Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

At September 30, 2013, the amounts of contractual cash commitments maturing in each of the next five years and beyond are shown below:



Commitments and Contingencies Payments due in the year ending September 30
	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		Thereafter		Total
Debt⁽¹⁾	$	2,464	$	1,032	$	32	$	1,555	$	1,682	$	18,056	$	24,821
Debt of VIEs	30		32		33		35		36		1,175		1,341
Membership interests of variable interest entity subject to mandatory redemption	2		2		2		2		2		30		40
Lease obligations
Capital	5		5		5		5		5		36		61
Non-cancelable operating	37		30		29		28		27		87		238
Purchase obligations
Power	219		204		219		231		230		3,336		4,439
Fuel	1,419		1,176		794		442		498		2,002		6,331
Other	255		210		184		182		502		1,221		2,554
Payments on other financings	100		104		104		104		104		401		917

Total	$	4,531	$	2,795	$	1,402	$	2,584	$	3,086	$	26,344	$	40,742

Note

(1) Does not include noncash items of foreign currency exchange loss of $43 million and net discount on sale of Bonds of $85 million.

In addition to the cash requirements, above, TVA has contractual obligations in the form of revenue discounts related to energy prepayments. See Note 1 — Energy Prepayment Obligations and Discounts on Sales.



Energy Prepayment Obligations
	2014		2015		2016		2017		2018		Thereafter		Total
Energy Prepayment Obligations	$	100	$	100	$	100	$	100	$	100	$	10	$	510

Debt. At September 30, 2013, TVA had outstanding discount notes of $2.4 billion and long-term debt (including current maturities) at varying maturities and interest rates of $22.4 billion for total outstanding indebtedness of $24.8 billion. See Note 12.

Debt of VIEs. At September 30, 2013, TVA had outstanding long-term debt (including current maturities) attributable to its three VIEs of which it is the primary beneficiary of $1.3 billion. See Note 8.

Membership Interests of VIE Subject to Mandatory Redemption. At September 30, 2013, TVA had outstanding membership interests subject to mandatory redemption (including current portion) of $40 million issued by one of its VIEs of which it is the primary beneficiary. See Note 8.

Leases. TVA leases certain property, plant, and equipment under agreements with terms ranging from one to 80 years. Of the total obligations for TVA’s capital leases, $18 million represents the cost of financing. TVA’s rental expense for operating leases was $71 million in 2013, $67 million in 2012, and $77 million in 2011.

Power Purchase Obligations. TVA has contracted with various independent power producers and LPCs for additional capability to be made available to TVA. Several of these agreements have contractual minimum payments. In total, these agreements provide 1,621 MW of summer net capability. The remaining terms of the agreements range up to 19 years. TVA incurred $322 million, $447 million, and $713 million of expense under power purchase agreements during 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. Certain power purchase obligations are accounted for as capital leases. Costs under TVA’s power purchase agreements not accounted for as capital leases are included in TVA's consolidated statements of operations as purchased power expense and are expensed as incurred.

Under federal law, TVA is obligated to purchase power from qualifying facilities, cogenerators, and small power producers. As of September 30, 2013, there was a combined qualifying capacity of 913 MW, from six different suppliers, from which TVA purchased power under this law. TVA’s obligations to purchase power from these qualifying facilities are not included in the Commitments and Contingencies table.

TVA, along with others, contracted with the Southeastern Power Administration ("SEPA") to obtain power and energy from eight U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hydroelectric facilities on the Cumberland River system. The agreement with SEPA can be terminated upon three years’ notice, but this notice of termination may not become effective prior to June 30, 2017. The contract requires SEPA to provide TVA an annual minimum of 1,500 hours of energy for each megawatt of TVA’s 405 MW allocation, and all surplus energy from the Cumberland River system. Because hydroelectric production has been reduced at two of the hydroelectric facilities on the Cumberland River system and because of reductions in the summer stream flow on the Cumberland River, SEPA declared “force majeure” on February 25, 2007. SEPA then instituted an emergency operating plan that, among other things, eliminates SEPA’s obligation to provide TVA and other affected customers with a minimum amount of power or energy. It is unclear how long the emergency operating plan will remain in effect. TVA’s obligations under its contract with SEPA are not included in the Commitments and Contingencies table.

