XML 61 R24.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies and Legal Proceedings | Contingencies and Legal Proceedings 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 $5.1 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 $120 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 $35 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 March 31, 2015, the present value of the estimated future decommissioning cost of $2.1 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 and Note 11. Non-Nuclear Decommissioning. The present value of the estimated future non-nuclear decommissioning ARO was $1.1 billion at March 31, 2015. 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 non-nuclear 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 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. TVA estimates that compliance with future Clean Air Act ("CAA") requirements (excluding greenhouse gas ("GHG") requirements) could lead to additional costs of $800 million from 2015 to 2025 for additional clean air controls. There could be additional material costs if reductions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, 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, 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 in connection with which other potentially responsible parties may seek monetary damages from TVA. There is information indicating that TVA sent a small amount of equipment to Ward Transformer ("Ward"), a non-TVA site in Raleigh, North Carolina. The site is contaminated by PCBs from electrical equipment due to Ward’s practice of draining such equipment. A working group of potentially responsible parties is cleaning up on-site contamination in accordance with an agreement with the EPA. The cleanup effort has been divided into multiple phases, including on-site and downstream cleanup activities, two phases of soil cleanup, supplemental groundwater remediation, and cleanup of off-site contamination in the downstream drainage basin. TVA settled its potential liability for the on-site removal action for $300 thousand and has agreed to pay approximately $8 thousand to settle its potential liability in connection with an EPA study of the site. TVA believes that its liability for the remaining cleanup and remediation activities as well as any natural resource damages will be less than $1 million. TVA operations at some TVA facilities have resulted in oil spills and other contamination that TVA is addressing. At March 31, 2015, 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 $12 million on a non-discounted basis, and was included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities and Other long-term liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet. 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 March 31, 2015, TVA had accrued approximately $151 million of probable losses with respect to Legal Proceedings and estimated the range of these losses to be from $151 million to $153 million. Of the accrued amount, $79 million is included in Other long-term liabilities and $72 million is included in Accounts payable and accrued liabilities. 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, a Federal Facilities Compliance Agreement with the EPA and a consent decree with Alabama, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and three environmental advocacy groups: the Sierra Club, 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 sulfur dioxide ("SO 2") and nitrogen oxide ("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 existing and possible claims against TVA based on alleged New Source Review and associated violations were waived and cannot be brought against TVA. Some possible claims 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. Legal Proceedings Related to the Kingston Ash Spill. Seventy-eight lawsuits based on the Kingston ash spill were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Fifteen of these lawsuits were dismissed. On August 4, 2014, the court issued an agreed order that implements a mediated global resolution of pending claims. Under the order, the 63 pending cases were dismissed with prejudice, and TVA deposited $28 million with the court, which is responsible for disbursing the funds. The order anticipates that further legal proceedings will be required to resolve the claims of nine of the plaintiffs, and a portion of the $28 million was set aside under the order to cover the anticipated costs of resolving these claims. Claims of seven of the nine plaintiffs have been resolved. In April 2015, the court dismissed the claims of the remaining two plaintiffs. 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 initially paid $10 million, and agreed to undertake environmental projects valued at $2 million as a credit against the remaining penalty amount. TVA completed several of those projects and paid TDEC the small remaining difference rather than do more projects. In addition, TVA paid $750 thousand over three years into the Natural Resource Restoration Fund to support the assessment of natural resource damages associated with the Kingston spill. 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. In September 2010, the district court dismissed this action, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 14 days against TVARS and TVA but not the individual directors, which the plaintiffs did shortly thereafter. 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. In November 2013, TVA filed a motion for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on February 8, 2015. The motions are pending before the court. Cases Involving Gallatin Fossil Plant CCR Facilities. In January 2015, the State of Tennessee filed a lawsuit against TVA in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. The lawsuit alleges that waste materials have been released into waters of the state from CCR facilities at Gallatin Fossil Plant ("Gallatin") in violation of the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act and the Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act. TDEC is seeking injunctive relief as well as civil penalties of up to $17,000 per day for each day TVA is found to have violated the statutes. In February 2015, the court issued an order allowing the Tennessee Scenic Rivers Association ("TSRA") and the Tennessee Clean Water Network ("TCWN") to intervene in the case. In April 2015, TSRA and TCWN filed a lawsuit against TVA in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging that waste materials have been released into the Cumberland River from CCR facilities at Gallatin in violation of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and civil penalties of up to $37,500 per violation per day. 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 Waste Confidence Decision ("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; this determination has been a key component of the NRC licensing activities since 1984. The most recent update provided that a permanent repository would be available when necessary and that spent fuel could be safely stored for 60 years after a plant's operating license was terminated. The D.C. Circuit vacated this update on the grounds that, among other things, the NRC failed to support these findings with an adequate National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") review and the NRC did not evaluate environmental impacts if the repository was never built. In June 2012, multiple intervenor groups submitted a petition to the NRC to (1) hold in abeyance all pending reactor licensing decisions that would depend upon the WCD and (2) 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 2012 NRC Order") preventing the issuance of a final licensing decision in all proceedings affected by the petition, including the proceedings involving Watts Bar Nuclear Plant ("Watts Bar") Unit 2, Sequoyah Nuclear Plant ("Sequoyah"), and Bellefonte Nuclear Plant ("Bellefonte") Units 3 and 4. In August 2014, the NRC issued its final rule on continued storage of spent nuclear fuel ("Continued Storage Rule"), which replaced the WCD, and terminated its suspension of final licensing decisions, dismissed contentions related to the WCD pending before the NRC, and directed Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards ("ASLBs") to dismiss contentions related to the WCD that were being held in abeyance. In September 2014, multiple intervenor groups submitted a petition to the NRC in multiple reactor licensing proceedings to suspend the issuance of final decisions in those proceedings until the NRC generically makes additional findings related to spent fuel disposal or those findings are made in individual licensing proceedings. The NRC rejected this petition in February 2015. In addition, several petitions for review have been filed in the D.C. Circuit challenging the Continued Storage Rule. In January 2015, multiple intervenor groups submitted a petition to the NRC in multiple reactor licensing proceedings, asking the NRC to direct its staff to supplement environmental impact statements to incorporate by reference the generic environmental impact statement released in connection with the Continued Storage Rule. 