ML19310E259

Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Third Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Testimony

ML19310E259
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/06/2019
From:	Bessette P, Hamrick S, Lighty R Morgan, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, NextEra Energy Seabrook
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY RAS
References
50-443-LA-2, ASLBP 17-953-02-LA-BD01, RAS 55402
Download: ML19310E259 (15)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of: )

) Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC )

) November 6, 2019 (Seabrook Station Unit 1) )

)

NEXTERAS ANSWER OPPOSING C-10S THIRD MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(c), NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) hereby timely files this answer to C-10 Research and Education Foundations (C-10) Motion to Submit Additional Exhibits Regarding Petrographic Observations and Analyses of ASR at Seabrook (Motion).1 More specifically, the Motion seeks leave to submit as an exhibit a document (the Petrography Report)2 that was disclosed and produced to C-10 a year and a half ago,3 along with untimely, supplemental testimony from C-10s expert regarding that document (Proposed Supplemental Testimony).4 As a matter of law, in order to grant the Motion (which would undoubtedly delay this proceeding), the Board must find that C-10 has demonstrated the 1

C-10 Research and Education Foundations Response to ASLB Memorandum and Motion to Submit Additional Exhibits Regarding Petrographic Observations and Analyses of ASR at Seabrook (Motion) (Oct.

28, 2019) (including two proposed exhibits as attachments).

2 Proposed Exhibit INT050, WJE Report No. 2014-3453.2 (May 26, 2016) (Petrography Report) 3 Letter from P. Bessette to N. Hildt-Treat, Initial Disclosures Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.336; NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1), Docket No. 50-443-LA-2, Encl. 2 at 8 (item no. 89) (Jan. 4, 2018);

Letter from P. Bessette to N. Hildt-Treat, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1), Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 (Mar. 20, 2018).

4 Proposed Exhibit INT049, Supplemental Testimony of Victor E. Saouma, Ph.D Regarding Petrographic Documents (Oct. 28, 2019) (Proposed Supplemental Testimony).

existence of unavoidable and extreme circumstances. C-10 cites no such circumstances here, thus the Motion should be denied as untimely and prejudicial.

First, C-10 argues that discovery volume and competing priorities should excuse its untimely filing. But as explained below, such excuses are insufficient as a matter of law. C-10 further argues the Motion should be granted because the Petrography Report allegedly contradicts NextEras testimony in this proceeding,5 and undermines the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Staffs conclusions.6 C-10, however, grossly mischaracterizes NextEras written and oral testimony and the Petrography Report, which is entirely consistent withand in fact bolstersNextEras and the NRC Staffs testimony. Thus, despite C-10s alarmist and inaccurate characterization, the Petrography Report neither contradicts nor undermines NextEras testimony or the NRC Staffs conclusions.

Finally, the Proposed Supplemental Testimony contains a response to the Boards request for a clarification7 regarding C-10s September 29, 2019 Motion to Compel.8 But the Boards request that counsel provide a pleading clarification did not invite C-10 to submit record evidence in response thereto. Thus, that portion of the Proposed Supplemental Testimony is procedurally improper and does not constitute probative evidence. Moreover, as explained further below, the Proposed Supplemental Testimony still fails to identify any unavoidable and extreme circumstances that would warrant further delay of this proceeding. Thus, the Motion should be denied for this additional reason.

5 Motion at 2, 5.

6 Id. at 2, 6.

7 ASLB Memorandum (Request for Clarification) (Oct. 16, 2019) (unpublished) (Memorandum).

8 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 (Sept. 29, 2019) (Motion to Compel).

2

II. LEGAL STANDARDS As this Board has explicitly recognized, the Commission expects its licensing boards to set and adhere to reasonable schedules for the various steps in the hearing process, and the parties likewise are expected to adhere to the time frames specified in the . . . scheduling orders in the proceeding.9 Intervenors may not disregard [adjudicatory] timeliness requirements . . .

at their convenience during the course of a proceeding in order to advance additional arguments based on previously-available information.10 The Commission has instructed that the good cause standard (ordinarily applicable to motions) is different for requests to extend adjudicatory deadlines, which may be granted only when warranted by unavoidable and extreme circumstances (i.e., the Adjudicatory Extension Policy).11 III. THE MOTION FAILS TO IDENTIFY ANY UNAVOIDABLE AND EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES In February 2018, the Board issued a revised scheduling order (RSO) governing the submission of written testimony in this proceeding.12 The RSO provided C-10 with an opportunity to file written direct testimony by June 10, 2019, and written rebuttal testimony by August 23, 2019.13 C-10 took advantage of both opportunities. On September 4, 2019, C-10 further requested leave to file supplemental rebuttal after the deadline for testimony 9

Statement of Policy on Conduct of Adjudicatory Proceedings, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC 18, 21 (1998).

10 Id.

11 Id. (emphasis added). See also Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2), CLI-98-25, 48 NRC 325, 342 (1998); Hydro Res., Inc. (Albuquerque, NM), CLI-99-1, 49 NRC 1, 3 & n.2 (1999)

(We caution all parties in this case, however, to pay heed to the guidance in our policy statement that ordinarily only unavoidable and extreme circumstances provide sufficient cause to extend filing deadlines).

12 See ASLB, Memorandum and Order (Revised Scheduling Order) (Feb. 15, 2018) (unpublished). See also ASLB, Initial Scheduling Order (Nov. 29, 2017) (unpublished).

13 See RSO at 3 (specifying that C-10 written direct testimony and written rebuttal testimony were due 90 days and 165 days, respectively, from the date the final Safety Evaluation (FSE) is issued). The FSE was issued on March 11, 2019. See Letter from to M. Nazar, NextEra, Seabrook Station, Unit No. 1 - Issuance of Amendment No. 159 re: Methodology for Analysis of Seismic Category I Structures with Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction (CAC No. MF8260; EPID L-2016-LLA-0007) (Mar. 11, 2019) (ML18204A291).

3

submission.14 Although the Board acknowledged the Commissions Adjudicatory Extension Policy, it found that the Policy was primarily concerned with modifications of scheduling orders that would delay the completion of an adjudication.15 The Board reasoned that C-10s request would not delay the completion of the adjudication,16 and therefore granted the request on September 16, 2019.17 C-10s expert also provided extensive oral testimony across four days of evidentiary proceedings between September 24-27, 2019.18 Additionally, C-10 has a pending motion to compel production of additional mineralogy data and submit supplemental testimony regarding ASR gel chemistry.19 C-10 now seeks permission to submit a remarkable sixth round of testimony.20 As an initial matter, however, the instant Motion fundamentally differs from C-10s September 4, 2019 request because granting the Motion would no doubt delay the completion of the adjudication.21 In contrast, as the Commission has explained unequivocally, applicants are entitled to a prompt 14 C-10 Research and Education Foundations Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rebuttal Testimony (Sept.

4, 2019).

15 ASLB Order at 3 (Granting C-10s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rebuttal Testimony) (Sept. 16, 2019).

16 Id. at 3 n.13 (The schedule for this proceeding, including the evidentiary hearing, will not be altered by allowing C-10 to file INT030).

17 Id. at 5.

18 See Tr. 214-1203.

19 See Motion to Compel.

20 C-10 filed: (1) Initial and (2) Rebuttal Testimony, (3) the Supplemental Rebuttal, plus (4) oral testimony at the evidentiary hearing. It also has requested permission to file further supplemental testimony as to (5) ASR gel chemistry, see Motion to Compel, and (6) the Petrography Report, see Motion.

21 The Board has 90 days from the close of the record to issue its ruling. See 10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. B § II. The Board would normally close the record after ruling on transcript corrections, see Tr. at 1182, a step the Board has already taken. See ASLB Order (Adopting Transcript Corrections, Transcript Redactions, and Final Exhibit List) (Oct. 29, 2019). Thus, the Board normally would be preparing to close, or already have closed, the record as of the date of this filing. In contrast, granting the instant Motion would require the Board to keep the record open (likely for an additional period of weeks or months) to accommodate the filing of responsive testimony from NextEra and the NRC Staff (which would be required as a matter of fundamental fairness).

This delay in closing the record would, in turn, delay the issuance of the Boards decision.

4

resolution of disputes concerning their applications.22 Thus, because further delay would be prejudicial to NextEras Commission-recognized rights, the Board must strictly apply the unavoidable and extreme circumstances standard from the Adjudicatory Extension Policy to C-10s instant Motion. As detailed below, C-10 identifies neither an unavoidable nor an extreme circumstance (much less an unavoidable and extreme circumstance)23 to explain why it could not have submitted the Petrography Report and corresponding testimony in a timely manner.