Fuel Purchase Obligations. TVA has approximately $2.3 billion in long-term fuel purchase commitments ranging in terms of up to 10 years primarily for the purchase and transportation of coal. TVA also has approximately $4.0 billion of long-term commitments ranging in terms of up to 17 years for the purchase of enriched uranium and fabrication of nuclear fuel assemblies.

Other Obligations. Other obligations of $2.6 billion consist of contracts at September 30, 2013, for goods and services primarily related to capital projects as well as other major recurring operating costs.

Contingencies

Nuclear Insurance. The Price-Anderson Act provides a layered framework of protection to compensate for losses arising from a nuclear event in the United States. For the first layer, all of the NRC nuclear plant licensees, including TVA, purchase $375 million of nuclear liability insurance from American Nuclear Insurers for each plant with an operating license. Funds for the second layer, the Secondary Financial Program, would come from an assessment of up to $127 million from the licensees of each of the 104 NRC licensed reactors in the United States. The assessment for any nuclear accident would be limited to $19 million per year per unit. American Nuclear Insurers, under a contract with the NRC, administers the Secondary Financial Program. With its six licensed units, TVA could be required to pay a maximum of $764 million per nuclear incident, but it would have to pay no more than $114 million per incident in any one year. When the contributions of the nuclear plant licensees are added to the insurance proceeds of $375 million, over $13.0 billion, including a five percent surcharge for legal expenses, would be available. Under the Price-Anderson Act, if the first two layers are exhausted, the U.S. Congress is required to take action to provide additional funds to cover the additional losses.

TVA carries property, decommissioning, and decontamination insurance of $4.6 billion for its licensed nuclear plants, with up to $2.1 billion available for a loss at any one site, to cover the cost of stabilizing or shutting down a reactor after an accident. Some of this insurance, which is purchased from Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited ("NEIL"), may require the payment of retrospective premiums up to a maximum of approximately $105 million.

TVA purchases accidental outage (business interruption) insurance for TVA’s nuclear sites from NEIL. In the event that an accident covered by this policy takes a nuclear unit offline or keeps a nuclear unit offline, NEIL will pay TVA, after a waiting period, an indemnity (a set dollar amount per week) up to a maximum indemnity of $490 million per unit. This insurance policy may require the payment of retrospective premiums up to a maximum of approximately $32 million.

Decommissioning Costs. TVA recognizes legal obligations associated with the future retirement of certain tangible long-lived assets related primarily to coal-fired generating plants and nuclear generating plants, hydroelectric generating plants/dams, transmission structures, and other property-related assets.

Nuclear. Provision for decommissioning costs of nuclear generating units is based on options prescribed by the NRC procedures to dismantle and decontaminate the facilities to meet the NRC criteria for license termination. At September 30, 2013, the present value of the estimated future decommissioning cost of $2.4 billion was included in AROs. The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the derived estimates because of, among other things, changes in current assumptions, such as the assumed dates of decommissioning, changes in regulatory requirements, changes in technology, and changes in the cost of labor, materials, and equipment. Utilities that own and operate nuclear plants are required to use different procedures in calculating nuclear decommissioning costs under GAAP than those that are used in calculating nuclear decommissioning costs when reporting to the NRC. The two sets of procedures produce different estimates for the costs of decommissioning primarily because of the difference in the discount rates used to calculate the present value of decommissioning costs.

TVA maintains a NDT to provide funding for the ultimate decommissioning of its nuclear power plants. TVA monitors the value of its NDT and believes that, over the long term and before cessation of nuclear plant operations and commencement of decommissioning activities, adequate funds from investments will be available to support decommissioning. TVA’s nuclear power units are currently authorized to operate until 2020-2036, depending on the unit. It may be possible to extend the operating life of some of the units with approval from the NRC. See Note 7 — Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 11.

Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. The present value of the estimated future non-nuclear decommissioning cost ARO was $1.1 billion at September 30, 2013. This decommissioning cost estimate involves estimating the amount and timing of future expenditures and making judgments concerning whether or not such costs are considered a legal obligation. Estimating the amount and timing of future expenditures includes, among other things, making projections of the timing and duration of the asset retirement process and how costs will escalate with inflation. The actual decommissioning costs may vary from the derived estimates because of changes in current assumptions, such as the assumed dates of decommissioning, changes in regulatory requirements, changes in technology, and changes in the cost of labor, materials, and equipment.

