ML20151P377
| ML20151P377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/22/1988 |
| From: | Mcclung C, Pigott D, Vogler B GUARD, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6112 OL, NUDOCS 8804260150 | |
| Download: ML20151P377 (34) | |
Text
_
,.p//3 b 0 ,
(3 ~ ~
- r 1 :x ,itu LWe's . 2 2
3 10 ME 19 PS :11 4 0FF lu , ;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,m,,,
00CKE iita, r a ~ ag' 5 BRANc" N A AO OMMISSION 6
7 In the Matter of )
8
)
0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COMPANY, et al. ) 50-362 OL 10 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating )
jg Station, Units 2 and 3) )
)
12 STIPULATION AND PROFOSED ORDER RE 14 REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE DAVID R. PICOTT 16 CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 17 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 18 Telephone: (415) 392-1122 19 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 21 P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 22 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 23 Attorneys for Licensees 24 Southern California Edison Company, 25 San Diego Gas & Electric Company City of Anaheim, California and 26 City of Riverside, California Dated: March 22, 1988 8804260150 000322 6600p {DR ADOCK 0500036I 4 PDR ' - D
.Q
~p '3
i, g 1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE 2
3 I. BACKGROUND 4 During the course of the operating license 5 proceeding for the above-captioned power p.1. ant, San Onofre 6 Nuclear Genetating Station, Units II and III (San Onofre 2&3) 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) was called upon 8 to interpret 10 C.F.R. 50.47tb)(12) relating to arrangements 8 for medical services as applied to individuals, including 10 members of the general public. In CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. 528 11 (1983) the Commission determined that the "arrangements . . .
12 for medical services" requirement was satisfied by the 13 deve'lopment of an inventory of medical facilities available in 14 the area of the plant. In GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C.
15 Cir. 1985) the court found the Commission's interpretation of 16 the regulation was not reasonable and remanded the issue to 17 the Commission for further proceedings.
18 The Commission, in turn, issued its Remand Order of II September 12, 1986, turning the proceeding to this Atomic 20 Safety and Licensing Board (Board). The Commission directed 21 further proceedings be held once the NRC Staff had developed a 22 detailed generic guidance with respect to 10 C.F.R. 23 50.47(b)(12).
24 Subsequent to the Commission's Remand Order of 25 September 12, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 (FEMA), in coordination with the NRC Staff issued Guidance l
l l
l 2
i 1
Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services (MS-1). That document i 2 provided interpretation and clarification of requirements 3 contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) and the then existing
[
i
! 4 associated guidance found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, revision 1 !
5 relating to medical services for members of the general public 8 in the event of an emerg'ency.
t 7
on January 13, 1987 the Atomic Safety and Licensing i
, 8 Board issued its order requiring Licensees to submit their 0
showing of implementation of the upgraded emergency medical j 10 requirements to the Board, parties and FEMA by July 1, 1987.
11 On or about June 29, 1987 there was submitted to the 12 i Board and served on all parties "Licensees' Submittal re I i !
I Emergency Medical Services (10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12)". !
14 I Subsequently, on or about November 19, 1987 FEMA I l
i issued its Interim Finding which reviewod Licensees' 10 implementation of MS-1 at San onofre 2 & 3. The FEMA II conclusion stated ;
4 18 f "There is reasonable assurance that the plans j 39 for medical services for members of the general L public who may be contaminated / injured as a i 20 result of a radiological emergency at the San onofre Nuclear Generating Station are adequate 21 and can be implemented as demonstrated in the exercise.
} 22
) In a memorandum of November 19, 1987 by Frank J. ;
23 Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and l 24 Emergency Preparedness, office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, t
25 "
the NRC Staff issued its finding that . . . regarding !
} 26 i offsite medical services at San onofre, the Staff finds that ;
j i ~
{ !
! 3 I i
l I l
s 1 there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective 2 measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 3 emergency."
4 The FEMA Td NRC Staff evaluations were distributed 5 to the Board and all parties by letter to the Board of 6 November 23, 1987 from Benjamin H. Vogler, Senior Supervisory 7 Trial Attorney within the Commission.
