ML20197C948
| ML20197C948 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1986 |
| From: | Rood H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hand C, Johnson E, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1867, TASK-AS, TASK-BN86-023, TASK-BN86-23 BN-86-023, BN-86-23, IEIN-86-098, IEIN-86-98, OL, NUDOCS 8612120117 | |
| Download: ML20197C948 (3) | |
Text
- . - . . - - - -. . _ _ _ _ _ .
'I
() )) Q[
m t ![puna jogg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ; u swisorow,p.c.rossa k...../ DEC 101986 Cccket Nos.
- 50-361 .
l and 50-362 MEMORAhDUM FOR: The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for San Onofre 2 and 3 (James L. Kelley, Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Elizabeth B. Johnson)
! FROM: Harry Rood, Senior Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No. 7 Division of PWR Licensing-B
SUBJECT:
BOARD NOTIFICATION REGARDING FEMA MEM0 ON MEDICAL SERVICES SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 2 AND 3 -
(BOARDNOTIFICATIONNO.86-23 )
i In accordance with the NRC procedures for Board Notifications (BNs), this BN is being provided to forward to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board information pertinent to the contention in the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3 licensing proceeding regarding the adequacy of arrangements for offsite medical services as required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).
Consistent with the Comission's Memorandum and Order in this proceeding, i CLI-83-10,17NRC528(1983), the Licensing Board ruled favorably on the issue of licensees' compliance with the requirements of this regulation based on the i
list of medical facilities contained in the relevant emergency plans submitted by ifcensees, as reviewed by the Federal Emergency Management A Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Offsite Medical Services Issue)gency
i NRC 228 (1983). Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Commission's interpretation of the foregoing provision of its regulations and remanded the i matter to the NRC for further action. GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.
Following its further consideration of the issue, the Comission, by 1985).
Order dated September 12, 1986, remanded the matter to the Licensing C.trd but
, directed that it be held in abeyance pending the staff's development and implementation b of10CFR50.47(y)(12).
b licensees, of detailed, See also. Statement of generic Policy onguidance EmergencyonPlanning the requirements Standard 10CFR50.47(b)(12),51FR32904.
the Thestaff,togetherwithFEMA,hasdevelopedtheguidancecalledforb{
Commission which has been published as FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1, Medical Services". Implementation is required at the next annual update of the state and local emergency response plans following August 13, 1987. A copy of this
~
B6121 Ul" g461%em
' j
~
t
.4 2
Guidance Memorandum, and the IE Information Notice transmitting it* to all licensees, is enclosed.
Ha y d. Senior Project Manager PWR Project Directorate No. 7 Division of PWR Licensing-B
Enclosure:
As stated cc: SECY (2) .
Parties to the Proceeding
+
l l
1 l
t i
i o
DISTRIBUTION LIST FT)R BOARD NOTIFICATION San Onofre Units 243 Docket Nos. 50-361/362 OL .
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson James L. Kelley, Esq.
Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.
David R. Pigott, Esq.
Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
Atcznic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atcznic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Docketing and Service Section Document Managenent Branch Mr. Kenneth P. Baskin Mr. James C. Holecunbe Mr. S. McClusky Mr. C. B. Brinkman Mr. Dennis F. Kirsch Ms. Ann C. Vasolez Mr. Hans Kaspar Mr. Mark Medford Mr. Stephen B. Allman Regional Adninistrator, Region V Resident Inspector, San Onofre NPS
.o Enclosure
- SSINS No.: 6835
,, IN 86-98 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 s
December 2, 1986 IE INFORMATION NOTICE NO. 86-98: OFFSITE MEDICAL SERVICES Addressees:
All nuclear power reactor facilities holding an operating license or a con-struction permit.
Purpose:
This information notice is provided to bring to the attention of licensees a new Commission policy on offsite medical services around nuclear power plants and a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) guidance memorandum addressing that policy. It is suggested that recipients review the information for appli-cability to their facilities. No written response is required.
Description of Circumstances:
Attached is FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1, " Medical Services," that addresses implementation of the Commission policy on offsite medical services published on September 17, 1986 in the Federal Register (51 FR 32904). This Guidance Memorandum was prepared in coordination with the NRC staff. As noted in the referenced policy statement, the Commission has determined that these modifi-i cations fall under the backfit rule's exception as necessary to bring facili-ties into compliance with a rule of the Commission.
No written response is required by this information notice. If you have any
- questions about this matter, please contact the Regional Administrator of the j appropriate regional office or this office.
l
[l Tdward L.
ordan, Director l
Division Emergency Preparedness and Eng neering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement i Attachments:
1
- 1. FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1
- 2. List of Recently Issued IE Information Notices I
Technical
Contact:
Edward M. Podolak, IE (301)492-7290 l -8Hti6vuus py l
, Attachment 1 IN 86-98
- December 2. 1986 y Page 1 of 12
$Ii Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 MDiORANDlN FDR Regional Directors Actirg Regional Directors M k3W IMH: 'cloughlin puty Associate Directcc State and local Programs and Stpport StBJECrt Guidance Memorandtzn (GM) MS-1, Medical Services ne attached Oi MS-1, Medical Services, is forwarded for your use in prwidirg gaidance to State and local officials in developing their radiological energency response plans and in evaluating the medical services capabilities of State and local goverments.
'1he origins of this 04 ard its development and approval have been sorlewhat different frcxn other Gi's. his 04 was developed as a result of a series of legal decisions involvirg NRC which determined that the existing interpretation of the required pre-accident medical arrangements for contaminated injured individuals as not sufficient. Those decisions led NRC to issue a policy statement (Attachment B) on September 17, 1986, indicating that the NRC staff (in consultation with FIMA) would develop detailed gaidance on the necessary pre-accident arrangements fbr medical services by Nwenber 17, 1986.
We have worked closely with NRC in recent weeks in the preparation of this gaidance. Uhfortunately, the short deadline did not permit our usual procedure of obtaining kgional ard other canents befbre issuing this final guidance.
If you have any questions about Ms-1, you may contact James homas at 646-2808. A list of all current operative CM's (Attachment C) is also prwided for your information.
I ATTACHMDfrS A. CH MS-1, Medical Services
, B. Dwrgency Planning - Medical Services, September 17,1986, 51 FR 33 04 C. List of Operative m's
i Attachment 1 IN 86-98
. , December 2. 1986 Page 2 of 12
/.7,' :..
J' 4
( g Federal Emergency Management Agency
- Washington, D.C. 20472 GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM MS-1 MEDICAL SERVICES Purpose This Guidance Memorandum (GM) provides interpretation and clarification of requirements contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Comission rule,10 CFR 50.47 (b)(12) and the associated guidance in NUREG-0654/FEFA-REP-1, Revision 1, re-lated to the provision of medical services for members of the general public.
Background
The background is contained in a policy statement from the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NkC) titled " Emergency Planning - Medical Services" (51 FR 32904).
Inthispolicystatement,NRCstatesitsbeliefthat10CFR50.47(b)TI2)
(" arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals")requirespre-accidentarrangementsformedicalservices(beyond the maintenance of a list of treatment facilities) for individuals who might be severely exposed to dangerous levels of offsite radiation following an accident at a nuclear power plant. As used in 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) and planning Standard "L" of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revisien 1, the tem " contaminated injured" means i
!) contaminated and otherwise physically injured; 2) contaminated and exposed to dangerous levels of radiation; or 3) exposed to dangerous levels of radiation.
Guidance 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(12) requires that " Arrangements are made for contaminated injured individuals." In its policy statement the NRC detemined that this standard requires pre-accident arrangements for medical services for offsite individuals who might be esposed to dangerous levels of radiation following an ,
accident at a nuclear power plant. The following guidance applies to the eval- l
- vation of the medical services aspects of State and local emergency plans under i the criteria in NUR[G-0654/TEPA-REP-1.
Standards. Evaluations Criteria. Areas of Reviews and Acceptance Criteria Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control)
A.
Planning Standard l Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility
- licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning 2cnes have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various sup- '
porting organizations have been specifically established, and each principal response organfration has staff to respond and to augment its initial response on a continuous basis.
Attachment 1
. IN 86-98
, December 2, 1986 Page 3 of 12 A.3. Evaluation Criterion Each plan shall include written agreements referring to the concept of operations developed between Federal, State, and local agencies and other support organizations having an emergency response role within the Emergency Planning Zones. The agreements shall identify the emergency measures to be provided and the mutually acceptable criteria for their implementation, and specify the arrangements for exchange of inforr.ation. These agreements may be provided in an appendix to the plan or the plan itself may contain descriptions of these matters and a signature page in the plan may serve to verify the agreement s. The signature page fomat is appropriate for organizations where response functions are covered by laws, regulations or executive orders where separate written agreements are not necessary.
Areas for Review and Acceptance Criteria State or local governments should obtain written agreements with the listed nedical facilities (Planning Standard L. Evaluation Criteria 1 and 3) and trans-portation providers (Planning Standard L. Evaluation Criterion 4). The written agreements should contain simple assurances that the providers have adequate techrical information (e.g. treatment protocols) and treatment capabilities for handling " contaminated injured" individuals. An indication of Joint Comission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH) accreditation will suffice for such assurance.
(Note: Veterans Administration (VA), military and other government hospitals are not usually accredited by JCAH but usually have the desired cepabilities.)
If state or local governments do not obtain written agreements, the licensee should obtain written agreements with the listed medical facilities and trans-portation providers. If good faith efforts are not successful in a particular case, the licensee shall provide or arrange for adequate compensatory measures, e.g., obtain written agreements with other providers or provide temporary field medical care.
L. Medical and Public Health Support Planning Standard Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.
L.1. Evaluation Criterion Each organization shall arrange for local and backup hospital and medical services having the capability for evaluation of radiation exposure and uptake.
including assurance that persons providing these services are adequately prepared to handle contaminated individua s.
l
4 Attachment 1 IN 86-98 December 2, 1986 Page 4 of 12
/
t Areas for Review and Acceptance Criteria There should be one primary local hospital and one backup hospital for each site for the evaluation and emergency treatment of " contamination injured"
- members of the general public. Hospitals are generally distributed proportional i to the population. Thus, at sites with low population and few hospitals, the
, primary local and backup hospitals for members of the general public could be the same as those for the utility employees and emergency workers, i
L.3. Evaluation Criterion l Each State shall develop lists indicating the location of public, private
! and military hospitals and other emergency medical services facilities within the State or 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 capabili-ties. These emergency medical. services should be able to radiologically
- monitor contaminated personnel, and have facilities and trained personnel able to care for contaminated injured persons.
! Areas for Review and Acceptance Criteria The lists should be annotated to indicate the ambulatory /non-ambulatory capaci-ties for providing medical support for " contaminated injured" members of the general public and any special radiological capabilities. This will enable state and local officials to direct members of the general public to those institutions capable of handling " contaminated injured" patients. In the event that local and regional medical resources need to be supplemented, additional medical re-sources would be available through the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan. These resources would include the Rediation Emergency Assistance Center /
Training Site at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and the National Disaster Medical System with headquarters in Rockville, Maryland.
L.4. Evaluation Criterion Each organization shall arrange for transporting victims of radiological acci-dents to medical support facilities.
Areas for Review and Acceptance Criteria Because the early symptoms of persons exposed to dangerous levels of radiation are usually limited to nausea and vomiting, ambulances may not be required to transport such persons to medical facilities. Rather, non-specialized public and private vehicles can be used, supported, if necessary, with agreements in accordance with A.3. above. For other types of contaminated injured individ-uals, specialized transportation resources (e.g., ambulances) would be necessary and should be assured by agreements, if necessary, in accordance with A.3 above.
Provisions should be made for the use of contamination control in transporting contaminated persons to medical facilities.
. _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________n ___
q s
Attachment 1
? IN 86-98 s December 2,1986 '
Page 5 of 12 . . .
(
A Planning Standard ,
y, D. Radiological Emergency Response Trainina .
Radiological emergency response training is provided to those who may be ,,
called on to assist in an emergency. n' E 0.4. Evaluation Criterion Each organization shall establish a training program for instructing and qualia fying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. The
! specialized initial training and periodic retraining proprams (including the scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the fo lowing categories:
- h. Medical support personnel Areas for Review and Acceptance Criteria Each hospital listed under Evaluation Criteria L.1 and L.3. shall have at least one physician and one nurse on call within about 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> who can supervise the evaluation and treatment of radiologically " contaminated injured" members of the general public. There are several sources for this training including NRC
- licensee sponsored training. Transportation providers should have basic training
- in contamination control. Examples include but are not limited to
l 1 1. FEMA handbook, videotape. slides and instruction manual titled " Hospital
, Emergency Department Management of Radiation Accidents." SM 80/1984.
i 2. Courses from The Radiation Emergency Assistance Center / Training Site
! (REAC/TS) at Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
- 3. Audiocassette and text course. " Radiation Accident. Preparedness: Medical
- l. and Managerial Aspects" by Science-Thru-Media Inc., 303 Fifth Avenue. Suite 803 New York. NY 20016.
1 N. Exercises and Drills Planning Standard I i
Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate ma or portions of emer-gency response capabilities. periodic drills are (will be conducted to develop i and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises j or drills are (will be) corrected.
i 4
Attachment 1 In 86-98 December 2. 1986 Page 6 of 12 5
N.2. Evaluation Criterion A drill is a supervised instruction period aimed at testing, developing and maintaining skills in a particular operation. A drill is often a component of an exercise. A drill shall be supervised and evaluated by a qualiffed drill instructor. Each organization shall conduct drills, in addition to the biennial ammwaP exercise at the frequencies indicated below:
- c. Medical emergency drills A medical emergency d-ill involving a simulated contaminated individual which contains provisions for participation by the local support services agencies (i.e., ambulance and offsite medical treatment facility) shall be conducted annually. The offsite portions of the medical drill may be perfonned as part of the required biennial somwal* exercise.
Areas for Review and Acceptance Criteria State or local governments should provide for the conduct of appropriate drills and exercises which include " contaminated injured" individuals. These medical emergency drills involving the primary local (L.I.) hospital for state and local governments should be conducted annually. These drills should also test the capability of relocation centers to direct " contaminated injured" members of the general public to the appropriate hospital. If State or local governments cannot provide for the conduct of the drills, the licensee shall provide for the con.
duct of such drills. If good faith efforts are not successful in a particular case, the licensee shall provide or arrange for adequate compensatory measures.
Implementation State and local emergency response plans should reflect the provisions of this GM at the next annual update following 9 months from the effective date of this GM.
Plans for plants that do not have a full power operating license should reflect the provisions of this GM within 9 months of the effective date of this GM. The first medical drill reflecting the provisions of this GM should be conducted by the end of the next biennial exercise following 1 year from the effective date of this GM.
