ML20154D989

Order (Resolving Remanded Medical Svcs Issue).* Adequate Measures to Protect Public in Event of Radiological Emergency Taken.Served on 880510

ML20154D989
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	05/09/1988
From:	Hand C, Johnson E, Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO.
References
CON-#288-6261 87-538-06-OLR, 87-538-6-OLR, LBP-88-14, OL, NUDOCS 8805200052
Download: ML20154D989 (10)

Text

'y2f/

LBP-88-14 ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges i" KE 3." 4

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chaiman (* Q",,M i Elizabeth B. Johnson Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

SERVED MAY 101983 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-361-OL 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0N COMPAN7, ET AL. (ASLBPNo. 87-538-06-OLR)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, )

Units 2 and 3) May 9, 1988 ORDER (Resolving RemandedTe3 Teal Services Issue)

The Board has reviewed and considered the Interim Findings issued by FEMA on or about November 19, 1987. Said findings evaluated medical arrangements at San Onofre 2 and 3 in confonnance with FEMA guidance set forth in Guidance Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services. The Board has also considered th( findings of reasonable assurance of adequate safety set forth in NRC Staff Memorandum of November 19, 1987 issued by the Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Finally, the Board has considered and approved the Stipulation (the attached copy excludes the parties' proposed order) of t.he parties, including Intervenor GUARD, wh(rein GUARD declines to request a hearing following the Commission's Rcmand Order of September 12, 1986.

8805200052 080509 PDR ADOCK 05000361 0 PDR [

2-FINDINGS OF FACT On the basis of the foregoing, this Board finds that:

(1) The purposes of the Consnission's Rer,and Order have been I

fulfilled and further proceedings on the medical services issue are not l

necessary; and (2) Based on the Board's review of Licensee's submittals and the evaluations of FEMA and NRC Staff, the Licensees have satisfied the  ;

I requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) and there exists reasonable i assurance that, with respect to emergency medical arrangements, adequate l

l protective measures to protect the public in the event of a radiological  !

i i emergency at San Onofre 2 and S have been taken.

CONCLbSIONS OF LAW Upon consideration of the showing presented by Licensees and the ,

evaluations of NRC Staff and FEMA with respect to emergency medical arrangements, there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective

e measures to protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency at San Onofre 2 and 3 have t,een taken.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

,b Ah_"ri.Q M Sheldon J.golfe, Ghairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE (A slBQLc-Elizabeth B. Johns 6n  ;

ACMINISTRATIVE JUDGE OAWZ A>

adet H. Hand, Jr.

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 7'

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of May,1988.

l i

l t

l

s .

1 *~\r

%; i 2

3 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

5 N CLEAR REGULATORY CC.M MISSION 6

7 In the Matter of )

8 )

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL I COMPANY, et al. ) 50-362 OL '

10 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) )

33

)

12 STIPULATION At*B=f90PS@EO=6ftD991 RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE 14 DAVID R. PICOTT CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL 16 ORRICK, HERRIN0 TON & SUTCLIFFE 600 Montgomery Street ,

37 San Francisco, California 94111 >

Telephone: (415) 392-1122 18 CHARLES R. KOCHER 19 JAMES A. BEOLETTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20 COMPANY P.O. Box 800 21 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 ,

22 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 23 Attorneys for Licensees 24 Southern California Edison t Company, San Diego Cas & Electric Company ,

25 City of Anaheim, California and City of Riverside, California 26 Dated: March 22, 1988 i 6600p

_ uhrl>& hjjo Y577 /Y ff

c.

t 3

1 STIFULATION AMID=f90Pt9eD=tMtETR RE REMAND OF MEDICAL SERVICES ISSUE 2

3 1, BACKGROUND 4 During the course of the operating license i 5 proceeding for the above-captioned power plant, San onofre 6 Nuclear Generating Station, Units !! and III (San Onofre 2&3) 7 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) was called upen 8 to interpret 10 C.F.R. 50.47(b)(12) relating to arrangements t

I '

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 r

13 development of an inventory of medical facilities available in l 14 the area of the plant. In GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. i 15 Cir. 1985) the court found the Commission's interpretation of [

10 the regulation was not reasonable and remanded the istue to 17 the Commission for further proceedings.

18 The Commission, in turn, issued its Romand Order of -

II September 12, 1986, turning the proceeding to this Atomic 20 Safaty 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. 23 50.47(b)(12).

• Subsequent to the Commission's Romand Order of September 12, 1986, the Federal Emergency Management Agency

• (FEMA), in coordination with the NRC Staff issued Guidance 2

l t

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 F

4 associated guidance found in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, revision 1 i L 5 relating to medicc1 services for members of the general public 6 in the event of an emergency.

7 on January 13, 1987 the Atomic Safety and Licensing 8 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)".

14 Subsequently, on or about November 19, 1987 FEMA ,

5 issued its Interim Finding which reviewed Licensees' 10 implementation of MS-1 at San onofre 2 & 3. The FEMA 17 i conclusion stated ,

18 "There is reasonable assurance that the plans i 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 Onof'.e Nuclear Generating Station are adequate ,

21 ana can be amplemented as demonstrated in the exercise." ,

22 In a memorandum of November 19, 1987 by Frank J.

e 23

Congel, Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness, office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. ,

J 26 the NRC Staff issued its finding that "

. . . regarding 2

26 offsite medical services at San Onofre, the Staff finds that t

t I

i 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 lettsr 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 8 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. STIFULATION 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 reviewad the relevant 21 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 24 November 19, 1987, 26 26 4

w

~

e 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 8 existing record, including prior submittals of Licensees and ,

i 7 NRC Staff /TEMA.

8 Dated: N M /fW DAVID R. PIGOTT CATHERINE K. O'CONNELL 8 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE ,

600 Mor*gomery Street 7' 10 San Francisco, CA 94111 II CHARLES R. KOCHER '

JAMES A. BEOLETTO i

II SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISCN COMPANY 13 P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue I4 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (818) 302-1212 15 By t. I 7 David R. Figstt Attorney for Licensees 18 Southern California Edison Company San Diego Cas & Electric Company 1 gg City of Anaheim, California City of Riverside, California l 20 Dated: 1 ~

N NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION STAFF i 22 23 N##4#

• 0-24 BenjaminH.Vpler

/ Supervisory ,

Senior Tr.a1 Attorney [

25 28 /// .

1 L-

, +

I b

1 -

2 Dated: [t'{L 7l(-fld" L CHARLES E. McCLUNG, JR.

FLEMING, ANDERSON, McCLUNG'& FINCH l

24012 Calle de la Plata, Suite 330 3 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 i 4

5 f, C Charles E. McClurfg, Jr.

6 Attorney for Intorv nors '

GUARD, et a'!

7 i S

9 t 10

. 11 12 l:

13 l I

14 (

15 [

l 16 I 17 t i

l 18 19 i i

k 21 [

22 i 23 (

['

24 2G  !

26 6

i I

.