ML20135H286

NRC Staff Answer to Petition from Nuclear Watch South

ML20135H286
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	05/14/2020
From:	Julie Ezell, Mary Spencer NRC/OGC
To:	NRC/OCM
SECY RAS
References
52-025-ITAAC, ITAAC, RAS 55677
Download: ML20135H286 (40)

Text

May 14, 2020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. ) Docket No.52-025

)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3) )

NRC STAFF ANSWER TO PETITION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FROM NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff (Staff) herein answers the Nuclear Watch South Petition for Public Hearing (Petition), filed by Nuclear Watch South (Petitioner). As discussed below, the Petitioner does not address standing, raise specific challenges regarding completion of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC), or show that Southern Nuclear Operating Company (the Licensee) failed to submit required information on ITAAC completion. Also, the proposed contention lacks adequate documentary support and is based on an expert declaration with conclusory statements that lack a reasoned basis or explanation. The Petition should therefore be denied because it does not satisfy the standing and contention admissibility requirements for hearing requests in this matter regarding the ITAAC in the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3 (Vogtle Unit 3) combined license.

BACKGROUND On February 12, 2020, the NRC published in the Federal Register the notice of intended operation for Vogtle Unit 3 (Notice of Intended Operation) and two associated orders: the Order Imposing Additional Procedures for ITAAC Hearings Before a Commission Ruling on the Hearing Request (Additional Procedures Order) and the Order Imposing Procedures for Access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information [SUNSI] and Safeguards

Information [SGI] for Contention Preparation (SUNSI/SGI Access Order). 1 The Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders were based on a Commission-approved template announced in the 2016 Final Procedures for Conducting Hearings on Conformance with the Acceptance Criteria in Combined Licenses (Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures). 2 One of the Associated Orders, the Additional Procedures Order, governs hearing requests and other filings that may be submitted before a Commission ruling on the hearing request. 3 The Additional Procedures Order is based on the rules of practice in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, primarily Subpart C, as modified to conform to the expedited schedule and specialized nature of hearings on ITAAC. 4 The Notice of Intended Operation announced a February 24, 2020 deadline for requesting access to SUNSI or SGI and an April 13, 2020 deadline for hearing requests. 5 On April 3, 2020, the Petitioner filed a request to extend these deadlines. By order dated April 9, 2020, the Secretary denied the request to extend the deadline for requesting access to SUNSI or SGI but extended the hearing request deadline for the Petitioner to April 20, 2020. 6 The Petition was filed on April 20, 2020. 7 1

Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3; Hearing Opportunity Associated with Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria, 85 Fed. Reg. 8030 (Feb. 12, 2020). The notice and associated orders will hereafter be referred to as the Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders.

2 Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. 43,266 (July 1, 2016).

3 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8036 (Additional Procedures Order,Section I).

4 Id. at 8037 (Additional Procedures Order,Section I). The Commission modeled the Additional Procedures Order on the existing rules of practice, in part because there is a body of experience and precedent interpreting and applying these provisions. Id.

5 Id. at 8030-31 (Notice of Intended Operation).

6 Order at 2 (Apr. 9, 2020) (unpublished) (ADAMS Accession No. ML20100K256).

7 The Petitioner also filed a declaration from Susan Bloomfield (Bloomfield Declaration), a declaration from Arthur Frank Higley (Higley Declaration), and a curriculum vitae for Mr. Higley (Higley CV).

DISCUSSION A hearing request must demonstrate standing and meet the contention admissibility requirements. 8 However, the Petition does not address standing, and the proposed contention does not meet the contention admissibility requirements, as explained below. In particular, the proposed contention is inadequately supported and does not mention or attempt to satisfy the statutory and regulatory requirement that a hearing request show prima facie that the acceptance criteria have not been or will not be met and that this nonconformance results in specific operational consequences contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety. 9 Instead, the Petitioner asserts that it cannot raise a specific issue because there is insufficient detail in the application. 10 In this vein, the Petitioner could have submitted a claim of incompleteness in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii), asserting that the Licensees ITAAC notifications are incomplete, thereby preventing the petitioner from making the required prima facie showing. But the Petitioner did not do so. Nevertheless, the Petition does not satisfy the requirements for claims of incompleteness, as discussed below.

I. Standing A. Legal Standards A hearing request must demonstrate standing in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). 11 As required by § 2.309(d)(1), the hearing request must state:

(i) The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner; (ii) The nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; 8

See Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8032-35 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II).

9 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, § 189a.(1)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(B)(ii) (2018) (AEA);

10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii).

10 Petition at 11.

11 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8037 (Additional Procedures Order,Section II.B.1.d).

(iii) The nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial or other interest in the proceeding; and (iv) The possible effect of any decision or order that may be issued in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest.

The Commission generally place[s] the burden of setting forth a clear and coherent argument for standing on the petitioner but does not hold a pro se petitioner to the same standards of clarity and precision to which a lawyer might reasonably be expected to adhere. 12 In evaluating whether the petitioner has shown the requisite interest as required by

§ 2.309(d)(1)(iv), the Commission uses contemporaneous judicial concepts of standing. 13 The petitioner must demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action and is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, where the injury is to an interest arguably within the zone of interests protected by the governing statute. 14 The petitioner has the burden of proving that standing requirements are met, but the hearing request will be construed in the petitioners favor. 15 An organization may show standing in its own right, based on its organizational purposes (organizational standing), 16 or through representing the interests of its members (representational standing). 17 To show organizational standing, the organization must satisfy 12 Fla. Power & Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Units 3 & 4), CLI-15-25, 82 NRC 389, 394 (2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

13 Id.; Calvert Cliffs 3 Nuclear Project, LLC (Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3), CLI-09-20, 70 NRC 911, 915 (2009).

14 Calvert Cliffs, CLI-09-20, 70 NRC at 915 (quoting Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), CLI-93-21, 38 NRC 87, 92 (1993)); see also Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S.

555, 559-61 (1992) (describing framework for judicial standing).

15 Turkey Point, CLI-15-25, 82 NRC 389, 394.

16 Consumers Energy Co. (Palisades Nuclear Plant), CLI-07-18, 65 NRC 399, 411 (2007).

17 Id. at 409.

the same standing requirements as individuals seeking to intervene. 18 To show representational standing, the organization must show that NRC action in the proceeding may affect at least one of its members, must identify that member, and must demonstrate that the member has (preferably by affidavit) authorized the organization to represent him or her and to request a hearing on his or her behalf. 19 Moreover, the represented member must qualify for standing in his or her own right; the interests that the representative organization seeks to protect must be germane to its own purpose; and neither the asserted claim nor the requested relief must require an individual member to participate in the organization's legal action. 20 B. The Petitioner Has Not Established Standing in this Proceeding The Petitioner has not pled facts sufficient to establish standing. While pro se petitioners are generally afforded greater latitude, they ultimately bear[] the burden to provide facts sufficient to show standing. 21 An organization, such as Nuclear Watch South, may establish standing in its own right or as a representative for an individual. 22 But the Petitioner does not cite to or otherwise explain how it meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). In fact, the Petition does not mention standing at all. Instead, the Petitioner included with its filing a declaration from Susan Bloomfield certifying she is a member of Nuclear Watch South, lives within 40 miles of the plant, and authorizes Nuclear Watch South to represent her and her interests in the proceeding. 23 18 Id. at 411.

19 Id. at 409.

20 Id.

21 U.S. Army Installation Command (Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii, and Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii), CLI-10-20, 72 NRC 185, 189 (2010).

22 Palisades, CLI-07-18, 65 NRC at 409, 411.

23 Bloomfield Declaration.

The declarant states general concern for her health and safety and that of her family and a belief that there are problems with construction of Plant Vogtle Unit 3. 24 The Petition does not reference this declaration, even though the Petitioner itself must explain how the supporting documents it submits provide a basis for standing. 25 Also, the Petitioner does not address whether it seeks organizational or representational standing nor does it describe the Petitioners purpose or how it is germane to the interests the Petitioner seeks to protect in this proceeding.

Consistent with Commission precedent, the Staff will not attempt to infer an argument for standing on behalf of the Petitioner; the Petition should be considered as it was pled. 26 As pled, the Petition does not meet the standards of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(d). However, even if the Commission concludes that the Petitioner has standing, the Petitioner has not submitted an admissible contention, as discussed below.

II. Contention Admissibility and Claims of Incompleteness A. Legal Standards

1. Contention Admissibility Standards As discussed in Section II.B of the Notice of Intended Operation, a contention must meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(v), (vii). 27 These requirements are as follows:

(i) Provide a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted, provided further, that the issue of law or fact to be raised in a request for hearing under 10 CFR 52.103(b) must be directed at demonstrating that one or more of the acceptance criteria in the combined license have not 24 Id.

25 See FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-20-5, 91 NRC __, __ n.45 (Apr. 23, 2020) (slip op. at 10 n.45) (stating that the petitioner had an affirmative obligation to explain how the information in its supporting documents provides a basis for its claim to organizational standing).

26 Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-99-4, 49 NRC 185, 194 (1999) (internal quotations and citation omitted) (We do not expect our adjudicatory Boards, unaided by the parties, to sift through the parties pleadings to uncover and resolve arguments not advanced by litigants themselves. The burden of setting forth a clear and coherent argument for standing and intervention is on the petitioner. It should not be necessary to speculate about what a pleading is supposed to mean.); see also Beaver Valley, CLI-20-5, 91 NRC at __ n.45 (slip op. at 10 n.45).

27 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8033.

been, or will not be met, and that the specific operational consequences of nonconformance would be contrary to providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety; (ii) Provide a brief explanation of the basis for the contention; (iii) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is within the scope of the proceeding; (iv) Demonstrate that the issue raised in the contention is material to the findings the NRC must make to support the action that is involved in the proceeding; (v) Provide a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinions which support the requestors/petitioners position on the issue and on which the petitioner intends to rely at hearing, together with references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue . . . .

(vii) In a proceeding under 10 CFR 52.103(b), the information must be sufficient, and include supporting information showing, prima facie, that one or more of the acceptance criteria in the combined license have not been, or will not be met, and that the specific operational consequences of nonconformance would be contrary to providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety. This information must include the specific portion of the report required by 10 CFR 52.99(c) which the requestor believes is inaccurate, incorrect, and/or incomplete (i.e., fails to contain the necessary information required by § 52.99(c)). 28 The Commission has stated that it expects that any contentions submitted by prospective parties regarding uncompleted ITAAC would focus on any inadequacies of the specific procedures and analytical methods described by the licensee in its uncompleted ITAAC notification. 29 The information requirements of 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(v) are elements of the prima facie showing required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii). 30 The requirement to provide a prima facie showing comes from AEA § 189a.(1)(B)(ii), which was added to the AEA by the Energy 28 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(i)-(v), (vii).

29 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8031-32 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section I.B) (quoting Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, 72 Fed. Reg. 49,351, 49,367 (Aug. 28, 2007) (final rule) (2007 Part 52 Rule)).

30 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8033 n.8 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II.C).

Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct). 31 When issuing the Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, the Commission provided the following explanation of this requirement in response to comments on the proposed procedures:

This prima facie showing is in two parts, the second part of which can further be subdivided into two sub-parts. Specifically, to satisfy AEA § 189a.(1)(B)(ii), the petitioner must show, prima facie:

(1) that one or more of the acceptance criteria have not been or will not be met, and (2) that (a) the operational consequences of nonconformance (b) are contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety.

Issue (1)regarding the alleged nonconformance with the acceptance criteria is a question of technical fact for which prima facie evidence must be provided.

Issue (2)(a)regarding the alleged operational safety consequences flowing from nonconformanceis also a question of technical fact for which prima facie evidence must be provided. Issue (2)(b)whether these alleged operational consequences of nonconformance are contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safetyis a matter of regulatory judgment solely within the discretion of the Commission. 32 Reasonable assurance and adequate protection do not need to be reduced to a mechanical verbal formula or set of objective standards, but may be given content through case-by-case applications of [the Commission's] technical judgment, in light of all relevant information. 33 The Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures describe the prima facie showing requirement as fairly stringent 34 and describe the showing itself as robust. 35 The legislative history of the 31 Public Law No. 102-486, §§ 2801-07 (1992).

32 Comment Summary ReportProcedures for Conducting Hearings on Whether Acceptance Criteria in Combined Licenses Are Met, at 81-82 (June 2016) (ADAMS Accession No. ML16167A464) (hereinafter ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary); see also Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed.

Reg. at 43,268 (stating that the ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary provides the NRCs responses to public comments on the proposed procedures).

33 Entergy Nuclear Generation Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), CLI-10-14, 71 NRC 449, 465-66 (2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 880 F.2d 552, 558 (D.C. Cir.

1989)).

34 ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary, at 84.

35 Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. at 43,284.

EPAct does not indicate that Congress intended a specialized meaning for the term prima facie. Thus, it can be inferred that Congress intended to rely on the general legal definition of prima facie.

The phrase prima facie case is generally defined to mean [a] partys production of enough evidence to allow the fact-trier to infer the fact at issue and rule in the partys favor. 36 Similarly, Blacks Law Dictionary defines prima facie evidence as [e]vidence that will establish a fact or sustain a judgment unless contradictory evidence is produced. 37 These definitions are consistent with how NRC case law defines prima facie in the context of 10 C.F.R. § 2.335:

Prima facie evidence must be legally sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved. 38 Section 2.335 is the only instance in 10 C.F.R. Part 2, other than § 2.309(f)(1)(vii), where the term prima facie is used.

2. Standards for Claims of Incompleteness Licensees are required by 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c) to submit notifications to the NRC regarding the completion of ITAAC. Section 2.309(f)(1)(vii) provides that if a petitioner identifies a specific portion of the § 52.99(c) report as incomplete and claims that the incomplete portion prevents the requestor from making the necessary prima facie showing, then the petitioner must explain why this deficiency prevents the requestor from making the prima facie showing. Such claims are called claims of incompleteness. As stated in Section II.C of the Notice of Intended Operation:

36 Grissom v. Carpenter, 902 F.3d 1265, 1291 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting the definition of prima facie case in Blacks Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)).

37 Blacks Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (definition of prima facie evidence provided under the entry evidence).

38 Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-653, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981) (public version of ALAB-653 released as an attachment to Diablo Canyon, CLI-82-19, 16 NRC 53 (1982)); accord, Public Serv. Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7, 22 (1988) (referencing the predecessor to section 2.335, 10 C.F.R. § 2.758).

To establish a valid claim of incompleteness, the petitioner (1) must specifically identify the portion of the 10 CFR 52.99(c) notification that the petitioner asserts is incomplete, (2) must provide an adequately supported showing that the 10 CFR 52.99(c) notification fails to include information required by 10 CFR 52.99(c), and (3) must provide an adequately supported explanation of why this deficiency prevents the petitioner from making the necessary prima facie showing. This explanation must include a demonstration that the allegedly missing information is reasonably calculated to support a prima facie showing. 39 As relevant to this Petition, 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c)(1) requires a licensee to submit ITAAC closure notifications (ICNs) providing sufficient information to demonstrate that the ITAAC have been successfully completed. If a licensee has not provided ICNs for all ITAAC by 225 days before scheduled initial fuel load, the licensee must submit uncompleted ITAAC notifications (UINs) for these ITAAC at least 225 days before scheduled initial fuel load. 40 A UIN must provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the ITAAC will be successfully completed, including a description of the specific procedures and analytical methods to be used in completing the ITAAC. 41 When the Commission codified the regulation requiring ICNs and UINs, it gave the following perspectives on the sufficient information requirement for these notifications:

• The requirements for ICNs and UINs ensure that the NRC has sufficient information to make determinations on the licensees compliance with ITAAC and that petitioners have sufficient information to address the AEA § 189a.(1)(B) requirement for hearing requests.

• The NRC expects ICNs to include more than just a simple statement that the licensee believes the ITAAC has been successfully completed. The ICN must provide at a minimum, a summary description of the bases for the licensees conclusion, and this description must be sufficiently complete and detailed for a reasonable person to understand the bases for the licensees conclusion.

• For UINs, sufficient information requires, at a minimum, a summary description of the bases for the licensees conclusion that the ITAAC will be successfully completed, 39 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8033.

40 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c)(3).

41 Id.

includ[ing], but [] not limited to, a description of the specific procedures and analytical methods to be used for completing the ITAAC. 42 The opportunity to file a claim of incompleteness does not eliminate a petitioners obligation to show standing and, to the extent it can, meet the contention admissibility requirements. 43 Regarding the required prima facie showing, a petitioner has the following obligation:

[T]o the extent that a petitioner is able to make a prima facie showing with respect to one aspect of an ITAAC, it must do so even if there is a different aspect of the ITAAC for which a prima facie showing cannot be made because of an incompleteness in the licensees 10 CFR 52.99(c) notification. Furthermore, because the prima facie showing must address two issuesconformance with the acceptance criteria and whether the operational consequences of nonconformance are contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safetya valid claim of incompleteness must either explain why the incompleteness in the 10 CFR 52.99(c) notification prevents the petitioner from making the prima facie showing with respect to both issues, or the petitioner must make the prima facie showing with respect to one issue and explain why the incompleteness in the 10 CFR 52.99(c) notification prevents the petitioner from making the prima facie showing with respect to the other issue. 44 Before filing a claim of incompleteness, the petitioner must consult with the licensee regarding the information that the petitioner claims is missing from the ITAAC notification. 45 As required by Section II.B.2 of the Additional Procedures Order, a petitioner must initiate consultation within 21 days of the Notice of Intended Operation for all ITAAC notifications that were publicly available when the Notice was published. 46 42 2007 Part 52 Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 49,450.

43 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8033.

44 Id. at 8034.

45 Id.

46 Id. at 8037.

B. The Proposed Contention Is Not Admissible The proposed contention does not satisfy the contention admissibility standards because it does not make, or even address, the prima facie showing required by 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vii). Instead, the Petitioner claims that the Licensees UINs for ITAAC #760 and

1. 761 lack sufficient information for the Petitioner to raise a specific issue. 47 But the Petitioner does not meaningfully engage the ITAAC completion methodologies described or referenced in these UINs. Instead, the Petitioner asserts that the UINs should contain information that is not required by 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c). The Petitioner also speculates about what could go wrong during concrete placement, but speculation does not support contention admissibility. 48 Finally, the Petitioner does not satisfy 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) because most of its assertions lack specific documentary support, and the expert declaration submitted with the Petition provides only conclusory statements that lack a reasoned basis or explanation. For these reasons, and as explained more fully below, the proposed contention is inadmissible.

The Petitioner states its proposed contention as follows: Southern Nuclear Operating Company's notice that it intends to operate Vogtle Unit 3 does not contain sufficient detail for the NRC to find that the acceptance criteria in the combined operating license (COL) are, or will be, met as required by 10 CFR 52.99(c)(3). 49 The proposed contention focuses on closure of ITAAC #760, Item 3.3.00.02.a.i.a, and ITAAC #761, Item 3.3.00.02a.i.b. 50 In support of the 47 See Petition at 7-10, 11.

48 Exelon Generation Co. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-19-6, 89 NRC 465, 471-72 (2019).

49 Petition at 5 (emphasis omitted).

50 Id. at 6. As discussed in the Staffs ITAAC Review Status Report, there are two numbers associated with an ITAAC: an ITAAC Index Number (in this case, the numbers 760 and 761), and an ITAAC number associated with the section in Appendix C of the combined license where the ITAAC appears (in this case, the numbers 3.3.00.02.a.i.a and 3.3.00.02a.i.b). ITAAC Review Status Report - Vogtle Unit 3, at 1 (last updated May 13, 2020), https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/vog3-icnsr.pdf.

proposed contention, the Petitioner offers claims about the information that it believes should have been included in the uncompleted ITAAC notifications (UINs) for ITAAC #760 and #761, 51 asserted discrepancies between the Licensees UIN for ITAAC #760 and the Staffs ITAAC Review Status Report for Vogtle Unit 3, and speculation about what could go wrong during concrete placement and the resulting safety consequences. 52 The Petitioner also supports its proposed contention with the Higley Declaration. 53 Finally, the Petition offers background information and claims about the Vogtle project that the Petitioner mostly does not tie to ITAAC

1. 760 or #761 and that are in the Background section of the Petition rather than in the section discussing the proposed contention. 54 In discussing why the proposed contention is inadmissible, the Staff will begin by explaining why the Petition does not meet the contention admissibility requirements as a general matter. Then, the Staff will assess the proposed contentions assertions on ITAAC

1. 760 and #761, as well as the assertions in the Background section of the Petition.

1. The Proposed Contention Does Not Meet the Contention Admissibility Requirements The NRCs contention admissibility requirements are strict by design and intended to ensure that adjudicatory proceedings are triggered only by substantive safety or environmental issues, rooted in a reasonably specific factual or legal basis and to screen out ill-defined, speculative, or otherwise unsupported claims. 55 Given the required prima facie showing, the contention admissibility requirements are even stricter in this proceeding. But the Petition does 51 Notice of Uncompleted ITAAC 225-days Prior to Initial Fuel Load Item 3.3.00.02a.i.a [Index Number 760] (ADAMS Accession No. ML19326C865) (Nov. 22, 2019) (UIN #760); Notice of Uncompleted ITAAC 225-days Prior to Initial Fuel Load Item 3.3.00.02a.i.b [Index Number 761] (ADAMS Accession No. ML19326B992) (Nov. 22, 2019) (UIN #761).

52 Petition at 5-10.

53 Id. at 1-2.

54 Id. at 2-5.

55 Oyster Creek, CLI-19-6, 89 NRC at 471-72 (2019) (internal quotation marks omitted).

not cite to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309 or otherwise attempt to explain how these standards are met. As explained below, the Petition does not satisfy § 2.309(f)(1)(v) and (vii).

Section 2.309(f)(1)(v) requires the Petitioner to concisely state the alleged facts or expert opinions supporting its position and include references to the specific sources and documents on which the requestor/petitioner intends to rely to support its position on the issue. But the Petitioner makes unsupported assertions, as discussed below. And Mr. Higleys support for the proposed contention consists only of the following statement:

3. I assisted Nuclear Watch South in the preparation of the contentions submitted in Nuclear Watch South's Petition for Public Hearing filed April 20, 2020.

4. The factual statements in Nuclear Watch Souths contentions are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and the statements of opinion are based on my best professional judgment. 56 This vague statement makes it impossible to determine whether the Petitions factual assertions are based on Mr. Higleys personal knowledge, and Mr. Higley does not specify the opinions he supports or provide a reasoned explanation for them. Thus, the Higley Declaration is conclusory in nature and does not support contention admissibility, 57 particularly given the prima facie showing required for contentions in ITAAC proceedings. As the Commission has held, an expert opinion that merely states a conclusion (e.g., the application is deficient, inadequate, or wrong) without providing a reasoned basis or explanation for that conclusion is inadequate because it deprives the Board of the ability to make the necessary, reflective assessment of the opinion[.] 58 Similarly, one cannot make a reflective assessment of the Higley declaration given its general, conclusory support for the proposed contention.

56 Higley Declaration at 1.

57 See USEC Inc. (Am. Centrifuge Plant), CLI-06-10, 63 NRC 451, 472 (2006) (rejecting the view that conclusory statements by an expert support contention admissibility).

58 Id. (quoting Private Fuel Storage, L.L.C. (Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation), LBP-98-7, 47 NRC 142, 181 (1998)); accord, NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-12-5, 75 NRC 301, 320 n.117 (2012).

In 2004 the Vermont Yankee licensing board addressed a similar situation:

The Board is troubled by the form of the affidavit of the State's expert. In it, Mr.

Sherman indicates that he assisted in the preparation of the State's pleading and simply endorses [a]ll of the information given as supporting evidence in Contentions 1 through 4 as true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

State Petition, Sherman Declaration at 1. Such wholesale endorsement of the pleadings seriously undermines our ability to differentiate between the legal pleadings and the facts and opinions expressed by the expert. 59 In a 2009 Oyster Creek decision, the Commission, citing the Vermont Yankee boards concerns with deficits in the expert affidavit, concluded that an experts simple agreement with the petitioners filing did not meet the affidavit requirement for a motion to reopen the record. 60 These cases fundamentally go to the lack of specificity in the affidavits. Together with the Commissions precedent on conclusory assertions by experts, similarly based on the inability to properly assess the experts opinion, 61 these decisions support the conclusion that the Higley Declaration does not satisfy § 2.309(f)(1)(v). 62 The Petition also does not satisfy the core requirement of § 2.309(f)(1)(vii) that the information must be sufficient, and include supporting information showing, prima facie, that one or more of the acceptance criteria in the combined license have not been, or will not be met, and that the specific operational consequences of nonconformance would be contrary to providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety. The Petitioner does not claim that the acceptance criteria have not been or will not be met. Instead, the Petition asserts that it cannot raise a specific issue because there is insufficient detail in the 59 Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, LLC (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-04-28, 60 NRC 548, 560 n.16 (2004).

60 AmerGen Energy Co. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-09-7, 69 NRC 235, 292 n.318 (2009) (citing Vermont Yankee, LBP-04-28, 60 NRC at 560 n.16).

61 See USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 472; Seabrook, CLI-12-5, 75 NRC at 320 n.117.

62 The lack of detail in Mr. Higleys affidavit is notable, since Mr. Higleys work on the Vogtle project commenced in October 2016. Higley CV at 1. A number of events cited in the Petition occurred before then, as discussed below.

application. 63 Without a prima facie showing of a nonconformance with the acceptance criteria, it logically follows that the Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing of operational consequences from such a nonconformance that would be contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety. Regarding safety consequences, the Petitioner offers only conclusory and speculative assertions, such as: the new reactor is risky and [f]ailure to prove that the structure is built according to the design may result in catastrophic radiological exposure to the environment and public. 64 Thus, the second prong of the required prima facie showing has also not been satisfied, and the proposed contention should be rejected.

2. The Proposed Contentions Claims Regarding ITAAC #760 and #761 Are Inadmissible The Petitioner raises a number of challenges to the UINs for ITAAC #760 and #761 that are inconsistent with the NRCs ITAAC notification requirements, do not show that the UINs lack required information, and do not identify inadequacies in the procedures and methods discussed in the UINs. As explained more fully below, the Petitioner does not make the required prima facie showing and the contention is inadmissible under 10 C.F.R.

§ 2.309(f)(1)(vii).

ITAAC #760 and #761 are set out in Table 1 below. The Licensees UINs for ITAAC

1. 760 and #761 address completion of these ITAAC for Vogtle Units 3 and 4. 65 The Staff concluded that the UINs contain sufficient information. 66 63 Petition at 11.

64 Id. at 2, 9.

65 The Petitioner claims that addressing both units in the same UIN is confusing and potentially dangerous. Petition at 8. The Licensee permissibly consolidated information on ITAAC #760 and #761 for Units 3 and 4 in a single UIN because the UIN addresses the same ITAAC requirements for AP1000 structures described by the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) common to Units 3 and 4.

66 ITAAC Review Status Report - Vogtle Unit 3.

These UINs state that they were informed by the guidance described in NEl-08-01, Industry Guideline for the ITAAC Closure Process Under 10 CFR Part 52[.] 67 Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.215, Revision 2, approves the use of NEI 08-01, Revision 5 - Corrected, subject to certain exceptions and additional guidance described in RG 1.215. 68 NEI 08-01 includes detailed guidance on ITAAC closure and ITAAC notification content, including templates and examples for ICNs and UINs. 69 Licensees are not required to follow the guidance in RG 1.215 (or the approved NEI 08-01), 70 but [g]uidance documents that are developed to assist in compliance with applicable regulations are . . . entitled to special weight. 71 The Petitioner presents a number of challenges to the UINs for ITAAC #760 and #761, but these challenges do not support contention admissibility. The Petitioner claims that the UINs for ITAAC #760 and #761 were submitted virtually blank, 72 but this is not the case. The UINs for ITAAC #760 and #761 follow the organization of the UIN template in NEI 08-01 by quoting the design commitment and ITAAC, providing an ITAAC completion description, addressing ITAAC findings, providing a list of references, and attaching tables referenced by the 67 UIN #760, at 1; UIN #761, at 1.

68 RG 1.215, Guidance for ITAAC Closure Under 10 CFR Part 52, at 2 (Rev. 2, July 2015) (ADAMS Access No. ML15105A447) (hereinafter RG 1.215); NEI 08-01, Industry Guideline for the ITAAC Closure Process Under 10 CFR Part 52 (Rev. 5 - Corrected, June 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14182A158) (NEI 08-01).

69 Appendix D of NEI 08-01 includes an ICN template and numerous example ICNs. Appendix E of NEI 08-01 includes two templates and an example UIN. The ICN examples and template were intended to support meeting the requirements for both UINs and ICNs. NEI 08-01, at 27, 29-30.

70 RG 1.215, at 1-2.

71 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 & 3), CLI-15-6, 81 NRC 340, 356 (2015); see also ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary, at 19 (providing that answers to hearing requests can cite to NEI 08-01 and NRC case law on the weight to be accorded to NRC-endorsed guidance).

72 See Petition at 6. The Petition states, two critical path ITAAC, the nuclear island and the shield building, were submitted virtually blank. Id. But the preceding sentence equates the term UIN with ITAAC. See id. (preceding sentence states, Of that number, 277 ITAAC are UIN, i.e. incomplete).

Given this and the surrounding context, the Staff understands the Petitioners assertion to be a claim against UIN #760 and #761.

TABLE 1 - ITAAC #760 and #761 73 Index Design Commitment Inspections, Acceptance Criteria No. Tests, Analyses 760 2.a) The nuclear island i) An inspection of i.a) A report exists which reconciles structures, including the the nuclear island deviations during construction, critical sections listed in structures will be including Table 3.3-1 wall and floor Table 3.3-7, are seismic performed. thicknesses, and concludes that the Category I and are Deviations from as-built containment internal designed and constructed the design due to structures, including the critical to withstand design basis as-built conditions sections, conform to the approved loads as specified in the will be analyzed design and will withstand the design Design Description, for the design basis loads specified in the Design without loss of structural basis loads, and Description without loss of structural integrity and the safety- for radiation integrity or the safety-related related functions. shielding. functions, and without impacting 3.) Walls and floors of the compliance with the radiation nuclear island structures protection licensing basis.

as defined on Table 3.3-1 except for designed openings or penetrations, provide shielding during normal operations 761 [Same as ITAAC #760] [Same as ITAAC i.b) A report exists which reconciles

1. 760] deviations during construction, including Table 3.3-1 wall and floor thicknesses, and concludes that the as-built shield building structures, including the critical sections, conform to the approved design and will withstand the design basis loads specified in the Design Description without loss of structural integrity or the safety-related functions, and without impacting compliance with the radiation protection licensing basis.

73 Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License, App. C (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106) (last updated May 12, 2020). The design commitments are not part of the ITAAC but represent what the ITAAC are intended to demonstrate. A single design commitment may be verified by multiple ITAAC, and a single inspection, test, or analysis might apply to several acceptance criteria. In this case, design commitment 2.a) is verified by ITAAC #760 to #763, ITAAC #768, and ITAAC #769, and design commitment 3.) is verified by ITAAC #760 to #763. Id. Also, the acceptance criteria for ITAAC #760 to #763 share the same inspection and analysis. Id. While these design commitments, inspection, and analysis apply to nuclear island structures, generally, the acceptance criteria for ITAAC #760 and #761 are limited to as-built containment internal structures and as-built shield building structures, respectively. Id.

ITAAC. 74 In particular, the ITAAC completion descriptions (1) enumerate the relevant design basis loads; (2) describe the basic ITAAC completion steps; and (3) reference a number of specific sections of the UFSAR for more information on (a) design basis load analysis, (b) codes and standards governing the design, materials, fabrication, and construction inspection and testing, (c) design summary reports, and (d) design criteria for radiation zones and equipment qualification. 75 Citing the UFSAR (and the referenced codes and standards) for more detailed information is an accepted ITAAC notification practice. 76 And the UINs for ITAAC #760 and

1. 761 are clearly modeled on the ICN example in NEI 08-01, Appendix D-9, including the use of references to the UFSAR. 77 The Petitioner claims that the UINs in question should have included Principal Closure Documents (e.g., test reports, completed procedures, completed analyses, etc.) which are missing from the nuclear island and shield building ITAACs (#760 and #761)[.] 78 The Petitioner further claims that the Licensee should have submitted ICNs rather than UINs because of the documentation provisions for ICNs in NEI 08-01. 79 Also, the Petitioner states that the UINs 74 Compare UIN #760, enclosure; UIN #761, enclosure with NEI 08-01, Appendix E-2.

75 UIN #760, enclosure at 2-3; UIN #761, enclosure at 2-3.

76 RG 1.215 discusses the acceptability of ICNs citing to codes and regulatory guides. RG 1.215, at 6. In addition, 10 C.F.R. § 52.8(b) provides that applications may incorporate by reference information previously filed with the NRC if the references are clear and specific; by analogy, the same practice should be acceptable for licensee ITAAC notifications.

77 Compare UIN #760, enclosure; UIN #761, enclosure with NEI 08-01, Appendix D-9. Appendix D-9 references the AP1000 design control document (DCD), but the DCD is part of the UFSAR. See 10 C.F.R. § 52.79(d)(1) (providing that the combined license final safety analysis report (FSAR) must include, or incorporate by reference, the design certification FSAR). The UINs differ from the NEI 08-01 example primarily in terms of scope; Vogtle ITAAC #760 and #761 consolidate the AP1000 ITAAC in Appendix D-9 with other AP1000 ITAAC (with some additional changes).

78 Petition at 6.

79 Id.

reference reports that do not exist, 80 and that the listed reports should have been drafted by now (in whole for ITAAC #760, and in part for ITAAC #761). 81 These claims do not support the required prima facie showing and are inconsistent with the NRCs ITAAC notification requirements. An ICN must show that the ITAAC has been successfully completed, 82 so an ICN may not be submitted until the ITAAC has been completed in its entirety. The Staff understands that the Licensee has not yet completed ITAAC #760 or

1. 761. Even so, the regulations do not require ICNs to be submitted on a particular schedule. 83 Further, the Petitioner does not show that the UINs lack required information. The UINs references to reports that do not exist are references to As-Built Summary Report[s], 84 which would not be finalized until the relevant ITAAC activities are completed. The UINs references to such expected reports are consistent with the UIN template in NEI 08-01. 85 And when the reports do exist, the Licensee is not required to submit them with the ICN. The final rule codifying the ICN requirement does not mandate submission of a licensees detailed Principal Closure Documents or any other specific set of information; instead, the final rule requires sufficient information and indicates that a summary of the bases for the licensees conclusion 80 Id. at 7-8, 9.

81 Id. at 8, 9-10.

82 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c)(1).

83 The NRC considered requiring that all ITAAC be completed by a certain time prior to fuel load but did not adopt this proposal and instead required the submission of UINs for uncompleted ITAAC. 2007 Part 52 Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 49,367.

84 See UIN #760, enclosure at 4 (references 4 to 9); UIN #761, enclosure at 4 (references 4 to 7). Half of these references are for Vogtle Unit 3 and the other half are for Vogtle Unit 4. Id.

85 NEI 08-01, App. E-2, at E2-2 (providing that the References portion of the UIN should include the list of Principal Completion Documents that are expected to be referenced in the ITAAC Closure Notification for the ITAAC and included in the ITAAC Completion Package) (emphasis added).

could be sufficient. 86 Also, NEI 08-01 provides that ICNs and UINs should describe the methodology and key steps for performing the ITAAC and that the Principal Closure Documents should be available for NRC review at the site. 87 In addition, the Petitioner would have UINs reflect an up-to-date status of ITAAC completion when submitted, but § 52.99(c)(3) does not require this, and NEI 08-01 does not suggest that such status information be provided. 88 If such a requirement existed, then the dynamic reactor construction environment would render the notification out of date both while it was being drafted and once it was submitted. And if a lack of reported results were considered a material defect in a UIN, then all UINs would be defective because at least some results would not be available for all uncompleted ITAAC, by definition. Instead, § 52.99(c)(3) focuses on the specific procedures and analytical methods for completing the ITAAC, and the Commission expects contentions on uncompleted ITAAC to focus on asserted inadequacies in the procedures and methods discussed in the UIN. 89 The UINs in question describe the basic 86 See 2007 Part 52 Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 49,450 (stating that the sufficient information requirement for UINs requires, at a minimum, a summary description of the bases for the licensees conclusion that the ITAAC will be successfully completed).

87 NEI 08-01, at 27, 28. The Petitioner argues that LAR-19-005R1 should have been included. See Petition at 8, 9. The Staff granted license amendment request (LAR)19-005, Revision 1, when issuing license amendment numbers 167 and 165 for Vogtle Units 3 and 4, respectively. Letter from William Gleaves to Brian H. Whitley (Nov. 15, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19164A264). These license amendments are cited as references in the UINs. UIN #760, enclosure at 4; UIN #761, enclosure at 4.

88 The UIN template in NEI 08-01 states that the key difference between the UIN and the ICN is that the UIN:

should use the passive present tense to describe the procedures and/or methods that will be used to conduct the ITA and demonstrate that the Acceptance Criteria are met (e.g.,

The valves are tested). Licensees may use passive present tense throughout this section even if a portion of these activities may have been completed for an ITAAC. An ITAAC is considered uncompleted until all activities within its scope are completed and an ITAAC Closure Notification is submitted to NRC.

NEI 08-01, App. E-2, at E2-1.

89 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8031-32 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section I.B) (citing 2007 Part 52 Rule, 72 Fed. Reg. at 49,367). Each UIN will be followed by an ICN after the ITAAC is completed. See 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c)(1); NEI 08-01, at 30.

ITAAC completion steps and reference several sections of the UFSAR where various ITAAC completion activities are described in more detail. The Petitioner could have filed a contention specifically addressing this descriptive material, but it did not do so.

The Petitioner asserts that there are discrepancies between the ITAAC findings listed in UIN #760 and in the Staffs ITAAC Review Status Report. The Petitioner states:

Southern Nuclear's notice lists 16 NRC findings with 11 different ML numbers.

The ITAAC Review Status Report contains significantly more findings than are referenced in Southern Nuclear's Notice of Uncompleted ITAAC, i.e., 42 inspection reports plus 8 vendor reports listed under 50 unique ML numbers. Of the ML numbers on Southern Nuclear's List of ITAAC Findings, five of them (ML13312A316, ML18317A396, ML18100A857, ML15175A446, and ML18101A168) do not appear on the ITAAC Review Status Report for Unit 3 at all. 90 These claims do not support contention admissibility. The ITAAC Review Status Report lists construction and vendor inspection reports and does not separately list ITAAC findings. 91 An ITAAC finding is an NRC inspection finding that is associated with a specific ITAAC and is material to the ITAAC acceptance criteria. 92 If an NRC inspection does not discover an issue warranting an ITAAC finding, then the inspection report will not document an ITAAC finding.

Also, UIN #760 lists ADAMS accession numbers for documents closing ITAAC findings, not the original inspection reports identifying the issue. Thus, it is not inconsistent for the ITAAC Review Status Report to list more inspection reports for ITAAC #760 than the UIN lists ITAAC findings for ITAAC #760. 93 90 Petition at 7.

91 ITAAC Review Status Report - Vogtle Unit 3.

92 NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2506: Construction Reactor Oversight Process General Guidance and Basis Document, at 11 (Feb. 19, 2020) (ADAMS Accession No. ML20029E947); accord, NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 2507: Vendor Inspections, at 2 (Dec. 20, 2019) (ADAMS Accession No. ML19337C706).

93 The April 2, 2020 ITAAC Review Status Report for Vogtle Unit 3 was available prior to the filing of the Petition. This report, pertinent portions of which are attached, identifies 25 construction inspection reports and 4 vendor inspection reports for ITAAC #760.

The Petitioner is partly correct when it claims that several of the ADAMS accession numbers in UIN #760 for NRC documents closing ITAAC findings were not listed for ITAAC

1. 760 in the ITAAC Review Status Report. 94 But this does not support contention admissibility because the UIN addressed these findings, and the Petitioner does not contest this fact.

Contentions in an ITAAC proceeding must include the specific portion of the report required by 10 CFR 52.99(c) which the requestor believes is inaccurate, incorrect, and/or incomplete. 95 Thus, proposed contentions must focus on the Licensees ITAAC notifications that are required by 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c). Any deficiencies in the Staffs ITAAC Review Status Report are outside the scope of the proceeding, consistent with longstanding Commission precedent. 96 The only technical arguments in the proposed contention consist of speculation about the likelihood of nonconformances in concrete structures, conclusory assertions that nonconformances could result in catastrophic radiological exposure to the environment and public, a vague reference to [v]endor failures with respect to the shield building panels . . . at the outset of Vogtle 3 construction, and a reference to experience with an AP1000 reactor in China. 97 These assertions do not support contention admissibility because they do not establish a prima facie showing of a nonconformance with the acceptance criteria of ITAAC 94 Of the five ADAMS accession numbers listed:

• Four documents (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13312A316, ML18100A857, ML15175A446, and ML18101A168) were omitted from the ITAAC Review Status Reports listing for ITAAC #760, as reflected in the attachment to this filing. The documents should have been included, and the May 13, 2020, ITAAC Review Status Report for Vogtle Unit 3 now lists these documents for ITAAC

1. 760.

• The Petitions reference to ML18317A396 appears to be a typographical error. UIN #760 and the ITAAC Review Status Report attached to this filing both refer to ML18317A395.

95 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii).

96 See, e.g., AmerGen Energy Co. (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-08-23, 68 NRC 461, 476 (2008) (The NRC has not, and will not, litigate claims about the adequacy of the Staff's safety review in licensing adjudications.)

97 Petition at 8-10.

1. 760 or #761 for Vogtle Unit 3 that results in operational safety consequences contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety. 98 Also, the Petition does not meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) because it does not cite documentary or non-conclusory expert support for these claims. The single news article that is cited pertains to the AP1000 reactor in China, and the Petitioner does not tie the article to a deficiency in Vogtle Unit 3 construction. 99 The contention requirements are designed to screen out ill-defined, speculative, or otherwise unsupported claims, 100 and conclusory assertions, even from an expert, do not support contention admissibility. 101 The proposed contentions only asserted historical nonconformance associated with Vogtle Unit 3 is its vague statement that [v]endor failures with respect to the shield building panels posed a particularly difficult problem at the outset of Vogtle 3 construction. 102 The Petitioner provides no support for this assertion, contrary to 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v). 103 Also, the assertion is ill-defined; the Petitioner does not describe the nature of the failures or whether they prevented the acceptance criteria for ITAAC #761 from being met. Also, the Petitioner does not claim that any vendor failures were not appropriately addressed by the Licensee; the use of the past tense (posed) appears to indicate that whatever failures occurred do not pose problems now.

For the reasons given above, the proposed contention is inadmissible.

98 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii).

99 Petition at 10 & n.4.

100 Exelon, CLI-19-6, 89 NRC at 472.

101 USEC, CLI-06-10, 63 NRC at 472.

102 Petition at 10.

103 As stated previously, Mr. Higleys conclusory declaration does not provide adequate support for the proposed contention.

3. The Petitions Background Section Does Not Support Contention Admissibility The Petition includes a Background section that precedes the section labeled Contention of Omission. 104 The purpose of the Background section is revealed in its last paragraph, where the Petitioner urges the NRC to demand[] proper ITAAC documentation from the would-be reactor operators and undertak[e] the most rigorous review of this new and untested reactor design. 105 In the Staffs view, this information does not support admissibility of the contention. The Background section primarily offers general assertions regarding the Vogtle project that the Petitioner does not attempt to tie to any specific ITAAC deficiency. 106 The only claim tied to ITAAC #760 or #761 is a speculative assertion that the Licensees staffing decisions led to perceived information deficiencies in ITAAC #760. 107 General assertions do not constitute the prima facie showing required by 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(vii), and speculative and ill-defined claims do not meet the contention admissibility requirements. 108 Further, most of the assertions in the Background section also do not meet 10 C.F.R. § 2.309(f)(1)(v) because they lack documentary or expert support. 109 104 Petition at 2-5.

105 Id. at 5.

106 For example, the Petition generally discusses litigation among project participants, contractor turnover, problems tracking inventory or records, and NRC enforcement actions against the Licensee and its executives for terminating employees who were engaged in protected activities. Id. at 2-5. The Petitioner does not claim, much less show prima facie, that these matters prevent the successful completion of any ITAAC, including ITAAC #760 or #761.

107 Id. at 4. The Petitioner then addresses the perceived deficiency in the Contention of Omission section. Id. at 5-10.

108 Exelon, CLI-19-6, 89 NRC at 472.

109 The documentary support for this discussion is limited to an NRC backgrounder on the power reactor licensing process, a report preceding issuance of the Vogtle combined licenses that does not support the Petitioners assertions (as explained below), a statement on staffing projections from NEI 08-01, and a news article on NRC enforcement actions taken against the Licensee and its executives. Petition at 2 n.1, 3 n.2, 4, 5 n.3. Also, the Background section makes assertions about events associated with the Vogtle project that purportedly occurred from 2012 to 2015. Petition at 2-3, 5. Mr. Higley was employed on the Vogtle project from October 2016 to July 2018. Higley CV at 1.

Nevertheless, the Staff briefly addresses here asserted deficiencies in construction- and ITAAC-related activities; none of these assertions supports contention admissibility. First, the Petitioner states generally that [n]on-nuclear grade rebar was installed and [s]ignificant modules . . . were famously off-spec. 110 When approving the first ITAAC as part of the first design certification rule, the Commission stated that for a quality assurance (QA) or quality control (QC) deficiency to be considered in determining whether an ITAAC has been successfully completed, the QA or QC deficiency must, among other things, be directly and materially related to one or more aspects of the relevant ITAAC. 111 Thus, the Petitioners general assertions of quality deficiencies do not support a prima facie showing that ITAAC #760 or #761 have not been, or will not be, met. In any event, the Petitioner appears to acknowledge that the asserted deficiencies were addressed. 112 Second, the Petitioner claims that the NRC halted construction in April 2012 due to improperly installed rebar and stopped work in December 2013 because of a finding of significant breakdown in the Quality Assurance of [Chicago Bridge & Iron (CB&I)]. 113 The Petitioner does not provide documentary support for these assertions or attempt to tie them to specific ITAAC. Also, the NRC did not issue a halt construction or stop work order associated with Vogtle rebar or CB&I matters. 114 Rather, in May 2012, the NRC issued a green ITAAC finding (05200025/2012-008) and associated Severity Level IV violation to the Licensee 110 Petition at 3.

111 Standard Design Certification for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design, 62 Fed. Reg.

25,800, 25,813 (May 12, 1997) (final rule).

112 Petition at 3 (stating that the asserted rebar problem was caught and corrected, or at least analyzed, and that repair workshops addressed the asserted module deficiencies).

113 Id. at 2.

114 Since no documentary support is provided for either of these assertions, it is difficult to determine to which events the Petition refers. The following discussion addresses those events that the Staff believes could be related to the Petitions assertions.

for Unit 3 rebar issues of very low safety significance. 115 The NRC closed the ITAAC finding as reflected in the UIN for ITAAC #761, 116 and the Petitioner does not challenge this.

The reference to CB&I quality assurance problems is likely a reference to a December 2, 2013 notification to the NRC from the Licensee in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 50.55(e) that reported a significant breakdown in CB&Is Lake Charles quality assurance program. 117 As a result, there was a self-imposed stop-work order [] in effect on January 13, 2014, [that] was progressively eased until it was finally lifted on April 8, 2014. 118 The Petitioner does not claim that the CB&I quality assurance problems led to uncorrected deficiencies that prevent an ITAAC from being satisfied, much less make a prima facie showing to this effect. Subsequent to the Licensees December 2013 notification, the Staff conducted inspections of the Lake Charles facility on February 3-7, 2014, December 1-5, 2014, and May 18-21, 2015. 119 The only vendor ITAAC finding from NRC inspections of the CB&I Lake Charles facility has been closed, as reflected in UIN #760. 120 The Petitioner does not contest this. Therefore, the Petitioners claims 115 Letter from Kathleen ODonohue to B. L. Ivey, at 1 (May 18, 2012) (ADAMS Accession No. ML12139A192).

116 UIN #761, enclosure at 4 (referencing Letter from Michael Ernstes to B. L. Ivey, enclosure 2 at 46-48 (Nov. 4, 2012) (ADAMS Accession No. ML12319A458) (NRC inspection report closing ITAAC finding 05200025/2012-008 and associated violation)).

117 Event Notification 49595 (Dec. 2, 2013), https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/event/2013/20131203en.html#en49595.

118 Letter from Kerri A. Kavanagh to Ryan Zurkuhlen, enclosure 2 at 8 (Jan. 15, 2015) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14352A127) (hereinafter NRC Inspection Report 99901425/2014-202).

119 Letter from Kerri A. Kavanagh to Kevin Walsh (Mar. 21, 2014) (ADAMS Accession No. ML14072A315)

(NRC Inspection Report 99901425/2014-201); NRC Inspection Report 99901425/2014-202; Letter from Kerri A. Kavanagh to Michael J. Annacone (July 1, 2015) (ADAMS Accession No. ML15169A231) (NRC Inspection Report 99901425/2015-201).

120 The Staff summarized all vendor ITAAC findings as of October 12, 2018, in a letter to the Licensee.

Letter from William B. Jones to Michael Yox (Oct. 12, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18152B785).

This letter identifies one ITAAC finding associated with CB&I Lake Charles and states that this finding was closed. Id., enclosure 1 at 5 (ITAAC finding for docket number 99901425, inspection report number 2014-201). UIN #760 also lists this finding as closed. UIN #760, enclosure at 4 (ITAAC finding #14).

do not support contention admissibility.

Third, the Petitioner cites what it calls an internal Westinghouse report from M.J.

