ML20101S961

Response Supporting Applicant 850102 Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 57-C-7 on Grounds of Absence of Genuine Issue of Matl Fact.Ti Hawkins 850129 Affidavit Encl

ML20101S961
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/05/1985
From:	Rochlis S Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20101S963	List: ML20101S961 ML20101S967
References
CON-#185-398 OL, NUDOCS 8502050738
Download: ML20101S961 (5)

Text

fb i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 22: qp, THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '7" In-the Matter of CAROLINA ) 5 ,}q ,.7 p

~

POWER AND' LIGHT COMPANY ) .

and NORTH' CAROLINA' EASTERN ) Docket No. 50-4 00-OL. ~ ~ -

l MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) _

(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )

, Plant-Units 1 and 2) )

FENA STAFF RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN 57-C-7 I. INTRODUCTION On January 2, 1985, the Applicants moved for summary disposition on Eddleman 57-C-7 (h'ereinafter Applicants' Motion) pursuant to 10 CFR E2.749 of the Commission's regulations. FEMA staff supports App'iicants' Motion for Summary, Disposition on the grounds that they have demonstrated an absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to a favorable judgment as a matter of law.

II. BACKGROUND Eddleman 57-C-7 was adnitted as a contention in this proceeding pursuant to the Board's order of August 3, 1984. On October 12, 1984, Applicants, Wells Eddleman and the NRC Staff, entered into a " Joint Stipulation Codifying Certain Admitted Contentions",

agreeing to the following language for the contention: i Neither the State ERP nor the county ones

~ make clear whether the hospitals listed in Section V.B.3 of the State ERP are prepared to, treat severe radiation exposure per se.

Plans should include lists of local and regional hospitals with the necessary capa-bilities to provide medical services for those seriously injured by radiation alone.

$$ O O205 D0hk 05 coo 4oo G

07

r 6

1

• The Board approved the stipulated wording of the contention.

See " Order Approving Joint Stipulation Codifying Certain Admitted Contentions" (December 6, 1984).

Mr. Eddleman served two sets of interrogatories on NRC Staff and FEMA (See Interrogatories to NRC Staff and FEMA [6th Set],

dated August 31, 1984, and Interrogatories and Request for Pro-duction of Documents to FEMA /NRC Staff dated October 8, 1984).

NRC Staff and FEMA's responses were filed on September 28, 1984 and October 25, 1984, respectively.

III. ARGUMENT A. Standards for Summary Disposition FEMA staff response to Applicants' previous Memoranda of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition of Emergency Planning Contentions previously filed is fully applicable to this Motion and is incorporated by reference herein.

l B. There is No Genuine Issue of Material Fact to be Heard with j i

Respect to Eddleman 57-C-7. j Section 50.47 of NRC's Emergency Planning Rule (10 CFR Part 50 1

[ Appendix E]) as amended and NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, j I

November 1980, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiolo-gical Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" are used by FEMA pursuant to 44 CFR E 350(a) j 1

in "revi_ ewing, evaluating, and approving State and 1 coal radiolo ,

gical emergency plans and preparedness.

I The applicable criteria with regard to Eddleman 57-C-7 are i found at:

i

?* - .g

'10. CFR E 50.47 - (b) (12) which provides:

Arrangements.are made for medical services

'for contmiinated- injured individuals (see also 44f CFR B 350.5 (a) (12) .

NUREG.0654/ FEMA-REP-1 at'Part.2.L.l. provides:  ;

Each organization shall. arrange for local and l backup'= hospital and medical services having "

i thel capability for' evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake, including assurance that

-persons.providing these services are adequate-ly-prepared-to handle contaminated individuals.

NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1 at Part 2.L.3. provides:

-Each State shall develop lists indicating the ,

location of~public, private and military hospitals and other emergency medical services facilities 'within the State cn contiguous States considered capable of providing medical support for any contaminated injured individual.

The listing shall include the name, location, type of facility and capacity and any special radiological capabilities. These emergency medi-cal services should be able to radiologically monitor contamination personnel, and have facili-ties and trained personnel able to care for con-taminated injured persons.

FEMA staff concurs with the Applicants that "the listing of medi-cal-facilities at Part 1, E V.B.3. of the N.C. ERP satisfies these ,

requirements" (See Affidavit of Thomas I. Hawkins in Support of Applicants' Motion). In Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units.2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528 (1983) (" San Onofre") the Commission. stated in perti-s nent part:

With respect to individuals who may=be exposed

. to~ dangerous levels of. radiation,' treatment re-quires a' lesser degree of advanced planning and-

- can 'be arranged for on' an as needed basis during -

an emergency. ; Emergency plans should, however,

, ' identify those local or regional medical-facili-ties whichJhave the capabilities to' provide ap .

,,l propriate- medical treatment for radiation ex-e posure.

,.. . . . ~ . . .- . . . . . - . .

. 4

. - In' admitting Contention 57-C-7 the. Board focused on the dis-tinction between facilities prepared for treating ~" contaminated"

- individuals versus' 'those individuals with " severe radiation ex-i

' ~

posure".and the San Onofre requirement of listing regional hospi-

, .tals=in addition to' local hospitals-which have the capability to i

treat: radiation exposure. In the opinion of the FEMA staff these

- concerns of the-Board have been satisfied by the Applicants.

l'  ;

A review of the affidavit of Dr. Fred A. Mettler, Jr. establishes l that, in his opinion, all of the hospitals listed in the ERP are ,

capable of treating severe (in excess of 100 rems of penetrating

! .whole body _ radiation) radiation exposed patients for the first 48 i

. hours after exposure (Mettler Affidavit, para. 7). According to Dr. Mettler, Duke University Medical Center, Rex Hospital, and North Carolina Memorial Hospital have the capability of treating cases involving substantial cellular damage.as a result of severe radiation exposure (Id, para. 9).

i

! The Affidavit of Dayne H. Brown, Chief of Radiation. Protection i.

Section (RPS), Division of-Facilities Services, North Carolina Department of Human Resources, provides information on-a facility i

in a contiguous state that is capable of specialized radiation 1

4 treatment (Oak Ridge Radiation-Emergency Assistance Center /ETrain-

. ing1 Site-(REAC/TS), Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Services and facilities of'REAC/TS are available1upon request of the RPS through FEMA or' the NRC.7';(Brown Affidavit, para.~4).

The' affidavit of Jesse T..Pugh,'III, Director, Division of.

{

Emergency. Management of-the North. Carolina Department of Crime

{

Controliand.Public Safety;provides that.the ERP will-be updated

)

5

,y,. , y- -

T - *-v=- r er" -'t- **- *r-*

• v w v' +wev T- -aw--* vvw -, v r - r v.-w- - r

-* ~

- to-~ include the capabilities of Duke University Medical Center, North-Carolina Memorial Hospitaltand Oak Ridge REAC/TS to treat

-severe radiation cases.

FEMA staff concurs'with the applicants that the requirements'of i theJregulations,Eguidance documents and case law have been adequate-ly met and that the applicants are entitled to Summary Disposition as a matter of law.

IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing discussion the Applicants' Motion for j Summary Disposition should be granted.

1

Respectfully submitted, 1 .

, LLM - -

STEVEN M. ROCHLIS Regional Counsel

j. Federal-Emergency Management Agency i

+

t i

• . 8 s

t

, , -, - = - p . . - t

- , 4_- - , ,--