TVA maintains an ART to help fund the ultimate decommissioning of its power assets. Estimates involved in determining if additional funding will be made to the ART include inflation rate and rate of return projections on the fund investments. See Note 7 — Non-Nuclear Decommissioning Costs and Note 11.

Environmental Matters. TVA’s power generation activities, like those across the utility industry and in other industrial sectors, are subject to most federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations. Major areas of regulation affecting TVA’s activities include air quality control, water quality control, and management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. In the future, regulations in all of these areas are expected to become more stringent. Regulations are also expected to apply to new emissions and sources, with a particular emphasis on climate change, renewable generation, and energy efficiency.

TVA has incurred, and expects to continue to incur, substantial capital and operating and maintenance costs to comply with evolving environmental requirements primarily associated with, but not limited to, the operation of TVA’s coal-fired generating units. It is virtually certain that environmental requirements placed on the operation of TVA’s coal-fired and other generating units will continue to become more restrictive and potentially apply to new emissions and sources. Litigation over emissions or discharges from coal-fired generating units is also occurring, including litigation against TVA. Failure to comply with environmental and safety laws can result in TVA being subject to enforcement actions, which can lead to the imposition of significant civil liability, including fines and penalties, criminal sanctions, and/or the shutting down of non-compliant facilities.

From 1977 to 2013, TVA spent approximately $5.6 billion to reduce emissions from its power plants, including $182 million, $38 million, and $34 million in 2013, 2012, and 2011, respectively. TVA estimates that compliance with future Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements (excluding greenhouse gas ("GHG") requirements) could lead to additional costs of $1.3 billion from 2014 to 2022. There could be additional material costs if reductions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide ("CO₂"), are mandated under the CAA or by legislation or regulation, or if future legislative, regulatory, or judicial actions lead to more stringent emission reduction requirements for conventional pollutants. These costs cannot reasonably be predicted at this time because of the uncertainty of such potential actions.

Liability for releases and cleanup of hazardous substances is primarily regulated by the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), and other federal and parallel state statutes. In a manner similar to many other industries and power systems, TVA has generated or used hazardous substances over the years.

TVA is aware of alleged hazardous-substance releases at certain non-TVA areas for which it may have some liability. Although there is little or no known evidence that TVA contributed any significant quantity of hazardous substances to most of the non-TVA areas, there is evidence that TVA sent some materials to Ward Transformer, a non-TVA site in Raleigh, North Carolina. The Ward Transformer site is contaminated by PCBs from electrical equipment. There is documentation showing that TVA sent a limited amount of electrical equipment containing PCBs to the site in 1974. A working group of potentially responsible parties (the "PRP Work Group") is cleaning up on-site contamination in accordance with an agreement with the EPA. The cleanup effort has been divided into four areas: two phases of soil cleanup; cleanup of off-site contamination in the downstream drainage basin; and supplemental groundwater remediation. The cost estimate for the first phase of soil cleanup is approximately $55 million. The cost estimate for the second phase of soil cleanup is $10 million. Estimates for cleanup of off-site contamination in the downstream drainage basin range from $6 million to $25 million. There are no reliable estimates for the supplemental groundwater remediation phase. On April 30, 2009, the PRP Work Group filed an amended complaint in federal court against potentially responsible parties who had not yet settled, including TVA, regarding the two phases of soil cleanup. TVA settled this lawsuit and its potential liability for the two phases of soil cleanup for $300 thousand and has been dismissed as a party. Although the settlement with respect to the first two phases does not prohibit TVA from having liability in connection with the other two phases or any natural resource damages, the U.S. Department of Justice is attempting to negotiate a government-wide settlement of the liability of all federal agencies (including TVA) for cleanup of offsite contamination in the downstream drainage basin and the investigative portion of the supplemental groundwater remediation. TVA believes that its liability for the remaining two phases and natural resource damages is less than $1 million.

TVA operations at some TVA facilities have resulted in oil spills and other contamination that TVA is addressing. At September 30, 2013, TVA’s estimated liability for cleanup and similar environmental work for those sites for which sufficient information is available to develop a cost estimate (primarily the TVA sites) was approximately $15 million on a non-discounted basis and was included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities on the Balance Sheet.

Other. TVA is undertaking cost reduction initiatives with the goal of keeping rates low, keeping reliability high, and continuing to fulfill its broader mission of environmental stewardship and economic development. TVA will focus on reducing operating and maintenance costs through further efficiency gains and streamlining the organization. Given that approximately 80 percent of TVA's operating and maintenance costs are related to labor, staffing level reductions will necessarily result from this process. The evaluation of staffing levels will take into account attrition, elimination of open positions, and retirements in order to minimize the impact on current personnel. Certain employees may be eligible for severance payments if impacted by the reorganization, but the amount of such payments is not reasonably estimable at this time as management's evaluation of staffing levels is not yet complete. Accordingly, no severance costs have been accrued as of September 30, 2013. TVA’s goal is to reduce operating and maintenance costs by $500 million by 2015 as compared to its 2013 budget.

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, TVA is party to or otherwise involved in lawsuits, claims, proceedings, investigations, and other legal matters ("Legal Proceedings") that have arisen in the ordinary course of conducting TVA's activities, as a result of a catastrophic event or otherwise.

General. At September 30, 2013, TVA had accrued approximately $302 million of probable losses with respect to Legal Proceedings and estimated the range of these losses to be from $302 million to $314 million. Of the accrued amount, $189 million is included in Other long-term liabilities, $85 million is included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities, and $28 million is included in Regulatory assets. TVA is currently unable to estimate any amount or any range of amounts of reasonably possible losses, and no assurance can be given that TVA will not be subject to significant additional claims and liabilities. If actual liabilities significantly exceed the estimates made, TVA's results of operations, liquidity, and financial condition could be materially adversely affected.

Environmental Agreements. In April 2011, TVA entered into two substantively similar agreements, one with the EPA and the other with Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and three environmental advocacy groups: the Sierra Club, the National Parks Conservation Association, and Our Children's Earth Foundation (collectively, the "Environmental Agreements”). They became effective in June 2011. Under the Environmental Agreements, TVA committed to (1) retire on a phased schedule 18 coal-fired units with a combined summer net dependable capability of 2,200 MW, (2) control, convert, or retire additional coal-fired units with a combined summer net dependable capability of 3,500 MW, (3) comply with annual, declining emission caps for SO₂ and NO_x, (4) invest $290 million in certain TVA environmental projects, (5) provide $60 million to Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Tennessee to fund environmental projects, and (6) pay civil penalties of $10 million. In exchange for these commitments, most past claims against TVA based on alleged New Source Review and associated violations were waived and cannot be brought against TVA. Future claims including those for sulfuric acid mist and GHG emissions can still be brought against TVA, and claims for increases in particulates can also be pursued at many of TVA’s coal-fired units. Additionally, the Environmental Agreements do not address compliance with new laws and regulations or the cost associated with such compliance.

The liabilities related to the Environmental Agreements are included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities on the September 30, 2013 Consolidated Balance Sheet. In conjunction with the approval of the Environmental Agreements, the TVA Board determined that it was appropriate to record TVA's liabilities under the Environmental Agreements as regulatory assets, and they are included as such on the September 30, 2013 Consolidated Balance Sheet and will be recovered in rates in future periods.

Several legal and administrative clean air proceedings have already been terminated in connection with the Environmental Agreements. Additionally, the proceeding discussed below involving the John Sevier CAA permit is expected to be narrowed in scope.

Legal Proceedings Related to the Kingston Ash Spill. Seventy-eight lawsuits based on the Kingston ash spill have been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Fifteen of these lawsuits have been dismissed, and 63 lawsuits are active and in various stages of litigation. Plaintiffs are residents, businesses, and property owners in the Kingston area and allege tort claims for damage to property (for example, nuisance, strict liability, trespass, and negligence), with some plaintiffs also alleging claims for personal injury, business loss, and inverse condemnation. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, court orders to clean up properties, and other relief. TVA is the only active defendant in these actions.

