ML20235J243

FEMA Current Position on South Hampton Contention-8 & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Contention NHLP-4.* Responses Inadvertently Omitted from Original Response. Related Correspondence

ML20235J243
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/26/1987
From:	Eric Thomas NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20235J200	List: ML20235J198 ML20235J243
References
OL, NUDOCS 8707150457
Download: ML20235J243 (3)

Text

---

p 6/26/87 I

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter of:  : Docket No. 50 443

50 444 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire,  ; (Off-Site) et al.  :

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)  :

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAbEMENT AGENCY CURRENT POSITION ON SOUTH HAMPTON CONTENTION-8 AND NECNP CONTENTION NHLP-4 On June 4, 1987, the Federal Emergency Manegement Agency filed its responses to the Second Set of Interrogatories submitted by the Attorney General of Massachusetts, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, and the Town of Hampton. Included in that filing, which was served on all the parties on June 5, 1987, was a document entitled Appendix A, Current FEMA Position on Admitted Contentions on New Hampshire Plans for Seabrook. We have discovered that Appendix A at submitted did not include FEMA's position

) on the two contentions named above. Therefore, the attached FEMA response to these contentions should be included as an addendum to Ap endix A.

/

psse Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief Natural & Technological Hazards Regica I Federal Emergency Management Agency 6tr Dated Jugd 26, 1987 Boston, Massachusetts 0707150457 B70710 PDR ADOCK 05000443 874180 0 PDR

pc

.h SOUTH HAMPTON CONTENTION 8 i$

i The RERP for South Hamptoq f ails to provide reasonable assurance bs -use, contrary to NUREG-0654 J.10.d. it fails to provide for adequate tran. gor-tation arrangements for the evacuation of mobility-impaired individuals (subject to' institutional or other confinement) and that adequate arrange-ments have not been made to identify and transport persons who do net own an automobile.

Limited to mobility-impaired individuals and transport dependent persoas.

I FEMA Responsei FEMA has addressed Town of South Hampton Contention-8 and its basis that the South Hampton local plan does not provide for adequate transpor-tation arrangements for mobility-impaired ar.d ;rar, sport dependent persorts by applying Planning Standard J (Evaluation Criteria J.10,d) in FEMA-P.EP-1. .

The December 15, 1986 PAC review of State, municipal, and Compensatory Plans reflects FEMA's reviews on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments on this issue are provided on pages 66 and 67 of Section I, (State Plan), page 19 of Section II (Municipal Plans), and page 10 of Section IV (Compensatory Plan subsection).

FEMA found that the procedures in the State and local plans were generally adequate to deal with transportation for mobility-impaired or otherwise dependent persons. However, FEMA at this time is still reserving its judgment regarding the ability of the State to implement compensatory measures for local communities in this area. See RAC comments on pg. 10 of Compensatory Plan review, and FEMA's April 15, 1987 position on the Motion for Summary Disposition of this contention.

[7~ .

L NECbf Contention NHLP-4  ; ,,

Procedures to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the plume exposure pathway EPZ,10 CFR 50.47(b)(5),

are inadequate.

Limited to notification of persons with special notification needs.

FEMA Response:

FEMA has addressed N5CNP Contention NHLP-4 and its basis that the local plara do not make adequate provision for notification of people with special notific.ation *needs by applying Planning Standard E (Evaluation Criteria E.5) in FEMA-REP-1.

The December 15,198G RAC review of the State and municipal plans reflects FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State Plan on this issue are provided on pages 24 and 25 of Sectior. I, and on page 8 of Section II (local plans).

FEMA four# that the local and State plans do not indicate procedures for identifying and distributing tone-alert radios to new businesses and residents. Also, Section II-B of the local plans do not specify by what means instructions are provided to the hearing impaired to enable them to understand what they are to do after receiving a visual signal on the visual-alerting radio receivers.

I i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _