|
|
Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:CONTAINSPROPRIETARYINFORMATION{SUBJECTTOPROTECTIVEORDERReviewofSelectedDocumentsPertainingtotheStructuralEvaluationofSeabrookNuclearPowerPlantByProf.VictorE.SaoumaUniversityofColorado,BoulderSubmittedtoC-10ResearchandEducationFoundationNewburyport,MAFeb.12,20191 CONTAINSPROPRIETARYINFORMATION{SUBJECTTOPROTECTIVEORDER1IntroductionandExecutiveSummaryThisreportpresentsmyevaluationofthelarge-scaletestingofconcretespecimensattheFergusonStructuralEngineeringLaboratory(FSEL)attheUniversityofTexasforthepurposeofevaluatingtheofAlkali-SilicareactionattheSeabrooknuclearpowerplantontheabilityofthecontainmenttowithstandadesign-basisearthquake.IhavealsoreviewedtheelementassessmentofSeabrookconductedbySGH,aconsultanttoNextEraEnergySeabrook,LLC.TheFSELtestprogramsfrommultiplewsthatcannotprovideasolidbasisfortheauthor'sfar-reachingconclusions.Threemajorconcernsarenoted:First,asdiscussedinSection2.3,concreteusedintheFSELtestsisnotrepresentativeoftheconcreteatSeabrook.Thislackofrepresentativenesscutsacrossvirtuallyeverylevelofthetest,includingcharacteristicsofthematerialstested,testconditions,andassumptionsaboutthebehaviorofconcreteunderelementsimulations.Second,asdiscussedinSection3.3,theSheartestsdonothavetheproperboundaryconditions.Theyarealsolimitedtoout-of-planeshear,andsomelargeunexplainedcracksmayhavecorruptedthetestresults.Inaddition,thereisnoevidencethatthelimitstate(i.e.failureshearforce)wascapturedandthusthereisnoevidencethatshearfailurewasindeedcapturedasclaimed.Finally,asdiscussedinSection4.3,thecrackindexmeasurementsreliedonbytheauthorcannotprovideareliableassessmentofthein-situASRexpansion,becauseacrackindexmeasuredonthesurface(wheretheconcreteisrelativelydry)isnotrepresentativeofwhatishappeninginsidethespecimenwheretherelativehumidity(essentialforASR)ismuchhigher.Ofequal{ifnotgreater{concernistheelementassessmentofSeabrookconductedbySimpson,Gumpertz,&Heger(SGH).ThenumericaltechniquefollowedbySGHisadeterministic,linearandsimplisticmethodthatisusedforthedesignofnewstructures.ItisveryregretfulthatSGHdidnotemployinadditiontotheirminimalistanalysistheprobabilisticriskassessmentmethodpioneeredbytheNRC.Whereeasthiswouldhaverequiredanonlinearstaticandseismicanalyses,SGHcouldhaveobtainedamuchmoreaccurateassessmentcommensuratewiththeneedsforsuchacriticalstructure.ThisprobabilisticmethodwaspioneeredbytheNRCandiswell-acceptedasausefultoolforanalyzingthecomplexinteractionsofphenomenainnuclearsafetyanalyses.Myownindependentresearch,conductedonbehalfoftheNRCbetween2014and2017,thatprobabilisticanalysisofASRyieldsmorecredibleresultsthanthetypeoflinearanddeterministicanalysisusedbySGH.ThetestprogramatFSELwasexecutedbyaresearcherwellversedwithlarge-scaletestingandreinforcedconcreteingeneral.However,hispriorexposuretoASRseemstohavebeenlimitedtoapasttestprogramfortheTexasDepartmentofTransportation(testinglargescalebeamswithASR)incollaborationwithProf.Folliard,aninternationallyknownandrespectedresearcheronthematterofASR.ButDr.FolliarddidnotparticipateintheFSELtestprogram.Insummary,itismyprofessionalopinionthatboththeFSELtestprogramandtheSGHiteele-mentanalysisaresubstandardandinadequatetosupportanyconclusionthattheabilityoftheSeabrookcontainmenttowithstandadesignbasisearthquakehasnotbeenundulycompromisedbythepresenceofASR.Finally,asaresearcherandaconcernedcitizen,itisdisturbingthatwhentheNRCwasforthetimeconfrontedwithsuchacomplexissueithasnotsubjectedthevariousstudiestoanindependentreviewpanelofinternationalexperts.WhileNRChasstatedthatitconductedaninternalpeerreview,byitsowntermsaninternalpeerreviewisnotindependent.1.1DisclosureIwastherecipientofNRCGrantNo:NRC-HQ-60-14-G-0010titledExperimentalandNumericalInvesti-gationofAlkaliSilicaReactioninNuclearReactorsfromSeptember30,2014toDec.30,2017,andhaveconductedthisevaluationpro-bono.Otherdescribedinseparatedocument.3}} | | {{#Wiki_filter:CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER Saouma Dec. Ex. 4a Review of Selected Documents Pertaining to the Structural Evaluation of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant By Prof. Victor E. Saouma University of Colorado, Boulder Submitted to C-10 Research and Education Foundation Newburyport, MA Feb. 12, 2019 1 |
| | |
| | CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 Introduction and Executive Summary This report presents my evaluation of the large-scale testing of concrete specimens at the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) at the University of Texas for the purpose of evaluating the effects of Alkali-Silica reaction at the Seabrook nuclear power plant on the ability of the containment to withstand a design-basis earthquake. I have also reviewed the finite element assessment of Seabrook conducted by SGH, a consultant to NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC. |
| | The FSEL test program suffers from multiple flaws that cannot provide a solid basis for the authors far-reaching conclusions. Three major concerns are noted: |
| | First, as discussed in Section 2.3, concrete used in the FSEL tests is not representative of the concrete at Seabrook. This lack of representativeness cuts across virtually every level of the test, including characteristics of the materials tested, test conditions, and assumptions about the behavior of concrete under finite element simulations. |
| | Second, as discussed in Section 3.3, the Shear tests do not have the proper boundary conditions. They are also limited to out-of-plane shear, and some large unexplained cracks may have corrupted the test results. |
| | In addition, there is no evidence that the limit state (i.e. failure shear force) was captured and thus there is no evidence that shear failure was indeed captured as claimed. |
| | Finally, as discussed in Section 4.3, the crack index measurements relied on by the author cannot provide a reliable assessment of the in-situ ASR expansion, because a crack index measured on the surface (where the concrete is relatively dry) is not representative of what is happening inside the specimen where the relative humidity (essential for ASR) is much higher. |
| | Of equal - if not greater - concern is the finite element assessment of Seabrook conducted by Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger (SGH). The numerical technique followed by SGH is a deterministic, linear and simplistic method that is used for the design of new structures. It is very regretful that SGH did not employ in addition to their minimalist analysis the probabilistic risk assessment method pioneered by the NRC. Whereeas this would have required a nonlinear static and seismic analyses, SGH could have obtained a much more accurate assessment commensurate with the needs for such a critical structure. This probabilistic method was pioneered by the NRC and is well-accepted as a useful tool for analyzing the complex interactions of phenomena in nuclear safety analyses. My own independent research, conducted on behalf of the NRC between 2014 and 2017, confirms that probabilistic analysis of ASR yields more credible results than the type of linear and deterministic analysis used by SGH. |
| | The test program at FSEL was executed by a researcher well versed with large-scale testing and reinforced concrete in general. However, his prior exposure to ASR seems to have been limited to a past test program for the Texas Department of Transportation (testing large scale beams with ASR) in collaboration with Prof. |
| | Folliard, an internationally known and respected researcher on the matter of ASR. But Dr. Folliard did not participate in the FSEL test program. |
| | In summary, it is my professional opinion that both the FSEL test program and the SGH finite ele-ment analysis are substandard and inadequate to support any conclusion that the ability of the Seabrook containment to withstand a design basis earthquake has not been unduly compromised by the presence of ASR. |
| | Finally, as a researcher and a concerned citizen, it is disturbing that when the NRC was for the first time confronted with such a complex issue it has not subjected the various studies to an independent review panel of international experts. While NRC has stated that it conducted an internal peer review, by its own terms an internal peer review is not independent. |
| | 1.1 Disclosure I was the recipient of NRC Grant No: NRC-HQ-60-14-G-0010 titled Experimental and Numerical Investi-gation of Alkali Silica Reaction in Nuclear Reactors from September 30, 2014 to Dec. 30, 2017, and have conducted this evaluation pro-bono. |
| | Other qualifications described in separate document. |
| | 3}} |
Latest revision as of 01:59, 20 October 2019
|
---|
Category:Legal-Pleading
MONTHYEARML20279A4812020-10-0505 October 2020 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Reply to Oppositions to Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 ML20272A2742020-09-28028 September 2020 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motion for Leave to File a Reply and Motion for Leave to File INT053 ML20254A2342020-09-10010 September 2020 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10 Motion for Leave and Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-9 ML20254A2352020-09-10010 September 2020 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10 Motion to Reopen the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony ML20244A3212020-08-31031 August 2020 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Motion to Re-Open the Record for Consideration of Supplemental Testimony Regarding License Conditions in LBP-20-09 ML20244A3202020-08-31031 August 2020 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Motion for Partial Reconsideration of LBP-20-09 ML20043E2542020-01-31031 January 2020 Redacted C-10 Research and Education'S Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML20031D6992020-01-31031 January 2020 NRC Staff Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML20031E7222020-01-31031 January 2020 NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Supplemental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19354C4482019-12-20020 December 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Response to Nextera'S Motion for Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19353D4192019-12-19019 December 