ML20140E610
| ML20140E610 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1986 |
| From: | Voight H GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., LEBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MACRAE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140E598 | List: |
| References | |
| LRP, NUDOCS 8603280068 | |
| Download: ML20140E610 (6) | |
Text
.
s a
[
UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g._
BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
)
In the Matter of.
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND-
~)
Docket'No.
LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
~)
FALSIFICATION
)
)
RESPONSE OF EMPLOYEES' TO MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEES' ATTORNEYS In an ill-conceived attempt to deprive at 1 east 26
~
former employees of Metropolitan Edison Company
(" Met Ed") _ of their Constitutional rights-to be represented by counsel of their choice, Marjorie and Norman Aamodt have moved-for the " dismissal" of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae and Killian- & Gephart as counsel in this proceeding.
Because a similar motion has already been denied by a United States D'istrict Judge and the Presiding Board has already indicated its acceptance of multiple representation by the two law firms, it may be unnecessary for us to respond to the Aamodts' motion.
Out of an abundance of caution, however, we do wish to answer briefly.
We have previously argued that the petition to intervene originally submitted by Mrs. Aamodt should be denied for lack of standing.
If the Presiding Board agrees with us, the Aamodts' 8603200068 e60324-ADOCK05000gO DR A
E
..m
_ =_
. x, current motion will be moot.
Should the. Board conclude that the Aamodtsare proper parties'to this. proceeding,-the motion should i
be denied.
Procedural due process, as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, affords i
the right to retained counsel by parties in. administrative proceedings.
Goldberg v.
Kelly, 397 U.S.
254, 268-(1970); 4 Mezines, Stein, Gruff, Adm'inistrat'ive Law S.32.01 at 32-5.
"The right to_be heard would be, in many cases, of little' avail if it did not comprehend the right to.be heard by counsel."
Goldberg v.
Kelly, 397 U.S.
at 270, quoting Powell v. Alabama,.287 U.S.
45, 68-69 (1932).
The Administrative Procedure Act' states that "[a]
party is entitled to appear in person or by or with counsel or other duly qualified representative in an agency proceeding."
5 U.S.C. S 555(b) (1982).
This statute' guarantees the right to retain independent counsel.
Sartain v.
Securities and Exchange Commission, 601 F.2d 1366., 1375 (9th Cir. 1979).
See also 10 C.F.R.
S 2.713 (b) (1985) (right to counsel in.NRC adjudicatory 1
proceedings).
The Aamodts have failed to advance any basis for depriving the employees of their rights to be represented by counsel of their choice.
The Aamodts' pleading is a mish-mash of i
statements taken out of context and unwarranted innuendo.
Their principal complaint seems to arise from the. fact that the legal expenses of the former employees are being paid by Met'Ed, rather than by the individuals.
In response to that' concern,.we have j. - - -. -.:..
r-l-
s already submitted to~the Board documentary evidence concerning our arrangements.with Met Ed, including express recognition that
~
we do not represent the company and that we are not subject to its direction or control.
The Aamodts have shown nothing to the contrary.
Accordingly, they are-in the same position as the Government was in 1981,.when Judge Rambo found that there was no
" evidence to refute the claim of the two firms that they represent the interests of the emplo'yees only', and are acting with complete independence-from' Met Ed, aside from' billing."
See Attachment 1 to our Response filed on March.3, 1986.
The Affidavit of Marjorie M. Aamodt, submitted with the Aamodts' motion, is basically irrelevant.
It contains only one' paragraph that refers to the two firms, noting that we appeared on behalf of two witnesses.
There is'n'o averment of collusion on our part or coaching of any individua'l whom we represented in the cheating investigation. -The Affidavit is a collateral attack on the integrity of tha't investigation and contains serious allegations concerning the conduct of other attorneys.
But there is nothing in the Affidevit that calls for any response from us.
One further comment is warranted.
In support of the petition to intervene, Mrs. Aamodt has repeatedly ' proclaimed her ability to contribute to the proceeding.
In examining that claim, the Board should consider the timing, tenor, and substantive content of the instant motion. - - - -.
x
________________________j
r WHEREFORE, the Aamodts' Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE By N/
dfd d Of Counsel:
~
William G. Primps 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Michael F. McBride Suite 1100 Molly S.
Boast Washington, D.C.
20036 James W. Moeller (202) 457-7500 Marlene L. Stein Smith B.
Gephart KILLIAN & GEPHr3T Jane G.
Penny 216-218 Pine Etreet Terrence J.
McGowan Box 886 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 232-1851 Attorneys for Numerous 1978-79 Employees of Metropolitan Edison Company March 24, 1986
V b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE PRESIDING BOARD
(
)
-In the Matter of
)
)
INQUIRY INTO THREE MILE ISLAND' )
Docket No. LRP UNIT 2 LEAK RATE DATA
)
FALSIFICATION
')
j
-)
i j
CERTIFICATE OF~ SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served copies of " Response of i
Employees to Motion for Dismissal of Employees' Attorneys"_by
' deposit in the United States mail first class, postage prepaid, to the following persons this 24th day of March 1986:
Administrative Judge James L.
Kelly, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Glenn O.
Bright i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I
Was.hington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge. Jerry R.
Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 4
Jack R. Goldberg, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I.
I
,-,,w w=,-------e-rw--w y
+.=--
- .n+, - - - - * -, - - - -
w
,,e..
3-c
~, - -*-- -
-w
, --- - - - -, + - - - - -
.m---.
,e w,
t;N Docketing and Service Branch (3)~
U.' S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
. Ernest L. Blake, Jr., Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.-
Washington, D.C.
20036 Marvin I. Lewis 6504 Bradford Terrace Philadelphia, PA 19149 James B.
Burns, Esq.
Isham, Lincold & Beale Three First National Plaza Suite 5200
. Chicago, Illinois 60602 Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box.1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Ms. Marjorie M. Aamodt P.O.
Box 652 Lake Placid, NY 12946
v4. $ = = en - 1 0
\\
James W. Moeller i
i I
. - _ _..,. ~.
,, -.,,,,