ML20113E451

Response Opposing Applicant Motion Re Arrangements for Medical Svcs.Motion Deficient in Complying W/Procedures in 10CFR2.749 & Matl Submitted W/O Motion to Amend Record.Proof of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20113E451
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	04/11/1985
From:	Mcclung C FLEMMING, ANDERSON, MCCLUNG & FINCH
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#285-547 OL, NUDOCS 8504160296
Download: ML20113E451 (8)

Text

I 50y .

Charles E. McClung, Jr.

p FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 EO L guna Hills, California 92653 C%dkQC

~

3 Telephone: (714) 768-3601 5

Attorneys for Intervenors U NCE 5.! :? ty ,7 ra:Hi 1 & dr -

6 m I

.: l '.

8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-. -

9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 11 In the Matter of ) DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL 12 ) 50-362 OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON )

13 COMPANY, et al. )

)

14 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating )

Station, Units 2 and 3). )

15 )

)

16 17 INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO APPLICANTS' MOTION 18 PURSUANT TO 10 CPR 50.47(c) RE ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21

~

22 Intervenors are in general agreement with the procedural 23 background set forth in the Introduction submitted with the 24 Applicants' Motion in this case. Accordingly, it will not be 25 repeated here. Because of the Court of Appeals' decision in 26 GUARD v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al., 735 F.2d 1144 (DC '

27 Circuit 1985) there remains an unresolved safety issue which was ,

28 a subject of the original licensing hearing in this matter. The r

'l  ?

8504160296 850411 Y I PDR ADOCK 05000361 '

G PDR -

U

a .

1 Cobrt of Appeals opinion reversed the generic guidance offered by 2 the Commission on the issue of emergency medical arrangements for 3 the general public surrounding the power plant. The effect of 4 this ruling is to put the license of the plants in jeopardy 5 because the initial decision required that the Licensing Board 6 render a further adequacy opinion on the issue of emergency 7 medical arrangements, as a condition to the license. See 8 Applicants' Motion, page 3.

9 10 With this Motion Applicants seek to attain summary adjudica-11 tion of the issue of the emergency medical arrangements without 12 complying with the procedures set forth in 10 CFR 2.749. In this 13 respect it is respectfully submitted the Motion is deficient and 14 should be declined at this time. The matter should be submitted 15 to a reconstituted Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to establish 16 a factual finding that there is reasonable assurance that the 17 emergency medical arrangements are adequate.

18 19 There will be no prejudice to the Applicants by resubmittal 20 of this matter to the trier of fact because the Intervenors offer 21 to stipulate that the parties may be given six months to resolve 22 the problem.

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ARGUMENT 2

3 I.

4 THE RULING BY THE APPEALS COURT REQUIRES THAT THE COMMISSION MAKE A FINDING THAT 5 THE EMERGENCY MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS ARE ADEQUATE. THIS DECISION SHOULD BE MADE 6 BY THE LICENSING BOARD.

7 8 Pending the analysis of the generic question by the Com-9 mission,l the ruling by the Appeals Court should send this case 10 back to the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board for consideration of 11 whether reasonable assurance exists that the health and safety of 12 the general population will be protected pursuant to 10 CFR 13 S50.47(a).

14 15 The analysis of the factual issue so that a decision can be 16 made under 10 CPR 550.47(a) should be made by the trier of fact 17 in the case, not by the Commission sitting as a trier of fact.

18 19 Intervenors recognize the uncertainty caused by the Appeals 20 Court ruling on the Applicants' license and hereby respectfully 21 offer to allow the plant to continue operation for a period of 22 six months in order to allow the question of the emergency 23 medical arrangements to be resolved by the commission and the 24 Licensing Board. This will in effect return the status of the 25 case to where it was immediately upon issuance of the initial 26 decision and return the factual question to the jurisdiction of 27 the Licensing Board for resolution.

28 1

Intervenors have been advised by Applicants that Applicants have petitioned the Commission for a rule making proceeding on this issue.

1 l

l l

1 2 II.

3 THE MOTION IS NOT WELL TAKEN BECAUSE IT ASKS THE COMMISSION TO RESOLVE A FACTUAL DISPUTE 4 WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES SET FORTH FOR A

SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES.

5 6

The Motion essentially asks this Commission to resolve a 7

factual inquiry regarding the health and safety of the people 8

surrounding the SONGS nuclear plants. It was not received by my 9

office until April 3rd. It contains voluminous testimony and 10 exhibits. It asks the Commission to make a factual determination 11 without the 20 day period given under the summary adjudication 12 regulation to allow adequate review of the documents. 10 CFR 13 S2.749. In addition, there is not concise statement of issues 14 without controversy submitted. Id. Further, there is substantial 15 out of the record material submitted without motion to amend the 16 record. Intervenors respectfully object to the submission of 17 this data and to the procedural way this Motion was raised.

18 19 CONCLUSION 20 21 I is respectfully submitted that the Motion,of the Appli-22 cants should be denied without prejudice and that the matter 23 should be submitted to the Licensing Board for resolution of the 24 factual dispute raised in the initial licensing proceeding, 25 whether this be by 10 CFR 550.47(a) or 50.47(c), within the next 26 27 28

I six months.

2 3 DATED: April I , 1985 Respectfully submitted, 4 FLEMI ' , NDE SO M CLU & $NCH 5 By ( '

// s i Char'les E. McClung, ~Jr.

7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

'~

00CnETED

. USNRC PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL

%S A?R 15 P3:29

~

I declare.that: GFFICE @ ER Tf;py 00CKE!W3 A SEFv10 I am emcployed in the City of Laguna Hills and Cddn"ty of Orange, California.

I am over the age of eighteen years and not 'a party to the, within entitled action; my business address is 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite-330, Laguna Hills, California 92653.

On April 11, 1985, I served the attached INTERVENORS' OBJECTIONS TO APPLICANTS' MOTION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 50.47(c) RE l ARRANGEMENTS FOR MEDICAL SERVICES in said cause, by placing a l true copy thereof enclosed in the United States mail at Laguna Hills,' California, addressed as follows:

James L. Kelley, Chairman

[

Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Administrative Judge e/o Bodega Marine Laboratory University of' California P. O. Box 247 .

Bodega Bay, California '94923 Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Robert G. Lacy San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112

..,a Kenneth P. Baskin, Vice President Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Roseraead, California 91770 Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Rourke & Woodruff California First Bank Building 10555 North Main Street Santa Ana, California 92701 James Briggs Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Solicitor General Washington, D. C. 20555 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D. C. 20555 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.

Lawrence O. Garcia, Esq.

California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Lloyd von Haden 2089 Foothill Drive Vista, California 92083 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks GUARD 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, California 92762 James F. Davis State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology .

1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 Sacramento, California 95814 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.

University of San Diego School of Law Alcala Park San Diego, California 92110 i Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.

1695 W. Crescent Avenue, Suite 222 Anaheim, California 92801

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

• • Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Spence Perry, Esq.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of General Counsel Room 840 500 "C" Street, S. W.

Washington, D. C. 20472 David R. Pigott Samuel B. Casey Catherine M. Kelly Of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Charles R. Kocher James A. Beoletto Southern California Edison Company P. O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 f -

3 CHARLES E. McCLUNG, JR.

Counsel for Intervenors

• • By Express Mail ,

t L c