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Response to Nextera'S Motion for Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19347D0672019-12-13013 December 2019 NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Motion for Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19347D0702019-12-13013 December 2019 NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19333B9702019-11-29029 November 2019 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Seek Leave to File Responsive Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML20043E2522019-11-27027 November 2019 Redacted Corrected C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19325D9092019-11-21021 November 2019 NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of the Law for the Admitted Contention ML19325F3902019-11-21021 November 2019 NextEra Energy Seabrook Llc'S Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ML19310E2592019-11-0606 November 2019 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Third Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Testimony ML19304B3522019-10-31031 October 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Response to ASLB Memorandum and Motion to Submit Additional Exhibits Regarding Petrographic Observations and Analyses of ASR at Seabrook ML19283A0362019-10-0909 October 2019 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motions to Compel Production of Mineralogical Data and to Submit Additional Post-Hearing Testimony ML19272B3252019-09-30030 September 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion to Compel Production of Mineralogy Data and Request for Opportunity to Submit Supplemental Written Testimony Regarding the Data ML19262K7512019-09-19019 September 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Opposition to Nextera'S Second Motion in Limine ML19261B8802019-09-18018 September 2019 NRC Staff'S Answer to Nextera'S Motion in Limine ML19254F1582019-09-11011 September 2019 Appendix a Revised Exhibit List for September 2019 Evidentiary Hearing Exhibits ML19253D6782019-09-10010 September 2019 NRC Staff'S Answer to C-10's Motion to Supplement Rebuttal Testimony ML19252B3072019-09-0909 September 2019 NextEra Answer Opposing C-10 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rebuttal ML19252B2322019-09-0909 September 2019 Nextera'S Motion in Limine to Strike or Exclude Portions of C-10's Testimony and Exhibits ML19247D5932019-09-0404 September 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Rebuttal Testimony ML19235A3172019-08-23023 August 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. Rebuttal Statement of Position on C-10's Contentions Regarding Nextera'S Program for Managing ASR at Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant ML19235A3182019-08-23023 August 2019 Appendix a Revised Exhibit List ML19205A3412019-07-24024 July 2019 NRC Staff Initial Written Statement of Position ML19205A4882019-07-24024 July 2019 NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC Statement of Position and Certificate of Service ML19171A4012019-06-20020 June 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Errata to Exhibit INT-001, Testimony of Dr. Victor E. Saouma ML19161A3722019-06-10010 June 2019 Appendix a Exhibit List ML19161A3712019-06-10010 June 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. Initial Statement of Position on Contentions Re Nextera'S Program for Managing ASR at Seabrook Station ML19123A1912019-05-0303 May 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Opposition to Nextera'S Motion in Limine ML19114A0762019-04-23023 April 2019 Nextera'S Motion in Limine to Exclude Testimony and Exhibits Regarding Structure Deformation Monitoring ML19105B2822019-04-15015 April 2019 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motion Regarding Seabrook Station Site Tour ML19101A4082019-04-11011 April 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion Regarding Seabrook Station Site Tour ML19064B4022019-03-0505 March 2019 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10's Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Answers to C-10's Emergency Petition ML19064A6322019-03-0505 March 2019 Notice of Appearance for Jennifer E. Scro ML19060A3042019-03-0101 March 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Reply to Oppositions by NextEra and NRC Staff to Emergency Petition for Exercise of Commission'S Supervisory Authority to Reverse No Significant Hazards Determination and Immediately Suspend License ML19060A3032019-03-0101 March 2019 C-10 Research and Education Foundation'S Motion for Leave to File Reply to Oppositions by NextEra and NRC Staff to Emergency Petition ML19056A5882019-02-25025 February 2019 NRC Staff Answer to C-10's Emergency Petition ML19056A5862019-02-25025 February 2019 Nextera'S Answer Opposing C-10 Emergency Petition ML19044A7702019-02-13013 February 2019 Exhibit 1 to Saouma Declaration: Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Victor E. Saouma ML19044A7682019-02-13013 February 2019 Emergency Petition by C-10 Research and Education Foundation for Exercise of Commission'S Supervisory Authority to Reverse No Significant Hazards Determination and Immediately Suspend License Amendment and License Renewal Decisions ML19044A7692019-02-13013 February 2019 Declaration of Victor E. Saouma, Ph.D ML19044A7722019-02-13013 February 2019 Exhibit 3 to Saouma Declaration: Sauoma, Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Alkali Silica Reaction in Nuclear Reactors, Final Summary Report ML19044A7732019-02-12012 February 2019 Exhibit 4a to Saouma Declaration: Introduction and Executive Summary 2020-09-28
[Table view] |
Text
CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER Saouma Dec. Ex. 4a Review of Selected Documents Pertaining to the Structural Evaluation of Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant By Prof. Victor E. Saouma University of Colorado, Boulder Submitted to C-10 Research and Education Foundation Newburyport, MA Feb. 12, 2019 1
CONTAINS PROPRIETARY INFORMATION - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 Introduction and Executive Summary This report presents my evaluation of the large-scale testing of concrete specimens at the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) at the University of Texas for the purpose of evaluating the effects of Alkali-Silica reaction at the Seabrook nuclear power plant on the ability of the containment to withstand a design-basis earthquake. I have also reviewed the finite element assessment of Seabrook conducted by SGH, a consultant to NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC.
The FSEL test program suffers from multiple flaws that cannot provide a solid basis for the authors far-reaching conclusions. Three major concerns are noted:
First, as discussed in Section 2.3, concrete used in the FSEL tests is not representative of the concrete at Seabrook. This lack of representativeness cuts across virtually every level of the test, including characteristics of the materials tested, test conditions, and assumptions about the behavior of concrete under finite element simulations.
Second, as discussed in Section 3.3, the Shear tests do not have the proper boundary conditions. They are also limited to out-of-plane shear, and some large unexplained cracks may have corrupted the test results.
In addition, there is no evidence that the limit state (i.e. failure shear force) was captured and thus there is no evidence that shear failure was indeed captured as claimed.
Finally, as discussed in Section 4.3, the crack index measurements relied on by the author cannot provide a reliable assessment of the in-situ ASR expansion, because a crack index measured on the surface (where the concrete is relatively dry) is not representative of what is happening inside the specimen where the relative humidity (essential for ASR) is much higher.
Of equal - if not greater - concern is the finite element assessment of Seabrook conducted by Simpson, Gumpertz, & Heger (SGH). The numerical technique followed by SGH is a deterministic, linear and simplistic method that is used for the design of new structures. It is very regretful that SGH did not employ in addition to their minimalist analysis the probabilistic risk assessment method pioneered by the NRC. Whereeas this would have required a nonlinear static and seismic analyses, SGH could have obtained a much more accurate assessment commensurate with the needs for such a critical structure. This probabilistic method was pioneered by the NRC and is well-accepted as a useful tool for analyzing the complex interactions of phenomena in nuclear safety analyses. My own independent research, conducted on behalf of the NRC between 2014 and 2017, confirms that probabilistic analysis of ASR yields more credible results than the type of linear and deterministic analysis used by SGH.
The test program at FSEL was executed by a researcher well versed with large-scale testing and reinforced concrete in general. However, his prior exposure to ASR seems to have been limited to a past test program for the Texas Department of Transportation (testing large scale beams with ASR) in collaboration with Prof.
Folliard, an internationally known and respected researcher on the matter of ASR. But Dr. Folliard did not participate in the FSEL test program.
In summary, it is my professional opinion that both the FSEL test program and the SGH finite ele-ment analysis are substandard and inadequate to support any conclusion that the ability of the Seabrook containment to withstand a design basis earthquake has not been unduly compromised by the presence of ASR.
Finally, as a researcher and a concerned citizen, it is disturbing that when the NRC was for the first time confronted with such a complex issue it has not subjected the various studies to an independent review panel of international experts. While NRC has stated that it conducted an internal peer review, by its own terms an internal peer review is not independent.
1.1 Disclosure I was the recipient of NRC Grant No: NRC-HQ-60-14-G-0010 titled Experimental and Numerical Investi-gation of Alkali Silica Reaction in Nuclear Reactors from September 30, 2014 to Dec. 30, 2017, and have conducted this evaluation pro-bono.
Other qualifications described in separate document.
3