ML20082H916

Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 831121 Memorandum & Order Establishing Discovery Schedule for Air & Water Pollution Patrol Contention VI-1.Order Should Be Amended to Reflect 60-day Discovery Period Established at 831018 Conference

ML20082H916
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/28/1983
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082H879	List: ML20082H876 ML20082H916 ML20082H937 ML20082H964 ML20082H985 ML20082J024
References
NUDOCS 8312010320
Download: ML20082H916 (2)

Text

a . . . - . - . z. . xx - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE "MEMORAMDUM AND ORDER ESTABLISHING DISCOVERY SCHEDULE" AS TO CONTENTION VI-1 On November 21, 1983, the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") issued a " Memorandum and Order Establishing Discovery Schedule," which set February 6, 1983 as the last day for serving discovery requests regarding, inter alia, Air and Water Pollution Patrol Contention VI-1. As applied to this particular contention, Applicant, Philadelphia Electric Company, (" Applicant")

respectfully requests that the Board reconsider its order and set December 19, 1983 as the date for ending discovery requests.

l l

The Board's order of November 21, 1983 fixes a discov-I ery schedule for certain contentions for which no discovery daadline had previously been fixed. However, Applicant wishes to bring the Board's attention to the fact that it ,

had already specifically set a 60-day discovery period at l the time of the prehearing conference with regard to Con-tention VI-l (Tr. 4914). Moreover, the parties have 8312010320 831128

! PDR ADOCK 05000352 PDR G

=.

,s,- .

understood the Board to have so ruled and have acted in reliance upon that ruling in exchanging discovery requests and responses.1I -

Accordingly, the Board had already established a 60-day period for discovery requests at the time of the prehearing conference, which the parties understood to commence immedi-ately.2_/ Since the parties have acted accordingly, the Board should amend its order of November 21, 1983 to reflect the earlier action takan by the Board at the prehearing conference establishing a 60-day period from October 18,  ;

1983 for discovery requests.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant November 28, 1983 l_/ The Board required that certain documents be provided expeditiously to Mr. Romano (Tr . 4914). The Applicant has complied with this requirement (letter dated November 1, 1983 from Mark J. Wetterhahn to Frank R.

Romano). See also letter dated November 11, 1983 from Frank R. Romano to Troy B. Conner, Jr. It should also be noted that a meeting between Applicant and Mr.

Roraano has been scheduled for December 1, 1982 and that Mr. Romano has already examined material related to this contention at the Applicant's document room.

-2/ Unlike the other contentions covered by the Licensing

' Board's Memorandum and Order, intervenor is permitted a 30-day period after discovery closes in which to file specific material in support of its contention (Tr.

4916). Thus, a delay in the close of discovery would affect the hearing schedule for this contention more than that for the other contentions.

._ _ _ -____ __ _ _. _ __ . _ _ _ . , _ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ .