home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.environment
- Path: sparky!uunet!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!ncar!vexcel!dean
- From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
- Subject: Re: Electricity Efficiency
- Message-ID: <1992Jul28.181340.4063@vexcel.com>
- Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO
- References: <JMC.92Jul27170433@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1992Jul28.145630.1530@vexcel.com> <JMC.92Jul28105328@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 18:13:40 GMT
- Lines: 22
-
- In article <JMC.92Jul28105328@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU writes:
- >In article <1992Jul28.145630.1530@vexcel.com> dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska) writes:
- >
- >I believe falsified x-ray inspections can be raised at any time.
- >What you won't be able to do is start a whole new appeal on the
- >need for the plant in the first place.
-
- This was not my impression although I haven't read the clauses relating
- to it in the energy bill. Does anyone know what the appeals process is
- for safety/design related issues for the specific plant with the 1-step
- process?
- >
- >--
- >John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
- >*
- >He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
- >
-
-
- --
-
- dingo in boulder (dean@vexcel.com)
-