ML12283A945
| ML12283A945 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/2012 |
| From: | Shadis R Friends of the Coast, New England Coalition |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| RAS 23604, 50-443-LR, ASLBP 10-906-02-LR-BD01 | |
| Download: ML12283A945 (7) | |
Text
October 9, 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 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1)
FRIENDS OF THE COAST AND NEW ENGLAND COALITIONS OPPOSITION TO NEXTERAS MOTION TO STRIKE FOTC/NECS CORRECTED CONTENTION I. INTRODUCTION On September 21, 2012, Friends of the Coast and the New England Coalition (Friends/NEC) filed a correction to its pending contention regarding NextEra Energy Seabrooks (NextEra) aging management program for alkali-silica reaction (ASR) (the ASR Contention).1 Friends/NECs Corrected Contention was intended to correct typographical and scriveners errors . . . for the sake of the record and the convenience of readers . . . together with an errata and corrections index so that readers need not hunt for changes.2 [emphasis added].
On October 1, 2012, NextEra filed a Motion to Strike FOTC/NECs Corrected Contention.
Friends/NEC, through its pro se representative, Raymond Shadis, opposes herein NextEras Motion to Strike.
II. DISCUSSION NextEra brings three complaints regarding Friends/NECs Corrected Contention:
A. The Corrected Contention includes a previously-omitted footnote, which is more than the correction of a typographical error.
Friends/NEC responds that this is quite so; the footnote being inadvertently omitted in transcribing a draft to final copy. The footnote is appended to a Friends/NEC allegation in a
section of the filing referring to NextEras failure to file a complete application addressing all structural defects of which it was aware under 10 CFR §50.9. It was not intended to add basis for the Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) Contention, but rather to illumine how important an extent of condition review, termed here, field history must be to determining how ASR will progress.
The restored footnote reads:
1 These indicators signal the chemical-physical processes underway; but give little information as to the extent, depth, rate of growth, or stage of progress of the processes.
Portland Cement Association P.48 ,PCI Concrete Technology and Codes. The BEST ASR Test The most accurate test for determining deleterious ASR potential is Field History; Structures >15 years old?, Same aggregate?, Same cement/concrete alkali ?, Same SCMs (brand, type, amount)?, Same water content?, Same exposure conditions?
ML12153A420[1] The Condition Survey and Evaluation of Hardened Concrete, Alkali-Aggregate Reactions ,Portland Cement Association (power point, undated)
NextEra states that information previously available may not be used to add basis to a contention. This raises several questions: What of simple applied mathematics? Or, in this case, what of long standing industry knowledge and practice? What is NextEras responsibility to review operating experience in the concrete industry once a problem has been discovered?
Friends/NECs purpose in raising this industry standard for extent-of-condition review is to point to the paucity of NextEras response to ASR in the nearly two years that lapsed between the discovery of deteriorated concrete in structures subject to aging management review and the filing of their ASR monitoring plan.
This is not, as NextEra without basis asserts, and attempt to add basis in the guise of correcting typographical errors. In its transmittal letter, Friends/NEC identified scriveners errors that were to also be corrected. 1 NextEras innuendo and suppositions about Friends/NECs 1 Clerical error or Scrivener's error is an error due to a minor mistake or inadvertence and not one that occurs from judicial reasoning or determination. It can be a mistake made in a letter, paper, or document that changes the meaning of the same. Typographical errors or the unintentional addition or omission of a
motives are provided without basis save for an allusion to difficulties with the testimony of a Friends/NEC witness, Paul Blanch, which occurred under entirely unrelated circumstances in the opening phases of this proceeding. Friends/NEC has not produced its corrections under the strictures of a Board order following oral argument; nor are these corrections to a witness declaration.
Friends/NEC offers that, on the whole, the significance of this footnote; whether it is a minor or major restoration, rests with how significant the Board finds it; in particular where a footnote on page 9 of the Corrected Contention refers back to the Portland Cement Institute slides tying in the statements of NRC expert, Abdul Sheihk regarding NextEras failure to justify proceeding on visual inspections and failure to complete extent-of-condition review in time to inform its ASR monitoring (and management) program. This correction should be allowed to stand.
word, phrase, or figure in writing or copying something on the record are all examples of clerical or scriveners error. Such an error is made by mistake and not purposely and so should be readily remedied without objection. [emphasis added]
US Legal.Com, Definitions: Clerical error/scriveners error/ vitium clerici.
A scriveners error literally refers to a written error. The definition for scriveners error in Blacks Law Dictionary directs the reader to [s]ee clerical error. Blacks Law Dictionary 1349 (7th ed. 1999).
Title 19 CFR 162 : Customs Duties CHAPTER I: U.S. CUSTOMS Subpart G: Special Procedures for Certain Violations 162.71 - Definitions.
(e) Clerical error. Clerical error means an error in the preparation, assembly, or submission of a document which results when a person intends to do one thing but does something else. It includes, for example, errors in transcribing numbers, errors in arithmetic, and the failure to assemble all the documents in a record.
If a litigant notices an omission or an error in a document that has already been served or filed and the litigant wishes to amend or correct the pleading, the litigant should then file a document that is clearly marked as a corrected version of the pleading, and to request leave to substitute the corrected pleading for the original. Such a request (motion) should also explain the differences between the amended pleading and the original, as well as the circumstances justifying the filing of the corrected pleading. USEC, Inc.
(American Centrifuge Plant),
LBP-05-28, 62 NRC 585, 593 (2005). [Emphasis Added]
B. The Corrected Contention includes an added heading regarding the NRCs late filing criteria in 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(2) on page 17 and a prayer for relief in its conclusion on page 18.
These additions, says NextEra, are not as egregious as the addition of threshold support for its visual inspection claim, but they nonetheless contradict FOTC/NECs claim that it intended only to fix typographical errors.
Friends/NEC responds: There was no claim to fix only typographic errors. In fact, the reference to 10 C.F.R.§2.309 (f)(2) was in the draft and its restoration has no material effect; serving only to clarify references to criteria under the section. Further. Friends/NEC did not add a prayer for relief. What Friends/NEC did was to reunite two inadvertently separated paragraphs. The text does not change at all.
C. The Corrected Contention did not include a list of errata and corrections, as it was represented to be included in the transmittal letter.
Friends/NEC responds: This charge is true and Friends/NEC was chagrined , on review of its filing, to find NextEras accusation on this one point was true. It would have been helpful ,
had NextEra simply telephoned or sent an e-mail notifying Friends/NEC of the omission, as we would have soon corrected it. A copy of the errant errata sheet is attached hereto as, Attachment One, along with Friends/NECs apologies for any undue concern or confusion resulting from its prior omission.
III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Board should deny NextEras motion to strike and give what weight it deems proper to the minor substantive restorations.
Respectfully Submitted,
/Signed electronically by Raymond Shadis Dated: October 9, 2012 Raymond shadis Friends of the Coast/ New England Coalition Post Office box 98/ Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801
ATTACHMENT ONE September 19, 2012 Docket No. 50-443-LR Friends Of The Coast and New England Coalitions Motion (With September 19, 2012 Corrections) for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety-Related Concrete Structures ERRATA AND CORRECTIONS Page 3, Paragraph 3 - indent Page 3, Paragraph 3 - spacing, change single to double Page 3, Footnote 3 - inadvertent omission restored per original draft P.48 ,PCI Concrete Technology and Codes. The BEST ASR Test The most accurate test for determining deleterious ASR potential is Field History; Structures
>15 years old?, Same aggregate?, Same cement/concrete alkali ?, Same SCMs (brand, type, amount)?, Same water content?, Same exposure conditions?
ML12153A420[1] The Condition Survey and Evaluation of Hardened Concrete, Alkali-Aggregate Reactions ,Portland Cement Association (power point, undated)
Page 4, Paragraph 4 10 CFR §50.9 quote corrected - indent Page 5, Footnote 5 - Strike citation at Paragraph 3 Page 6, Paragraph 4, Line 3, .capitalize Friends Page 7, Paragraphs 1 and two -correct space between Page 7, Paragraph 2, correct space separating quote Page 8, Paragraph 2, 1st sentence, capitalize, Friends Page 8, Paragraph 2, Omit comma after information Page 8, Paragraph 3, restore double spacing Pages 8 and 9, Under III. CONTENTION, Criteria (i) and (ii), italicize Page 9, Sentence 2, double space restored Page 9, Item 2, visual inspection etc., inadvertent omission restored,(see, footnote 3)
Page 10, Second sentence, Title, Second, etc in bold, single-spaced.
Page 10, Item Number 1, correct inadvertent omission ...Appears nominal or arbitrary Page 10, Item Number 2, Sentence 3, reduce O in NO to small case.
Page 11, Transcript Page 154, Line 23, restore indent.
Page 11, Transcript, Page 156, underline, 156 Page 12, Paragraph 2, correct spelling, Mr. Sheihk and enormity.
Page 12, Last Paragraph, Third sentence, Capitalize, Friends, Space between 20 and years.
September 19, 2012 Docket No. 50-443-LR Attachment One Errata and Corrections Page 14, Contention Criterion (iii) italicize Page 15 Contention Criterion (iv) italicize Page 15, Contention Criterion (v) italicize Page 15, Under Criterion (v) NEC intended corrected to intends Page 15, Contention Criterion (vi) italicize, single-space Page 17, After , SBK-L-12101, Pages 2,3 of 18, added caption, Additional Criteria under 10C.F.R.§309(f)(2) Which May Apply to Late-Filed Contention.
Page 17, Criteria (i) and (iii), italicize, corrected numbering addressing (i) and (iii) together; with (ii) following separately.
Page 17, Computation of Time, strike Part 2, insert 10C.F.R.§2.306 Page 18, Numbering error in inadvertently separating first and second paragraph under, Conclusion (repeated. Recombine and renumber as IV. CONCLUSION with V.
CONSULTATION , etc, following.
October 9, 2012 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of FPL Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra, Inc)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1 - License Renewal Application) Docket No. 50-443 ASLBP No. 10-906-02-LR CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 9th day of October, 2012, a copy of Friends Of The Coast And New England Coalitions Opposition to NextEras Motion to Strike FOTC/NECs Corrected Petition for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning NextEra Energy Seabrooks Amendment of its Aging Management Program for Safety-Related Concrete Structures in the above captioned proceeding, was filed by electronic filing and provided to the persons and parties identified for service in this matter by NRCs electronic filing system.
Signed electronically, Raymond Shadis Friends of the Coast New England Coalition Post Office Box 98 Edgecomb, Maine 04556 207-882-7801