O On December 12, 1987 the Board conducted a telephone O conference with all parties, specifically including the 10 attorney for Intervenor GUARD, Charles E. McClung, Jr.
11 Mr. McClung advised the Board that based on 12 Licensees' submittal and the results of NRC Staff and FEMA 13 appraisals, Intervenors do not desire to raise any further 14 issues with respect to Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 15 50.47(b)(12).
16 II. STIPULATION 17 Based on the foregoing facts, it is hereby 10 stipulated, by and between the parties hereto, through their 19 respective undersigned attorneys, that:
20
- 1. The Parties hereto have reviewed the relevant 2I documentation submitted on this record concerning Licensees' 22 compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) including Licensees' 23 submittal of June 29, 1987 and FEMA's Interim Finding of November 19, 1987.
25 26 4
1 2. Intervenors GUARD, et al. do not request a 2 hearing on the issue of whether Licensees have met the 3 requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).
4 3. The Board may issue its decision on whether 5 Licensees have complied with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) based on the 6 existing record, including prior submittals of Licensees and 7
NRC Staff / FEMA.
O Dated: N/m ;l0 /f ff DAVID R. PIGOTT CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL I ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 600 Montgomery Street O San Francisco, CA 94111 II CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A BEOLETTO II SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 13 ,
P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue I4 Rosemead, California 91770 15 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 By: f I /
David R. Pigatt k
Attorney for Licensees 18 Southern California Edison Company gg San Diego Gas & Electric Company City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California 20 Dated: [ g M =I/ N N 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 22 f ev1/ .
[ Benjamin H. Vog r Seni r Supervisory Trial Attorney 25 26 ///
5
. e Dated: I -
S' !j CHARLES E. McCLUNG, JR.
2 FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 3 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 f
f /)
5 y ,f^l.l-f A
- u. A p Charles E. McClung,/Jr./
6 Attorney for Intervenots '
GUARD, et al. -
7 8
9 10 l 11 12 l
13 14 15 16 17 l 18 19 l
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6
1 ORDER (Proposed) 2 (Resolution of Medical Services Issue) 3 4
The Board has reviewed and considered the Interim 5
Findings issued by FEMA on or about November 19, 1987. Said 6
findings evaluated medical arrangements at ',an Onofre 2 & 3 in 7 conformance with FEMA guidance set forth in Guidance O Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services. The Board has also O
considered the finding of reasonable assurance of adequate 10 safety set forth in NRC Staff Memorandum of November 19, 1987 11 issued by the Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 12 Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
13 Fina'lly, the Board has considered the stipulation of the 14 parties, including Intervenor GUARD, wherein it declines to 15 request a hearing following the Commission's Remand Order of 10 September 12, 1986. i l7 FINDINGS OF FACT IO on the basis of the foregoind, this Board finds that 19 (1) The purposes of the Remand order have been 0
fulfilled and further proceedings on the medical services 21 issue are not necessary; and 22 (2) Based on the Board's review of Licensee's 23 submittals and the evaluations of FEMA and NRC Staff, the 24 Licensees have satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 25 (b) (12) and there exists reasonable assurance that adequate 26 -
6600p
1 protective measures to protect the public in the event of a 2 radiological emergency at San Onofre 2 & 3 have been taken.
3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I 4
Upon consideration of the showing preser;ted by 5 Licensees and the evaluations of NRC Staff and FEMA, with 6 respect to medical arrangements, there is reasonable assurance 7
that San Onofre 2 & 3 can be operated without endangering the 8 health and safety of the public.
9 10
. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ,
26 2
l l
~ -
1 f-ws/**s C ls
- g l
3 i 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [
5 l , NUCLEAR REGutAToRY CoMs!SSIoN ,
! 7 In the M*tter of )
6 ,
)
9
'RN
- CALIFORNIA EDISON ) D00k47 Nos. 50-361 OL .
