ML20137E223

Ack Receipt of Re Oral Argument on Pending Appeals in Licensing Proceeding.Request to Have Glasspiegel Participate in Argument Unnecessary.Nrc Rules of Practice Do Not Preclude Divided Arguments

ML20137E223
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	11/25/1985
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	Silberg J SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
References
CON-#485-315 OL, NUDOCS 8511270222
Download: ML20137E223 (1)

Text

1. o,, UNITEG) STATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL

$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 g

"05 fl0V 25 '

November 25, 1985 g ,

GGhij7,f.:c _,9 BNij,QEiv Jay E. Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Re: THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL.

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-440 OL and 50-441 OL

Dear Mr. Silberg:

This will acknowledge receipt of your November 22, 1985 letter with respect to the oral argument on the pending appeals in the above-styled licensing proceed-ing.

Although the Appeal Board would prefer that the entire oral argument on behalf of the applicants be presented by one individual, the Commission's Rules of Practice do not currently preclude divided arguments.

For this reason, it was not necessary to request leave to have Mr. Glasspiegel participate in the argument.

Sincerely, C.

C. Jean Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board cc: Ms. Susan Hiatt Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq.

Docketing and Service Branch p=mnMa%o gc,o}