ML100850541

Memorandum and Order (Corrections to the Record and Transcript of the March 1, 2010 Initial Prehearing Conference)

ML100850541
Person / Time
Site:	Bellefonte
Issue date:	03/26/2010
From:	Bollwerk G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NRC/OGC
SECY RAS
References
50-438-CP, 50-439-CP, ASLBP 10-896-01-CP-BD01, RAS 17617
Download: ML100850541 (39)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Dr. William W. Sager In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-438-CP and 50-439-CP TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ASLBP No.10-896-01-BD01 (Bellefonte Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) March 26, 2010 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Corrections to the Record and Transcript of the March 1, 2010 Initial Prehearing Conference)

Pending before the Licensing Board are (1) the NRC staffs March 15, 2010 motion to correct the record of the March 1, 2010 initial prehearing conference, relative to page 157, line 21,1 where, according to the staff, a staff statement referring to 10 C.F.R. § 51.95b should be corrected so that it is understood to be a reference to section 51.53(b);2 and (2) proposed transcript corrections regarding the March 1, 2010 initial prehearing conference submitted by Joint Petitioners,3 the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the staff.4 The participants 1

This reference is to the interim draft copy of the transcript provided for the record on March 3, 2010.

2 See NRC Staffs Unopposed Motion to Correct the Record and Proposed Corrections to the Transcript of the Initial Pre-hearing Conference Held on March 1, 2010 (Mar. 15, 2010) at 1 [hereinafter Staff Correction Motion].

3 Joint Petitioners include the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and its Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team chapter and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

proposed revisions were offered in response to the Boards March 5, 2010 memorandum and order inviting transcript corrections in which the Board requested that (1) the proposed corrections should, to the maximum extent possible, reflect agreement among the participants to this proceeding (i.e., Joint Petitioners, TVA, and NRC staff); and (2) the participants limit their proposed corrections to matters that are material to the substance of the statements involved.5 Because the participants were unable to comply fully with the former request, on March 16, 2010, the Board issued a memorandum and order establishing deadlines of March 19, 2010, for any participant to file a motion objecting to any of the transcript corrections proposed by another participant, and March 24, 2010, for any response to such a motion.6 It now appears that none of the participants objects to the staffs record correction motion or the proposed corrections that the other participants have submitted.7 After consideration of staffs record correction motion and the participants suggested transcript changes, as well as certain items the Board identified in its review of the transcript in question, and taking into account the video recording of the proceeding that currently is available to the participants and the Board at the previously-established webstreaming link, www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=66071, the Board hereby (1) grants the staffs motion 4

See Response of [TVA] to Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Dated March 5, 2010 Regarding Initial Prehearing Conference Transcript Corrections (Mar. 15, 2010) at 1 &

attached unnumbered table; Staff Correction Motion at 2 & app. A; Petitioners Corrected Response to Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Regarding Prehearing Conference Transcript Corrections at 1 & app. (Mar. 18, 2010) [hereinafter Petitioners Corrections Response]; see also Petitioners Response to Licensing Board Memorandum and Order Regarding Prehearing Conference Transcript Corrections (Mar. 15, 2010) at 1 & app.

5 See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Conference Transcript Corrections) (Mar. 5, 2010) at 1 (unpublished).

6 See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Schedule for Objections to Proposed Transcript Corrections) (Mar. 16, 2010) at 1 (unpublished).

7 See Staff Correction Motion at 1; Letter from Lawrence J. Chandler, TVA Counsel, to Licensing Board at 1 (Mar.22, 2010); NRC Staff's Response to Board Order and Memorandum of March 16, 2010 (Mar. 19, 2010) at 1; Petitioners Corrections Response at 1.

to correct the record, in that it will treat the reference in question as a citation to 10 C.F.R.

§ 51.53(b); and (2) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 2.327(d), adopts the transcript corrections set forth in Attachment A to this memorandum and order. The participants are advised that a revised version of the transcript of the March 1, 2010 initial prehearing conference will be issued that incorporates the adopted corrections.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

_________/RA/___________

G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Rockville, Maryland March 26, 2010

ATTACHMENT A Corrections to March 1, 2010 Transcript for Tennessee Valley Authority Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Construction Permit Reinstatement Proceeding Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 2 3 esq.

3 9 Doiugherty Dougherty 3 22 efficiency and sustainability its Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team chapter Chapter 3 24 insert for hearing published in the Federal Register after opportunity 4 4 insert initially after permits 4 5 insert two Babcock and Wilcox pressurized water after construct 4 11 withdraw withdrawal 4 12 CP portion CPs for units 4 25 insert including after proceedings, 5 9 disclosure discourse 5 24 insert the 100 plus commercial after of 6 1 AT of the Agencys 6 10 providing license redeem combined license regime 6 22 interested individual 6 22 insert public interest groups after public, 6 24 insert state and local before government 7 6 member 7 7 insert any proceeding regarding contested after over 7 7 insert joint petitioners after in 7 14 validity litigable 8 7 advocacy adequacy 8 10 legal litigable 8 20 Safer Sager 9 14 Bockus Bockius 9 15 insert two gentlemen who are here with me after the 10 1 Christian I am Christine Jochim 10 8 should read presentations from participants regarding good cause

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 10 11 insert 2.315(a) after with 10 16 he the CP 10 24 insert written after a 10 24 regarding providing 11 7 NRC.G OV. HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV 11 13 2055-0001 20555-0001 13 7 insert in terms of issues in allocated time after possible 13 14 for toward 13 14 closing argument allocated time 14 5 insert with his or her cell phone after thing 14 5 vibrant vibrate 14 12 If Unless 16 7 so much somewhat 16 10 insert at the beginning of my remarks after dislaimer 16 11 insert reserve after will 16 15 insert as to good cause standard after Dougherty:

16 16 he the 16 18 insert utterly after is 16 20 insert . The Commission said before that section 185" 16 23 insert but if you look at section before 185" 17 2 closer closely 17 3 note know 17 6 insert stricture or before requirement 17 6 entered having submitted a pleading 17 12 insert what we have after to 17 13 insert no one including before petitioners 17 15 insert they after deadline 17 16 comes theyve come 17 17 in a into the rubic of

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 17 21 point part 18 4 insert again theres been before no 18 5 insert TVA did after anything 18 13 the plate where the lights 18 15 insert physically after essentially, 18 17 insert as well explain perhaps after so 18 17 insert contention on after our 18 18 the operating an applicant walks away from a 18 18 insert and after plant 18 24 makes that is made 19 6 them anything 19 8 may make 19 11 with by 19 14 insert without groundings after sort of 19 20 insert So were at sea here. And it puts us at a real disadvantage. before We 19 21 try while it tries 19 25 insert is where after which 20 1 insert show up at the prehearing conference and after can 20 3-4 should read: due process arguments casually, but thats sort of the position we find ourselves in as we dont even know what the rules here are yet.

20 4-5 good cause standing good cause standard 20 10 insert the CP after of 20 11 insert Do you want to say anything about that in general? at the end of the sentence 20 20-21 It is just something Theyre simply 21 7 insert first then, I after TVA, 21 13 why flawed 21 15 be dealing begin 21 16 insert In an after front

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 21 16 August 28 August 26, 2008 21 18 referred insert which we will refer after permits 21 20 surrounded surrendered these CPs 21 21 after in and before 2006 add September of 22 1 insert why there is good cause for reinstatement after explained 22 3 insert increasing costs per kilowatt of installed capacity among before generation 22 6 Or 22 12 wasnt was 22 15 present precedent 22 22 recognize authorize it 22 22-25 AUTHORIZE; I had should read the Commission authorize it to reinstate the units 1 and 2, the CPs, and on February 18, 2009 the Commission in fact authorized the Staff to reinstate the CPs and placed the Bellefonte units into terminated status 22 25 I had 23 9 CLI-1006 CLI-10-06 23 22 therefore will thereunder 23 25 insert for the good cause standard after Act 24 2 CLI-06 CLI-10-06 24 10 insert logical derivation of the after the 24 12 insert its implementing after and 24 13 55(b) 50.55(b) 24 13 insert seminal after The 24 13 insert find it after Seabrook, 24 15 CLI 84.6 CLI-84-6 24 17-22 The sentence should read: It holds that in order to meet the good cause standard, and Im going to quote, the proponent of the contention must articulate some basis to show that the applicant is responsible for the delay, which the petitioners here claim is not the case and acknowledge, and has acted intentionally and without a valid business purpose.

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 25 1 insert reasonable after number of 25 3 insert expressly after Commission 25 6 legal logical 25 9 relegation relitigation 25 11 insert as a separate matter after NEPA 25 12 insert . The scope after CONCLUSION 25 12 come of 25 13 insert is limited to the proposed action - here, after NEPa 25 13 reinstate reinstatement 25 15 insert in this case after that 25 16 insert NEPA as it has issued after under 25 17 insert to the Board after left 25 17 insert then is the question of after here 25 17 insert TVA has shown "good cause" warranting reinstatement after fact, 25 24 ,you have 26 5 due good 26 11 agreed agree 26 21 the reinstate to reinstate 26 22 thats CLI-0610. thats CLI-06-10, slip op. at 12.

26 24 Your Honor has Your Honors have also 27 3 dissent of it in CLI-0610 and 26 dissent noted in CLI-06-10 at 26 27 4 As TVAs Its as TVA 27 5 stated, it is instead a stated, its not reopening the construction permit proceeding, its instead a 28 17 insert if they were fairly and finally resolved after not 28 18 insert raising these new after our 28 22 contact context 28 23 insert new after of 29 2 insert ambient after and

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 29 3 insert new after of 29 7 insert and environmental after safety, 29 8 other insert theres a lot after doubtless 29 15 because of Again, Ill point to my 29 18 oral OL 30 18 assets assessment 31 16 advocacy adequacy 31 22 insert to some extent after that 32 10 reading review 32 22 the mean NEPA 32 23-24 should be rejected are to be determined 33 6 insert It is appropriate that these be done at the level of the environmental impact statement before These are 33 7 reinstate reinstatement 34 5 through two reactors at 34 17 insert How do you see this as different after any way.

34 25 we contacted in the context of 35 9 environments varmints 35 11 saws sawzalla 35 12 basically condensers 35 14 too generous sui generis 35 17 point what according 35 23 insert How is that going to be done? How is that going to be welded? after in 36 7 filed a complete should have a completed 36 8-9 it attaching - - the connection 37 2 find make 37 2 EIS 37 12 it He

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 37 16 applicable inapplicable 37 16 insert: for both technical and environmental questions at the end of the sentence 37 17 environmental questions 37 18 economy ecology 37 19 insert theres before new 37 21 limit review 38 4 insert and we obviously may have some more questions for you when youre doing your rebuttal at the end of the sentence 38 5 parts subparts 38 12 that they 38 12 insert later after addressed 38 13 insert as it was plead after 3-A 38 21 insert groundless and after is 38 24 insert of the CPs after reinstatement 39 1 (f). 13 (f)(1)(iii) 39 10 (f). 15 (f)(1)(v) 39 13 B-4 Before 39 13 discharge discharging 39 21 secy, 080041 COMSECY 08-0041 40 4 EAD EA 40 5 insert for this reason after again, 40 7 (f). 16 (f)(1)(vi) 40 14 the legal illegal 40 20 (f). 13 (f)(1)(iii) 40 24 permanent permitting 41 4-6 The sentence should read: Therefore, no EIS is required, as CP reinstatement is not one of the agency actions listed in section 51.20 as requiring an EIS.

41 7 insert s EA after staff 41 16 McQuire McGuire

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 41 22 insert essentially after rejected 42 12 entirely entirety 42 13 change second legal to litigable 42 15 15 and 6 (1)(v) and (vi) 42 24 insert to come after process 43 8 insert presumably after hearing 43 13 admissibility 43 13 right ripe 43 17 insert these things ever come to fruition after will 43 20 COL OL 44 18 As a result, 3-A As a result, all of Contention 3, 3-A 44 20 good cause exist, not NRC good cause exists for the reinstatement, not the NRC 44 22 Petitioners arguing Petitioners argue in 45 6 permits, to terminate its permits to terminated 45 7 subsequently established on subsequently published in the Federal Register on March 13.. March 13th.

45 10 10 C.F.R. 5121 10 C.F.R. 51.21 45 16 conduct in advance for conduct an EIS for 45 23 Bellefonte 1 Bellefonte Units 1 46 14 it seek a legal it state a legal 47 10 essentially 49 20 That means MS. BOOTE: That means 50 4 Under the ER agreement for 3 MS. BOOTE: Under the ER for Units 3 and 4, it would and 4, would 50 5 modified as Units 1 and 2. modified to include construction of Units 1 and 2.

50 6 insert the ER for Units after point, 50 22 SCIS SEIS 51 1 insert in terms of the possibility 51 4 insert Well as you know, Judge Bollwerk, before TVA 51 4 insert to support after so 51 11 insert Judge Bollwerk:

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 51 16 with what 51 17 EIS SEIS 51 17 insert environmental after our 51 20 BMW B&W 51 20 A P1000 AP1000 51 22 BMW B&W 51 23 BMW B&W 52 7 SCIUS SEIS 52 1 insert there would be after So 52 1 insert environmental after additional 52 8 insert at the site after unit 53 3 into a into our 53 16 insert , as a Federal agency, after TVA 53 20 operation operating 53 21 - - to - - if 53 24 has basically as a 54 2 BMW B&W 54 13 equal equivalent 54 23 insert in essence after you 55 6 operating license, operating license application, 55 10 seeing the contention seeing their potential contentions 55 14 Yes, thats right. Yes, thats correct.

55 25 by EIS. They may not by the EIS that the Staff performs, so they may not 56 4 insert Following up a little bit on Tonys - Judge Barattas question after Sager 56 7 insert interim before mechanism 56 23 EIS is EISs of course are 57 6 insert in a context before historically 57 7 compliances compliance as 57 7 insert Its just stuff you gotta do -- a box on a checklist before documents

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 57 16 supplementing were supplementing it 57 20 .  ?

58 3 insert to be before meaningful 58 6 because . As 58 7 attendant tendon 58 9 staff assessments 58 10 in and that 58 10 insert is before money 58 16 available power and over cost preferable power available at lower cost 58 20 insert of reconstructing it after impact 59 3 Thats That sort of 59 11 And Or they may 59 16 insert initiate construction or before completed 59 16 are were 59 20 assumption 59 22-23 and reinstate the on a reinstated 60 24 to say there was no regulation to clarify that I did not say there was no regulation out applied there that applied 60 1 does however and and that does, however, and that the Staffs NEPA staff NEPA 60 12 and so considered such as its failure to consider 60 14 issues issuance 60 24 insert clarify that I didnt say after to 60 24 insert out there that after regulation 61 2-3 requirements has been fulfilled requirements have been fulfilled in this case; we in this case before any evaluated it before making a decision.

decision.

61 8 Staff does not have to do EIS. MS. BOOTE: That the Staff does not need to do EIS.

61 9 I seconded in doing an EA staff I responded to this initially, but, to clarify, in doing an EA the staff 61 10 could after determining that an could have determined that an EIS was necessary if E was necessary and significant new information developed.

61 11 however, it did not come to However, it did not come to our attention that we

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action hour attention that it 61 12 to conducts an EIS so it is to conduct an EIS. So, for the reinstatement of the CP, limited to that it is limited to that 61 14 it. up.

61 17 Are you asking about why TVA MS. BOOTE: Are you asking about why TVA and the are not AEs Staff both did EAs 62 2 insert TVA after the 62 13-16 The sentence should read: And consistent with that, your Honor, TVA also did an EA regarding reinstatement and came to the same conclusion, just that the supplemental EIS is for purposes of their Board and their decision as to whether or not to construct and operate.

62 20 pop per rail 62 21 urge units, that's correct your Honor 62 22 would wouldnt 62 22 leave 63 6 doing going 63 8 BMW B&W 63 14 insert was our original EIS after units 63 19 insert EIS after 1974 64 4 insert back in 1978 when we adopted it in our operating license application after units 64 12 units unit operation and construction 64 20 insert while they are conferring, can I add one other point to this? after Honor, 64 22 without would bound 64 23 insert and I believe it after analysis 64 24 insert when it is bounding after it 65 25 insert Can I respond? before assuming 65 1 propose in an operating license propose an operating license application before application, before 65 2 staff, would evaluate whether staff, we would evaluate whether or not to prepare a or not to prepare the supplement to the 65 4 (b) we believe (b), I believe

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 65 13 insert to be before tantamount; substitute issuance for issue 65 18 insert Admittedly before there; insert - here theyve before upgraded 65 19 on under 65 19-20 to terminate the deferred from terminated to deferred 65 21 Insert the way I think before any 65 22 insert is theyve been before granted; insert of their authority before to 65 23 insert and it before must; insert if before construction 65 24 24 insert its possible that before if; 66 1 insert but we would consider that segmentation.

after way 66 4 determining indeterminate 66 4 insert but we would consider that segmentation. after way 66 10 insert Weve been going almost an hour and a half before why 67 12 insert Your honor, although I dont think I have ten minutes worth of stuff to say after you 67 13-14 and supporting affidavit Dr. - both the petition and the supporting affidavit of Dr.

Gunderson speaks are Gunderson - speak for 67 16 15 67 24 henderson Gunderson 67 24 insert Richter 4 or higher before have 68 2 and And we also note that 68 3 jesse of Mr. Joseph 68 5 insert site suitability before determinations 68 6 cite site 68 7 cert ability suitability 68 9 context contention 68 11 EIS I 68 16 insert Licensing Proceeding before is

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 68 17 plant planning 68 19 insert that have to be made by the Commission before and 68 25 toe to 69 15 design redesign 69 15 insert more tendons before thicker 69 18 After Once the plant is constructed 69 18 irreversible an irretrievable 69 20 addendum tendons 70 2 cert ability suitability 70 3 insert is before not; insert on these things after TVA 70 9 230 30 70 11 insert Right, and according to the Staff, Mr. Joseph Williams before those 70 12 insert thats not what our contention goes to; before what 70 15 The to authorize 70 15 insert of before construction 70 16 insert it before should 70 16 seismic seismicity 70 16 information calculus 70 18 insert I know were not supposed to look at the merits at this point after information 70 23 herderson Gunderson 71 3 intend pretend 71 10 insert Alright, thank you sir. Well come back to you on rebuttal before Well 71 14 (f). 13 (f)(1)(iii) 71 16 score scope 71 19 insert whatsoever after nothing 71 25 PCs CPs 72 3 or of

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 72 5 concluded precluded 72 19 (f) 1, 4 & 6 (f)(1)(iv) and (vi) 73 3 insert has confirmed completion of construction after and 73 10 insert operate after to 73 11 insert those implemented after including 73 13 insert to this point after Further 73 14 CLI-1006 CLI-10-06 73 16 CLI-1006 CLI-10-06 73 24 insert proposed after fourth 74 2 defactor defacto 74 3 insert they are after therefore, 74 7 insert fourth after this 74 13 forage point 74 15 insert present a before sufficiently 74 20 comply compliance 74 20 insert NRCs after with 74 22-23 F1, 5 and 6 insert (1)(v) and (vi) after (f) 75 4 They There 75 11 argue argument 75 13 insert that the Commission in after And 75 14 1006 10-06 75 16 these this 76 4-5 State agrees Stated reasons 76 8 insert it will be after and 76 15 inadequate an adequate basis to change their course of action 77 2 insert proceeding after application 77 6 insert Let me just ask you a process - or procedural question before I think 77 21 insert if we were to go forward after action 78 2 That letter that you out Ive read the letter that you put

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 78 3 insert of sort after assessment 78 7 insert , its own internal environmental assessment for its NEPA requirements after assessment 78 9 insert EA after separate 78 13-14 not in their hands. So nodding their heads, so 78 16 David Roth for staff. Yes Your Yes, Your Honor. David Roth for Staff.

Honor 78 22 insert: You can give us that later, thank you. before Judge Sager 79 3-7 should read: TVA provided the EA to the Staff in response to an RAI. Well provide you a ML numuber but thats currently available in ADAMS and has been public for quite some time.

79 15 team for TVA, team, whether raised by TVA, 79 18 insert operating after the 79 21 sufficient addresses any sufficient new struts, whether it sufficiently addresses any 79 22 insert construction permit before reinstatement 79 24 the insert why doesnt that sort of 80 3 analysis assessment financial assessment theyre undergoing 80 6 because as TVA is doing in because, as TVA has noted, and we have noted in 80 7 no information speculation that no information; its speculation that there might be there might been 80 13-14 X to make a size likely X or room X to make it seismically qualified.

qualified.

80 16 nevertheless, it is still which the Staff do not view, nonetheless it is still insufficient to meet t insufficiently pled to meet 80 24 alluded with has noted with 80 25 As far as other As far as how the 81 1 before you before your Board 81 3 will not were not going to directly 81 10 Mr. Dougherty 81 13-14 that's outside of scope. It's - that its outside the scope - as its been Been 81 16 up been by the complex out by the Commission but we think it was

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 81 17 is of the 81 25 fully compensate and actually that the public safety 82 4 insert if at before the 82 4-5 they were discovering it were discovered 82 5 seismic seismicity 82 6 and adding tendons perhaps or whatever 82 13-15 should read: JUDGE BOLLWERK: I think, let it go term is probably mine and what I meant by that is not operative if it does not match the seismic requirements act it cant be operated.

82 16 I see, well we think it unlikely that any agency whether its the NRC or another agency or this panel or 82 17 insert on this plant before and 82 18 been got 82 19 insert JUDGE BARATTA: as the speaker 82 20 insert Mr. DOUGHERTY: as the speaker 82 21 insert there are a lot of things stacked up against that before and 82 22 will directs this panel to 82 24 the SQUISH these issues and 82 24 insert before they get literally set in concrete. after before 83 2 insert which we now have after process 83 7 safety behaviors 83 12 under part of the 83 15 right bright 83 16 (second) have 83 21 insert in other words after so 83 24 insert meeting after as well as 84 1 state statement 84 7 insert and completion before with 84 7 far as part of

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 84 10 504 54 84 14 from a from the 84 15 the Staff has the Staff have 84 16 Staff is Staff are 84 20 consider new consider the new 84 22 whether the analysis whether the analyses 85 5 That is correct. One avenue Certainly, that is correct. That is one avenue 85 6 could take the scheduling take, as Your Honors have noted in the scheduling 85 7 including 2206 to have including a 2.206 even an operating plant could have 85 10 Pardon me, we also have what Pardon me, Your Honors, we also have the ML number that 85 13 Thats Mike Lema Thats Mike Lima 86 10 insert who drafted this contention before I 86 10-11 dint not mean is not named 86 14 insert many of which before would 86 20 insert open, before public; insert and really starting at square one and before re-evaluating; delete with 87 2 insert two or three or four before and 87 3 insert exactly before the; insert and before we 87 4 and theyve 87 6-7 affect the NEPA process and theyve said we dont know if were going to construct zero or one or two 87 6-7 insert And that is before as it 87 14 technology that markets have created a situation in which 87 16 the there will be 87 18 a fair that this is a fair question for 88 3 insert and environmentally preferable ways of before going 88 24-25 is more expensive than will look worse. It will be more expensive and environmentally environmentally poorer 89 3 insert very detailed after submitted

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 89 4 did and 89 13 then maybe that may be 89 17 insert complete after percent 89 23 emerging engineering 89 25 insert subject to entropy before so 90 1-2 Wilcox 2 and 5" this is the Babcock and Wilcox 205 90 4 ten ken 90 11 you weve also 90 13 lead to be 90 18 insert and we commend them for doing it after it 90 19 insert challenge after energy 91 1 Did Is 91 12 it their process 91 17 BMW B&W 92 9 insert Thank you Mr. Chairman, before My 92 13 insert somewhat after something 92 15 those proposed 93 5 insert part of after is 93 7 we thing it meets of rethinking 94 2 insert Bellefonte units after day, 94 2 is equally will be economically 94 9 CPR CFR 94 9 (f) 1, 3, 4 or 5 (f)(1)(iii), (iv) or (v) 94 18 insert installed after of 94 18 insert new after than 94 19 insert now on the table after construction 94 25 had are 95 6-9 The sentence should read: Petitioners focus is almost exclusively Page 7 of 11 on cost projections for alternative energy sources in the Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 Environmental Report. This is not the forum, though, for dealing with costs related to Bellefonte Units 3 and

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 4."

95 18 various the very 95 22 this what they want to raise 96 4 continued contend that 96 13 change in instances to instances (delete 2nd in) 96 16 we require have required 96 20 large largely economic and 96 23 the their 96 24 claim complain 96 25 insert is the standard after standard 96 25 e the 97 1 insert initial before issuance 97 3 1006 10-06 97 4 insert they after reason, 97 7 it is our position on has embarked, as I mentioned 97 14-16 should read: motion itself and I wont dwell on that. In short, TVA initiate an update to its broad system-wide resource plan, is simply not relevant or material to TVA statement of good cause in the context of this proceeding.

98 5 insert that are before pose 98 5 are as 98 9 insert relative before cost 98 10 suggestions suggesting 98 11 with the than would be 98 16 insert also after they and of nuclear power ad the end of the sentence 98 18 insert at this point and time after do 98 19 relevant relative 98 22 insert absolute cost in their pleading after - -

98 24 insert of the after reinstatement 99 1 insert would have relevance after relevance,

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 99 1 insert proceeding after license 99 3 arriving driving this effort 99 5 of under 99 7 insert simple statement after that 99 7 insert explains what after and 99 7 insert cost after those 99 7 insert and those factors are after are 99 19 insert Judge Barratta, the sentence after sorry, 99 21 insert Since that decision was made in before 2005" 99 23 insert driving the effort after factor 99 25 insert the problems with suppliers after mentions 100 5 insert point that we make in our response at after the 100 6 response we are making on 100 11 BLM BLN 100 18 insert flout the Commission's after again 101 1 their that there are flaws in the 101 15 intervene for what put for the put forth relative to the numbers in their contention. But but what Im 102 14 just yet 102 22 insert is what we are looking at, that's correct after 2011 103 12 insert In this case as well, it will all have to feed in, before Thats 103 15 if If an Intervenor comes up with something they want to add - - Petitioner comes up with 104 5 the direction question my recollection 104 20 insert Let me just reiterate, though, before If 105 5 good cause is the staff would good cause as the Staff have pled is targeted pledge is hardly 105 6 toward the Units towards Units 105 8 with regard to how Units with regards to how their Units

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 105 10-11 TVA safety behaviors and TVA and the Intervenor are in agreement that there are Intervenor are in agreement, changes, and TVA and TVA 105 12-13 reinstatement. Was considered reinstatement was so it could go forward and consider 105 15 Further, I think Further, I need to make sure 105 16-17 license stage. Petitioners state license application stage, because Ive heard Petitioners state 105 18 the NEPA the need for 105 21 SACE is proceedings SACE is party to the proceeding 105 24 a need for alternative a need for power or alternatives analysis 106 1 nobody claimed nobody could claim 106 7 fit that 106 9 demands or would demands, or...and, pardon me, would 106 11 would not presently would not or there presently 106 13 and - service area and the same service area 106 14 request to bring request in order to bring 106 17 continue the contain a 106 18 or for power. or need for power.

106 19 proceeding of proceeding on 106 20 any amount of any law or 106 23 Uits 3 and 4 Units 3 and 4 106 24 for good cause. dont go for good cause.

107 12-13 absence and the condition, absence of the Commission direction to the contrary, direction of the contrary, 107 13 contrary. The Staffs EIS does contrary, the Staffs EIS does not contain need for not contain need for power or 107 14 energy discussion. energy alternative discussions.

107 19 Part 52 license Part 50 license 108 3 it was a in this 108 4 situation. It situation, there 108 7 arguable arguably 108 22 for many of for amending of

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 108 22 the 309 where the the 309 or the 108 23-24 somebody with initial somebody had not achieved 108 24-25 did not achieve hadnt achieved 109 5 fact is practice 109 7 has to get there needs to be 109 7 to file which would involve 109 19 labor lawyer 109 24 insert and legal argumentation after challenges 110 1 insert of this Panel before to 110 5 considered construed 110 11 we are is no one really knows were 110 21 vote build 111 6 have 111 9 insert theyre before being 111 13 are in play. And that before actually 111 15 they want it wants 112 6 born surrounded 112 20 the and 112 23 insert cost of the before alternative 113 1 for which is 113 8 insert within the past year before by 113 10 delivery delivered 113 20 you want to have an objection anyone have an objection 114 10 insert levelized costs before of power 114 15-16 in the case note those data in the Keystone 115 3 the prima facial evidence, the prima facie evidence, showing why the should be waived Commissions rules should be waived 115 4-5 alternatives which encompass alternatives which would broadly encompass 115 6 in its own in its OL 115 15 got had done 115 18 insert in the context before of

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 116 20 insert so, lets go ahead and take a break before that 117 12 official initial 117 25 insert And I take it 10-10 as before? after you.

118 2 insert what this case was about that after wife 118 20 ross process 118 21 insert at any point before you 119 3 Mr. Gunderson, and this is Mr. Gunderson, in his affidavit, and in fact this is 119 10 insert in fact before certain 119 25 jury jurisdiction 120 14 insert have to really before say 121 3 insert the fact that there had been some things done recently, well in fact I guess after mentioned 121 17 insert data for the before missing 121 19 insert thats just a dark period and before that 122 10 insert what were saying is that they should do it before in 122 11 insert Its not enough for them to put a sentence in a letter saying weve got this under control. before The 122 20 and in 122 23 to if 122 25 attorneys expert 123 2 thought not 123 7 insert I think before You 123 19 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 123 25 though now 124 15 good cause for construction reinstatement of construction 124 22 f1, 3, 4, and 5 f(1)(iii), (iv) and (v) 125 6 preceding proceeding 125 13 insert compliance with after assure 125 13 They are TVA, under its approved NQAP, the nuclear quality assurance program, and its related corrective action program, is

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 125 19 had expressed 125 19 insert while not a commonplace occurrence, after views, 126 11 attending the tendon 126 20 represented presented 127 12 2206 2.206 127 21 or are just 128 4 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 128 15 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 128 22 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 129 5 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 129 6 insert first of all to correct, I think after Baratta, 129 7 insert probably after were 130 8 the Bellefonte plan TVAs Bellefonte Plant 130 12 in 87 - - policy 15 in generic letter 87-15 130 16 proposed appropriate 131 1 the that this 130 17 plan plant 131 4 insert isnt that really a fundamental premise, really good cause before if 131 7 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 131 17 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 131 19 too could 131 19 insert own after its 131 19 one, 132 13 insert program and after assurance 132 18 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 132 24 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 133 6 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 133 24 subwise stepwise 133 24 insert , your Honor, as after fashion

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 134 12-13 dealing with what the reviewing what Commissioner Svinicki wrote.

Commissioner wrote .

134 13 She described a process On page 2 of her Commission Voting Record, she described a reviewing process 134 19 voting record is voting record makes 134 20-21 and the Commission is looking the Commission is looking for a good cause proceeding for a good cause, proceeding 134 22 this case, so deferred this case, the Commission has directed thats reinstated only to terminated, so a deferred 134 22 not one for good cause. not part of the good cause.

134 24 TVA does TVA did 135 8-9 of the testimony nation of the termination 135 10 reinstated what administrations reinstated what actions 135 15 program, but the fact program, however thats not part of good cause, the fact 136 1 programs must be programs are somehow deficient or 136 6 review and if review. If 136 9 an order itself. an order on its own.

136 10-11 action and the staff could, action. The staff through its reviews may, 136 15 there is an there is currently an 136 16-17 permit proceeding is instead permit proceeding, instead 136 22 I believe our I believe, as Your Honors noted before and as our 136 25 then it cannot then whatever the item is cant 137 9 insert If I am I apologize after Dougherty.

137 11 petitioner could be correct petitioners may be entirely correct 137 12 If it is broken If something is broken 137 13 the fixing process, whether that fixing process, whether its broken broken 137 14 putting in service putting it in service 137 15 That, again, the operating And, again, at the operating 137 17 well-crafted intention well-crafted contention 137 20 wants went

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 138 11 question, if question, its if 138 14 assurance, that affect assurance. On that affect 138 17 we thing its broken and we we think its broken and we dont even - therefore dont even --

139 3 say the - the staff in speakings say the plant has been reviewed by the Staff that verified everywhere - The staff had performed inspections that have verified 139 9/10 introduced to it and all Introduced to it. All 139 11 will have will either have 139 17 atoms ADAMS 139 18 I could not The corrective actions program, the corporate one, I could not 139 22 TVA -- and the other letter TVA November-Quebec-Alpha- Papa-Lima-November-89-Alpha.- And also the other letter 139 25 insert Staff after NRC 140 13 text staff tech staff 140 17 deferred laboratories deferred plants 142 1 and proceeded our intentions so it preceded any of our contentions that we are aware of 142 9 insert affected interested before public 142 10 testified tested 142 12 being part of the ultimately being subject to your 142 21 Layia layup 142 25 insert which is before what 143 1 discretion corrective 143 3 cap CAP 143 6 test be involved in testing 143 9 Baratta Bollwerk 144 1 insert to answer the existing and unresolved questions before ,

144 7 terms some 144 22 insert Let me go back to the Staff one second before I

144 23-24 Commissioner Bency (phn) Commissioner Svinici statement basically answered

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action statement answered 144 24-25 I posed that if TVA said nothing I posed originally which is if TVA had said nothing of of questioned status deferred status 145 5 Bency Svinicki 145 24 beginning back 145 24-25 sites ability site suitability 146 7 policy anticipates plants will be policy sort of anticipates that there will be instances where plants are 147 147 though now 147 4 we say Well we havent said all, what he said is 147 14 change MR. VIGLUICCI to MS. SUTTON 147 14 insert Like its predecessors, before Proposed 147 16 impact a impact assessment and 147 3 insert staffs after the 147 19 insert that Mr. Dougherty after concern 147 24 insert comply with before new 147 3 insert Staffs before original 148 7 under section 2.309 9E013 here pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309 f(1)(iii) 148 8 2206 2.206 148 16 2206 2.206 148 17 COI-10 of 6 CLT-10-06 148 20 2N50 2 and 50 148 21 N01 OL 149 12 insert , however, after issues 149 12 recognizable cognizable 150 20 insert to the plant after applicable 150 23 insert for compliance with these requirements after plans 151 10 permit come in for 152 6 insert fall after process 152 20 insert at the present time after status 153 1 insert That's correct, your Honor. before But

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 153 7 NCLA1006 In CLI-10-06 154 4 is has been 154 6 presence precedent 154 9 no doubt you have no doubt in my mind that youre going to have 155 3 official initial 155 3 insert permit after construction 156 5 will intend to 156 7 the OR for the order 156 15 to the license for an amendment to their license 159 7 MS. JONES MS. SUTTON 159 15 Doughterty were. There is a Well by now, theres a evident 159 16 of six of opposition to our 159 17 for no 159 19 insert things like after with 160 13 insert then the OL proceeding is the right place to do that. Similarly, before if 160 15 insert that needs before to 160 16 insert for the operating license proceeding at the end of the sentence 160 23 300 30 160 24 there this 161 2 insert what the answer would be after idea 161 24 this at the OL 161 25 insert immediately at the end of the sentence 162 9 insert make sure after suitable 162 15 separating operating 162 16 insert in a manner before that 162 16 ring some rebuilding 163 6 insert and were not going to petition to change it after process 163 7 insert the before two; substitute get for are 163 8 insert get before the second raised

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 163 15 insert And as we said that might have been a great step forward, before But 163 22 insert 10 CFR before section 163 22 insert In short, that after says 163 25 agent Aging 164 1 reexamined preconditioned 164 2 the end of 164 9 36 years ago and now we have Were now looking at 164 12 the plant goes on this plant on, assuming all goes well 164 14 official initial 164 15-16 a consequence of one of the consequences that 164 21 50.4095 50.49(e)(5) 164 22 conclusions concludes 165 2 insert the claim after repeat 165 3 reinstate reinstatement 165 4 insert permits for after construction 165 4 but here This time, however, Petitioners allege 165 5 alleges 165 8 and 165 8 insert SSCs after life 165 9-18 This paragraph should read: "In support, as you just heard, petitioners cite 10 CFR 50.49 concerning the environmental qualification of safety-related electrical equipment. Proposed Contention 8 further evidences petitioners recurring failure to abide by the clear terms of the March 2009 Order. The subject of this proposed contention, the purported advanced age end-of-installed life SSCs, has no nexus to TVA's good cause justification for reinstatement of the CPs, and, accordingly, the contention must, yet again, be rejected as falling outside the scope of this proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR 2.309(f)(1)(iii)."

166 4 insert material after genuine 166 4-5 Section 2 309f16. Section 2.309(f)(1)(vi) 166 11 will while

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 166 11 insert in this proceeding after litigable 166 17 addressed addresses the issue of 166 17 insert procedural after TVA 166 18-19 aged, degraded any age-degraded 166 24 insert hypothetically after could 166 24 recognizable cognizable 166 24 insert hypothetically after could 166 25 2206 2.206 167 6 reservation preservation 167 16 SECKY 0804 is, which COMSECY-08-0041, this 167 17 plans this systems 167 17 insert that were after equipment 167 18 suspense suspension 167 20 as build then as-built 167 21 regarding licensing fore compliance with licensing basis 167 23-24 on issue of material law on material issue of law 167 25 aiming aging 168 4 insert as yet after TVAs 168 8 2206 2.206 168 8 insert proceeding after 2.206 168 11 JUDGE BARATTA: In question. JUDGE BOLLWERK: Alright, Judge Baratta?

168 12 JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Baratta?

168 23 50.495 50.49(e)(5) 169 9 insert or outdate equipment after equipment 169 24 in expecting inspecting 171 11 insert theres been after zone ,

171 23 insert in some fashion after replaced 172 7 And now And lets go ahead and move on to 172 8 sources resources 172 10 over time inevitably

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 172 19 conditions contention 172 24 insert of fish and shellfish before have 173 1-3 Paragraph should read: climate changes, but things are changing out there. In addition there are a number of impoundments on the river whose operations affect the water flow in a way thats very different than it was 40 years ago and this has a lot to do with the way the plant cant be operated in terms 173 10 this is a way in a way 173 23 Now to TVA Let me turn to TVA then 173 24 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 173 25 insert - he starts by after argument 174 12 proceed sueding proceeding 175 5 9307 9308 175 7 b 9b 175 7 the subject suggest 175 8-9 four units be - - for units he, for units three and four - - and not related to units 1 and and four 2 175 11 insert Basin after River 175 11 insert proposed contention before 9c 175 15 insert nuclear after Bellefonte 175 15 And 9d addressed thermal and again, contemplating four units, proposed contention 9d check addresses increased therm and chemical 175 20 proposed 175 20 insert s, proposed contention after contention 175 23 insert reinstatement after permit 176 2 insert largely after they 176 3 early earlier final 176 7 have been resulted that may result 176 9 insert good cause after focused 176 14 insert -8 in that proceeding after NEPA 176 16 insert such as that after proceeding 176 17 foyer four

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 176 18 insert reinstatement proceeding after permit 177 5 I heard the same response And I guess I basically, I heard the same responses, we heard to the prior two contentions 177 7 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 178 10 issued issues 178 2 insert JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Baratta? before Judge Barattas response 178 4 insert JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Sager? before Judge Sagers response 178 8 familiar to deal with this familiar enough with this record to state this with certainty 178 19 insert JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Baratta? before Judge Barattas response 178 20 insert JUDGE BOLLWERK: Judge Sager? before Judge Sagers response 179 2 insert before that after said 179 3 insert pretty muchafter been 179 6 and as well as 179 7 insert on the different issues after arguments 179 14 refile replies 179 25 issue of satisfy, staff or issuance of any additional Staff, safety or environmental environmental 180 2 insert that Im also involved with after Vogtle 180 3 insert admitted before contentions 180 14 the contention each admitted contention 180 15 insert potentially after situation 180 23 2.33 2.336 181 1 And Also, relative to the general discovery 181 2 on discovery 181 16 you have already youve heard today or like to be heard 181 23 insert and are before making; insert points after valid 181 23-24 substitute there has been a history for is list

Page Line(s) Delete Insert/Action 181 25 substitute incumbent on you for income went; substitute these statements for this 182 4 eliminated illuminated 182 10 he three 182 11 though know 182 14 they there 182 20 it agencies will thats unclear 182 21 tonight dont really 182 24 new now 183 1 party 183 2 insert trying to justify our contentions after petitioners 183 3 webstreammaster.resources.nr webstreammaster.resources@nrc.gov. And again, we c and how the appreciate anyones comments that they may have in terms of the technical aspects or how they felt the 183 7 change VIGLUICCI to CHANDLER 183 10 The SLAP staff A couple of brief thank yous I need to say, the ASLBP IT Staff, 184 10 Matt Mack 184 11 insert from Avaya after staff 184 14 insert On Stream media who are actually before the web streaming 184 19-20 this afternoon we appreciate your efforts.

185 7 down table fountain 185 8 fortunately unfortunately 185 13 concerned insert somewhat concerned when I came in Saturday afternoon to 186 2 insert North Anna re-racking before in 1979".

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-438-CP

) and 50-439 CP (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant - )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CORRECTIONS TO THE RECORD AND TRANSCRIPT OF THE MARCH 1, 2010 INITIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE) have been served upon the following persons by the Electronic Information Exchange (EIE) with additional service by email on persons marked with*.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop: T-3F23 Mail Stop: O-15D21 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chair Edward Williamson, Esq.

Administrative Judge E-mail: elw2@nrc.gov E-mail: paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov Andrea Jones, Esq.

E-mail: axj4@nrc.gov Dr. Anthony J. Baratta Brian Newell, Paralegal Administrative Judge E-mail: bpn1@nrc.gov E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov David E. Roth, Esq.

E-mail: david.roth@nrc.gov Dr. William W. Sager OGC Mail Center Administrative Judge E-mail: OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov E-mail: william.sager@nrc.gov Ann Hove, Law Clerk E-mail: ann.hove@nrc.gov U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary of the Commission Mail Stop: O-16C1 Mail Stop: O-16C1 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Washington, DC 20555-0001 OCAA Mail Center Hearing Docket E-mail: ocaamail@nrc.gov E-mail: hearingdocket@nrc.gov

2 Docket Nos. 50-438 and 50-439-CP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (CORRECTIONS TO THE RECORD AND TRANSCRIPT OF THE MARCH 1, 2010 INITIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE)

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Tennessee Valley Authority Counsel for Tennessee Valley Authority Office of the General Counsel 1111 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 400 W. Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K Washington, DC 20004 Knoxville, TN 37902 Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Edward J. Vigluicci, Esq.

ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Scott A. Vance, Esq.

E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com E-mail: savance@tva.gov Lawrence Chandler, Esq. Maureen H. Dunn, Esq.

E-mail: lchandler@morganlewis.com E-mail: mhdunn@tva.gov Mary L. Freeze, Legal Secretary Maria V. Gillen, Esq.

E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com mvgillen@tva.gov Angela Perry Christopher Chandler, Esq.

Angela.perry@morganlewis.com E-mail: ccchandler0@tva.gov Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC Inc. (BREDL) Counsel for Westinghouse Electric Company Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team 600 Grant Street, 44th Floor (BEST) Pittsburgh, PA 15219 P.O. Box 88 Glendale Springs, NC 28629 Barton Z. Cowan, Esq.

Louis A. Zeller E-mail: teribart61@aol.com E-mail: bredl@skybest.com Southern Alliance for Clean Energy James B. Dougherty, Esq.

428 Bull Street Counsel for Blue Ridge Environmental Savannah, GA 31401 Defense League, Inc.

Sara Barczak* Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team E-mail: sara@cleanenergy.org Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 709 3rd St. SW Washington, DC 20024 E-mail: jimdougherty@aol.com

[Original signed by Nancy Greathead]

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of March 2010.