ML20207C558

Intervenor Exhibit I-State-51,consisting of 870605 Memo Re Production of Statement of Position on Plant Concerning EPZ

ML20207C558
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
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:

G V E JUL 19 P6 M2 -

Orc o r 00cKnat' ,,.y,,

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

FROM:

H. Joseph Flynn Assistant Gener nsel

SUBJECT:

Production of Statement of Position on Seaerook Station l

1. *h ' qenerous and dedicated assistance of the Natural and Technological.

vision, ue have today reached an important milestons in the hearitigs on oplication of Public Service Company of New Hamoshire, and others, for a 1.;ense to coerate the Seabrook Station. He have filed and served a Staterer.t of Position, a sumarization of the on expected testimony the adequacy of theof 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 Itotruly the SeabrooK service list - ali under formidable tin constraints.

appreciate your effort.

Your accomplishment is all the more remarkable because rd has ever beforeit required was unprecedented.

FEMA, or No other Atorric Safety and Licensing Boa any carty to a licensing hearing, to file such a sumary of its testimony in advance of the testimony itself. This was done out of a concern that the 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 simultaneous filing of testinnny. I applaud the wisdom of the Board's actier, but I also recognize thac your task was compli;ated by not having a model to f 0Il0d"Sd4ShC0"M} C,4,t.em f y; appreciation to your staff.

r I

I b 5' i D Rahwek s

/

V _ _

f,(M/'s[

n ha.4thC~g,

%d ~

v 10':

~~_u-8808090282 880614 --

• PDR ADOCK 05000443 PDR G