- Changes reflect language incorporated into GM PR-1.
l Attachment 1 l IN 86-98 December 2,1986
. Page 7 of 12 s
NRC Coordination 2
This Guidance Memorandum has been prepared in coordination with the NRC s
^
As noted in the referenced NRC Policy Statement. the Commission has determi to bring facilities into compliance with a rule of the Commiss i
i 4
E I
i
- l. ,_ ._ ._ _ _
Attachment 1 IN 50-WO December 2. 1986 Page 8 of 12
~
Attactment 3 32908 I"ederal Register / Vol. 51. No.180 / Wednesday. September 17. 1986 / Roles s.nd Repletions sur.h ad&tional anangements, the decision"), the Commission itself faced .
Commission leswaa to h informed l Judgment of the NRC staff. subject for the iret time theto . whether question planning standard (b)ft2lapphed to i
generelpidence from the Commlulon. ,'
members of the public who wers -
the emact parameters of b minimelly necessary snangements for medical suposed to offsite radiation following as accident at a nuclest power facility but services. To fulfill this mandate the staff were not otherwise injured, and if so to (and TD4A) willlesue appropriale what entenL In consioering thle guldsnce to licenues. epplicants, and state and local governments. . " -
gention, the Commi:sien sought the views of h partinla the SONGS The United Sietes Court of Appeals ,
proceeding. reviewed the principal for the D1 strict of Columbia " Court" vacated and remanded a pre (vioospwposu ) of the planning standard,
' Comminion InterpreIation of plannins analysed thelikehhood ofserious dev elopm(en)t and maintenance enwrpacyof a liststanderd medical trutaent, and b (12)whichreg evaluated the ofemergenc ofinstment facilities on which poet. be required.ysesed on event, edAoe snengemente for medical treatment likel this teview, th Comunission concluded tnatment could be based. CUAAD v. .
as a peeric matter that:(I) Planning MtC.
Pending 753 f.ns!F.2d 1144 (D.C.Cir.1sas).
Commission action m etandard (b)(12) applied to individuals nsponse to the CUAAD remend, the both onsite and offsite:(2)
- contamina ted injured individuals" wa s Commission Inued a statement of interim pidance which permitted. intended to include uriously inadiated purinaniIo 10 cm 50 47(c)(1). the members of the public as web as issuance of fullpower Ilcensee wher* members of the public who are not the applicant satiened the requirements seriously irredisted but slae see of planning standard (b)(12) as treamatically injured from other causes j
interpreted by the Comminion prior to and radiologically contaminated; and (3)
CUARD and where the applicant Adequate, post. accident anengements committed to full compliance with the for necenary medicaltreatment of Comminion's final response to th' exposed members of the public could be CUAAD romand. The Commission's made se an ethoebasis if emergency prior interim pidanee will continue to s
[,lanseggjgsentained
, a list oflocal treatment govern the issuance of full power ,
licenus untilluuance and Onop s implementation of the NRCsta!!'s gpp,,3,for!thethe United States Court of D.C. Circuit concluded specinc pidsace on this mstter.at that the Comminion had not nasonably which point the new policy will apply, standard (bX12) anscTrva sarc September 17.1988. interpreted pfsaninhound whenitgenerically that a pro-I FOR PURTHER IssF0Asf AT10st C0erfaCT accident list of trea tment facilities constituted "anangements* lor post-C.Seba:tien Alcot. Office of the *
- Cenerel Counsel. U.S. Nucleat accident medical treatment. CUAAD v.
NUCLEAM RECUT.ATORY Repla tory Commission. We shingtori. NAC. F53 T.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir 1985). For .
CCMMtsSION this resson, the Court wecated and DC 20555. Telephone (202) 634-4224. .
remanded that part of the Comunission's
- 10 CFR Part 50 suppsasseervant estomssations . i SONGS decistos that bed kiterpreted : 1 I 388'educties planalng standard (b)(12) to neu!re s only -
8 Emergency Planning- 4fedical the p:eparation of a list oflocal 8 Servicos In h wake of h %ne hiiteIsland htment fa cilities. However. is doing
- accJdeel la 1979. the Nuclear Regulatory so, the Court made clear that the '
costev:Nucleat Regulatory .
Couun!ss!on "NRC"or"Commiseloo") 3 g Comminion. Commission had on remand. in its sound tevoc Staternent of Policy on
{ cennu rom and u!sopptcanta s te d fwDceans(rep!a totionsdiscretion requiring its fashioning a flenJbilityin
g Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR opuste commucial nuc1HF Poww nuoneMeintupntaWon ofplanning s standerQX12).
,n ' 1 e 80 47tb)(12). '"
sussuasrr.The Nuclear Replatory es ' ' [e sathb accl II A'rasyments Beyond A Ust Of '
Among those requirements was to CFR Ynataset FaclEtin Required Commiso!on ("NRC"or "Commlulon7 8047(b)(12)(" phoning standard When origineDy feced with the believes that 10 CTR Sa47(b)(12) (b)(12)"). which provides: i
("pla nning e!andard (b)(12)") tegultea question whether the phrase s pre.secldent arrangements for medical (b)N enske and attalte emergemey
- contaminated injured individuals" wee e serv!ces (beyond the maintenance of a neponse plan for nuclear power seassere
- Intended to encompass.inferella.
