ML20236J514

Partially Withheld Memo Forwarding Final Rule on Delegation of Subpoena Authority to Edo.W/O Encl

ML20236J514
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/18/1982
From:	Philips J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Abrams N NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
Shared Package
ML20236J492	List: ML20236J489 ML20236J514 ML20236J581 ML20236J636 ML20244D104
References
FOIA-87-577 NUDOCS 8711060149
Download: ML20236J514 (1)

Text

-__

/.

3.(.

(,(.

+

+ y f, 'h, OCI 18198Z MEMORANDUM FOR: Neal E. Abrams Office of the Executive Legal Director FRON:

John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records' Office of Administration.

SUBJECT:

FINAL RULE ON THE DELEGATION OF SUBP0ENA AUTHORITY TO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS Enclosed is a final rule drafted by DRR.that incorporates. the delegated authority of the EDO to issue subpoenas.. DRR has organized this rule in the format of a Federal Register notice and would like for you to review it.

If you have any questions, please call Alzonia Shepard on extension 2765].

John Philips, Chief Rules and Procedures Branch Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated RDG SUBJ/

AShepa rd 8711060149 971029 PDR COND1 0 _377 Information in this record was deleted in accordance with the reedom of Infor'mation[QI A 3YT Act, exemEtions _- ( F(1 cg tr F0IA 87"IM bk ADM:DRR ADM:DRR

'A5H455?d7tnG ""3PhiT1pi""

su==o

.. 6')"')'d'i "' i'@'i'@'s'i'"

' " " ' ' ' ' " ' " ~ ' '

omy

~

macronu m o>:en t.scu om OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

y

,,,e j t' j.:, q * [",[

NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSIOh 4

; 7 c, Oc W ASHIN GT ON. D.C 20%"

_o,

f-

% *ye f

.omct or tur March 4, 1983

$ECRETAAt MEMORANDUM FOR:

Ben'B. Hayes,-Director Office.of Investigations.

/

FROM:

Samuel ~J. ' Chilk, Secretarp h

SUBJECT:

01' POLICIES.

(

h l

This is. to inform you that the Comission has. unanimously adopted the Policies elaborated in your February 25, 1983 memorandum, with the t

.following exceptions:-

A.

Policy 4 as' adopted by the Chairman and Commissioners Ahearne

'l and Roberts should read, "01 investigations may be initiated

~

at the request of. the Comission, the EDO, or a Regional Admin-istrator, or on the initiative of the ' Director, 01.

The Di-i rector. 01, will: promptly inform the Chairman of all investi-I

. gations comenced - by. 01. "

Commissioners Gilinsky and Asselstine would have preferred to have allowed individual Commissioners to initiate such investi-J gations.

' Commissioner Roberts would have preferred to have limited the Director, 01's initiation of such investigations by requiring i

1 the' concurrence of the Chairman.

B.

Policy 6 should.be held in. abeyance pending receipt of the report of the Advisory Comittee on Rights of Licensee Employees Under Investigation and a Commission decision on this policy.

J C.

Policy 7 should be revised to read, "01 investigators may grant requests for confidentiality during the course of an investiga-tion. 'NRC will respect an 01 investigator's promise of confi-dentiality unless and until the interviewee's testimony is re-quired for an administrative or judicial proceeding or the inter-viewee discloses the testimony.

The identity of persons not subject to the reporting requirements of 10 CFR Part 21 who re-port to the Comission information addressed by that regulation i

will also be accorded confidentiality as required by 10 CFR 21.2."

l l

l l

L l

Vor A-67-5Yr 1

?g)43 g e o/~

9/ma

/

i

.w L.

)

=

g'.

a f

1 l

'I

'1.:.

~

'; 4 '.

~

2!-

~

m

..w.

s

,.(.

1-

' Al final. version of the: adopted : policies is attached.

)

., L 3-cc: ~ Chairman'Palladino-d Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Ahearne -

.m.

pf iComissioner Roberts

. Commissioner: Asselstine

.Comission; Staff 0ffices-

AstBPt

!ASLAPL j

.ACRS

'i e >

j

.. PDR ED0l H

a

'q

.j s

s.,

Ir

[L j'

o l

a l

i i

. T.

i

-1 i

, s.;

'01 POLICY STATEMENTS

, POLICY l 01 will ~ perform thorough,' timely and objective investigations. This will includelinvestigations of allegations.of wrongdoing by individuals or organizations,'other'than NRC employees or NRC contractors, which are within the. scope of' NRC authority.

POLICY 2

.01 investigations will beLeonducted in accordance with general procedures i

and practices of other investigatory agencies, i

POLICY 3 01 ~ investigators may be delegated authority to administer oaths or. affir-mations during the course of 01 investigative efforts.

POLICY 4 01 investigations may be initiated at the request of the Commission, the EDO,..orla Regional Administrator, or on: the initiative of the Director 01.

The. Director, 01, will promptly inform the Chairman of all investigations.

coninenced by 01.

POLICY 5 The criteria established for initiating an inspection or an investigation do not preclude concurrent conduct of both types of activity.

_ POLICY 7 01 -investigators may grant. requests lfor confidentiality during the course of an investigation. NRC will respect an 01 investigator's promise of

" confidentiality unless and until the interviewee's testimony is required

-for an administrative or judicial proceeding or the interviewee discloses the testimony. The, identity of persons not subject to the reporting re-quirements of 10 CFR Part 21 who report to the Commission information addressed by that regulation will also be accorded confidentiality as re-quired by '10 CFR 21.2.

POLICY 8 I' n' vestigators and others assigned to 01 investigations shall identify,

. collect, and preserve evidence relevant to investigations which would have' potential value in an enforcement or other proceeding.

When necessary, 01 may request orders or subpoenas to preserve or obtain such' evidence.

=

~

+

{

POLICY 9 d

' Investigators and,others assigned to 01' investigations shall attempt.

-when.. warranted by.the importance to the. investigations,1 to' witness and/or.

a photographically; record the violation or condition 'that'.is the focus of-c thelinv'estigation..

j POLICY'10 1

IInv'estigatorsandothersassignedto01 investigation'swillbealertfor 1

indications of' deliberate violations of NRC regulations-or Federal statutes f and will pursue--relevant leads.

They will also make reasonable efforts to-determine. the extent of involvement or awareness by management of licensees, applicants, vendors or other. entities in any instances of deliberate l viola-

tion of.NRC' regulations or Federal. statutes.

~

POLICY 11 Other NRC components will provide 01 with timely. legal and technical assistance consistent with its impact on the.overall NRC mission.

q POLICY 12 e

01 may use the investigative support of Federal, State'or' local agencies or other' organizations during the course of 01. investigations.

POLICY 13 The Office of. Inspector and Auditor (0IA) shall be the primary office responsible for referral, and.related discussions of investigative matters with the' Department of Justice (including the U.S. Attorneys.and the Fed-i eral. Bureau of Investigation).

Emergency situations: requiring prompt

, field referral to the D0J and/or. FBI should be made without delay or con-sultation with OIA.

Referrals for. prosecution or investigation, inquiries or.-the~ transmittal of. investigative information tc these agencies shall be i

promptly documented ~in writing with copies provided to offices concerned.

POLICY 14

. Investigative activity of 01 may occasionally deyelop information within the jurisdiction of another agency.

This information will be routinely provided to that agency under appropriate controls.

POLICY 15 01 shall keep NRC components which request 01 investigations informed of

~

significant developments in ongoing investigations.

POLICY 16 j

i The requestor of an 01 investigation and any NRC component aware of such 4

ongoing investigation shall advise 01 of any additional information it receives / develops during the pendency of the investigation.

]

f 1

F-x 3

,41 "a

p j

7 3 :

l $ kg]

y j

,w w -

[' ' e LPOLICY 17:

1

l E

01 sha112 advisefcognizanttNRC components of safetyJissues discovered aslthe H

gf7 E

q result of an ongoing:.01 investigation.'.

+

1 p

1 POLICY-18 l

a lith the except; ion of significant safety; issues,;infomation regardinglan.

if

-ongoing OI, investigation will not be disclosed by any NRC~ employee outside JNRC.Withoutlthe specificiapprova1Lof the Director', 01, or his' designee.

j POLICY 19 l

InvestigatorsLand others assigned to!an 01 investigation or inquiry will..

9 (normally not discuss the substance of ongoing 01 inquiries and investiga-tions with, licensees or other non-NRC, personnel in. entrance or exit inter-views,, except safety. items requiring immediate corrective action.

.c POLICY 20L a

i

In'vestigators will) thoroughly and accurately document their investigative -

1

. efforts:and substantive information developed during investigation.

' POLICY 21; L OI?in'vestigativeireports-shall be in/ sufficient detail to permit'an' informed m-

.. managerial review of the fissues under. investigation, and to permit.an NRC determination'asto the need for enforcement or other corrective actions.

' POLICY 22-Reports of Investigation 1(RG;) prepared by.01 investigators should contain i

- an objective ' recitation of. all relevant' facts developed in the course of the' investigation. They should not contain either the opinions;or conclu-l

.sions' of ithe investigators. ;0 pinions or conclusions 'of persons Interviewed i

are. permissible, however.

In -'a. memorandum' transmitting. the Report of_ Inves-l

tigationLto the NRC action office, 01 management will normally include over-all ~ conclusions regarding that 01. believes occurred in' the' matter. investigated or its opinion as to the weight of the evidence. '01 will.not make a determin-

'ation'as to whether the occurrence constitutes a violation or furnish'recom-mendations for enforcement / corrective action.

POLICY 23

' 01' reports of investigation, while in preparation or review, will not be i

. circulated outside NRC without specific approval of the Chairman.

l

~

i POLICY 24

< reports of investigation', while in-preparation or review, will normally not be circulated to other NRC offices.

In those cases where Of perceives l

the: existence:of. safety questions requiring prompt attention or determines that' it would be of substantial benefit to the accuracy of the final report,

{

^ OILmay haveother NRC officials review, and coment on pertinent portions of

~the report.- Final 01 investigative reports will be provided to the appro-

'priate_.NRC officials.

f

____._2_.m_._._.__m..

J

m, O.

+

POLICY 25 Thel 0ffice 'of Inspector and Auditer retain's responsibility for investigations-regarding NRC employee and contractor misconduct and'-interal waste, fraud and -

. abuse.

P_0LICY 26'

01. shall be' informed promptly by NRC employees 'of all allegations which involve

' wrongdoing,'other than allegations of wrongdoing on the part of NRC employees w

or NRC contractors, which are the-responsibility of 01A.

i l

1 l

4 1

\\

J

ac I

f 1

l

!5?c

• E

~ R SEP 15 P4:45 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONS ff { "

r r 4 s

i' BEFORE THE COMMISSION In-the Matter of

)

)

~

METROPOLITAN-EDISON COMPANY

) Dht.,No. 50-289

=

(Three Mile Island Nuclear

) Dkt. No. 50-320 Station, Units 1 and 2)

)

1 MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS J

AND'FOR EXPEDITED' CONSIDERATION Introduction On or about September.l, 1983, the Regional i

Administrator, Region I, at the request-of the Of fice of.

Investigations, issued subpoenas to a number of employees 3

1 and 'former employees at. the Three Mile Island Nuc. lear j

{

Station.

Those subpoenas, all of which were-made return-j able.at a motel room near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, were l

I issued for the purpose of investigating the alleged falsi-N st fication of reactor coolant system leak rate tes TMI-2.

T.he same allegations were referred to the.~epw ment of Justice by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("the

/lj Commission") in 1980 and are at present the subject of f

zS[

inquiry by a Grand Jury of the United States District Court d

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

f)-

$~ ora-67-5TT gb)C/M I

n J

f7 w

W

g_ -~m-m i

e.

t 4

).,

h Under-52.720(f) of.the. commission's Rules of Practice,LIO.C.F.R. $2.720(f) (1983), the Commission may.

quash a: subpoena that is unreasonable., "For the reasons

. stated in this Motion, the subpoenas issued to Movants (listed in Appendix A) are. improper and' unreasonable and I

should be quashed.1/

Argument I.

1 1

THE COMMISSION MAY NOT INVESTIGATE THE HARTMAN

]

ALLEGATIONS AFTER THEIR REFERRAL TO THE j

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

j The subpoenas. demand testimony. and documents for-an investigation of statements made to Commission inspectors j

by Harold Hartman, a former control room operator at TMI-2, i

in interviews following the March 1979 accident at tha't

')

i facility.. Mr. Hartman alleged that certain control room Jl operators may have. falsified the results of reactor coolant system leak rate tests at TMI-2, in violation of technical specifications and operating procedures.

l I

1/

The commission is advised that Ivan -Porter and Jack i

Garrison, whom we represent, will comply with the subpoenas issued to them.

Because the undersigned are not aware of-every ' aubpoena issued by the Commission in ' this investigation, j

we have listed all.present or former employees at TMI whom we represent.

Only those persons listed in Appendix A who have been subpoenaed are Movants.

{

)

I I i l

.H a-i o

The Commission' pursued the Hartman allegations through examination of documents and: records and interviewe'd L

a number of Hartman 's 'former co-workers.

In. March 1980,'it-

- informed thI Department of Justice of the possibility, of a 1;

- referral for crimin,a1 prosecution.

That referral.was made the folfowing month, and the Commission properly brought its

' own_ investigation to a halt.

~

The Department of. Justice has been responsible for. investigation of the Hartman allegations since April f'

1980.

A Grand Jury. convened in May 1980 by the United'

- States District Court for the Middle District of Penn-sylvania interrogated a number of the Movants1to deter-4 mine whether Mr. Hartman's charges were true.

Although that Grand Jury was discharged in October 1981, before it had completed investigation of the Hartman allegations,-the Department of Justice never relinquished control of the matter.

'Instead, another Grand Jury was convened in

)

I November 1981, and given at least some preliminary infor-mation concerning the' work of the May 1980 Grand Jury.

Among other things, the November 1981 Grand Jury was

)

subjected to voir dire examination concerning the venire-men's potential bias or prejudice because of the TMI

)

accident.

In March 1983, yet another Grand Jury was empaneled in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for the

• l' 4

WWMR 39 _y <

~ ~ '

UN r

);fif, c : - ~ '$&',

' _v n

yn s.

~

16 'Yg e t L

g 3,.. y n

h' r

s o

4 pr mary purpose of 'pr'obin'g further 'into the'. Hartman alle-i l

gs gationslandkotherfmatters' involving, reactor"coolantsystem f

m, o

. 3

,f

' leakage ~atDTMI-liand TMI-2.

l q

m u

i The1 March 11983 Grand Juryjinvestigation,fstill.

L f

pursuantito~the-coquission's' referral',' continues.

The.

Grand? Jury hasi heard testimony ;on. the matter from -virtually.

n i

I a11Jof the Movants here as well as other individuals. JWe

'I have been advi' sed that at 'least certain Movants' may be l

' recalled before'the' March 1983 Grand Jury.

.In1thefcircumstances, the subpoenas issued

=

byLthe Regional 1 Administrator must be quashed.

Once an agency'has1 referred a -' matter to, the Department of Justice, f

t thus; triggering theferimina1Lprocess('the agency must cease use offits own; investigative authority'into j

11 l'

the :same r matter.

United States v. LaSalle National Bank,

]

1

-'437. U.S. ; 298l, 312 ~ (1978') ; see-also Garden State National 1

Bank ~v.lUnited' States, 607'F.2d 611(30 cir. 1979).

This

}

I "prophylact,1c restraint" serves two important policy interests:- it.safeguardsEthe role of the grand jury as a q

l

'" principal tool of', criminal accusation", and it prevents

-improper broadening of the Government's opportunities for j

\\

' criminal discovery.

LaSalle, 437 U.S. at 312-13.

Both interests are at -stake here.

The March 1983 Grand Jury is'in the midst of an active investigation of 1 l i

p-

)

i G

21 x.,

.l l

j the ' Hartman' allegations and. other aspects; of reactor :

j coolant system leakage determinations at TMI-1 and TMI-1, the same allegations that the office' of Investigations i

would'now pursue.

The grand. jury "has'always1 occupied a hif b place as an instrument of ~ justice in our system of celsinal law.

. United States v. Sells Engineering,

'inc., 103 S. Ct. 3133,.3137 (1983)..Its process must remain unhampered by the reintrusion of an agency that has esiinquished ~ investigatory control of a matter, as the i

commission;did1here over three years ago.

i l;

'Furthermore, resumption'of the Commission's i

inquiry 'into allegations with respect to reactor coolant

.)

system leakage risks circumvention of the. limits on criminal discovery required by fundamental fairness and' respect for individual rights.

As tne LaSalle Court observed, effec-tive-use of information obtained in an agency's civil inves-i tigation "would inevitably result in criminal discovery."

United States v. LaSalle National Bank, 437 U.S. at 312

)

(emphasis added); see also United States v. Sells Engi-

)

l neering, Inc., 103 S. Ct. a t 3138.

Virtually all Movants

'here have been questioned at least once'and remain subject to further interrogation about the Hartman allegations by

)

the March 1983 Grand Jury.

The Government's criminal

-discovery should not be impermissible expanded, and Movants' l _ - _ _ _ _ _

[

,g

W kW' s

'{

.e dk 3

4

.f y'

Ej t

1 s

y u-

+

h' s

r y

?\\

-q' di!

q rig' hts"should.-not'be put:at risk, by' renewed commission ~<

\\-

"L y ; >

finquiry J on' preci'sely ; the - same.' subject.

/f

'T'ho communication between members'of the

v, Comm'ission's

Staff and the DepartmentLof' Justice that has i

Loccurred'since'~the\\ Commission'sreferrall.of.the,Hartman il allegations demonstrates'the wisdom.offthe LaSalle prophyl--

~

e 1

+ ~ actic rule. -According to a list received in response to a

'I Freedom of Information - Act request by Movants' -attorneys,

' staff representatives met with personnel of the, Middle.

.Distric't of' Pennsylvania United States Attorney's Office on Jun'eL28,.19 3.2/

A letter from-~R.K._ Christopher 1to'.

I E

~

L ames' West,.the First' Assistant-United'St'ates Attorney;

.l J

responsible for the March 1983 Grand Jury. investigation, 1

d followed.on July 5'and'enclosedLa " cataloged version of.

l material. received'from T.T. Martin concerning-Hartman."

A

'~

' subsequent memorandum from Mr. Christopher to Mr. Martin discussed '%aterial. developed for.DOJ [the; Department of

' Justice] in support of Hartman investigation."

Further exchanges 'of information will " inevitably result", contrary G

- 2/

'A' copy of the list of some*of documents responsive to the sequest is attached as Appendix B.

The Commission's l.s failure to produce the listed documents themselves'and j

deletion of-information on the list prevent detailed discus-sion'here.

-s-1

]

I y

i m

J

q Y

k, 3

i 4

.j 4

k 4

d

~ to the4 instruction of LaSalle, if the subpoenas are not:

quashed.

In recognition of this danger, the Commission a

n 1

i.-

properly t'erminated. its < investigation-of the Hartman allega'--

0 tions: in -1980.

The, Commission's/ awareness of'the limits.on-ifs investigative powers af ter referral'of a matter to the.

l

. Department'of Justice was'appi-'nt in its 1980 decision.

In re Metropolitan Edison Company, 11~N.R.C. 724'(1980)'.

a There the' Commission refused to quash subpoenas J ssued to some of the.Movants here only because.the Commission'then, j

sought to~~ investigate; matters " wholly separate and distinct"

+

. I_d_. a t. 7 28 e.. The '

-from those before-the 1980 Gran6' Jury.

i icurrent resurrection of the Hartman allegation investiga-tion,'through the-Office'of Investigations, apparently arises' f rom a letter to Chairman Palladino from Lowell D.

]J Jensen, Assistant Attorney General'in charge of the

]

-f Criminal Division, stating Mr. Jensen's belief that the j

Commission was free to proceed with its inquiry. M 3/

The Commission has failed-to respond in a timely Tashion 'to a Freedom of Information Act request for a copy of this letter.

Movants learned of-the letter through an-account -in' a newspaper to which the letter was apparently

available...Movants are confident that the correspondence demonstrates.that'the office of Investigation intends to inquire into'the same matters being investigated by the

{

o Grand Jury, and that Chairman Palladino requested advice from Mr. Jensen'as to whether that was appropriate.

, (

~

.g j

L v

v:"

m

>;y

-. ~

jl

~ ~

W 4

y.

)

Based.on press' reports of Mr. Jensen's letter, j

s j

,4 the. position taken by'the' Criminal Division; flatly con-1 tradicts the Supreme-Court's prophylactic standard defined-i inL LaSalle'.. Having set the criminal process in' motion by

-j its referral to the. Department of Justice, the Commission' must quash the. subpoenas. issued to Movants.

The commission.

need only delayLits' investigation until'the March 1983 Grand Jury: completes its inquiry and any further related activity. by the Department of Justice has ceased.

Deference to the criminal process will protect both.the Grand Jury and Movants here, and confine the Government's investigation h

to its proper sphere.

[

II.

THE COMMISSION MAY NOT COMPEL THE PRESENCE OF MOVANTS RESIDING BEYOND THE JURISDICTION 10F THE HARRISBURG COURT.

The Commission has sta,tutory authority to issue subpoenas returnable at any place in -the United States and to make nationwide. service of process.

4 2 U. S.,. C.

l.2201(c) (1976).

However, its authority does not give it L

pcwer to compel the presence of a witness whose subpoena is made returnable beyond the limits of the federal judicial

' district in which the witness is found, resides, or transacts L

business.

42 U.S.C. { 2281 (1976).

l

~8-1 L_=--___-

l

iz

~

All of the subpoenas issued by the Office of

.In'vestigations purport to be returnable in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Movants here reside in several different L

states and several different judicial districts.

A number of:the Movants resi,de.beyond the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of. Pennsylvania'.

-Since the Commission cannot compel their presence in Harrisburg as demanded in the subpoenas through enforcement actions in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Commis-l sion should quash these subpoenas on grounds of unreasonable-ness.

In any event, it is plainly unreasonable to require Movants who do not live in the vicinity of Barris-l burg to. travel there.

Many of these Movants are licensed operators at other commercial nuclear facilities or are employed in other, equally important industries.

No group of employees in the history of this Nation has been sub-jected to the necessity to give testimony on as many occasions as have Movants.

Some have appeared four times or i

more to give testimony before various Grand Juries and have testified on numerous other occasions in judicial, legi'sla-tive, and administrative hearings since the accident.

In the circumstances, the Commission, with Regional Offices h

'in several part of the country, should take testimony (if l l

): -

6 1.) s

. :\\

l>,>.

a M,

p n

J

-f:

l I

L.

[pk

'at all) in reasonable' proximity - to the place of Movants'-

1 n) '

residence :or employment.

The Commission followed this'

' practice duringoits "information transfer" investigation in s

'1980, sending its. representatives to Florida and Pittsburgh-to interview persons then residing in those_ places.

After theLnumber:of times these Movants have been required to

. appear to give testimony, it would be plainly unreasonable-to require them to travel for the convenience of the Office of < Investigations. -

j For. example, certain Movants are employed at com-mercial nuclear power plants in California.

If required to testify'in.Harrisburg,_each such Movant will be away'from:

l his place of employment ~for at least three days (including

{

one day for travelfin each direction).

It would' be :far more appropriate to interview such persons in California, with

- minimal disruption of their present employment and the safety of the plants where they now-work.

5 1

. l

._L

(p 1

p

+

L

-i i ( -'

1'

'\\

conclusion 1

For.the foregoing reasons,1the subpoenas should be' quashed.

Because. the subpoenas 'are Lreturnable in the ~

near future, expedited consideration of this Motion is Y

requested.

'y 3.

Respectfully submitted, f

e HARRY HC VOIGT

(

EUGENE R.

FIDELL j

c.

. MICHAEL F. McBRIDE LeBOEUF,' LAMB,1 LEIBY & MacRAE :

1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20036 I

(202) 457-7500 SMITH B. GEPHART

' JANE G., PENNY'

~

KILLIAN & GEPHART 218 Pine Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,17107 (717) 232-1851 Attorney's for Movants' September 15, 1983 r.

l

! ~

.i.

f

.y 4

Appendix A'

'j:

- Char'les D.-Adams Richard S.' Hutchison John C.

Auger Theodore F.:Illjos Robert.P. Beeman John M.~Kidwell l

. Nelson Bennett George A. Kunder Richard W./Benseli Lawrence'L.. Lawyer

- Mark.Bezilla Walter J. Marshall

' John J.. Blessing ~

'Hugh?A. McGovern

~ Raymond R. ' Booher -

Brian'A. Mahler John Brummer Charles F. Mell Kenneth P.s Bryan' Adam W. Miller Joseph J.-;chwastyk Thomas Morck Mark S. Coleman James ~P. O'Hanlon William T.EConaway, II Dennis I. Olson' Joseph R. Congdon4 John Perry

- Martin V.: Cooper-Mark D. Phillippe y

Craig Faust Merrill R. Shaffor-l William' Fels Frederick J. Scheimann h

James R. Floyd Richard'E.:.Sieglitz

-James L. Seelinger' L,,

Edward-R.-Frederick.

b Leonard P. Germer Bernard G. Smith Carl L~. Guthrie.

. George J..Troffor Thomas Hawkins Ronald Phillip Warren, Sr.

Earl'D. Hemmila Lynn O. Wright' Gregory R. Hitz, Sr.

William H.

Zewe

- Kenneth.P.

Hoyt p'

I' I

h f.)

L I

s

,4 a.

,j r,

73 L

j

.i

)

UNITED. STATES.OF' AMERICA d

o,.

NUCLEAR! REGULATORY COMMISSION

,i m

'BEFORE:THE COMMISSION j

s 4

-r L

In\\the-Matter of

)

u

).

R METROPOLITAN: EDISON COhPANY

) Dkt. No. 50-289 (Threle. Mile l Island Nuclear

) Dkt. No. 50-320

. Station,1 Units 1 and 2)

)

t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE q

L

'I hereby certify'that'I have served,'this-15th' day p-of September, 1983,. a copy-of the~" Motion To Quash i

Subpoenas And!For' Expedited Consideration" by,first-class mail,. postage prepaid and. properly-addressed to the following persons:

j Mr. R.K: Christopher Jack'R. Goldberg,.Esq.

office'of' Investigations Office of the Executive Field. Office, Region I Legal-Director' 631 Park Avenue U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory King of Prussia, PA 19406' Commission-j Washington, D.C.

20555 i

~

Michael'Wilcove, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal. Director-

'U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory

.i

' Commission.

j washington, D.C.

20555 wi.%LA MICHAEL F.-McBRIDE

,1

+

l 1