ML20058J521

Memorandum & Order Re Need for Further Proceedings on Adequacy of Offsite Planning for Medical Svcs.Fema Must Respond to Listed Questions by 820903

ML20058J521
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	08/06/1982
From:	Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208110067
Download: ML20058J521 (7)

Text

.

O e Decg0 U

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

."2 6 @ -9 N0:461 BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES Fig 0F S Cg Ekr' James L. Kelley, Chairman ,

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr. . . l" "

Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-361-OL

) 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDIS0N COMPANY, )

ET AL.

)

)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating )

Station, Units 2 and 3) ) August 6, 1982

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Concerning Whether Further Proceedings on the Adequacy of Offsite Planning for Medical Services should Be Conducted)

Our Initial Decision of May 14, 1982, concluded that the Applicants had not met their burden of proof on Contention 20 concerning arrangements for medical services in the offsite emergency plans. We further concluded, however, that the deficiencies in medical arrangements did not preclude full power operations at this time, provided adequate remedial actions were completed within six months following issuance of a full power license. We

~

retained jurisdiction over the adequacy of medical arrangements and provided that any party could request a further hearing on that question.

On July 16, 1982, the Commission issued an Order and the Appeal Board rendered a decision bearing on the medical arrangements question. The 8203110067 820806

{DRADOCK 05000361 PDR

-h

Commission's Order announced completion of its " effectiveness" review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764(f). The Commission allowed our January 11, 1982 Partial Initial Decision on seismic issues and our May la,1982 Initial Decision on emergency planning to go into effect, without prejudice to their subsequent appellate review. With regard to medical arrangements, the Commission noted that the license for Unit 2 would be --

... subject to the condition that for operation above 5% of rated power to continue beyond six montns from the date of issuance of the full-power license, the offsite medical arrangements issue must be resolved or further operation above 5% of rated power justified under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1).

The Commission also stated that --

The Commission will conduct an immediate effectiveness type review of the Licensing Board's decision on this issue pursuant to 10 CFR 2.764(f). The Board's subsequent order will be effective pending the Commission's review. The Licensing Board is to give the ' Commission a report on the status of the offsite medical arrangements question within four months of the date of issuance of the full-power operating license.

In ALAB-680, the Appeal Board denied a stay of our Initial Decision pending appeal, rejecting the contention, among others, that the Licensing Board should have required adequate offsite medical arrangements before any ~

operations at full power, instead of allowing six months for remedial action. The Appeal Board concluded that a six-month grace period could be allowed, although the grounds they cited for that conclusion differed fran- --

ours. Slip. op. at 21-22. The Appeal Board's conclusions on this aspect of the stay application were influenced by the narrow view it took of the obligation under 10 CFR 50.47(b)(l2) to make medical services arrangements.

Expressing " serious doubts" that this Board's broader reading of that rule is " accurate," the Appeal Board expressed its tentative opinion that the

rule is only intended to protect people who have been both contaminated and physically injured on er near the site -- such as a contaminated worker with a broken leg. The number of people in this category presumably would be small. Slip op at 16-18. Under the Appeal Board's view, and contrary to our conclusions in the Initial Decision, there would be no requirement to make advance medical arrangements for possibly much larger numbers of radiationvictimsamongtheoffsitepublic.1/

These developments create an unusual situation. Before ALA8-680 came down, we had concluded that further proceedings (including a hearing, if requested) on the adequacy of offsite medical arrangements would be necessary. The Commission in its effectiveness review has given the green light to those proceedings, albeit without explicit endorsement of any particular scope of the medical arrangements requirement. Furthermore, all the Appeal Board did in ALAB-680, technically at least, was deny a stay based on tentative conclusions. Our holdings on the medical arrangements question have not been reversed, at least not yet. Thus we are presently authorized to commence further proceedings.

On the other hand, a realistic look at the Appeal Board's narrow interpretation of required medical arrangements makes us pause to consider 1/ The Appeal Board's tentative view appeared to be based largely on its reading of a murky phrase in the rule - " contaminated injured individuals" -- to mean that the same person had to be both contaminated and traumatically (physically) injured. We noted the ambiguity in the phrase at the hearing (Tr. 9636-37), but did not discuss the point separately in the Initial Decision. This Board's reading of the phrase was implicit in our Initial Decision -- that it should be read disjunctively to include people who have been contaminated or_ injured.

whether further proceedings are likely to be worthwhile. There is, of course, at least the theoretical possibility that, upon review of our Initial Decision, further legal analysis or study of the record may lead the Appeal Board to a broader interpretation. As to legal analysis, we devoted some twenty pages in our Initial Decision to the medical arrangements requirement. Slip op. at 26-45. The Appeal Boa.-d in ALAB-680 didnotdiscussthefactorsthatweconsideredimportant.2!

Therefore, the possibility that the Appeal Board might change its mind later based on those same factors seems remote.

We propose to consider, however, in the light of submissions from the parties, whether further proceedings may produce a better evidentiary record on the need, if any, for medical services arrangementh for the offsite public. As we noted in our Initial Decision, the evidence in the record on that need was "rather scanty." This was primarily because the Applicants' witness, Dr. Linnemann, testified against the existence of such a need, the Staff agreed without presenting any medical witnesses, and the 2/ The Appeal Board has on many occasions reversed Licensing Board rulings because they were not accompanied by an adequate statement of reasons. See Public Service Co. of New Hampshsire (Seabrook Station),

6 NRC 33, 41 (1977). As a corollary of the burden of explanation that rests on a Licensing Board, we believe that when an Appeal Board rejects a considered Licensing Board ruling, even on a stay application, it should explain why it finds the Licensing Board's reasoning deficient.

l

testimony of the Intervenors' principal witness on the subject was excluded. Tr. 10,715-718. Such a record may afford an adequate basis for decision in the usual situation where an Applicant is seeking to demonstrate compliance with a rule of which at least the basic parameters are clear. Here, however, the rule is not well drafted and we face critical interpretative questions of first impression. As a result, the testimony of the expert witnesses must address not only compliance in this case, but also generic issues on the rule's basic scope. In such a situation, we believe that a more detailed and broadly-based record, possibly reflecting different viewpoints, would be beneficial, if one is available.

With these considerations in mind, the parties and FEMA (through the NRC Staff) are to respond to the following questions:

1. If further proceedings were directed, what additional evidence, if any, would you produce on the need for medical services arrangements offsite, beyond that recognized by the Appeal Board in ALAB-680? Describe briefly the thrust of that evidence and the qualifications of proposed expert witnesses.

2. Two witnesses, Drs. Linnemann and Ehling, testified that hospitalization was indicated for a person who has received a 150 to 200 rem whole body radiation dose. Tr. 7728, 9992. If that is so, and if it is prudent to assume that perhaps several hundred people offsite could receive such doses in a serious accident, then is it necessary, or at least

_______________-___.______________-______~

prudent, to make advance arrangements for medical services for such people.3/

3. If such arrangements were to be made, what would they consist of

-- beds, decontamination and testing facilities, specially trained personnel, special medicines, what else? Would it be possible to make the necessary arrangements on an g noc Dasis? If so, how long would that take?

4 In assessing the need for medical services, should one assume that the emergency plans for evacuation and sheltering will be effective (as suggested at p. 20 of M.AB-680) or ineffective (as suggested in the FEMA letter quoted at p. 36 of the Initial Decision).

In addition, we pose the following legal and procedural q estions:

1. Could further proceedings be conducted on the basis of affidavits and other written submissions, without a hearing?

2. Should the Licensing Board certify to the Appeal Board the question whether it should conduct any further proceedings and await an answer before doing so?

3. Question for FEMA only: Did the Board in its Initial Decision (at 35-37) correctly state the FEMA position?

In this connection we recognize that we are dealing with

" emergency" services as opposed to long term treatment. But we do not 3_/

equate the emergency concept with the prospect of imminent serious injury or death unless immediate medical services are administered.

Even assuming that hospitalization would be largely precautionar y in the case of a few plant workers receiving high radiation doses, similar precautionary measures might be taken where many more members of the general public are involved.

4. Please give us any further comments or suggestions you may have on how we should proceed in these circumstances.

The full power operating license for Unit 2 may be issued later this month. If that happens, this means that, pursuant to the license condition on medical service arrangements, that issue should be resolved in february, 1983, and an interim report must be made to the Commission in December, 1982. Should further proceedings, including a hearing, be decided upon, it will be necessary to move those proceedings along expeditiously. ,

Accordingly, the responses of the parties and FEMA to this Order are to be served by September 3, 1982.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t

l 2fC s L. Keliey, Chairman y_@INISTRATIVE M JUDGE '

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, I

this 6th day of August,1982.

I

_ _ _ __ ___ . _ _ . - . ._ -. __ ._ _ . . _ _ __