ML20071P876

Comments Re Offsite Medical Svcs,Objections to Applicant Motion to Augment Record & Request for Hearing & Proposed Licensing Condition.Adequate Arrangements for Medical Svcs Not Met.Further Hearings Required

ML20071P876
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	06/06/1983
From:	Mcclung C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED, FLEMMING, ANDERSON, MCCLUNG & FINCH
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8306080195
Download: ML20071P876 (7)

Text

l 1 Charles E. McClung, Jr. 9((fTED FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 2 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 Laguna Hills, California 92653 'd3 ijUl - 7 p g ,, g Telephone: (714) 768-3601 Attorneys for Intervenors 6

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 7 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 8 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-361-OL 10 ) 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON )

11 COMPANY, ET AL. ) INTERVENORS COMMENTS RE-

) GARDING OFF-SITE MEDICAL 12 ) SERVICES; OBJECTIONS TO (San Onofre Nuclear Generating ) APPLICANTS MOTION TO 13 Station, Units 2 and 3) ) AUGMENT RECORD; REQUEST

) FOR HEARING AND PROPOSED 14

) LICENSING CONDITION

)

15 INTRODUCTION 16 17 On April 5, 1983 by Memorandum and Order CLI-83-10 the 18 Commission provided a guideline of what arrangements for off site medical services are required under 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (the

" rule"). The Licensing Board by conference call on April 11, 1983 and subshguent order dated April 12, 1983 requested that the parties to this proceeding submit their comments with respect to what further action this Board need take to address this issue.

Intervenors respectfully submit these comments.

l 26 //////

27 //////

28 //////

i'306080195 830606 PDR ADOCK 05000361 '

0 PDR M

1 I 2 ANALYSIS OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION.

3 4 The Commission issued a detailed memorandum regarding the 5 medical arrangements rule which rejected the Applicants' inter-6 pretation that the rule excluded members of the general public.

7 The Commission expressly stated in its conclusion on page 13 of 8 the Slip Opinion that this emergency planning rule applies to 9 both those people who become injured and who are also contam-10 inated and to those people who may be exposed to dangerous levels 11.1 of radiation. In doing so the Commission accepted in part the i

12 reading of the rule offered by the Intervenors and this Licensing 13 Board. The Commission then set forth what specific arrangements 14 are' necessary to protect the general public in this area. Th e 15 Commission stated that with respect to the contaminated and 16 ,

injured individuals of the general public that the pre-existing 17'  ! arrangements for on-site workers should be enough, if and when 18 those arrangements are made known and incorporated within the 19 l plans of the off-site jurisdiction. With respect to the people 20 who are seriously contaminated the Commission has determined that 21 no immediate emergency action need be taken and therefore a 22 ;j simple listing of available resources in the off-site juris-L

-23 3 diction's plans should be sufficient to allow for an ad hoc h

24 y treatment of these people.

25 The Commission indicates at page 13 of its Slip Opinion that 26 this position is consistent with the FEMA position and it implies 27 that the FEMA position is not entirely clear. I would submit 1

28 } that in fact it is the Commission's decision that is less than i

i I '

3_ ,,

f.

s - /

, n, t .o ,

't I clear.

9 2 On the one hand the Commission says that the rule embraces 3 the general public and on the other hand, it essentially says 4 tha t- any arrangements are always going to be~ adequate. It is 5 very 'hard to understand how it can be determined whether the "ad 6 hoc" arran ements will ba. adequate without iteration of various e i 1 7 plans and without a showing of evidence.' Hence, a rational 8 reading of the Commission's order is tilat' in.dihidual hearings are 9 necessary.to determine with. respect tb tiiis, site 4hether the "ad 10 hoc" measures available at t[ hat site' ~will be- adequate.- Obviously, 11 if there were no hospitals at all which had,the capability to

. .s ,

, 12 take up and deal with nuclear patients that would have to be

~j< 13 -inadequate. -

.j e

14 The Commission in its analysis uses,in many places'the word 35; "could" and statigethat " treatment could be arranged on an ad hoc

, l l: - s='"

, 16 ' b'asish. Slip Opinion at Page 12.

Or that adequate medical I

17 services "could be provided by using existing local or regional 18 facilities". Slip Opinion at Page .12. It isthe responsibility 19 for the Licensing Nard to determine whdthechin any specific case 20 -there is reasonable assurance that this,can and will happen >

21 10 CFR 50.47(a). .

