ASLBP 20-967-03-LA-BD01, 1 July 2020 Proceedings Transcript
| ML20189A038 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/07/2020 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| 52-025-LA-3, ASLBP 20-967-03-LA-BD01, License Amendment, RAS 55733 | |
| Download: ML20189A038 (96) | |
Text
Official Transcript of Proceedings NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3 Docket Number:
52-025-LA-3 ASLBP Number:
20-967-03-LA-BD01 Location:
teleconference Date:
Wednesday, July 1, 2020 Work Order No.:
NRC-0946 Pages 1-95 NEAL R. GROSS AND CO., INC.
Court Reporters and Transcribers 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
+ + + + +
3 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 4
+ + + + +
5 HEARING 6
x 7
In the Matter of: :
8 SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING : Docket No.
9 COMPANY, INC. : 52-025-LA-3 10 11 (Vogtle Electric : ASLBP No.
12 Generating Plant, Unit 3) : 20-967-03-LA-BD01 13 14
x 15 16 Wednesday, July 1, 2020 17 Teleconference 18 19 BEFORE:
20 G. PAUL BOLLWERK, III, Chair 21 DR. SUE H. ABREU, Administrative Judge 22 DR. GARY S. ARNOLD, Administrative Judge 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
2 APPEARANCES:
1 2
Counsel for the Applicant 3
Melvin S. Blanton, Esq.
4 Peter LeJeune, Esq.
5 of:
Balch & Bingham, LLP 6
1710 6th Avenue North 7
Birmingham, AL 35203 8
205-226-3417 9
sblanton@balch.com 10 plejeune@balch.com 11 12 On Behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 13 Julie G. Ezell, Esq.
14 Michael A. Spencer, Esq.
15 of:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Office of the General Counsel 17 Mail Stop O-14A44 18 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 19 301-287-9157 (Ezell) 20 301-287-9115 (Spencer) 21 julie.ezell@nrc.gov 22 michael.spencer@nrc.gov 23 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
3 On Behalf of the Petitioner: Blue Ridge 1
Environmental Defense League (BREDL) and Concerned 2
Citizens of Shell Bluff 3
Louis A. Zeller 4
of:
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Inc.
5 P.O. Box 88 6
Glendale Springs, NC 28629 7
336-982-2691 8
BREDL@skybest.com 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
4 T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S 1
PAGE 2
Presentation by Petitioner 14 3
Presentation by Applicant 31 4
Presentation by NRC Staff 65 5
Rebuttal Presentation by Petitioner 76 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
5 P R O C E E D I N G S 1
10:02 a.m.
2 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Good morning, everyone.
3 Today, we are here to conduct an initial pre-hearing 4
conference in this proceeding in which Applicant, 5
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Incorporated 6
requests an amendment and an associated exemption for 7
its existing 10 Code of Federal Regulations, or CFR, 8
Part 52, combined license or COL, to construct and 9
operate the Vogtle Electric Generating Plan Unit 3.
10 Vogtle 3, one of a pair of Advanced 11 Passive-1000, or AP1000, pressurized water reactor 12 units being constructed at Southern's existing Vogtle 13 facility in Burke County, Georgia was issued a COL by 14 the NRC in February 2012. The requested license 15 amendment concerns changes to the Vogtle 3 COL 16 Appendix C,
inspections,
- tests, analyses, and 17 acceptance criteria, or ITAAC, and plant-specific Tier 18 1 information and the corresponding Tier 2* and Tier 19 2 information in the Vogtle 3 updated final safety 20 analysis report, or US -- sorry, UFSAR.
21 Specifically, Southern asked to modify the 22 north/south minimum seismic gap requirements above 23 grade between the nuclear island and the annex 24 building west of column line 1, or I -- I'm not sure, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
6 we'll have to clarify whether that's a one or an I --
1 from elevation 141 feet through 154 feet to 2
accommodate as-built localized non-conformances in the 3
annex building south wall. Further, because this 4
proposed change requires a departure from Tier 1 5
information into generic AP1000 design control 6
document, or DCD, associated with the AP1000 certified 7
design being used to construct the facility, Southern 8
also has requested an exemption from the requirements 9
of the generic DCD Tier 1 information in accordance 10 with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 11 Section 52.63(b)(1).
12 In response to a March 10, 2020 Federal 13 Register notice of an opportunity -- I'm sorry --
14 Federal Register hearing opportunity notice published 15 in Volume 83 of the Federal Register at page 13,944, 16 on May 11, 2020, Petitioners, Blue Ridge Environmental 17 Defense League and its chapter, Concerned Citizens of 18 Shell Bluff collectively referred to as BREDL, 19 submitted a hearing request that included two 20 contentions challenging the Southern license amendment 21 request. The answers submitted on June 4th and June 22 5th, 2020 respectively, Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 staff and Southern have sought for denial of BREDL's 24 intervention petition, asserting BREDL lacks standing 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
7 to intervene and/or has failed to provide an 1
admissible contention. This pre-hearing conference 2
has been convened to conduct an oral argument that 3
will allow the participants to present their positions 4
regarding and respond to Board questions concerning 5
these contested matters.
6 Before we begin the argument, however, I'd 7
like to introduce the Board members and have the 8
representatives of the participants identify 9
themselves for the record. Judge Sue Abreu is a 10 physician with a specialty in nuclear medicine and is 11 also a lawyer. Judge Gary Arnold is a nuclear 12 engineer. My name is Paul Bollwerk. I'm an attorney 13 and the Chairman of this licensing board.
14 We're all participating by telephone from 15 different locations as is our law clerk, Taylor 16 Mayhall. At this point, I'd like to have the counsel 17 representatives for the various parties identify 18 themselves for the record. Why don't we start with 19 Applicant, Southern, then move to the NRC staff, and 20 finally, BREDL. And so we can have some understanding 21 of your circumstances for logistical purposes, I'd 22 also appreciate if the participants would indicate 23 whether their representatives are joining us by 24 telephone from a common location or are, as are the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
8 members of the Board, in different locations. So 1
perhaps we could start with counsel for Southern.
2 (No audible response.)
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And you may be muted.
4 We're not hearing anything.
5 MR. BLANTON: I'm sorry. Can you hear me 6
now?
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Yes, I can. Thank you.
8 MR. BLANTON: We have too many mute 9
buttons in this room, Judge. Judge Bollwerk, good 10 morning. Stan Blanton for Southern Nuclear Operating 11 Company. I have with me here Peter LeJeune, and we're 12 in a conference room with speakerphones. So we're 13 here together.
14 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you 15 very much. The NRC staff, please.
16 MS. EZELL: Good morning. Julie Ezell for 17 the NRC staff and my colleague, Michael Spencer, as 18 well. We are in different locations.
19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you 20 very much. And then the representatives for the Blue 21 Ridge Environmental Defense League, BREDL?
22 MR. ZELLER: Yes. Good morning, Chairman 23 Bollwerk. This is Lou Zeller and the principle 24 speaker and the representative of the Blue Ridge 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
9 Environmental Defense League. I'm also executive 1
director. Briefly on the line in the virtual 2
courtroom are our technical exert, Arnold Gundersen.
3 At another location, I have Reverend Charles Utley.
4 And at another location, I have Reverend Claude 5
Howard.
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you 7
very much. I would like to note that prior to 8
beginning this call, I asked all the participants' 9
representatives to try to remember as they start to 10 speak to identify themselves so that it will be clear 11 to the court reporter who's speaking.
12 Also, as the participants' representatives 13 are aware, we're monitoring the speaker lines in an 14 effort to see if anyone drops off unexpectedly so we 15 can take steps to try to ensure that we don't move 16 forward with the argument until they're able to 17 reconnect. If, however, any of our eight participant 18 representatives with speaker lines should decide to 19 leave this conference call before it's concluded, we 20 would ask that they inform us before dropping off so 21 we can know they're leaving the teleconference 22 voluntarily rather than because they were 23 disconnected.
24 Also, we spoke briefly about the need to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
10 mute your phone if you are not speaking. It does 1
help. That will avoid the problems with papers being 2
moved around and someone on the record or a cell phone 3
or something else ringing in the background. So we 4
would, again, ask you that you please try to make an 5
effort to mute your phone. That's generally a button 6
with a microphone on it or something like it on your 7
cell phone or if you're using a Polycom of some kind.
8 Additionally regarding telephone 9
connectivity, we made available to the participants 10 and via the NRC's website and an agency press release 11 information on how members of the public could access 12 this conference by telephone on a listen-only basis.
13 We hope that all the members of the public or others 14 who wish to listen to this conference have been able 15 to access the bridge line this morning. I would 16 observe as well that a transcript of this conference 17 will be prepared and should be available in the NRC's 18 electronic hearing docket by next week.
19 As I mentioned earlier, the subject of 20 today's oral argument will be whether BREDL has shown 21 it has standing to intervene in this proceeding and 22 whether either or both of its two contentions, one of 23 which seeks revocation of Southern's Vogtle 3 COL for 24 alleged material false statements and the other of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
11 which claims that Vogtle 3 basemat foundation and 1
construction factors create an unacceptable 2
operational risk, public health and safety, frame an 3
admissible issue statement appropriate for an 4
evidentiary hearing that would be held at a later 5
time. We also may discuss a BREDL claim that its 6
review and analysis of the Southern license member 7
request has been improperly hindered by a lack of 8
access to documents provided to the NRC staff for 9
review by Southern.
10 As to the process that we will follow for 11 today's argument, as we outlined in our June 8, 2020 12 issuance, each participant's self designated primary 13 representative has been allotted a period of time 14 within which to present its position regarding these 15 matters. We will hear first from BREDL which has been 16 given a total of 30 minutes of which it may reserve up 17 to 10 minutes for a rebuttal presentation following 18 the Southern and staff presentations. Southern and 19 the staff, who will be heard from in that order, have 20 each been allotted 20 minutes to present their 21 arguments.
22 And I would note that Board members may 23 interpose questions during the participant's 24 presentation or wait until all the participants' 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
12 representation -- presentations, excuse me, are 1
concluded. We also recognize that our questions and 2
participants' answer may consume a portion of the 3
participants' argument time, and we'll take that into 4
the account in enforcing the time limitations I 5
mentioned previously.
6 Finally, I would observe that this matter 7
has been fully briefed. We've read the participants' 8
pleadings. So, as we indicated in our June 8th order, 9
we hope the participants will focus on identifying the 10 principle points in controversy and the information 11 that supports or rebuts their legal and/or factual 12 claims regarding those matters.
13 And as we also noted there, because this 14 argument is not an evidentiary
- hearing, the 15 participants should not attempt to introduce evidence 16 during the argument. Hopefully, this entire 17 proceeding will not go much beyond an hour. But it 18 looks as if we're going -- if that is going to be the 19 case, we may take a short break and then resume. All 20 that being said, before we begin with BREDL's initial 21 presentation, I wanted to ask counsel for Southern a 22 background question. Namely, what is Southern's 23 currently planned schedules for fuel loading and 24 operation for Vogtle 3?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
13 MR. BLANTON: Your Honor, the current date 1
on the schedule is November 23 of this year. I will 2
say that because of the issues around the coronavirus, 3
the schedule is being reviewed currently. And that 4
fuel load date is one of the milestones that's under 5
review, so it could change.
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And what about actual 7
operation?
8 MR. BLANTON: Actual operation, our 9
currently regulatory required date under the State 10 Public Service Commission is November of 2021 for Unit 11 3 which is what this amendment -- Unit 3, all this 12 amendment involves. I think the working schedule has 13 attempted to build a few months of margin into that.
14 But that, again, is under review right now.
15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you 16 very much. Appreciate the information. And now let's 17 go ahead and turn to Mr. Zeller for the initial 18 presentation. And Mr. Zeller, I'd like to ask you how 19 much time you wish to reserve for rebuttal.
20 MR. ZELLER: This is Lou Zeller. Yes, 21 thank you, Judge Bollwerk. I would like to reserve 22 ten minutes for rebuttal.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right, very good, 24 sir. Then you can begin your initial presentation.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
14 MR. ZELLER: Very good. Thank you. This 1
is Lou Zeller, and good morning to Dr. Abreu, Dr.
2 Arnold, and Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 3
opportunity to present our petition and to intervene 4
and request for a hearing. The issues for the panel 5
today center on physical changes in the nuclear island 6
of Plant Vogtle's Unit 3 still under construction.