A bench trial on the issue of dike failure causation in the seven earliest cases was held in September and October 2011 ("Phase I trial"). Plaintiffs in the 56 remaining cases have agreed to be bound by the Phase I trial record and decision. In August 2012, the court issued its Phase I decision, finding that certain actions by TVA contributed to the ash spill. On November 20, 2012, the court ordered the parties to participate in mediation within 120 days of the issuance of the order. The court has extended the mediation period three times, and the mediation period is now scheduled to end on January 14, 2014. If the case is not resolved through mediation, the case will proceed to the damages phase ("Phase II") trial, during which the individual plaintiffs must prove both that they incurred damages and that the ash spill was the cause of the damages. The date for the Phase II trial has not yet been set.

TVA has received several notices of intent to sue under various environmental statutes from both individuals and environmental groups, but no such suits have been filed.

Civil Penalty and Natural Resource Damages for the Kingston Ash Spill. In June 2010, TDEC issued a civil penalty order of approximately $12 million to TVA for the Kingston ash spill, citing violations of the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act and the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act. Of the $12 million, TVA has satisfied $10 million, and TDEC has approved environmental projects valued at $2 million as a credit against the penalty amount. In January 2011, TVA entered into a memorandum of agreement with TDEC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service establishing a process and a method for resolving the natural resource damage claim associated with the Kingston ash spill. As part of this memorandum of agreement, TVA agreed to pay $250 thousand each year for three years as a down payment on the amount of natural resource damages ultimately established, and to reimburse TDEC and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for their costs.

Case Involving Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System. In March 2010, eight current and former participants in and beneficiaries of TVARS filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the six then-current members of the TVARS Board. The lawsuit challenged the TVARS Board's decision to suspend the TVA contribution requirements for 2010 through 2013, and to amend the TVARS Rules and Regulations to (1) reduce the calculation for COLA benefits for CY 2010 through CY 2013, (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund accounts, and (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs from age 55 to 60. The plaintiffs allege that these actions violated the TVARS Board members' fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs (and the purported class) and the plaintiffs' contractual rights, among other claims. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified damages, an order directing the TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and the appointment of a seventh TVARS Board member. Five of the six individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, while the remaining defendant filed an answer to the complaint. In July 2010, TVA moved to intervene in the suit in the event it was not dismissed. In September 2010, the district court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the directors without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 14 days against TVARS and TVA but not the individual directors. The plaintiffs previously had voluntarily withdrawn their constitutional claims, so the court also dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, violation of the Internal Revenue Code, and appointment of a seventh TVARS Board member.

In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against TVARS and TVA. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of their constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, and property rights), violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, and breach of statutory duties owed to the plaintiffs. They seek a declaratory judgment and appropriate relief for the alleged statutory and constitutional violations and breaches of duty. TVA filed its answer to the amended complaint in December 2010. In May 2012, the court granted the parties' joint motion to administratively close the case subject to reopening to allow the parties the opportunity to engage in mediation. In July 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to reopen the lawsuit.

Case Arising out of Hurricane Katrina. In April 2006, TVA was added as a defendant to a class action lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal, alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. Action by the United States Supreme Court in January 2011 ended this case in a manner favorable to TVA.

However, in May 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that permits the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on procedural grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the same and additional defendants, again alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. The court dismissed the lawsuit in March 2012 for a variety of reasons, including that the lawsuit presented a non-justiciable political question and that all of the claims were preempted by the CAA. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal on May 14, 2013.

Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. In June 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit") vacated the NRC's updated WCD. The WCD is a generic determination by the NRC that spent nuclear fuel can be safely managed until a permanent off-site repository is established and has been a key component of the NRC licensing activities since 1984. The most recent update provided that the permanent repository would be available when necessary and that spent fuel could be stored for 60 years after a plant's license terminated. The D.C. Circuit vacated this update on the grounds that, among other things, the NRC failed to support it with an adequate National Environmental Policy Act review and the NRC did not evaluate what would happen if the repository was never built.

