ML20070V289

Advises of Decision Not to File Reply Brief to Palmetto Alliance & NRC Briefs Filed Per ALAB-687.Alliance Request for Oral Argument Opposed.Alliance Brief Provides No Meaningful Argument & Is of No Value in Appellate Review

ML20070V289
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	02/14/1983
From:	Mcgarry J DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
ALAB-687, NUDOCS 8302170228
Download: ML20070V289 (2)

Text

9,

.w LAW OFFICC5 OF DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN Qf;[

1200 SEVENTCCNTH STRCCT.N W W NGTO C.2OO36 33 FEB 16 P,L,,0N, y023,,,,.. 00

, s, t. L . b* '

February ~f14,y19'BERVIU

- '~ 33;.KCH Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, M iG 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-413

> and 50-414.

Dear Secretary Chilk:

4

On December 23, 1982, the Commission issued an order stating its intention to review sua sponte two issues raised by the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16 NRC ' (August 19, 1982). The Commission afforded the parties in the captioned proceeding 30 days from the date of the order in-which to file briefs setting forth their position on these two issues, and 50 days from the date of the order in which to file reply briefs, if any. 1/ After. reviewing the initial briefs filed by the NRC Stalf and intervenor Palmetto Alliance;- Duke Power Company, et al. (Applicants) have decided not to file a reply brieY.- Applicants' position l

on the issues in question is satisfactorily presented in its initial brief.

Applicants would note, however, that they oppose the request for oral argument set forth in Palmetto Alliance's initial brief, 2/ in that the intervenor's one and a half This submittal is not a reply brief, which pursuant to

-1/ the Commission's order should have been filed by Friday, February 11, 1983. Applicants anticipated filing this letter this past Friday, but were prevented from doing so by extremely inclement weather.

" Palmetto Alliance Statement of Position on Issues

-2/

- Accepted for Review," January 24, 1983, at p. 2.

8302170228 830214 ~~~)

4 PDR ADOCK 05000413  ;

~

, O PDR

. . - - - - . - - - . . - - - - . - - - - - . , - - - _ _ , , .- ~ - - . _ - . . - - . .

g .

page submittal fails to set forth with sufficient clarity or completeness the information and argument required to support Palmetto Alliance's position on these two issues.

A brief which fails to provide meaningful argument is of little value in appellate review. 3/ The Commission should not countenance this deficiency by allowing Palmetto Alliance the opportunity to cure it through oral argument.

Respectfully submitted,

/

As/se _

p. Michael McGarrf_,E III g/ ,

DEBEVOISE & LIBE N 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 857-9833 Counsel for Applicants cc: Service List i

l 3/ Public Service Electric and Gas Company, et al. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-650, 14 NRC 43, 50 (1981).

l l

l .

- - . , , . _ . . - - -