ML19338C104
| ML19338C104 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/19/1974 |
| From: | Jenny Murray US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19338C102 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007310681 | |
| Download: ML19338C104 (1) | |
Text
.
k.
~
n n
W s
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ErlERGY COM4ISSION BEFORE THE ^T0f1IC SAFETY AND LICENSIftG BOARD In the Matter of ction ermit honst CONSUMERS POWER COMPAtlY g
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
}
ANSWER TO BECHTEL INTERVENTION PETITION Bechtel Power Corporation and its affiliate Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Bechtel") filed a petition under 10 CFR 2.714 to intervene in this proceeding on February 11, 1974.
The Bechtel petition responds to an invitation set forth in the Commission's Notice of Hearing on Order to Show Cause of January 21, 1974 (39 F.R. 2619).
In support of its intervention petition Bechtel states, inter alia, that under its contract with Consumers' Power Company (hereinafter the " licensee") it bears " direct responsibility for the design and construction of the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, including the implementation of a substantial portion of the Quality Assurance performed on the project pursuant to its Quality Assurance Program."
(Petition, p. 2.)
In its capacity as a major contractor of the licensee for a number of activities under these construction permits, Bechtel appears to. have a significant interest in the resolution of the I
quality assurance ' issues which are the subject of this show cause proceeding.
However, in the. Staff's view Bec* tel's intervention should not be unconditional for the reasons which follow.
?.
=
_d A.,
. : is - _-
..----.,-i,--.--~A-~~--E>-
~*
n
',w J, *
.J.
.g; c.
~
Under 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix'B - Quality Assurance Criteria for
~
Nuclear Power Plants and Fuel-Reprocessing Plants, it is' clear
- that-although 'a ' licensee "may delegate to other organizations the
-work _ of establishing:and-executing the quality. assurance program,
-or any' part thereof," nevertheless, in the final analysis, the licensee must still " retain responsibility".for'Q/A programs.
L (Paragraph I.) Thus, it is the' licensee, and not Bechtel who_ bears the! ultimate responsibility for quality control.
This, of course, does not operate completely to subsume Bechtel's. separate interests l
in the.'. issues before the Board.
However, it does, we submit, present l
a situation for' invoking tho.se portions of 10 CFR 2.714(e), which l
l.
allow orders ~ granting intervention to be appropriately conditioned l-
"in the interests _ of:
(1)
Restricting... duplicative, or repetitive
. evidence and argument,..."" The substantial-identity:of interests
~
. of. Bechtel and the licensee warrant the imposition _of a general' L
L
,.. condition on any ' intervention permitted Bechtel to the effect that t
l Bechtel shall not duplicate evidence' or argument -of the. licensee. U L
. Subject to such a condition, the Staff interposes no objection to the i
Bechtel petition.
Respectfully submitted,-
James'P. flurray, Jr.
~ Counsel for'AEC Regulatory Staff
~
Dated ~at Bethesda,liaryland Ethis l day of February,1974.
- /; ;It-is,noted
- that under 10 CFR 2.757(c) the Board has Lappropriate authority to. control " repetitious,- or cumulative cross-examin'ation,"-
aimatter which is' also of concern in the situation _here presented.
.)
p"-s
.%_e-.
-m=-
-6
-.44 s
+ W*e4 t-
.