ML20151N663

Discusses Two Concerns Raised by Lilco Brief in Opposition to Intervenors Appeal of Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision on Suitability of Reception Ctrs

ML20151N663
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/03/1988
From:	Case D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Johnson W, Kohl C, Rosenthal A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#388-6861 OL-3, NUDOCS 8808090061
Download: ML20151N663 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

/

676/

6 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART to y it i' SOUTH LOBBY 9TH FLOOR " h(,,6p1 twurw rtAct t900 M STRIET, N W,

'[" IjI *(

TASIGNOTON D C. KOMN1 g g -4 P5 :20 win mm 14.'s hAJCt&LL A\\1%L1 kilALC. FL lilli name con mm

,g, q ui nux em n re tQp,,,, & h L"

,,, :i,o

,w emi.twm naceran een med eR mTutacH. P4 nm me twins rect tt4L NWM A iHD m4W (202) 778-9084 August 3, 1988 Christine N.

Kohl, Chairman Alan S.

Rosenthal Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission Fifth Floor (North Tower)

East West Towers 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Re:

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

Dear Madame Chairman and Members of the Board:

This letter addresses two concerns raised by LILCO's Brief in Opposition to Intervenors' Appeal of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision on the Suitability of Reception Centers (the "LILCO Brief").,

The first concern involves the two attachments to the LILCO Brief (i) the April 28, 1988 RAC Final Review of Revislen 9 of the LILCO Plan; and (ii) a FEMA Memorandum dated May 6, 1988.

Because both documents were issued well after the hearing before the Licensing Board, neither document is part of the record.

Accordingly, the law is clear that the attachments should not be considered by the Appeal Board.

Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 720 n.51 (1985),,r,eview declined, CLI-86-5, 23 NRC 125 (1986); Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 ),

ALAB-648, 14 NRC 34 (1981).

The second concern involves the need for oral argument.

Given the extensive record and complicated procedural history in this matter, the Governments believe that oral argument will provide the Appeal Board with an opportunity to focus the issues raised in the briefs and to explore the record through the questioning of counsel.

Accordingly, the Governments request oral argument in the instant matter,

($808090061 000003 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PUR JSo3 0

1

a s

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Christine ti. Kohl, Chairman August 3, 1988 Page 2 The Governments advise the Board that the undersigned will be presenting the Governments' argument.

Mr. Z inleuter will be present and available to respond to any questions which may pertain particularly to flew York State.

The undersigned is generally available for oral argument on a schedule convenient to the Appeal Board, except that I will be unavailable from August 15 through August 24, 1988, and f rom September 15, 1988 through September 30, 1988.

Sincerely, c' &

Q David T.

Case cc:

Service List