ML20214N228

Advises That Util 870512 Request That NRC Distribute Util Reply to Intervenor Opposition to Expedited Consideration of 25% Power Request Should Be Rejected Due to Being Unauthorized Pleading Not Permitted by NRC Regulations

ML20214N228
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/22/1987
From:	Brown H KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-#287-3574 OL, NUDOCS 8706020105
Download: ML20214N228 (2)

Text

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART south LOBBY . 9TH Floor -'~'*:

EXCHANGE PLACE 1800 M STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20045891 gin ur6xo

- '87 MY 26 P3 %2CKEu AvEset M1AML FL J)1)!

TTLIPHONE G02) 77&9X4 Oos) 3744112 TILEX 440209 KL DC et H00 OUVER BUILDING U 'l_ ,

PfTT5BURCH, PA 15222 5379 TTLECOrtER C02) 77&912 ' ,

23 355 "

HERBERT H. BROWN

"* "S"" May 22, 1987 BY HAND Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Rej ection of LILCO May 12, 1987 Unauthorized Pleading in Docket No. 50-322-OL

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On May 12, 1987, LILCO filed with you a letter requesting that you distribute to the Commissioners "LILCO's Reply to Intervenors' Opposition to Expedited Consideration of LILCO's 25%

Power Request" (the " Reply"). LILCO's " Reply" is an unauthorized pleading, not permitted by the NRC's regulations, and should be summarily rejected by your office. If LILCO desires to reply to the April 27 Opposition of Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton, LILCO must first seek leave of the Commission to do so.

Moreover, the LILCO " Reply" raises new matters and makes new arguments on the merits of LILCO's April 14 " Request" for a license to operate at 25% power and its Motion for expedited consideration. Since the Commission has not yet determined whether it will even entertain the substance of the " Request" --

and, as the Governments have pointed out, to do so would violate the NRC's regulations -- LILCO's ef fort in its May 12 pleading to argue the merits of its " Request" is a further affront to NRC procedures.

As the Governments' April 27 Opposition to the LILCO Motion made clear, should the Commission decide not to reject summarily the LILCO Request, the Governments intend to contest material legal and factual issues raised by that Request (in addition to groRBM E88jh2 G

S

$0

I L

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 22, 1987 Page 2 those raised in the unauthorized " Reply"), once a Licensing Board and appropriate procedures consistent with the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulstions have been established.

Very truly yours, s

Herbert H. Brown cc: Service List