7 Southern Nuclear Operating Company and NRC staff claim 8
it's just a minor construction flaw. But in reality, 9
the measured change in the plant's nuclear island 10 points to fundamental problems in the foundation.
11 With your permission, I will address, in 12 order, the questions related to standing, expert 13 qualifications, and contention. Number one, standing 14 should be granted. Residents of Shell Bluff, the 15 community surrounding Plant Vogtle on the Georgia side 16 of the Savannah River would be those placed most at 17 risk from a seismic accident causing radioactive 18 releases.
19 SNC opposes standing in this matter, but 20 the risk is there nevertheless. The level of risk 21 hinges on how well buildings in and around the nuclear 22 island are prevented from impacting one another during 23 a safe shutdown earthquake. Southern is treating one 24 inch as an acceptable margin during normal operations, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
15 but that is not the case as clearly stated in the 1
license amendment request.
2 The license amendment states, quote, as 3
described in the UFSAR Subsection 3851, the annex 4
building is structurally separated from the nuclear 5
island structure by a three inch minimum gap above 6
grade. It continues, the maximum relative seismic 7
displacement between the roof of the nuclear island 8
and the annex building is less than two inches. This 9
results in a clearance or gap between buildings 10 greater than one inch during a seismic event. That's 11 the LAR at page 3.
12 What this says, in other words, UFSAR 13 requires a minimum gap, three inches, as part of the 14 design for normal operations in order to ensure that 15 any settlement that occurs during an earthquake does 16 not reduce the distance to less than one inch. This 17 reduction in the permissible gap size is inconsistent 18 with the rationale for the three inch requirement and 19 increases the potential for interactions between the 20 nuclear island and the adjacent Category 2 buildings 21 during a seismic event. Thus it raises the potential 22 for an accident that could harm the public.
23 SNC finds that the maximum relative -- in 24 LAR at page 5, the maximum relative seismic 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
16 displacement between the nuclear island and the annex 1
building is such that the reduction of the seismic gap 2
does not affect the required maintain one inch minimum 3
gap during safe shutdown events. However -- that was 4
the LAR at page 5. However, SNC does not account for 5
the fact that more settling may occur during an 6
earthquake and thus the proposed margin of two inches 7
is not enough.
8 Petitioner has presented a
written 9
argument justifying standing and has provided 10 declarations from four local residents, two of those 11 individuals, Reverend Charles Utley and Reverend 12 Claude Howard, both lifelong residents, are here today 13 in the virtual courtroom. If permitted, Judge 14 Bollwerk, they are prepared to make brief statements 15 in support of standing. I respectfully request your 16 permission, Chairman Bollwerk.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: At this point, I don't 18 think that's necessary, unless the other judges wish 19 to hear it.
20 JUDGE ARNOLD: Not I. This is Judge 21 Arnold.
22 JUDGE ABREU: And this is Judge Abreu.
23 Not I.
24 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I think it's fairly 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
17 clear, Mr. Zeller, from the affidavits you filed and 1
from the -- well, from the affidavits you filed that 2
these individuals -- the individuals that you 3
presented, I guess you gave us four affidavits. At 4
least one of them was within about seven miles or 5
perhaps a little closer to the plant. I take it 6
that's correct?
7 MR. ZELLER: That's correct, yes.
8 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. All right. I 9
don't think we need then to have any other information 10 about that at this point. Thank you.
11 MR. ZELLER: All right, very well.
12 Reverend Claude Howard had a comment regarding that 13 his brothers and sisters would get together and talk 14 about events when they felt the group shake. And 15 Reverend Utley said words to the effect that this is 16 my home. From experience and understanding, he's 17 worked for 40 years counseling students who live in 18 the area exposed to contamination. It affects his 19 family and his church family which continues. He 20 strives to keep his family and church members safe.
21 So that's pretty much a synopsis of what they would 22 have said.
23 In sum, the issue before the Panel center 24 on earthquake impact and safety factors which I have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
18 detailed. Therefore the proximity factor, proviso 1
granting standing for individuals within a 50-mile 2
radius is met. Those are members who live and work 3
less than half that distance away from Plant Vogtle.
4 Also we note that although standing is disputed by 5
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, NRC staff does not 6
oppose granting a standing in this matter.
7 Okay, I'll move on to Southern Company 8
disputes Gundersen's expert witness. Southern Company 9
states that Petitioner fails to establish how Mr.
10 Arnold Gundersen is qualified to provide expert 11 testimony. That's SNC's answer at 11.
12 It is hard to imagine a more qualified 13 information than Mr. Gundersen who has an advanced 14 degree in a nuclear engineering degree, was a licensed 15 nuclear reactor
- operator, performed structural 16 engineering assessments, rose to become a senior vice 17 president for a nuclear licensee, and is sought by the 18 nuclear industry itself to provide expertise.
19 Petitioners replied to SNC includes a detailed litany 20 of Mr. Gundersen's qualifications. I'll now move on 21 to our contentions.
22 Number one is license revocation for 23 material false statements and Contention No. 2, base 24 mat foundation and construction package create 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
19 unacceptable operational risk to public health and 1
safety. I will dwell on Contention No. 2 primarily.
2 I understand or I've come to understand that license 3
revocation may be outside of the hand of the Atomic 4
Safety Licensing Board in this matter. So I will 5
leave that as it is.
6 Regarding Contention 2, in their license 7
amendment request, Southern Company claims that change 8
in the current design requirement is localized, 9
reducing a three inch gap between the nuclear island 10 and the annex building two and one sixteenth inches 11 and that it does not affect the relative displacement 12 between the roofs of the two buildings or the gap 13 below grade. This is not the first request from the 14 company for such an amendment to its combined 15 operating license. Is the seismic gap an isolated 16 event or a series?
17 A license amendment granted by the NRC in 18 2018 to Southern Nuclear for Plant Vogtle stated, 19 changes relax -- the proposed changes relax the 20 minimum gap requirements above grade between the 21 nuclear island and the annex building, turbine 22 building, and remove the minimum gap requirement 23 between the nuclear island and the RAD waste building.
24 That's from the license amendment request of 2018, 18-25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
20 002. The requested changes were from ITAAC and 1
corresponding Tier 1 information.
2 The exemption allowed changes in the DCD, 3
the Design Control Document, and the combined 4
operating license. The 2018 license amendment 5
assuredly addressed the same issues posited in the 6
2020 amendment, stating separation is provided between 7
structural elements of the turbine and annex buildings 8
and the nuclear island structure. This separation 9
permits horizontal motion of the building in a safe 10 shutdown earthquake without impact between structural 11 elements of the buildings. That is from the LAR of 12 2018.
13 The NRC safety analysis for LAR 18-002 14 stated, quote, the latest AP1000 generic 2D SASSI 15 analysis shows that the maximum relative seismic 16 displacement between the annex building and the 17 nuclear island is 0.95 inches and between the turbine 18 building and the nuclear island is 1.04 inches. In 19 2020 comes another request for license amendment at 20 Plant Vogtle asking the Commission to grant further 21 narrowing of the distance between the nuclear island 22 and adjacent building.
23 So is the 2020 nonconformance a one-time 24 event? Clearly not. Is there reasonable doubt that 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
21 the causes driving the need for amendment after 1
amendment, are spent? Clearly yes. What is that 2
cause? Uncertain. Clearly, further independent 3
analysis is justified.
4 Comparing apples to oranges, issuing a 5
differential settlement, both SNC and NRC confuse or 6
mischaracterize BREDL's argument regarding the 7
occurrence of dishing. The UFSAR acknowledges that 8
the differential settlement under the nuclear island 9
foundation could cause the base mat buildings to tilt.
10 Differential settlement shows up again and again.
11 That's NRC's answer I quoted from at 24.
12 Further, the NRC states, design-specific 13 parameters for Vogtle Unit 3 address expected 14 settlement citing AP1000 DCD Section 3A542. But the 15 discussion centers on differential settlement and 16 bounding parameters for the nuclear island. The 17 stated final safety analysis report and plant-specific 18 design control documents cited by NRC discuss a 19 differential settlement throughout, not dishing.
20 The difference is critical to 21 understanding the safety concerns raised in our 22 petition. Differential settlement is linear. With 23 differential settlement, the base is not level but it 24 stays flat. Dishing is different. It is curved.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
22 Dishing creates unanalyzed stresses.
1 Our petition states that to dismiss 2
concerns about one phenomenon by confusing it with a 3
similar but critically different process would 4
sidestep the safety issues we have identified. In 5
this license amendment request, Southern Company 6
states, nuclear island base mat has deflected more at 7
the center and less at the perimeter. It continues.
8 Theoretically -- this is Southern Company.
9 Theoretically, this suggests that the nuclear island 10 tends to tilt away from the annex building. That is 11 from the license amendment request 20-001 at page 8.
12 In this application, Southern Company has admitted 13 that the sinking is not linear, more at the center, 14 less at the perimeter. Arnold Gundersen made 15 reference to such in his declaration supporting our 16 petition for intervention and it is part of Contention 17 2.
18 However, SNC attempts to limit the scope 19 to a change in wall and not to the dishing of the base 20 mat. They brought up dishing without using the term 21 in the license amendment request. They admit that 22 tension at the bottom of the base mat is different 23 than compression at the top. According to SNC, this 24 is representative of dishing. That's from Southern 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
23 Nuclear Company's answer at 21.
1 Nuclear island basemat is sinking more in 2
the middle. We would not have known that without this 3
license amendment request. There still is no publicly 4
available data on the rate of sinking, but we now know 5
as a result of the license amendment request that it 6
is nonlinear. An Applicant must satisfy the 7
requirements of 10 CFR 50.90 and demonstrate that the 8
requested amendment meets all applicable regulatory 9
requirements and acceptance criteria and does not 10 otherwise harm public health and safety nor the common 11 defense and security. And 10 CFR 52.97(b) controls 12 NRC's review of license amendment. A mere theory 13 about why buildings in the nuclear island are shifting 14 does not meet these requirements.
15
- Further, a
propriety claim screens 16 information without public scrutiny. NRC staff and 17 the Structural, Civil, Geotech Engineering Branch 18 conducted an audit during March 10 to April 30. SNC 19 and Westinghouse made those documents available via a 20 portal of Westinghouse Electric Company electronic 21 reading room. This is a memorandum from the NRC.
22 This non-docketed information, which is 23 unavailable to the public, was used by NRC to, quote, 24 evaluate the acceptability of the proposed changes to 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
24 the license, end quote. NRC spent 400 dollars 1
reviewing Vogtle seismic analysis, but took no 2
documents out. Their conclusion, quote, based on the 3
review of information provided by the internet portal, 4
the NRC did not identify any outstanding issues, from 5
the memorandum of the audit at page 3.
6 Also, NRC reached a no significant hazards 7
determination.
We understand that NRC's no 8
significant hazards consideration is not subject to 9
challenge in adjudicator proceeding. Nevertheless, 10 this Petitioner has filed a FOIA request which is in 11 process.
12 On Friday, we received word that, quote, 13 records that are subject to your FOIA request, NRC 14 2020-000234, had been sent to the submitter/licensee 15 for review of records that originated from their 16 agency. Once we receive the respective agency's 17 disposition of the release of these records, we will 18 continue processing your request. So that is in 19 process.
20 Finally, the Atomic Safety Licensing Board 21 may provide relief short of license revocation. As 22 you know, the license amendment may be approved or 23 rejected by the NRC or withdraw by the licensee. This 24 is in many places, including in the Nuclear Energy 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
25 Institute's Revision 2 guidance. The Atomic Safety 1
Licensing Board alone has the power to initiate the 2
level of review required to ensure public safety by 3
withholding approval of the license amendment 4
requested by Southern Nuclear Operating Company. Dr.
5 Abreu, Dr. Arnold, and Chairman Bollwerk, thank you.
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I have just a couple 7
questions at this point, and I may have some others 8
later. But let me just ask you briefly a couple 9
things that you talked about. You mentioned, I guess, 10 Contention 1 that you did not have a lot more you 11 wanted to say about it given the presentations that 12 have been made about the authority of the Board to 13 revoke the license.
14 But much of the contention appeared to be 15 based on the assertion that the walls in question were 16 finished as long as five years ago. And I guess 17 Southern and the staff made a point in their pleadings 18 or answers that, that fact was not the case. A lot of 19 it wasn't completed until 2019. And your reply didn't 20 say anything about that. I just want to see if you 21 had anything further you wanted to say about that.
22 MR. ZELLER: Yes, thank you, Judge 23 Bollwerk. This is Lou Zeller. And part of the 24 problem for us at least from the beginning has been 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
26 their keeping proprietary of the scheduling for the 1
construction at Plant Vogtle Unit 3. In response, one 2
of the answers pointed to a public website maintained 3
by Georgia Power and Southern Nuclear Company which 4
had some very beautiful photographs of the 5
constructions which was ongoing. But they were not 6
something which you could rely on to say, what 7
happened and when. So we're still at a loss to 8
determine the exact timing of it because the 9
information is kept proprietary of the schedule of 10 what happens at Vogtle. So therefore, we're looking 11 for further information.
12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. I guess your 13 reply also indicated you've been contacted by the 14 Section 2.206 coordinator, that the staff had referred 15 your concerns to -- so that you could use the 10 CFR 16 Section 2.206 process. Can you tell me anything about 17 the status of that?
18 MR. ZELLER: Certainly. This is Lou 19 Zeller, and the 2.206 unit did contact me. And we've 20 had a brief discussion as recently as last week. The 21 discussion is ongoing. I would add that we have been 22 involved in 2.206 enforcement petitions in the past 23 and with no -- I'm not saying anything bad about any 24 of the people there. But it is a leaky vessel for 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
27 hope because deadlines are oftentimes missed and it 1
does not have the gravitas of the appearance of a 2
hearing like the one we're having today before the 3
Atomic Safety Licensing Board. So we much prefer to 4
continue with this process today, and we'll hold 5
judgment on the 2.206 pending how the discussions go 6
with that unit.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
8 One other question. BREDL had previously been 9
involved in a couple of licensing proceedings before 10 licensing boards dealing with the Vogtle facility and 11 other license amendments that had been requested. And 12 there were two decisions that were issued, LPB 16-5 13 and LPB 16-10, one dealing with the wall thickness, 14 the other dealing with hydrogen igniters.
15 And in both of those cases, the licensing 16 board indicated that BREDL didn't challenge the 17 exemptions associated with the license amendment 18 request at issue. Your petition contains challenges 19 to the license amendment request with those cases but 20 said nothing about the extension request. Are you 21 contesting the exemption request here? Both the 22 licensing boards in those previous cases indicated you 23 were not contesting the exemption.
24 MR. ZELLER: We are. We mean to contest 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
28 them, yes, Judge Bollwerk.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: But you certainly haven't 2
said it in your petition.
3 MR. ZELLER: Well, I guess maybe that's --
4 that may be true, explicitly.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
6 Let me just see if either Judge Abreu or Judge Arnold 7
have any questions at this point for Mr. Zeller.
8 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, this is Judge Arnold.
9 I have one question. You mentioned something about an 10 earlier license amendment that had to do with wall 11 spacing, correct?
12 MR. ZELLER: That's correct, yes.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: I did not find anything 14 about that in your petition. So is this a new 15 argument on your part?
16 MR. ZELLER: There were -- if I understand 17 the question correctly, this is Lou Zeller, there were 18 two previous license amendment requests which BREDL 19 challenged at Plant Vogtle. Those were separate 20 proceedings, one on cement tolerances, the other one 21 on hydrogen igniters. I'm not aware of any 22 association between those two things except that they 23 were in the same place for the same reactor.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, no, I'm just asking 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
29 because you discussed them just now. And I don't see 1
anything about them in your current petition 2
concerning this license amendment request. So are you 3
adding a new argument to your discussion?
4 MR. ZELLER: This is Lou Zeller. No, this 5
is -- the discussion or the inclusion of license 6
amendment request 18-002 is part of the record of this 7
proceeding. It was raised, in fact, by NRC staff in 8
their answer, for example. And it is one that we did 9
not challenge back in 2018.
10 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. No more questions.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: So I take it, Mr. Zeller, 12 your argument is you're incorporating that. Now it's 13 part of your argument because the staff raised it?
14 MR. ZELLER: Yes, so that there is more --
15 this is an ongoing process in terms of the base mat 16 dishing and continuing or a continual process which 17 required at least one exemption and license amendment 18 in 2018. And that was granted, and that's in the 19 record of this proceeding. And now they're coming 20 back to the bar for another license amendment. That's 21 the point.
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
23 Judge Abreu?
24 JUDGE ABREU: I have no questions at this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
30 time.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Well, at this 2
point, I think we'll go ahead and move on to Southern.
3 And I should say, Mr. Zeller, you obviously have some 4
time for rebuttal. It's also possible that some of 5
the matters that you've raised in your direct argument 6
may become the subject of some questions after we've 7
heard from all the parties' arguments. So we'll leave 8
it at that at this point. Thank you very much for 9
your presentation, sir.
10 MR. ZELLER: Thank you, Judge Bollwerk.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I guess Mr. Blanton, it's 12 your turn.
13 MR. BLANTON: Yes, sir, Judge. Thank you.
14 This is Stan Blanton for Southern Nuclear. Southern 15 Nuclear certainly appreciates the opportunity to 16 express its position on this petition to intervene 17 with the Board. My plan, Judge, is to give sort of an 18 overview of our argument and then address each of 19 these contentions in slightly more granular level of 20 detail.
21 Before I do that, I'm going to try to 22 respond as much as I can to some things I heard Mr.
23 Zeller say in his argument. There may be some cleanup 24 at the end. And then my hope is that there's plenty 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
31 of time for the Board to ask questions after that. Is 1
that acceptable, or are there any questions right now?
2 JUDGE BOLLWERK: It's certainly acceptable 3
to me. Judge Arnold or Judge Abreu, any comments you 4
have?
5 JUDGE ARNOLD: That's fine with me.
6 JUDGE ABREU: That sounds fine.
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. Then Mr. Blanton, 8
why don't you proceed.
9 MR. BLANTON: Yes, sir. I want to make 10 clear and it sounds like the Board is clear. But I 11 want to make clear because of something I just heard.
12 The license amendment request at issue here -- and if 13 it's okay, I'm going to refer to the license amendment 14 request as a LAR.
15 LAR 20-001 seeks only to reduce the 16 minimum distance for a portion of the auxiliary 17 building and annex building walls from three inches to 18 two and one sixteenth inches in both the UFSAR and the 19 associated ITAAC. I think I heard Mr. Zeller in his 20 argument say that something to the effect that the 21 amendment was to make the minimum distance one inch 22 under normal operating conditions. That's not 23 accurate. That's what he said.
24 The one inch that's referred to in the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
32 amendment is the clearance between the walls during a 1
safe shutdown earthquake event. The amendment in 2
question seeks only to reduce that portion of the 3
auxiliary building or the minimum distance of that 4
portion of the auxiliary building and annex building 5
walls from three to two and one sixteenth inches, less 6
than an inch of change. That's all of our request, 7
and the only issues that are within the scope of this 8
proceeding are those that are material to whether the 9
distance between the walls as changed will provide 10 reasonable assurance that they will not interact with 11 each other as a result of the ground motion produced 12 by the safe shutdown earthquake.
13 This LAR does not request a change to the 14 one inch minimum distance between the walls that is 15 specified in the FSAR to be maintained during the SSE.
16 Also, the LAR does not seek a change to the settlement 17 parameter for the AP1000 set out in the AP1000 18 certified design and incorporated by reference in the 19 Vogtle Unit 3 license. Intention regarding settlement 20 or structural issues that are not material or whether 21 the affected portions of the walls of the two 22 buildings will remain separated during the SSE are 23 simply not material to this LAR and are not within the 24 scope of this proceeding.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
33 In
- fact, BREDL's contentions, as 1
originally filed has contrasted to their argument 2
today, barely make reference to the changes requested 3
by LAR 20-001. To the extent they do, they utterly 4
fail to draw any logical connection between their 5
contentions and issues such as the stiffness of a 6
respective wall which are material to the amendment 7
request. There is no explanation in the petition of 8
how the dramatic but unquantified and unsupported 9
allegations regarding the settlement of a foundation 10 of the nuclear island make it more or less likely that 11 the buildings would interact during a safe shutdown 12 earthquake nor could they since both LAR and the 13 undisputed publicly available information regarding 14 the settlement of the Vogtle nuclear island 15 demonstrate that it is well within the parameters 16 approved by the NRC and the AP1000 design 17 certification.
18 Without some logical connection to the 19 findings NRC must make to approve the changes 20 requested by LAR, the contentions are outside the 21 scope of this proceeding. Moreover, as we've 22 discussed in our brief, the allegations in the 23 contention consist solely of bare assertions without 24 the support required to create an issue of fact and in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
34 many cases are refuted by undisputed publicly 1
available information. Further, although BREDL 2
submits the declaration of Mr. Gundersen, there is 3
nothing in Mr. Gundersen's discussion that his 4
education and experience would suggest he is an expert 5
in the complex fields of structural or geotechnical 6
engineering which we submit would be required to give 7
an opinion about these issues in this matter.
8 Finally, BREDL has failed in its petition 9
to establish representational standing on behalf of 10 Reverend Utley and Howard and the other individuals 11 who filed affidavits. Not because those individuals 12 are not interested in the safety of Plant Vogtle as we 13 all are, but because standing in this proceeding 14 cannot be based merely upon proximity or interest but 15 must be based on a showing by the Petitioner that the 16 specific changes at issue create obvious potential for 17 all site consequences. BREDL has not even attempted 18 to make such a showing as it relates to the specific 19 change requested by this amendment.
20 BREDL, while pro se, is an experienced 21 litigant before this Board and the Commission and 22 should be well acquainted with those standing 23 requirements. It is appearing pro se and should not 24 excuse its failure to properly establish its standing.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
35 Now I'd like to turn to and address Contention 1 in 1
more detail.
2 Contention 1 alleges that SNC has somehow 3
supplied false or incomplete information to the NRC.
4 The contention is grounded on an allegation that the 5
walls in question were constructed five years ago.
6 And for some unexplained reason, Southern Nuclear 7
decided to wait until now to submit this LAR.
8 The contention seeks the revocation of the 9
Vogtle license. Obviously, as the Board has already 10 pointed out, a license, and as I think Mr. Zeller has 11 conceded, a license amendment request is not the 12 proper avenue for a Petitioner to purse an action to 13 revoke a license. 10 CFR 2.206 is the proper avenue 14 for such a request, not this proceeding. So the 15 request is out of scope for that reason alone.
16 Second, the linchpin in Petitioner's 17 contention that SNC has somehow sat on information 18 regarding the nonconformance motivating the LAR for 19 five years is demonstrably false. The walls in 20 question were only constructed in 2019. The survey 21 revealing the nonconformance were done in 2019 and 22 confirmed in 2020.
23 These facts are established by any number 24 of publicly available sources that are listed in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
36 detail in our answer which include NRC inspection 1
reports that are publicly available. Petitioner has 2
presented no information to dispute these facts.
3 Moreover, the dates of the walls in questions were 4
constructed as a matter of fact, not expert opinion.
5 BREDL cannot alter the undisputed facts 6
regardless of the qualifications or allegations of its 7
witness. And there's no factual basis in the 8
allegation to support that the walls were constructed 9
in 2015. The result, Contention 1 is out of scope, 10 it's unsupported, and it's inadmissible.
11 Turning to Contention 2 in this discussion 12 of dishing. The gist of Contention 2 is that Vogtle 13 Unit 3 -- excuse me -- the Vogtle Unit nuclear island 14 foundation is, quote, sinking or dishing. The 15 contention alleges that the nonconformance that is the 16 subject of a LAR as a result of this dishing. In 17 essence, that the COL -- and argues in essence that 18 COL should be suspended until the, quote, structural 19 integrity, close quote, of Vogtle Unit 3 which 20 includes not only the Vogtle COL but also the AP1000 21 certified design is effectively re-reviewed and 22 reapproved by NRC.
23 Again, the relief requested by BREDL in 24 contention was obviously available in this proceeding.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
37 In any event, the relief would stand the finality, 1
accorded certified designs, and issues resolved in COL 2
proceedings on its head. Apart from that, however, 3
the contention is based on a
collection of 4
misunderstandings, misstatements and unsupported bare 5
assertions that fail to satisfy the NRC's contention 6
admission requirements.
7 First and perhaps most importantly, 8
Contention 2 is based on a demonstrably false premise 9
that differential settlement for the nuclear island 10 foundation and adjacent buildings was ignored in LAR 11 20-001 and was, quote, not anticipated in the AP1000 12 design. By the contrary, the LAR expressly includes 13 an evaluation of differential settlement. Moreover, 14 the AP1000 DCD, which is incorporated by reference in 15 the Vogtle FSAR, not only anticipates differential 16 settlement of the foundation. It provides parameters 17 for settlement within which no further evaluation of 18 the settlement is required.
19 The safety evaluation report for 18-002, 20 and I'm glad to hear Mr. Zeller is aware of the record 21 for 18-002. But that safety evaluation report 22 prepared by NRC staff demonstrates that differential 23 settlement at Vogtle Unit 3 is well within the 24 parameters of a DCD, and is in fact 40 percent less 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
38 than what the AP1000 model predicts due to the stable 1
characteristics of the Vogtle site. The petition 2
provides no factual support to review this facts.
3 And I would say that the distinction we've 4
heard this morning between, quote, dishing and 5
differential settlement is not included in the 6
petition and constitutes evidence trying to be 7
presented in this contention admissibility proceeding 8
which is not permitted. In fact, the Vogtle DCD -- or 9
the Vogtle FSAR which incorporates the AP1000 DCD does 10 evaluate many different construction sequences which 11 do evaluate settlement across the foundation, 12 including greater stresses in the middle of the 13 foundation than at the perimeter. This is precisely 14 how Mr. Gundersen defines dishing, and it's been 15 reviewed and approved as part of the design 16 certification process and is not subject to challenge 17 in this license amendment proceeding.
18 Certainly, the argument that the current 19 condition of localized nonconformance is not the as-20 built condition -- the quote, as-built condition of 21 the subject walls. Neither makes sense nor is it 22 supported by anything other than speculation. There's 23 no evidence other than Mr.
Gundersen's bare 24 unsupported assertion that the affected area of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
39 auxiliary building wall is not in the same condition 1
as it was when construction was completed. In any 2
event, the as-built condition simply means you have 3
the actual condition of the wall at the time its 4
inspected.
5 As contrasted, we have the design 6
configuration. Petitioner's arguments regarding 7
whether the wall is in its, quote, as-built condition 8
is a red herring. It demonstrates their lack of 9
experience with structural concepts.
10 Absent evidence that the differential 11 settlement of the Vogtle nuclear island and annex 12 building not only exceed the parameters approved in 13 the AP1000 DCD but also adversely impact the 14 requirement that the walls not interact during a safe 15 shutdown earthquake. Settlement is simply not 16 relevant to the pending license amendment request.
17 The AP1000 DCD makes clear that settlement within the 18 parameters does not affect the safety function of the 19 equipment in the nuclear island. That's the certified 20 design by the NRC.
21 Petitioners cannot challenge that DCD 22 provision or the DCD settlement parameters in this 23 license amendment proceeding. There's absolutely 24 nothing in the contention or the record to suggest 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
40 that differential settlement of the nuclear island or 1
the annex building exceed or is rationally expecting 2
to exceed these design parameters that were approved 3
by the NRC. To the contrary, the settlement 4
evaluation in the LAR clearly states that the 5
settlement survey data for 2019 suggest that long-term 6
differential settlement of foundations should be 7
relatively small or a thick layer of engineered 8
backfill between the blue bluff morrow bedrock and the 9
6-foot thick reinforced concrete foundations of the 10 nuclear island. Petitioner has provided nothing of 11 substance to refute that evaluation.
12 Although the Petitioner has made a general 13 request for information supporting the LAR -- and now 14 I'm going to turn to the issue of what information 15 Petitioner has available to it. Although the 16 Petitioner has made a general request for information 17 supporting the LAR, there's no contention of omission 18 in the petition asserting that the LAR lacks necessary 19 information. NRC conducted a sufficiency review of 20 the license amendment request and determined that the 21 technical evaluation included in the LAR was adequate 22 and it's neither challenged nor challengeable. That 23 acceptance review is neither challenged or 24 challengeable.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
41 The failure of the Petitioner to assert a 1
contention of omission makes any complaint about lack 2
of detailed information immaterial. In short, 3
dramatic language does not substitute for the lack of 4
supporting information and a material contention under 5
NRC's rules. Finally, we're going to address -- or 6
next, we're going to address Mr. Gundersen's 7
qualifications which we have challenged in this 8
petition to intervene.
9 Issues of structural integrity of 10 structures, especially in the context of the 11 interaction with soil vibration during a safe shutdown 12 earthquake are among the most complex and theoretical 13 issues confronted in the approval of a standard 14 nuclear plant design and the licensing of a nuclear 15 plant site. I remember well, Judge Bollwerk, the 16 hearing we had on these issues in the ESP and COL 17 process. This is truly an area where special 18 expertise is necessary in order to provide meaningful 19 opinions to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
20 At a bare minimum, the Board should expect 21 the witness' credentials to include degrees in 22 structural or geotechnical engineering and direct 23 hands-on experience in dealing with structural and 24 seismic issues.
Mr.
Gundersen's credentials, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
42 impressive though they are in some areas, evidence no 1
such training or experience. Certainly, managerial 2
relationships with specialists in a discipline does 3
not convert the manager into an expert in each of the 4
disciplines overseen and reliance on materials found 5
in literature or the internet also don't substitute 6
for professional credentials.
7 Just as an example, and with all due 8
respect to Mr. Gundersen, in paragraphs 36.5 and 39 of 9
Mr.
Gundersen's declaration, he expresses the 10 conclusion that this amendment concerns two 12-foot 11 high walls when the LAR itself makes clear that we are 12 really dealing with a 12-foot vertical span in an 13 approximately 50-foot high wall, most of which, both 14 above and below the nonconformance, maintains the 3-15 inch gap required by the design. A cursory review of 16 the FSAR or the DCD would have revealed that the two 17 walls in question are approximately 50 feet high, not 18 the 12 feet that Mr. Gundersen concludes. It is not 19 too much to ask the witness proffered as an expert, to 20 understand such basic facts.
21 Nor is it enough for Mr. Gundersen to cite 22 the work of others or in one case, the New York Times.
23 If BREDL wants to rely on the opinions of those 24 individuals, they need to provide a declaration from 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
43 them, address the specific issues raised by this 1
amendment request and demonstrate their qualifications 2
as an expert. Otherwise, the allegations of the 3
declaration are no more than speculation of a lay 4
witness.
5 Finally, I'll address standing. It's 6
clear that in a license amendment proceeding, 7
proximity alone does not establish standing. The 8
contention must go further and provide some plausible 9
or credible causal change between the change requested 10 by the amendment and the potential for offsite 11 consequences. Although the NRC staff correctly notes 12 that the allegations establishing standing are a 13 separate question from whether they are meritorious, 14 the Petitioner is no less required to provide some 15 logical connection between the change requested and 16 the offsite consequence asserted.
17 Here, BREDL has failed to do that.
18 Unquantified and unsupported allegations that the 19 foundation of the building are, quote, sinking, do not 20 logically lead to any risk of damage to the buildings 21 or damage to the reactor as BREDL speculates and 22 certainly don't directly address the change requested 23 by this license amendment. Without a causal 24 connection between the requested change and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
44 offsite consequences, there is no
- standing, 1
notwithstanding these individuals very understanding 2
interest in the safety of Plant Vogtle. I think 3
that's all I have, Your Honors, and I'd be happy to 4
respond to any questions or try to.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: This is Judge Bollwerk.
6 Thank you, Mr. Blanton. I do have some questions.
7 Let's start with standing. That's the last matter you 8
dealt with. So on its website, the NRC has a glossary 9
of terms which defines auxiliary building as a 10 building at a nuclear power plant which is frequently 11 located adjacent to the reactor containment structure 12 and houses most of the auxiliary and safety systems 13 associated with the reactor, such as radioactive waste 14 systems, chemical and volume control systems, and 15 emergency cooling water systems. I'd be interested in 16 any information to can give us about what equipment or 17 operations are in the auxiliary building that's the 18 subject of the license amendment in the exemption 19 request.
20 MR. BLANTON: Well, I think you've done it 21 yourself, Judge. They are they support systems for 22 the equipment in containment, and there are any number 23 of safety-related systems in that auxiliary building.
24 Our argument is not based on the lack of safety 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
45 significance of the auxiliary building.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. Just out of 2
interest, what are the equipment and operations that 3
are in the annex building subject to the license 4
amendment and the exemption request?
5 MR. BLANTON: Yeah, the annex building 6
tends to house -- first of all, the auxiliary building 7
is a seismic Category 1 building which means it has to 8
survive a safe shutdown earthquake. The annex 9
building is a seismic Category 2 building which means 10 that it cannot interfere with a seismic Category 1 11 building during a safe shutdown earthquake. And the 12 annex building houses -- again, it's a pretty large 13 building and it has a lot of stuff in it. But it has 14 things like labs. It has low-level radioactive waste, 15 I think, storage maybe. Whereas the auxiliary 16 building houses everything from a control room to any 17 number of different sorts of safety-related equipment.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Can you say 19 anything about the equipment or operations that are in 20 the annex building and the auxiliary building at the 21 portion of the wall that's in controversy here, 22 exactly what's there?
23 MR. BLANTON: I'd probably have to ask 24 somebody a question about that, Your Honor. I'm 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
46 sorry.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. One other 2
question. When I did my introduction, I talked about 3
the proportion of the wall. Is that -- were we 4
talking about -- hold on one second here. Is that --
5 well, I guess the question is, is that an I or a Roman 6
numeral one that's talking about that portion of the 7
wall?
8 MR. BLANTON: Judge, I asked BREDL the 9
same thing when I started working with this, and I 10 believe that's Column I.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Column I. So it's the 12 letter I. Okay. Thank you.
13 MR. BLANTON: And that sort of -- if I can 14 describe it -- this is difficult to describe over the 15 phone. But the area of nonconformance is actually 16 coming from the auxiliary building. Okay? So there's 17 slightly less than one inch of the auxiliary building 18 that bows out, and it's about -- I think about 40 feet 19 up from grade. And so it runs in a -- I guess an east 20 to west direction to basically the corner of the 21 auxiliary building.
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: So it's the auxiliary 23 building, not the annex building, that's the one 24 that's bowed?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
47 MR. BLANTON: Correct.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. And you had 2
mentioned but you dropped off just at the point you 3
said the wall. Did I hear you say 30 feet high rather 4
than 12 feet?
5 MR. BLANTON: The wall in question --
6 there are different elevations for both of these 7
buildings based on where the roof line is. But it's 8
my understanding that the way in question starts at 9
about 100 feet of elevation and goes up to about 155 10 or six feet of elevation. So the area of 11 nonconformance starts about 40 feet and ends about 12 three feet below the roof line.
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. And I heard 14 you say and I know it's Southern's position that a 15 safe shutdown earthquake will not cause a seismic gap 16 between the auxiliary building and the annex building 17 to be compromised. But if an event were to occur, if 18 the wall of the annex building breached the opposing 19 auxiliary building wall, what would be the potential 20 impacts of such an event in terms of safe operations 21 or radiological releases?
22 MR. BLANTON: Well, I'm told, first of 23 all, that in the area of the -- well, first of all, 24 the annex building, you've got restrooms and hallways 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
48 in the vicinity of the nonconformance in the annex 1
building. As far as the question about what would 2
happen if the walls interacted during a safe shutdown 3
earthquake, our position is not that, that would not 4
be a safety consequence from that. I mean, I don't 5
know that we've analyzed it, but that's not what our 6
standing argument is based on. Our standing argument 7
is based on the fact that the Petitioner has made no 8
such case, and this hearing is not the place to do 9
that.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. I mentioned 11 to Mr. Zeller the two previous Vogtle license 12 amendment cases back in 2016. And in both of those 13 instances, the licensing board found that BREDL had 14 standing to intervene. I'm recognizing that both 15 standing holdings were based on factual circumstances 16 presented in those cases that involve containment 17 material, wall thicknesses, and hydrogen igniters.
18 And in the case of LPB 16-10, there was an 19 appeal to the Commission. The Commission declined to 20 address a standing holding. But you really haven't 21 made any attempt to discuss or distinguish those 22 cases. What's your position on those cases? Are they 23 distinguishable, or were they wrongly decided? What's 24 your position?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
49 MR. BLANTON: Yes, sir. They are. In 1
each of those cases, the contention -- I'm sorry.
2 (Simultaneous speaking.)
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Are they distinguishable 4
or wrongly decided? I guess that's my question.
5 MR. BLANTON: They're distinguishable.
6 We're not arguing --
7 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay.
8 MR. BLANTON: -- if they're wrongly 9
decided. In both of those cases, the contention was 10 much more closely related to the change being 11 requested than here. In one of those cases, we had 12 argued that essentially that the offsite -- and really 13 in both of them, that the offsite consequences alleged 14 were either speculative or had such low probability 15 that they really weren't real offsite consequences and 16 did not satisfy that standard of sort of a plausible, 17 credible risk of offsite consequences. And in both 18 those cases, obviously the Board disagreed with us.
19 Here, our argument is different, is that 20 the Petitioner has failed to even try to connect the 21 offsite consequences it alleges with the particular 22 change in question. If you look at Mr. Gundersen's 23 affidavit and the contention, it is much more in the 24 nature of a failure of the nuclear island foundation 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
50 that causes some severe damage to the nuclear island 1
structure itself due to settlement rather than the 2
walls interacting during a safe shutdown earthquake.
3 They barely mention the distance between 4
the walls and their contention or in Mr. Gundersen's 5
declaration. It's all about the foundation. And our 6
position is they've at least got to tie their offsite 7
consequences to the particular change being requested 8
which is a very small change in this distance between 9
-- minimum distance between the two walls -- between 10 a portion of the two walls.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. One last 12 standing question. If you look at the staff's NUREG 13 800 standard review plan, Section 14.3 concerning 14 inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria, 15 the ITAAC review responsibilities, it indicates that 16 Tier 1 information is that portion of the design-17 related information contained in the generic design 18 control document, the DDC -- DCD, excuse me, that's 19 approved and certified by design certification rule 20 and should include, quote, the top level design 21 features and performance characteristics, unquote, 22 that are, quote, the most significant to safety, 23 unquote. And that's from the standard review plan at 24 page 14.3-16.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
51 As is the case for both the previous 1
Vogtle LAR cases, the license amendment exemption here 2
involves a change to Tier 1 information. Isn't that 3
a strong indication of the potential safety 4
significant of requested changes? It's something that 5
needs to be taken into consideration in standing?
6 MR. BLANTON: Well, certainly if they had 7
made a contention that addresses our amendment, yes, 8
Judge. And believe me, we are not contending that 9
this change to an ITAAC does not have safety 10 significance. It does, and we can see that. That's 11 the reason we filed the LAR is because you couldn't 12 address this under Tier 2. So yes, it has safety 13 consequences that just because an amendment has safety 14 consequences does not necessarily, we would propose, 15 confer standing on individuals without the necessary 16 showing of a causal link to the offsite consequences 17 from that specific change, not from some general risk.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.
19 MR. BLANTON: It's not -- to put it 20 another way, I would contend that it's not up to the 21 Board and it's not up to the parties other than the 22 Petitioner to divine their standing from the petitions 23 and the underlying regulatory documents. They're 24 supposed to do that themselves. And in this case, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
52 they did not.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
2 Let me ask you a couple questions related to 3
Contention 2. Under the settlement evaluation portion 4
of the LAR at page 8, Southern makes a statement.
5 From a practical perspective, as construction load 6
inducted settlement occurs, even if walls were to lean 7
towards the gap, construction means and methods 8
require that as wall construction progresses upwards, 9
walls are installed at original design location 10 offsetting any minor tilt that may have occurred in 11 the walls below, effectively minimizing building tilt 12 induced by the short term settlement.
13 Now I may be -- you mentioned the fact 14 that I think Mr. Zeller doesn't have a lot of 15 construction knowledge. I think you put it as lack of 16 expertise with construction concepts, and I may be 17 displaying the same thing here. But what this seems 18 to suggest is that if the wall position is -- wall 19 position, excuse me, is monitored so as to maintain 20 the appropriate vertical wall placement to avoid any 21 wall lean during construction. Why didn't this 22 approach identify and compensate for the 23 nonconformance with the annex building that caused the 24 seismic gap problem? In other words, why did the wall 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
53 end up bowing out if you were monitoring it all the 1
time?
2 MR. BLANTON: You know, that's a good 3
question, Judge, and you've hit on the necessity of 4
this license amendment. Although we don't deem it 5
material to this LAR and we're certainly not trying to 6
introduce evidence here, the way these walls are 7
constructed or in phases as NRC staff has pointed out 8
and the concrete is poured into a stay in place form 9
while it sets. And in this particular case, the 10 belief is that one of those stay in place forms bowed 11 out slightly while the wall was being poured and while 12 it hardened and allowed this less than one inch bowing 13 out of the wall and in the encroachment.
14 So it wasn't a situation where the wall 15 was leaning towards the -- into the gap and they 16 poured it anyway. The wall was plume. They poured 17 the wall. And while the wall hardened, the concrete 18 slightly bowed. Does that make sense?
19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I understand what you're 20 saying, yes. But I guess the LAR also indicates that 21 the -- the discussion portion of it indicates -- the 22 survey data also indicates a foundation deflection 23 contour in the annex building is uniform in the 24 vicinity of the nuclear island which did not result in 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
54 tilted parameter structures toward the nuclear island.
1 So I guess with respect to the annex, you're saying 2
that one is straight up then?
3 MR. BLANTON: Well, we're saying that some 4
of the data collected so far indicate that that 5
building in itself, which is -- and again, settlement 6
was anticipated and approved in the design -- that 7
that annex building is basically settling uniformly at 8
the perimeter so that there's no even indication of a 9
tilt one way or the other. The nuclear island, the 10 settlement data indicates that it's settling somewhere 11 more in the center than at the perimeter. I would 12 emphasize that the settlement of both of these 13 buildings are both very small and a fraction of what 14 the design limits are and that the reference to the 15 tilting of the wall of the nuclear island is 16 theoretically if it were to tilt, it falls away from 17 the gap.
18 There's not -- first of all, the tilt 19 would be almost imperceptible to the human eye, and 20 there's no -- the amendment does not take the position 21 that it is tilting, only that it would tend to tilt 22 away from the gap to the extent it did. The 23 settlement evaluation is presented in the LAR to 24 support the safety of the reduction in the minimum 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
55 distance precisely because those two walls are not 1
leaning toward each other.
2 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
3 And Judge Abreu and Judge Arnold, I haven't forgotten 4
about you. Let me finish up with a couple other 5
questions, and then I'll turn to you if you have 6
anything at that point. I want to ask you a couple 7
questions about document access from -- relative to 8
Southern's position and sort of its involvement.
9 So the BREDL claim is basically that it 10 was not provided with, quote, complete engineering 11 analyses or accurate information provided for review 12 by Southern, and that's from their petition at 6. And 13 its FOI request is described in its reply, which is 14 the reply of one no one, seeks access to documents, 15 data, and calculations necessary for review of the LAR 16 regarding seismic gap and any documents, data, and 17 calculations regarding the analysis performed by the 18 NRC audit team.
19 So let me ask you a question first about 20 the Southern February 2nd, 2020 license amendment 21 request. It provides no references in support of the 22 amendment, and that's the enclosure of the LAR that 23 has a discussion at page 14. It has no -- quote-24 unquote, no references, but it refers to a generic 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
56 AP1000 system for ---
1 OPERATOR: Hello, this is the conference 2
operator, you signaled for assistance?
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And that's a generic one 4
as well as a site-specific SASSI analyses, including 5
a site-specific analysis that confirmed recent 6
building structure changes do not have a significant 7
impact on a result of the relative displacement 8
between the annex and the auxiliary buildings. And 9
that's the LAR enclosure, the analysis at pages 6 and 10
- 7. And it also has Vogtle 3 settlement survey data 11 that's referenced, at least made reference to, which 12 is at page 8.
13 So there are those general references to 14 documents that apparently support the position that 15 Southern takes in the license amendment request, 16 although there's no specific citation to them in terms 17 of where they're at or specifically what they are.
18 The staff's 5/26 audit, the May 26th audit report, 19 which is the Enclosure 2 has Table 1, makes reference 20 to six documents that were made available to the NRC 21 staff for review via Southern portal but were not 22 retained by the staff so it's become agency records.
23 Are any of the documents -- the SASSI analyses and the 24 survey data that's referring to the LAR, do those 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
57 coincide in any way with those six documents that the 1
staff looked at as part of the audit?
2 MR. BLANTON: Well, that was a long 3
question, Judge.
4 (Simultaneous speaking.)
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: It's actually a pretty 6
simple one. The LAR makes a couple of references to 7
SASS analyses and also to some survey data. And the 8
audit report on page -- Table 1 has six documents that 9
are listed. I'm just trying to find out if those are 10 the same or different or you don't know.
11 MR. BLANTON: I think if I recall the 12 documents listed on the audit report, it certainly 13 included settlement data. And the NRC has reviewed 14 that and found that to be, I think, at least 15 sufficient for it to continue to review the LAR. The 16 SASSI model itself, I think it's always proprietary to 17 Westinghouse and therefore is not publicly available.
18 I would just suggest and remind everybody 19 that the same condition existed with respect to that 20 SASSI model when NRC accepted it for the purpose of a 21 design certification approval. So it's the same SASSI 22 model that was approved for use by the NRC during the 23 DCD. NRC certainly has access -- NRC staff certainly 24 has access to the results of the model in doing its 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
58 review.
1 It's determined that the license amendment 2
itself or license amendment request itself was 3
sufficient for docketing. It's been docketed. The 4
decision has to -- the license amendment is required 5
to be based on docketed information. So if any 6
additional information is necessary, NRC will docket 7
that information before it makes a decision. And that 8
whole process of NRC review is really not at issue 9
here, and it's under Board and Commission and 10 precedent. The NRC staff's review of the license 11 amendment, that process is not subject to challenge 12 here in this license amendment proceeding.
13 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. So let me ask 14 you one other question about page 24 of Southern's 15 answer. It has the following statement. However, Mr.
16 Gundersen provides no specific support showing how the 17 SASSI analysis are insufficient, and more importantly, 18 why the SASSI analysis did not support the LAR's 19 conclusion that the gap -- I'm sorry -- that the 20 greater than 1 inch gap between the nuclear island and 21 annex building will still be maintained an SSE, safe 22 shutdown earthquake event.
23 And then in footnote 91 at the end of this 24 sentence, you reference Section 3.7.2.4 of NUREG 2124 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
59 which is the staff's final safety evaluation report 1
for Vogtle 3 and 4 of the COLs as crediting Southern's 2
SASSI analysis. And that section of the safety 3
analysis report, the SAR -- I'm sorry -- SER for 4
Vogtle references 2D and 3D SASSI analysis for both 5
the units. And I'm wondering, are any of these 6
documents the documents that are referenced in the LAR 7
that talk about either generic or site-specific SASSI?
8 MR. BLANTON: It is my belief that they 9
are. I need to check with my technical expert 10 probably to confirm that to see if there'd been any 11 changes. But yes, I mean, it's the same SASSI 12 analysis that confirmed that the acceptability of a 13 Vogtle site for the construction of an AP1000 or the 14 SASSI analyses being used to evaluate this license 15 amendment, particularly the 2D one. I don't think the 16 3D one came into play.
17 (Simultaneous speaking.)
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. And you had 19 mentioned --
20 MR. BLANTON: -- also used the -- if I 21 may, we used both the generic and the site-specific 22 SASSI model.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Right. But you thought 24 the generic ones were proprietary. But I guess the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
60 site-specific ones would be available publicly?
1 MR. BLANTON: No, I think they're both 2
proprietary Westinghouse document.
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. One last question.
4 In the SAR -- I'm sorry -- the LAR analysis mentioned 5
settlement survey documents. That's basically all it 6
said. It didn't say exactly what they were. Do you 7
know if those documents are publicly available?
8 MR. BLANTON: They are not at this time.
9 No, sir.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. All right. Thank 11 you very much. At this point, I don't have any more 12 questions for Mr. Blanton. Let me see if either Judge 13 Abreu or Judge Arnold has anything.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: This is Judge Arnold. I'm 15 going to wait until the end of the parties and then 16 ask my questions.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. That's fine.
18 Judge Abreu?
19 JUDGE ABREU: This is Judge Abreu. I just 20 have a couple little things. Just so I have a full 21 picture of the wall, basically the picture I have is 22 there's just a bulge in the wall on the auxiliary 23 building wall. And I understand it's about 13 feet 24 vertically with it starting a few feet below the top 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
61 of the 50-foot wall. I don't have a sense of how far 1
east-west it goes. Is it a real long bulge, or is it 2
just a little bit of a bulge?
3 MR. BLANTON: It probably varies, Judge.
4 I'm not sure I can answer that with a great deal of 5
precision. If you look at the diagram in the license 6
amendment, it shows it starting about halfway down, 7
maybe the annex building and continuing to that 8
corner. So it runs about half the width of the annex 9
building in a horizontal direction that way out.
10 I can certainly find the more precise 11 dimensions of it. And I'd also just note that the 12 relief requested in the LAR is actually more than the 13 actual nonconformance because they tried to bound that 14 nonconformance. So the actual bowing out, if you 15 would, or bulge, it's probably more, like, 11 feet 16 than 13 feet.
17 JUDGE ABREU: Okay. And from what you 18 told us and from what we've seen in the documents, it 19 appears that this is basically just a bulge, that 20 there is no component of wall tilt that is causing the 21 need to request the change in the gap. Is that 22 correct?
23 MR. BLANTON: Yes, that's correct, Your 24 Honor. And just sort of to embellish on that point, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
62 the 3-inch gap is maintained both below and above the 1
bulging area so that logic would tell you if the wall 2
was tilting, the area above the bulge would be closer 3
than where the bulge it or at least closer than the 4
wall is at grade. And right now, they're not.
5 JUDGE ABREU: All right. Thank you.
6 That's all I have at this time.
7 MR. BLANTON: Thank you.
8 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. This is Judge 9
Bollwerk. I should mention we've been going about an 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> and 20, 25 minutes right now. I believe that's 11 right, about an hour, 20 minutes. Probably we will 12 take a break at some point. I'd like to go ahead and 13 let the staff give its response before we take that 14 break. Would that be acceptable to the staff?
15 MS. EZELL: Yes.
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Why don't we 17 go ahead and do that. And maybe what we'll do then is 18 take a break between when the staff give their 19 presentation and when Mr. Zeller has his rebuttal. So 20 people can sort of plan on that coming up, we'll 21 probably take about a 10-minute break. Let people 22 step away and do whatever they might need to do, and 23 then we'll come back. So let me then turn to the NRC 24 staff. Thank you.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
63 MS. EZELL: Thank you. Good morning, and 1
may it please the Board. My name is Julie Ezell, and 2
I, along with my colleague, Michael Spencer, are 3
counsel for the NRC staff. For the reasons outlined 4
in our pleading, the NRC staff position is that while 5
the Petitioner BREDL has demonstrated standing, BREDL 6
has not proffered an admissible contention and 7
therefore the Board should deny the hearing request.
8 I will not repeat the arguments made in 9
our answer but will address the statement in the 10 Petitioner's reply claiming that the staff answer did 11 not provide supporting references showing that dishing 12 was previously analyzed. Contrary to the Petitioner's 13 assertion, the staff has explained that the Vogtle 14 Unit 3 basemat was analyzed for total and differential 15 settlement, which includes the particular settlement 16 scenario the Petitioner refers to as dishing or 17 cupping. The differential settlement can occur when 18 the middle of a foundation settles more relative to 19 the edges of that structure.
20 As described in our pleading and in 21 Section 3.8.5.4.2 of the Vogtle Unit 3 updated final 22 safety analysis
- report, construction sequence 23 scenarios were analyzed as part of the design of the 24 nuclear island basemat. One of the bounding scenarios 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
64 analyzed is a case for the auxiliary building 1
construction is delayed while the shell building 2
construction continues. This bounding case maximizes 3
tension stresses in the bottom of the basemat which 4
would result in the type of differential settlement 5
the Petitioner refers to as dishing.
6 As discussed in the license amendment 7
request, this type of settlement would tend to cause 8
the auxiliary building wall to slightly lean away from 9
the annex building wall. That settlement to date to 10 would tend, if anything, to increase the seismic gap, 11 not decrease it, which shows that the Petitioner's 12 settlement concerns do not raise a genuine dispute 13 with the licensee on a material issue of fact and 14 instead relates to matters already analyzed in 15 previous proceedings rather than a license amendment 16 request at issue in this proceeding.
17 To address BREDL's opening statements 18 about differential settlement, differential settlement 19 is the term used for a condition in which a building 20 support foundation settles in an uneven including 21 nonlinear fashion. As described earlier in our 22 opening, dishing is a particular type of differential 23 settlement that can occur where the middle of the 24 foundation settles more relative to the edges of the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
65 structure. BREDL does not offer any documentary 1
support for its claim that the updated final safety 2
analysis report only analyzed linear settlement and 3
not dishing. This concludes my opening statement, and 4
we are happy to answer any questions the Board may 5
have at this time.
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. That was 7
pretty short. All right. I did have a couple 8
questions. The first one is a standing question. And 9
I think the staff -- they did cite one of the previous 10 licensing board cases, the Vogtle cases that found 11 standing in a footnote but really have any discussion 12 of them. Given the discussion I've had today with Mr.
13 Blanton about standing, you want to say anything about 14 those cases or about staff's position on standing?
15 MS. EZELL: As described in our answer on 16 page 15, the -- outside the standing discussion, the 17 Petitioner cites concerns with information that it 18 claims is being ignored. And the LAR, the license 19 amendment request, that would increase the likelihood 20 of failure of the basemat and potentially result in 21 release during a seismic event. And these claims are 22 based on the mistaken assumption that the Vogtle Unit 23 3 basemat was not designed and analyzed for total and 24 differential settlement. But for the purposes of 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
66 determining standing, we take the Petitioner's claims 1
as true and believe that this position is consistent 2
with the Board's previous cases that you sited 3
earlier.
4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Well, you 5
mentioned -- let's talk a little bit about document 6
access which I sort of explored a little bit with 7
Southern. And let me pull the right page of paper 8
here. Okay. So I think I heard what Mr. Blanton say 9
was that the documents that are cited in the LAR, and 10 there's reference to a generic SASSI, a site-specific 11 SASSI, and some settlement survey data. At least it 12 was his recollection that that information was not 13 publicly available.
14 And again, the LAR analysis also has a 15 section called references. It doesn't reference 16 anything. So basically what the staff had in front of 17 it as I understand it in their acceptance review was 18 the Vogtle analysis that was presented in that 19 document.
20 And let me take a step back, however, and 21 talk for a second about the audit report. In May 22 2020, the staff issued the audit report regarding 23 whether the documentation and calculations made 24 available by Southern concerning its LAR were 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
67 sufficient to provide technical support for the LAR.
1 And if you look at the staff's audit review 2
instruction dated October 2019 -- and again, this is 3
a staff document, I guess an Office of Nuclear Reactor 4
Regulation document. It's LIC-111, revision 9, page 5
9.
6 It indicates documentary material that is 7
part of an audit review should be disclosed in the 8
audit report. And if you look at the audit report, 9
page 8, it indicates that it's acceptable for the 10 staff -- I'm sorry. Also, that current audit review 11 guidance at page 9, I'm referring back to the 12 instructions at page 8, also indicates it's acceptable 13 for the staff to access and review Applicant 14 information via the Applicant portal that does not 15 involve taking possession of the Applicant review 16 documents. Again, that's the staff guidance or 17 instructions that are in LIC-111.
18 The audit report that was done for this 19 particular LAR lists six documents that were reviewed 20 via the Southern portal. Mr. Blanton seemed to think 21 that some of those SASSI and settlement data documents 22 that are referenced in the LAR are part of what the --
23 are part of the six documents that the staff looked at 24 and then references in its audit report. Do you know 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
68 if that is or isn't the case?
1 MS. EZELL: If you'll allow me one moment 2
to just consult --
3 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sure.
4 MS. EZELL: -- with my technical staff.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Just for the record, we 6
probably will go ahead and take a break when the Board 7
is done with questions for the staff.
8 MS.
EZELL:
Your
- Honor, it's my 9
understanding that the staff -- the licensee did not 10 make available for audit in the electronic reading 11 room the full analysis, the SASSI analysis. But the 12 staff did audit results of those analyses and did 13 audit settlement data.
14 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And are those among the 15
-- so you're saying you looked at documents, but those 16 are not among the six documents that are listed?
17 MS. EZELL: Those are the six documents 18 that are listed.
19 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Those are among the six 20 documents that are listed?
21 MS. EZELL: Yes. I apologize for the 22 confusion.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. So if you 24 look -- and again, it was a separate set of staff 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
69 instructions in January 2017 -- in the January 2017 1
staff instructions dealing with whether to accept a 2
license application for a docketing decision. That's 3
LIC-109, revision 2, appendix B at page 9 indicates 4
that the application must be complete in scope such 5
that there is no significant analyses or evaluations 6
missing from the application and the information and 7
analyses provided in support of the application must 8
not evidence any significant or obvious problems.
9 It also indicates that if the scope of the 10 application is incomplete or the information is 11 insufficient, the application must be considered 12 unacceptable such that it should be returned to the 13 Applicant or an additional opportunity provided to 14 supplement the application for docketing. If on the 15 other hand the application is not acceptable for 16 docketing, the instructions indicate that a
17 determination should be documented in an email or 18 letter that indicates that the staff found the 19 application provides, quote, technical information and 20 sufficient detail to enable the staff to complete a 21 detailed technical review and make an independent 22 assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed 23 amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the 24 protection of public health and safety and the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
70 environment.
1 And that is, again, from LIC-109 and seen 2
at page C-9. And this is essentially the findings the 3
staff made in its February 21st, 2020 acceptance 4
review email to Southern at page 2. So my question, 5
given that background, so in making the staff's 6
acceptance review finding, did the staff review any 7
Southern documentation via a portal or otherwise other 8
than the analysis in the February 7, 2020 LAR itself?
9 MS. EZELL: And just to clarify, Your 10 Honor, as part of the acceptance review for --
11 (Simultaneous speaking.)
12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: It's part of the 13 acceptance review, right. Clearly in an acceptance 14 review, you had the license application in front of 15 you. Is there any other Southern documentation via 16 portal or otherwise that the staff used to review the 17 Southern application?
18 MS. EZELL: No, Your Honor. There was 19 not.
20 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay.
21 MS. EZELL: The NRC staff based its 22 determination of acceptance for docketing on the 23 information contained in the license amendment request 24 that's publicly available.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
71 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay, good. Thank you.
1 I appreciate that information. All right. I'll just 2
note for the record that in contrast to the license 3
review instructions that dealt with the audit, nothing 4
in the acceptance review instructions -- which are the 5
LIC-109 as opposed to LIC-111 which are the audit 6
instructions. Nothing in the acceptance review 7
instructions authorizes the staff to consider 8
nonpublic information not in the possession of the 9
agency in making its acceptance review.
10 Indeed, the acceptance instructions of 11 page 6 indicate that any information deficiency is to 12 be cured by contacting the licensee or Applicant to 13 communicate the information needed to understand their 14 course of action, establishing a date-specific 15 deadline by which the licensee or applicant must 16 submit the information and issuing a letter to 17 licensee or Applicant, identify the information needed 18 and the verbally established deadline. And what you 19 just told me is you did not do any of that because you 20 found license application audit space to be 21 sufficient.
22 MS. EZELL: That is correct, Your Honor.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
24 That's all the questions I have for the staff at this 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
72 point. Is there anything that either Board members 1
have?
2 JUDGE ARNOLD: No, Judge Arnold.
3 JUDGE ABREU: And this is Judge Abreu. I 4
have nothing else at this time.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Right now, I 6
have 35 after the hour. Why don't we go ahead and 7
take a 10-minute break so that we'll reconvene at a 8
quarter to 12:00, 11:45. And if anybody is having any 9
connectivity questions or problems, now would be the 10 time to talk with our staff while we are taking the 11 break.
12 Be aware that this will remain an open 13 line. So if you're on a speaking line and you say 14 anything or make any noise, it will be heard by those 15 who are on the listen-only lines as well as those 16 folks that are on the call. So my suggestion would be 17 to obviously mute yourself, and we'll be back in 10 18 minutes. Thank you.