In June 2012, multiple intervenor groups submitted a petition to the NRC to (a) hold in abeyance all pending reactor licensing decisions that would depend upon the WCD and (b) establish a process for ensuring that the remanded proceeding complies with the public participation requirements of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. In August 2012, the NRC issued an order (the "August NRC Order") preventing the issuance of a final licensing decision in all proceedings affected by the petition, including Watts Bar Unit 2 and Bellefonte Units 3 and 4. While resolution of unrelated contentions can proceed, the NRC stated that it will not issue final licensing decisions until it has “appropriately addressed” the D.C. Circuit decision, and all pending contentions concerning the WCD are being held in abeyance pending the NRC's completion of an environmental review and generic rulemaking addressing the shortcomings identified by the D.C. Circuit. A draft rule and Environmental Impact Statement addressing the D.C. Circuit decision were issued by the NRC staff for public comment in September 2013. The NRC is currently scheduled to address this issue by September 2014.

Administrative Proceeding Regarding Renewal of Operating License for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. In May 2013, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League ("BREDL"), the Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team ("BEST"), and Mothers Against Tennessee River Radiation filed a petition with the NRC opposing the renewal of the operating license for Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. The petition contains eight specific contentions challenging the adequacy of the license renewal application that TVA submitted to the NRC in January 2013. TVA filed a response with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") opposing the admission of all eight of the petitioners' contentions. In July 2013, the ASLB concluded that BREDL is the only one of the three petitioners that has standing to intervene in this proceeding. The ASLB also held that seven of the contentions were inadmissible, and held one portion of the remaining contention related to WCD in abeyance pending further direction from the NRC.

Administrative Proceedings Regarding Bellefonte Units 3 and 4. TVA submitted its combined construction and operating license application ("CCOLA") for two Advanced Passive 1000 reactors at Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 to the NRC in October 2007. In June 2008, Bellefonte Efficiency and Sustainability Team ("BEST"), BREDL, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy ("SACE") submitted a joint petition for intervention and a request for a hearing. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") denied standing to BEST and admitted four of the 20 contentions submitted by BREDL and SACE. The NRC reversed the ASLB's decision to admit two of the four contentions, leaving only two contentions (concerning the estimated costs of the new nuclear plant and the impact of the facility's operations on aquatic ecology) to be litigated in a future hearing. In January 2012, TVA notified the ASLB that the NRC had placed the CCOLA in “suspended” status indefinitely at TVA's request, and TVA requested that the ASLB hold the proceeding in abeyance pending a decision by TVA regarding the best path forward with regards to the CCOLA.

In July 2012, BREDL petitioned for the admission of another new, late-filed contention stemming from the D.C. Circuit's order vacating the WCD. This contention is being held in abeyance pursuant to the August NRC Order.

Administrative Proceedings Regarding Watts Bar Unit 2. In July 2009, SACE, the Tennessee Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, We the People, and BREDL filed a request for a hearing and petition to intervene in the NRC administrative process reviewing TVA's application for an operating license for Watts Bar Unit 2. In November 2009, the ASLB granted SACE's request for hearing, admitted two of SACE's seven contentions for hearing, and denied the request for hearing submitted on behalf of the other four petitioners. The ASLB subsequently dismissed one contention, leaving one aquatic impact contention. In November 2011, TVA filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that additional aquatic studies conducted by TVA indicate there is no longer a genuine issue of material fact in connection with SACE's remaining aquatic impact contention. In July 2013, SACE filed a motion to withdraw its aquatic impact contention. The ASLB has granted this motion.

In July 2012, SACE petitioned for the admission of another new, late-filed contention, similar to the one filed in the Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 proceeding, stemming from the D.C. Circuit's order vacating the WCD. Similarly, this contention is being held in abeyance pursuant to the August NRC Order.

John Sevier Fossil Plant Clean Air Act Permit. In September 2010, the Environmental Integrity Project, the Southern Environmental Law Center, and the Tennessee Environmental Council filed a petition with the EPA, requesting that the EPA Administrator object to the CAA permit issued to TVA for operation of John Sevier. Among other things, the petitioners allege that repair, maintenance, or replacement activities undertaken at John Sevier Unit 3 in 1986 triggered the Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") requirements for SO₂ and NO_x. The CAA permit, issued by TDEC, remains in effect pending the disposition of the petition. The Environmental Agreements should narrow the scope of this proceeding. See Environmental Agreements.