A. Discovery Volume and Competing Commitments Do Not Constitute Unavoidable and Extreme Circumstances C-10 argues that the volume of discovery and other employment commitments of its current expert witness should excuse its tardy filing.24 But such excuses have long been held as inadequate justifications for noncompliance with adjudicatory deadlines.25 As the Commission has explained, its timeliness rules require a high level of discipline and preparation by petitioners, who must examine the [] available material and set forth their claims and the support for their claims in a timely manner.26 This obligation is iron-clad.27 Moreover, C-10s excuses are entirely unpersuasive. C-10 submitted 18 Non-Disclosure Affidavits for individuals associated with C-10 to review NextEras disclosures. NextEra went to great effort to strictly comply with its disclosure obligations and to accommodate C-10s large cadre of reviewers, including supplying multiple USB drives to its team of reviewers for each document production. Furthermore, C-10 originally listed three additional experts in its 22 Adjudicatory Extension Policy, CLI-98-12, 48 NRC at 19.

23 Id. at 21.

24 Motion at 7.

25 See, e.g., Commonwealth Edison Co. (Byron Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-81-30-A, 14 NRC 364, 373 (1981).

26 AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 271-72 (2009).

27 See generally N. States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-10-27, 72 NRC 481, 496 (Sept. 30, 2010).

5

disclosures in January 2018,28 and then added one of Dr. Saoumas post-doctoral colleagues as yet another reviewer to assist him in reviewing documents and preparing his testimony.29 All of these individuals presumably were capable of supporting C-10s document review. Thus, C-10s claim that Dr. Saouma single-handedly had to review 350 documents by himself rings hollow. Ultimately, C-10, not Dr. Saouma, is the party here. Thus, C-10 had the legal obligation to conduct a timely review. Notwithstanding, the Commission has long held that intervenors have an unwavering obligation to review the record closely and to raise their arguments promptly, otherwise, NRC adjudicatory proceedings would prove endless.30 That is precisely why the Commission must insist that intervenors and all parties be disciplined in their scrutiny of the record.31 So too here.

As is clearly evident from the above, C-10 had more than an ample opportunity to review and submit testimony on the Petrography Report well before the start of the evidentiary hearing, but failed to do so. And the Board already has generously permitted C-10 to file additional testimony not contemplated in the scheduling order. But this proceeding cannot be endless.

At bottom, the proposed submissions are long overdue. That is the fault of C-10not NextEra, nor the NRC Staff, nor the Board. Thus, as a matter of law, the Motion must be denied as untimely and prejudicial.

28 See C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. Summary of Discovery Items and List of Experts (Jan. 3, 2018).

29 See Letter from D. Curran to NextEra and NRC Staff Counsel, Signed Non-Disclosure Declaration of Mohammed Hariri-Ardebili, Seabrook LAR Proceeding, Docket No. 50-443 LAR (Aug. 14, 2019).

30 Hydro Res., Inc. (Rio Rancho, NM), CLI-04-33, 60 NRC 581, 591 (2004) (emphasis added).

31 Id. (emphasis added).

6

B. Dr. Saoumas Mischaracterization or Misunderstanding of NextEras Testimony and the Petrography Report Does Not Identify Unavoidable and Extreme Circumstances C-10 further argues that the Motion should be granted because the Petrography Report allegedly contradicts NextEras testimony at the evidentiary hearing,32 and allegedly undermines the NRC Staffs conclusions.33 However, these allegations are the erroneous product of an imprecise reading of the Petrography Report and a fundamental mischaracterization or misunderstanding of NextEras written and oral testimony. More specifically, the Petrography Report discusses a series of cores that were removed from portions of a single building (the RHR Equipment Vault) at Seabrook because surface cracking was detected at those locations.34 Petrography was performed and showed (not unexpectedly) that, for some of the cores, ASR was more severe internally than at the surface of the core.35 C-10 then claims NextEras witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that ASR is always more severe at the surface of concrete structures [than on the interior].36 But C-10 is wrong. As is clear from the existing record in this proceeding and as explained further below, NextEras witnesses clearly understood and fully acknowledged that internal ASR can be more severe than surface ASR. Instead, NextEras witnesses unambiguously testified that surface cracking will indicate the presence of internal ASR even if that cracking is not caused by surface ASR.37 In 32 Motion at 2, 5.

33 Id. at 2, 6.

34 Petrography Report at PDF page 7 (noting that the purpose of the petrography was to identify the causes of cracking that had been detected in a previous assessment).

35 See, e.g., id. at PDF page 19 (Of the eight cores with ASR, Core 2 was the only one that exhibited the most severe ASR in the top portion of the core).

36 Motion at 2.

37 See, e.g., SGH Testimony at A65 (NER004) (The FHWA Guideline notes that surface cracking will developeven when the surface region is not expanding).

7

other words, C-10 erroneously conflates surface ASR with surface cracking. The Petrography Report fully supports, and even strengthens, NextEras existing testimony.

1. C-10s Claim That NextEras Witnesses Testified that Surface ASR Is Always More Severe Than Internal ASR Is Categorically Untrue C-10 claims that NextEras witnesses testified at the evidentiary hearing that ASR is always more severe at the surface of concrete structures [than on the interior].38 But NextEras witnesses said no such thing. For example, C-10 cites Mr. Shermans testimony that [ASR] is never worse at depth within the core concrete than what is indicated at the surface.39 But the indication to which Mr. Sherman is referring is the presence of cracking at the surfacenot the level of ASR at the surface. Mr. Sherman repeatedly testified about the adequacy of the crack width indexing technique precisely because surface cracking will occur (and thereby identify the presence of internal ASR) regardless of the presence or severity of ASR at the surface level.40 In other words, NextEras expert testified that there simultaneously could be internal ASR expansion along with zero ASR at the surface, but the internal ASR expansion would manifest itself through surface cracking. The Petrography Report highlights this precise phenomenon in which surface cracking alerted NextEra to the potential presence of internal ASR, which was then analyzed exactly as contemplated in the SMP. Thus, C-10s characterization of the Petrography Report as somehow contradicting NextEras testimony is demonstrably untrue.

38 Motion at 2.

39 Id. at 5 (citing Tr. at 397) (emphasis added).

40 See, e.g., Tr. at 497 (Mr. Sherman analogizing surface concrete without ASR expansion to a dry lake bed, and noting that cracking will still occur due to surface shrinkage or subsurface expansion/deformation that drags all those top pieces along); id. at 499 (Mr. Sherman explaining that, [v]ery specifically, since th[e] surface is not expanding [due to ASR], [crack indexing is] actually catching more of the inner expansion thats happening).

8

As another example, C-10 cites Dr. Bayraks testimony that the notion of a hidden crack on the inside is directly refuted by 200 cores that have been taken by the plant.41 C-10 portrays this statement as somehow contrary to statements in the Petrography Report regarding ASR that was more significant at depth.42 But Dr. Bayraks statement is entirely unrelated to ASR severity gradients. Rather, Dr. Bayrak was responding to Dr. Saoumas unsupported speculation that hidden mid-plane cracking or delamination somehow could occur. NextEras experts have consistently testified that surface cracking (whether caused by shrinkage, ASR, deformation, etc.) will signal the potential presence of internal ASR; and that the SMP requires removed cores be inspected for mid-plane cracking and delamination. The Petrography Report in no way contradicts that testimony. Indeed, the cores discussed in the Petrography Report were removed because surface cracking signaled the potential presence of internal expansion.43 Thus, nothing was hidden, and NextEras process worked precisely as intended. Moreover, some of the cores with surface cracking ultimately had no internal ASR whatsoever, further validating the conservative nature of NextEras SMP. To the extent C-10s Motion characterizes the Petrography Report as somehow contradicting Dr. Bayraks testimony, its characterization is demonstrably untrue.

As noted above, the Petrography Report is entirely consistent with NextEras argument that surface cracking (and thus, crack width indexing) is an excellent indicator of internal ASR expansion even if ASR is not present (or is less severe) on the surface of a structure. Thus, the Petrography Report certainly does not contradict NextEras testimony.

41 Motion at 5 (citing Tr. at 705).

42 Id.

43 Petrography Report at PDF page 7 (noting that cracking had been detected at those locations, thus triggering the core removal and petrography).

9

2. C-10s Claim That the Petrography Report Undermines the NRC Staffs Conclusion Is Meritless Second, C-10 claims that the Petrography Report somehow undermines the NRC Staffs conclusion regarding the adequacy of NextEras SMP.44 More specifically, C-10 cites Ms. Bufords testimony that any potential internal ASR that is severe enough to challenge the licensing basis of the structures (i.e., would prevent them from performing their intended safety functions) will be accompanied by surface indications (i.e., cracking).45 C-10 then alleges that the Petrography Report somehow contradicts Ms. Bufords statement because it shows that internal ASR may be more severe than surface ASR. But this is another apples to oranges comparison. C-10 again conflates the concepts of surface cracking (the surface indicator to which Ms. Buford was referring) and surface ASR severity (which was clearly not the subject of Ms. Bufords testimony) and in any event is irrelevant in the context of the SMP. The record unquestionably demonstrates that the SMP looks for cracking regardless of the presence or severity of ASR. Ultimately, C-10s claim that the Petrography Report contradicts or undermines the NRC Staffs testimony is entirely meritless.

3. C-10s Assertions That the Proposed Exhibits Support Dr. Saoumas Testimony and Are Responsive to a Statement by Judge Trikouros at the Evidentiary Hearing Are Irrelevant, Inaccurate, and Do Not Identify Unavoidable and Extreme Circumstances Third, C-10 alleges that the Petrography Report supports Dr. Saoumas testimony that surface ASR conditions are not reliable indicators of the severity of ASR within Seabrook structures, because the surface is drier than the interior of the concrete.46 But as explained above, NextEras SMP does not rely on surface ASR conditions. Again, NextEras SMP 44 Motion at 2, 6.

45 Id. at 6 (citing Tr. at 693).

46 Motion at 6 (citing Proposed Supplemental Testimony, paras. 8 & 9).

10

conservatively looks for (and at) surface cracking, regardless of the cracking mechanism. Dr.

Saoumas opinion in this regard simply misreadsand therefore does not disputeNextEras actual SMP. And C-10s desire to repeat this irrelevant mischaracterization of the SMP in another round of unnecessary testimony certainly does not demonstrate unavoidable and extreme circumstances warranting a delay of the proceeding.

C-10 also claims that the proposed exhibits are responsive to a question posed at the evidentiary hearing. More specifically, C-10 quotes the following observation from Judge Trikouros:

The testimony has been on this that of all the core samples that were investigated by NextEra, they didnt see any evidence of this asymmetric effect that youre talking about, where the effects were much more severe internally than would be indicated by surface cracking.47 Judge Trikouros correctly observed that the parameter of interest specified in the SMP is surface cracking. Judge Trikouros did not state, as C-10 suggests, that surface ASR severity is the parameter of interest. Thus, C-10s assertion that Judge Trikouros requested that Dr. Saouma provide evidence that ASR severity may be greater internally than on the surfacea concept on which there is absolutely no dispute among the partiesis simply mistaken.48 Ultimately, C-10s claim that the proposed submissions are essential to a complete and meaningful record are meritless and unpersuasive. And in any event, they provide no basis for a conclusion that 47 Id. at 6 (quoting Tr. at 450) (emphasis added).

48 Moreover, Judge Trikouross encouragement to Dr. Saouma to look at this issue was made on Day 1 of the evidentiary hearing, and presumably requested that Dr. Saouma provide his input on Day 2. See Tr. at 451.

And Judge Trikouross statement explicitly referred to Dr. Saouma reviewing a document from Dave Stark.

Id. It is a far stretch to construe this brief statement from Judge Trikouros as an open-ended invitation to review other documents disclosed almost two years ago or to submit untimely, irrelevant, and duplicative post-hearing testimony at-will.

11

unavoidable and extreme circumstances exist and warrant the filing of an additional, untimely round of testimony.

C. Dr. Saoumas Proposed Testimony In Response to the Boards Request for a Clarification of Counsel Is Procedurally Improper and Still Fails to Identify Unavoidable and Extreme Circumstances The Motion seeks leave to submitas an evidentiary exhibitthe Proposed Supplemental Testimony. Notably, as Dr. Saouma notes therein, [t]he purpose of this supplemental testimony is two-fold, one of which is to respond to questions raised by the

[ASLB] in its October 16, 2019 Memorandum (Request for Clarification) (Memorandum).49 In that Memorandum, the Board requested that C-10 review certain documents and inform the Board whether they contain data responsive to C-10s Motion to Compel. But the Memorandum in no way suggested that C-10s clarificationregarding an adjudicatory pleadingshould be supplied in the form of record evidence in this proceeding. And C-10 does not attempt to explain how a pleading clarification (supplied in paragraphs 2-4 of the Proposed Supplemental Testimony) somehow could be admissible as evidence in this proceeding. Nor could it. Thus, the Board should deny C-10s request to enter the Proposed Supplemental Testimony into the evidentiary record.

Furthermore, neither C-10s Motion nor Dr. Saoumas statements in the Proposed Supplemental Testimony articulate a basis for granting the Motion to Compel and permitting the extensive record already before the Board to be supplemented with further testimony regarding ASR gel chemistry (aka gel type).50 Dr. Saouma purportedly reviewed the documents listed in the Boards Memorandum and concluded that they were sufficient to allow a comparison of the 49 Proposed Supplemental Testimony at 1 ¶ 1.

50 Memorandum at 3.

12

physical aspects of mineralogy.51 This is not surprising because NextEra deemed the physical aspects of aggregate mineralogy to be a critical representativeness parameter for the LSTP.52 But Dr. Saouma has no concerns with that aspect of the LSTP.53 However, Dr. Saouma states that the documents listed in the Boards Memorandum do not provide an analysis of the chemical aspects of mineralogy, which he asserts is necessary to ensure adequate representativeness.54 But there exists absolutely no dispute that NextEra concluded gel chemistry was not a critical representativeness parameter for the LSTP.55 Consistent with available industry guidance and academic literature (which does not differentiate ASR on the basis of gel chemistry),56 NextEra neither relies on nor credits in its methodology any alleged representativeness of gel chemistry. Indeed NextEra explicitly designed the LSTP specimens to have aggregate that is more reactive than Seabrook to ensure that the specimens would expand quickly and experience bounding expansion. Thus, to the extent Dr. Saouma argues that NextEra should have considered ASR gel chemistry a critical parameter, he already testified to that position at the evidentiary hearingand further testimony would be duplicative and unduly cumulative. And to the extent Dr. Saouma seeks to demonstrate that the gel chemistry in the LSTP specimens and Seabrooks concrete are, in fact, dissimilar, such an argument is irrelevant and immaterial because NextEra intentionally did not rely on or credit gel 51 Proposed Supplemental Testimony at 2 ¶ 4.

52 See, e.g., MPR-3757 §§ 1.2, 3.2.1; MPR-4262 § 4.3.2.

53 Dr. Saouma agrees there is a very strong similarity in aggregate physical properties between Seabrook and the LSTP specimens. Tr. at 1074.

54 Proposed Supplemental Testimony at 2 ¶ 4.

55 See MPR-3757 § 3.2.1. The coarse aggregate attributes considered in the LSTP were those related to structural performance. These included: coarse aggregate type/source, coarse aggregate grading and coarse aggregate proportion. Differences in coarse aggregate reactivity were acceptable in order to achieve bounding ASR expansion levels in a short time.

56 See, e.g., Tr. at 986.

13

chemistry representativeness in its program. Ultimately, and in either case, the Motion fails to identify unavoidable and extreme circumstances warranting further duplicative or immaterial testimony and a delay of the conclusion of this proceeding.

IV. CONCLUSION For all of the many reasons stated above, C-10s Motion should be denied and the Board should close the record of this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d) Executed in Accord with 10 C.F.R. § 2.304(d)

Steven Hamrick, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 220 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 349-3496 Phone: (202) 739-5796 Fax: (202) 347-7076 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5274 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Dated in Washington, DC this 6th day of November 2019 14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of: )

) Docket No. 50-443-LA-2 NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK, LLC )

) November 6, 2019 (Seabrook Station Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, the foregoing NEXTERAS ANSWER OPPOSING C-10S THIRD MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY was served upon the Electronic Information Exchange (the NRCs E-Filing System), in the above-captioned proceeding.

Signed (electronically) by Ryan K. Lighty Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20004 Phone: (202) 739-5274 Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC DB1/ 109623037