ML20052F915
| ML20052F915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perkins  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1982 |
| From: | Pfefferkorn W DAVIS, M.A., PFEFFERKORN & COOLEY, P.A., YADKIN RIVER COMMITTEE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205140142 | |
| Download: ML20052F915 (1) | |
Text
--
N ' I ' i,, #
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s 'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N
g,
/hF BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 9 C27ps 3,$Y CO
-\\
L-In the Matter of
)
if 8/
1
)
4%
O DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN
- 88
)
'82 50$b P1 :35 (Perkins Nuclear Station
)
50-E Units 1, 2 and 3
)
CF? C; ': -uF C0CnEim2 ^ SEH,
SMNCH RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY NOW COME Intervenors responding for Motion for Leave to File Reply by Applicants and submit that said Motion should not be allowed.
Intervenors responded to Duke's Motion for a termination without prejudice by arguing the law in regard to a termination with or without prejudice and by citing cases and parts of the record that supported its position.
The Intervenors obviously argued in more detail just as the Applicant did in its new Motion to Withdraw.
It is equally obvious that no new issues were raised.
Applicants are concerned for the simple reason that their Motion was superficial and they failed to rely on the record but simply resorted to characterizing Intervenors assertions as
" nonsense."
Finally,it should be pointed out that the Motion for Leave to File a Reply asserts that the Applicant was to deal with the issues raised by Intervenors on March llth.
This is mistaken.
This Board told the Applicant to deal in its Motion with issues raised on March lith, Appeal Board Comment in ALAB-668 and the decision in Fulton and North Const.
Duke can show no surprise and no new issues and there fore there is simply no basis for additional pleadings.
jd()N Respectifully submitted this day f Ma 1982.
6
+
l WILLIAM G.
PFEFFERKURN
- g
'N 8205140142 820510 f
PDR ADOCK 05000489 G