ML20138H831

Response to Licensee 851118 Proposal for Resolution of Remanded Issue Re Medical Arrangements for Contaminated, Injured Offsite Personnel.Board Should Grant Limerick Ecology Action Request for Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20138H831
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	12/12/1985
From:	Hodgdon A, Rutberg J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#485-511 OL, NUDOCS 8512170338
Download: ML20138H831 (9)

Text

.

't t

]

December 12, 1985 DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'85 DEC 16 P!2:52 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFyEp EEcf Ec.n mis ., sEi u ;

In the Matter of ) at u PHILADELPHIA. ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. -

2g (LimerickGeneratingStation, Units 1 and 2) _,

)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF REMANDED ISSUE REGARDING LICENSEE'S MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS FOP CONTAMINATED INJURED ONSITE PERSONNEL I. INTRODUCTION The Staff herein responds to the Licensee's proposal II for resolution of the remanded issue.regarding medical arrangements for con-taminated injured onsite personnel'and to LEA's objection 2/ to the proposal and request for discovery and an adjudicatory hearing. The Licensee's proposal and LEA's request for a hearing were filed pursuant to an Order issued by the Licensing Board, 3_/ directing the Licensee to submit a proposal for the resolution of the. remanded issue, a schedule s

1/ Licensee's Proposal for Resolution of Remanded Issue Regarding Li-censee's Medical Arrangements for Contaminated Injured Onsite Per-sonnel, dated November 18, 1985 (Licensee's Proposcl).

-2/- LEA's Response to " Licensee's Proposal For . . . . Resolution of Remanded Issue Regarding Licensee's Medical Arrangements for Contam-inated Injured Onsite Personnel", dated November 27, 1985 (LEA's Response).

3/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), Order (October 28,1985).

8512170338 851212 PDR ADOCK 05000352 g PDR

for responses to the proposal, a request for g'eographical plotting of the nineteen hospitals referred to in the Second Partial Initial Decision with clearly discernible distances from the Limerick Generating Station noted and, the status of a:creditation with the Joint Committee on Hospi-tal Accreditation for each of these hospitals. For the reasons set forth below, the NRC staff believes that, while the Licensee's proposal com-plies with the Licensing Board's October 28, 1985 order and appears to provide sufficient'iTiformation for the Licensing Board to conclude that the LiceI1see now temphies with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12) with regard to backup arrangements for contaminated injured.onsite personnel, LEA's request for an adjudicatory hearing should nevertheless be granted.

II. BACKGROUND The Appeal Board in ALAB-819 O rejected the Licensing Board majority's conclusion in the Second Partial Decision that the Licensee had met the requirements of Planning Standard (b)(12) in 10 C.F.R.

.6 50.47 by having an arrangement for the treatment of contaminated in-jured'onsite personnel with Pottstown Memorial Medical Center (PMMC)'as the primary receiving point and the Hospital of the University of Penn-sylvania (HUP) as the backup. ALAB-819, slip op. at 47. The Appeal Board determined that with respect to the adequacy of arrangements using HUP as a backup the majority's findings are not supported by the record.

M.. The Appeal Board remanded the issue of a backup hospital for onsite 4/

and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRCPhiladelphia Electric Company (October (Limerick Gen 22,1985).

contaminated injured individuals for further proceedings to consider alternative options. ALAB-819, slip op. at 49. The Appeal Board indi-cated that it was not imposing any particular requirements or arrangements for adequate backup services, but that the Licensee should expiore the entire range of reasonable options addressed to the concerns raised by LEA's contention. Id. ,

Pursuant to the Licensing Board's Order of October 28, 1985, the Licensee submitted; ~oh November 18, 1985, its proposal for resolution of the remanded issu~e, which included an agreement with Montgomery Hospital to serve as a second backup. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in com-menting on the Licensee's proposal concluded that the Montgomery Hospital is an appropriate facility for treatment of contaminated injured onsite personnel.E/ LEA filed its response and objected to the Licensee's proposal and requested that it be afforded an opportunity to conduct

-discovery and to participate in an adjudicatory hearing. LEA's Response, at 3.

III. DISCUSSION In ALAB-819, the Appeal Board concluded that, in view of the time required to take a contaminated injured individual to HUP in the event that PMMC was not available, other arrangements should be made to deal with traumatic injuries where time is of the-essence. ALAB-819, Slip op.

t

-5/ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Comments on Licensee's Proposal to Use Montgomery Hospital as a Backup Facility to Treat Contaminated Injured Onsite Personnel, December.2, 1985.

at 47-49. The Licensee, in response to the remand, considered the avail-able options and determined that the Montgomery Hcspital in Norristown would be an appropriate hospital to provide additional backup. 5/

Licensee's Proposal at 3. Montgomery Hospital is outside the EPZ but is closer to Limerick than HUP.

According to the Licensee, Montgomery Hospital is 14.5 miles from Limeri,ck. Licensee's Proposal at attachment. In addition, Dr. Linneman 2/ had ~ submitted an affidavit in connection with a contention raised by he inmates at the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, in which he evaluated Montgomery Hospital as suitable for treating radiation exposure cases as.well as radioactively contaminated and injured patients. See, Affidavit attached to " Applicant's Answer to Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions of the Graterford Prisoners",

dated April 4, 1985.

The Commonwealth, in its comments, noted that Montgomery Hospital lies outside the plume exposure EPZ and is closer than HUP and that Dr. Linneman had concluded that the hospital is adequately prepared to handle contaminated and injured patients. Commonwealth's- Comments at 2-3. 'The Commonwealth concluded that the materials submitted by the Licensee establish that Montgomery Hospital is an appropriate facility for treatment of contaminated injured onsite personnel. Id.

-6/ For traumatic injuries that would not require immediate attention HUP would still be available if PMMC were unable to provide treatment.

~7/ Dr. Linneman testified earlier in this proceeding in connection with-LEA's contention. (ff. Tr. 9772).

3 LEA, on the other hand, objects to the " resolution" of the remanded issue solely on the basis of the Licensee's proposal and written com-ments.. LEA asserts.that it has an absolute right to an adjudicatory hearing, with the attendant right to require that witnesses be sworn and be subject to cross-examination. LEA's Response at.1. The sole basis for LEA's position is that the Administrative Procedure Act and the Atom-ic Energy Act provide the requisite authority. However, LEA does not cite any section of Either the Administrative Procedure Act or the Atomic Er.ergy Act to support its position. Notwithstanding LEA's failure to more specifically set forth its reasons and basis for an adjudicatory hearing and while not agreeing entirely with LEA's exposition of the law, the Staff nonetheless believes that a hearing would be an' appropriate vehicle for an' expeditious resolution of LEA's concerns. 8/

9 While~ the Licensee and the Comanwealth / believe that a hearing is not necessary, the Staff believes that LEA should have the opportunity to pursue its concerns. The issue that was remanded is relatively simple, 8/ Another alternative that the Licensing Board may consider is to treat the Licensee's proposal as a motion for sumary disposition and to permit the parties to file responses in accordance with 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749.

9/ The Comonwealth does not address the question of a hearing but concludes that the Licensee's proposal is responsive to the Licens-ing Board's Order and that Montgomery Hospital is an appropriate facil.ity for treatment of contaminated injured onsite personnel.

Comonwealth's Coments at 3.

t narrow and does not' involve a highly technical safety issue. El On the other hand, LEA does place in controversy whether the arrangements in fact comply.with the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12).

LEA's Response at 2. Thus, there has been placed in issue a matter that-can be readily resolved by an evidentiary hearing.

In compl'iance with the remand, the Licensee has presented an agree-ment with a hospital that is capable of providing medical services for contaminated injured personnel and is closer. than HUP and outside the EPZ. And, while LEA does not appear to dispute the location of Montgom-ery- Hospital, it does dispute whether the arrangements with the hospital are satisfactory.

Finally, LEA argues that there is no evidence, other then Montgomery Hospital's letter, indicating that the Licensee has committed to fulfill its obligation to the Hospital. This concern can certainly be resolved at a hearing.

IV. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Licensing Board should grant LEA's re-quest for a hearing limited to whether the backup arrangements made by the Licensee for the treatment of contaminated injured onsite personnel are adequate. In the alternative, the Licensing Board could, in the first instance, treat Applicant's pleading as a motion for summary dispo-

-10/ The Appeal Board concluded that the deficiency is not so significant as to warrant license suspension, since all that is lacking is as-surance of the adequacy of backup arrangements. ALAB-819, slip op.

at 50.

5 sition of the remande'd issue and pemit the other parties to respond pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749.

Respectfully submitted, f

n Jos p l R tberg AssW int Chief Hearing-(ounsel t%W . O h G>%

Ann P. Hodgdon

.-- Counsel for NRC Staff

~

Dated at*Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of December, 1985

p .- u .

'45 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- aa;st;crf NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 09dC BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

,85 DEC 16 P12:52 In the Matter of ) cpgg3 g7gggg . , . .

) 00CKEItM a SEf<vict '

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352 BRANCH

) 50-353 (LimerickGeneratingStation,- )

Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S PROPOSAL FOR RESOLUTION OF REMANDED ISSUE REGARDING LICENSEE'S MEDICAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CONTAMINATED INJURED ONSITE PERSONNEL" in the above-captioned proceeding-have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by an asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 12th day of December, 1985:

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson (2) Mr. Edward G. Bauer,- Jr.

Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia Electric Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2301 Market Street Washington, D.C. 20555* Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq.-

Administrative Judge Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Conner and Wetterhahn U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

-Washington, D.C. 20555* Washington, D.C. 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Administrative Judge 6504 Bradford Terrace Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 19149 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.- 20555* Joseph H. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Romano -Ardmore, PA 19003

- Air and Water Pollution Patrol 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

1500 Municipal Services Bldg.

Ms. Phyllis Zitzer, President 15th and JFK Blvd.

Ms. Maureen Mulligan Philadelphia, PA 19107 Limerick Ecology Action 762 Queen Street Pottstown, PA 19464

,i 6

Thomas Gerusky, Direc' tor ~ Zori G. Ferkin Bureau of Radiation Protection Governor's Energy Council Dept. of Enviro.nmental Resources P.O. Box 8010 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Building 1625 N. Front Street

' Third and Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17105 Harrisburg,'PA 17120 Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Director Associate General Counsel

~ Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation ~& Safety 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Building Washington, D.C. 20472 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Robert L. Anthony Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers Friends of the Earth of the 16th Floor Center Plaza

-Delaware Valley . 101 North Broad Street 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Moylan, PA 19065 James Wiggins Angus R. Love, Esq. Senior. Resident Inspector Montnomery County Legal Aid U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 107 East Main Street P.O. Box 47 Norristown, PA 19401 Sanatoga, PA 19464

' Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Brose & Poswistilo ' Board Panel 325 N. 10' Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Easton, PA 18042 Washington, D.C. 20555*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal-David Wersan Board Panel (5)

Consumer Advocate U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Office of Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20555*

1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Jay Gutierrez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555*

USNRC, Region I 631 Park Avenue Gregory Minor King of Prussia, PA 19406' MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Steven P. Hershey, Esq. San Jose, CA 95125 Comunity Legal Serv _ ices, Inc.

5219 Chestnut Street Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director Philadelphia, PA -19139 Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, IPA 19380

~

k Jose Atberg' Ass aht Chief Hearing tounsel