ML20205A601
| ML20205A601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1967 |
| From: | Newell J US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Morris P US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205A535 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-443 NUDOCS 8810260044 | |
| Download: ML20205A601 (1) | |
Text
- ; ;
w
- 7.,,
UNIT ED 5TATES GOVERNMEN'l Memorandum to P. A. Morris, Director DATt:
SEP 2 8 + 7 Division of Reactor Licensing THR
- S. Levine, Assistant Director (
r Faow actor Technology, DRL j
j e6 ell, Chief, Environmental & Radiation S
technology Branch, DRL J et
SUBJECT:
1% EPHONE DISCUSSION WITH MR. ELIOT PRIEST, PUBLIC SERVI'E COMPAhT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE E&RSTB:DRL:JFN RT-166 On September 19, 1967, I called Mr. Eliot Priest, Vice President, Public Service Company of New Hampshire concerning the questions raised in his letter of September 5,1967, regarding the population aspects of their proposed reactor site. As stated in this letter Public Service Company of New Hampshire had some concern as to whether Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey's decision to abandon its Burlington site had changed the views we had informally expressed on June 6, 1967, to Public Service Company of New Hampshire regarding its Portsmouth, New Hampshire site, i.e., that there was no evident reason to expect unusual problem? (based on the information provided during the June 6 discussion with us).
I advised Mr. Priest that PSE&G Company of New Jersey's decisions to amend its application to provide for a new site did not change the preliminary views on the population aspects of the proposed Portsmouth, New Hampshire, site informally expressed to him at our June 6 meeting since the comparative population data he had supplied showed the population at their site to be favorable in comparison with sites where reactor projects have been approved for construction by the Commission.
I further stated that we would be pleased to meet with him for further discussion on this matter if he considered this to be desirable.
Mr. Priest stated that he did not believe a meeting at this time to be necessary since he only wanted an indication that our preliminary views (June 6, 1967) had not changed.
hr. Priest advised me that PSC of New Hampshire is presently obtaining bids on fossil vs. nuclear plants and plans to make a detarmination by the end of the year whether to proceed with a fossil or a nuclear plant.
If the decision is made to proceed with a nuclear plant Mr. Priest stated that arrangements would be made to meet with as for further discussions ca siting and licensing matters.
R v
{l lb(
G B:n U.S S.ttiny Bv:.h Repdarh on d< P.n r !! Sa:ing P!r:
0910260044 000920 PDR FDIA MOKRZYC00-443 PDR
_