National Environmental Policy Act Challenge at Gallatin Fossil Plant. To comply with the Environmental Agreements and the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, TVA chose to reduce emissions at the Gallatin Fossil Plant by installing controls and an associated landfill. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), TVA completed an Environmental Assessment in March 2013 to assess the impact of installing these emission controls. In April 2013, the Tennessee Environmental Council, Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association, Sierra Club, and Center for Biological Diversity filed suit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging that TVA violated NEPA when it decided to install additional emission controls and construct an associated landfill at the Gallatin Fossil Plant. Plaintiffs demand that TVA prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and are asking the court to enjoin TVA from taking any further action relating to these matters pending compliance with NEPA. This case has been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Kingston Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. The Sierra Club filed a challenge to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit issued by Tennessee for the scrubber-gypsum pond discharge at Kingston in November 2009 before the Tennessee Board of Water Quality, Oil, and Gas ("TN Board"). TDEC is the defendant in the challenge, and TVA has intervened in support of TDEC's decision to issue the permit. The matter was set for a hearing before the TN Board in February 2011, but has since been stayed by agreement of the parties.

Bull Run Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE and the Tennessee Clean Water Network ("TCWN") filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for the Bull Run Fossil Plant in November 2010. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge, and TVA's motion to intervene to support TDEC's decision to issue the permit was granted in January 2011. At the contested case hearing in October 2013, the TN Board granted TDEC's and TVA's joint motion for involuntary dismissal following the conclusion of the petitioners' presentation of evidence.

Johnsonville Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE and TCWN filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for the Johnsonville Fossil Plant in March 2011. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in August 2011. The matter has not yet been given a hearing date before the TN Board.

John Sevier Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE and TCWN filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for John Sevier in May 2011. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in August 2011. The matter has not yet been given a hearing date before the TN Board.

Gallatin Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE, TCWN, and the Sierra Club filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for the Gallatin Fossil Plant in June 2012. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in September 2012. Administrative discovery is underway. The matter has been set for a hearing before the TN Board in September 2014.

Case Involving Colbert Fossil Plant. On April 1, 2013, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM") filed suit in the Circuit Court of Colbert County, Alabama, alleging that unauthorized discharges from TVA's Colbert Fossil Plant were violating the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act. On May 13, 2013, TVA and ADEM entered into a consent decree which resolves this lawsuit. The decree requires, among other things, that TVA continue remediation efforts TVA had begun prior to the suit being filed and stop using an unlined landfill after a lined landfill is approved and constructed. TVA also agreed to pay $150 thousand.

Petitions Resulting from Japanese Nuclear Events. As a result of events that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in March 2011, petitions have been filed with the NRC which could impact TVA's nuclear program. While some petitions have been dismissed after review, petitions that remain open include the following:


•	Petition to Immediately Suspend the Operating Licenses of GE BWR Mark I Units Pending the Full NRC Review With Independent Expert and Public Participation From Affected Emergency Planning Zone Communities

Beyond Nuclear filed a petition in April 2011, requesting that the NRC take emergency enforcement action against all nuclear reactor licensees that operate units that use the General Electric Mark I BWR design. TVA uses this design at Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3. The petition requests the NRC to take several actions, including the suspension of the operating licenses at the affected nuclear units, including Browns Ferry, until several milestones have been met. In December 2011, the NRC provided its initial response to the petition. The NRC accepted five specific requests that would apply directly or indirectly to Browns Ferry, including issues relating to spent fuel pool use and location, Mark I containment hardened vent systems and design, and backup electrical power. Each of these items was accepted for further investigation, but the requests for immediate action were rejected. The NRC has not yet rendered a decision regarding the petition.


•	Twelve separate petitions on various issues

In August 2011, the Natural Resources Defense Council submitted twelve separate letters to the NRC requesting action on various health and safety aspects of operating nuclear facilities in the United States. The NRC is treating these as a single 10 CFR 2.206 Petition. The NRC has not yet rendered a decision regarding the petition.


•	Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 - Demand For Information Regarding Compliance with 10 CFR 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 44, Cooling Water, and 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants

A petition was filed by the Union of Concerned Scientists in July 2011, requesting that a demand for information be issued for affected licensees, including TVA with regards to Browns Ferry, describing how the facilities comply with General Design Criterion 44, Cooling Water, within Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, and with 10 CFR 50.49, Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants, for all applicable design and licensing bases events. The NRC has not yet rendered a decision regarding the petition.