ML20137C306
| ML20137C306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1985 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137C311 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#485-288 ALAB-819, OL, NUDOCS 8511260481 | |
| Download: ML20137C306 (3) | |
Text
.
$h?D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA %
NUCLEAR REGUIA'IORY COMISSI0tP NCygg A10:1 Before the ccanission Ctrb '{.
00C JEv Bfk/[gykg'7
)
In the Matter of
,f h
Philadelphia Electric Ccapany Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
LICI!NSEE'S ANSWER 'IO PETf1 TION BY FRIDOS OF '1HE EARTH IOR REVIliN OF ALAB-819 On November 13, 1985, intervenor Friends of the Earth ("POE"), by l
sits representative, Rc' art L. Anthony, petitioned the Comnission for review of AIAB-819, issued October 22, 1985.1I IDE has asked the 7
cannission to review AIAB-819 with respect to its affirmance of the Licensing Board's decision on f0E's contentions V-3a and V-3b.
10E asserts no more than that the Licensing Board's findings " discount or ignore the safety hazards" specified in its contentions and in evidence presentedathearings.1#
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.786(b) (3), Licensee Philadelphia Electric Ccmpany (" Licensee") opposes f0E's request for ccanission review on the ground that POE has failed to show that AIAB-819 is erroneous with I
respect to any inportant question of fact, law or Ccenission policy.
. POE's unsubstantiated arginent that the Appeal Board " perpetuated" 1/
Philadelcit.a Electric Ccmpany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Aus-819, 22 NIC (October 22, 1995).
l
^
1 2/
POE Petition (November 13, 1985).
t m
3S03
u gei.
errors allegedly made by the Licensing Board in its decision is clearly insuff:cient to demonstrate why the Ccmmission should review AIAB-819.
7J11tionally, ME's request for review is untimely and should be strickei. AIAB-819 was served on October 23, 1985 and, even accepting E M 's representation that it served its petition for review on November 13, 1985,E the request falls outside the period permitted under 10 C.F.R. 52.786(b) (1). ME neither requested an extension within which to petition for review of AIAB-819, nor denonstrated any extraordinary circumstancesU which precluded a timely filing.
3/
The undersigned counsel for Liernsee received EM's request for review frca the Docketing and Service Branch of the NBC. It is our understanding that the NBC Staff and, by inference, other parties were not served. Because EM failed to serve counsel, its service was inccmplete.
See 10 C.F.R. SS2.701(b), 2.712.
A pleading is not deared to be filed until service is ccmplete.
10 C.F.R.
SS2.701(c), 2.712 (d) ; Limerick, supra, ALAB " Order" (August 9, 1984).
Hence, even to this date, no request for review has been
" filed.".
EM's failure to serve the parties with its motion is another reason it should be stricken. Significantly, the Pppeal Board has twice chastized intervences, including Mr. Anthony, for failing to effact service and has admonished liin. on t.r e inportance of ecmplying with the ccmmission's reguletiens rapiring service and proof of service.
See Limerick, _suqa,, AIAB " Order" (July 2, 1985); letter frca C. Jean Shoemaker, Occretray to the Appeal Board to Robert L. Anthony (July 5,1985).
4/
See 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, Section IX(d) (4).
l
-