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 Units 1 and 2. The petition contained 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 ASLB opposing the admission of all eight of the petitioners' contentions. In July 2013, the ASLB concluded that BREDL was the only one of the three petitioners that had 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 the WCD in abeyance pending further direction from the NRC. In September 2014, the ASLB denied BREDL's contention related to the WCD. Following the publication of the Continued Storage Rule, BREDL filed a petition with the NRC seeking suspension of the issuance of a final decision in the Sequoyah proceeding and a motion with the ASLB seeking leave to file a new, late-filed contention related to the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected this petition in February 2015. See Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. With the NRC’s rejection of the final pending contention, the ASLB issued an order terminating the administrative proceeding in March 2015. In April 2015, BREDL filed motions with the NRC to reopen the record and to admit a new contention arguing that the environmental impact statement for Sequoyah must incorporate by reference the generic environmental impact statement released in connection with the Continued Storage Rule. 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, BEST, BREDL, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy ("SACE") submitted a joint petition for intervention and a request for a hearing. The 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 April 2012, the ASLB issued an order maintaining the proceeding in "active" status, but amending the disclosure schedule. 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. In September 2014, the ASLB denied BREDL’s request to file the new contention. Following the publication of the Continued Storage Rule, BREDL filed a petition with the NRC seeking suspension of the issuance of a final decision in the Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 proceeding and a motion with the ASLB seeking leave to file a new, late-filed contention stemming from the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected this petition in February 2015. See Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. 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 July 2013, SACE filed a motion to withdraw its remaining aquatic impact contention. The ASLB granted this motion later that same month. 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. In September 2014, the ASLB denied SACE’s request to file the contention related to the WCD and terminated the proceeding. Following the publication of the Continued Storage Rule, SACE filed a petition with the NRC seeking suspension of the issuance of a final decision in the Watts Bar Unit 2 proceeding and motions with the ASLB to reopen the record and for leave to file a new, late-filed contention stemming from the Continued Storage Rule. The NRC rejected this petition in February 2015. See Case Involving the NRC Waste Confidence Decision on Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. In addition, in February 2015, SACE filed motions with the NRC to reopen the record and to admit a new contention relating to the expedited seismic evaluation process report for Watts Bar that TVA filed with the NRC in December 2014 as part of the Fukushima lessons-learned review process. These motions were denied in April 2015. In April 2015, SACE also filed motions with the NRC to reopen the record and to admit a new contention arguing that the environmental impact statement for Watts Bar Unit 2 must incorporate by reference the generic environmental impact statement released in connection with the Continued Storage Rule. 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 SO 2 and NO x. The CAA permit, issued by TDEC, remains in effect pending the disposition of the petition. TVA has now retired all four John Sevier coal-fired units, and this challenge likely will not proceed. National Environmental Policy Act Challenge at Paradise Fossil Plant. To comply with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, TVA chose to retire two coal-fired units at Paradise Fossil Plant and replace them with natural gas generation. Prior to making this decision, TVA completed an Environmental Assessment in November 2013 under NEPA. In July 2014, the Kentucky Coal Association and several individuals filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that TVA violated NEPA and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 in deciding to switch to natural gas generation. The plaintiffs demand that TVA prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, and are asking the court to preliminarily enjoin TVA from taking any further action relating to these matters pending compliance with NEPA. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction in December 2014 and dismissed the case in February 2015. In March 2015, the plaintiffs appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. 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. At the request of the parties, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned to the matter has stayed the case until October 15, 2015. 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. In December 2013, TCWN and SACE filed a petition for review of the TN Board's decision in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. In March 2015, the court issued a final order affirming the TN Board's decision, and the petitioners subsequently appealed the court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 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 plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case in February 2015. 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 plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this case in February 2015. Gallatin Fossil Plant NPDES Permit Administrative Appeal. SACE, TCWN, and the Sierra Club filed a challenge to the NPDES permit for Gallatin in June 2012. TDEC is the defendant in the challenge. TVA's motion to intervene was granted in September 2012. Following discovery, SACE, TCWN, and the Sierra Club voluntarily dismissed seven of the eight claims asserted in their petition. TVA moved to dismiss the remaining claim, and the ALJ assigned to the matter granted TVA’s motion and dismissed the case. On November 7, 2014, SACE, TWCN, and the Sierra Club filed a petition for review of the ALJ's dismissal in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. In February 2015, the court issued a final order affirming that the Gallatin NPDES permit was lawfully issued. In March 2015, the petitioners appealed the court's decision to the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 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 ultimately denied 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.

X
- Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration