ML100740558

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:	Andrea Jones 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 STAFFS 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 Boards (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 51.95b2. 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 Staffs 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 submit with its application a separate document .

2 10 C.F.R. § 51.95(b) states, in part, that the NRC staff will prepare a supplement to the final environmental impact statement on the construction permit for [that] facility, which will update the prior environmental review.

Also, in accordance with the Boards 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 TVAs 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 STAFFS 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:

Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication G. Paul Bollwerk, Chair U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop - O-16G4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T3-F23 E-mail: OCAAMAIL.resourcel@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: paul.bollwerk@nrc.gov Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Anthony J. Baratta Mail Stop: O-16G4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Mail Stop: T3-F23 E-mail: Hearingdocket@nrc.gov Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: ajb5@nrc.gov Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William W. Sager Mail Stop: T3-F23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Washington, DC 20555-0001 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Via Internal Mail Only)

Mail Stop: T3-F23 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Email: william.sager@nrc.gov

Kathryn M. Sutton, Esq. Christopher Chandler, Esq.

Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq. Maureen Dunn, Esq.

Martin J. ONeill, Esq. Maria V. Gillen, Esq.

Mary Freeze, Legal Secretary Scott Vance, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP Edward Vigluicci, Esq.

1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Tennessee Valley Authority Washington, DC 20004 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 6A-K E-mail: ksutton@morganlewis.com Knoxville, TN 37902 E-mail: lchandler@morganlewis.com E-mail: ccchandler@tva.gov E-mail: martin.oneill@morganlewis.com E-mail: mhdunn@tva.gov E-mail: mfreeze@morganlewis.com E-mail: mvgillen@tva.gov E-mail: savance@tva.gov E-mail: ejvigluicci@tva.gov James B. Dougherty, Esq. Louis A. Zeller Counsel for Blue Ridge Environmental Representative of Blue Ridge Defense League, Inc. (BREDL) Environmental Bellefonte Efficiency & Sustainability Team Defense League (BREDL) and Bellefonte Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Team (BEST) 709 3rd St., SW P.O. Box 88 Washington, DC 20024 Glendale Springs, NC 28629 E-mail: jimdougherty@aol.com 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 STAFFS 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 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 TVAs 27/5 stated, it is instead a stated, its not reopening the construction permit proceeding, its instead a 27/9 didnt 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, thats right. Yes, thats 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 Staffs 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 staffs 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; its 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 Thats Mike Lema Thats 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 Ive 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. dont 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 Staffs EIS does not contrary, the Staffs 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 hadnt 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 Commissions 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 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 137/11 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 its 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, its if 138/14 assurance, that affect assurance. On that affect 138/17 we thing its broken and we dont we think its broken and we dont 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