19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 20 off the record at 11:37 p.m. and resumed at 11:46 21 a.m.)
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: This is Judge Bollwerk.
23 We've taken a short break, and we're going to continue 24 now with the oral argument. I did have one other 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
73 question for the staff. Let me just briefly say it.
1 Mr. Zeller described the status of the BREDL FOIA 2
request. I take it that was accurate from your 3
perspective. Anything else you want to say about 4
that?
5 (No audible response.)
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Staff there?
7 MS. EZELL: I apologize. Could you repeat 8
the question?
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sure. Mr. Zeller talked 10 about the status of the FOIA request that BREDL has 11 pending. Was that accurate from your perspective?
12 Anything further you want to say about that?
13 MS. EZELL: Yes, Your Honor. That is 14 accurate as far as I understand. That is being 15 handled via separate agency process, and I understand 16 that the FOIA coordinator has been communicating with 17 Mr. Zeller on that matter.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Okay. Well, 19 then we're ready for Mr. Zeller's rebuttal argument, 20 and I think that then we will have some additional 21 questions for all the participants from the Board 22 members. So Mr. Zeller?
23 MR. ZELLER: Yes. Thank you, Judge 24 Bollwerk. This is Lou Zeller. How long -- do I have 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
74 10 minutes, or how long --
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Approximately. I think 2
you're certainly in that -- yeah, I think that's 3
correct, yes. It's what you reserved. I don't think 4
you took more than 20 minutes to begin with, so you're 5
good.
6 MR. ZELLER: Thank you, sir. All right.
7 Regarding Southern
- Nuclear, Mr.
- Blanton, his 8
interpretation of the license amendment request 9
seeking a reduction of 3 inches to 2 inches and 16 10 inches -- 2-and-1/16th and the 1 inch not being 11 accurate, I believe we're getting into the weeds. And 12 I believe that with the very good information to have 13 the experts arguing directly about that, I'm not 14 sidestepping the issue. I'm just saying that we're 15 talking about depth and inches and prose 16 interpretations of those engineering questions which 17 are difficult to deal with in this kind of format for 18 sure.
19 I do think that we have reasonable doubt 20 about this procedure. That's Mr. Gundersen, I 21 believe, reading into this. Okay. Sorry, Judge. But 22 we have raised reasonable doubt, and the burden of 23 proof is upon the license requestor. The standing and 24 the consequences raised by Mr. Blanton, consequences 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
75 for individuals, I think we have provided additional 1
information today which goes to the direct impact on 2
residents of the Shell Bluff community. So I think we 3
have dealt with that in today's oral argument.
4 MS. MAYHALL: Excuse me. I'm sorry to 5
interrupt. This is Taylor. I just wanted to let you 6
know that Arnold Gundersen's line has dropped. He's 7
no longer on the call.
8 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. This is Judge 9
Bollwerk. Why don't we take a brief break and 10 everyone should stay on the line obviously. But we'll 11 go off the record. And maybe, Mr. Zeller, do you want 12 to contact Mr. Gundersen and see if you can get him 13 back on or we'll wait a second and see if he 14 reappears?
15 MR. ZELLER: Yes, sir.
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK: I don't want to -- unless 17 you want to go ahead without him on. But my 18 assumption is you prefer to have him there.
19 MR. ZELLER: I need a question answered 20 from him directly. Yes, sir.
21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. Well, we'll go off 22 the record then, and perhaps you can attempt to 23 contact him or hopefully he'll show up again.
24 MR. ZELLER: Yes.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
76 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. So let's take 1
a break. And Taylor, please let us know if Mr.
2 Gundersen appears again.
3 MS. MAYHALL: Will do.
4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Thank you. All right.
5 Let's go off the record.
6 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 7
off the record at 11:51 a.m. and resumed at 11:54 8
a.m.)
9 JUDGE BOLLWERK: So Mr. Gundersen has 10 rejoined the conference call, and we're going to go 11 ahead and proceed with Mr. Zeller's argument. Mr.
12 Zeller?
13 MR. ZELLER: Yes. Sorry, Judge Bollwerk.
14 I had us muted.
15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Mr. Zeller?
16 MR. ZELLER: Yes, Judge.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Whenever you're ready to 18 proceed.
19 MR. ZELLER: I'm not quite ready.
20 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay.
21 (Pause.)
22 JUDGE BOLLWERK: While we're waiting for 23 Mr. Zeller, Mr. Blanton, you indicated that there 24 might be a couple of things you wanted to provide 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
77 Board some initial confirmation about?
1 MR. BLANTON: I did, before we started, 2
Judge. But I think between the argument and the 3
question and answer, I told you about all I know.
4 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay. That's fine.
5 Appreciate the information then. All right. Okay.
6 Mr. Zeller, are you ready?
7 MR. ZELLER: Yeah, this is Lou Zeller.
8 Judge Bollwerk, I'll do the best I can without Mr.
9 Gundersen.
10 JUDGE BOLLWERK: He's connected on the 11 line, but I guess he's not connected directly to you 12 I take it. That's your concern?
13 MR. ZELLER: He's not responding, and 14 there's no meaningful response coming from Gundersen 15 at this point. I've tried --
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay.
17 MR. ZELLER: -- everything I can --
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Okay.
19 MR. ZELLER: -- through backchannel and 20 others. I apologize for this.
21 JUDGE BOLLWERK: It's not a problem.
22 MR. GUNDERSEN: Your Honor, I am on. Lou, 23 I am on. I will go back on mute.
24 MR. ZELLER: Arnie, if you can hear me, 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
78 raise your hand.
1 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Check the chat. I take 2
it, Mr. Zeller, you all are trying to make your 3
backchannel connection. Is that the problem?
4 MR. ZELLER: That's correct, Judge 5
Bollwerk.
6 (Pause.)
7 MR. ZELLER: Aha.
8 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Sounds like good news.
9 MR. ZELLER: Yes, I think so. Okay. In 10 response -- well, okay, let me pick up where I left 11 off. This is Lou Zeller. Regarding Mr. Blanton's 12 questions about dishing, we did bring up three 13 references in our petition and on our replies 14 regarding structural problems associated with dishing.
15 And so I think we've done our diligence there to show 16 that there's a unanalyzed safety condition brought 17 about by the dishing which is, at this point, I think 18 everyone agrees is happening there. At least it's 19 admitted into the docket.
20 What we have with the Applicant is a 21 theory. They say that theoretically, this suggests 22 that the nuclear island tends to tilt away from the 23 annex building. To me, that nails -- that lands in 24 the -- is that a theory from the other side is the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
79 analysis calling for. The analysis we're calling for 1
is actual reevaluation of the structural integrity of 2
the entire nuclear island, a complete root cause 3
analysis of the new stress design basemat nuclear 4
island in Vogtle Unit 3, to present the complete 5
analyses and root cause analysis information to the 6
public in hearings and an entirely new license review 7
and full analysis of the new stress conditions placed 8
on the components, the site, systems, structures of 9
components on the site that are no longer level as a 10 result of disproportionate sinking that has been --
11 that we have -- that has occurred with the basemat.
12 Regarding Ms. Ezell's question from the 13 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, she says the difference 14 of settlement and bounding scenarios cover nonlinear 15 changes. I hear from our expert that it's impossible 16 to monitor conditions ahead of time. Dishing can't be 17 bounded. Dishing needs to be modeled based on site-18 specific conditions, not generic assumptions from 2012 19 which are provided by the other side. Okay.
20 Again, Southern Nuclear relies on a 21 generic bounding analysis and linear interpolation.
22 And according to the information in our hands, this 23 assumes a level foundation, a flat foundation, if not 24 level, and not a curved situation which is Vogtle Unit 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
80 3 in the basemat as referred to as dishing for which 1
Southern has a theory that suggests the nuclear island 2
tilts away from the annex building.
3 I would conclude with this, that the 4
Petitioner would place before this Board the safety 5
culture policy statement which states that problem 6
identification and resolution issues potentially 7
impacting safety are properly identified, fully 8
evaluated, promptly addressed, and corrected 9
commensurate with their significance and not a 10 questioning
- attitude, avoid complacency, and 11 continuously challenge existing conditions and 12 activities in order to identify discrepancies that 13 might result in error or inappropriate action. Judge 14 Bollwerk, I believe that's all I have for today.
15 Thank you very much.
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you, 17 Mr. Zeller. Well, just before we finish the argument 18 portion, I don't have any questions at this point.
19 But I believe perhaps the other two Board members may, 20 so let me turn to Judge Arnold or Judge Abreu. Who'd 21 like to start?
22 JUDGE ABREU: I'll defer to --
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Arnold, I know you 24 said you had some questions.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
81 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, I'll start then. And 1
this is -- my first question is for BREDL. Now on 2
page 7 of your petition, you state, quote, the NRC has 3
no intention of providing the public and BREDL with 4
any additional information about the dangers of 5
dishing that is occurring in the Vogtle Unit 3 6
foundation, unquote. Now since the discussion of 7
dishing and settlement contained in the LAR 8
demonstrates that dishing does not contribute to the 9
gap reduction and because your petition has not 10 referenced, addressed, nor challenged that discussion, 11 how is additional information concerning dishing 12 within the scope of this proceeding?
13 MR. ZELLER: This is Lou Zeller. We asked 14
-- from the beginning before filing the petition even, 15 we were requesting information which apparently could 16 not be provided. And we've gone into that in terms of 17 the Westinghouse reading room. And so we did move to 18 another means for getting information which was from 19 a Freedom of Information Act request.
20 But we are seeking further information, 21 information which was used to make the decisions by 22 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about the situation 23 with the license amendment request based on 24 information which we could not view. So that, I 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
82 believe, is where some of the problem lies in terms of 1
defining what's happened, what has been done, what has 2
not been done, and who did it.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Essentially, the discussion 4
in the LAR showing that the dishing does not 5
contribute to the gap reduction is basically an 6
argument saying that the nuclear island settling is 7
not within the scope of this license amendment. And 8
you have not challenged that argument. So I am 9
confused as to how you can request in this proceeding 10 something that is not related to this proceeding.
11 MR. ZELLER: This is Lou Zeller. The 12 license amendment request brought up the dishing.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Yes, and it demonstrated 14 that dishing is outside the scope of this proceeding.
15 MR. ZELLER: This is the crux of the 16 dispute, Judge Arnold.
17 JUDGE ARNOLD: But you didn't dispute it, 18 though. You did not challenge the license amendment 19 request discussion of dishing, neither in your 20 petition nor in Mr. Gundersen's statement. So how now 21 do you decide that is within the scope?
22 MR. ZELLER: Through the -- again, this is 23 Lou Zeller. This comes from the statement in the 24 license amendment request that theoretically 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
83 suggesting that the nuclear island tends to tilt away 1
from the annex building. So that, again, goes back to 2
the license amendment request and the very thin 3
covering of the dishing question with a theory.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: It is a theory that you 5
didn't challenge in your petition.
6 MR. ZELLER: Well, I apologize, Judge 7
Arnold. I believe that in our exposition of the facts 8
that we were. If I fell short in some way, I did not 9
mean to. We are talking about what is on the record 10 in terms of the license amendment request and the 11 statements of the Applicant --
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: I'm going to move on.
13 MR. ZELLER: -- which we dispute. I'm 14 here to tell you.
15 JUDGE ARNOLD: On page 8 of your petition, 16 you say, quote, SNC notified the NRC on February 7th, 17 2020 that it was seeking a license amendment due to 18 the discovery that walls and the entire foundation of 19 the auxiliary building had inexplicably moved, sunk, 20 and become distorted. Now this sentence effective 21 attributes the conclusion that the walls have moved, 22 sunk, and become distorted to Southern Nuclear. But 23 you don't cite where they say that. So can you tell 24 me where do you get that information from?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
84 MR. ZELLER: That was provided by Arnold 1
Gundersen in his declaration supporting the petition 2
for intervention and the hearing.
3 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, he also doesn't cite 4
to this source of that information. So I'm at a 5
quandary. Okay. Let me go on. In paragraph 29 on 6
page 12 of Arnold Gundersen's declaration, he states, 7
quote, Southern Nuclear Operating Company has alleged 8
that a single concrete wall that is a critical part of 9
the structural integrity of the entire reactor unit 10 has moved of its own accord. Can you tell me where 11 Southern Nuclear states this?
