ML19331B058

Response to Saginaw Intervenors' extra-record Correspondence to Aslb.Scope of Hearing Should Cover Qa/Qc Activities Identified by Show Cause Order & CPC & Bechtel Corp Responsiveness to Them.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19331B058
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/06/1974
From:	Scoville L BECHTEL GROUP, INC., CLARK, KLEIN, WINTER, PARSONS & PREWITT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8007250756
Download: ML19331B058 (6)

Text

-

5+y THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS P00R QUAL.lTY PAGES

~ ~ ' " ~

$[y " '2 g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

CONSUMERS POWER COMPAIrf ) Construction Permits

) Nos. 81 and 82 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

BECh'IEL'S REPLY TO SAGINAW'S EXTRA-RECORD CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1

Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation ("Bechtel") have reviewed the co=munication from Myron M. Cherry to Michael Glaser, Esq. , under date of May 2,1974, and feel constrained to co==ent thereon because of certain inaccuracies therein.

Extra-record co==unications are not appropriate to this proceeding.

Further, the broadside attacks through the vehicle of unsupported allegations and innuendo which are typically employed by Saginaw do not meaningfully contribute to the preparation for and conduct of this hearing. As stated by Chairman Glaser at the first prehearing conference, " ... the purpose of this hearing is not to engage in dialogue between counsel." (Transcript p 20).

Stripped of its distribes and excess verbiage, the Saginaw extra-record letter co==ents on several items, three of which will be discussed here: (1) the interrogatories filed on Saginaw by Consumers Power Co=pany and adopted by Bechtel; (2) the alleged relevancy of informa-tion relating to all Censumers Power Co=pany facilities and all nuclear I

facilities ever constructed by Bechtel; and (3) the time, effort and burden soonso 7n g

. ~

required to produce this allegedly relevant material.

1. The Consumers /Bechtel Interrogatories.

The only Saginaw statement which approaches being an objection totheConsumers/BechtelInterrogatoriesisthattheInterrogatoriesdo i not deal with the issues, but =erely " pursue procedural stratagems". This hardly deserves co= cent. BechtelonlypointsoutthattheConsumers/Bechtel Interrogatories seek out all infor:atien in Saginaw's possession which is relevant to the issues in this hearing, the allegations =ade in Saginaw's request for hearing, and the contentions of Saginaw in this matter. ' Surely N

this is proper discovery.

2. Relevancy of Saginaw's request for all information relating to quality assurance and quality control at all Consumers Power Comoany facilities and all nuclear facilities on wnich Bechtel has been a contractor or subcontractor.

Bechtel has heretofore filed extensive objections to the scope of discovery, in accordance with 10 CFR S 2.740(b). These objections make extensive reference to authorities (Bechtel Objections, pp 9-21) which, it is submitted, provide a persuasive and compelling basis for limiting the scope of this proceeding to construction of the Midland plant.

Sagin' a w argues that its request for discovery must be complied with before the determination of the scope of this hearing is made. This argument ignores the require =ents of the Commission's rule prohibiting discovery on irrelevant =atters: " Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject =atter involved in the proceeding . . . " (10 CFR S 2.740(b). It also ignores the fact that the infomation necessary to a determination of scope is contained in the Bechtel and Consumers Objections and is thus available to the Board for an immediate. decision on this important matter. To su==arize the infor ation, Bechtel has been involved in over forty nuclear projects which have had many I different quality assurance programs. These projects have been subject to

different quality assurance regulations and interpretations and different  ;

. contractual responsibilities and requirements: further= ore, the work has been performed by many different people for many different utilities. As  ;

indicated in its Objections, there has been very little Bechtel e=ployee interchange between Palisades and Midland and virtually none between' Big Rock I

and Midland. Perhaps most significantly, any interchange of employees between j those separate projects has not involved quality assurance personnel. Although past perfor..ance of the same people under identical quality assurance programs,

! regulations and interpretations might have some remote relevance to the proof of willful conduct, the Co= mission itself has ruled that this proceeding does not involve willfulness (Memorandum and Order, RAI 7h-1-7, at 10, fn 7).

3 Burden of Discovery.

Saginaw's 7th Interrogatory to Bechtel requests the identification of every document received or reviewed, each meeting had and each physical structure reviewed in connection with a deter ination of past and future compliance with quality assurance re6ulations. Interrogatory 12 requests a listing of all documents, and, pursuant to the introductory language to the Saginaw Interrogatories, a decription of all facts relating to "each quality assurance, quality control incident" at all facilities as to which l

i i  ?

t

s Bechtel has been a contractor or subcontractor. Both Consuners' and Bechtel's Objections to Saginaw's Interrogatories set fo'rth at length the results of file investigations as to the number of documents and length of time required to conclude the extremely broad file searches necessary to answer the Saginaw Interrogatories. It is important to remember that quality assurance and quality control cover all safety related aspects of the design and construction of a nuclear power plant. Materials relating to the requested information are contained in the files of virtually all

- - - ~ ~ ~ ~

of the various Bechtel functional groups having responsibility for each of these projects. As indicated in Bechtel's Objections, these files consist of an approxi=ste average of 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 documents per project. The scope of quality assurance and quality control activities is so vast that it is i=possible to collect and assemble all of these documents in any single place during the course of a job. In addition, several lawyers and nunerous Bechtel engineers have been searching the Midland files for months for documents relating to the Order to Show Cause and this task is not co=plete even t' hough the Midland project is still in the very early stages of construction. Thus, it is clear that the Saginaw statement that the documents can quickly be collected and produced is e incorrect.

In conclusion, we believe that the scope of hearing requested by

'Saginaw is not only unreasonable but is clearly impossible. We believe the more appropriate scope should be an investigation into any specific areas i

i 4- r b

t.

1

we-of quality assurance or quality control activities at the Midland site 4

which are specifically identified by the Order to Show Cause, the Regulatory Staff, Saginaw or the Board, as well as an examination of the extensive quality assurance and quality control activities on the Midland job, and the responsiveness.,of Consumers and Bechtel to identified quality assurance problems and'to tne Order.to Show Cause.

Therefore, it is herewith requested that the Atocic Safety and Licensing Board sustain Bechtel's Objections to the Saginaw Interrogatories and limit the scope of this hearing to construction of the Midland plant.

Respectfully submitted, CLARK, KLEIN, W E TER, PARSONS & PREWITT Dated: May 6,1974 eerz=u -Q

/Laurence M. Scoville, Jr. 'N Individually, and for the Firm 1600 First Federal Building Detroit, Michigan 148226 Tel: (313) 962-6!492 Attorneys for Bechtel Power Corporation and i Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation l

l s- l

UNITED STATES OF MERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) Construction Permits CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Nos. 81 and 82

)

Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached "Bechtel's Reply to Saginaw's Extra-Record Correspondence to The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board", dated May 6,1974 in the above captioned catter, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States cail, first-class, or air ail, this 6th day of May, 1974:

Secretary (20) Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Jenner & Block Attn: Chief, Public Proceedings One IBM Plaza Branch Chicago, Illinois 60611 Washington, D.C. 20545 Jolm G. Gleeson, Esq.

James P. Murray, Jr. Legal Department Chief Rulemaking and The Dow Chemical Company Enforcement Counsel 2030 Dow Center U. S. Atomic Energy Co= mission Midland, Michigan 48640 Washington, D.C. 20545 Michael I. Miller, Esq.

Michael Glaser, Esq. R. Rex Renfrow III, Esq.

1150 17th Street, N.W. Isham, Lincoln & Beale Washington, D.C. 20036 One First National Plaza 42d Fir.

Chicago, Illinois 60670 Lester Kornblith, Jr.

U. S. Atomic Energy Co =ission Wash'ington, D.C. 20545 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke U. S. Atomic Energy Co= mission Washington, D.C. 20545 [

o A Laurence M. Scoville, Jr.

w[ N