ML20093L432
| ML20093L432 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1984 |
| From: | Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#484-562 SP, NUDOCS 8410180589 | |
| Download: ML20093L432 (9) | |
Text
l(?@ N-
.j;
~
- RELATED connEspoNOgucg October 17,Dhd$$ED c%RC UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA-
'84 001 -18 A11 :00 -
NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
,xner w SECE '
J :.;;ir e L, Sly.
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING ' BOARDE ' LCM In'the Matter of
)
-).
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
-)
_ (Restart-Management. Remand)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
.)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear'
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
-)
Licensee's. Motion to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Edwin Zebrowski On October 11 or 12, 1984, TMIA applied-to the Licensing Board for subpoenas to command Edwin Zebrowski to appear for deposition at 7:30 p.m. on November 13, 1984, and to produce documents to TMIA on November 1, 1984.
Licensee moves to now quash both subpoenas to Dr. Edwin Zebrowski, although Licensee does not know as of this date whether Dr. Zebrowski has yet been served.
Dr. Zebrowski is Chief Nuclear Scientist in the Energy Study Center,,a part of the Electric Power Research Institute in Palo Alto, California.
In the days fcllowing the acctdent, Dr. Zebrowski was one of the many exports who came to TMI to assist Licensee.
He was a co-leader in the Industry Advisory Group established by Mr. Dieckamp which functioned at TMI for a period of about a month following the accident.
8410180589 841017 PDR ADOCK 05000289 0
PDR Dscts
'O
},
V~
From TMIA's depositions of Licensee personnel conducted during the period from September 25.to October 5, it became ap-
' parent to Licensee that TMIA would attempt to show that Mr.
Dieckamp was not an involved executive in the accident and did not take reasonable steps to apprice himself sufficiently of the facts concerning the accident to allow him to make the statements in the mailgram to Congressman Udall.
Thus, Licens-ee decided to add two additional witnesses-who could testify to Mr. Dieckamp's involvement at TMI, one of whom was Dr.
Zebrowski.
Licensee identified these two witnesses in a sup-plemental discovery response on Friday, October 5, 1984, after the requisite communications with the two witnesses.
TMIA complains about service of Licensee's supplemental response. Licensee has no explanation for the six-day mail time to cover several blocks in D.C.
from Shaw, Pittman's offices to Ms. Bernabei's offices, nor do we know when TMIA's Ms. Doroshow or Ms. Bradford received their copies.
In any event, Licensee counsel understood the identification of the witnesses came late in the discovery period and informed TMIA that he under-stood related discovery would extend beyond the October 15 cut-off for discovery.
TMIA counsel's next steps were highly inappropriate.
Counsel asked Licensee's counsel for the addresses and tele-phone numbers of the two witnesses, and requested Licensee's counsel to determine when they might be on the East Coact prior _. _ _ _
4 to November 15.
Without a response to either request and with-out mentioning it to Licensee counsel, counsel for TMIA called Licensee's proposed witness Dr. Zebrowski.
Dr. Zebrowski has informed Licensee counsel that only with considerable prodding did Ms. Bernabei identify to him her relationship to the in-stant proceeding.
Then, despite his protestations that she concact Licensee counsel, she persevered.
In response to her questions, he informed Ms. Bernabei that he was to be in Washington the week of November 12 to attend a conference and that the only period which at that time was not booked was the evening of November 13.
TMIA then applied for a subpoena to.
depose Dr. Zebrowski at 7:30 at night on November 13.
Licensee moves to quash Dr. Zebrowski's subpoena on sever-al grounds.
First, while Licensee counsel informed TMIA coun-sel that in view of the timing of identification of these two witnesses, he understood discovery after October 15 would re-sult, there was no mention of nor is it sensible to read into that reasonable position, concurrence with a deposition at night on the very eve of the hearing in a different city.
As TMIA's application notes, following the last conference call with the Licensing Board -- and although no order has been issued -- there is an expectation that the hearing will com-mence on Wednesday, November 14 in Harrisburg.
That TMIA now chooses to subpoena Dr. Zebrowski the night of November 13 to be deposed in another city certainly is not grounds for delay-ing the hearing; rather, the deposition should not take place -
x i].
~
because of its conflict'with the expected schedule.
Consistent with the time it has taken to_ transcribe the twenty-five or so depositions which have been taken_to date in this proceeding,_
the utility of such a deposition is questionable since it wouldn't even be available to the parties when the Dieckamp
-mailgram witnesses appear which all parties have agreed is the first issue to be heard.
Licensee has taken steps to schedule its witnesses to accommodate the Board's earlier ruling of "about November 15" for commencement of the hearing and the results of the recent conference call with the Board.
Thus, Dr. Sebrowski presently plans to stay on the East Coast following his attendance at a conference in Washington which involves November 12 through November 15, and will be available to appear the morning of November 16.
Mr. Lowe presently is scheduled to be out of the country for about ten days beginning November 16; Licensee
~
intends to call Mr. Lowe on November 14 to assure his appear-ance consistent with his schedule.
Mr. Van Whitbeck's and Mr.
Dieckamp's appearances would be scheduled around the other two.
Finally, there is no reason why TMIA needs to depose Dr.
Zebrowski at night on the eve of the hearing simply because that is the only time in his schedule convenient to TMIA.
TMIA could have filed written interrogatories regarding Dr.
Zebrowski's role or sought his deposition upon written inter-rogatory which could be accomplished given the 3,000-miles
,I separation-problem.
They sought to do neither, but have elect-ed rather an-impractical-discovery avenue which should be re-jected.
Neither is their personal subpoe:3 duces tecum to Dr.
Zebrowski appropriate.
First, it seeks literally every docu-ment EPRI has related to the TMI accident.
This is patently absurd.
Licensee expects this is tens if not hundreds ~ of thousands of pages of material. It exceeds any notion of the scope of the limited issue on the Dieckamp mailgram.
It is ex-cessive, oppressive, unduly burdensome and overly expensive and should be quashed on these grounds alone.
Moreover, TMIA seeks by personal subpoena to be answered in Washington, D.C. Dr. Zebrowski's appearance with what can be expected to be a huge quantity of documents.
TMIA counsel knows from talking with Dr. Zebrowski that he will not be in Washington on November 1.
Further to the extent TMIA has not even tendered Dr. Zebrowski the cost of responding to the sub-poena, assuming it were otherwise proper, the subpoena should be denied.
In short, the aubpoena duces tecum is technically deficient and should be quashed on those grounds as well..-.
l I
Licensee advises the Board ~that it is seeking from Dr.
Zebrowski documents upon which he expects to rely for his tes-timony and intends to make them available to TMIA.
(Licensee has taken the same step with respect to Mr. Van Whitbeck, the second witness identified by Licensee on October 5, 1984).
Respectfully submitted, SHAW,PITTMAN,POTTS & TROWBRIDGE Q J. #44 9 Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.,
P.C.
Counsel for Licensee October 17, 1984
! \\
l
T DOLMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U BRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 OCT 18 A11:00 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N O iiqG ik -
In the Matter of
)
BANM
)
Docket No. 50-289 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
(Restart-Management Phase)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station, Unit No. 1)
)
{
4 l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Motion to Quash Subpoena and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Edwin Zebrowski,"
dated October 17, 1984, were served on those persons on the l
attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an asterisk (*) by hand delivery, this 17th day of October, 1984.
Respectfully submitted, CwH. Mx 4, Ernest L.
Blake, Jr.,
P.C.
DATED: October 17, 1984
z.
re f
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
i i
b In the Matter.
)
)
)
' METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-289 SP
)
(Restart Remand on Management)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear
)
Station,' Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST l
i j
Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H.-Buck Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal l
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 r
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
'20555
- Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Lando W.
Zeck, Jr., Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing. Board
}
U.S. ~ Nrelear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wazhi.tgton, 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 l
Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 3
,--_.--,,,.---,---~,.,_..m._,-__-_m
7 61 d "
- Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D.
Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Vice President Atomic Safety & Liceasing 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 Mr. 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.
0
^
Jack R.
Goldberg, Esq. (4)
Pr ct Office of the Executive Legal
'*S5 Connecticut Avenue U.S Nuc ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20009 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 Environmental Resources Michael F. McBride, Esq.
505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
i Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 l
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
_