Darrikson says- beyou they go for it. give them e reading by Oct. This picce of wak am basis to до доне provich مل What do [ How do их justify going to try to enower? original PRA?? to chenge EP2 ? go ebad setting up reviews +. What are the questions we'll ask Need to consider technical + legel. > File Prima Facia can with Commisoron < References: Mr. Vincent S. Noonan, Project Director Vie Fyl 스 (a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket (b) PSNH Letter (SBN-1167), dated July 21, 1986, "Seabrook (c) PSNH Letter (SBN-1152), dated July 3, 1986, "Reques t Subject: Dear Sir: Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment Update Reference (b) submitted, for your review, new information we intend to include in a future update of the Seabrook Station Probabilistic Safety Assessment (SSPSA). The importance of the Staff's technical review of these documents has been heightened by articles appearing recently in local newspapers (Attachment 1). These articles discuss the apparent strategy of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to intentionally delay the Seabrook licensing process. Based on these developments, it is clear we must request the NRC to a future request may seek, but it is important that we address as soon as Speak to these people to get background, clcide how to go Purpose of This ( don't glug eny Dancipoint) Acoub will 8 not be available thoughts may change. Wha Cu by thus review. technical review. порід Let's list 4o, suggested by a Vic. B: as a Rechnical * this could serve lechnical arquement. If not, he won't Point out which tech. argument Cont. Cont. By paus Scencurica gik. an good rs. No Are the argument pervasive against 0396 benchmark? Jurden. 0396. byfou TMI / 2clopted because of TMI |