ML20147E920
| ML20147E920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/10/1978 |
| From: | Kinder E NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7810180077 | |
| Download: ML20147E920 (2) | |
Text
,, -
1id>E4s' 4 j.7 ' "^'s TIIE STATE Of NEW IIAMPSillRE
\\
Di Ptri y m oRNr y ci srk Ai.
GRibOR) it. % Milli
,N s Assis t Avi A rroRNin p
,e
' \\
s A rl OR N13 %
gg sp g 4g,
.y p
'I M40 d' N II 1 HO\\l44 H. nINGril'
'h W1I \\ f N 3 W %I'LIH L joys g,p4ppAs h
i11% ARD N, navos 6 ' m-- ' 4
'IHO\\f4*P CUI4NIUU'"
J Oil % f. MORRI%
N M D E UW O' NUNI w n nl R 4. cl. ann. ni
- 4. -}'
()M ID W. JORD4N pi'll H W.11118)
HK.ll4RD R. WN A%14R4 NiiN[.'r*o's'd"$*e H TIIE NITORNEY GENERAL A N NI' I. 04Gh !N g3 Alt ilot 4t ANNit R(Mist goA DI BOR 4II J. U DOPt H 25 CA Pt I 01. % I R l'I 1 r>UN.*d*s$sii."
^
("="~'I""*'"'"""':
E!5U4iUE ". E7!"Er',1,.
October 10, 1978 J 4 %II.% t 1(>h NSEND Mr. Ronald b. Ballcrd, Chief Environmental Projects uranch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:
Seabrook Station Recertification Procedure Docket Nos, 50 Il43 and 50 tii.;4
Dear Mr. Dallard:
I received your letter concerning the above dated September 19, 1978.
If the Seabrook Station was required to be equipped with a closed cycle cooling system, recertification by the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee under RSA 162-F would be required.
- However, the recertification proceeding would not necessarily deal with all issues which were previously considered.
Without attempting to analyne the record issue by issue, I am sure that a number of issues denit with at the initial hearing would not have to be reviewed.
However, I must add in the same breath that there are quite obviously a number of issues which would have.to be reviewed entirely.
It is difficult to estimate the amount of time necessary for such a review procedure.
However, the statute places a maximum evaluation time of sixteen (16) months.
P lt is difficult to answer your question,with regard to the information'which would have to accompany an application,in the abstract.
I think it is clear that any application would have to be accompanied by sufficient information to provide the public a fair opportunity to determine the nature of the proposed facility such that meaning;ful analysis and convnent could be made during the hearings.
While i realize that the above statement is not extremely helpful to you in your attempt to determine a specific time period of delay, it is difficult to M more precise without an issue by issue determination of which issues would be involved in the recertification proceeding.
In any event, it would appear that a complete re-engineering of the facility would not have to be accomplished prior to making an application.
,, m ktif ttf H%l hit itdH INbl* l MIW paa, $1 %n; L
I rinunal Wu e HM NG I""""'U"'"""
l npl ( ouowl limit 721 WM g
( lu% star I hm -
(th MI-Wil I'"""""""d
2 OITICE OF Tile ATTORNEY GENERAL not Mr. Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Oc tober 10, 1978 Please advise me if you need additional information.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please feel free to contact me by telephone (603-271-3679).
Very truly yours, 2.7 W
v E. Tupper Kinder Asuistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division jlg l
l
,