ML20008F570

From kanterella
Revision as of 05:23, 28 January 2020 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests,On Behalf of Shoreham Opponents Coalition,That Ofc of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Advise of Intended Actions Re 810123 Petition to Institute Proceedings on Whether Good Cause Exists to Extend Facility Completion Date
ML20008F570
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 04/14/1981
From: Latham S
TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA
To: Harold Denton
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8104210273
Download: ML20008F570 (1)


Text

.

TWOMEY, LATHAM & SCHMITT ATTURNEYS AT LAW P. CL ODX 394 33 WEET SECOND STWEET RIVERHEAD, H Y. 11901 Glo 737-3150 THOMAS A. TWOMEY. Jsb 10 MAIN STREET WTEPHEN 5. LATHAM EANT HAMPTDN. N. Y. 18937 ZIO SCHMITT*

RD8ENT D, PIKE aQveE E. noOP" un. m =v. . ,u.

  • * *o .m. in oimiar or coun.e4 April 14, 1981 og Q$

< 's Y

Ib

$7 ' '

Mr. Harold Denton [.- bYi Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation v ,,g.[#g' (

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4

['

Washington, D.C. 20550 wh ~

Dear Mr. Denton:

On January 23, 1981, the Shoreham Opponents -

Coalition' submitted a Petition to Institute Proceedings on Whether Good Cause Exists to Extend the Completion Date of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station-Unit 1_ .

In view of the recent Court of Appeals decision in the Sholly case, SOC believes it is entitled to a hearing on the matters raised in its Petition. We are mystified and concerned at your failure to take action on this Petition and to grant the requested hearings.

Since the Long Inland Lighting Company has submitted a response to the Petition, and since more i than two months have elapsed since the Petition was

, filed, SOC believes it is entitled to a response to the issues it has raised. The centinuing construction at Shoreham when SOC has legitimately placed in issue the validity of that construction is unwarrantedly prejudicial to SOC's case.

SOC therefore requests that the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation advise us of how it intends to proceed on this matter in the immediate future.

Sincerely, ,

JB fO Steve Latham 3L:bjj 04 2.101 )

cc: B. Bordenick

.