ML19331A374

Response to Saginaw Intervenors' Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument.Discusses Saginaw Intervenors' Procedural Deficiencies.Requests That Motion Be Denied.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331A374
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades, Midland
Issue date:	11/01/1974
From:	Bron P, Brown P BECHTEL GROUP, INC., CLARK, KLEIN, WINTER, PARSONS & PREWITT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007160934
Download: ML19331A374 (5)

Text

<

^

UNITED STATES OF AIGRICA AT0!GC ENERGY CO2iISSION

,5 t t

/) ,,) BEFORE THE h # ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Construction Permit COIGUMERS PCWER COMPANY Nos. 81 and 82 (Show Cause)

(Midland Plant, Uhits 1 and 2)/

RESPONSE OF BECHTEL PC'4ER CORPORATION AND BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TO SAGINAW-SIERRA'S MOTION FOR DISCO'/ERY IN AID OF ORAL ARGUMENT Bechtel Pcwer Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Ccr-poration ("Bechtel") hereby responds to Saginaw-Sierra's Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument.

1. Bechtel objects to the discovery requests of Saginav-Sierra.

Bechtel believes, however, that the centracts which are the subject of Censumers Power Company's Complaint against Bechtel and other defendants were attached to the Complaint and, therefore, are available as c:atters of public record.

2. Bechtel reaffirms its contentien that =atters relating to the construction of the Palisades Plant are irrelevant to the issues of Quality Assurance Program implementatien at Midland, and incorperates by reference its arguments heretofore presented on the issue of relevancy. Suffice it to say 1 " Objections of Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Pro-fessional Corporation to First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Bechtel Corporation," filed on April 29,1974; "Bechtel's Reply to Saginaw's Extra-Record Correspondence to the Atomic Safety and Li-censing Board," filed on May 6,'1974; " Response of Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation to Saginaw-sierra's Petition to Reopen the Record and/or Reconsideration

![,

of Initial Decision," filed on October 10, 1974 8007160 73Cy g

s '

• e ,

that not only are the substantive issues (construction methods and tech-niques vs. Quality Assurance Program implementation) not capable of being meaningfully compared but the design, procurement and construction of the Palisades and Midland Plants have no ec==en denominator. The Palisades Plant was, for the most part, designed and constructed according to the regulations,. codes, standards, criteria and techniques in existence and available between 1965 and 1970. The Midland Plant, on the other hand, will be designed and constructed according to the regulations, codes, standards, criteria and techniques in existence and available subsequent to 1970. Furthermore, as this Board noted in its Initial Decision, both Bechtel and Consumers have been updating and improving their respective 2

organizations, procedures and programs over the years. Thus, meaningful comparison of the Midland Plant today with the Midland Plant of 1970 would be difficult enough but it is virtually impossible to compare the Midland Plant today with the Palisades Plant.

3 The issues before this Board in this proceeding have been:

(1) Whether the licensee is implementing its quality assurance program in compliance with Commision regulations; and (2) Whether there is a reasonable assurance that such implementationwilgcontinuethroughoutthecon-struction process, 2 Initial Decision, September 25, 1974, pages 25-58.

3 Memorandum and Order, December 20, 1973, RAI-73-12 at 1083 After an extensive' hearin6 on these issues,- this Board determined the facts to be such as requiring that the above issues be answered in the affirmative as a matter of law. Saginaw-Sierra has petitioned for a review of that decision. Accordingly, the issues at this time are not the comparison of the Midland and Palisades contracts or the merits of Consumers' lawsuit but are solely whether the mere filing of a lawsuit torecoverdamagesforallegedlyunsatisfactorydesign,procurementand/or construction of the Palisades Plant is relevant to whether or not the Midland plant's Quality Assurance Program ~ has been properly i=plemented and will continue to be implemented in the future and whether the Complaint is of such importance to those issues that this Board must begin the Ludland Show Cause hearing anew in crder to litigate the issues in the federal court lawsuit and determine their effect on Quality Assurance Program im-plementation at Midland.

h. Bechtel objects to Saginaw-Sierra's suggestion that the filing of the lawsuit by Consumers is " prima facie' evidence of " inconsistent positions" with respect to Bechtel's qualifications. Furthermore, Bechtel states that the filing of the lawsuit has no relevance whatsoever to any issues properly before this Board under the Order to Show Cause and that the existence of the lawsuit is irrelevant md immaterial to the only question at issue here, namely the qusstion of whether or not Consumers and Bechtel have been properly implementing the Quality Assurance requirements and whether they will continue to do so in the future.

i 4

Initial Decision, September 25, 1974, pages 37, 58, 59  ;

. e i

I e

5. Saginaw-Sierra's statement that without the requested dis-covery it will be " unable adequately to present oral argument" is a boot-strap attempt to get at the merits by bypassing the purpose for the oral argument. Saginaw-Sierra is seeking to reopen this hearing becauso some supposedly new, allegedly relevant information was not considered by this Licensing Board. The burden of proof clearly resides on the proponent of 6

that motion, Saginaw-Sierra. The Complaint is couched in only the most general of terms. It may take months of disenvery and the examination of many thousands of documents to determine, the precise allegations contained therein. But before the merits of the Complaint can be considered, Saginaw-Sierra must first bear the burden of proving not only that the filing of the Complaint concerning construction methods and techniques at Palisades is somehev relevant and material to Quality Assurance Program implementation at Midland but also that the Complaint is of such significance that it war-rants reopening the Show Cause hearing for the examination of allegaticns which are properly before a federal court. Thus, the discovery which Saginaw-Sierra seeks for the purpose of oral argument is irrelevant and immaterial since it goes to the merits of the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, EECHTEL prays that this Licensing Board deny Saginaw-Sierra's " Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument.

Re e lly submitted,

.0 V' P. Robert Brown, Jr.

Individually and for the ..rm Clark, Klein, Winter, Parsons & Prewitt November 1, 1974 1600 First Federal Building, Detroit, FE.4'8226 Attorneys for Eechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation 5

Additionally, the statement is unsupported and unsworn to and, therefore, does not comply with the requirements of 10 CFR $2.730(b).

6 10 CFR $2.732

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C0!C4ISSION In the Matter of )

) Construction Permit CONSU'4ERS POWER COMPAIIY . ) Hos. 81 and 82

)

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

CERT'.FICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached " Response of Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation to Saginav-Sierra's Motion for Discovery in Aid of Oral Argument" dated November 1,197h in the above captioned matter have been served on the following in persen or by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, or air ail, this ist day of Novenber, 1974 Secretary (20) John G. Gleeson, Esq.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Legal Department ,

Attn: Chief, Public Proceedings The Dow Chemical Company Branch 2030 Dov Center Washington, DC 20545 Midland, MI h86h0 James P. Murray, Jr. Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Chief Rulemaking and R. Rex Renfrov III, Esq.

Enforcement Counsel Isham, Lincoln & Beale U.S. Atomic Energy Commission One First National Plaza - h2nd Floor Washington, DC 205h5 Chicago, IL 60670 Michael Glaser, Esq. Lester Kornblith, Jr.

1150 17th Street, NW U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 205h5 Dr. E==eth A. Luebke Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission One IBM Plaza Washington, DC 205h5 Suite h501 Chicago, IL 60611 Mr. Richard S. Sal man Mr. Michael C. Farrar l U.S. Atomic Energy Ccmmission U.S. Atomic Energy Commission l Washington , DC 205h5 Washington, DC 205k5 l

Dr. Lawrence R. Quarles Mr. William J. Olmstead U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Office of the General Counsel Regulations Washington, DC 205h5 Ni!6ih N b C" 25N*

1 A v

,