ML19225C737

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 790507 Questions Re NRC Meteorological Review. No Requirement to Reanalyze Concentrations at Site. Evaluation of Site Using Proposed Model Would Not Affect Concentrations Used in Dose Assessment
ML19225C737
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 05/31/1979
From: Hoefling R
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To: Like I
REILLY & LIKE
References
NUDOCS 7908020382
Download: ML19225C737 (2)


Text

t * * * ' %g f.

UNITED STATES y y 3,, q[( h NUCLEAR F.EGULATORY COMMISSION

j

V WASMNG TON, D. C. 20555

%vl/C

  • ?r }S a

f NRO PUNAC B000MD5 ECM May 31, 1979

,o a

c GP 9

B Irving '.ike, Esq.

Reilly, Like and Schneider jgg,1979 #

}<gj

~~

200 West Main Street g,

Babylon, New York 11702 Lb,w,s 5

  • 9

/

4 In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclea9 Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322

Dear Mr. Like:

In yot., letter dated May 7, 1979, you raised several questions concerning the Staff meteorological review of the Shoreham site.

The following discussion sets forth the Staff's response to these questions:

1.

The Staff is not requiring the Applicant to reanalyze the relative concentrations for the Shoreham site. The Staff's position is set forth in the letter of September 19, 1978 from S. Varga to LILC0 and accompanying attachments.

Your office was served with a copy of this document. An additional copy is not being fonvarded to you with thic letter as it is voluminous. The Staff has included offshore winds in its evaluation of the Shoreham site with the current meteorological model. An evalua. tion of the Shoreham site using the proposed new model would not significantly affect the relative concentrations used in the dose assessment.

2.

As discussed above, no reanalysis for the Shoreham site is contemplated.

3.

The subject referenced in your Question 3 namely, the manner in which metero'.ogical data is obtained, is not affected by the proposed new.cdel.

Therefore, no basis for any re-evaluation exists.

4.

Instructions to the Applicant regarding the use of the pec?osed new model were set forta in the letter frcm S. Varga to LILC0 referenced above.

I trust that this information is responsive to ycur requests.

[

/

Sincereb,

(C c..ar Heefling

,/[

n Counsel for NRC Staff U

F cc (see page 2) b 455 M'S

    • 8 03

. cc:

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon Edward M. Barrett, Esq.

Edward J. Walsh, Esq.

Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Howard L. Blau, Esq.

W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.

Mr. J.P. Novarro Energy Research Group, Inc.

?

Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section s

e

. :r>-

.)2f