22 It is submitted that the' Commission's rule indicates that 23 the following must be one: ,'

,24 g,.

f (1) A detailed analysis must be made ot'the Applicants'

, 25 fability.,to' treat on-site workers to determine whether that is

} ~ 26 '

a:Iequa tes in light of the fact that..that' capability 'must also

'nclude the capabili[ty tc aid off-site people.who may be injured 27 i 28 and. contaminated. ,',- .

J' l.

k Y

1 (2) The capabilities and contractual relationships with 2 the hospitals for the contaminated and injured people should be 3 made known to and incorporated within the plans of the off-site 4 jurisdictions.

5 (3) A detailed survey of hospitals in the area which 6 can provide care for seriously contaminated individuals should be 7 made and a list of such hospitals should be incorporated into the 8 response plans of the local jurisdictions and the Applicant.

9 (4) Implementing procedures and SOP's should be 10 developed by the off-site emergency response organizations for 11 sending people to the various hospitals in a rational manner 12 based on their capacities and locations in the event of a 13 radiological emergency with seriously contaminated individuals.

14 (5) The Licensing Board should review the overall state 15 of off-site facilities and implementing procedures to determine 16 whether or not they can serve as an adequate basis for "ad hoc" 17 response in the event of a radiclogical emergency.

18 19 II 20 INTERVENORS OBJECT TO APPLICANTS' MOTICM TO AUGMENT THE RECORD.

21 22 Intervenors must respectfully object to Applicants' motion to augment the record, Items 1 and 2. These items purport to be 24 enclosures from the emergency response plans of San Diego and Orange County respectively. These items are objected to on the grounds that they are not authenticated in any way by affidavit 27 or declaration. Applicants must demonstrate that these items are 28 I truly existing, implemented and approved plans of the various 2 jurisdictions. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901. It is 3 respectfully requested that the Applicants provide sufficient 4 foundation for these documents by way of declaration or affidavit 5 or by way of further hearings requested below.

6:

I 7 III 8 INTERVENORS RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE LICENSING BOARD TO RESCHEDULE HEARINGS INTO THE ADEOUACY 9 OF THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES, BOTH ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE.

10 11 Intervenors in the hearing process were not litigating the 12 issue of whether the medical arrangements were sufficient to handle the on-site contaminated and injured individuals. There-fore, information concerning that issue was not objected to and no cross-examination was tendered thereon. Now the Commission 16 has ruled that those items are crucial as they set the standard 1_/

as to what is necessary for off-site populations. It is necessary to have further hearings on this issue to determine whether or not the arrangements are truly adequate for the on-site personnel given the fact the arrangements now must also serve off-site populations as well.

The Applicants have submitted and pointed to in their moving papers various lists of hospitals which allegedly exist in the Orange County and San Diego plans. They also assert without record basis that these hospitals have the capacity to handle seriously contaminated individuals. It is necessary to establish 28 1 a record basis for this fact. Obviously, if these hospitals do 2 not have the capacity to handle people the list of them will not 3 serve as an adequate basis for "ad hoc" response in the event of 4 a radiological emergency. Although the Commission has ruled that 5 such "ad hoc" response could be sufficient, it is up to this 6 Licensing Board to determine whether such "ad hoc" measures are 7 in fact sufficient in this case or whether additional planning 8 steps are required. It is clear that no new hospitals need to be 9 built and no new personnel need to be hired. It is not clear that 10 a modicum of planning would not be appropriate under the rule.

11 12 IV 13 PROPOSED LICENSING CONDITION 14 15 In the event this Licensing Board should deny Intervenors' 16 request for further hearings and to accept the arguments of the 17 Applicants in general, Intervenors would respectfully request the 18 following licensing condition be imposed.

19 "The plans for off-site jurisdictions including 20 Orange County, San Diego County, San Juan j 21 Capistrano and San Clemente should have r

l 22 specific provisions in them which set forth 23 hospitals which will be available to aid 24 contaminated and traumatically injured individ-25 uals as well as seriously contaminated ind'vid-26 uals in the event of a radiological emer-27 gency."

28 l

l 1

CONCLUSION 2

3 It is respectfully submitted that the Applicants have not 4 met their burden of proof to establish that adequate arrangements 5 for medical services exist for contaminated individuals as set 6 forth in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) and that further hearings are 7 required in this matter.

8 9 DATED: June 6, 1983 FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 10 BY: 1 .\

• 13 Charles E. McClung, Jr.

Attorneys for Intervenors.

),'>j 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28