ML20215N746
| ML20215N746 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1986 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Frye J, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1404 OL-5, NUDOCS 8611070222 | |
| Download: ML20215N746 (2) | |
Text
/ Yod KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET. N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 oNE BOSTON PLACE DCOMET t UMBER go-32.2 W-5 m:ugg 80sro - =
msw NE <2ezus2m i.i m sa g g;;g "n. f. UTIL FA0...m-mn 44N HW M
- 8 BRICKER A%ENCE TE1.ECOP!ER (2C2) 412 7052 M1AMt. FL 33131
'86 NOV -6 P 2 30*"'""2 i500 ousu SUt1.D(NG LAWRENCE CoE LANPHER rrTT58ULCH, PA 15222 (2o2nstm November 3, 1986 CFfin ;..
j. - <4uosma 00CKG m
. i m rf BMNO John H.
Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
The Governments have received FEMA's " Motion to Reconsider Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Prehearing Conference Order Dated October 3, 1986, and Memorandum and Supporting Affidavit in Support of That Motion," dated October 27, 1986.
Despite its title, the Governments read this " Motion to Reconsider" as setting forth " Objections" to the Board's Prehearing Conference Order, filed pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.751a(d).
The Gove rnment s 'a s sume, accordingly, that as provided in that section of the regulations, parties may not file replies to the FEMA objections to the Prehearing Conference Order, unless the Board so directs.1 The Governments believe that no reply to the FEMA objections should be necessary, since the issues raised therein were fully addressed during oral argument before the Margulies Board at the l
The Governments have also received LILCO's " Motion for Leave to Respond to Motions for Reconsideration of October 3,
- 1986, Prehearing Conference Order," dated October 30, 1986.
LILCO asserts therein that it intends, if permitted, to support FEMA's Motion.
LILCO offers no excuse for failing to have filed its own objections, if it had any, by October 27, as permitted by the Board's earlier order.
Having defaulted on the filing of objections, LILCO now, in essence, wants to file objections out of time.
That should not be permitted.
LILCO also asserts in its October 30 filing that the Governments filed a " Motion for Reconsideration" of the Prehearing Conference Order.
That is untrue.
The Governments on October 27 filed objections, as permitted under the rules.
No reply by LILCO is permitted unless the Board so directs.
See 10 CFR $ 2.751a(d).
8611070222 861103
{DR ADOCK 05000322 hso3
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Mr. Frederick J.
Shon November 3, 1986 Page 2 September 24 Prehearing Conference and in the written filings of the parties made prior to that conference.
Such issues, and the positions of the parties, including that espoused by FEMA in its objections, have already been considered and ruled upon by the Margulies Board.
There is no basis stated in the FEMA objections to justify a different ruling by this new Board.2 Nonetheless, should the Board determine to construe the FEMA Motion as something other than objections filed pursuant to Section 2.751a, or should the Board decide to reconsider the rulings objected to by FEMA, the Governments request that the Board notify the Governments promptly of such determination, so that they may file a reply to the arguments made in the FEMA obj ections.
The undersigned counsel for Suffolk County is authorized to state that he speaks on behalf of counsel for the State of New York and the Town.of Southampton as well.
Sincerely, h
Lawrence Coe Lanpher cc:
Service List (Telecopy to the Board, Staff, and LILCO) 2 It is the Governments' position in any event that it is improper for this new Board to be ruling on matters already decided by the Margulies Board.