ML19331B061
| ML19331B061 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1974 |
| From: | Scoville L, Senger C BECHTEL GROUP, INC., BECHTEL POWER CORP., CLARK, KLEIN, WINTER, PARSONS & PREWITT, EECBECHA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007250759 | |
| Download: ML19331B061 (10) | |
Text
SC/'Oc4//$3a
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS In the Matter of
)
P00R QUAUTY PAGES
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Construction Pemit
)
Nos. 81 and 62 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
OBJECTIONS OF BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION MiD BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
("BECHTEL") TO SAGINAW-SIERRA'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Bechtel objects to that portion of Saginav-Sierra's " Motion to Conpel Answers to Interrogatories" as relates to Bechtel's Answers to Interrogatories 7,10(f),10(g), and 12(b)(c) for the following reasons:
1.
On May 22, 197L Bechtel filed approximately 100 pages of ansvers to exceedingly broad Interrogatories propounded by Saginav-Sierra.
2.
Due to the fact that there has been no particularization of the specific complaints involved in this Show Cause proceeding other than cadwelding, the scope of the proceeding together with the scope of the Interrogatories has required the analysis of a tremendous file of papers in addition to rany meetings with numerous people in order to collect the information which was thought to be relevant to the Interrogatories and to the proceeding itself.
3.
While the burden of investigating and answering Interrogatories is not always a ec=plete objection, it is extremely relevant in a situation where the precise issues in the proceeding have not been defined by the (8001250 7 F I
proponents of the proceeding (AEC R.egulatory Staff and Saginav-Sierra), and where the Interrogatories themselves filed by Saginav-Sierra are as overly broad as Interrogatory 7 to which Saginaw nov claims Bechtel filed an incomplete answer.
Interregatory 7 reads as follows:
" Identify in connection with each of Consumers Power Company facilities as set forth in the definitional section each document ever received or reviewed, each meeting you have had (include dates and names of attendees) and each physical structure you have reviewed in connection with your analysis of first co=pliance with quality assurance regulations and second reasonable assurance of continuation with compliance with quality assurance regulations."
l Bechtel's Answer to Interrogatory 7 is as follows:
"Bechtel's overall quality assurance program includes quality related activities perfor=ed by each of the following groups or departments: Quality Assurance; Quality Control; Engineering; Procurement Inspection; Materials, Fabrication and Quality Control Services; and Construction. As indicated in Bechtel's Objections to the Saginav Interrogatories, each of these groups
)
or departments generates a large volume of documents during the course of the implementation and performance of its quality requirements.
The total of these documents is estimated to be in excess of one million pieces of paper. A number of Bechtel employees, and Bechtel's counsel, have been reviewing these documents during the last three months in order to identify and collect the relevant documents. As indicated in Bechtel's Objections to Saginav's Request for an Extension of Time Regarding Motion for Production of Documents, the majority, if not all, of the documents for which identification is sought in Saginav's Interrogatories vill be promptly available for inspection and copying and Bechtel vill make them available in lieu of listing each of them. Additionally, in its Answer to Interrogatory 16, i
Bechtel identifies its various categories of quality related documents. The review of Bechtel's documents has been a monumental task. Accord *ngly, it is possible that some relevant documents vill, by inadvertent., not be offered for inspection, although Bechtel has made and continues to make a good faith effort to produce all relevant dccuments for which Saginav requested identification.
Using the term ' meeting' in its broadest sense, there have been hundreds and probably thousands of meetings cr conversations between two or more persons concerning substantially all quality _
4 d
assurance / quality control matters pertaining to,the Midland Project.
It is impossible to identify each such meeting.
Minutes of such meetings, to the extent they were prepared, vill be made available for inspection and copying together with the documents referred to above, and generally include the names of attendees.
Meetings. or conversations for which minutes may or may not have-bren prepared include:
rome of the reports referred to in the Answer to Interrogatory 12(c); audit planning and audit exit interviews;.hvaluations of vendors and subcontrac-tors' QA Programs; items re: erred to in the QA Daily Log; manage-ment visits to the site; discussions with various AEC and client representatives; constructien, procurement and engineering procedures; quality assurance trends; quality assurance and quality control organization; cadwelding; resumption of construction after demobilization; ALAB-106 procedures; and the implementation activities of each of Bechtel's groups having quality responsibilities which are discussed in the Answer to Interrogatory 10(i).
Bechtel interprets the term ' physical structure' to include the structures, systems and components which prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public, upon which design or construction activities have begun. A list of such structures is attached as Exhibit 7-1."
Saginav-Sierra now claims, a month after the interrogatory answer a
was filed, that it did not identify the documents and meetings with sufficient j
specificity.
i As indicated in Bechtel's Interrogatory Answer 7, Bechtel has identi-fled the catagories of quality documentation which it maintains throughout quality assurance, quality control, engineering, procurement inspection, construction and taterials fabrication and quality centrol services.
Bechtel further pointed out that there have been hundreds and probably thousands of meetings or conversations concerning quality assurance and quality control matters pertaining to the Midland project.
In order to avoid the unduly burdensome, laborious and time consuming task of listing each piece of paper, including minute's of. meetings, and attempting to determine the dates of all. -.
4 4
ceetings relating to quality assurance and quality control, where minutes of such meetings did not exist, and ccnsistent with the Board's desire to hold an early hearing in this matter and its ruling denying Saginav's motion for an extension of time within which to file a motion for production of documents, 3echtel listed the catagories of documents relating to the foregoing groups in its answer to Interrogatory 16.
In a further attempt to facilitate discovery by Saginav-Sierra, Bechtel also identified the types of meetings which vere held.
I:
h.
Although the documents have been available for inspection and copying, Saginas-Sierra has neither identified any persons or any catagories of documents it wished to examine nor expressed any desire to do so.
j 5.
Interrogatory 10(f) to Bechtel states:
i "With reference to your ' Petition to Intervene' filed in this i
proceeding state:
4 I
(f) Describe in detail each issue adverse to the continuation of Construction Permit Ros. 81 and 82 as you use those terns in paragraph 3 of your petition."
i
.Bechtel's Answer to Interrogatory 10(f) was:
"Any proper issus within the scope of this proceeding and I
within the perview of the two issues stated in the Order to Shov Cause, which is timely raised by the Atomic
{
Safety and Licensing Board, the Regulatory Staff or the Saginav Intervenors, and approved as a contested issue i
by the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board."
Saginav-Sierra's' objection to Bechtel's Answer to Interrogatory 10(f)
. is sus follows:
_h_
"Bechtel did not answer Interrogatory No. 10(f). That Interrogatory sought Bechtel's analysis of the issues in the proceeding as defined by its Petition To Intervene not by virtue of what someone else night happen to raise."
/u. analysis of Saginav-Sierra's cbjection requires a review of Paragraph 3 of Bechtel's Petition to Intervene which stated:
"BECHTEL desires to participate as a party to assist in developing a sound record with res:,act to any issues adverse -
to the continuation of Construction Pennits Nos. 81 and 82, to the extent that such issues relate to the perfon=ance and reputation of EECHTEL and its technical qualification to continue to provide and implement its quality assurance for the proposed facilities in compliance with Commission regulations."
Implicit in Bechtel's Answer to Interrogatory 10(f) is the fact that Quality. Assurance is an extremely broad subject which is exceedingly difficult to examine without specification of individual issues by the parties supporting the Order to Show Ceuse.
Other than the two general issues stated in the Order to.Show Cause, Bechtel does not believe that there are any issues adverse to the continustion of Construction Permits Nos. 81 and 82 other than any issues which were " timely raised by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Regulatory Staff or the Saginaw Intervenors, and approved as a contested issue by the Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board." The statement in Bechtel's Petition to Intervene was only an indication that Bechtel had an interest in providing a proper record concerning any issues properly raised.
6.
Interrogatory 10(g) to Bechtel states:
"With reference to your ' Petition to Intervene' filed in this proceeding state:,
b
Describe each fact upon which you base (and.to which
_ you nahe reference in) the last two sentences of the first paragraph of paragraph h of your petition."
The last two sentences of the first paragraph of paragraph h of Bechtel's Petition to Intervene state:
"The Order to Shov Cause presents several alleged contentions and makes reference to further allegations contained in a letter written by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to the DRO on November 26, 1973.
These allegations, if allowed as contentions, relate directly to EECETEL inasmuch as EECHTEL is providing a substantial portion of the Quality Assurance and Quality Control for the facilities, including quality assurance and quality control items referred to in the Order to Show Cause, letter, and DRO Inspection Reports."
Bechtel's answer to Saginav-Sierra Interrogatory 10(g) is:
"See the Order to Shoe Cause, and attachrents thereto, together with the DRO inspection reports referred to therein and Bechtel's answer to Interrogatory 10(b)."
1 The first quoted sentence from Bechtel's Petition to Intervene merely 1
states, as a fact, that the Order to Show Cause presents several alleged conten-tions and makes reference to other allegations. As indicated by the Ansver to Interrogatory 10(g), the fact on which Bechtel based that sentence was the Order to Show Cause and the letter, to which reference was properly and sufficiently made.
The last sentence in the quotation from paragraph h of Bechtel's Petition to Intervene merely states that the allegations relate to Bechtel sir.ce Eechtel is providing a substantial proportion of the Quality Assurance and Quality Control for the job.
The reference to Interrogatory 10(b) also is appropriate
. inasmuch as Bechtel?s contract with Consumers Power Company is the fact which 1
gives' rise to Eechtel's performance of a s'ibstantial portien of the Quality Assurance and Quality Control for the job.
i i.. -.
Beyond the foregoing, it is impossible for Bechtel to determine what it was that Saginav-Sierra wished Bechtel to say in response to its j
Interrogatory.
Perhaps Saginav-Sierra wished Bechtel to set forth the facts upon vhich it objected to the allegations contained in the Order to Show Cause and the DRO letter.
If'so, these facts are set forth in the 27 page, Answer to Saginav-Sierra's Interrogatory 10(h), and nothing more need be stated.
I 7.
-Interrogatories 12(b) and 12(c) state:
"With respect to each of the nuclear facilities as to which you have been.a contractor or subcontractor, state:
(b) List each quality-assurance, quality-control violation which has occurred at each such site and include whether the. violation was reported to AEC officials; (c) List each quality-assurance, quality-control incident which was not reported to AEC or which was not considered a violaticn but as to which discussion was had whether it was a violation."
J Bechtel's Answer to Interrogatories 12(b) and (c) states:
"The attached list (Exhibits 12(b) and (c)-1) identifies 4
al1 ~ issued Management Corrective Action Reports, Nonconformance Reports, Quality Audit Finding Reports, and Quality Assurance Discrepancy Reports.
Of them only one, MCAR-2, was identified as reportable pursuant to 10 CFR-Part 50.55e.
I While tdiscussions' may or may not have taken place in any given instance, all Bechtel generated Management Corrective Action Reports, Ncnconformance Reports and Quality Audit Finding Reports which identify nonconformances or conditions adverse to quality are reviewed for reportability pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 55e prior to or concurrent with their transmittal to Consumers Power Company.
Bechtel provides a recommendation as to reportability to Consumers Power Company, and does not make a direct report of reportable items to the AEC."
Saginav-Sierra's objection to Bechtel's Answer is as follovs:
" Interrogatories Nos.12(b) and 12(c) have not been answered either specifically or generally.
Bechtel.does not list the violations but refers.to documents and obviously has not listed j
those matters which were not the subject of documents."
Contrary to the statement of Saginav-Sierra, Bechtel has specifically answered Interrogatories 12(b) and (c) by listing all quality assurance / quality control incidents, by stating that a determination as to reportability pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e is made prior to or concurrent with the transmittal of documen-tation of quality incidents to Consumers Power Company, by stating that a recommendation as to reportability is made to Consumers Pcver Company, and by identifying the only quality incident which was identified as reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55e.
It is also to be noted that the Saginav-Sierra Interrogatories did not contain a definition of the word " violation." Despite this inadequacy, Bechtel, in an attempt to expedite the matter, listed in its Ansver to Interro-gatories 12(b) and 12(c) each of its indicated quality reports which identified nonconformances or conditions adverse to quality, in order that Saginav-Sierra could specifically state whether it desired to obtain the indicated documents.
All of the infor=ation which Saginav-Sierra requested in the foregoing Interrogatories was either furnished to it in the extensive Interrogatory Answers or available to it subsequent to the 22nd day of May.
It is submitted that it nov ill behooves Saginav-Sierra to file cbjections to Interrogatory Ansvers in order to harrass Bechtel when Bechtel is trying to prepare for a hearing for which there are no specific issues and where -
Saginav-Sierra either has the information or could have had it prior to the close of discovery on June 17,197h.
Accordingly, Bechtel prays that Saginav-Sierra's motion be denied as being.vithout basis.
Respectfully submitted, CLARK, KLEIN, WINTER, PARSORS & PRD11TT By d ZlW4 1aurence Ii. Scoville, Jg By W
Char g J. Sepfer
~
Individually and for the Firm l
1600 First Federal Building 1001 Woodvard Avenue Detroit, Michigan h8226 (323) 962-6492 Attorneys for Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation Dated: June 24, 1974
-9_
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY C010iISSION In the Matter of
)
)
Construction Permit CONSUMERS PC*r.TR COMPANY
)
Hos. 81 and 82
)
-(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SGVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached " Objections of Bechtel Power Corporation and 3echtel Associates Professional Corporation ('3echtel')
to Saginav-Sierra's Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories" dated June 24,197h in the above captioned natter have been served on the following in person or by deposit in the United States mail, first-class, or airnail, this 2hth day of June, 197h.
Secretary (20)
John G. Gleeson, Esq.
U.S. Atomic Energy Co=rission Legal Department Attn:
Chief, Public Proceedings The Dow Chemical Company Branch 2030 Dov Center Washington, DC 205h5 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. Atenic Energy Co= mission One First National Plaza -- h2nd Floor Washington, DC 205h5 Chicago, IL 60670 Pichael Glaser, Esq.
Lester Kornblith, Jr.
1150 17th Street, EW U.S. atomic Energy Commission Washington, DC _20036 Washington, DC 205h5 Dr. E==eth A. Luebke Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
U.S. Atomic Energy-Co: mission Jenner & Block Washington, DC 205h5 One IBM Plaza Chicago, IL 60611
/
s> n w/
Char
'.Se'ng/
.