ML20203D199: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:}} | {{#Wiki_filter:. . . - - . . . . , _ _ ~ - . - _ - _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . - . . . . . ,.-._. . - . ~ . ~ - .-. . _ - _ _ - . . . _ _ _ .- . . . . .. | ||
^ | |||
I. . !. > | |||
4 | |||
. From Doris Mossburg To: ENJ-Date: 12/5/97 4:15pm. . .. | |||
subjects State of Nebraska (CRC-97-1136) i Neil.- I spoke to John Hoyle about the-November 18 letter from David Schor and | |||
* informed him of our previous conversation'and decision to handle the letter as Appropriate Action. | |||
J- John would-like.a letter prepared for his signature to Mr. Schor because he- ' | |||
has already acknowledged his letter and told him a response was coming. | |||
It could say something-likes- This is a further response to your letter. | |||
staff has reviewed your documents and appreciates the opportunity to submit comments but does not plan to do so. This is rea111111 choppy. | |||
CC: PNT i | |||
f'' | |||
e t 5 k. | |||
1 g | |||
f g.-. | |||
i 5 $ | |||
i | |||
+ | |||
E s g | |||
( | |||
'I ! | |||
. 4 ,. | |||
s a | |||
.g _h p - Vi | |||
.f u | |||
9902250'374 980204 PDR WASTE | |||
- , WPl-3 PDR | |||
* ,2 e ., e 3 , s c. - | |||
r - | |||
e ev < - - - -*4 ,w,- e--ew e- < - -*%+1 r}} |
Latest revision as of 01:42, 1 January 2021
ML20203D199 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Issue date: | 12/05/1997 |
From: | Mossburg D NRC |
To: | Jensen E NRC |
Shared Package | |
ML20203D063 | List: |
References | |
REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9802250374 | |
Download: ML20203D199 (1) | |
Text
. . . - - . . . . , _ _ ~ - . - _ - _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . - . . . . . ,.-._. . - . ~ . ~ - .-. . _ - _ _ - . . . _ _ _ .- . . . . ..
^
I. . !. >
4
. From Doris Mossburg To: ENJ-Date: 12/5/97 4:15pm. . ..
subjects State of Nebraska (CRC-97-1136) i Neil.- I spoke to John Hoyle about the-November 18 letter from David Schor and
- informed him of our previous conversation'and decision to handle the letter as Appropriate Action.
J- John would-like.a letter prepared for his signature to Mr. Schor because he- '
has already acknowledged his letter and told him a response was coming.
It could say something-likes- This is a further response to your letter.
staff has reviewed your documents and appreciates the opportunity to submit comments but does not plan to do so. This is rea111111 choppy.
CC: PNT i
f
e t 5 k.
1 g
f g.-.
i 5 $
i
+
E s g
(
'I !
. 4 ,.
s a
.g _h p - Vi
.f u
9902250'374 980204 PDR WASTE
- , WPl-3 PDR
- ,2 e ., e 3 , s c. -
r -
e ev < - - - -*4 ,w,- e--ew e- < - -*%+1 r