ML20128A283
| ML20128A283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1985 |
| From: | Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#385-636 NUDOCS 8507020617 | |
| Download: ML20128A283 (2) | |
Text
._-
LAW OFFICES CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
17 47 P EN N S Y LVA NI A AV E N U E. N. W.
Teov s.coNNES J3.
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 xias 4. warr"*"'""
00LKETEC "noE'oU."E.Y. "",
USNRC Nf.*hx"enE" June 28, 1985
.O..w... BBCN EORFEB
.A5 JUL -1 M M t
smaxmARD o v
or comes&
CABLE ADDRESS: ATONLAW CFFICE OF HCELW Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
00CKETgyERVlf.
r Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 4
Dear Judge Hoyt:
The purpose of this letter is to explain the reasons why Applicant has had to apply for a subpoena to take the deposition of Robert L.
- Morris, the principal witness identified by Mr. Love on the contention challenging the evacuation time estimates for Graterford, in Philadelphia on
- Tuesday, July 2,
- 1985, at 10:00 a.m.
The letter also recites my unsuccessful efforts to reach an accommodation on
,('
this matter with Mr. Love.
l As you are aware, the scheduling of depositions on an l
expedited basis was the subject, inter alia, of the Board's conference call with the parties on June 17, 1985.
A second l
conference call among the parties occurred on June 21, 1985 to reaffirm the availability of witnesses.
At that time, counsel for all parties acknowledged the need to take depositions very promptly to meet the hearing schedule.
It was agreed that Mr. Morris would appear at the law offices of Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.,
today at 1:30 p.m.
for his i
deposition.
This schedule was, contingent upon receipt by i
the witness in advance of certain information requested by Mr. Love from the Department of Corrections.
Because the requested materials were not received. in time, Mr. Love cancelled the deposition scheduled __for today.
When I spoke to Mr. Love this morning, I pointed out that the depositions of other witnesses identified by the intervenor, namely, Mr. Case and Mr. Giamo, were scheduled for the afternoon on Monday, July 1, 1985, in Philadelphia.
e5070206178506h52 PDR ADOCK 0500 1
l G
l 2)Ja7
~
Halen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Juna 28, 1985 I
Paga 2 That location was selected principally to accommodate Mr.
Love, the deponents and State counsel.
I stated that Mr.
Morris's deposition should be rescheduled on the s,ame day in 4
the morning.
Mr. Love responded that Mr. Morris would be unavailable Monday because of a court appearance.
I suggested Tuesday as an alternative, noting that the same reasons applied.
Mr. Love responded that Mr. Morris was " busy" on that day.
I asked in what respect, and Mr. Love said that he did not know.
I told Mr. Love that his explanation was unacceptable as a reason for further delaying the deposition in view of the hearing schedule.
As the Board is aware, prefiled testimony is due on July 8 and the hearing commences a week later.
i Mr. Love offered to determine the witness's availabil-ity on Wednesday, July 3, but could not make a commitment at that time.
I stated that July 3 was too late in view of the upcoming Fourth of July four-day weekend and the difficulty in obtain,ing a transcript of the dep' sition. ' I also. noted'.
o that Mr. Conner was th'e attorney who had prepared to take i
Mr. Morris's deposition and that he would be attending a long-since scheduled hearing at the Delaware River Basin Commission on that date.
I also offered to schedule the deposition in the evening to accommodate the witness.
Mr.
Love rejected this alternative as well.
Finally, I stated to Mr. Love that, if he could not appreciate the importance of promptly scheduling the deposi-tion and would not voluntarily make the witness available, we would have no choice but to obtain a subpoena.
For the reasons stated above, Applicant has made every effort to l
accommodate the witness's personal needs without I
compromising its ability to prepare its defense against the contentions, but to no avail.
Therefore, Applicant requests that the Board issue the requested subpoena for Mr. Morris to appear and give testimony at his oral deposition on Tuesday, July 2, 1985, at 10:00 a.m.,
in Philadelphia.
Sincerely, o
Robert M. Rader Counsel for Applicant i
l RMR/ac cc:
Service List Federal Express for Mr. Love