ML20082H985
| ML20082H985 | |
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8312010342 | |
| Download: ML20082H985 (3) | |
Text
,.
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 RESPONSE TO AWPP MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY ON CONTENTION VI-l FOR SIX WEEKS On November 14, 1983, Frank R.
Romano, AWPP, moved the Board to extend the discovery schedule on Contention VI-l at least six weeks because he (1) has a job, (2) is working on Contention V-4, (3) no longer has the assistance of Judith Dorsey, Esq. and (4) asserts that conformance to the present injury.1/
Applicant cpposes schedule could cause him eye this motion for an extension.
None of the reasons advanced by Mr. Romano warrant an extension of the schedule.
In its policy statement on the conduct of licensing proceedings, the Commission stated:
j l
Fairness to all involved in NRC's adjudicatory procedures requires that every participant fulfill the obliga-tions imposed by and in accordance with applicable law and Commission regu-lations.
While a board should endeavor 1
1/
Letter to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board from Frank
~
R. Romano, November 14, 1983.
8312010342 831128 PDR ADOCK 05000352 PDR C
I.
to conduct the proceeding in a manner that takes account of the special circumstances faced by any participant, the fact that a party may have personal or other obligations or possess fewer resources than others to devote to the proceeding does not relieve that party of its hearing obligations.2/
Thus, the Commission has answered the question of whether personal considerations such as those raised by Mr. Romano should relieve a party of its hearing responsibilities in the negative.
l-The fact that Mr. Romano has a job is insufficient basis for grant of an extension.
Furthermore, Mr. Romano has not explained why other Air and Water Pollution Patrol members cannot assist him in the preparation of AWPP's case.
Similarly, the fact that Mr.
Romano is working on one contention does not obviate his responsibility to conduct discovery on another contention raised by him.
Third, Ms.
Dorsey was counsel for Limerick Ecology Action.
As such, Mr. Romano should not be heard to complain that he is no l
longer receiving assistance from another party to the proceeding and thus cannot fulfill his hearing responsibil-ities.
Finally, Mr. Romano has provided no basis for his assertion that conformance with the present schedule could
-'! /
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 454 (1981); see also Texas Utilities Generating Company (Commanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-18, 15 NRC 598, 599 (1982).
cause him permanent eye injury.
He provides no affidavit from a physician detailing the nature of his illness, its duration or other pertinent details.
Again, he provides no explanation of why other AWPP members are not helping him with the preparation of AWPP's case.
In sum, Mr. Romano has advanced no reason demonstrating good cause for an extension.
10 C.F.R. S 2.711.
His motion should thus be denied.
Respectfully Submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
Mark J.
etterhahn Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company l
November 28, 1983 l
l l
l l
l t
-