ML18283B688
| ML18283B688 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1976 |
| From: | ACE Federal Reporters |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| Download: ML18283B688 (38) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS IN THE NATTER OF:
TENNESSEE VALXZYAUTHORXTY (Brooms Perry Nuclear plant, Units 1 and 2.)
Dockeh No.
STP 50-259 260
,C41~ Ap pOCÃUQ p;pp6 $7-8 j,l4 ted)o'n oahat e>
p(
- athens, eew<yxzr, pate -
- Thursday, 1 Apr3.1 1976 Pages Telephone:
(Code 202) 547-6222 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERSINC.
0fficial 8'eporters 415 Second Street, N.E.
Washington, D. C.
20002 NATIONWIDECOVERAGE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION liiOlip In the matter of:
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (B'rowns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2.)
Docket. No.
STN 50-259 260
-x" 10 12 13 Board of Commission Meeting Room Limestone County Courthouse Annex Green and Jefferson Streets
- Athens, Georgian 35611
- Thursday, 1 April 1976 14 Prehearing conference in the above-entitled matter 15 was convened pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.,
BEFORE:.
17
'18 THOMAS REILLY, Esq.,
Chairman.
DR.
HUGH PAXTON, Member.
19 DR.
FREDERICK CONAN, Member.
20 APPEARANCES:--
21 23 24 Rapport~
Inc.
25 DAVID G.
POWELL, Esq.,
BRUCE ROSENBERG, Esq.,
WILLIAMDUNKER, Esq.;
and JACK GILLELAND, Assistant Manager of Power, on 'behalf of the Licensee, Tennesee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902.
LAWRENCE BRENNER, Esq.,
RICHARD K. HOEFLING, Esq.,
and THOMAS WAMBACH, NRC Project Manager, Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory
barb2 APPEARANCES (continued):
Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555.
,~
WILLlANE.
GARNER, Esp.,
on behalf of the Inter-
'enor, pro se, Route 4, Box 394, Scottsborough, Alabama; 3 67 68.
10
~ '~s 14 15 17 18 19 20
~,
n 23 24 xe ot Reportea, Inc.
25
PROCEED INGS CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Good morning, ladies and gentle-men.
This is a proceeding of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a prehearing conference in the matter o
Tennessee Valley Authority regarding the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units l and 2.and the application to amend in a number 8
of details and reinstate'he technical specifications author-10 izing operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, after the completion of work necessary to restore the plant following the March 22, 1975fir'e.
12 13 My name is Thomas Reilly. I am the lawyer-chair-man of this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
And my two associates are members of this Board.
On my right is Dr. Hugh Paxton, nuclear reactor physicist from the Los Alamos'Scientific Laboratory.
17 On my left is Dr. Frederick
- Cowan, a health 18 19 physicist and former head of the Health Physics Laboratory at Brook Haven National Laboratory.
20 21 I understand that. the attorneys have been working I
diligently as directed in our order of March 22nd, in an at-22 tempt. to work out in a cooperative spirit some mutually agree-23 able stipulations that might narrow the issues in this parti-24 ee.F l Report~
Inc.
25 P
cular proceeding..
And I also understand that the attorneys would like.
e
barb4 some more time to confer this morning.
Is that the case, Mr. Brenner?
MR.
BRENNER:
Yes, Mr. Reilly; that is the case.
,5 I would estimate for about a half hour, with the possibility we might ask for slightly more than that.
But we will try to keep it to that.
CHAIRMAN REILLY: All right, then.
I am ahead of myself.
I would like counsel at each table to please identi 10 fy themselves and their assistants at counsel table.
Let's start with the licensee, TVA.
12 MR. 'OWELL:
- Yes, sir .
13 I am David Powell, Assistant General Counsel for the Tennessee Valley Authority. I am a member of the Kentucky Bar.
My business address is the Division of Law, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tennessee, zip 37902..
17 With me today is Mr. Bruce Rosenberg, also an at-18
~ 19 torney for the Tennessee Valley Authority and Mr. William Dunker, attorney for the Tennessee Valley Authority, and Mr.
20 Jack Gilleland, who is Assistant Manager of Power for the-21 Tennessee Valley Authority.
22 And both other counsel have filed notice of appear-23 ance in the proceeding, sir..
24 ce-F al Reports, 1nc.
25 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Thank you, Mr. Powell.
And for the NRC Regulatory Staff'
MR.
BRENNER:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am Lawrence Brenner, appearing as counsel for the Staff.
I have not yet filed my formal notice of appearance.
For the Board's information, I am a member of the District of Columbia and New York Bars.
My business address is U. S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D. C.
20555.
Appearing with me this morning is Mr. Richard K.
Hoefling who has filed a formal notice of appearance.
10 Also with us today is Mr. Thomas
- Wambach, who is the NRC Staff Project Manager in charge of Browns Ferry Units l and 2.
12 13 14 15 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Thank you, Mr. Brenner.
And Mr. Garners I
MR.
GARNER:
My name is William E. Garner.
My.
business and residence address is Route 4, Box 394, 17 Scottsborough,
- Alabama, 36768.
I am appearing pro se, as an Intervenor in this 18 matter.
19 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Thank you, Mr. Garner.
20 21 All right. The Board has some schedule commitments with regard to the airlines later this afternoon.
So we have 22 23 some limitations on how long your conferences can take Cer-tainly a half hour or so won't harm anything.
24 we 1 Reporters, tnc.
25 So at this time we will recess and give the attorn-eys a chance to talk some more.
(Recess.)
~
P 0
i
barb6 CHAIKIAN REILLY:
The hearing will come to order.
The hearing conference is now in session.
The Board and the parties, I notice, have been handed Xeroxed copies of some handwritten documents the at-torneys have worked out.
Mr. Brenner, would you like to describe to the Board the purpose of the documents?
10 MR.
BRENNER:
Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a result of discussions which I suppose in-itially started over the telephone prior to this week and then were continued in person yesterday, and as you know, of 12 13 course, this morning; the Intervenor, Staff and Licensee were able to reach agreement on the language of three contentions 14 which would be advanced by the Intervenor in this proceeding.
15 Of course, as the Board and the parties well under-
- stand, our stipulation on the contentions in no way means agreement as to the merits of the contentions but only stipu-18 19 lations as to the framing of the issue by the Intervenor.
Along with agreement on the contentions, we do have 20 21 a stipulation which regard certain aspects of design changes with respect to the facility.
And Mr. Powell, for the Li-22 23 censee, will read that into the record after I. have read the contentions into the record.
24 al Reportca.
inc.
25 It would be our approach, since the latter docu-ment. is a stipulation,to formalize that for the Board as soon
barb7 as we can and file signed copies.
In addition to that, we have agreed to a discovery 9
10 12 13
.schedule on the contentions.
And I suppose I could start out by reading that.
The discovery schedule is not a very detailed one.
One reason for that is we all understand that it is impossible to write good faith into every word of a discovery schedule.
And we are aware of time problems, problems with the physical
'separation of the parties.
And we are each going to do every-thing we can to overcome that in terms of timely delivery of, U
documents
.and basically just staying in close communication with respect to.the various steps of the discovery schedule.
The schedule would be all discovery requests would 14 be filed by April 23, 1976."
Any objections to the discovery requests would be filed ky May,3, 19/6.
All responses to thos 17 18 19 discovery requests not objected to would be filed by May 14, 1976.
I don't believe I have left anything out.
Before
'I I actually read the contentions into the record, I might in-20 quire of the other parties.if there is anything that need be 21 said.
22 23 MR.
GARNER: I don't know whether you want to put P
in re-opening discovery for good cause shown, or whether we 24 ce.F Repocten.
fnc.
25 are going to assume that.
5 MR.
BRENNER:
I will be happy to put that in. It
0 e
barb8 was something we are all aware of.
Under'the Commissi'on's rules
'3 of practice, discovery may be re-opened for good cause
- shown,
.which is normally new information, as Nr. Garner knows and we discussed; MR.
POWELL:
Yes;. that is my understanding of the rul'es, also.
'CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Thank you, Mr. Powell and Mr.
Garner.
MR.
BRENNER: If Nr. Powell has nothing to add 10 overall, I would read the contentions into the record.
. MR.
POWELL:
0 mrall, I would add, Nr. Chairman, 12 that we, of course, are stipulating, agreeing to contentions for purposes
.of the discovery schedule.
And as Mr. Brenner 14 pointedout, without conceding that. any of these contentions hav 15 any merit at all.
18 19 NR.
GARNER:
That's a phrase you have used for the first time, "for discovery only."
But the phrase didn' creep into our conference.
Do you want set a -- If you are subjecting me to that, do you want, to subject yourself to 20 the limitation on a motion, relative to contentions?
21 I mean, you are doing it Hartville style and 22 Belfont style, but you haven't gone the next step.
23 24 cM R~rt~ toe.
25 frankly..
MR.
POWELL May I respond, sir?
CHAIRMAN REILLY: I don't understand the question,
harb9 CHAIRMAN REILLY: I wonder, Mr. Garner, if you coul' t
put your briefcase down so' could hear you better, probably.
MR.
GARNER:
He used a phrase and that he and I have used in cases before, "for the purposes of discovery only."
And in previous cases where we have done that, there has been agreement between the parties that the Applicant and 7
Staff would not move for summary disposition prior to a date 8
that we agreed'on.
Do you understand what I am talking about?
10 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Mr. Powell, I understand the'uestion now.
12 13 MR.. POWELL:
Yes, sir; I think I do, too.
,t Of course, there is a second prehearing conference 14 or a final prehearing conference coming before the evidentiary 15 hearing.
I think that is the time at which we will utlimately 16 decide which issues in controversy will be tried at the hear-17 18 ing.
I What I am merely saying is that because we have 19 20 21 stipulated to contentions here,.that does 'not mean that these are the contentions that will ultimately be tried in the hearing.
22 MR.
GARNER: If you'ad stopped there awhile ago, 23 24 I Reportea, Inc.
25 MR.
BRENNER:
tion and what state of the proceeding it is that'e are-I wouldn'0 have made any'omment, I think we all understand the situa-
10 stipulating to the wording of contentions..
Contention number one:
~0 Intervenor contends that the presently proposed modifications at Browns Ferry, Units 1 and 2, will be inade-quate to provide adequate protection against the functional damage of both redundant components of engineered safeguards equipment from postulated future fires, unless the following necessary modifications are also made:
10 A.
TVA should be required to have an independent cable spreading room for each reactor unit at Browns Ferry, 12 13 Units 1 and 2;
\\
B.
NRC should require TVA to have at least one three-fo'ot wide, eight-foot high aisle in each cable spread-ing room;
~
15 C.
TVA should be required to use cables that do 17 18 not liberate corrosive gases;.
D.
TVA should be required to have the power supply to the ventilation system for all potential fire areas 19 outside the fire areas; 20 21 E.
All redundant Class IE circuits and the equip-I ment served by these circuits should be separated by a fire 22 barrier wall; 23 24 ce.~t Reporten.
inc.
25 F.
A standard installation open-head water spray
\\
sprinklers controlled by an automatic deluge valve and prod-ucts-of-combustion actuated detectors should be provided
barbll in each cable spreading room.
The deluge value should be lo-'ated outside the room and connected to the plants'nunciator system.
10 That. concludes Contention l.
Contention 2 would be phrased as follows:
Intervenor contends that TVA personnel are not technically qualified and competent to satisfactorily com-P piete the work required to restore Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2 after the fire damage, or to satisfactorily complete the design modifications of Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2, necessary to.provide adequate protection against the functional damage 12 13 of both redundant components of engineered safeguards equip-ment from postulate'd future fires, as evidenced by:
14 15 A.
TVA has been guilty of a number of violations E
of NRC requirements and has experienced an unusually large 16 number of'safety-related occurrences" at the Browns Ferry 17 plant (to be identified by Intervenor by -- excuse me; off 18 the record.
19 20 (Discussion off the record.')
MR.
BRENNER:
Back on the record.,
21 22 (continuing) by April 23, 1976; and B..
TVA has had "construction anomalies" in build-23 24 e.
I Reporlers, fnc.
25 ing,the Browns Ferry plant and did not adhere to the original AEC construction requirements as identified in the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement Report on. the
e 0
12 investigation of the March 22, 1975 fire', dated July 25, 1975 a
and in the testimony of NRC officials before the Joint Com-mittee on Atomic Energy hearings on the March 22, 1975 fire.
Contention 3:
'ntervenor contends that NRC's inspection and surveillance program as it relates to Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2 is insufficient to insure that TVA satisfactorily com-pletes the work required to restore the Browns Ferry to restore Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2 after the fire damage, or 10 to assure that TVA satisfactorily completes the design modi-fications of Browns Ferry, Units 1 and 2 to provide adequate 12 13 protection 'agains t, the functional damage of both redundant components of. engineered safeguards equipment from postulated 14 future fires based on NRC's failure to timely detect the de-15 viations from the original AEC construction requirements as identified in the NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement 17 18 Report investigation of the March 22, 1975 fire, dated July 25, 1975 and in the testimony of NRC officials before the Joint 19 Committee on Atomic Energy hearings on the March 22,.1975'fire 20 MR.
BRENNER!
Off the record for one moment.
(Discussion off the record.)
22 23 MR.
BRENNER:
Back on the record..'r.
Chairman,'s I had feared, I did err in two 24 ze-F~ol Reporten, Inc.
25
- places, or perhaps erred-in two places on reading the conten-tions.
I can insert them rather easily at this point.
y
13 ba 13
'I With respect to Contention number 2,,there is a
.2 3
last sentence to subpart B, which was the last subpart of the Contention, which reads as follows:
Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect that future NRC requirements or approved modifications will be adhered to.
I I also apparently omitted a word in Contention 3.
Perhaps the best, way, to do it would be to read the Contention in full. I am sorry to take up the time, but for the sake of the transcript, it might read 'better that way.
And I hope 10 I don' leave out a different word this time.
Contention 3:
12 13 Intervenor contends that. NRC's inspection and sur-l veillance program as it relates to Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2
14 15 17 is insufficient to assure that TVA satisfactorily completes the work required to restore Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2 after the fire damage, or to assure that TVA satisfactorily complete the design modifications of Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2 neces-18 19 20 sary to,provide adequate protection against the-functional damage of both redundant components of engineered safeguards equipment from postulated future fires, based on NRC's failu're 21 22 to timely detect the deviations from the original AEC construe tion requirements,'s identified in the NRC Office of Inspec-23
~4
- e Federof Reports, fnc.
25 tion and Enforcement Report on investigation of the March 22, 1975 fire dated July 25, 1975 and in the testimony of NRC officialsbefore the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
hearings on the March 22, 1975 fire.
That concludes the language of the contentions.
.And I believe the next matter would be to ask Mr. Powell to f
read the stipulation into the record.
CHAIRMAN REXLLY:
Mr. Powell.
II MR.
POWELL:
The stipulation reads as follows:
'Stipulation regarding design changes related to fire detection and extinguishment:
William'E. Garner, intervenor; Tennessee Valley 10 Authority, Licensee, and the NRC Staff hereby stipulate to 12 13 the following in regard to certain design changes related to fire detection and extinguishment:
1.
Licensee will exercise its best efforts to 14 install systems listed in Section 7.6 of the Staff Safety 15 16 Evaluation Report (SER) on Browns Ferry Units 1 and 2, dated February 23,
- 1976, by the first refueling outage of either 17 18 unit.
