ML20071H708

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion for Summary Disposition of Reed Contention 8 Re Radiation Detection Equipment.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision
ML20071H708
Person / Time
Site: Callaway Ameren icon.png
Issue date: 05/20/1983
From: Bauser D
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, UNION ELECTRIC CO.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20071H409 List: ... further results
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8305250448
Download: ML20071H708 (11)
v • d • e


Text

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

p. ....-4

' b 0 , 1983 7

h -

6 .

/,3g 4y , -

Cec y ' G -

. UNITED STATES ( -i p"MER , A %(

O,A NUCLEAR REGULATOR COMMISS -

7, y ~q m:e p zo (9 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. STN 50-483 OL

)

(Callaway Plant, Unit 1) )

APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF REED CONTENTION 8 (RADIATION DETECTION EQUIPMENT)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, Union Electric Company

(" Applicant") moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition'.of Contention 8 advanced by intervenor John'G. Reed. As shown below, summary disposition is appropri-ate because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be hedrd with respect to Contention 8. Accordingly, Applicant is entitled to a-decision in its favor on Contention 8 as a matter of~ law.

This motion is supported by Applicant's Statement of Material-Facts on Reed Contention 8 As to Which There Is No i

~

Genuine' Issue To Be Heard (Radiation Detection Equipment),

Applicant's Memorandum of Law In Support of Motions for Summary-f Y

~

83U5250448 830520 PDR ADOCK 05000483 Q l0 _,

PDR __

,. s , ,  ; . . - _. _

. - . - - -- .- _ .- .- -. . - .- =-

og ..

Disposition On Emergency Planning Issues (" Memorandum of Law"),

the Missouri Nuclear Accident Plan - Callaway (" State Plan"),

the Callaway Plant Radiological Emergency Response Plan

("RERP")','the Affidavit of Roger E. Linnemann, M.D. on Reed Contention 8 (Radiation Detection Equipment) ("Linnemann-8"), i

'the Affidavit of Roger E. .Linnemann, M.D. on Reed Contention 10

-(Medical Treatment) ("Linnemann-10"), the Affidavit of

~

Kenneth A.; Miller on Reed Contention 17'(Radiological t Monitoring) (" Miller-17"),Jthe Affidavit of William K.' Johnson on' Reed Contention 17 (Radiological Monitoring) (" Johnson")=and the Affidavit of Neal G. Slaten on Reed Contention 17 (Radiological Monitoring) ("Slaten-17"), all. filed simultane-ously-herewith,.as well as the pleadings and other papers filed bysthe. parties'in the proceeding.

I. Procedural Background

.Mr. Reed's Contention 8 states:

Facilities'for evaluation of personal' exposures to-radiation or biological uptake of radio-nuclides do not exist in the State'of L- ' Missouri, except for Union Electric's_on-site equipment (see footnote'on page F1.1-of the

' State RERP).

A. Use of Applicant's on-site equipment by.

State or-local governments is not authorized.by letter or agreement in such plans or SOPS; use

~

of' Cooper Station. equipment.is not authorized'

-. ei the r . -

B. During evacuation of thalplume exposure.

.EPZ,sitJappears counter-productive to transport

' contaminated individuals back through ai contami-nated. zone:from which'they have:been removed for

. safety'.s sake to obtain a bio-assay, etc.

I:

~

,6 W ST *" "

i ,

~ , -

.s 4

.~_ . ._ __ _ . . _ _ . - - . . ._ . . . - ._. . . _ . _. _. .

' ~

C. Without'a method;to determine degree of exposure or radio-nuclide uptake, proper. medical

. counter-measures to expedite bodily excretion of ~

nuclides or' render adequate treatment for cellular damage will-not be reasonably 4  : effective.-

' Final Particularization.of. Reed's Amended Contentions 1, 2 and 3,. filed October 1, 1982. Neither Applicant nor the NRC Staff-

-posed.an objection to Contention 8, which was admitted to the ,

proceeding by Board Memorandum and Order dated December 7, 1982.

During his deposition, Mr. Reed reiterated and emphasized

, the' basis for Contention 8 set forth in the first paragraph of .

. 'the contention; namely, that the State Plan, Annex F at

.Attachmentel, stated that~the State of Missouri would depend upon:the Cooper or the Callaway facility to provide whole body counters.and bioassay evaluation. Mr. Reed challenged the a

sufficiency of this approach. See Deposition Tr. 138-42 (Aug. 18, 1982). . Mr. Reed has not proposed that any particular l

~

equipment or method.of determining degree of exposure or biological uptake is required. Rather, it is his view that it a

is impractical for'the State to rely on radiation detection equipment located at either Cooper Station or.the Callaway Plant. Id.

a A'  : s m . u lF:

g ,.

s ,

  • - + , n.-c- - .s-e- ywrwww.- ,m, d<m. - - =-n-,-vv. + .r,rw-ea.,* , ,. w--,w,.e y-yvn S . e er - e. .ee-

II. Governing Legal Standards

~

The need to' evaluate radiation exposures of members of the public and off-site emergency workers is not a specific regulatory requirement. However, 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(12) does require that arrangements be made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals. One of the evaluation criteria of Planning Standard L of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 (Rev.

1) (Nov. 1980), " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" ("NUREG-0654"), which provide guidance on how to satisfy 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(12),1/ include i

the recommendation that arrangements be made for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake. NUREG-0654,Section II.L.1.

In its recent San Onofre decision on arrangements required to be made for medical services for contaminated, injured individuals pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5.50.47(b)(12), the Commissio'n discussed the issue of arrangements necessary to evaluate and treat individuals who have been exposed to radiation. Southern California Edison Company, et al. (San 1/ See Metropolitan Edison Company-(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-81-59, 14 N.R.C. 1211, 1460 (1981)

(NUREG-0654 contains guidance criteria), aff'd, ALAB-698, 16 N.R.C. , slip op, at 13-15-(Oct. 22, 1982).

- . , - . - - a -. - m

J Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. (April 4, 1983). With respect to individuals _

who have been subjected to dangerous levels of radiation and who need medical treatment for that reason,

[t]he nature of radiation injury is such that, while medical treatment may be eventually required in cases of extreme exposure, the patients are unlikely to need emergency medical care. The non-immediacy of the treatment required for radiation-exposed individuals provides onsite and offsite authorities with an additional period of time to arrange for the required medical service.

Id., slip op. at 12.

III. Argument

' The standards governing summary disposition motions in an NRC proceeding are set forth in Applicant's Memorandum of Law.

In summary, where, as here, a properly supported motion for summary disposition is made, the party opposing the motion must come forward with substantial facts establishing that a genuine issue of fact remains to be heard. In the absence of such a showing, the motion must be granted. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(b).

Applying the foregoing standard to Contention 8, it is clear that the concern about the availability of adequate radiation detection equipment raised by Mr. Reed has been fully satisfied-and, accordingly, there is no genuine issue of fact remaining to be heard by the Board.

1

\

w.  ; .s /

' " ~~

jg }l, pm The, provision of the State Plan which troubled Mr. Reed has been changed.. The State Plan now provides that in the -

~ '

" event'of~a radiological accident at the Callaway Plant, _ _ _ _ , ._

t rinternal exposures of members of the population (the public or

' emergency; workers) will be accomplished primarily through whole body counting, utilizing the portable whole body counters available1from Radiation Management Corporation ("RMC"). State Plan,' Annex F,' Attachment 1, appended hereto as Attachment 1; see.also Linnemann-8, 1 4. Dr. Roger E. Linnemann, a medical doctor with~ extensive radiological health expertise, is the Vice Chairman of RMC. Dr. Linnemann explains ~in his affidavit the feasibility of this approach for which prior arrangements

, ,have been made. Because it is not necessary for whole body Icounting~to'be:done immediately, ample time would be available c1

$';g to transport a portable whole body counter to the Callaway

PlantLarea'from Chicago, and from Pennsylvania and California, a _ .

fifInecessary. :Linnemann-8, 1 4.t Dr. Linnemann discusses the r c. .

medical':

basis -for this fact in more detail in his affidavit on

(*'.,

g p' eed Contention lO.- See Linnemann-10, 11 3-8, 16-17. In-

(( summary, once the body has been irradiated, a predictable

clinical = course ensues which is directly correlated with l exposure. dose and~ dose rate. This clinical course cannot be w

r

' interruptedLand.will' evolve-over a period of days and weeks.

L L Linnemann-10, 1;4;'see also San:Onofre, supra, slip op. at 12.

hh, W'

't: .. ,

,. %nM ^ & I [.M '

M "b"~

gf%

x- -

.L M' -

LL5

,Y-;.

%L  ;;;l) '

,. w- --

'Similarly, with respect to external exposure of the population, an excellent estimation of the exposure can be ,

obtained by-the Union Electric Company environmental._ monitoring _

system that is in place prior to the accident. These estimates

~

will be verified by State field monitoring teams as well as I l

Applicant teams. Linnemann-8, 13. The extensive radiological monitoring capability and resources of Applicant are described in detail in'the affidavit on radiological monitoring by Mr.

Neal G. Staten of Union Electric Company, which responds to Mr. Reed's Contention 17. See Slaten-17, 11 6-27. The redundant capability of the State, which will serve as a means for verifying the findings of Applicant's field monitoring teams, is described in the affidavits of Kenneth V. Miller, the Administrator of the Bureau of' Radiological Health of the Missouri Division of Health, and William K. Johnson, the State Radiological Defense Officer with the Missouri State Emergency Management Agency. See Miller-17 and Johnson affidavit. .Using these estimates and the specific location of the individual, one can obtain a good estimate of external exposure.

Linnemann-8, 13. Laboratory analyses of blood, which can be performed by any hospital. laboratory, also can be used to determine external exposures. Id. .

While specialized tests, such as chromosome analyses, can

~

be performed in the~ event of high external exposures, like the internal-exposure-tects, these tests need not be done

+w.*s - gp _ - 'W

7 I;  :* _ = - = - _ .

p immediately. Id. 'Through arrangements that have been made by

.RMC-as a part of its national emergency medical assistance program, special laboratories such_as,those..of Northwestern

University in-Chicago and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia are available to perform these evaluations.

Linnemann-10, 11 18, 21; RERP 5 6.8.4 and Appendix C (letter of agreement, appended hereto as Attachment 2).

Based on the foregoing facts, Dr. Linnemann concludes that the State of Missouri and local governments have available to them the necessary equipment, laboratory facilities and expertise to evaluate in a timely manner both external and internal radiation exposures to the population. Linnemann-8, 1 5. .In Dr. Linnemann's opinion, there is therefore no need for any additional radiation detection equipment to perform these essessments. Id. Dr. Linnemann's view is consistent with the standard established by the Commission in its San Onofre ' decision.

IV. Conclusion No issues of material fact remain to be heard with respect to Reed Contention 8. The basis-for Contention 8 no longer exists. A provision now exists in the State Plan to ensure that radiation detection equipment will:be available in a 9 ~ ' M FXf M' e n ,

V; *

- ~

- n :- _ _ . ,

' timely manner to. evaluate radiation exposure. Accordingly, Applicant's motion for summary disposition should be granted.

- . _ _ . . ~ _

Respectfully submitted, SEAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 4

Y h k.

Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

LL Deborah B. Bauser

. - Counsel for Applicant 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

(202) 822-1000 May 20, 1983 I

Oe h ^MM.Q'l*4 7.#P9 *MM ,*

  • _g_

_ ,g-

y

- _m.g- - . . . . --.- z .- - ~-. .. . . .--

w - .

CONTENTION 8, ATTACHMENT 1 NUCLEAR ACCIDEllT PLAN

[,

w .

ATTACEMEllT 1 TO ANNEX F MEDICAL CARE FACILITIES Following are medical care facilities which thave the capa-tially radi- ,

bilities to receive radiation injured or po en onctive contaminated patients.

CALLAWAY PLANT AREA Callaway Memorial Hospital Administrator: Sharon Heinlen 314/642-3376 828 Jefferson Fulton, MO

. Memorial Community Hospital Administrator: Gordon Butler 314/635-6811 1432 Southwe.st 31vd.

Jefferson City, MO Boone County Hospital Administretor: Warren Rutherford 1600 E. Broadway 314/875-4545 Columbia, MO

[c.. ,.) Robert Smith '

.Ur.iv. of Missouri Medical Center Director: 314/882-4141 Stadium Drive Columbia, MO Administrator: Gary Stremel St. Mary's Realth Center 314/635-8141 Jefferson City, MD Charles E. Still Hospital Administrator: James Cox Jefferson City, MD 314/635-7141 MOTE:

There are no hospitals in Missouri with whole' body counters and only limited bioassay evaluation

' exists.

Therefore, Missouri will depend upon the following resources for these services Radiation Management Corporation RMC retained by Union will provide Electric mobile (if Callawny has an accident) .

whole body counter on request from Union Electric.

- ~ . _ _

l G MAY 1983 CALLAMAY F1.1 l

I

=L---__---_- = m.- = -- -

.~. _

A'2TACHMENT 2 I ~

WCTT19 a.A.!d 4 -

j August 29, 1979 Mr. D. F. Schnell l Manager, Nuclear Engineering Dept.

Union Electric Company l P.O. Box 149 St. Louis, FD 63166 Dear Mr. Schnell; This letter confirms our support of the Union Electric Radio-logical Emergency Response Plan (RERP) at the Callaway Plant.

We will cooperate in the implementation of the RERP by providing medical and health physics support as delineated in our Emergency Medical Assistance Plan. This support includes training of hospital and ambulance personnel, consultation to supporting hospitals cencerning emergency medical treatment of contaminated patients, and provision for a radiation medical facility at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, in Chicago, or the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

i i

Signed /MAgb$62N Title VICC M5rOSN7 - AIM / DJ'J.

Pu1: Dll01 m

m.Ceu.w.euask e

)

CCITSPallDil l Midwest Division

3356 C mnwfcial Avenue

! .mthbrock, Ilhnois 60032 l '291 1030 ,

-, , - , - ---.,ew----

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20071H708&oldid=2822812"