ML20195D007

Memorandum & Order.* Licensing Board 880505 Memorandum & Order Granting Util Motion for Summary Disposition of Single Contention Shall Not Be Considered to Have Achieved Finality Pending Completion of Sua Sponte Review.Served on 880616

ML20195D007
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/15/1988
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
CON-#288-6543 OLA, NUDOCS 8806230013
Download: ML20195D007 (3)

Text

/p 5 pG

i b DOLHETCO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U*E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL P EL Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Udne4154x1988<

00CKEiiNG 4 % VIM BRANC"

)

SERVED JUN 161988 In the Matter of )

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-352-OLA

) (TS Iodine)

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on May 5, 1988, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and Order granting the Philadelphia Electric Company's motion for summary disposition of the single contention admitted for litigation in this operating license proceeding.1 on May 19, Frank R. Romano, acting on the behalf of the intervenor Air and Water Pollution Patrol, mailed a notice of appeal from that order (dated May 12) to the Appeal Panel. Because it was not accompanied by the requisite proof of service upon the Secretary to the Commission and counsel for the other parties,2 on May 24 the notice was returned to Mr. Romano undocketed. The accompanying letter informed Mr. Romano that, if he still wished to pursue an appeal from the May 5 Memorandum and I

LBP-88-12, 27 NRC .

2 See 10 CFR 2.701.

2ko 3 50

r  ;

s G

2 Order, he should refile the notice of appeal in compliance with the Rules of Practice together with a motion for leave to file the notice out of time.3 Mr. Rcmano did not heed that admonition. Although the notice of appeal was resubmitted, it was not accompanied by the required motion. Moreover, the notice was undated and the certification that it had been served "on the latest service list by first class mail from U.S. Post Office" did not indicate either the date upon which that service had been accomplished or the particular service list that Mr.

Romano deemed to be the "latest" available. These shortcomings led the Office of the Secretary to the Commission to return this notice undocketed to Mr. Romano.4 In the circumstances, the May 5 Memorandum and Order will be treated as not having been appealed and, thus, as subject to review sua sponte by an appeal board. The May 24 letter returning the first notice of appeal to him took note of the fact that, although a non-lawyer, Mr. Romano has been long involved in NRC proceedings concerned with the Limerick facility and, consequently, should be aware of the 3

May 24, 1988 letter from John Cho, Counsel to the Appeal Panel, to Frank R. Romano.

4 June 15, 1988 letter from Emile L. Jr.lian, Acting Chief of the Docketing and Service Branch, to Frank R.

Romano.

I

C 4

3 obligation to become familiar and to comply with the Rules of Practice. Beyond that, the letter advised Mr. Romano specifically respecting the steps that had to be taken if he desired to resubmit the notice of appeal. Having enosen to ignore that advice, he is not in a position to claim an entitlement to yet another opportunity to cure the defects in his prior submissions.5 The May 5 Memorandum and Order shall not be considered to have achieved finality pending the completion of the sua sponte review and our further order.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL PANSL CHAIRPJW b.

C. Jea Shoemaker bd Secreta to the Appeal Panel l

This action was taken by the Appeal Panel Chairman under the authority of 10 CFR 2. 787 (b) .

I 5 For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Romano's June 7, 1988, two-page commentary on the May 5 Memorandum and Order will be disregarded, i

__. _ __ , _ _ _ _