12 MR. ZELLER: Pardon me. Judge Arnold, the 13 declaration discuss dishing extensively.
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: So we're going back to the 15 previous question. Can you tell me where in that 16 dishing discussion it addresses Southern Nuclear's 17 evaluation?
18 MR. ZELLER: It's, I believe, based on 19 reading the license amendment request based on a 20 poorly worded license amendment request about the 21 bulging discussed today.
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: I read his discussion, and 23 I haven't seen where he clearly addressed the Southern 24 Nuclear discussion of dishing and it would move the 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
85 walls apart.
1 MR. ZELLER: Sorry, Judge Arnold. I'm 2
trying to reflect what Mr. Gundersen is telling me, 3
and it's been very difficult. I believe that question 4
would be properly put in terms of citations and 5
sources of information for the walls that have settled 6
and sunk and are sinking to Mr. Gundersen as part of 7
-- if not in this proceeding, then part of an 8
evidentiary proceeding during which we could air some 9
of these questions and provide the information that 10 you are asking me for which I'm scuttling to find 11 answers for.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: I'm just pointing out you 13 haven't challenged -- you have not directly challenged 14 the Southern Nuclear's evaluation that dishing would 15 cause the walls to move apart. But let me go on with 16 my next question. In Mr. Gundersen's declaration, 17 paragraph 29.1 states, quote, Southern Nuclear claims 18 this solid concrete wall is leaning because the 19 foundation under it is sinking. Now I also cannot 20 find that in the LAR. So what is the source of that 21 information that Southern Nuclear that it's leaning 22 because the foundation is sinking?
23 MR. ZELLER: Paragraph 29.1 is where 24 Gundersen discusses the wall, one side of which is 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
86 under compression and one side is under tension, 1
correct? Concrete can be shaped and molded. It is 2
not an effective structural member when it's placed 3
under tension.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, I'm just saying in 5
there, he states that Southern Nuclear claims that the 6
wall is leaning because the foundation is sinking.
7 What is the basis of that statement? Where does 8
Southern Nuclear claim that the foundation is sinking?
9 MR. ZELLER: SNC claims the solid concrete 10 wall is leaning because the foundation under it is 11 sinking.
12 JUDGE ARNOLD: That is what your expert 13 says, but he doesn't cite to where Southern Nuclear 14 has said that the foundation under it is sinking.
15 MR. ZELLER: I think the question goes to 16 the admission by Southern that there is more settling 17 at one part of the basemat than another part of the 18 basemat which is the definition of dishing or sinking.
19 JUDGE ARNOLD: But you see, there's a 20 difference between you as the Petitioner saying that 21 this is caused by sinking and Southern Nuclear saying 22 the wall is leaning because the foundation is sinking.
23 In your statement, you keep saying repeatedly that 24 Southern Nuclear has taken the position that the wall 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
87 is leaning because the foundation is sinking, and I 1
have not found that anywhere in the license amendment.
2 So whose information is this? Did it come from 3
Southern Nuclear, or is it something that came from 4
Arnold Gundersen's evaluation?
5 MR. ZELLER: I'm checking. Arnie, are you 6
there?
7 JUDGE ARNOLD: While we're waiting, let me 8
ask Mr. Blanton, Southern Nuclear. Are you aware of 9
any place where Southern Nuclear claims that the solid 10 concrete is leaning because the foundation under it is 11 sinking?
12 MR. BLANTON: Stan Blanton for Southern 13 Nuclear. No, I'm not aware of that. I think the LAR 14 takes exactly the opposite position on that.
15 JUDGE ARNOLD: I have cited to several 16 places where the petition or Mr. Gundersen's 17 declaration have said that Southern Nuclear has taken 18 the position the wall has moved. Would you say all of 19 those statements are really not attributable to 20 Southern Nuclear?
21 MR. BLANTON: Yes, sir. I would.
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Let me go back to 23 Mr. Zeller. Is there any answer yet?
24 MR. ZELLER: I'm working on it, Judge.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
88 (Pause.)
1 JUDGE ARNOLD: Let me ask you my next 2
question because that may clear up some of this. On 3
page 11 of your petition, you contradict Mr. Gundersen 4
and say, quote, the position taken by SNC throughout 5
the license amendment request is that there is an as-6 built reduction in the distance between the walls.
7 Now would I be correct in assuming that I should 8
believe your petition rather than your expert?
9 MR. ZELLER: I'm sure there's no dispute 10 between us and our expert, Judge. The license 11 amendment request discusses sinking foundation and 12 out-of-tolerance wall.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, certainly it does 14 mention the settling of the foundation, but he doesn't 15 attribute the movement of the wall to the settling of 16 the foundation. Let me just assume that you don't 17 have an immediate answer to that.
18 MR. ZELLER: I don't have a page number 19 here, but we're working as best we can with this 20 system. But the LAR discussed sinking foundation and 21 an out-of-tolerance wall. And what page that -- or 22 the cite for that, I can provide to you. But I don't 23 have it right here.
24 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. In paragraph 30 on 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
89 page 13 of his declaration, Mr. Gundersen states, 1
quote, Southern Nuclear Operating Company knows that 2
the nuclear island has departed from its design 3
conditions and is no longer level. Now how does Mr.
4 Gundersen know exactly what Southern Nuclear knows?
5 Does he have a citation to that somewhere?
6 MR. ZELLER: He went on to say that using 7
the generic SASSI bounding analysis and linear 8
interpolation are complete inappropriate.
9 JUDGE ARNOLD: Well, in his statement, 10 he's attributing some knowledge to Southern Nuclear.
11 And I'm just wondering how he knows what Southern 12 Nuclear is thinking if they haven't stated it in the 13 LAR. Well, my last few questions are for Southern 14 Nuclear, Mr. Blanton. Is the Vogtle 3 site currently 15 considered to be a construction site?
16 MR. BLANTON: Stan Blanton for Southern 17 Nuclear. Yes, Your Honor. I would say so, yes.
18 JUDGE ARNOLD: Are most of the activities 19 going on there construction activities as opposed to 20 operating activities?
21 MR. BLANTON: The way I would characterize 22 it, Judge, is that construction is ongoing and there 23 are preparations ongoing for operation. But the plant 24 is not operating.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
90 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. And is reconciling 1
as-built configurations with ITAAC criteria considered 2
to be a construction-related activity?
3 MR. BLANTON: I believe so. Yes, sir.
4 JUDGE ARNOLD: At what time in the future?
5 Is there some event at which time Vogtle 3 site will 6
no longer be considered a construction site and would 7
be considered an operating plant?
8 MR. BLANTON: I would say when the NRC 9
makes its 52.103(g) determination that all ITAAC had 10 been met and authorizes loading of fuel, we'll at that 11 point convert from a construction site to an operating 12 site.
13 JUDGE ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. I have 14 no more questions.
15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Abreu?
16 JUDGE ABREU: My questions have been 17 answered. Thank you.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. I did have 19 one question for Mr. Blanton. If I misunderstood Mr.
20 Zeller, he should correct me or Mr. Blanton can 21 correct me. But Mr. Zeller made a statement during 22 his rebuttal that this really can't be bounded, that 23 the bounding analysis you're using is not appropriate.
24 Do you want to respond to that?
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
91 MR. BLANTON: I'm not sure I even 1
understand the point, Your Honor. Are you talking 2
about the bounding analysis we use to take the 3
stiffness of the turbine building first bay wall and 4
compare it to the analysis used to determine the 5
stiffness of the annex building wall?
6 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Let me go back to Mr.
7 Zeller, maybe get him to clarify what he meant if I'm 8
misunderstanding.
9 MR. ZELLER: Yes, this is Lou Zeller. And 10 what I've been told by Mr. Gundersen is that the 11 bounding analysis cannot be done in this kind of 12 situation. And I would leave it to the mathematicians 13 to go further about that.
14 MR. BLANTON: Your Honor, Stan Blanton.
15 There's not enough in that for me to respond to. I 16 just don't know what he's referring to. I mean --
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.
18 MR. BLANTON: -- the LAR is based on an 19 evaluation of the stiffness of the opposing walls. It 20 includes the settlement evaluation to basically 21 exclude it as a factor in the safety evaluation of the 22 license amendment request. So those two things are 23 what the LAR is based on. I'm not sure what bounding 24 analysis Mr. Zeller or Mr. Gundersen are referring to.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
92 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
1 Is there anything the staff wants to say in that 2
regard?
3 MS. EZELL: If I may have just a moment to 4
consult with my technical staff.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Yes.
6 MS. EZELL: Thank you.
7 (Pause.)
8 MS. EZELL: Thank you for your indulgence 9
for the time. We're not exactly sure to what the 10 Petitioner refers, but the bounding case is discussed 11 in Section 3.8.5.2 -- 4.2 of the UFSAR are intended to 12 maximize the tension stresses in the basemat. And the 13 licensee settlement monitoring program continuously 14 monitors settlement data to ensure that the basemat --
15 the settlement experienced by the basemat remains 16 bounded by the Tier 1 values described in Table 5.0-1 17 for total and differential settlement.
18 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Thank you.
19 At this point, I think, unless any of the parties have 20 something they want to let the Board know, I think, 21 Judge Arnold, you had no further questions?
22 JUDGE ARNOLD: That is correct.
23 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Judge Abreu?
24 JUDGE ABREU: I have no more questions.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
93 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Well, under 1
the agency's regulations, Section 2.309(j)(1) with the 2
holding of this oral argument pre-hearing conference, 3
we now have 45 days to issue a decision. That would 4
be, if I'm counting right, approximately the 14th of 5
August. So that would be our goal.
6 Potentially, we can do better than that, 7
but we'll have to see. But that would be obviously 8
the outside date by which we would need to issue 9
something or to advise the parties that we need 10 additional time. So we will be working towards that 11 goal.
12 On behalf of the Board, I want to thank 13 both BREDL and the staff and Southern for the 14 presentations today. I know this is a difficult time.
15 Not only do you have to deal with the pandemic. But 16 getting ready to present an argument in this case, I 17 think the information you provided us was useful. And 18 again, I want to thank you for making yourselves 19 available. I probably should've asked at the 20 beginning. I'm assuming everyone is healthy and hope 21 you will remain so, safe and healthy.
22 It would normally not be my intention to 23 do transcript corrections unless we read the 24 transcript and find something inordinately wrong.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
94 This is not an evidentiary hearing. It's an oral 1
argument. But I would urge the parties when the 2
transcript is available hopefully next week, that you 3
take a look at it quickly.
4 If there's something you see that you 5
think definitely needs to be corrected, please contact 6
the Board to file a motion with us and let us know 7
that you think transcript corrections would be 8
appropriate. We'll do the same thing, and we may be 9
getting back to you obviously if we see some issues.
10 But we'll probably -- we'll see how the transcript 11 reads and what the situation is after we've reviewed 12 it. At this point, Judge Arnold, anything further you 13 have to offer for the parties?
14 JUDGE ARNOLD: No, I have nothing further.
15 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Judge Abreu?
16 JUDGE ABREU: I have nothing further.
17 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right then. Well, 18 again, on behalf of the Board, we very much appreciate 19 you making yourselves available to us. Let me just 20 check. Anything from BREDL's perspective at this 21 point you need to tell the Board?
22 MR. ZELLER: This is Lou Zeller. Thank 23 you, Judge Arnold. Thank you, Dr. Abreu.
24 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right.
25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433
95 MR. ZELLER: I'm just checking.
1 MR. BLANTON: Anything from Southern?
2 MR. ZELLER: I'm just checking. I 3
appreciate your allowing us to make this presentation 4
today.
5 JUDGE BOLLWERK: And we very much 6
appreciate you making yourselves available. I know 7
it's not easy. Anything from Southern's perspective 8
we need to know?
9 MR. BLANTON: Stan Blanton, Judge. No, 10 sir. Thank you for your time.
11 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. And NRC 12 staff?
13 MS. EZELL: This is Julie Ezell. I have 14 nothing further to add. Thank you very much for your 15 time.
16 JUDGE BOLLWERK: All right. Well, again, 17 everyone please stay safe and healthy. And if there's 18 nothing further, then we will consider this pre-19 hearing conference and all argument to be adjourned.
20 Thank you.
21 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went 22 off the record at 12:33 p.m.)
23 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 (202) 234-4433