ML19347A658
| ML19347A658 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1974 |
| From: | Glaser M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CP, NUDOCS 8007310562 | |
| Download: ML19347A658 (4) | |
Text
'
[-/M/f 5 6 Qs a, 3 3
~
S 00CIETED C
sua i
MAY141974* 31 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA etc;',*f,th',3*g h ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION V
kna
//
In the Matter of
)
64Lv
)
4
/
N CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Construction Permi
)
Nos. 81 and 82 (Midland -Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
ORDER On April 22, 1974, the Saginaw Group (Saginaw), a party to this proceeding, served a "First Set of Interroga-tories Directed to Consumers Power Company."
By these inter -
~
rogatories, Saginaw seeks to obtain information from Consumers Power Company (r ars) concernir 11 activities of Consumers
- which are or may be subject to ret L;ation by the Atomic Ener-U gy Commission."
Thus, Saginaw's interrogatories request information related to all of Consumers' activities at the Midland Plant, which is the subject of this show cause proceed-ing, as well as the Big Rock, Palisades, Fermi-I facilities and the proposed facility, Quanicassie.
On April 30, 1974, Consumers interposed objections to 2/-
Saginaw's. interrogatories.
More particularly, Consumers objects 4
1/
Interrogatories, p. 2, V 2.
2[ In order to bring-this proceeding to a prompt conclusion, the Board has dispensed with the procedural requirement that parties:-file-motions to compel discovery, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. - 2. 74 0 (f), after receiving objections-to interrcgatories, and haa decided to rule on objections af ter ' they1are : received.
? ?h$N eu 07319. 4 ~,
7
7
(
1%
, i to.Saginaw Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, ' 4,. 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 'a), J (b),
e
{
- (c)' and (d), 15, 18,: 20,121, 22, 23 ', 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30, to the3 extent they seek'information~respecting Consumers' generatingLfacilities other than Midland or Fermi-I, on grounds of relevancy and materiality.
Consumers contends L
that~ operational aspects of. con.sumers'. facilities are clearly irrelevant to 'the issues in this show cause proceeding, and i
that the-majority of construction activities at Big Rock and d
Palisades. occurred prior to the promulgation of Appendix B to 10 'C.F.R.' Part 50, which specifies quality assurance criteria for nuclear. power plants.
Consumers claims that the absence of.. criteria ?respecting quality assurance during the. construc-tion of these facilities demonstrates the lack of relevancy and. materiality of any information sought which is directed to quality' assurance during construction of those plants.
Con-t sumers, however, indicates it will respond to Saginaw's inter-
,rogatories insofar as they request information about quality v
Iassurance. activities which.took place during the construction of' Palisades ' after: the effective date of Appendix B.
In other' U
~
crespects,. Consumers argues:that Saginaw's interrogatories-objected'- to represent;an ' attempt to broaden the scope of' this i proceeding.beyond;thatLintended.Df the two issues,sp'e;cified in 3
F 3f.l Fermi I i's. owned.and' operated by: Power l Reactor Develop-1 ment; Corporation, whichils the' licensee. ~ Consumers ~ rep-r L -
' resents:thattit-has.had.'no direct-role'in either the L;w -
, construction or operation of the: facility.
1
-a,
.1 4
g y
~-.-/-
4
.,j.
,s m..
l >,,. s
3 the Show Cause' Order.
In effect, Consumers argues that the above-referenced Saginaw interrogatories seek to obtain in-formation concerning Consumers' general qualifications to be 4
in~the nuclear business, which is not in issue.
- Moreover, Consumers alleges that the Saginaw' interrogatories are onercus and burdensome as they relate to Consumers' facilities other than Midland.
The Board will sustain Consumers' objections to Inter-rogatory_Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13 (a), (b), (c) and (d),
i i
18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29 and 30.
Thus, Consumers is l
only required to provide answers to such interrogatories as relate to the Midland-facility.
However, we rule that Consum-ers must answer. Interrogatory Nos. 15, 27 and 28.-
The Board considers that the attitude of Consumers, and especially of 4
its Senior Management Personnel, toward compliance with the Commission's' regulations and license requirements to be both relevant and material to the resolution of the issues in this proceeding.
We read Interrogatory Nos. 15, 27 and 28 as de-signed to obtain such information.
consumers also objects, in whole or in part, to Inter-rogatory Nos. 3, 10, 11 and 20,.as; requiring Consumers to
' furnish legal conclusions.
We have determined that Interrogatory i.
4/
These issues are (1) whether the licensee is' implementing its quality assurance program in compliance with the Com-a mission's; regulations; :and(2) whether there is reasonable assurance that'such implementation will continue through-out the construction process.
L-
Nos. 10 and 20 should be disallowed in'their entirety on this-ground,-and that Interrogatory Nos. 3 and 11, as framed, also call for consumers to furnish legal 1 conclusions.
We therefore sustain Consumers' specific objections to Interroga-tory Nos. 3 and'll.
Finally, Consumers objects to specific language included
.in. Interrogatory Nos. 1, 21, 23 and 27, on the ground that they are not limited to quality assurance regulations or ac-tivities.
The Board will also sustain consumers ' specific objections to these interrogatories.
In addition, Consumers
~
objects to Interrogatory Nos.19. and 29, and part of No.18 on grounds of relevancy.
The Board believes that answers to these interrogatories, as framed, will not likely lead to dis-covery'of admissible evidence, and thus, sustains consumers' specific objections to them.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.By:
/N
/
Michael L. Glaser Chairman Washington, INC.
- May.14, - 1974 1
8
.t t
t 4
4,