ML19205A488

NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC Statement of Position and Certificate of Service

ML19205A488
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/24/2019
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 55112
Download: ML19205A488 (41)

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 )

) July 24, 2019 (Seabrook Station Unit 1) )

)

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK LLCS STATEMENT OF POSITION Steven Hamrick, Esq. Paul M. Bessette, Esq.

NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC Ryan K. Lighty, Esq.

801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 220 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP Washington, D.C. 20004 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Phone: (202) 349-3496 Washington, D.C. 20004 Fax: (202) 347-7076 Phone: (202) 739-5796 E-mail: steven.hamrick@fpl.com Fax: (202) 739-3001 E-mail: paul.bessette@morganlewis.com E-mail: ryan.lighty@morganlewis.com Counsel for NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTENTION ........................................................................ 3 III. APPLICABLE LEGAL AND REGULATORY STANDARDS ...................................... 4 A. License Amendment Standards.............................................................................. 5 B. The Reasonable Assurance Standard ..................................................................... 5 C. Technical Standards Applicable to the LAR ......................................................... 6 D. Burden of Proof...................................................................................................... 8 E. Scope of Contentions ............................................................................................. 9 IV.

SUMMARY

OF NEXTERAS EVIDENCE..................................................................... 9 A. NextEras Witnesses ............................................................................................ 10

1. Seabrook Plant Personnel ........................................................................ 10

2. MPR Personnel ........................................................................................ 11

3. Dr. Oguzhan Bayrak ................................................................................ 12

4. SGH Personnel ......................................................................................... 13 B. Primer on Structural Adequacy ............................................................................ 15 C. ASR and Its Impacts on Structural Adequacy ..................................................... 15 D. Description of NextEras LAR ............................................................................ 17 E. NextEras LAR Provides Reasonable Assurance and Complies with Applicable Regulations ........................................................................................ 20

1. The LSTP Yielded Data That Are Appropriate for Use to Represent ASR-Affected Concrete at Seabrook ...................................... 20

2. The Structures Monitoring Program Is Fully Supported, Provides Reasonable Assurance, and Complies with Applicable Regulations....... 24

3. The Structural Evaluation Methodology Is Fully Adequate .................... 26 V. THE CONTENTION SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF NEXTERA ............ 28 A. Representativeness ............................................................................................... 30 B. Monitoring Techniques ........................................................................................ 32 C. Further Core Sampling ......................................................................................... 34 D. Inspection Intervals .............................................................................................. 36 VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 38

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 )

) July 24, 2019 (Seabrook Station Unit 1) )

)

NEXTERA ENERGY SEABROOK LLCS STATEMENT OF POSITION I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.1207(a)(1), and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Board) Revised Scheduling Order1 and Case Management Instructions,2 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (NextEra) submits this Statement of Position (SOP) regarding C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc.s (C-10) Contention, as admitted by the Board in LBP-17-7. This SOP is supported by the Testimony of NextEra Witnesses Michael Collins, John Simons, Christopher Bagley, Oguzhan Bayrak, and Edward Carley (MPR Testimony)

(NER001), the Testimony of NextEra Witnesses Said Bolourchi, Glenn Bell, and Matthew Sherman (SGH Testimony) (NER004) (collectively, NextEras Testimony), and the exhibits thereto (NER005 through NER046). As explained below, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Contention lacks merit and should be resolved in NextEras favor.

As admitted by the Board, the Contention is a safety contention asserting that [t]he large-scale test program [or LSTP], undertaken for NextEra at the [Ferguson Structural 1

Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Revised Scheduling Order) (Feb. 15, 2018) (unpublished)

(ML18046A985).

2 Licensing Board Order (Providing Case Management Instructions) (May 23, 2019) (unpublished)

(ML19143A357).

Engineering Laboratory or] FSEL, has yielded data that are not representative of the progression of [Alkali-Silica Reaction or] ASR at Seabrook [Station Unit 1]. As a result, the proposed monitoring, acceptance criteria, and inspection intervals are not adequate.3 More specifically, C-10 claims that NextEras License Amendment Request 16-03 (LAR) is deficient because: (1) the LSTP did not replicate certain allegedly unique aspects of Seabrooks concrete; (2) crack width indexing and extensometer deployment allegedly are not sufficient tools for determining the extent and progression of ASR; (3) further core sampling allegedly is required; and (4) the expansion monitoring intervals allegedly are too long.

As a threshold matter, C-10 has failed to meet its initial burden of moving forward with sufficient evidence to show a deficiency in the LAR. The LAR is based on sound science and well-established engineering principles and is fully compliant with the applicable codes and regulations. The discussion below and NextEras evidence collectively demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence, that, among other things:

Dr. Saouma either abandons or contradicts nearly every argument advanced in the original Petition (which was supported by a different expert who is not providing any evidence in this proceeding);4 Dr. Saoumas Testimony is largely focused on new challenges to the LAR never advanced (or even contemplated) in the original Petitionand thus does not constitute probative evidence relevant to the Contention admitted by the Board;5 Dr. Saoumas Testimony identifies no material deficiency in the LSTP on the topic of representativeness, which the Board identified as the key issue in this proceeding; 3

NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC (Seabrook Station Unit 1), LBP-17-7, 86 NRC 59, 90 (2017), affd CLI-18-4, 87 NRC 89 (2018).

4 NextEra reserves its right to object to any belated attempt by Dr. Saouma or C-10 to advance these abandoned arguments from the original Petition in their Rebuttal Testimony.

5 Moreover, C-10 neither sought nor received leave to amend its Contention to include, for example, general challenges to the LSTP (i.e., unrelated to the topic of representativeness) and entirely new challenges related to aggregate composition, dimensions, and boundary conditions, as discussed further below.

2

C-10s claim that the LAR did not entail peer review is demonstrably untrue; Dr. Saoumas demand that NextEra abandon code-based analysis and instead rely on untested methods is unsupported, contrary to the intent of the LAR, and identifies no material deficiency in the LAR; Dr. Saoumas criticisms largely rest on incorrect understandings of or a failure to fully review the LAR and its extensive technical basis; and The LAR is reasonable and appropriate, and fully complies with all legal and regulatory requirements.

Accordingly, NextEra has fully met its burden of showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Contention lacks merit and should be resolved in NextEras favor.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTENTION C-10s Petition originally proposed ten contentions (A through J).6 In LBP-17-7, the Board found portions of five contentionsA, B, C, D, and Hadmissible, but rejected the remaining contentions.7 The Board reformulated the admissible portions into a single admitted contention, as follows:

The large-scale test program, undertaken for NextEra at the FSEL, has yielded data that are not representative of the progression of ASR at Seabrook. As a result, the proposed monitoring, acceptance criteria, and inspection intervals are not adequate.8 In affirming the Boards decision, the Commission explained that [t]he five elements of the reformulated contention relate as follows.

In Contention D, C-10 challenges the overall representative nature of the data from the large-scale test program.

In Contention A, as admitted, C-10 challenges the effectiveness of crack width indexing and extensometer deployment as tools for determining the 6

C-10 Research and Education Foundation, Inc. Petition for [L]eave to [I]ntervene (Apr. 10, 2017)

(ML17100B013).

7 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 68.

8 Id. at 127.

3

presence and extent of ASR in safety-related structures. C-10s concerns regarding these monitoring techniques arise from the question of whether the test program results can adequately predict the effectiveness of crack width indexing and extensometer deployment as monitoring techniques at Seabrook.

In Contentions B and C, taken together, C-10 contends that results gathered via the test program do not provide information comparable to that obtainable by core sampling and that, without such information, NextEra cannot understand the progression of ASR at Seabrook.

And finally, in Contention H, as admitted, C-10 challenges the frequency of proposed inspection intervals on the ground that the test program results on which the intervals are based are not representative of Seabrook concrete.9 As the Board emphasized, the key issue is Contention Ds challenge to the representativeness of the large-scale test program, whereas the remaining portions of the admitted contentions (A, B, C, and H) merely assert consequences stemming from this alleged lack of representativeness.10 Notably, the Board rejected contentions seeking to challenge assumptions . . .

concerning the continued robustness of reinforcing steel [i.e., rebar],11 and C-10s demand that the LAR include a methodology to test materials up to and beyond their point of failure.12 The Board also rejected C-10s challenge to the use of visual inspections.13 III. APPLICABLE LEGAL AND REGULATORY STANDARDS As demonstrated below, NextEras LAR fully meets the applicable legal and regulatory requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 50. Importantly, neither C-10s Statement of Position nor Dr.

Saoumas Testimony even acknowledge the legal and regulatory standards applicable to the 9

Seabrook, CLI-18-4, 87 NRC at 94-95.

10 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 127.

11 Id. at 133.

12 Id. at 134-35.

13 Id. at 95.

4

LARmuch less demonstrate how the LAR somehow fails to satisfy those standards.

Furthermore, C-10s and Dr. Saoumas arguments would impose requirements on NextEra far beyond the NRCs reasonable assurance standard, and therefore are contrary to, and improperly seek to challenge, NRC regulations. Ultimately, C-10 has failed to carry its burden of going forward on its Contention.

A. License Amendment Standards Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. §§ 50.92 and 50.57(a)(3) and (6), to grant the LAR, the NRC must find that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation of the plant as proposed in the LAR, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

B. The Reasonable Assurance Standard Longstanding Commission precedent makes clear that the reasonable assurance standard does not require an applicant to meet an absolute or beyond a reasonable doubt standard.14 In other words, reasonable assurance is not synonymous with absolute assurance. Likewise, reasonable assurance is not susceptible to formalistic quantification (i.e., 95% confidence) or mechanistic application.15 The NRC historically has interpreted reasonable assurance with the understanding that some risks may be tolerated and something less than absolute protection 14 Amergen Energy Company, LLC, (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 262 n.142 (2009); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-616, 12 NRC 419, 421 (1980);

N. Anna Envtl. Coal. v. NRC, 533 F.2d 655, 667-68 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (rejecting the argument that reasonable assurance requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and noting that the licensing board equated reasonable assurance with a clear preponderance of the evidence).

15 AmerGen Energy Co., LLC (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), LBP-07-17, 66 NRC 327, 340 (2007),

affd CLI-09-07, 69 NRC 235 (2009).

5

is required.16 As particularly relevant here, [t]he mere casting of doubt on some aspect of an application is legally insufficient to defeat a finding of reasonable assurance.17 In applying the reasonable assurance standard, the Commission takes a case-by-case approach, exercising sound technical judgment and verifying the applicants compliance with Commission regulations based on all relevant facts and circumstances18 Importantly, an intervenors demand for compliance with a standard beyond the reasonable assurance standard is legally unsustainable because a licensing board cannot impose requirements that exceed those in the regulation[s].19 Furthermore, if an applicants supporting analyses are grounded on reasonable assumptions, data, techniques of analysis and interpretations, a finding of reasonable assurance can be made even though other data and methods might have been used.20 In other words, an intervenors mere presentation of an alternative method of regulatory compliance is not sufficiently probative to demonstrate an alleged lack of reasonable assurance.

C. Technical Standards Applicable to the LAR The LAR implicates GDC 1, 2, 4, 16, and 50, which are codified in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A. In relevant part, these criteria state as follows:

Criterion 1 - Quality standards and records: Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed, fabricated, erected, and tested to quality standards commensurate with the importance of the safety functions to be 16 Memorandum from F. Brown to New Reactor Business Line, Expectations for New Reactor Reviews at 4 (Aug. 29, 2018) (ML18240A410).

17 Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), CLI-00-13, 52 NRC 23, 31 (2000)

(citing Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne Enrichment Center), CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 297 (1997); North Atlantic Energy Service Corp. (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-99-6, 49 NRC 201, 222 (1999)).

18 See Oyster Creek, CLI-09-7, 69 NRC at 262, n.143, 263; Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-14, 71 NRC 449, 465-66 (2010).

19 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-15-22, 82 NRC 310, 317 (2015).

20 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-88-13, 27 NRC 509, 548 (1988),

affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded by ALAB-905, 28 NRC 515 (1988). Cf. Palisades, CLI-15-22, 82 NRC at 317-18 (noting that there may be alternate or alternative methods by which a licensee can demonstrate reasonable assurance).

6

performed. Where generally recognized codes and standards are used, they shall be identified and evaluated to determine their applicability, adequacy, and sufficiency and shall be supplemented or modified as necessary to assure a quality product in keeping the with the required safety function. A quality assurance program shall be established and implemented in order to provide adequate assurance that these structures, systems, and components will satisfactorily perform their safety functions.

Criterion 2 - Design bases for protection against natural phenomena: Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.

The design bases for these structures, systems, and components shall reflect: (1) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding area, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy, quantity, and period of time in which the historical data have been accumulated, (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed.

Criterion 4 - Environmental and dynamic effects design bases: Structures, systems, and components important to safety shall be designed to accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with the environmental conditions associated with normal operation, maintenance, testing, and postulated accidents, including loss-of-coolant accidents. These structures, systems, and components shall be appropriately protected against dynamic effects, including the effects of missiles, pipe whipping, and discharging fluids, that may result from equipment failures and from events and conditions outside the nuclear power unit.

Criterion 16 - Containment design: Reactor containment and associated systems shall be provided to establish an essentially leak-tight barrier against the uncontrolled release of radioactivity to the environment and to assure that the containment design conditions important to safety are not exceeded for as long as postulated accident conditions require.

Criterion 50 - Containment design basis: The reactor containment structure ...

shall be designed so that the containment structure and its internal compartments can accommodate, without exceeding the design leakage rate and with sufficient margin, the calculated pressure and temperature conditions resulting from any loss-of-coolant accident. This margin shall reflect consideration of ... the conservatism of the calculation model and input parameters.

Finally, the activities related to the changes proposed in the LAR are subject to the NRCs Quality Assurance (QA) regulations in Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel Reprocessing Plants.

7

D. Burden of Proof At the hearing stage, an intervenor has the initial burden of going forward; that is, it must provide sufficient, probative evidence to establish a prima facie case for the claims made in the admitted contention.21 The mere admission of a contention does not satisfy this burden.22 If (and only if) the intervenor establishes a prima facie case on a particular claim, then the burden shifts to the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the intervenors contention.23 To prevail, the applicants position need only be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.24 At the admissibility stage, the petitioner has the ironclad obligation to examine the available documentation with sufficient care to support the foundation for a contention.25 This obligation applies with equal, if not greater, force at the hearing stage.26 As further explained below, Dr. Saouma, to a large degree, disregards rather than disputes the extensive technical basis for the LAR available to C-10 in the record of this proceeding. C-10, therefore, has failed 21 Oyster Creek, CLI-09-07, 69 NRC at 269 (quoting Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2),

ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 345 (1973) (The ultimate burden of proof on the question of whether the permit or license should be issued is . . . upon the applicant. But where . . . one of the other parties contends that, for a specific reason . . . the permit or license should be denied, that party has the burden of going forward with evidence to buttress that contention. Once he has introduced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the applicant who, as part of his overall burden of proof, must provide a sufficient rebuttal to satisfy the Board that it should reject the contention as a basis for denial of the permit or license.)

(emphasis in original)); see also Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 554 (1978) (upholding this threshold test for intervenor participation in licensing proceedings); Phila. Elec. Co.

(Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-262, 1 NRC 163, 191 (1975) (holding that the intervenors had the burden of introducing evidence to demonstrate that the basis for their contention was more than theoretical).

22 See Oyster Creek, CLI-09-07, 69 NRC at 268-70.

23 See, e.g., id. at 269; La. Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1093 (1983) (citing Midland, ALAB-123, 6 AEC at 345); see also 10 C.F.R. § 2.325.

24 See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-763, 19 NRC 571, 577; Oyster Creek, CLI-09-07, 69 NRC at 263.

25 See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 468 (1982), vacated in part on other grounds, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).

26 See Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 & 3), LBP-13-13, 78 NRC 246, 301 n.308 (2013) (rejecting an experts claims based on some averages and a gut feeling, rather than a thorough a review of available documentation).

8

to meet its burden of going forward with evidence to support the Contention. NextEra reserves its right to object to any new critique of this information that Dr. Saouma or C-10 may belatedly attempt to offer in rebuttal.

E. Scope of Contentions The evidentiary hearing is limited to the admitted Contention. And the reach of a contention necessarily hinges upon its terms coupled with its stated bases.27 As the Board in this case has acknowledged, an intervenor may not freely change the focus of an admitted contention at will to add a host of new issues and objections that could have been raised at the outset.28 As explained further below, C-10s Testimony has done precisely thatit abandons most or all of its original arguments, and raises a host of new issues and objections that could have been raised at the outset. Thus, NextEra reserves its right to move the Board to strike the evidence that falls outside the scope of the admitted contention.

IV.

SUMMARY

OF NEXTERAS EVIDENCE As briefly summarized below, NextEras experts explain why the LARtogether with substantial supporting informationdemonstrates: reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered, and authorized activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations; issuance of the amendment is not inimical to the common defense and security; and all GDC have been satisfied, as required by 10 C.F.R.

§§ 50.92, 50.57(a)(3) and (6), and Appendix A.

27 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-11, 71 NRC 287, 309 (2010) (citing Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-899, 28 NRC 93, 97 (1988), affd sub nom.

Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 899 (1991).

28 ASLB Order (Ruling on NextEras Motion in Limine) at 7 (June 7, 2019) (unpublished) (ML19158A512)

(citing Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2),

CLI-02-28, 56 NRC 373, 386 (2002)).

9

A. NextEras Witnesses

1. Seabrook Plant Personnel Two of NextEras witnesses (Michael Collins and Edward Carley) work at Seabrook and have extensive first-hand knowledge of the facility, the initial identification of ASR at the plant, and the development of the LAR. Michael Collinss professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his biography29 and Section I.A of the MPR Testimony (NER001). Mr.

Collins is employed by NextEra as the Director of Engineering for Seabrook. He has more than 38 years of professional experience in the nuclear power industry, 21 of which have been at Seabrook. In his current position at NextEra, Mr. Collins is responsible for the engineering management and technical oversight of ASR-related activities. This included the development of the LAR, the planning and execution of the LSTP, and the implementation of the Structures Monitoring Program (SMP).

Mr. Carleys professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his resume30 and Section I.E of the MPR Testimony (NER001). Mr. Carley is employed by NextEra as the Nuclear Engineering Supervisor for Seabrook. He has more than 38 years of professional experience in the nuclear power industry. He oversaw NextEra employees and contractors during the development and regulatory review of the LAR, including the development of the overall methodology for evaluating ASR-affected concrete structures that incorporated technical information obtained from the LSTP. Additionally, Mr. Carley supervised the development of the first-in-the-industry aging management program for ASR and is responsible for the implementation of the Seabrook SMP, which addresses aging of structural elements at Seabrook 29 See Biography for Michael Collins (NER006).

30 See Curriculum Vitae for Edward Carley (NER011).

10

within the scope of the NRCs maintenance rule (10 C.F.R. § 50.65), and ASR methodology used to evaluate ASR-affected concrete structures at Seabrook. Accordingly, Mr. Collins and Mr. Carley are qualified through knowledge, skill, directly-relevant experience, training, and education to provide expert witness testimony on NextEras LAR.

2. MPR Personnel Two of NextEras witnesses (John Simons and Christopher Bagley) work for MPR Associates, Inc. (MPR), a contractor to NextEra, and have extensive first-hand knowledge of NextEras multi-year program to evaluate ASR at Seabrook, including the large-scale testing program (LSTP) conducted at the Ferguson Structural Engineering Laboratory (FSEL) and NextEras SMP. Mr. Simons professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his curriculum vitae31 and Section I.B of the MPR Testimony (NER001). Mr. Simons is MPRs General Manager of Projects. He has more than 32 years of professional experience in the nuclear power industry. Mr. Simons is an author and contributor on numerous Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reports and NUREG publications on engineering topics relevant to the nuclear industry, including aging management issues on concrete structures and large-scale testing. Mr. Simons work included the development and conduct of the LSTP conducted at FSEL and the application of the LSTP results as inputs to NextEras SMP.

Mr. Bagleys professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his curriculum vitae32 and Section I.C of the MPR Testimony (NER001). Mr. Bagley is a Supervisory Engineer at MPR. He has more than 15 years of professional experience in the nuclear power industry and served as an officer and engineer in the United States Navys Naval 31 See Curriculum Vitae for John Simons (NER008).

32 See Curriculum Vitae for Christopher Bagley (NER009).

11

Reactors Program. Mr. Bagley worked on the development and execution of the LSTP, the application of LSTP results to Seabrook, and the methodology for calculating past ASR expansion. Mr. Bagley also works with EPRI on addressing ASR in concrete at nuclear plants.

Accordingly, Mr. Simons and Mr. Bagley are qualified through knowledge, skill, directly-relevant experience, training, and education to provide expert witness testimony on NextEras LAR.

3. Dr. Oguzhan Bayrak Dr. Oguzhan Bayraks professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his curriculum vitae33 and Section I.D of the MPR Testimony (NER001). Dr. Bayrak is a Distinguished Teaching Professor in the Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering Department of the University of Texas Cockrell School of Engineering. Dr. Bayrak was previously the Director of the FSEL at the University of Texas and held that position during the LSTP. He holds a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in Civil Engineering from the University of Toronto. Dr.

Bayrak has more than 20 years of professional experience in structural engineering and focuses on the behavior, analysis, and design of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures, the evaluation of structures in distress, and earthquake engineering. Dr. Bayrak has been published or presented over 200 times in technical journals, conference proceedings, books, technical reports, and other publications. He is a Fellow of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) and serves on several technical committees including the Committee on Reinforced Concrete Columns and the Committee on Shear and Torsion. Dr. Bayrak is also a member of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI). Dr. Bayrak is the chair for the Federation 33 See Curriculum Vitae for Dr. Oguzhan Bayrak (NER010).

12

Internationale du Betons34 (fib) committee on shear and is the deputy chair for fibs Commission 2, Analysis and Design of Concrete Structures. Dr. Bayrak also serves on the editorial board of Structural Concrete, which is the official technical journal of fib. In addition to his work on the LSTP, Dr. Bayrak supervised four other ASR research projects which included field assessments of ASR-affected concrete and fabrication of test specimens that experienced accelerated ASR progression. Accordingly, Dr. Bayrak is qualified through knowledge, skill, directly-relevant experience, training, and education to provide expert witness testimony on NextEras LAR.

4. SGH Personnel NextEras final three witnesses (Said Bolourchi, Glenn Bell, and Matthew Sherman) are Senior Principals at Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. (SGH), a contractor to NextEra, and have extensive first-hand knowledge of the development of NextEras Structural Evaluation Methodology (SEM). Dr. Bolourchis professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his curriculum vitae35 and Section I.A of the SGH Testimony (NER004). Dr.

Bolourchi is the Principal-in-Charge for all SGH projects associated with the evaluation of seismic Category I structures at Seabrook. He holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and has more than 40 years of professional experience in the nuclear power industry. Dr. Bolourchi has been responsible for overseeing the testing and petrography of concrete cores taken from Seabrook Station, evaluations of the Seabrook seismic Category I structures affected by ASR, the development of proposed structural monitoring parameters, and preparing portions of the LAR related to structural analysis, evaluation, and monitoring.

34 Also known as the International Federation for Structural Concrete.

35 See Curriculum Vitae for Said Bolourchi (NER031).

13

Mr. Bells professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his curriculum vitae36 and Section I.B of the SGH Testimony (NER004). Mr. Bell is employed by SGH as a Senior Principal. Mr. Bell has more than 44 years of professional experience in the structural engineering industry, and was the CEO of SGH from 1995 through 2016, and Chair of its Board of Directors from 2016 through 2018. In his current position, he is the primary supervisor for:

(1) determining the ASR load factors used in the SEM (which are further described in the SGH Testimony at Section IV.B); and (2) the structural analysis of the Containment Building at Seabrook, conducted per the SEM. He is also the President-Elect of the Structural Engineering Institute and a Board Trustee of the Institution of Structural Engineers.

Mr. Shermans professional and educational qualifications are summarized in his curriculum vitae37 and Section I.C of the SGH Testimony (NER004). Mr. Sherman has more than 25 years of professional experience in the civil/structural engineering industry with a focus on construction materials, repair/rehabilitation, and testing. In his current position, he oversees the fieldwork and testing associated with the structural evaluation of Seabrook structures affected by ASR, including the application of proposed structural monitoring parameters and frequency of monitoring included as inputs to the SMP. Mr. Sherman is a Fellow of the ACI and the International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI), and serves on several ACI committees including the Committee on Durability of Concrete and Design of Nuclear Structures.

Accordingly, Dr. Bolourchi, Mr. Bell, and Mr. Sherman are qualified through knowledge, skill, directly-relevant experience, training, and education to provide expert witness testimony on NextEras LAR.

36 See Curriculum Vitae for Glenn Bell (NER032).

37 See Curriculum Vitae for Matthew Sherman (NER033).

14

B. Primer on Structural Adequacy The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for a nuclear power plant typically includes references to certain structural criteria, including consensus codes and standards, that specify means for determining the adequacy of structures at the facility.

Evaluations of structural adequacy under these codes and standards generally aim to determine whether the demands (i.e., load effects) on a structure exceed the capacities (e.g., strength or stress limits) of the structure.38 Methods of determining appropriate demands and capacities are likewise prescribed by the specific criteria, standards, and codes; and these methods typically include consideration of material properties.39 There are many types of loads that may be specified in UFSARs for use in structural adequacy calculations. Examples are dead loads (the fixed weight of the structure), live loads (such as the time-varying weight of contents, e.g.,

temporary storage of materials), wind, earthquake effects, and temperature effects.40 C. ASR and Its Impacts on Structural Adequacy ASR is a chemical reaction that occurs in concrete when particular silica-containing constituents of aggregate react with hydroxyl ions and alkali ions (e.g., sodium, potassium) from the cement or another source (e.g., salt).41 The reaction produces an alkali-silicate gel that expands as it absorbs moisture, exerting tensile stress on the surrounding concrete and resulting in cracking.42 The initial indication of ASR is usually the presence of unusual cracking that 38 SGH Testimony at A37 (NER004).

39 Id. At Seabrook, these methods are described in its UFSAR at Section 3.8.

40 Id. at A51.

41 MPR Testimony at A65, A73 (NER001).

42 Id. at A65; see also MPR-4273 at Section 1.2.1 (INT019) (non-proprietary version (NP); (INT021)

(proprietary version (P)); American Concrete Inst., ACI 221.1R-98, Report on Alkali-Aggregate Reactivity, ch. 4, p. 8 (1998) (ACI 221.1R-98).

15

prompts further evaluation.43 In the case of ASR, this cracking is usually a network of very fine cracks that may appear to form a pattern or look like a map - hence the terms pattern cracking and map cracking as typical ASR symptoms.44 Because ASR produces cracking in concrete, it eventually causes degradation of its material properties.45 However, in reinforced concrete, like that used at Seabrook, the embedded reinforcing bars resist ASR-caused expansion, which results in a chemical prestressing effect.46 This chemical prestressing effect has an apparent benefit to the structural performance of concretei.e., does not degrade stiffness or structural capacity, and in some cases actually increases structural capacityuntil the concrete reaches a certain level of ASR-related expansion.47 In other words, the chemical prestressing effect causes the structural performance of ASR-affected reinforced concrete to depart from what one might expect if merely using the material properties of ASR-affected concrete in calculations prescribed in existing consensus codes and standards.48 Furthermore, ASR-related expansion of restrained concrete can produce new demands (i.e., loads) on the structure.49 Absent internal or external restraint, ASR expansion will cause concrete to expand freely, and no loads are developed. However, if the concrete is restrained 43 MPR Testimony at A72 (NER001); see also Inst. of Structural Engrs, Structural Effects of Alkali-Silica Reaction, § 6 at p. 19 (July 1992) (ISE Guideline) (NER012) and U.S. Federal Highway Admin., Report on the Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Mitigation of Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR) in Transportation Structures, FHWA-HIF-09-004, § 1 at p.1 (Jan. 2010) (FHWA Guideline) (NER013).

44 MPR Testimony at A72 (NER001); ISE Guideline § 6 at p. 19 (NER012); FHWA Guideline § 1 at p. 1 (NER013).

45 MPR Testimony. at A67 (NER001); see also ISE Guideline § 4.4 at pp. 13-14 (NER012); FHWA Guidelines

§ 5.3.3 at p. 25 (NER013).

46 MPR Testimony at A68 (NER001).

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 Id. at A67.

16

internally (such as by reinforcing steel), the restraint will create compressive load in the concrete and tension in the reinforcement.50 Likewise, when ASR-affected concrete is restrained externally (e.g., by bedrock), compressive load will be generated in the ASR-expanded concrete and in the external restraining element.

D. Description of NextEras LAR Seabrooks original licensing basis, as described in its UFSAR, includes methods for performing structural evaluations on Seabrooks Containment Building (Containment) and certain other structures at the plant that must fulfill their design function following a design basis earthquake, known as seismic Category I structures.51 However, the structural design codes in Seabrooks UFSAR (more specifically, the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Div. 2, 1975 (ASME 1975) (NRC050) for the Containment Building, and ACI Standard 318-71 (ACI 318-71) (NRC049) for all other seismic Category I structures at the plant),52 (ACI 318-71 and ASME Section 3, 1975 Edition) did not provide a means to account for either the loads generated by ASR, or the effect of ASR on capacity, in performing those structural evaluations.53 Thus, NextEra submitted LAR 16-03 on August 1, 2016, seeking NRC approval to revise its UFSAR to incorporate a means of doing so.54 The LAR methodology includes an analytical approach for evaluating ASR-affected concrete structures using the original licensing basis 50 Id. at A68.

51 Id. at A31.

52 Id. at A31; A62.

53 Id. at A31.

54 Id. at A31; NextEra License Amendment Request (LAR) 16-03 To Revise Current Licensing Basis to Adopt a Methodology for the Analysis of Seismic Category I Structures with Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction (Aug. 1, 2016) (NextEra LAR) (INT010)(NP); (INT011)(P).

17

design codes while accounting for the effects of ASR on design basis loads.55 In essence, NextEras approach was to develop a backfit onto Seabrooks existing codes, and to do so in a way that maintains the level of expected structural performance implicit in the original design criteria, codes, and standards.56 There are three key aspects of the LAR: the LSTP, the SMP, and the SEM.

LSTP: Due to limitations in the published literature regarding the effects of ASR on structural adequacy, NextEra commissioned the LSTP to supplement the available information.

The LSTP included testing of specimens that reflected the characteristics of ASR-affected structures at Seabrook. Tests were completed at various levels of ASR development, including levels of ASR beyond that experienced at Seabrook to date, to assess the resulting impacts. The LSTP found that the chemical prestressing effect remained applicable (i.e., structural performance was not degraded below originally-specified concrete properties) up to the limits observed in the testing. The LSTP is discussed in further detail in Section IV.E.1 below and in Section VII of the MPR Testimony (NER001).

SMP: As noted above, Seabrooks SMP is an existing program used to address aging of structural elements within the scope of the maintenance rule, 10 C.F.R. § 50.65. The LAR methodology included the addition of several specific provisions to Seabrooks SMP to provide for ongoing ASR monitoring. The purpose of these new provisions is two-fold. Purpose (1) is to gather expansion measurements (e.g., from crack width measurements and extensometer readings) for monitoring against specified acceptance criteria based on the LSTP (Expansion Monitoring Limits) to ensure ASR-related expansion at Seabrook does not exceed levels 55 MPR Testimony at A31 (NER001); see also NextEra LAR (INT010)(NP); (INT011)(P).

56 Id.

18

observed in the LSTP (i.e., to ensure the LSTP results remain applicable to Seabrook). And Purpose (2) is to gather crack width and deformation measurements for monitoring against criteria established in the structural evaluations (performed under the SEM). The SMP is discussed in further detail in Section IV.E.2 below and in Section VIII of the MPR Testimony (NER001).

SEM: This document prescribes the methodology for performing structural evaluations consistent with the design codes and standards in Seabrooks UFSAR, as modified by the LAR.

Briefly summarized, the SEM uses Seabrooks existing UFSAR provisions on concrete capacities and stiffness for structural evaluationsi.e., it calls for no departure from the existing licensing basisprovided that the Expansion Monitoring Limits (in the SMP) are not exceeded (see Purpose (1) of the SMP). On the demand side of the equation, the SEM provides a methodology for calculating the ASR loads on a structure, based on ASR crack-width and deformation measurements (see Purpose (2) of the SMP). The SEM also provides a three-stage approach for performing the structural evaluations, in which higher stages of the analysis apply more sophisticated methods and use additional field data where refinement is required or desirable. The SEM is discussed in further detail in Section IV.E.3 below and in Section IV. of the SGH Testimony (NER004).

Finally, as NextEras experts explain, the LAR methodology was subject to multiple peer reviews and independent evaluations.57 Thus, C-10s assertion to the contrary is simply untrue.

57 MPR Testimony at A86, A88, A223 (NER001); SGH Testimony at A60 (NER004).

19

E. NextEras LAR Provides Reasonable Assurance and Complies with Applicable Regulations As further explained below, the evidence demonstrates that the LSTP yielded data that are sufficiently representative of ASR-affected concrete at Seabrook, and that the SMP and the SEM are reasonable, appropriate, and fully comply with applicable regulations.

1. The LSTP Yielded Data That Are Appropriate for Use to Represent ASR-Affected Concrete at Seabrook As noted in the MPR Testimony, NextEra specifically designed the LSTP to provide test data on structural performance of large-scale test specimens that were more representative of concrete from Seabrook than data that were publicly available in the literature.58 To obtain these data, the LSTP included testing programs for: (1) one-way shear (i.e., beam shear), (2) reinforcement anchorage, and (3) anchor capacity.59 Because monitoring through-thickness expansion was deemed necessary for long-term aging management of ASR-affected reinforced concrete at Seabrook, and no consensus technique for accomplishing through-thickness monitoring was available in industry guidance, a fourth testing program for evaluating and selecting instrumentation was added to the LSTP.60 The LSTP was performed at the FSEL at The University of Texas at Austin over a period of approximately four years.61 FSEL was selected because of its long history of world-class research using large-scale test specimens, its experience with concrete and degradation by ASR, and its experience with fabrication of concrete test specimens that develop ASR in an accelerated 58 MPR Testimony at A97 (citing MPR-4273 §§. 1.2.2 & 2.3.4 (INT019-R)(NP); (INT021)(P)).

59 Id.

60 Id.

61 MPR Testimony at A98 (NER001). See also NRC Safety Evaluation Related to Amendment No. 159 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-86 at §3.1.2 (Mar. 11, 2019) (SE) (INT024)(NP); (INT025)(P).

20

manner necessary for testing.62 NextEra also engaged EPRI to provide an independent technical review of the test program (prior to specimen fabrication) and incorporated EPRIs review into the LSTP.63 The NRC also conducted several inspections of the LSTP throughout its execution, including seven trips to FSEL, and on-site inspection at the contractor that performed petrography of test specimen cores.64 MPR prepared test reports and documentation regarding the Commercial Grade Dedication efforts (CGD, i.e., and approach for quality assurance)65 throughout the course of the LSTP.66 Table 1 below summarizes these various reports, the total page count of which is approximately 24,000 pages.67 To distill this information into a format that was more readily usable, MPR prepared MPR-4273 (INT019)(NP), (INT021)(P) and MPR-4288 (INT012)(NP),

(INT014)(P), which summarize the LSTP, its conclusions, and the implications for Seabrook.

Table 1. Summary of MPR Reports for LSTP Test Program Test Reports CGD Reports MPR-3726 Anchor MPR-3722 MPR-4247 MPR-4286 Shear Reinforcement MPR-4262 MPR-4259 Anchorage MPR-4286 Instrumentation MPR-4231 62 Id.

63 MPR Testimony at A86, A88, A98 (NER001).

64 Id. at A98. See also SE §3.1.2 at 10 (INT024)(NP); (INT025)(P).

65 MPR Testimony at A100 (NER001).

66 Id. at A99.

67 Id.

21

As Dr. Bayrak and NextEras other experts explain, the various test programs in the LSTP were designedfrom the outsetwith representativeness in mind. The LSTP explicitly endeavored to, and in fact did, satisfy representativeness objectives including:

Large specimen size to represent the scale of structures at Seabrook;68 Experimental design that is accepted by the concrete industry in published Codes and consistent with the design basis of Seabrook;69 Specimen design that uses a reinforcement configuration and concrete mixture design that sufficiently reflects reinforced concrete structures at Seabrook;70 and Presence of ASR to an extent that is consistent with levels currently observed at Seabrook and at levels that could be observed in the future.71 Each of the four test programs were governed by a Test Specification that included provisions to ensure the objectives described above were achieved.72 And critical characteristics of the test specimens and setup necessary to ensure satisfaction of the representativeness objectives were evaluated as part of CGD activities.73 As explained in great detail in NextEras Testimony, the test reports74 provide feature-by-feature technical justifications for representativeness of the specimens; and critical characteristics 68 Id. at A102-A105.

69 Id. at A106-A108.

70 Id. at A109-A114.

71 Id. at A115-125.

72 Id. at A101. The test specifications are included as appendices in the respective test reports: See MPR-3722, Rev. 2, Strength Testing of Anchors in Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction (Jan. 2016) (FP100718, Rev. 1) (MPR-3722) (NER023); MPR-4262, Shear and Reinforcement Anchorage Testing of Concreted Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction, Vol. I, Rev. 1 (July 2016) & Vol. II, Rev. 0 (Jan. 2016) (FP100994)

(MPR-4262) (NER022); and MPR-4231, Rev. 0, Instrumentation for Measuring Expansion in Concrete Affected by Alkali-Silica Reaction (Oct. 2015) (FP100972) (MPR-4231) (NER021).

73 MPR Testimony at A99, A100, A101 (NER001).

74 MPR-3722 (NER023); MPR-4262 (NER022); MPR-4231 (NER021).

22

were included in the commercial grade acceptance plans for the test programs.75 As documented therein, all parameters met the acceptance criteria, which supported the ultimate conclusion that the test specimens were satisfactorily representative.76 As described in NextEras Testimony, Dr. Saouma does not acknowledge, much less challenge, this detailed information regarding QA-controlled representativeness objectives and the LSTPs satisfaction thereof.77 As noted in the MPR Testimony,78 multiple methods were used to characterize ASR development in the test specimens including:

expansion monitoring by physical measurements of the specimens (e.g.,

crack width summation, embedded rods);

material property testing of cores removed from the specimens; and petrographic examinations of cores removed from the test specimens.79 Ultimately, NextEra identified expansion monitoring as the appropriate parameter for correlating the LSTP results to Seabrook, consistent with the approach advocated by industry guidance, as discussed in MPR-3848.80 Expansion monitoring, as used in the LAR methodology, entails collection of crack-width measurements and extensometer measurements for monitoring against acceptance criteria for in-plane, through-thickness, and volumetric expansion. This approach is objectively reasonable because expansion is the parameter of 75 MPR-4259, Commercial Grade Dedication Report of Seabrook ASR Shear, Reinforcement Anchorage and Instrumentation Testing App. B (Jan. 2016) (NER025); MPR-4247, Rev. 0, Commercial Grade Dedication Report for Seabrook ASR Anchor Testing (Block Series and Girder Series Phase 2) App. B (Dec. 2015)

(NER024); MPR-4286, Rev. 0, Supplemental Commercial Grade Dedication Report for Seabrook ASR Test Programs (Mar. 2016) App. B (NER045).

76 Id.

77 MPR Testimony at A197 (NER001).

78 Id. at A126.

79 Id.; see also MPR-4273 § 4.1 (INT019)(NP); (INT021)(P).

80 MPR Testimony at A126 (NER001); see also MPR-3848 § 2.2.2. (NER015).

23

interest for the aging effect in questionASR.81 Expansion monitoring is also a practical solution for implementation in a nuclear power plant, given the number, variety and large dimensions of the affected or potentially-affected concrete structures.82 Furthermore, NextEras experts explain that crack width indexing and extensometers provide a reliable and accurate measure of in-plane and through-thickness expansion, respectively; and the combination of these values provide a reliable and accurate measure of volumetric expansion.

Finally,Section VII.D. of the MPR Testimony provides specific and extensive details regarding the four structural testing programs.83 As particularly relevant to this proceeding, NextEras experts explain that the LSTP demonstrated that the material properties of concrete from the original design calculations may be used to calculate the capacity of ASR-affected structures using the existing design codes, as specified in the UFSAR; and that this conclusion is applicable provided that observed and monitored expansion at Seabrook is below the Expansion Monitoring Limits in the SMP.84 Collectively, NextEras evidence fully demonstrates that the LSTP yielded data that are appropriate for use to represent ASR-affected concrete at Seabrook.

2. The Structures Monitoring Program Is Fully Supported, Provides Reasonable Assurance, and Complies with Applicable Regulations Seabrooks SMP (which is a typical program at nuclear power plants used to address aging of structural elements within the scope of the maintenance rule, 10 C.F.R. § 50.65) includes specific provisions for ongoing ASR monitoringi.e., the ASR Monitoring Program.

81 MPR Testimony at A126 (NER001).

82 Id.

83 Id. at A137-A142 (Shear Test Program); A143-A149 (Reinforcement Anchorage Test Program); A150-A155 (Anchor Test Program); A156-A157 (Instrumentation Test Program).

84 Id. at A138.

24

Under this aspect of the SMP, NextEra initially uses crack width indexing to determine in-plane expansion, which is used as a screening tool to determine whether an extensometer should be installed at that location. If in-plane expansion exceeds 0.1% (1 mm/m), NextEra installs an extensometer to commence through-thickness expansion monitoring. NextEra then monitors in-plane, through-thickness, and volumetric expansion to ensure that these parameters remain within the Expansion Monitoring Limits (established by the LSTP). As explained in NextEras Testimony, these multiple monitoring methods are entirely reasonable and appropriate for application at Seabrook.85 Specifically, NextEras experts provide testimony explaining the acceptance criteria for determining when an extensometer is needed, and for each of the monitoring parameters (i.e., in-plane, through-thickness, and volumetric),86 and describe NextEras graded monitoring approach, which includes monitoring on an interval that reflects the observed condition of Seabrook structures.87 More importantly, they justify the technical basis for each acceptance criterion,88 and for the monitoring frequencies.89 Further, as explained in the testimony, the approved amendment includes a license condition requiring NextEra to perform periodic expansion assessments and to evaluate the rate of ASR progression. If data suggest that the monitoring intervals (or any other aspect of the SMP) at Seabrook are insufficient, the plant will 85 Id. at A163-A167 (in-plane expansion); A168-A176 (through-thickness expansion); A177-A178 (volumetric expansion).

86 Id. at A179, A181, A183, A185.

87 Id. at A187.

88 Id. at A180, A182, A184, A186.

89 Id. at A188-A193.

25

evaluate the need for potential changes.90 Thus, the acceptance criteria and inspection intervals areand will continue to bereasonable and appropriate for application at Seabrook.

Collectively, NextEras evidence demonstrates that the SMP fully complies with all applicable legal and regulatory standards.

3. The Structural Evaluation Methodology Is Fully Adequate As more fully explained in the SGH Testimony, the purpose of the SEM is to provide a methodology for analyzing and evaluating seismic Category I structures with concrete affected by ASR.91 As noted above, the SEM provides that concrete capacities in the codes of record can be used (so long as the Expansion Monitoring Limits from the SMP are not exceeded), and provides a methodology for calculating the ASR loads on a structure (based on ASR crack-width and deformation measurements).

The SEM was purposefully designed to evaluate whether a given structure affected by ASR meets the intent of the original design codes of record and achieves the structural safety reliability indices consistent with the original design.92 After evaluating numerous other theoretical methods of ASR analysis, including the methodology advocated by Dr. Saouma, NextEra concluded that the most direct, meaningful, and reliable solution was to firmly root the SEM in the original design basis codes.93 By way of background, NextEras experts explain that evaluations of structural adequacy ensure that the demands (i.e., load effects) on a structure or its elements do not exceed the 90 Id. at A193.

91 SGH Testimony at A33 (NER004).

92 Id. at A34.

93 Id. at A84-A97.

26

capacities (e.g., strength or stress limits) of the structure or its elements.94 In other words, as long as ASR expansion at Seabrook (monitored via the SMP, as explained above) satisfies the SMP acceptance criteria (i.e., Seabrook ASR expansion remains below levels observed at the LSTP), no changes to the capacity side of the calculations in the original codes of record is required. And as to the demand side, the SEM provides a method for calculating the additional demands (i.e., loads) on the structure caused by ASR.95 These loads are calculated from actual field data96 and ASR expansion measurements collected at Seabrook.97 The calculated ASR load then gets incorporated into the code equations, along with the other design loads provided in the UFSAR, to determine the structural adequacy.98 NextEras experts also explain that the SEM employs a three-stage analysis approach for analyzing and evaluating seismic Category I structures.99 Each stage applies more sophisticated methods and uses additional field measurement data of ASR expansion to improve the rigor of the analysis.100 Certain evaluations also use finite element modeling, which is a computer analysis method used by engineers to perform complex structural analysis.101 Notably the SEM uses the results of field observations and measurements to further validate the modeling (i.e., to confirm that models actually represent the in-situ conditions). More specifically, the FEM results are correlated with the deformations, strains, and distressed areas (if any) observed at 94 Id. at A37 95 Id. at A42-A44, A51-A60.

96 Id. at A61-A71.

97 Id.

98 Id. at A43.

99 Id. at A47, A78-A83.

100 Id.

101 Id. at A72-A77.

27

Seabrook. For example, the simulated deformations from the FEM are compared to the field-measured deformed shape of the structure. These comparisons validate the FEM and confirm its ability to represent the current structural deformed and distressed condition.

Notably, the individual structural evaluations, themselves, are not part of the LAR, which only sought approval of the methodology for the evaluations (i.e., the SEM).102 As explained in the SGH Testimony, the SEM is fully adequate, reasonable, and appropriate for application at Seabrook.

• *

• Overall, a clear preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that NextEras LAR provides reasonable assurance and complies with applicable regulations.

V. THE CONTENTION SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF NEXTERA In LBP-17-7, the Board found portions of five contentions admissible,103 and reformulated them into a single admitted contention, as follows:

The large-scale test program, undertaken for NextEra at the FSEL, has yielded data that are not representative of the progression of ASR at Seabrook. As a result, the proposed monitoring, acceptance criteria, and inspection intervals are not adequate.104 As the Commission explained, the elements of the reformulated contention challenge:

the overall representative nature of the data from the large-scale test program; the effectiveness of crack width indexing and extensometer deployment as tools for determining the presence and extent of ASR; the need for additional core sampling; and 102 Id. at A78.

103 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 68.

104 Id. at 127.

28

the frequency of proposed [Expansion Monitoring] inspection intervals.105 As explained below, C-10 simply has not satisfied its initial burden of going forward on the Contention because it has failed to provide sufficient probative evidence to establish a prima facie case for any of the Commission-summarized elements presented by C-10 at the outset of this proceeding Indeed, Dr. Saoumas Testimony (INT001) either abandons or contradicts nearly every argument advanced in the original Petition (which was supported by a different witness who never sought access to any proprietary documents and is not providing any evidence in this proceeding). Instead, Dr. Saoumas Testimony is largely focused on new challenges to the LAR never advanced (or even contemplated) in, and far afield from, the original Petitionand thus does not constitute probative evidence relevant to the Contention admitted by the Board.

Moreover, to the extent Dr. Saouma advances arguments even tangentially related to the admitted Contention, his criticisms fall far short of establishing a prima facie case because he disregards, rather than disputes, the extensive technical basis of the LAR on the very elements he purports to challenge. C-10, therefore, has failed to meet its burden of going forward, and the Contention should be resolved in favor of NextEra.

Notwithstanding, even assuming C-10 had met its burden of going forward on the Contention admitted by the Board (as opposed to its new and unrelated arguments), NextEra has provided extensive technical evidence and testimony that is beyond sufficient to rebut the Contention. NextEras experts refute Dr. Saoumas assertions point-by-point, thereby demonstrating that the issues raised in his testimony lack merit from regulatory and technical 105 Seabrook, CLI-18-4, 87 NRC at 94-95.

29

perspectives. For the sake of brevity, the SOP does not repeat each criticism and corresponding rebuttal. But in summary, the MPR Testimony includes a series of thirty questions and answers that respond to Dr. Saoumas various criticisms of the LSTP and the SMP, and explain the reasons they are meritless.106 Likewise, the SGH Testimony walks through twenty-five questions and answers covering Dr. Saoumas remarks related to the SEM, and rebuts each one of them.107 Additionally, both the MPR Testimony and the SGH Testimony explain that Dr.

Saoumas preferred method of analyzing ASRi.e., the constitutive or chemo-mechanical methodis not generally accepted by the industry, impractical for application at existing operating nuclear power plants, and misapprehends the purpose of an aging monitoring program, which is not designed or intended to predict the final ASR growth.108 In order to prevail, NextEras position need only beand clearly issupported by a preponderance of the evidence.109 A. Representativeness In LBP-17-7, the Board found admissible a portion of Contention D challenging the overall representative nature of data from the LSTP. More specifically, C-10 originally argued that the LSTP fails to account for the condition of Seabrook concrete due to the following:

age; length of time ASR has been propagated; exposure to fresh water at various levels; exposure to salt in the water at different levels and concentrations; the effects of heat; and 106 MPR Testimony at A194-A223 (NER001).

107 SGH Testimony at A98-A122 (NER004).

108 See SGH Testimony § V.A. (NER004); MPR Testimony at A195 (NER001).

109 See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., ALAB-763, 19 NRC at 577; Oyster Creek, CLI-09-07, 69 NRC at 263.

30

the effects of radiation.110 Dr. Saoumas Testimony does not mention a single one of these alleged deficiencies.

Thus, C-10 has apparently abandoned and, in any case, has provided zero probative evidence capable of establishing a prima facie case for this aspect of the Contention as it was admitted by the Board in LBP-17-7. Nevertheless, we address each of these issues in our testimony for completeness of the record.

Instead of advancing the arguments from the original Petition, Dr. Saouma instead poses a series of entirely new challenges regarding representativeness of the LSTP. More specifically, he alleges the LSTP is deficient because: (1) the LSTP specimens were not fabricated from the identical sand and aggregate from the same quarry as Seabrook;111 (2) the LSTP did not use scaled . . . prototype specimens;112 (3) the LSTP did not model in-plane shear;113 (4) the LSTP specimens did not experience shear cracking;114 (5) an LSTP specimen already had a longitudinal crack;115 and (6) NextEra and its consultants made erroneous assumptions regarding material properties and design basis load.116 Only the first three new arguments, however, relate to the concept of representativeness. And for each of these, NextEras Testimony fully addresses Dr. Saoumas assertions point-by-point.117 In summary, NextEras experts explain that Dr. Saoumas 110 NextEra Energy Seabrook LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-18-4, 87 NRC 89, 104 (2018) (citing LBP 7, 86 NRC at 113 (Petition at 11)).

111 Saouma Testimony § C.2.1. (INT001-R).

112 Id. § C.2.2.1.

113 Id. § C.2.2.2.

114 Id. § C.2.3.1.

115 Id. § C.2.3.2.

116 Id. § C.2.4.

117 MPR Testimony at A197-A203 (NER001).

31

commentary misapprehends the programmatic details or objectives (or both) of the LSTP; and disregards extensive technical documents available to C-10 that directly address his concerns.

The fourth and fifth new arguments offer more general criticisms of the LSTP. But the MPR Testimony fully demonstrates that Dr. Saoumas criticisms in this regard are also meritless.118 And the sixth new argument questions how NextEra extracted relevant information from their test to use in a finite element study.119 But as NextEras experts explain, contrary to Dr.

Saoumas assertion, none of the data or quantitative results from the LSTP are direct inputs to the finite element analyses used in the structural evaluations.120 In summary, none of C-10s new arguments have any merit.

Ultimately, even assuming C-10 had met its burden of going forwardwhich it has not NextEra has provided extensive technical evidence and testimony that is beyond sufficient to rebut C-10s original and Dr. Saoumas new challenges.

B. Monitoring Techniques As the Commission explained, In Contention A, as admitted, C-10 challenges the effectiveness of crack width indexing and extensometer deployment as tools for determining the presence and extent of ASR in safety-related structures. C-10s concerns regarding these monitoring techniques arise from the question of whether the test program results can adequately predict the effectiveness of crack width indexing and extensometer deployment as monitoring techniques at Seabrook.121 Dr. Saoumas Testimony does offer some limited criticisms of crack 118 Id. at A204-209.

119 Saouma Testimony § 2.4.1 (INT001-R).

120 MPR Testimony at A209 (NER001).

121 Seabrook, CLI-18-4, 87 NRC at 94-95.

32

width indexing. However, as explained in detail in NextEras Testimony, the evidence demonstrates that these arguments are cursory and meritless.

Substantively, Dr. Saoumas Testimony includes several remarks regarding crack width indexing. But none identify a deficiency in the LAR. For example, Dr. Saouma asserts that Seabrooks concrete has dried on the surface, and thus crack width indexing cannot be used to measure ASR progression (because expansion purportedly will continue internally without corresponding cracking on the wall surface).122 But as NextEras experts make clear, Dr.

Saoumas speculation regarding the moisture in Seabrooks concrete is contradicted by actual evidence from petrographic examinations at Seabrook.123 In sum, that evidence shows that surface cracking at Seabrook accurately represents internal ASR expansion in Seabrooks ASR-affected concrete. As another example, Dr. Saouma claims that the FHWA Guideline says crack width indexing can only be used in conjunction with petrography.124 As explained in the MPR Testimony, Dr. Saoumas claim is contradicted by the very document he purports to interpret.125 Overall, NextEras evidence fully rebuts each of Dr. Saoumas claims regarding the effectiveness of crack indexing as a tool for determining the presence and extent of ASR at Seabrook.

As to extensometers, Dr. Saoumas commentary is perfunctory, and merely asserts his view regarding the proper installation of the equipment. More specifically, he asserts that extensometers should be placed at least at mid-distance between the [two sides of a wall].126 As the evidence shows, Seabrooks procedures specify that the deep anchor for each 122 Saouma Testimony § C.4. (INT001-R).

123 MPR Testimony at A217 (citing NER028); see also id. at A127-A128; A135-A136; and A163-A167.

124 Saouma Testimony § C.3.1.2. (INT001-R).

125 MPR Testimony at A210 (NER001).

126 Saouma Testimony § C.3.2. (INT001-R) (emphasis added).

33

extensometer be installed well beyond the midpoint of the wall thickness.127 Thus, Dr. Saoumas remark is entirely consistent withand identifies no deficiency inthe LAR.

In summary, Dr. Saoumas Testimony identifies no material deficiencies as to the use of crack width indexing or extensometers as ASR monitoring techniques; and NextEras experts provide a full technical justification for the use of these methods.

C. Further Core Sampling In contentions B and C, the Intervenors argued that the LAR should have included additional core sampling.128 More specifically, in Contention B, the Board found admissible a narrow part of the contention asserting that [t]he LAR misconstrues expansion occurring within a reinforced concrete structure due to [ASR] because any mitigation of lost structural capacity, due to reinforcement [i.e., the chemical prestressing effect], is temporary and unpredictable.129 But Dr. Saouma makes no assertion that the chemical prestressing effect is unpredictable; in fact, his discussion of the chemical prestressing effect is consistent with NextEras.130 Furthermore, the Board found Contention C admissible as a challenge to NextEras primary rationale for not undertaking petrographic analysis: that once ASR-affected cores are removed, the behavior of those cores no longer reflects that of the confined structure.131 But Dr. Saouma says nothing at all about the behavior of cores after removal from 127 MPR Testimony at A213 (NER001).

128 Seabrook, CLI-18-4, 87 NRC at 94-95.

129 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 107.

130 Saouma Testimony § C.2.4.1. ([r]einforced concrete . . . will not have a decrease in shear strength because of prestressing effect (restraint provided by the longitudinal reinforcement to crack formation)); § B.1. ([m]any tests have shown an increase in structural shear strength in reinforced concrete beams (through the so-called prestressing effect) because of ASR.) (INT001-R).

131 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 108 (citing Petition at 6-7).

34

their in situ context. Ultimately, as detailed below, C-10 presents no evidence to establish a prima facie case on either of the claims admitted by the Board in Contentions B and C.

First, C-10 asserted in the Petition that NextEra purportedly confused the chemical prestressing effect with the concept of densification.132 But NextEras experts explain that the LSTP result is consistent with the conclusions of other test programs investigating the impacts of ASR;133 and Section C.2.4.1 of Dr. Saoumas Testimony offers the same explanation as NextEra and does not discuss densification. Thus, C-10s densification argument has been abandoned.

Second, as noted above, C-10 originally disputed NextEras assertion that, once ASR-affected cores are removed, the behavior of those cores no longer reflects that of the confined structure.134 More specifically, NextEra explained that newly cut concrete cores would be subject to rapid expansion due to stress relaxation in the absence of the structural context.135 C-10 further asserted that ASR has an autocatalytic aspect that somehow purportedly rendered the LSTP analysis insufficient.136 But Dr. Saoumas Testimony is utterly silent as to both of these arguments, which apparently have been abandoned as well. In any event, as NextEras experts have explained, these arguments are meritless.137 Finally, Dr. Saouma does discussand indeed suggest[s]the use of petrography.138 But his suggestion is in the context of recommending a different ASR evaluation approach 132 See Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 104.

133 MPR Testimony at A226, A141 (NER001).

134 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 108 (citing Petition at 6-7).

135 MPR Testimony at A105 (NER001).

136 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 104 (citing Petition at 5).

137 MPR Testimony at A105, A230-A231 (NER001).

138 Saouma Testimony §§ C.8, C.4 (item 3) (INT001-R).

35

altogether; more specifically, one intended to predict the ultimate ASR growth (i.e., extreme levels well beyond the Expansion Monitoring Limits established in the SMP). But this suggestion for an alternative approach does not identify any specific deficiency in the LAR.

Moreover, to the extent Dr. Saoumas suggestion pertains to the use of petrography to confirm the presence of ASR, such an approach is unnecessary in NextEras LAR. As NextEras experts explain, the LAR methodology automatically presumes that all cracking at Seabrook is caused by ASR; and petrography can be invoked to disprove this assumption, as necessary.139 In other words, it is the inverse of Dr. Saoumas approach. Dr. Saoumas Testimony does not acknowledge or challenge this important feature of the LAR, or explain why additional petrography is necessaryor even reasonablein this context.

Ultimately, even assuming C-10 had met its burden of going forward on its calls for further core samplingwhich it has notthe preponderance of the evidence fully rebuts this aspect of the Contention.

D. Inspection Intervals As the Commission explained, in Contention H, as admitted, C-10 challenges the frequency of proposed inspection intervals on the ground that the test program results on which the intervals are based are not representative of Seabrook concrete.140 But C-10 has entirely abandoned this challenge as well.

In an introductory section, Dr. Saouma claims that his Testimony will address . . . the unacceptability of the proposed length of intervals between inspections.141 But in fact, it does not. Dr. Saouma copies Table 6 from the LAR Evaluation (listing monitoring intervals for 139 MPR Testimony at A229 (NER001); SGH Testimony at A71 (NER004).

140 Seabrook, CLI-18-4, 87 NRC at 94-95.

141 Saouma Testimony § A.6 (INT001-R).

36

deformation evaluations) into his Testimony. But he makes no further comment on this information. Moreover, in LBP-17-7, the Board explained that the core of Contention H was C-10s challenge[ to] the monitoring intervals in Table 5 of the LAR Evaluation.142 Dr. Saouma likewise copies Table 5 into his testimony, but explicitly states that the inspection frequencies listed therein will be ignored by [him].143 Thus, C-10 has chosen to ignore, and thus has not carried its burden of going forward on, this aspect of the Contention. In practical terms, all of the evidence in this proceeding (far beyond the preponderance required to prevail) supports the adequacy of NextEras monitoring frequencies.144

• *

• NextEra has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, through the MPR Testimony, the SGH Testimony, and corresponding exhibits, that its program for addressing Seabrooks slow-growing version of ASR (which, after more than thirty years, has reached only low to moderate levels)145 is robust, conservative, technically justified, and satisfies the reasonable assurance standard. Importantly, the NRCs reasonable assurance standard does not require that the LAR satisfy an absolute or beyond a reasonable doubt standard.146 And as noted above, [t]he mere casting of doubt on some aspect of an application is legally insufficient to defeat a finding of reasonable assurance.147 Thus, even assuming C-10 had 142 Seabrook, LBP-17-7, 86 NRC at 126-27.

143 Saouma Testimony § C.3.4 (INT001-R).

144 See, e.g., MPR Testimony A187-A193 (NER001).

145 SGH Testimony at A90 (NER004).

146 Oyster Creek, CLI-09-7, 69 NRC at 262 n.142; Zion Station, ALAB-616, 12 NRC at 421; N. Anna Envtl. Coal.

v. NRC, 533 F.2d at 667-68 (rejecting the argument that reasonable assurance requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt and noting that the licensing board equated reasonable assurance with a clear preponderance of the evidence).

147 PFS, CLI-00-13, 52 NRC at 31 (citing LES, CLI-97-15, 46 NRC 297 (1997); Seabrook, CLI-99-6, 49 NRC at 222).

37

submitted sufficient probative evidence to move forward on the Contentionwhich it has not that evidence is wholly insufficient to overcome the evidence submitted by NextEra, or to defeat the NRCs finding of reasonable assurance.

VI. CONCLUSION C-10 has not carried its burden of providing sufficient evidence to support the claims made in the Contention. Even assuming C-10 had carried its burden of going forward with the Contentionwhich it has notNextEra fully rebuts each argument advanced by C-10 with a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the Contention should be resolved in NextEras favor.

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 24th day of July 2019 38

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 )

) July 24, 2019 (Seabrook Station Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.305, I certify that, on this date, the foregoing NextEra Energy Seabrook LLCs Statement of Position and NextEras Hearing Exhibits NER001 through NER048 were 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/ 105494319