Text

Brief Re Certified Questions on Definition & Implementation of 10CFR50.47(b)(12) Re Medical Svcs.Applicant Interprets 10CFR50.47(b)(12) as Applying to Individuals Who Are Contaminated & Traumatically Injured.W/Declaration of Svc
	ML20063P894
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	10/13/1982
From:	Pigott D; ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
To:	;
References
	ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8210150482
	Download: ML20063P894 (20)
	v • d • e

o 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 [Ci ta fj,.23 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r r r ' n In the Matter of

)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

)

DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COMPANY, et al.

)

50-362 OL

)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Units 2 and 3)

)

APPLICANTS' BRIEF RE CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ON DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), MEDICAL SERVICES DAVID R.

PIGOTT EDWARD B.

ROGIN SAMUEL B.

CASEY Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE A Professional Corporation 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone:

(415) 392-1122 CHARLES R.

KOCHER JAMES A.

BEOLETTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY P.O.

Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone:

(213) 572-1900 Attorneys for Applicants, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, City of Anaheim, California and City of Riverside, California Dated:

October 13, 1982.

8210150482 821013 PDR ADOCK 05000361 0

PDR

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

)

DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COM"'NY, et al.

)

50-362 OL

)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Units 2 and 3)

)

APPLICANTS' BRIEF RE CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ON DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR SO.47(b)(12), MEDICAL SFRVICES I

INTRODUCTION On September 24, 1982, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (" Commission") issued " Order (CLI-82-27)"

(" Order") in the above-captioned docket.

Said Order indicated that the Commission had decided not to review Decision, ALA8-680, issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") in this proceeding.

As a part of that same Order, the Commission took note of the differing interpretations of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) that exist between the Appeal Board and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Licensing Board").

The Commission determined that this difference of interpretation involved significant policy issues and directed the Appeal Board to certify to the Commission the following issues:

s A

a 1

(1)

Does the phrase " contaminated injured individuals" as used in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)~ require applicants for nuclear power plants to provide j

arrangements for medical services only for members s

of the public who have suffered traumatic injury.

and are also contaminated with radiation?

(2)

If the answer to question (1) is no, to what i

extent.does 10'CFR 50.47(b)(12)-require advance, specific arrangements and commitments for medical services for the general public as opposed to the general knowledge that facilities and resources exist and could be used on an ad hoc basis?

The Commission further ordered that any party desiring to participate in resolution of the certified issue must have 4

its brief on the issue in the Commission's hands no later j

than 20 days from the date of the Order, October 14, 1982.

Pursuant to said Order of September 24, 1982, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, City of Anaheim, California, and City of Riverside, California (" Applicants") hereby submit their position with respect to the certified issues.

II APPLICANTS' POSITION Applicants interpret 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) as

(

applying to individuals who are contaminated and traumatically injured.

Applicants' answer to certified l

j question (1) is "yes."

Applicants further consider that said regulation applies only to emergency medical services for such contaminated and injured individuals.

Applicants have e

determined that the class of persons who may be included within this definition is relatively limited at San Onofre i

2 1

_.h_...,._...,-~~,-.

....-.-.-.. -. - +-

_.--.-.,,....-__.,_,._---,...------,m,

Units 2 & 3 and could be handled through the facilities and arrangements made available as a result of Applicants' arrangements to care for contaminated injured individuals who receive their contamination and injury either as a result of onsite activities or offsite activities in support of emergency services.

Any further medical planning or arrangements should be limited to such as may be necessary to implement ad hoc services in the event of a low probability but very severe accident.

III APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED UNDER 10 CFR PART 50, APPENDIX E, TO PROVIDE MEDICAL SERVICES FOR CONTAMINATED INJURED ONSITE WORKERS AND OFFSITE EMERGENCY SERVICES WORKERS The requirements for onsite and offsite plans are described in 10 CFR 50.47 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.

Specific guidance for compliance with 10 CFR 50.47 are. set forth in " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG- 0654 FEMA-REP-1 Rev.

1.

("NUREG-0654")

In preparation of onsite emergency plans Applicants conformed to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.

In planning emergency medical facilities, Applicants were specifically guided by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, E, Emergency Facilities and Equipment.

That regulation states:

3

Adequate provisions shall be made and described for emergency facilities and equipment, including:

3.

Facilities and supplies at the site for decontamination of onsite indivudals; 4.

Facilities and medical supplies at the site for appropriate emergency first aid treatment; 5.

Arrangements for the services of physicians and other medical personnel qualified to handle radiation emergencies on-site; 6.

Arrangements for transportation of contaminated injured individuals from the site to specifically identified treatment facilities outside the site boundary; 7.

Arrangements for treatment of individuals injured in support of licensed activities on the site at treatment facilities outside the site boundary; (Emphasis added)

In satisfying Appendix E, Applicants have considered

" contaminated injured individuals" to mean something different than merely " contaminated" since decontamination facilities are already required onsite for those individuals.

Additionally, Applicants must provide for medical personnel competent to handle onsite radiation emergencies.

In completing the preparations cycle, Applicants must be able to transport " contaminated injured individuals" from the site to identified treatment facilities outside the site and have ready appropriate offsite medical treatment facilities.

Applicants conclude from the medical arrangements required by Appendix E that, at least for onsite personnel, 4

i I

" contaminated injured individuals" are those who are more than simply contaminated or require first-aid: they are persons who have been contaminated and who have also sustained a traumatic injury such that special transportation equipment and medical facilities are required for their treatment.

Applicants have construed this requirement in the onsite context to include onsite workers and emergency workers offsite who may receive both traumatic injuries and contamination in aupport of emergency activities.

Applicants interpret the phrase " contaminated injured individuals" as used in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) in the same manner as for 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV, 4

paragraph 6.

Applicants consider the interpretation of this section to apply to persons who are traumatically injured and contaminated such that special medical facilities are necessary.

Applicants have determined that the number of persons requiring immediate medical treatment would be small, limited to persons who may become involved in an accident requiring emergency treatment.

Such individuals must also have been exposed to radiation contemporaneously with the traumatic injury.

Examples of this class of individuals would be those involved in an automobile accident during evacuation and who have been exposed to radiation.

Applicants considered the class to be sufficiently small that at least for San Onofre Units 2 & 3, the arrangements provided for onsite and emergency support 5

f

k workers are adequate to care for the offsite population that may be both injured and contaminated.

IV APPLICANTS' INTERPRETATION OF 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) IS IN ACCORD WITH THE CRITERIA OF NUREG-0396 AND NUREG-0654 Applicants review of the studies leading to adoption of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) and NUREG-0654 supports the interpretation of " injured contaminated individuals" as meaning traumatically injured and contaminated individuals.

In December, 1978 there was issued " Planning Basis for the Development ot State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of Light Water Nuclear Power Plans," NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016

("NUREG-0396").

The document was the product of a Task Force of Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission and Environmental Protection Agency personnel.

NUREG-0396 is significant in that it states the technical basis for subsequent emergency planning requirements and establishes a concept of emergency planning that considers a broad spectrum of accidents ranging from design basis accidents to " Class 9 Accidents," those exceeding design basis.

NUREG-0396 also set forth its recommended planning basis which included the following:

"The EPZ guidance does not change the requirements for omergency planning, it only sets bounds on the planning problem.

The Task orce does not recommend that massive emerg{ency preparedness programs be established around all nuclear power i

6 l

~

4 stations.

The following examples are given to further clarify the Task Force guidance on EPZs:

No special local decontamination provisions for the general public (e.g.,

blankets, changes of clothing, food, special showers)

No stockpiles of anti-contamination equipment for the general public No construction of specially equipped fallout shelters No special radiological medical provisions for the generfal public No new construction of special facilities for emergency use No special stockpiles of emergency animal feed No special decontamination equipment for property and equipment No participation by the general public in test exercises of emergency plans.

Some capabilities in these areas, of course, already exist under the general emergency plans of Federal and State agencies."

(NUREG-0396, pp. 14-15.)

By Nuclear Regulatory Commission Policy Statement dated October 18, 1979, " Planning Basis for Emergency Response to Nuclear Power Reactor Accident," 44 Fed.

Reg. 61123, (October 23, 1979) the Commission concurred in and endorsed the guidance set forth in NUREG-0396.

The Commission specifically endorsed the concept of considering a 1

spectrum of design basis and core-melt accidents in developing emergency planning guidance and directed the NRC Staff to incorporate the planning basis of NUREG-0396 into 7

the NRC's subsequent regulations and guidance on emergency planning.

(44 Fed. Reg. 61123, (Oct 23, 1979).)

Pursuant to the Commiccion's direction, reliance on the planning basis of NUREG-0396 is specifically acknowledged in NUREG-0654 in the discussion of " Planning Basis as follows:

"NUREG-0396

... provides a planning basis for offsite emergency preparedness efforts considered necessary and prudent for large power reactor facilities.

The NRC's policy statement of October 23, 1979 (44 FR 61123), directs the NRC staff to incorporate the guidance in the report and emergency preparedness documents.

Additionally, the guidance in [NUREG-0396] is now reflected in the NRC Final Rule on Emergency Planning.

FEMA has also concluded that the guidance in NUREG-0396 should be used as the planning basis for emergency preparedness around nuclear power facilities".

(NUREG-0654, pp. 5-7, emphasis added.)

Given the discussion of NUREG-0396 in NUREG-0654 it is apparent that the Commission intended the parameters of emergency preparedness, including offsite medical arrangements, to be determined in conformity with NUREG-0396.

This intention is confirmed-by the Commission's reference to NUREG-0654 in its emergency planning regulations as providing the criteria for determining compliance with the standards set forth in its emergency planning regulation C including the provision on medical services arrangements.

(10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) and 50.47(b) footnote 1).

8

a V

THE NEED FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DOES NOT EXTEND TO INDIVIDUALS OTHER THAN THOSE WITH TRAUMATIC INJURIES Applicants are unaware of any medical requirement that persons experiencing doses of radiation or contamination (such as might be received from a nuclear power plant accident) are in need of immediate emergency medical attention.

This is perhaps best reflected in the Licensing Board's Initial Decision of May 14, 1982 and the Appeal Board's Decision (ALAB-680) of July 16, 1982.

The Licensing Board specifically found:

"4.

Time is not of the essence in decontamination or treatment of excessive radiation.

Treatment of a tramatic injury always takes precedence.

Persons can be decontaminated at home or at any facilities where showers are available.

(Linnemann, Tr. 7084, 7087, Hauck, Tr. 7121-22, 7798) 5.

In excessive exposure cases, there is an uninterruptible clinical course which evolves over days and weeks.

The gradual evolution of the injury allows for time in which to bring the results of tests and expertise to bear.

(Linnemann, Tr. 7102-03, 10,843-44)"

(Initial Decision, p.132.)

The Appeal Board agreed with the Licensing Board's assessment of the time requirements for emergency medical treatment and concluded:

" People who suffer radiation injury, on the other hand, are unlikely to need emergency treatment."

(ALAB-680, p. 18.)

Applicants are unaware of any basis for emergency medical facilities for radiation treatment.

9

There are medical reasons for special emergency facilities for traumatically injured and contaminated individuals.

The reasons are well capsulated in ALAB-680:

" Contaminated injured is a distinct category encompassing potential patients whose traumatic (i.e.,

physical) injuries are complicated by radioactive contamination.

As Dr. Roger E.

Linnemann explained:

A patient who has been exposed to radiation does not, in turn, give off radiation any more than a burn [ed] patient gives off heat.

There has been damage and.

the clinical course unfolds over a period of time.

This means that we do have time to react and time to plan.

[T]he problem arises if the person is injured and contaminated.

This requires special facilities at a hospital.

It requires special facilities because we would rather not admit those persons to our normal emergency room because contamination is loose.

It can fall on the floor.

in the emergency rooms, where people move in and out quite quickly, and the first thing you know you could cause contamination in the hallways of the hospital.

[T]herefore we have designed facilities where a patient can be treated for his traumatic injury while you control the contamination.

Tr. 7719-21.

See also Tr. 7746-48.

The applicants' present emergency plan is fully adequate to cope with these eventualities."

(Decision, ALAB-680,

p. 18.)

In the present case, it was determined that the relatively few persons who would be in this category could be treated adequately at the three hospitals with which Applicants have specific arrangements.

Additionally, the County of Orange's emergency response plan identifies 13 hospitals that have the ability to treat contaminated individuals.

(cf. ALAB-680, p. 18.)

The Licensing Board found that Applicants' medical arrangements could handle

" upwards of 25 accident victims" and ".

although somewhat speculative, that such accomodations could be stretched to accomodate as many as 100 victims."

(Initial Decision,

p. 134.)

Applicants submit that for emergency purposes, the foregoing medical arrangements at San Onofre Units 2 & 3 are sufficient to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

VIII TREATMENT OF SERIOUS RADIATION VICTIMS CAN BE ON AN AD HOC BASIS The number of persons receiving radiation doses from a low-probability accident and requiring hospitalization would be relatively small.

The Licensing Board appears to be of the opinion that in the event of such a low-probability 4

accident at San Onofre, there may be 1000 persons who would 13

receive doses requiring hospitalization.

(Initial Decision, pp. 42-43, 46, 135.)

Assuming but not accepting such numbers, there is uncontraverted evidence that 1000 persons could be accomodated by existing medical facilities.

Although not cited by the Licensing Board, Dr. Ehling, Health Officer for the County of Orange, testified that hospital facilities exist within and beyond the plume EF1 to handle as many as 2000 persons if necessary and as many as 31,000 persons could be treated on an area-wide, southern California basis.

(Tr. 9917, 9991-9993.)

In addition to capabilities generally available in the geographic area, Applicants have contracted with Radiation Management Corporation ("RMC") to obtain its Emergency Medical Assistance Program ("EMAP").

This program is designed to develop and maintain necessary medical services for injured and contaminated persons.

(Applicants' Ex. No. 100; Dr. Hauck, Tr. 7122, 7123; Dr. Linnemann, Tr.

7102, 7104.)

Through EMAP, Applicants have available the services of Dr.

R. E. Linnemann and other experts employed by RMC on a 24-hour basis to provide consultation for the treatment of injuries complicated by contamination or for patients who have received excessive radiation exposure as a consequence of activities at SONGS.

Such assistance may often be achieved by telephone and, if required, RMC may dispatch a Radiation Emergency Medical (" REM") Team, 14

consisting as a minimum of a radiation medicine physician, a

certified health physicist and technicians with portable instrumentation.

(Dr. Linnemann, Tr.7104.)

Although the REM Team might not arrive for some hours following an injury or overexposure to radiation, such delay would not be detrimental.

Upon arrival the REM Team would assist the hospital in cleanup of contaminated areas and assist over the next days in the evaluetion of the patients exposure, dispatching bioassay samples to RMC's Chicago or Philadelphia laboratories if necessary.

These laboratories, which are part of RMC's backup support, are periodically reviewed for their capability to perform all types of necessary analyses.

Other RMC back-up support includes consultants in radiation medicine, radiochemistry and health physics, including expertise in dosimetry.

(Dr.

Linnemann, Tr. 7104-7105.)

If it is determined that a patient requires long term definitive care, the patient can be transferred to a medical center in California equipped to do the clinical treatment of radiation injuries or to one of RMC's definitive care centers, Northwestern Memorial Haspital in Chicago or the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

If a center in California is chosen, it will have available RMC's radiation medicine expertise, exposure evaluation expertise, and bioassay laboratory capability.

(Dr. Linnemann, Tr. 7106.)

15

4 Applicants submit that for a very severe, low-probability accident, the foregoing knowledge of medical capability in the geographic area coupled with the reserve expertise available through Applicants' consultants, the general public is assured of adequate medical care, even in the most severe circumstances.

IX CONCLUSION Applicants submit:

(1)

That the phrase " contaminated injured individuals" as used in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) requires applicants for nuclear power plants to provide arrangements for medical services only for individuals who have suffered traumatic injury and are also contaminated with radiation.

This is so because other radioactive and contaminated injuries either do not need clinical medical treatment or such treatment need not commence during the " emergency" stage of a radiation accident.

(2)

Advance, specific arrangements and commitments for medical services are required to assure appropriate transportation and medical services for persons traumatically I

injured and contaminated with radiation.

Medical services for persons contaminated or suffering serious radiation exposure can be treated either outside a hospital setting or I

16

--r

subsequent to the emergency period of an accident on an ad hoc basis.

Respectfully submitted, DAVID R. PIGOTT EDWARD B. ROGIN SAMUEL B. CASEY Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE A Professional Corporation CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A.

BEOLETTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY I

By David R.

Pigoth Counsel for Applicants 17

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL I am over the age of eighteen years and not a partftotheabove-entitledcause.

My business address is 600 Montgomery Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.

I served the foregoing APPLICANTS' BRIEF RE CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ON DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (12), MEDICAL SERVICES dated October 13, 1982, by depositing a true copy thereof enclosed in the United States mail, first class (or by Express Mail, where asterisked) at San Francisco, California, on October 13, 1982, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as follows:

Stephen F. Eilperin, Esq.

Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and Administrative Judge Licensing Appeal Board c/o Bodego Marine Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of California Washington, D.C.

20555 P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, CA 94923 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Atomic Safety and Licensing Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson Appeal Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge National Laboratory Washington, D.C. 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Robert Dietch, Vice President Atomic Safety and Licensing Southern California Edison Co.

Appeal Board 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 800 l

Washington, D.C. 20555 Rosemead, CA 91770 James L. Kelley, Chairman Charles R. Kocher, Esq.

Administrative Judge James A. Beoletto, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Southern California Edison Co.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.

Donald F. Hassell, Esq.

Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks I

Nuclear Regulatory Commission GUARD Office of the Executive Legal Director 3908 Calle Ariana Washington, D.C. 20555 San Clemente, CA 92801 i

I

Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

Mr. Lloyd von Haden University of San Diego 2089 Foothill Drive School of Law Vista, CA 92083' Alcala Park Sand [ ego,CA92110 James F. Davis State Geologist Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

Division of Mines and Geology J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.

1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.

Sacramento, CA 95814 Cclifornia Public Utilities Commission Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

5066 State Building 1695 W. Crescent Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Suite 222 Anaheim, CA 92801 Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.

24012 Calle de la Plata Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 330 Appeal Board Laguna Hills, CA 92653 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Rourke & Woodruff California First bank Building Atomic Safety and Licensing 10555 North Main Street Board Santa Ana, CA 92701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Gary D. Cotton Washington, D.C.

20555 Louis Bernath San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Samuel J. Chilk 101 Ash Street Secretary of the commission P.O. Box 1831 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory San Diego, CA 92112 Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Executed on October 13, 1982, in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

KAREN ANDRESEN e

2

~

ML20063P894

Text

Navigation menu

Search