ML20151S030
| ML20151S030 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1988 |
| From: | Leugers M HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Johnson W, Kohl C, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6895 LBP-88-13, OL-3, NUDOCS 8808150031 | |
| Download: ML20151S030 (2) | |
Text
V g (95 E. E r$.7S.. D E E 3 00LKEIED HUNroN Sc WILLIAM s WC 707 rAsr MmN STREET P.O. Box 1535 egneAUG 10 P3 M2 rooo ec~wsvLvam4 avruve. N w.
R ic n w ow s). VinotwzA
,oo a..
wo, p.C.poxsea3o wtw voan, wtw voan soot?
wasw.warow. o. c. aoo se TrLannouraiasossooo vettawows aoa.sgs isoo TELEPMoNE 804 788 8200
,, / "p M' vcLex4a4s43 wuwtus I f f M.M k 3 N
enast vinoima sawn towse TELEX 6844251 Out waNuovEm SoyAnt ggGCKE woaroom, vino.ma a3sia BRAhCH -
e o. sox pos
- p. o som seea matriow. wontw camouwa areoa TELE
- wow so4.eas s sot TcLepwows o's see sooo riasr TcNwesset sann sustoiwo
,oso emain on.e noAo P o. som ese r*,.,O. v,17,".,'41a, Jo August 8, 1988
"'."3',"o.U 'e%."e*3,'. ',','
TELtowowt fo3 3sa aroo o.. cr o l4 5,6,6,3,0 0 0 0 1 3
~
7278 Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman Alan S.
Rosenthal Dr. W.
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Flcor (North Tower)
East West Towers 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Docket No. 520-322-OL-3:
Reception Center Appeal
Dear Members of the Board:
This letter responds to Suffolk County's August 3 letter concerning the Intervenors' appeal of the Licensing Board's Par-tial Initial Decision on Suitability of Reception Centers, LBP-88-13, 27 NRC (1988) ("PID").
In its letter Suffolk j
County replies to LILCO's brief in opposition to Intervenors' ap-peal, complaining that LILCO ohould not be permitted to include in its brief two attachments that address the 1988 Final RAC Re-view of Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan.
The letter also requests that oral argument be heard on the issues.
First, insofar as Suffolk County's letter takes issue with LILCO's brief, it is an unauthorized reply.
More important, LILCO did not include the two attachments to raise new issues on appeal or to ask the Appeal Board to rely on new evidence.
Suffolk County has called for a remand to consider the FEMA find-ings represented by the attachments.
LILCO's point is simply that it makes no sense to order a remand on new information that merely confirms what the Licensing Board already decided.
Second, LILCO will be happy to present oral argument if the Appeal Board wants it.
In light of the strong record supporting the Licensing Board's findings, however, LILCO thinks that oral 8808150031 000008 PDR ADDCK 05000322 PDR G
)9
i i
HUNTON & WILLIAMS Christine N.
Kohl, Chairman August 8, 1988 Page 2 argument will make no difference in the outcome If oral argu-ment is to be held, LILCO asks that it be held soon.
Very truly y urs, James N.
Christman Mary Jo Leugers cc:
Service List i
126/6176 1
i 1
-r-r--
e m"
e-v-.--vv-wr-m--r wen em-w---
r---g w,-w
-7+-+ve--
w r=-+-m
+"w--NtV
- P-C""*--*"*'PMT=-N'T'"""--**-~N* * * * * "
- V*-"'-9
- '