ML031990041

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Oral Argument, Dated July 7, 2003
ML031990041
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 07/07/2003
From: Silberg J
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, Entergy Nuclear Operations, ShawPittman, LLP
To: Mackechnie R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, US Federal Judiciary, Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit
References
03-4313
Download: ML031990041 (2)


Text

ShawPittman LLP A Limited Liability Pmesnhlp IdbdidgPftiunmal Ac prations JAY E SILBERG (202) 663-8063 Jayslbergeshawpttmanrom July 7, 2003 BY FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of the Court U.S. Court of Apeals for the Second Circuit United States Court House 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Attention: Operations Division, Calendar Team RE: Riverkeeper. Inc. v. Collins et al., Docket No. 034313

Dear Ms. MacKechnie:

On June 3, 2003, the Federal Respondents filed a motion to dismiss this case for lack ofjurisdiction. The Utility Respondents (Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC; Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC; and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.) filed a response in support of the motion on June 16, 2003 and Petitioner filed a memorandum in opposition on June 17, 2003. We understand that the motion is scheduled to be decided on submission on July 28, 2003. In a June 26, 2003 letter, Petitioner requested that the Court hear oral argument on the motion. By letter dated July 2, 2003, the Federal Respondents stated their belief that no oral argument was necessary.

The Utility Respondents agree that oral argument is not necessary. As set forth in our June 16 response, we believe that the Supreme Court's Hecder v. Chaney decision, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), is clearly dispositive, a conclusion supported by the Second Circuit cases applying Heckler v. Chaney as well as the cases in the First, Seventh and D.C.

Circuits involving the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, all of which are discussed in the pleadings already before the Court.

Nor do we believe that Local Rule 27(b) requires that oral argument be provided merely because the party opposing the motion requests it. Of course, should the Court Washington DC Northem Vlrgin12 New York Los Angeles 2300 N Stfeet, NW Washington, DC 20037-1128 202.653.6000 Fax:202.663.8007 www.showpittman.com London

ShawPittman LLP Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of the Court July 7, 2003 Page 2 chose to hear oral argument, the Utility Respondents would participate. However, based on the well established legal principles involved, we would request that the Court decide the case as presented.

Sincerely, -s .d-

. Sberg Counsel for Utility Respondents cc: Aavid Cummings, Esq.

Karl Coplan, Esq.

1336060