ML19347D976: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
Line 20: Line 20:
l
l
       --. w                      - - -
       --. w                      - - -
                                        - , .. .    .    .. _.      ..            .        _            _
'
  -
      '
m/s/                            ~
m/s/                            ~
    .      .                                                                      -
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                              coCKETED          g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                g                USNRC        -
* 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                              coCKETED          g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                g                USNRC        -
r
r
                                                                         ~      APR        6198tl >
                                                                         ~      APR        6198tl >
Line 39: Line 34:
           " Submittal cf Affidavit of Jesse L. Riley and Affirmation of Service."  Applicant submits that such filing is contrary to the Licensing Board's ruling in this regard.          Specifically, at the last session of the evidentiary hearings, the Licensing Board left the record open for the limited purpose of providing the Staff with an opportunity to review Applicant's testimony regarding polyurethane.      Tr. 5252. On a conference call con-ducted on March 25, 1981, regarding the Staff's revie.v of polyurethane, the Staff indicated that its review was complete and that it would be submitting an affidavit to this effect.
           " Submittal cf Affidavit of Jesse L. Riley and Affirmation of Service."  Applicant submits that such filing is contrary to the Licensing Board's ruling in this regard.          Specifically, at the last session of the evidentiary hearings, the Licensing Board left the record open for the limited purpose of providing the Staff with an opportunity to review Applicant's testimony regarding polyurethane.      Tr. 5252. On a conference call con-ducted on March 25, 1981, regarding the Staff's revie.v of polyurethane, the Staff indicated that its review was complete and that it would be submitting an affidavit to this effect.
The Board stated that the record was now closed, subject to receipt of any response by Applicant or Intervenor relative to the Staff's affidavit.      Inasmuch as Intervenor's document was filed prior to receipt of the Staff affidavit, it cannot be viewed as being responsive and thus should not be receive 4[                          <jf it.'.
The Board stated that the record was now closed, subject to receipt of any response by Applicant or Intervenor relative to the Staff's affidavit.      Inasmuch as Intervenor's document was filed prior to receipt of the Staff affidavit, it cannot be viewed as being responsive and thus should not be receive 4[                          <jf it.'.
                                                                             +&/ p"Hr r                  0)
                                                                             +&/ p"Hr r                  0) c.2                  . q.:
                                                                                      .
c.2                  . q.:
p": %a%lV,!
p": %a%lV,!
                                                                                  -                        ..
I GgigIr T      ?
I
                                                                              ,
GgigIr T      ?
iL                  '%r iQ 010.4140S'ff S
iL                  '%r iQ 010.4140S'ff S
QS*?
QS*?
Line 53: Line 43:


a-              .  . =_    .-      ... .              --  .. . . . .
a-              .  . =_    .-      ... .              --  .. . . . .
.    .
  *    *
    ,      .
Further, the document is for the most part argumentative,1 addressing matters already discussed on the record.      So postured, the subject matter of Intervenor's filing should not be entered into the record. Rather, the matters raised could be perhaps addressed in proposed findings, which are to be filed by Intervenor on April 13, 1981.
Further, the document is for the most part argumentative,1 addressing matters already discussed on the record.      So postured, the subject matter of Intervenor's filing should not be entered into the record. Rather, the matters raised could be perhaps addressed in proposed findings, which are to be filed by Intervenor on April 13, 1981.
Respectfullysubmittfi    ,
Respectfullysubmittfi    ,
                                                                       ~
                                                                       ~
                                                              '
1 I\      tog  k, William L. Porte'r Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, N. C. 28242 (704) 373-4825 Of Counsel:
1 I\      tog  k,
                                                                '        '
William L. Porte'r Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, N. C. 28242 (704) 373-4825 Of Counsel:
J. Michael McGarry, III Debevoise k Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
J. Michael McGarry, III Debevoise k Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036 April 3, 1981
Washington, D. C. 20036 April 3, 1981 1/  Intervenor's description of the cross section of coiled air ducts and the connection between adjoining ducts is essentially correct. This fact is described in Applicant's Affidavit of W. H. Rasin filed this date in response to the previously referenced Staff affidavit.}}
          -
1/  Intervenor's description of the cross section of coiled air ducts and the connection between adjoining ducts is essentially correct. This fact is described in Applicant's Affidavit of W. H. Rasin filed this date in response to the previously referenced Staff affidavit.}}

Latest revision as of 02:10, 31 January 2020

Response Opposing Applicant 810327 Submittal of Jl Riley Affidavit & Affirmation of Svc.Filing Is Contrary to ASLB Ruling.Record Is Closed & Filing Is Not Responsive
ML19347D976
Person / Time
Site: Mcguire, McGuire  Duke Energy icon.png
Issue date: 04/03/1981
From: Mcgarry J, Porter W
DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19347D977 List:
References
NUDOCS 8104140549
Download: ML19347D976 (2)
v • d • e


Text

,

l

--. w - - -

m/s/ ~

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA coCKETED g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g USNRC -

r

~ APR 6198tl >

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -3 g Cinct cf the Secretary Doca

  • Sat & Service Br In the Matter of ) .\

) m @

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-369

) 50-370 (William B. McGuire Nuclear )

Station, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT OPPOSITION TO SUBMITTAL OF AFFIDAVIT OF JESSE L. RILEY AND AFFIRMATION OF SERVICE ,

On March 27, 1981, Intervenor filed a document entitled

" Submittal cf Affidavit of Jesse L. Riley and Affirmation of Service." Applicant submits that such filing is contrary to the Licensing Board's ruling in this regard. Specifically, at the last session of the evidentiary hearings, the Licensing Board left the record open for the limited purpose of providing the Staff with an opportunity to review Applicant's testimony regarding polyurethane. Tr. 5252. On a conference call con-ducted on March 25, 1981, regarding the Staff's revie.v of polyurethane, the Staff indicated that its review was complete and that it would be submitting an affidavit to this effect.

The Board stated that the record was now closed, subject to receipt of any response by Applicant or Intervenor relative to the Staff's affidavit. Inasmuch as Intervenor's document was filed prior to receipt of the Staff affidavit, it cannot be viewed as being responsive and thus should not be receive 4[ <jf it.'.

+&/ p"Hr r 0) c.2 . q.:

p": %a%lV,!

I GgigIr T  ?

iL '%r iQ 010.4140S'ff S

QS*?

6o I ,

'YW..nf' wI.

a- . . =_ .- ... . -- .. . . . .

Further, the document is for the most part argumentative,1 addressing matters already discussed on the record. So postured, the subject matter of Intervenor's filing should not be entered into the record. Rather, the matters raised could be perhaps addressed in proposed findings, which are to be filed by Intervenor on April 13, 1981.

Respectfullysubmittfi ,

~

1 I\ tog k, William L. Porte'r Associate General Counsel Duke Power Company P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, N. C. 28242 (704) 373-4825 Of Counsel:

J. Michael McGarry, III Debevoise k Liberman 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 April 3, 1981 1/ Intervenor's description of the cross section of coiled air ducts and the connection between adjoining ducts is essentially correct. This fact is described in Applicant's Affidavit of W. H. Rasin filed this date in response to the previously referenced Staff affidavit.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19347D976&oldid=2346506"