ML20151S030

Reception Ctr Appeal.* Advises That Suffolk County Re Intervenors Appeal of ASLB Partial Initial Decision LBP-88-13 Confirms Board Decision & Oral Arguments Will Make No Difference in Outcome

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 rooo ec~wsvLvam4 avruve. N w. R ic n w ow s). VinotwzA egneAUG 10 P3 M2 ,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 .

vcLex4a4s43 wuwtus enast vinoima sawn towse

p. o som seea TELEX 6844251 IggGCKE N,, / "p M' f f M.M k 3 Out waNuovEm SoyAnt e o. sox pos woaroom, vino.ma a3sia BRAhCH - 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 3,0 0 0 0 1 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, l 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- ,

I 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- l LILCO's point is simply ings represented by the attachments.

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 l the Licensing Board's findings, however, LILCO thinks that oral 8808150031 000008 PDR ADDCK 05000322 G PDR

)9

i i

HUNTON & WILLIAMS Christine N. Kohl, Chairman i August 8, 1988 Page 2 l

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 -

l l

l 1

i l

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