ML19272B325
| ML19272B325 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/2019 |
| From: | Curran D C-10 Research & Education Foundation, Harmon, Curran, Harmon, Curran, Spielberg & Eisenberg, LLP |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 50-443-LA-2, ASLBP-17-953-02-LA-BD01, RAS 55327 | |
| Download: ML19272B325 (6) | |
Text
September 30, 2019 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )
_____________________________________)
C-10 RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MINERALOGY DATA AND REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DATA I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.1204, 2.323(b), 2.319(b), and 2.336(d), C-10 Research and Education Foundation (C-10) hereby requests the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) to compel production by NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) of a document or documents containing data regarding the tested mineralogical components of aggregate in Seabrook concrete. C-10 respectfully submits that production of the data is necessary to make a complete record for resolution of the dispute between the parties regarding the representativeness of the Large Scale Testing Program (LSTP) at Ferguson Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) with respect to mineralogical properties of the tested aggregate.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND In support of its admitted contentions in this proceeding, C-10 has submitted the expert testimony of Dr. Victor E. Saouma. See Exhibits INT-001 (direct testimony), Exhibit INT028 (rebuttal testimony), and Exhibit INT030-R (supplemental rebuttal testimony). Dr. Saoumas expert testimony addresses the lack of representativeness of the LSTP test samples on a range of relevant respects, including mineralogical characteristics. See, e.g., Exhibit INT001-R, Section
C.2.1 at 11; Exhibit INT027, Section C.1 at 12-13; Section 7.2 at 30; Section 8.1 at 34-35; Section E.1 at 43. Nevertheless, NextEra has sought to exclude the issue of mineralogical comparability as beyond the scope of the contention, see NextEras Motion in Limine to Strike or Exclude Portions of C-10s Testimony and Exhibits (Sept. 9, 2019). In response, C-10 has demonstrated that the mineralogy of the aggregate in the Seabrook and test specimen concrete falls within the scope of the admitted contention because it affects the length of time ASR has propagated. C-10 Research and Education Foundations Opposition to NextEras Second Motion in Limine at 12; NextEra Energy Seabrook, L.L.C. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-18-4, 87 N.R.C. 59, 106 (2018).1 During the evidentiary hearing on September 24-27, 2019, in response to questions from the ASLB, and in comments regarding testimony by witnesses for NextEra and the U.S. Nuclear 1
As stated in C-10s opposition to NextEras Motion in Limine of September 9, 2019:
Factors such as the geological nature of the aggregates tested thus directly relate to the issue of whether the test adequately reflects ASRs progress over time. As Dr. Saouma states in his Direct Testimony, for example:
- It is well established (Poyet, et al. 2007) that fine aggregates (sand) will yield a faster reaction (by virtue of their high volume to surface ratio which facilitates diffusion) than coarse ones. However, the coarse aggregates will ultimately yield larger expansion than the one caused by the sand. Hence, expansion will be under-estimated in the long run.
- Expansion is highly dependent on types of aggregates. Some are so called early-expansion, others are late-expansion. Overlooking the geological nature of the aggregate and sand will fatally compromise the outcome of any investigation.
- ASR field expansion as high as 3% have been reported in the literature. (Katayama, T. 2017). However, we have no idea of the potential ultimate expansion at Seabrook, because accelerated expansion tests were not performed.
Id. (quoting Exhibit INT001-R, Section C.2 at 11). NextEras Motion remains pending before the ASLB.
2
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staff, Dr. Saouma explained his concern that NextEra had failed to demonstrate the mineralogical comparability of the Seabrook and LSTP aggregates.2 Dr.
Saouma also stated that the information about aggregate mineralogy in NextEras exhibits was insufficiently detailed or quantitative to allow a valid scientific comparison. In response, NextEra witness Matthew Sherman stated that data about the mineralogical characteristics of Seabrook concrete and the LSTP test specimens could be found in one or more reference documents that were listed in one of NextEras exhibits but had not been included in NextEras exhibits.
Judge Spritzer stated that the ASLB would entertain a motion for production of the mineralogical data. Therefore, after learning from NextEras counsel that NextEra would not voluntarily produce the information, C-10 prepared this motion.
III. ARGUMENT The standard for document disclosures in a Subpart L proceeding is relevance. 10 C.F.R.
§ 2.336(a)(2)(i). And the parties duty to disclose relevant information does not end until the ASLB issues its decision resolving the contention. 10 C.F.R. § 2.336(d). Finally, 10 C.F.R. § 2.319(a) the presiding officer has both the duty and all the powers necessary to ensure a fair and impartial hearing.
C-10 respectfully submits that production of the requested data is necessary to ensure that the record is complete with respect to the mineralogical representativeness of the LSTP samples.
As the record stands now, it contains statements by NextEras experts that they have compared the data regarding the Seabrook aggregate and the LSTP aggregate, and have concluded the characteristics are sufficiently alike to ensure the validity of the LSTP test program. The record 2
Because all of the hearing transcripts have not yet been provided to the parties, the factual representations in this motion regarding statements made during the hearing are based on the best recollections of C-10s undersigned counsel and Dr. Saouma.
3
also contains statements by Dr. Saouma that narrative comparisons of the mineralogical characteristics of the aggregates are insufficient. In short, NextEras witnesses have made representations about representativeness of the aggregates based on data that was not provided to C-10, and to which C-10 therefore is unable to respond.
C-10 respectfully submits that the requested data is relevant to its admitted contentions and therefore should be provided to C-10 in order to ensure that the record is complete and that the hearing process is fair. C-10 also requests a reasonable opportunity for Dr. Saouma to give a written expert opinion on the comparability of the Seabrook aggregate with the LSTP test specimen aggregate.3 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ASLB should order NextEra to produce the requested data regarding comparative mineralogy of Seabrook aggregate and LSTP test specimen aggregate.
Respectfully submitted,
__/signed electronically by/___
Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Spielberg, & Eisenberg, L.L.P.
1725 DeSales Street N.W., Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20036 240-393-9285 dcurran@harmoncurran.com September 30, 2019 3
C-10 understands that at least some data regarding the LSTP test specimen mineralogy can be found in Appendix K of Exhibit INT022-R. We also request that any additional data regarding the mineralogy of the LSTP test specimens be provided. For instance, Appendix K describes core samples taken from LSTP samples. It is also reasonable to expect that NextEra tested the aggregate before incorporating it into the concrete of the test specimens.
4
CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), I certify that on September 27, 2019, at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, I spoke with counsel for NextEra in a sincere effort to resolve the issues raised by this motion. Counsel for NextEra stated that NextEra intends to oppose the motion.
___[Signed electronically by]__
Diane Curran 5
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC ) Docket No. 50-443 (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) )
_____________________________________)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 29, 2019, I posted C-10 RESEARCH AND EDUCATION FOUNDATIONS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MINERALOGY DATA AND REQUEST FOR OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL WRITTEN TESTIMONY REGARDING THE DATA on the NRCs electronic hearing docket.
Undersigned counsel notes that the motion is being filed on Sunday September 29 because counsel will be out of her office on Monday September 30, and therefore will not be able to file it then. The motion itself is dated September 30, in order to ensure that the amount of time available to NextEra and the Staff to respond is not unfairly reduced by the Sunday filing.
__/signed electronically by/___
Diane Curran 6