ML20154G541

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion of EA Thomas for Leave to File Response to Applicant Reply to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law & NRC Staff Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.*
ML20154G541
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  
Issue date: 09/15/1988
From: Barshak E, Netski C
Federal Emergency Management Agency, SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20154G538 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8809210004
Download: ML20154G541 (3)


Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p.3 E it2 um NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 Ep 19 P3:36 before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

, _.yi.

Ug.0CA W L'I M ~

P P.L NCH

)

In the Matter of

)

)

DOCKET NOS. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al

)

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

MOTION OF EDWARD A. THOMAS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT'S REPLY TO PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE NRC STAFF'E PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

~

Edward A. Thomas, Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division of FEMA Region 1 and a witness in the above-captioned proceeding, moves the Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.730(c), to allow him to file a response to the Applicant's Reply to Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of Other Parties on Shelter Contentions and to the NRC Staff's i

Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with Respect to Sheltering Issues.

Mr. Thomas states the following as grounds for this motion.

The pleadings recently submitted to the Board by the Applicant and the NRC Staff constitute a belated and unjustified attack on Mr. Thomas' reputation and credibility.

Immediately prior to Mr. Thomas' most recent testimony before the Board on i

June 14 and 15, 1988, counsel for Mr. Thomas requested the

}

opportunity to question Mr. Thomas following any cross-examination by the parties and to file proposed findings on 1

8809210004 880910' PDR ADOCK 05000443 C

pop

O Atomic SofCty Cnd Lic nsing Brard 2

i behalf of Mr. Thomas, if necessary.

Tr., 13366-68.

In response, Judge Smith stated that he would permit counsel for Mr. Thomas to present any specific requests in this regard to the Board following any cross-examination of Mr. Thomas.

Tr.,

13369.

Mr. Thomas testified on direct examination by Mr. oleskey, counsel for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for nearly two full days.

During the course of Mr. Thomas' direct examination, the Board made it clear on the record that any issues concerning Mr. Thomas' credibility w.ere to be uddressed while Mr. Thomas was before the Board with independent representation.

II2, 13551-52; Tr.,

13601-03; Tr.,

13749; Tr., 13759.

In fact, Judge Smith explicitly acknowledged that the only way in which Mr.

Thomas could redress the prior attacks which were made on his integrity and credibility was to come before the Board with independent counsel.

Tr., 13368-69.

In view of the content of Mr. Thomas' direct testimony, particularly in response to questions by the Board, Tr., 13615-29, and the fact that virtually no cross-examination was conducted by counsel for either the Applicant or the NRC Staff, Mr. Thomas and his counsel were satisfied following the June, 1988 hearings that the record was complete on all issues relating to Mr. Thomas' credlbility.

The Applicant and the NRC Staff, however, months following the June, 1988 hearings, have now raised an unwarranted attack on Mr. Thomas' professionalism and integrity.

As Mr. Thomas is no longer before the Board, the only opportunity which he has to defend against these baseless allegations is to file a written i

Atomic Scfoty cnd Lic nsing Board 3

response with the Board.

Finally, the submission of a response on behalf of Mr. Thomas should not result in any undue delay to the Board in making its findings of fact and conclusions of law.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Thomas requests this Board to allow his motion to file a response to the most recent filings by the Applicant and the NRC Staff.

Mr. Thomas' response is presented with this motion for the Board's convenience.

By his attorneys, SUGARMAN, ROGERS, BARSHAK f. COHEN, PC By'

<< 1 6

~

Edward J.I~Barshak By:

Christine M. Natski 33 Union Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108-2406 (617) 227-3030 MjVg,y/:g /5, /]h

~

DATED:

  1. 372

,