These systems are as follows:
SER, Section 7.6.1, automatic deluge systems; SER Section 7.6.2, 'automatic pre-19 20 action sprinkler systems; SER Section 7.6.3, manual dry pipe sprinkler system; SER Section 7.6.4, automatic C02 in cable 21 spreading room.
22 2.
The NRC Staff will include a condition in the 23 24 xe-1 Reporters, Inc.
25 licenses for Units 1 and 2 that the systems will be installed by the end of the first refueling outage of either unit. The Licensee has the right, pursuant. to NRC regulations, to apply
15 barb15 to the NRC Staff for modification of this condition in the licenses.
3.
Should.circumstances prevent completion of installation by the first refueling of either unit, in no event will installation be completed later than the second re-fueling of either unit.
And there is a place for the signatures of William E. Garner on his own behalf, David G. Powell for Tennessee 10 Valley Authority, and Lawrence Brenner, for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
And I will undertake to have this typed and exe-0:
12 13 14 cuted and filed pursuant 'to the regulation, sir.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Thank you, Mr. Powell.
Mr. Brenner, what is the next order of business; 15 anything else'7 18 MR, POWELL: It would appear, sir, from the pre-hearing conference order, that we had four items listed.
I would think that the agreement on the contentions and the dis-19 covery schedule and. the stipulation takes us through items 20
- one, two and three.
21 As another matter, we thought that the Board might 22 be interested -- probably not today in view of your plane 23 schedule but some time during the course of the proceeding,
~
24 ce-F I Reporlers, inc.
25 to visit the Browns Ferry plant.
And we would be glad to 4
have you there if we could know a tad in advance when you
16
~
would plan to.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
We would like to do that; de-finitely, not this trip but on the occasion of our next pre-hearing conference, which would be, I take it, shortly before the start of the evidentiary hearing.
And as part of item three, I was wondering if the counsel could give us some idea, since you have a schedule for discovery, any kind of an estimate of when the evidentiary hearing might be ready to be scheduled.
10 MR.
BRENNER:
Mr. Reilly, perhaps I can address that.
13 With respect to the hearing process dependent portions of the schedule, it would seem that the hearing could 15 commence within a short, reasonable.
time after the responses to discovery, a period that would allow time to file the 17 written testimony in advance and then a set a mutually agree-able date.
18 But there would be no reason why it couldn't pro-19 20 ceed in a rather short time period, as far as the hearing schedule.
21 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
So does that put us into the be-22 23 ginning of June?
~
MR.
BRENNER:
I would think so, Mr. Chairman.
24 ce-F eral Report@a, inc.
25 The other matter that I must point out is that there are open items in the Staff Safety Evaluation, which
17 barbl7 was issued February 23, l976.
The schedule for issuance of a supplement to the Safety Evaluation is totally dependent on the timely submission of responses by the Licensee and then our review of those responses To the extent.
we have any dis-agreement with the adequacy of the response, then a supplement could not issue.
So I could not give you a date for that supplement.
P I therefore woul'd not know at this time whether a supglement-might become the pacing item for a hearing, or whether com-10 pletion of the discovery schedule would become a pacing item.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Dr. Cowan had some questions 12 13 prepared before we started.
Some of them may have been an-swered by counsel's remarks.
But why don'5 you.run through them.
17 18 19 20 DR.
COWAN:
Is there anything that the Applicant can add to what Mr. Brenner said about the responses to the SER and the possible date of issuance of the supplement?
MR.
POWELL:.
Well, yes, sir, Dr. Cowan; it is
'ertainly in our interest to see that. supplement to the SER out just as quickly as possible for purposes of, not only 21 moving the proceeding along, but winding up that review and 22 23 24
~-F cool Rcportea, bx.
25 operating units.
So we have every incentive to resolve those open e
items that will enable the Staff to complete that supplement just as soon as possible.
18 barbl8 DR.
CONAN:
Let me look at my notes.
I think the Board will be concerned with these
- matters, which will mostly come up in the supplement.
We 4
would like to be brought up to date at'he time of the hearing in regard to the pending items that have been finished, the pend-ing items that are required before startup, and the ones
'that're left, to the first refueling outage.
I'nd, of course, if there are items that are le'ft to the second refueling outage, which is a new concept in 10 13 the papers that we have, we would want those brought forth.
~ My second 'question had to do with the supplementary
- SER, becaus'e I. know it does take quite a little time to re-.
solve th'ese matters.
And obviously, we can't be definite 14 15 about that.
But the Board would hope that this would be brought alo'ng as promptly as possible.
We would want both the parties to address them-17 18 selves to the status of the NRC response to the five sugges-tions that have been made'by the Advisory Committee on Reactor
. 19 20 Safety in their recent letter..
,And I think'it would be appropriate for something 21 22 to be said about.
how the TVA compliance record compares with the records of other power reactor companies'in recent years.
23 And, also, of'ourse, we would be interested in 24 zc-
- Reports, Inc; 25 some comment about the seriousness and the nature of the de-partures from approved design which have been referred to in
some of the documents already.
These are matters which perhaps might wait for--
to be mentioned at our next prehearing conference.
But it doesn'0 do any harm to bring forth the Board's concerns at an early time in the'roceedings.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Do we have anything further from'ounsel?
MR.
GARNER:
I would like to comment on what has just been said.
10 I am --'bviously enough, I don't have the imme-12 diate resour'ces.at my command that the Applicant and the NRC Staff has..
And I would not be prepared at this time to 13 address the question of when I would be ready for an evident-iary hearing.
A lot of that, depends on discovery, anyway.
15 I don't think we got it into our stipulation -- We 18 were trying to cover so much.
But we have an agreement be-tween the Intervenor and the attorneys, as I understand it, that following the supplement, if something new develops, then 19 we can approach that.
20 And I would'like to suggest, since the stipulation 21 is hand-printed and the contentions are handwritten, and there 22 23 have been changes, I will have to resort to using,a transcript in the Public Document Room.
And I don'. know whether the 24 cd Reports, inc.
25 Applicant and the Staff get fast copies of the transcript, or the cheaper, a few days later, copies.
20
/
And I would like to suggest that when Mr. Brenner gets back to Bethesda that. he types this and mails it to the 3
parties and to the Board.
And I would like to suggest that even before the stipula'tion is executed, that Mr. Powell would do the same thing with that when he gets back to Knoxville, which I am sur 7.
they would be glad to do.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Mr.
Brenner?'R.
BRENNER:
- Yes, we had, of course,,agreed to 10 type the stipulation.
I think typing the contentions are a
11 good idea. 'I am not sure whether the Staff might do it, or 12 perhaps TVA could combine it with the whole document.
I 13 will be traveling and will not be--
15 MR.
GARNER:
I would rather that TVA do it, because then I can get it one or two days quicker.
But I didn't want
]6 to put the burden on Mr. Powell to--
17 18 MR.
POWELL:
I will be most happy to do it, if I may have Mr. Brenner's notes from which he read.
I will do that upon arriving back at Knoxville.
20 21 I guess one'other point -- I know we can expect a prehearing conference order, or an order as a result of this prehearing conference from the Board.
But without being 23 too presumptious,.I gues's I will assume that the contentions 24 1 Reports, Inc.
25 to which we have agreed will, in some form or another, will, come out in the order, so that I would be happy to have any
discovery requests from Mr. Garner prior to the time of the final deadline for discovery that we had mentioned earlier, so we will be ready to respond at any time from that day for-ward on those contentions.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Mr. Brenner?
MR.
BRENNER:
I did not get a chance to respond to Mr. Garner's
- comment, that. if there was any new information in the supplement I guess he was alluding to perhaps addi-tional discovery or new items.
10 As I said previously; we had generally agreed that any new material is considered in the Commission's rules to 12 13 be good cause.for further discovery.
And certainly if there is any new material in the SER supplement, that would come under that category.
15 As I said, the discovery schedule is not very de-tailed.
But Mr. Garner and I discussed his good faith in 17 making a discovery request on new material in a very timely 18
~ 19 20 21 fashion, after he became aware of the new material, talking about a matter of days as opposed to a matter of weeks.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Mr. Garner.
MR.
GARNER:
I understand that, and I also under-22 23 24 ce F al Reportea, inc.
25 stand new evidence to mean newly discovered
- evidence, evidence that's not just something that happened after this date, but something that I had not been able to find out through no fault of my own, some evidence that someone might be
22 r
withholding or something like that.
So we might as well clari fy that.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
We don'5 speculate on an argu-ment of what would constitute good cause just in a vacuum here.
If you come up with a motion MR.
GARNER:
That was my objection, but he pinned it down.
P MR.
BRENNER:- I am sorry, Mr. Chairman; one more thing:
10 I would like to,give the Staff's view as to the scope of the hearing.
This is a hearing on a license amend-12 13 ment.
And it j.s our view that to a large extent the scope of the hearing would be governed by the scope of the matters in 14 15 contest with, of course, the exception as recognized in the I guess the Commission and the Appeal Board decision as to the range beyond the contentions for significant safety mat-17 ters.
18 There are many items within the Staff's review
. 19 and will'be in the SER, which are not the subject of conten-20 21 tions.
And we would not plan on addressing the evidentiary portion of. the hearing to those items unless otherwise dir-22 ected.
23 24'<e.
ca1 Repartee,
!nc.
25 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Well, as the Board pointedout, I guess in our ruling on the petition, that is the Board's view of the scope of this hearing that's limited by 'the scope of
23 barb23 the request of amendments and modifications and the conten-tions in issue.
MR.
GARNER:
I have one more minor item t6 add.
You might want to visit the plant while it is in a safe shut-down condition.
(Laughter..)
And you might want to visit it before the next prehearing conference in connection in preparing -- Could that be arranged, Mr.,Powell?
10 MR.
POWELL:
Yes, sir.
12 MR.
GARNER:
The Board I would like to visi't--
MR.
POWELL:
I think it is the Board's turn to 13 respond.
14 15 CHAIRMAN REILLY: I think what Mr. Garner is talkin about, Mr.. Garner, I think, your opportunity visit the site, not, the Board visit?
17 18 MR.
GARNER: I know I am permitted to accompany the Board if you accompany, but I would like to do it before.
19 MR.
POWELL: If Mr. Garner would like to visit 20 the site, all he has to do is let me know and I will arrange 21 22 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Thank you.
23 24 4ce.
ol Reporters, Inc.
25 MR.
GARNER:
-Thank you.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Gentlemen, as I understand it now, the Board and parties will be receiving typed copies of
24 barb24 1
these handwritten documents we received.
MR.
POWELL:
Yes, sir.
CHAIRRN REILLY:
Would it, seem appropriate,
- then, for us to wait?
I don't know how long it will take; but C,
for us to wait until we receive our typed copies of these 8
things?
A'nd then perhaps we can incorporate them into our t
prehearing conference order so everyone has it.
'R.
GARNER:
That, was one of the reasons I men-
'ioned it.
10 CHAIRMAN REILLY:
That was in line with Mr.
Garner's
- comment, yes.
12 13 MR.'OWELL:
That is certainly agreeable, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN REILLY:
Gentlemen, do we have anything 14 15 further, then for this prehearing conference?
MR.
POWELL:
Not from TVA, sir.
~ 16 MR.
BRENNER:
Nothing further from the.Staff, Mr.
17 Chairman.
18 MR.
GARNER:
Nothing from the Intervenor.
19 CHAIRMAN REILLY: These proceedings are adjourned.
20 21 22 23 (Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m., the prehearing confer-ence in the above-entitled matter was adjourned to re-.
r convene pursuant to notice.)
l I
g s
'I t
Me-F~rat Reporters, Inc.
25