Eveges, dated August 2011, six months prior to issuance of the Vogtle combined licenses, to support the Petitioners concerns regarding Westinghouses scheduling and professional engineering review practices for the AP1000. 121 But the Eveges Report does not support the Petitioners claims. The Petition states:

Prominent in the findings were the absence of an integrated project schedule and a practice of waiving professional engineer review and stamping of certain design documents, a practice which is presumed legal, but has practical negative impacts in the construction field as it led to unconstructible documents in the field, stop work/change orders and a confusing array of design revisions. 122 However, the Eveges Report only briefly mentions an integrated project schedule and does not state or imply that the absence of such a schedule has the effects claimed by the Petitioner. 123 Regarding professional engineer review, the Eveges Report states, It has been rumored that the AP1000 design may not seek or require a professional engineers seal[.] 124 The Eveges Report does not state that this practice would lead to unconstructible documents in the field, stop work/change orders and a confusing array of design revisions, as claimed by the Petitioner. 125 A document offered in support of a proposed contention is subject to scrutiny 121 Petition at 3 & n.2 (citing M.J. Eveges, The Case for Paradigm Shift: An assessment of project delivery risk against the backdrop of industry practice (Aug. 2011),

https://www.nonukesyall.org/pdfs/Westinghouse_paradigmshift.pdf (Eveges Report)); Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4; Issuance of Combined Licenses and Limited Work Authorizations and Record of Decision, 77 Fed. Reg. 12,332 (Feb. 29, 2012).

122 Petition at 3.

123 Eveges Report, at 6, 8.

124 Id. at 6.

125 Id. at 5-6. Petition at 3.

both for what it does and does not show. 126 Here, the cited document does not support the Petitioners claims. Concerns regarding Westinghouses professional engineering review practices for the AP1000 were previously brought to the Staffs attention; the Staff did not identify any indication that unqualified individuals from [Westinghouse] or its contractors performed work related to the AP1000 design, that violations of NRC requirements related to Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) approval took place, or that [Westinghouse] failed to comply with NRC notification requirements. 127 The Petitioner provides no contrary evidence, and the assertions in the Petition therefore do not constitute the required prima facie showing for contentions.

Fourth, the Petitioner offers an unsupported claim that ITAAC inspections should be performed by ITAAC review engineers. 128 NRC regulations do not require this. The Petitioner acknowledges that qualified field engineers could perform ITAAC inspections and measurements, but claims that there was no official procedure or quality control on the practice to ensure qualified ITAAC people were making inspections and measurements. 129 The Petitioner provides no support for this claim, and it is unclear what the Petitioner means by qualified ITAAC people. The Petitioner does not show prima facie that inspections or measurements associated with ITAAC #760 or #761 are being conducted by persons who do not have the knowledge or skill to perform those inspections or measurements, or that a lack of adequate inspection or measurements will result in a nonconformance with the acceptance 126 NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC (Seabrook Station, Unit 1), CLI-18-4, 87 NRC 89, 107 n.131 (2018)

(quoting Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61, 90 (1996),

rev'd in part on other grounds, CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235 (1996)).

127 Email from Dori L. Willis to Tom C. Roberts, at 1 (Feb. 15, 2018) (ADAMS Accession No. ML18047A025).

128 Petition 4.

129 Id.

criteria that leads to specific operational consequences contrary to reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety.

As discussed above, this discussion does not support contention admissibility.

C. The Proposed Contention Should Not Be Considered a Claim of Incompleteness, But Even if It Were, the Requirements for Such a Claim Have Not Been Satisfied The proposed contention bears some resemblance to a claim of incompleteness because it asserts that the UINs for ITAAC #760 and #761 lack information, 130 but the same type of assertion can also support a contention. 131 Thus, the proposed contention should be considered as the Petitioner framed it. Regardless, and as explained below, the Petitioner has not shown that the UINs fail to meet 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c) or that this prevents the Petitioner from making the required prima facie showing. Further, the Petitioner does not certify that it consulted with the Licensee regarding the assertedly missing information. Thus, the Petition does not satisfy the requirements for a claim of incompleteness.

A contention may be based on a lack of information in the Licensees ITAAC notifications. 132 Further, the Notice of Intended Operation states:

If the petitioner is unsure whether to file a contention or a claim of incompleteness on an ITAAC notification, the petitioner can submit both a contention and a claim of incompleteness at the same time, arguing in the alternative that if the contention is not admissible, then the claim of incompleteness is valid. 133 Although this option is available, the Petition refers to the contention several times but never mentions a claim of incompleteness. 134 Therefore, the Staff is considering the proposed 130 See, e.g., id. at 6.

131 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8033 & n.7 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II.B).

132 Id.

133 Id. at 8034 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II.C).

134 Petition at 1, 5, 11.

contention as pled, not as a different claim subject to different requirements. 135 Even if the proposed contention were considered a claim of incompleteness, the requirements for such a claim are not met. As stated in the Notice of Intended Operation, a valid claim of incompleteness must (1) specifically identify the portion of the ITAAC notification that is purportedly incomplete, (2) provide an adequately supported showing that the notification does not include information required by 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c), (3) adequately explain why this deficiency prevents the petitioner from making the required prima facie showing, and (4) demonstrate that the purportedly missing information is reasonably calculated to support a prima facie showing. 136 As previously stated, the Petitioner never mentions the term prima facie, much less shows that information assertedly missing from UINs #760 and #761 prevented the Petitioner from making the prima facie showing and is reasonably calculated to support such a showing. Also as explained previously, the Petitioner does not show that the UINs lack information required by 10 C.F.R. § 52.99(c):

• The UINs were not submitted virtually blank, as the Petitioner asserts, but followed the organization and approach of the relevant template and example in NRC-approved guidance.

• Contrary to the Petitioners assertions, it is acceptable for the UINs to reference Principal Closure Documents that the Licensee expects to be complete when the ICN is submitted.

• The UINs are not required to include Principal Closure Documents, as the Petition claims, but may summarize ITAAC completion methodologies and reference more detailed information in the UFSAR.

• The UINs reference the license amendment that the Petitioner says should have been referenced.

135 Cf. Andrew Siemaszko, CLI-06-16, 63 NRC 708, 720-21 (2006) (stating that the Board must not redraft an inadmissible contention to cure deficiencies and thereby render it admissible); DTE Elec. Co.

(Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), CLI-15-18, 82 NRC 135, 141 (2015) (stating that licensing boards may narrow or reformulate contentions to eliminate extraneous issues or consolidate issues for efficiency but may not supply lacking information).

136 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8033 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II.C).

• The Petitioner does not show that the UINs are missing information on ITAAC findings.

• UINs need not reflect an up-to-date status of ITAAC completion when submitted, contrary to the Petitioners expectations. 137 In particular, the Petitioner never engages either the UINs ITAAC completion summary or the referenced UFSAR sections with more detailed information on a number of ITAAC completion topics. 138 For these reasons, the proposed contention does not satisfy the requirements for a litigable claim of incompleteness.

Moreover, the Petition shows no evidence that the Petitioner consulted with the Licensee on the assertedly missing information. Before filing a claim of incompleteness on ITAAC notifications, like UIN #760 and UIN #761, that were available when the Notice of Intended Operation was published, petitioners must initiate consultation with the licensee within 21 days of the Notice of Intended Operation. 139 The Petitioner must also certify that it complied with the consultation requirements. 140 But the Petitioner filed no such certification. The NRC included the consultation requirement to potentially shorten the ITAAC hearing schedule and conserve resources. 141 Avoiding unnecessary claims of incompleteness is important because a valid claim of incompleteness that leads to a subsequently admitted contention would ordinarily result[] in 74 days of delay in the commencement of the hearing on the contention compared to an admissible contention included with the hearing request. 142 137 See supra, Discussion,Section II.B.2.

138 UIN #760, enclosure at 2-3; UIN #761, enclosure at 2-3.

139 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8037 (Additional Procedures Order,Section II.B.2.b).

140 Id. at 8038 (Additional Procedures Order,Section II.B.2.i).

141 Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. at 43,270.

142 ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary, at 38.

For the reasons given above, the proposed contention is not a claim of incompleteness and does not satisfy the requirements for such a claim.

III. Interim Operation A. Legal Standards The AEA provides that if the hearing request is granted, the Commission shall determine whether to allow interim operation. 143 Interim operation is operation pending the completion of the hearing and is intended to prevent the hearing from unnecessarily delaying plant operation. 144 The Commission, itself, will make the interim operation determination acting as the presiding officer. 145 The AEA provides that the NRC shall allow interim operation if it determines, after considering the prima facie showing and answers thereto, that there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety during the interim period. 146 The AEA also requires the NRC to find that the acceptance criteria are met prior to operation. 147 Thus, to allow interim operation, the Staff must find that the acceptance criteria are met under 10 C.F.R. § 52.103(g), and the Commission must determine that there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety during the interim period. 148 143 AEA § 189a.(1)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(B)(iii).

144 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8035 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II.H).

145 Id.; 10 C.F.R. § 52.103(c).

146 AEA § 189a.(1)(B)(iii), 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(B)(iii).

147 AEA § 185b., 42 U.S.C. § 2235(b).

148 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, 85 Fed. Reg. at 8035 (Notice of Intended Operation,Section II.H); Final ITAAC Hearing Procedures, 81 Fed. Reg. at 43,278. Section 7.C of the ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary discusses this matter in greater detail. ITAAC Hearing Procedures Comment Summary, at 90-94.

At the time it files its hearing request, the petitioner must present its arguments on whether the information in the hearing request presents adequate protection concerns during interim operation, including the time periods and modes of operation in which the adequate protection concern arises. 149 Answers to the proposed contention from the Staff and licensee must include their views on how the issues raised by the hearing request affects adequate protection during interim operation, including any licensee proposal to use mitigation measures to ensure adequate protection during interim operation. 150 The Staff should also address any terms and conditions that should be imposed to assure adequate protection during the interim period. 151 In addition, the petitioner, Staff, and licensee must support their views on interim operation with alleged facts or expert opinion, including references to the specific sources and documents on which they rely. 152 The probative value that the NRC accords the participants positions on interim operation will depend on the level and specificity of support provided, including the qualifications and experience of each expert providing expert opinion. 153 B. The Issues Raised by the Petition Do Not Affect Adequate Protection During a Period of Interim Operation An interim operation determination is unnecessary because the Petitioner has not satisfied the hearing request requirements or otherwise set forth information in its Petition that raises adequate protection concerns during interim operation. Moreover, the Petition does not mention or attempt to make the required prima facie showing; there is, therefore, no need to 149 Notice of Intended Operation and Associated Orders, at 8038 (Additional Procedures Order,Section II.B.3).

150 Id. at 8039 (Additional Procedures Order,Section II.B.4).

151 Id.

152 Id. at 8038, 8039 (Additional Procedures Order, Sections II.B.3 and II.B.4).

153 Id. at 8038, 8039 (Additional Procedures Order, Sections II.B.3 and II.B.4).

consider interim operation. 154 Thus, the issues raised by the Petition do not affect adequate protection during a period of interim operation.

CONCLUSION As discussed above, the Petition does not meet the standing and contention admissibility requirements for hearing requests. The Petition does not address standing, and the proposed contention does not attempt to make the required prima facie showing. Moreover, the Petitioner raises no issues concerning adequate protection during an interim period of operation. The Petition should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

/Signed (electronically) by/

Michael A. Spencer Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-14 A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 287-9115 Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov

/Executed in Accord with 10 CFR 2.304(d)/

Julie G. Ezell Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-14 A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 287-9157 Julie.Ezell@nrc.gov Dated at Potomac, MD, this 14th day of May 2020 154 AEA § 189a.(1)(B)(iii); 42 U.S.C. § 2239(a)(1)(B)(iii).

ATTACHMENT Relevant Pages from the April 2, 2020 ITAAC Review Status Report

ITAAC Review Status Report Plant Name: Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License Unit Number: VOG3 Key for Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) Status Report The following describes each column in the report:

ITAAC Index No.: A sequential number assigned to each ITAAC in Appendix C of the combined license (COL) at issuance. Because ITAAC may be added, deleted, or consolidated through license amendments, the highest ITAAC index number may not equal the total number of ITAAC. An ITAAC index number may also be out of numerical sequence from the current COL due to ITAAC amendments after initial COL issuance.

ITAAC No.: A number assigned to an ITAAC based on the Section of Appendix C of the COL in which the ITAAC appears.

ITAAC Notification Type (ICN, IPCN, UIN): The three types of licensee ITAAC notifications listed in this report:

- ICN: ITAAC closure notifications (ICNs) submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.99(c)(1),

- IPCN: ITAAC post-closure notifications (IPCNs) submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.99(c)(2), and

- UIN: uncompleted ITAAC notifications (UINs) submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.99(c)(3).

ITAAC Notification: The Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession numbers for the licensees ITAAC notifications.

NRC Checklist (VEF or UINC): The Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) accession numbers for the NRC staffs verification and evaluation forms (VEFs) and Uncompleted ITAAC Notification Checklists (UINCs). A VEF documents the NRCs review of ICNs and IPCNs. A UINC documents the NRCs review of UINs.

ITAAC Notification Review Status: The status of the NRCs review of the ITAAC notification.

- Unconditionally Verified as Completed or Federal Register Notice Published denote when the NRC has found an ICN or IPCN is acceptable. The licensee has successfully completed the closure of these ITAAC.

- Sufficient Information denotes when the UIN sufficiently describes the proposed methodology for closing the ITAAC. UIN reviews are not based on actual performance of the ITAAC, the acceptance criteria results, the completion of NRC inspections, or the resolution of NRC inspection findings. The NRC considers these matters during corresponding ICN review.

Federal Register No. or NRC Letter: The Federal Register No. is the citation for periodically-issued Federal Register notices of NRC determinations that ITAAC have been successfully completed. An NRC letter explains to the licensee why the NRC has determined that an ITAAC notification is not acceptable.

NRC Construction Inspection Report(s): ADAMS Accession No. for reports documenting ITAAC-related construction inspections.

NRC Vendor Inspection Report(s): ADAMS Accession No. for reports documenting ITAAC-related vendor inspections.

Report Print Date: 4/2/2020 6:46:09 Page 1 Of 79 AM

ITAAC Review Status Report Plant Name: Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License Unit Number: VOG3 ITAAC ITAAC No. ITAAC ITAAC NRC ITAAC FEDERAL NRC NRC VENDOR OTHER NOTES NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST NOTIFICATION REGISTER No. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Index TYPE (VEF or UINC) REVIEW STATUS or NRC LETTER INSPECTION REPORT(S)

No. (ICN, IPCN, REPORT(S)

UIN) 760 3.3.00.02a.i.a UIN ML19326C865 ML19343C877 Sufficient ML12220A476 ML11286A106 Information ML12319A458 ML13042A397 ML13207A241 ML18186A573 ML14024A594 ML18131A260 ML14112A413 ML14121A433 ML14218A213 ML14311A666 ML15037A406 ML15124A857 ML15223B074 ML15301A424 ML16032A554 ML16132A557 ML16210A448 ML16312A506 ML17044A539 ML17132A345 ML17226A034 ML17317A527 ML18134A348 ML18226A348 ML18317A395 ML19045A614 ML19135A691 761 3.3.00.02a.i.b ICN Not Received Report Print Date: 4/2/2020 6:46:09 Page 64 Of 79 AM

ITAAC Review Status Report Plant Name: Vogtle Unit 3 Combined License Unit Number: VOG3 ITAAC ITAAC No. ITAAC ITAAC NRC ITAAC FEDERAL NRC NRC VENDOR OTHER NOTES NOTIFICATION NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST NOTIFICATION REGISTER No. CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION Index TYPE (VEF or UINC) REVIEW STATUS or NRC LETTER INSPECTION REPORT(S)

No. (ICN, IPCN, REPORT(S)

UIN) 761 3.3.00.02a.i.b UIN ML19326B992 ML19343D698 Sufficient ML12139A192 ML11286A106 Information ML12319A458 ML13042A397 ML13030A390 ML18186A573 ML13127A392 ML18131A260 ML13207A241 ML13312A316 ML14112A413 ML14218A213 ML15124A857 ML15223B074 ML15301A424 ML16032A554 ML16132A557 ML16210A448 ML16312A506 ML17044A539 ML17132A345 ML18045A476 ML18226A348 ML18317A395 ML19045A614 ML19135A691 ML19220B678 ML19309D596 ML20042E292 762 3.3.00.02a.i.c ICN Not Received Report Print Date: 4/2/2020 6:46:09 Page 65 Of 79 AM

May 14, 2020 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. ) Docket No.52-025

)

(Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Unit 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the NRC Staff Answer to Petition for Public Hearing from Nuclear Watch South has been filed through the E-Filing system this 14th day of May 2020.

/Signed (electronically) by/

Michael A. Spencer Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop O-14 A44 Washington, DC 20555-0001 (301) 287-9115 Michael.Spencer@nrc.gov Dated at Potomac, MD, this 14th day of May 2020