- i. XY, et al. ) 50-362 OL 10 (San o..ofre Nuclear Generating !
gg Station, Units 2 and 3) ) ;
)
12 ;
STIPULATION A, .ROPOSED ORDER RE 34 REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE DAVID R. PIGOTT .
16 CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL l ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 17 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 18 Telephone: (415) 392-1122 19 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BE0LETTO po SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON i COMPANY 21 P.O. Box 800 ;
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue r 22 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephonos (318) 302-1212 ;
23 "
Attorneys for Licensees 24 Southern California Edison Company, ,
26 San Diego Gas & Electric Company
- r City of Anaheim, California and pg City of Riverside, California j l Dated: March 22, 1988 l i i
6600p i t
n
1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE 2
3 . I. BACKGROUND 4 During the course of the operating license 5 proceeding for the above-captioned power plant, San Onofre 6
Nuclear Generating Station, Units II and III (San Onofre 2&3) 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) was called upon 8 ter interpret 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) relating to arrangements 9
for medical services as applied to individuals, including 10 members of the general public. In CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. 528 11 (1983) the Commission determined that the "arrangements . . .
12 for medical services" requirement was satisfied by the 13 development of an inventory of medical facilities available in 14 the area of the plant. In GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C.
15 Cir. 1985) the court found the Commission's interpretation of 10 the regulation was not reasonable and remanded the issue to 17 the Commission for further proceedings.
10 The Com nission. in turn, issued its R9 mand Order of II September 12, 1986, turning the proceeding to this Atomic 20 Safety and Licensing Board (Board). The Commission directed 21 further proceedings be held once the NRC Staff had developed a detailed generic guidance with respect to 10 C.F.R. 3 50.47(b)(12).
24 Subsequent to the Commission's Remand Order of t
25 l
September 12, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 (FEMA), in coordination with the NRC Staff issued Guidance f
2
e 1 Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services (MS-1). That document 2 provided interpretation and clarification of requirements 3 contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) and the then existing 4 associated guidance found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, rev'ision 1 5 relating to medical services for members of the general public 6 in the event of an emergency.
7 On January 13, 1987 the Atomic Safety and Licensing 0 Board issued its Order requiring Licensees to submit their 0 showing of implementation of the upgraded emergency medical 10 requirements to the Board, parties and FENA by July 1, 1987.
11 On or about June 29, 1987 there was submitted to the 12 Board and served on all parties "Licensees' Submittal re 13 Emergency Medical Services (10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12)".
Subsequently, on or about November 19, 1987 FEMA 5
issued its Interim Finding which reviewed Licensees' 16 implementation of MS-1 at San Onofre 2 & 3. The FEMA 17 conclusion stated 18 "There is reasonable assurance that the plans for medical services for members of the general 39 public who may be contaminated / injured as a result of a radiological emergency at the San 20 Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are adequate 21 and can be implemented as demonstrated in the exercise.
22 In a memorandum of November 19, 1987 by Frank J.
23 Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 24 Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 25 "
regarding the NRC Staff issued its finding that . . .
26 offsite medical services at San onofre, the Staff finds that i
l 3
i
1 there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective 2
measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 3 emergency. "
4 The FEMA and NRC Staff evaluations were distributed 5
to the Board and all parties by letter to the Board of 6
November 23, 1987 from Benjamin H. Vogler, Senior Supervisory 7
Trial Attorney within the Commission.
8 on December 12, 1987 the Board conducted a telephone 9
conference with all parties, specifically including the 10 attorney fo'r Intervenor GUARD, Charles E. McClung, Jr.
II Mr. McClung advised the Board that based on 12 Licensees' submittal and the results of NRC Staff and FEMA 13 appraisals, Intervenors do not decire to raise any further 14 issues with reepect to Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 15 50.47(b)(12).
10 II. STIPULATION 17 Based on the foregoing facts, it is hereby 10 stipulated, by and between the parties hereto, through their 10 respective undersigned attorneys, that:
20
- 1. The Parties hereto have reviewed the relevant 21 documentation submitted on this record concerning Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) including Licensees' 3
submittal of June 29, 1987 and FEMA's Interim Finding of 4
November 19, 1987.
25 26 4
9 4
---,n , - * .
1 2. Intervenors GUARD, et al. do not request a 2 hearing on the issue of whether Licensees have met the 3 requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).
4 3. The Board may issue its decision on whether 5 Licensees have complied with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) based on the 6 existing record, including prior submittals of Licensees and 7 NRC Staff / FEMA.
O D$ted: h/ P3 /f 7 DAVID R. PIGOTT CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL 9 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 600 Montgomery Street 10 San Francisco, CA 94111 11 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO 12 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 13 P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 14 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone- (818) 302-1212 15 17 By: % I David R. Pigalt h
Attorney for Licensees 18 Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas & Electric Company gg City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California 20 I Dated: 1 U, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 22 1 23 .
1 24 j/ Benjamin H. V@ler Seni r Supervisory Trial Attorney 25 l 26 lll .
5
Dated: '
(. .
CHARLES E. McCLUNG, JR.
2 FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 3 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 7 5 f, 1 Charles E. McClurfg, Jr.
6 Attorney for.Interv nors GUARD, et a3 8
9 10
. 11 12 13 -
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l
21 22 23 24 25 26 6
1 ORDER (Proposed) 2 (Resolution of Medical Services Issue) 3 4
The Board has reviewed and considered the Interim 5
Findings issued by FEMA on or about November 19, 1987. Suid 6
findings evaluated medical arrangements at San Onofre 2 & 3 in 7
conformance with FEMA guidance set forth in Guidance 8 Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services. The Board has also 9
considered the finding of reasonable assurance of adequate 10 safety set forth in NRC Staff Memorandum of November 19, 1987 11 issued by the Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 12 Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
13 Finally, the Board has considered the Stipulation of the 4
parties, including Intervenor GUARD, wherein it declines to 15 request a hearing following the Commission's Remand Order of 10 September 12, 1986.
1'*
l FINDINGS OF FACT 18 On the casis of the foregoing, this Board finds that
! eg (1) The purposes of the Remand Order have been I
20 fulfilled and further proceedings on the medical services 21 issue are not necessary; and 22 (2) Based on the Board's review of Licensee's 23 submi'.tals and the evaluations of FEMA and NRC Staff, the 24 Licensees have satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50,47 25 (b) (12) and there exists reasonable assurance that adequate 26 i
6600p
-.a...u---- - - - - - - - - - --w -
1 protective measures to protect the public in the event of a 2 ra'diological emergency at San Onofre 2 & 3 have been taken.
3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
Upon consideration of the showing presented by 5
Licensees and the evaluations of NRC Staff and FEMA, with 6 respect to medical arrangements, there is reasonable assurance 7
that San Onofre 2 & 3 can be operated without endangering the 8 health and safety of the public.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
22 23 24 25 26 2
1 of3 ggf Lu 2
3 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v 5 ,
6
^ ^O 0"" 0" 7
" ' " * ** *' )
8
)
0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COMPANY, et al. ) 50-362 OL 0
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) )
11
)
12 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 14 REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE DA'v I D R . PIGOTT f 16 CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL l
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 17 60C Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 18 Telephone: (415) 392-1122 19 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON i
COMPANY l 21 P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 22 Rosemead, California 91770 l
Telephone: (818) 302-1212 l 23 Attorneys for Licensees
, 24 Southern California Edison l Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company 25 City of Anaheim, California and 26 City of Riverside, California l Dated: March 22, 1988 6600p i
- - - _ , . - ---m --- -- --
,-y - - - --, -_-.
_- - . . .. . .+ -
1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE 2
3 I. BACKGROUND 4 During he course of the operating license 5
proceeding for,the above-captioned power plant, San Onofre 6
Nuclear Generating Station, Units II and III (San Onofre 2&3) 1 7
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) was called upon 8 to interpret 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) relating to arrangements 9
for medical services as applied to individuals, including 10 members of the general public. In CLI-83-10, 17 N.R.C. 528 11 (1983) the Commission determined that the "arrangements . . .
12 for medical services" requir7 ment was satisfied by the 13 development of an inventory of medical facilities available in 14 the area of the plant. In GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C.
15
, Cir. 1985) the court found the Commission's interpretation of 10 the regulation was not reasonable and remanded the issue to 17 the Commission for further proceedings.
10 The Commission, in turn, issued its Remand Order of 10 September 12, 1986, turning the proceeding to this Atomic 20 Safety and Licensing Board (Board). The Commission directed 2I further proceedings be held once the NRC Staff had developed a detailed generic guidance with respect to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12).
24 Subsequent to the Commission's Remand Order of 25 September 12, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 (FEMA), in coordination with the NRC Staff issued Guidance 2
l l
._~.__
a 1 Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services (MS-1). That document 2 provided interpretation and clarification of requirements 3 contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) and the then existing 4 associated guidance found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, revision 1 5 relating to medical services for members of the general public 6 in the event of an emergency.
7 On January 13, 1987 the Atomic Safety and Licensing 0
Board issued its Order requiring Licensees to submit their 9
showing of implementation of the upgraded emergency medical 10 requirements to the Board, parties and FEMA by July 1, 1987.
11 On or about June 29, 1987 there was submitted to the 12 Board and served on all parties "Licensees' Submittal re 13 Emergency Medical Services (10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12)".
14 Subsequently, on or about November 19, 1987 FEMA 15 issued its Interim Finding which reviewed Licensees' implementation of MS-1 at San Onofre 2 & 3. The FEMA 17 conclusion stated 18 "There is reasonable assurance that the plans f r medical services for members of the general 19 public who may be contaminated / injured as a 20 result of a radiological emergency at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are adequate 21 and can be implemented as demonstrated in the exercise."
22 In a memorandum of November 19, 1987 by Frank J.
23 Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 24 Emergency Preparedness, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 25 "
the NRC Staff issued its finding that . . . regarding 26 offsite medical services at San Onofre, the Staff finds that 3
_ . . . - . . _ _ _ _ _ _..~ - -
1 there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective 2 measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 3 emergency."
4 The FEMA and NRC Staff evaluations were distributed 5 to the Board and all parties by letter to the Board of 6
November 23,-1987 from Benjamin H. Vogler, Senior Supervisory 7 Trial Attorney within the Commission.
8 On December 12, 1987 the Board conducted a telephone 9
conference with all parties, specifically including the 10 attorney for Intervenor GUARD, Charles E. McClung, Jr.
11 Mr. McClung advised the Board that based on 12 Licensees' submittal and the results of NRC Staff and FEMA 13 appraisals, Intervenors do not desire to raise any further 14 issues with respect to Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 15 50.47(b)(12).
10 II. STIPULATION 17 Based on the foregoing facts, it is hereby 10 stipulated, by and between the parties hereto, through their 10 respective undersigned attorneys, that:
20
- 1. The Parties hereto have reviewed the relevant 21 documentation submitted on this record concerning Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) including Licensees' l
submittal of June 29, 1987 and FEMA's Interim Finding of I
24 November 19, 1987.
25
! 26 l
4
1 2. Intervenors GUARD, et al. do not request a 2 hearing on the issue of whether Licensees have met the 3 requirements of 10 CER 50.47(b)(12).
4 3. The Board may issue its decision on whether 5 Licensees have complied,with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) based on the 6 existing record, including prior submittals of Licensees and 7
NRC Staff / FEMA.
O Dated: h/ 33 /f f7 DAVID R. PIGOTT CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL 9 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 600 Montgomery Street 10 San Francisco, CA 94111 lI CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY I P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 14 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 15 37 By: I k David R. Pigott Attorney for Licensees 18 Southern California Edison Company San Dieg Gas & Electric Company 19 City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California 20 Dated: 6N J/, hk NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION STAFF 22 /
23 .
24 -
Benjamin H. Vofler Sen' r Supervisory Tri41 Attorney 25 26 ///
5
- e- -'
o 2.
Dated: 8 'l CHARLES E. McCLUNG, JR.
FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 3 .
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
)
Charles E. McClung, J 6 Attorney for Interven GUARD, et al.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 to 2i 22 23 24 25 26 6
- -n ,,, ~~ , , . . , , . ,,,,n. ,-- ,,,,,_-..,,,_.,n.<,en, ,,,,, , - - , - - - .,,.,,c-
, , , , - -, ,,--,-. ,,, ,~.- , ,,.,._ ,-m.,-m..,,,,. , , - - . , . -- , , - - , - - -
- . ..........-c---. --
s i
ORDER (Proposed) 2 (Resolution of Medical Services Issue) 3 4
The Board has reviewed and considered the Interim 0
Findings issued by FEMA on or about November 19, 1987. Said 6
findings evaluated medical arrangements at San Onofre 2 & 3 in 7
co.nformance with FEMA guidance set forth in Guidance 8 Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services. The Board has also 9
considered the finding of reasonable assurance of adequate 10 safety set forth in NRC Staff Memorandum of November 19, 1987 11 issued by the Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 12 Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
13 Fina51y, the Board has considered the Stipulation of the 14 parties, including Intervenor GUARD, wherein it declines to 15 request a hearing following the Commission's Remand Order of 10 September 12, 1986.
l7 FINDINGS OF FACT 18 On the basis of the foregoing, this Board finds that I
(1) The purposes of the Remand Order have been 0
fulfilled and further proceedings on the medical services 21 issue are not necessary; and (2) Based on the Board's review of Licensee's submittals and the evaluations of FEMA and NRC Staff, the 24 Licensees have satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 25 (b) (12) and there exists reasonable assurance that adequate 26 6600p
1 protective measures to protect the public in the event of a 2 radiological emergency at San Onofre 2 & 3 have been taken.
3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
Upon consideration of the showing presented by 5 Licensees and tbe evaluations of NRC Staff and FEMA, with 6 respect to medical arrangements, there is reasonable assurance 7
that San Onofre 2 & 3 can be operated without endangering the 0 health and safety of the public.
9 10 11 12 13 .
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
. _ . . . . ~ . .. .
- _. - - - . . - . . - - ~ - - - . .
0*
1 f'. ?s ~~ \ ,
2 -'
/
3 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 5 '
N EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6
7
" * * *# ' }
8
)
I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COMPANY, et al. ) 50-362 OL 10 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating )-
11 Station, Units 2 and 3) )
)
12 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE 14 REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE DAVID R. PIGOTT 16 CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 17 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 18 Telephone:
(415) 392-1122 19 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. DEOLETTO 20 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 21 P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 22 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 23 Attorneys for Licensees 24 Southern California Edison Company, 25 San Diego Gas & Electric Company
( City of Anaheim, California and 26 City of Riverside, California l Dated: March 22, 1988 l
l l
6600p i
E
. .- w - ~ .~ w . . - . : - --
1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE 2
3 I. BACKGROUND 4 During the course of the operating license 5 proceeding for the above-captioned power plant, San Onofre 6 Nuclear Generating Station, Unite II and III (San Onofre 2&3) 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) was called upon 8 to interpret 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) relating to arrangements 9 for medical services as applied to individuals, including 10 members of the general public. In CLI-83-lo, 17 N.R.C. 528
- 11 (1983) the Commission determined that the "arrangements . . .
12 for medical services" requirement was satisfied by the 13 development of an inventory of medical facilities available in 14 the area of the plant. In GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C.
15 Cir. 1985) the court found the Commission's interpretation of 10 the regulation was not reasonable and remanded the issue to 17 the Commission for further proceedings.
10 The Commission, in turn, issued its Remand Order of
[
10 September 12, 1986, turning the proceeding to this Atomic 20 Safety and Licensing Board (Board). The Commission
- directed l
II l further proceedings be held once the NRC Staff had developed a 22 detailed generic guidance with respect to 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12).
24 Subsequent to the Commission's Remand Order of September 12, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 (FEMA), in coordination with the NRC Staff issued Guidance 1
2 l
l
,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . . . . > < ~
1 Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services (MS-1). That document 2
provided interpretation and clarification of requirements 3 contained in 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) and the then existing 4
associated guidance found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, revision 1 5
relating to medical services for members of the general public 6
in the event of an emergency.
7 On January 13, 1987 the Atomic Safety and Licensing 0
Board issued its Order requiring Licensees to submit their 8
showing of implementation of the upgraded emergency medical 10 requirements to the Board, parties and FEMA by July 1, 1987.
11 On or about June 29, 1987 there was submitted to the 12 Board and served on all parties "Licensees' Submittal re 13 Emergency Medical Services (10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12)".
Subsequently, on or about November 19, 1987 FEMA 15 issued its Interim Finding which reviewed Licensees'
'O implementation of MS-1 at San Onofre 2 & 3. The FEMA conclusion stated 18 "There is reasonable assurance that the plans 39 for medical services for members of the general public who may be contaminated / injured as a 20 result of a radiological emergency at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station are adequate 21 and can be implemented as demonstrated in the exercise.
22 In a memorandum of November 19, 1987 by Frank J.
23 Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 24 Emergency Preparedness, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, 25 "
the NRC Staff issued its finding that . . . regarding to offsite medical services at San Onofre, the Staff finds that 3
1 there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective 2 measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological 3 emergency."
4 The FEMA and NRC Staff evaluations were distributed 5 to the Board and all parties by letter to the Board of 6 November 23, 1987 from Benjamin H. Vogler, Senior Supervisory 7 Trial Attorney within the Commission.
8 On December 12, 1987 the Board conducted a telephone 9 conference with all parties, specifically including the 10 attorney for Intervenor GUARD, Charles E. McClung, Jr.
11 Mr. McClung advised the Board that based on 12 Licensees' submittal and the results of NRC Staff and FEMA 13 appraisals, Intervenors do not desire to raise any further 14 issues with respect to Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 15 50.47(b)(12).
10 II. STIPULATION 17 Based on the foregoing facts, it is hereby 18 stipulated, by and between the parties hereto, through their 18 respective undersigned attorneys, that:
20 1. The Parties hereto have reviewed the relevant Il documentation submitted on this record concerning Licensees' compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) including Licensees' 23 submittal of June 29, 1987 and FEMA's Interim Finding of l
24 November 19, 1987.
I 25 26 4
~
1 2. Intervenors GUARD, et al. do not request a 2 hea:ing on the issue of whether Licensees have met the 3 requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).
4 3. The Board may issue its decisior on whet'her 5 Licensees have complied with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) based on the 6 existing record, including prior submittals of Licensees and 7 NRC Staff / FEMA.
N/w A3 /f[7 0 Dated: DAVID R. PIGOTT CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL 9 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
" " 9 **#Y #**
10 San Francisco, CA 94111 11 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A. BEOLETTO 12 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISCN COMPANY 13 P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 14 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 15 17 By: ( I David R. Pigott dk Att rney f r Licensees 18 Southern California Edison Company San Diego Gas & Electric Company 19 City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California 20 Dated: 1 A d, h[ NUCLEAR REGUMTORY
/
COMMISSION STAFF 22
/
23 / ,
$WWI * #0 24 / Benjamin H. Voafer Senidr Supervisory Tridl #ttorney l
25 26 ///
t I
f
~
- ._ - . . c. ._ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ . . - - -
Dated: CHARLES E. McCLUNG, JR.
2 '
FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG & FINCH 24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 3 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 5
J b 49 .
Charles E. McClung, Jr,/
6 Attorney for Intervenors/[ /
GUARD, et al.
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 ,
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 6
_ . . . . - , . . - - - - . - - - - - . - . = = .
1 ORDER (Proposed) 2 (Resolution of Medical Services Issue) 3 4
The Board has reviewed and considered the Interim 5 Findings issued by FEMA on or about November 19, 1987. Said 6 findings evaluated medical arrangements at San Onofre 2 & 3 in 7 conformance with FEMA guidance set forth in Guidance O Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services. The Board has also 9
considered the finding of reasonable assurance of adequate 10 safety set forth in NRC Staff Memorandum of November 19, 1987 11 issued by the Director, Division of Radiation Protection and 12 Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
13 Finally, the Board has considered the Stipulation of the 14 parties, including Intervenor GUARD, wherein it declines to 15 request a hearing following the Commission's Remand Order of 10 September 12, 1986.
II FINDINGS OF FACT 0
On the basis of the foregoing, this Board finds that II (1) The purposes of the Remand Order have been 20 fulfilled and further proceedings on the medical services II issue are not necessary; and (2) Based on the Board's review of Licensee's 23 submittals and the evaluations of FEMA and NRC Staff, the 24 Licensees have satisfied the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47 (b) (12) and there exists reasonable assurance that adequate 26 6600p
. .___.m . _ _ . _ _ . . . ._ - - - -
1 protective measures to protect the public in the event of a 2 radiological emergency at San Onofre 2 & 3 have been taken.
3 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 4
Upon , consideration of the showing presented by 5
Licensees and the evaluations of NRC Staff and FEMA, with 6
respect to medical arrangements, there is reasonable assurance 7
that San Onofre 2 & 3 can be operated without endangering the 8
health and safety of the public.
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
+
18
! 19 20 -
21 22 23 24 25 26 I
2 i
- ~ -.. . .. . . ... . --. - - ._ _ . . . .
00( KE ILC-1 U3NRC DECLARATION OF SERVICE OF MAIL 2
1B M919 P5 :11 3
I am over the age of eighteen years a % p.o3 gpar3y DOChEiiNG A 5[kVICf.
to the above-entitled cause. My business address idf9604 Montgomery Street, 14th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.
I served the foregoing STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 7
ORDER RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE dated March 22, 8
1988, by depositing a true copy thereof in the United States g
mail in San Francisco, California, on April 13, 1988, enclosed O
in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as follows:
2
' 13 *E '"
- E'# "' "9' Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 34 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 15 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
16 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission University of California Washington, D.C. 20555 P.O. Box 247 18 Bodega Bay, CA 94923 gg Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Mrs. Elicabeth B. Johnsen Appeal Board Administrative Judge 20 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge National Laboratory Washington, D.C. 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 21 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Robert Dietch, Vice President 22 Administrative Judge Southern California 23 At mic Safety and Licensing Edison Co.
Board 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rosemead, CA 91770 24 Washington, D.C. 20555 25 26 6866p
. _ . _ - _ _ - ___.m.m.. _
i 1 James C. Holcombe Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
Louis Bernath James A. Beoletto, Esq.
2 San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Southern California 3
101 Ash Street Edison Co.
San Diego, CA 92101 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, CA 91770 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks Mr. Lloyd von Haden 5 GUARD 2089 Foothill Drive 3908 Calle Ariana Vista, CA 92083 6 San Clemente, CA 92801 I James F. Davis Richard J. Wharton, Ecq. State Geologist University of San Diego Civision of Mines and Geology 8
School of Law 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 Alcala Park Sacramento, CA 95814 0 San Diego, CA 92110 10 Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
Janice E. Kerr, Esq. 1695 W. Crescent Avenue J. Calvin Simpson, Esq. Suite 222 11 Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq. Anaheim, CA 92801 12 California Public Utilities Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 13 50p State Building Appeal Board San Francisco, CA 94102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 14 Commission Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 15 24012 Calle de la Plata Suite 330 Atomic Safety and Licensing 16 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 97 Alan R. Watts, Esq. Commission Rourke & Woodruff Washington, D.C. 20555 18 701 S Parker St., #7000 Orange, CA 92668-4702 Samuel J. Chilk
$g Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 20 Comission Washxngton, D.C. 20555 21 Executed on April 13, 1988, in the City and County 2
of San Francisco, State of California.
3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the 24 foregoing is true and correct.
W .
Ann S. Seley L