friends/NEC filed bald, unsupported conclusions in place of valid contentions. Based on the foregoing discussion of the ACRS Meeting Transcript and the timeliness issue this charge is clearly untrue. Entergy complains that the Friends/NEC ASR Contention is unsupported by expert opinion, which is also untrue. Friends/NEC quotes nothing but expert opinion that supports its criticisms of the ASR Monitoring plan, when it quotes the ACRS Meeting Transcript. NextEra advises
- - 18 that Friends/NEC, having gotten a look at the ASR Monitoring Plan, should have gone out and hired an expert; this somewhat analogous to the presidential candidate who admonished working-class students to go to college with, Borrow money if you have to. Friends/NEC has an established record of securing experts and documentary evidence to support our case and build a good hearing record, given the opportunity, we will do it again.
Date of signature: September 28, 2012 Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)
Raymond Shadis Pro se Representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine. 04556
- - 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
NextEra Energy, LLC ) Docket Nos. 50-443
)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1) ) ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR-BD01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS REPLY TO NRC STAFFS AND NEXTERAs ANSWER TO INTERVENORS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE NEW CONTENTION CONCERNING SAFETY-RELATED CONCRETE STRUCTURES dated September 28, 2012, have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 28th day of September, 2012: Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Paul S. Ryerson, Chair Stop - O-16G4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Washington, DC 20555-0001 Stop - T-3 F23 E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Paul.Ryerson@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Dr. Michael F. Kennedy Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Mail Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: O-16G4 Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: HEARINGDOCKET@nrc.gov E-mail: Michael.Kennedy@nrc.gov Administrative Judge Anne Siarnacki, Law Clerk Dr. Richard E. Wardwell Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Mail Stop: T-3F23 Stop - T-3 F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: Anne.Siarnacki@nrc.gov E-mail: Richard.Wardwell@nrc.gov
- - 20 Steven Hamrick, Esq. Matthew Brock NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Assistant Attorney General 801 Pennsylvania Ave NW Suite 220 Environmental Protection Division Washington, DC 20004 Office of the Attorney General E-mail: Steven.hamrick@fpl.com One Ashburton Place, 18th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 E-mail: matthew.brock@state.ma.us Raymond Shad is David R. Lewis, Esq.
Friends of the Coast Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP New England Coalition 2300 N Street, NW Post Office Box 98 Washington, DC 20037-1137 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 E-mail: david.lewis@pillsburylaw.com E-mail: shadis@prexar.com Mitchell Ross, Esq.
James Petro, Esq.
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 E-mail: mitch.ross@fpl.com James.petro@fpl.com Signed (electronically) by Raymond shadis Pro se Representative Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 Shadis@prexar.com Date of Signature: September 28, 2012