ML100740558

2010/03/15-NRC Staff'S Unopposed Motion to Correct the Record and Proposed Corrections to the Transcript of the Initial Pre-Hearing Conference Held on March 1, 2010

ML100740558
Person / Time
Site:	Bellefonte
Issue date:	03/15/2010
From:	Jones A Z NRC/OGC
To:
SECY RAS
References
50-438-cp, 50-439-CP, ASLBP 10-896-01-CP-BD01, Bellefonte 50-438 and 50-439-CP, RAS 17565
Download: ML100740558 (13)

Text

March 15, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-438/50-439-CP ) (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant ) ASLBP No. 10-896-01-CP-BD01 Units 1 and 2) )

NRC STAFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CORRECT THE RECORD AND PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE INITIAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE HELD ON MARCH 1, 2010 In accordance with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("Board") Memorandum and Order (Initial Prehearing Conference Transcript Corrections) issued on March 5, 2010 ("March 5

Order"), 10 C.F.R. §§ 2.323(a), and 2.327(d), the NRC Staff ("Staff") moves to correct the record

of the initial prehearing conference held on March 1, 2010. This proposed correction consists of

a statement made by Staff counsel, on page 157, line 21, in which 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(b) 1 was inadvertently cited as "51.95b"

2. See Appendix A hereto, at 8. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 2.323(b), counsel for the Staff has discussed this motion

with counsel for the other participants in this proceeding. Counsels for the TVA and the

Petitioners have no objection to the Staff's motion to correct the statement made by Staff

counsel. Therefore, the Staff respectfully requests that the record be corrected to reflect the correct citation.

1 10 C.F.R. § 51.53 (b) states, in part, "[e]ach applicant for a license to operate a production or utilization facility covered by § 51.20 shall subm it with its application a separate document- ."

2 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(b) states, in part, that "t he NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the final environmental impact statement on the construction per mit for [that] facility, which will update the prior environmental review." Also, in accordance with the Board's March 5 Order, the Staff files its proposed corrections to the transcript, and respectfully requests that the transcript be revised to

incorporate the corrections identified in Appendix A, attached hereto. The Staff provided their

proposed corrections to the transcript to the TVA and the Petitioners who, in turn, provided

proposed corrections on March 12, 2010 and March 15, 2010, respectively. While all of the

participants were unable to come to an agreement on the proposed changes, the Staff has no

objections to TVA's or Petitioners' proposed changes.

Respectfully submitted, /Signed (electronically) by/

Andrea Z. Jones Counsel for NRC Staff

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop O-15D21

Washington, DC 20555-0001

(301) 415-2246

Andrea.Jones@nrc.gov

Dated at Rockville, Maryland

this 15th day of March, 2010 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY ) Docket Nos. 50-438/50-439-CP

)

(Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant ) ASLBP No. 10-896-01-CP-BD01 Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing "NRC STAFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

CORRECT THE RECORD AND PROPOSED CORRECTIONS TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE

INITIAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE HELD ON MARCH 1, 2010," dated March 15, 2010, have been served upon the following by the Electronic Information Exchange, this 15th day of

March, 2010:

Administrative Judge

G. Paul Bollwerk, Chair

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop: T3-F23

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov

Administrative Judge

Anthony J. Baratta

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop: T3-F23

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov

Administrative Judge

William W. Sager

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: T3-F23

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Email: william.sager@nrc.gov

Office of Commission Appellate

Adjudication

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop - O-16G4

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resourcel@nrc.gov

Office of the Secretary

Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff

Mail Stop: O-16G4

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: Hearingdocket@nrc.gov

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Mail Stop: T3-F23

Washington, DC 20555-0001 (Via Internal Mail Only)

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq.

Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.

Martin J. O'Neill, Esq.

Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004

E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com E-mail: lchandler@morganlewis.com E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com

James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Counsel for Blue Ridge Environmental

Defense League, Inc. (BREDL)

Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy

709 3 rd St., SW Washington, DC 20024

E-mail: jimdougherty@aol.com

Christopher Chandler, Esq.

Maureen Dunn, Esq.

Maria V. Gillen, Esq.

Scott Vance, Esq.

Edward Vigluicci, Esq.

Tennessee Valley Authority

400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K

Knoxville, TN 37902

E-mail: ccchandler@tva.gov E-mail: mhdunn@tva.gov E-mail: mvgillen@tva.gov E-mail: savance@tva.gov E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov

Louis A. Zeller

Representative of Blue Ridge

Environmental

Defense League (BREDL) and Bellefonte

Efficiency and Sustainability Team (BEST)

P.O. Box 88

Glendale Springs, NC 28629

E-mail: BREDL@skybest.com

/Signed (electronically) by/

Andrea Z. Jones Counsel for NRC Staff

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of the General Counsel

Mail Stop O-15D21

Washington, DC 20555-0001

(301) 415-2246

E-mail: Andrea.Jones@nrc.gov

APPENDIX A NRC STAFF'S PROPOSED CHANGES /CORRECTIONS TO TRANSCRIPT OF INITIAL PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE, MARCH 1, 2010 PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 10/1 Christian I am Christine Jochim

26/11 agreed agree

26/18 with good cause with good cause.

26/19 as Your Honors As Your Honors

26/21 the reinstate to reinstate

26/22 that's CLI-0610. that's 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 TVA's It's as TVA's

27/5 stated, it is instead a stated, it's not reopening the construction permit proceeding, it's instead a

27/9 didn't have application did not have the application

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 March 13.. Federal Register on 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

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 46/14 it seek a legal it state a legal

49/20 That means MS. BOOTE: That means

50/4 Under the ER agreement for 3 MS. BOOTE: Under the ER for and 4, would Units 3 and 4, it would

50/5 modified as Units 1 and 2. modified to include construction of Units 1 and 2.

53/3 into a into our

55/6 operating license, operating license application,

55/10 seeing the contention seeing their potential contentions

55/14 Yes, that's right. Yes, that's correct.

55/25 by EIS. They may not by the EIS that the Staff performs, so they may not

60/24 to say there was no regulation to clarify that I did not say there was applied no regulation out there that applied

61/1 does however and and that staff does, however, and that the Staff's NEPA NEPA

61/2-3 requirements has been fulfilled in requirements have been fulfilled in this case before any decision. this case; we evaluated it before making a 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 E could have determined that an EIS was necessary and was necessary if significant new information developed.

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

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 61/12 to conducts an EIS so it is limited to conduct an EIS. So, for the to that reinstatement of the CP, it is limited to that

61/14 it. up.

61/17 Are you asking about why TVA MS. BOOTE: Are you asking about are not AEs why TVA and the Staff both did EAs

65/1 propose in an operating license propose an operating license application, before application before

65/2 staff, would evaluate whether or staff, we would evaluate whether or not to prepare the not to prepare a supplement to the

65/4 (b) we believe (b), I believe

78/16 David Roth for staff. Yes Your Yes, Your Honor. David Roth Honor for Staff.

79/3-4 TVA provided in the staff's TVA provided the EA to the Staff in response to the RAI. response to an RAI.

79/4 We provided you a number We will provide you a ML number

79/5-6 currently will provide the number currently available in ADAMS but that is currently, available in ADAMS

79/6 and publicly available for and has been publicly available for quite

79/15 team for TVA, team, whether raised by TVA,

79/18 in the license application in the operating license application

79/21 sufficient addresses any sufficient new struts, whether it sufficiently addresses any

79/22 of the reinstatement of the construction permit reinstatement

80/6 because as TVA is doing in because, as TVA has noted, and we have noted in

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 80/7 no information speculation that no information; it's speculation that there might been there might be

80/13-14 X to make a size likely qualified. X or room X to make it seismically qualified.

80/16 cause, nevertheless, it is still cause, which the Staff do not view, insufficient to meet nonetheless it is still insufficiently pled to meet

80/23 the employee concerns the employees' concerns

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

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 That's Mike Lema That's Mike Lima

105/5 good cause is the staff would good cause as the Staff have pledge is hardly pled is targeted

105/6 toward the Units towards Units

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 105/8 with regard to how Units with regards to how their Units

105/10-11 TVA safety behaviors and TVA and the Intervenor are in Intervenor are in agreement, agreement that there are 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 I've heard Petitioners state

105/18 the NEPA power and energy the need for power and energy and energy alternatives and alternatives at

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 plant fit is plant that is

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 not continue the discussion not contain a discussion

106/18 or for power. or need for power.

106/19 proceeding of proceeding on

106/20 any amount of any law or

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 106/23 consideration at the discussion consideration and the discussion of Uits 3 and 4 of Units 3 and 4

106/24 for good cause. don't go for good cause.

107/12-13 absence and the condition, absence of the Commission direction of the contrary, direction to the contrary,

107/13 contrary. The Staff's EIS does not contrary, the Staff's EIS does not contain need for 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

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 hadn't achieved

109/7 has to get there needs to be

109/7 to file which would involve

115/3 the prima facial evidence, should the prima facie evidence, showing be waived why the Commission's rules should be waived

115/4-5 alternatives which encompass alternatives which would broadly encompass

115/6 in its own in its OL

134/12-13 dealing with what the reviewing what Commissioner Commissioner wrote. Svinicki wrote.

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 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 for the Commission is looking a good cause, proceeding for a good cause proceeding

134/22 this case, so deferred this case, the Commission has directed that's 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 that's 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 can't

137/11 petitioner could be correct petitioners may be entirely correct

137/12 If it is broken If something is broken

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 137/13 the fixing process, whether broken that fixing process, whether it's 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

138/11 question, if question, it's if

138/14 assurance, that affect assurance. On that affect

138/17 we thing it's broken and we don't we think it's broken and we don't even -- even - therefore

139/3 say the - the staff in speakings say the plant has been reviewed by that verified the Staff 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

139/18 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

140/13 with text staff to verify that. with tech staff to verify for certain.

140/17 deferred laboratories deferred plants

145/5 Bency Svinicki

155/3 official initial

157/21 51.95b 10 C.F.R. § 51.53(b)

159/7 MS. JONES MS. SUTTON

168/23 50.495 50.49(e)(5)

PAGE / LINE DELETE INSERT 169/24 in expecting inspecting