ML20207C558

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Intervenor Exhibit I-State-51,consisting of 870605 Memo Re Production of Statement of Position on Plant Concerning EPZ
ML20207C558
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 06/14/1988
From: Flynn H
Federal Emergency Management Agency
To: Eric Thomas
Federal Emergency Management Agency
References
OL-I-STATE-051, OL-I-STATE-51, NUDOCS 8808090282
Download: ML20207C558 (1)


Text

.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 7.gM p

June 5, 1987 t'cixc;w uwv:

GV E JUL 19 P6 M2 Orc o r 00cKnat'

,,.y,,

MEMORANDUM FOR: g ard A. ThomasChief, Natural and Technoicgical Hazares O Region !

H. Joseph Flynn FROM:

Assistant Gener nsel Production of Statement of Position on Seaerook Station

SUBJECT:

qenerous and dedicated assistance of the Natural and Technological.

vision, ue have today reached an important milestons in the hearitigs

  1. *h oplication of Public Service Company of New Hamoshire, and others, for He have filed and served a ona 1.;ense to coerate the Seabrook Station.

Staterer.t of Position, a sumarization of the expected testimony of the on the adequacy of the New Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),

Hampsh',e Radiological Emergency Plans as they relate to the Emergency Planning Zone surrounding the Seabrook plant.

I commend you and your staff for the untold hours spent on drafting the Dosition statement; monitoring, compiling, and editing the work of consultants in arriving at significant elements of the position; typing, collating, and proofreading a massive and complex document; listening pa

{'

the document; making dozens of photocopies; and delivering tham to the I truly service list - ali under formidable tin constraints.

SeabrooK appreciate your effort.

Your accomplishment is all the more remarkable because it was unprecedented.

rd has ever before required FEMA, or No other Atorric Safety and Licensing Boa any carty to a licensing hearing, to file such a sumary of its testimony in This was done out of a concern that the advance of the testimony itself.

is rebuttable presumt, tion afforded FEMA's findings by 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a)(2) meaningful only if parties to the hearing have a meaningful opportunity to assimilste and respond to FEMA's views and this is not accomplished by the I applaud the wisdom of the Board's actier, simultaneous filing of testinnny.

but I also recognize thac your task was compli;ated by not having a model to f 0Il0d"Sd4ShC0"M} C,4,t. f y; appreciation to your staff.

em r

I I b 5' i D Rahwek

/

s V

f,(M/'s[

%d ~

ha.4thC~g, n

v

~~_u-10':

8808090282 880614 PDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR G