ML20093J704
| ML20093J704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1984 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-504 SP, NUDOCS 8410160757 | |
| Download: ML20093J704 (6) | |
Text
l)f?iah!
- g October 15, 19.
II RELATED CORdEADM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKETED u
USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T4 OCT16 A10:12 Before the Atomic Safety and Licen6th01.B6s'dilg-r wm, t n !I -
In the matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
.(Three Mile Island Nuclear (Restart-Management Phase)
Licensee's Motion to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to William Lowe-On October 11 or 12, 1984, TMIA applied to the Licensing Board for a subpoena and subpoena duces tecum to William Lowe for the purpose of requiring Mr. Lowe to appear and produce documents at deposition.
Licensee counsel first learned of TMIA's application through a call from Mr. Lowe late Friday, October 12, that he had been served.
The subpoena commands Mr.
Lowe to appear for a deposition on Friday October 19, 1984.
Licensee moves to quash Mr. Lowe's subpoena.
Mr. William Lowe at the time of the March, 1979 accident at TMI-2 was a consultant to Licensee.and a member of Licens-ee's General Office Review Board, a safety oversight committee.
Today, Mr. Lowe maintains those positions vis-a-vis Licensee.
It is Mr. Lowe who has been credited by investigators of the 0410160757 841015 DR ADOCK 0500028 3 Sol
1 e
accident with appreciation of the-significance of the pressure spike lin terms of core damage, which appreciation occurred dur-ing the night of March 29, 1979. Licensee on September 18, 1984, identified Mr. Lowe as a witness in response to.TMIA's first request for identification of Licensee's witnesses.
Discovery in this proceeding closes.today, October 15.
TMIA is aware of this discovery schedule.
Despite this sched-ule and their knowledge of it, TMIA seeks to subpoena Mr. Lowe for a deposition beyond the discovery period without either mo-tion or any contact with Licensee counsel.
There is no reason that TMIA could not have deposed.Mr. Lowe within the allowed discovery period.
A number of individuals have been deposed and Licensee has cooperated in making its employees available on a schedule agreed upon by counsel.
Licensee would have done so in the case of Mr. Lowe.
Now, however, discovery is over and Licensee needs to prepare testimony for the four individ-1 i
uals who have been proposed as Licensee witnessos, and other-wise prepare for hearing.
As the one apparent thread of basis for this late-filed deposition request, TMIA in its application for subpoena at-i tempts to link a need to depose Mr. Lowe to Licensee's identi-fication of two other witnesses'on October 5, 1983.
The per-ceived link is inexplicable and,unten'ble.
a s
Further, Licensee notes that TMIA continues to fail to identify the subject matter of the deposition with reasonable t
specificity or to follow the Commission's regulations to
(
l L ~.
O
i
.(-
provide the name of the officer before whom the deposition is to be taken, or to reflect that Board's rulings on scope of
'this proceeding.
There is no way to read Mr. Lowe's subpoena as a reasonable attempt to alert Mr. Lowe as to the areas in-which he should appropriately be prepared for examination or the documents he should prepare to produce.
On information and belief, Mr. Lowe received the subpoena just = before he was to leave his office in Washington late in the day Friday, October 12, and is out of town this week through Thursday on previously scheduled business.
Without disrupting this schedule, there is no way he could prepare to be deposed by October 19.
Even without this schedule conflict, it is doubtful he could be pre-pared to be responsive to his subpoena duces tecum.
The sub-poena should be quashed on these grounds as well.
As the Board earlier has observed, the discovery schedule was set to allow a reasonable period for the parties to conduct discovery. Necessarily, choices have to be made by any party as to how best to utilize the time available.
TMIA has chosen to use the period as it apparently believed best.
It must live with those choices, including the choice not to depose Mr.
Lowe.
Respectfully submitted, f $hAk, Ernest L.
Blake, Jr. P.C. Counsel for Licensee October 15, 1984
_n
4 4
P
\\;
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCI. EAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licens3_ng Board In the matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289"SP
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear (Restart-Management Station, Unit No. 1)
)
Phase) t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Motion to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to William Lowe," dated October 15, 1984, were served on those persons on the attached ServiceListbydepositintheUnitedStates' mail,fpostagepre-paid, or where indicated oy an asterisk (*) by, hand delivery, this 15th day of October, 1984.
d Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C.
Counsel for Licensee October 15, 1984 V
e
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Rest'rt Remand on Management)
(Three. Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman
. Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H.
Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington,
D. C.
20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
'20555
- Administrative Judge Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Lando W.
Zeck, Jr., Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.-
20555 Administrative Judge
- Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
-l k
's.
- Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C.
20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Office of the Secretary R.D.
5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20002 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Lynne Bernabei, Esq.
vernment Accountability Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq. (4)
Office of the Executive Legal lf[ConnecticutAvenue Washington, D.C.
20009 U.S Nuc ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y. Au, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C.
20009 Department of Lavironmental Resources Michael F.
McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C.
20036 William T. Russell Michael W.
Maupin, Esq.
Deputy Director, Division Hunton & Williams of Human Factors Safety 707 East Main Street Office Of NRR P.O. Box 1535 Mail Stop AR5200 Richmond, VA 23212 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 i
w-1 K -
n