must meet the following standardes 3 members of the public who,as a neult listaf treatmentfacilities)for (12) Arranges ente are made for medical a individuals who might be severely 8"" I 88"'8 "l"*d 8"l*"d lad!'id**I*- of an accident, were exposed to e exposed to dangeraus levela of offsite danserous levels of tadietion, the e radiation following en accident at a in Southern CofifornloEdison Commluton found no explicit and I Company, elof. (San Onofre Nuclear conclusive definition of the se in the aueleat power plant. White concluding Cennsting Sistion. Unita 2 and 3). CU- I that planning standsrd (b)(12] requires repletionitself erits unde a SMO.17 NRC 52a (1943)("SONCS) documents.Nonethelen, the
- , , , - . , e ---- '--" _ _ _____-_
l Attachment 1
. IN 86-98 r%%,. 9 1 cm .
l
. Page 9 of 12 '
Federal Regieter / Vol 31. No.150 / Wednesday. September 17,i986 / Rules and Com:ninion concluded $at the prudent risk nduction purpon of te ne mintmsfly necessary De Commisslim has determined that Commission's ngufstions eegstred anangements for the person that may be the strangements contempfsted under exposed need not be elaborste. As interpreting pfanning standard this Staternent of policy are the
- apply to such offsite exposed (b)(12]to previously stated by the Commlulon, minimum requ!. red by a eenonable l
todwiduals, given the underhing *(ijt was never the intent of the erguistions to nquire directly or nading ofplanningstandard b u).
assumption of the NRC's emergency indirectly 61 state and local Accordingly, sithough implem(en)(tation o plannlig ngulations bt a serious this nading of the standard Mllentail !
socident could occur and &e govemments adopt entreerdiosry some addinona to.and some l Commission pnsumption that such an sneneuns.soch ae construcuon of modifications of.the emergency I additional hospitals or recruitment of accident could rnult in offsite procedures and organisations for which lodwiduals being exposed se dangerous substantial edditionalmedical licensees are ultimetely responsible the levels of radiation [s presumption personnel.het to deal with medest requirements of the backfit rule.10 Cm plant accidents."17 NRC al 533. Rather, concuned in by the Teders! Emergency 80.10p f1986). for a cost benefit analysts Afanapement Agenryk Aher the Commission believes est and a fmding that the costs of the antisfactory ensagements should teconsiderstion of this matter following modifications an justihed by a the CUAM decision, the Ceremission onedical(treatment facihties andinclude substantialincres1)ase inlist oflocal safety are not orngtonal be: decided to n. affirm this prior applicable sloce these modifications fall interpretation ofpfarv.ing standard tiansportation providers appropriately under the be ckfit rufe's exception for (b)(12). annotated to show hir capacities, modifications necessary to bring Hewever, the Comicleslon hae come speetni cepsbilities or other unique facihties into compliance with a rule of charaeteristies. (2) a good faith to a 6fferent result with respect to the reasonable effort by bcennes orlocalor the Commiselort see10 cm so.10e adn! mum arrangements necessary foe state govemments to facilitate or obtain which (a)(2)and a)(4)(1986 individasis who might be seriounty the [ba ckfatrequires rule). be 76e analysis done witten agreements with thelisted exposed. but not otherwise injured. lo a snedual facilities and transportation to petify the application of any ofIta radiologic emersency.In originally exception provisions constitutes the prosIders.(3) provision foe maklag resoldng the scope of ansngementa available necessary tralains for sore of thia Statement of poLey.Keefd issue.the Commission focused on the emergency response personnel to Elderim Culdemos partienlar needi of offsite exposed idenufy, transport. and provida indinduals for emergency medical In its prior statement ofpolicy,the emergency first a!d to sevenly amposed treatment of their todietisn in]vry.In individuals, and (4) a good faith Commlaston identiLed three factors this fashion, the Comm!:sion mede a mNch justlhed anlaterim policy of distinction between the need for ' te a sonable loce! effort governments bylicassess to see that or state or granting applicants for full power immedie te or ne a r.terte medical care, appropriste drills and onercians are Scense an equitable exception to the which wa e in I:s view the goal of requirements of planning standard planning standard (b)!11) sad the need conducted which include simulated s everely. exposed individuals. If good (b)(12)under to ca so 47(c)(1)where forlong term me&calcare. As to the applicant as ushed the requinosals
)
exposed individuats. the Commission faith efforts are not successfulla a of planning standard (b)(12)as particular case,the licensee shan found that: interpreted by the Commission prior to provide or arrange foradequate the spedal hazard is posed by sw ra d;st;oo the CUAM decisibn er.d committed esposJre le the patienc 7be Returt GI compenastory measures, sonalstaat with itself to fulltempliance with any cedatioe enlug is that. mtfe medicat the Commission *e latent to lisnit the a dditional requirements imposed by the need for extra ordinary measures noted treatment may be event 6eEy settoitedla above.The compeAsatory measurse Commissionin nsponse to the CuAM eases of astrerne espmere.the pebente ere snust be approved by NRC nialevslof temand. Statement of policy en an!.iety so seei emergency medicat asre Emergency plannlag Standard 30 CFR Ifootnote emitted).The see immediery of the pfanning would help (1)peevide 40 471b)(12). 50 FR 208F2 (h!ay 2L 3SL5).
treatment rottuired for to d stiseesposed additional assurance of the aeoperation indaid ale pro des onsite andalloite of me dical facihilea, (2) ensure proper The three Esetors wars: tithe possibl]ity that the scop (e of planning authenbes enth an adhenalperiod of ame training. (3) ensure the avallability of standard (b)(12) would be lirnited. (2) ykrrg therendredmedsalseMae trensportation, and (4) demonstrate a the possibihty that deley in complianos espebili through o prodde necessary services with the poet 4uAMrsquirements From this, the Commlaston wasoned le and esercises that the long term treatment needs of De Comm!ssion has directed the stal! could be found to be insignificant due le the low probability of accidents during exposedindividus! couldha to develop. consistent with thla the interim period, and(3) the adequately met on edAac basta. interpreIation of the plannlag standard, of ether compelh'ag nesans possibihty de talled and specific suldance en the justifying After reconsiderationla light of the a brief exception when applicasta asa esture of the medicalservices to be reliedin good faith upon prior CUAM dedolon. the Commission has avalleble to esposed ladividuals and en sonrJuded that some ed6tionalpfentwd the application of planning standard Commtssion kiterprelatica afplanning anangements beyond the developrnent standard (b)(12).
(b)(12) to NRC licensees and applicanta af a hat af treatment facihties are for licenses to operate commerdal in this Sta tsmaat of policy laterpreting necessa ry to provide addalenal nuclear power reactors.De planning standard (b)(12) the aerutance of effective management of Commission directs the NRC sta!!to Commission has also directed the staff develop (la consultation with 7DIA) emergency medical serdces in the hours to constder whether and under what er days fo!!owing a seven nac6 dent. criteria It is necessary or appropriate for endissue by 31/17/86 sppropriate However. the Commtuten sentinues to the staff to serify the appropriatensas of detailed guidance on the saast sontaurs beliewe that the long-term treatment trotning and drills et exercista of the necessary anangements seeds of esposed indivianals aan be consistent with the Coeurusalon's
- adequately met on adhoc basin, associe persons.
exposed ted with the handling of severely determination that pisan!ng standard (b)(12) require arrangements for medical
Attachment 1
. December 2,1986
,, Page 10 of 12 32906 P'ederal Register / Vol. 51 No.100 / Wednesday. September 17. 1986 / Rules and Regulations E" .
services (beyond the maintenance of a list of pre.enisting treatment facilities) for offsite exposed individuals. The Commission belies es that the last two ,
factors. discussed in detailin ita May 21.
seas Statement of Policy continue to justify reliance on the interim guidance for the period necessery for the NRC alaf! to lasue and licensees. applicants, and atsie and local sovemments to implement the detailed guidance.
Therefore. until appropriate detailed guidance consistent with this policy statement is issued end implemented, the Ucensing Boards may continue to ,
evasonably find that any hearing j regarding compliance with to Cm ;
50 c(b)(12) shall be limited to issues .
which could hase been heard before the l Court's decislon in CUARD v.NRC Deted at Washington. DC. this 12th day of i September.1ses.
l For the Nuclest Rerdetory Commission.
Samuel J. CWik.
Secortory ofthe Commission.
[F1t Doc. 46-2105a Fifed 6-1H6. e 45 am) auss esos rsee.ei.as I '
l p
- Attachment 1
- December 2, 1986 g :l Page 11 of 12 Federal Emergency Management Agency l
Washington, D.C. 20472 s e Attachment C Novenber 13, 1986 OPERATIVE GUIERNCE MDORANDA Number Date Title 4 4/1/80 Radio Transmission Frequencies and Coverage 5 4/1/80 Agreements Among Goverranental Agencies and Private (Revised- Parties 10/19/83) 8 4/2/80 Regional Advisory Ccmnittee Coordination with Utilities (Revised-10/19/83) 16 8/7/80 Standard Regional Reviewing and Reporting Procedures for State and local Radiological Dnergency Response Plans 17 1 /8/81 Joint Exercise Procedures 18 5 /2 1 / 81 FDiA Action to Oualify Alert and Notification Systems (Revised- Against IfJRE-0654/FDIA-REP-1, Rev.1 l
10/19/83) 20 10/19/83 Foreign language Translation of Public Education Brochures and Safety Messages 21 2/27/84 Acceptance Criteria for Evacuatico Plans 22 10/19/83 Recordkeeping Raquirenents for Public Meetings 24 4/5/84 Radiological Dnergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons EK-1 7/15/85 Remedial Exercises IX-2 7/15/85 Staff Support in Evaluating RD Exercises PR-1 10/1/85 Policy on NURm-0654/FDIA-RD-1 and 44 CFR 350 Periodic Requirements l
l
Attachment 1 IN 86-98 December 2, 1986
- Page 12 of 12 2
IT-1 10/1/85 A Guide to Documnts Related to the RD Prggram PI-1 10/2/85 M:MA Action to Pilot Test Guidance on Public Information Materials and Provide Technical Assistance on Its Use FR-1 12/3/85 Federal Response Center t
MS-1 11/13/86 Medical services EV-2* 11/13/86 Protective Actions for School Children
- GM-21 will be retitled as GM LV-1 when it is revised.
- Attachment 2 IN 86-98
. December 2, 1986 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED IE INFORMATION NOTICES ,
Information Date of Notice No. Subject Issue Issue *d to 86-97 Emergency Communications 11/28/86 All power reactor System facilities holding an OL or CP and fuel facilities 86-96 Heat Exchanger Fouling Can 11/20/86 All power reactor Cause Inadequate Operability facilities holding Of Service Water Systems an OL or CP 86-95 Leak Testing Iodine-125 11/14/86 All NRC licensees Sealed Sources In Lixi, Inc. authorized to use Imaging Devices and Bone Lixi, Inc. imaging Mineral Analyzers devices 86-94 Hilti Contrete Expansion 11/6/86 All power reactor Anchor Bolts facilities holding an OL or CP 86-93 IEB 85-03 Evaluation Of 11/3/86 All power reactor Motor-Operators Identifies facilities holding Improper Torque Switch an OL or CP Settings 86-82 Failures Of Scram Discharge 11/4/86 All power reactor Rev. I Volume Vent And Drain Valves facilities holding an OL or CP 86-92 Pressurizer Safety Valve 11/4/86 All PWR facilities Reliability holding an OL or CP 86-91 Limiting Access 11/3/86 All power reactor Authorizations facilities holding an OL or CP; fuel fabrication and processing facilities 86-90 Requests To Dispose Of Very 11/3/86 All power reactor Low-Level Radioactive Waste facilities holding Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302 an OL or CP OL = Operating License CP = Construction Permit
- .=
i UN11ED STATES s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ORG NAL ,
IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET Nd: 50-361-OL 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, et al.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D. C. PAGES: 1 18 1
DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1987 0f
~~~
0\
\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Of'icial Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washins: ton. D.C. 20001 6']1Ifhh6567011P;R O5ODhIQI(262)347 3700 i
NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
CR29429.0 OMT/ajg 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE 4 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _x In the Matter of: :
6
- Docket No. 50-361-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON : 50-362-OL 7 COMPANY, et al. :
8 (San Onofre Nuclear Generating : TELEPHONE CONFERENCE Station, Units 2 and 3) :
9 :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 10 11 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Suite 402 444 North Capitol Street 12 Washington, D. C.
I 13 Monday, January 12, 1987 15 The telephone conterence in the above-entitled matter 16 convened at 1:00 p.m. ,
17 BEFORE:
18 1
JUDGE JAMES L. KELLEY, Chairman 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C. 20555 21 JUDGE ELIZABETH B. JOHNSON, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 23 l !
24 ;.
l 25 l ,_ l i
g r7 <p119 pu -- continued --
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202. M .517s? Rhnvrrw%faerape fTbC
P 2
- -j 1 APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 DAVE PICKETT, ESQ.
4 5
6 On behalf of U. S. Nuclear '
7 Regulatory Commission Staff:
8 LAWRENCE CHANDLER, ESQ. l l
9 l 10 On behalf of Intervenor:
12 CHARLES McQUANG I 13 14 15 16 17 .
i 18 19 20 21 ' ,
22 nl 24 I '
25 l l
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'! 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 33Mo46
4290 01 01 , 3 2 OMTbur 1i PROCEEDINGS 2 (1:00 p.m.)
1.
3! JUDGE KELLEY: Thank you.
4i Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
t
- 5. This telephone conference, as you know, is 6 pursuant to the Board's order of December 29.
L 7i We are on the record.
8 We are missing Judge Hand. I spoke with him 9 about this a while back. He indicated he might not be 10 available. Apparently, he is not. But I think Judge 11 Johnson and I can go ahead with it.
12 Let me ask Mr. McQuang. We did attempt to reach 13 Ms. Gallagher, and I guess our last known address and phone 14 number, and the operator tells me that she was told that 15 Ms. Gallagher had moved from there sometime ago.
16 Have you been in touch with Ms. Gallagher 17 recently about this matter, Mr. McQuang?
18 MR. MC QUANG: No, I haven' t, your Honor. Ever l 19 , since the end of the trial she has basically turned the 20 matter over to me and she hasn't bsen involved in it.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So can we look to you as 1 22 sole counsel for Gard?
^
23 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Is that fair and reasonable?
25 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, it is.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tC-34* 3 9 : Nationwide Cm erage 5m336-W
i 4290 01 02 4 1 OMTbur 1I JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Does anybody else want to 2i comment on that switch? It seems reasonable to the Board.
3 Mr. Pickett, is that okay with you?
4 MR. PICKETT: No problem.
5! JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. Chandler?
6 MR. CHANDLER: No problem, Mr. Chairman.
7 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. So we will consider that so 8 amended, and Mr. McQuang will be representing Gard.
9 Okay. We are here pursuant to the Board's order 10 of the 29th, and also of course it is by way of following up 11 and responding to the Commission's remand order of last 12 September and also the FEMA guidance memo of November 13,
(
13 which I gather was served on everybody in the form of a 14 Board notification.
1%
15 Did you get that, Mr. McQuang?
16 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, and Mr. Pickett I gather has l 18 , it also?
19 , MR. PICKETT: Yes, sir.
l 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Let me ask Mr. Pickett if the
(
c 21 j: Board correctly assumes that the Applicants want an 22 opportunity to demonstrate compliance with this new j 23 guidance? Is that a fair assumption?
24 , MR. PICKETT: Yes, that is.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
s _ . < m .,.,. ~ ~ , -
l y.7.n..
f r
I 1.
4290 01 03 5 1 OMTbur 1 MR. PICKETT: We are in the process of 2 implementing the guidelines now.
- 3. JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
t 4r MR. PICKETT: And --
5{ JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
6f MR. PICKETT: -- we certainly anticipate 7i implementing them as quickly as we can, in a reasonably 8 short period of time.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. The Board indicated in an ,
10 oral order that if you applied the -- you might call it the f
11 generic implementation date in the Board notification and f 12 the FEMA guidance memo. That would stretch out to July '88, '
i I.
13 as we understand it, which struck us as a good bit longer !
14 than necessary.
15 The main purpose of this call is to discuss an 16 earlier implementation date than that. The Board suggested l 17 a tentative implementation date of April 1. There is no !
18 special magic in that date, just a date not too far down the 19 road. But we put that out for consideration. ;
i 20 Let me just ask first Mr. Pickett what the i'
21 ; Applicants' reaction is to that deadline.
l .
22 l MR. PICKETT: If anything want right, the way we !
23 are planning to implement it, we should be able to do it by
- 24 April 1. But inasmuch as a number of the activities involve l t
25 cooperation by third parties outside the scope of this
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
,, _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ 5'$Y4IJU" Nm.onwide Coserage ML 336-6MA
I 4290 01 04 6 7
1 OMTbur 1. proceeding really, it is difficult to commit to that date.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: I understand.
3* MR. PICKETT: We have got to get some i
4 concurrences, I believe, from the Municipalities and some 5j arrangements from other sources.
t 6y We would be willing to try for April 1, but we 7 I would actually like another 90 days more or less as 8 insurance. We feel we could commit to a July 1 date, but 9 with an understanding that if we completed our 10 implementation earlier than that, that we would submit it 11 through whatever process we wind up with to start the 12 procedure earlier than July 1.
l 13 JUDGE KELLEY: So can I paraphrase and call that 14 a July 1 outside date with a best efforts date of whenever 15 you can make it?
~16 MR. PICKETT: That would be correct.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
i 18 , Let me ask then the other parties to comment on the Board's proposal or Mr. Pickett's alternative proposal.
19 f .
20 Mr. McQuang.
21 MR. MC OUANG: Yes, sir. We believe that the 22 Applicants have been doing this and following this procedure l 23 all the way along, and obviously we would like to get the 24 submittal from them as soon as possible. I think the April 25 1 date is pretty reasonable unless I hear some specific
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i 202 347-3700 \ AMOru nde (MCragt 6@34 M
I 4290 01 05 7 i OMTbur 1 problems that they are running into with specific agencies 2 or something.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: So what would your -- is it your 4 proposal --
5f MR. MC QUANG: My recommendation would be to have 6 the April 1 date as some sort of submittal from them, at 7* 1 east a status report by that particular date, and then if 8 they need more time obviously all of us are willing to work 9 with them for more time.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, let me turn to 11 Mr. Chandler.
12 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, as reflected in the
(
13 , guidance memorandum issued jointly by the Staff and FEMA, 14 the date or the scheduling presented in there sort of -
15 represents an outer bound for implementation of the 16 emergency medical service arrangements.
17 Certainly if the Applicant is able to advance 18 ;. that date, we would be most interested in encouraging that.
19 We would be satisfied certainly if July 1 is achievable. If 20 " that date can be bettered, obviously we would be encouraging 21 l that as well.
?
22 j But from our perspective July 1 would be 23 satisfactory.
, 24 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. I understand you, 25 ' Mr. Chandler and Mr. Pickett, to be in essential agreement.
l .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[ ! OtC-W 3?m Noonwide Coserage SLRk34p
,4290 01 06 8 1 OMTbur 1 Do you --
2 MR. CHANDLER: Staff is in agreement.with h
3i Mr. Pickett, that is correct.
4 3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, and just to repeat, 5 Mr. Quang, you are favoring an April 1 deadline, with the 1
6 idea that if they can't make it by April 1 they could give a 7 status report and then request some additional time.
8 Is that a fair paraphrase of your view of it?
9 MR. MC QUANG: Yes, sir, that is.
10 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
11 Now, what Ms. Johnson and I -- now this is -- as 12 I said, the main purpose of this call is to get the time
(
13 parameter, and Ms. Johnson and I perhaps ought to just 14 discuss this a bit after this call and then issue a short 15 order setting forth whatever we decide, which obviously will 16 be somewhere in the parameters of the two points that have 17 been made. But we will just have to spell that out.
18 Looking down the road just a little bit, and not 19 , by way of trying to really decide anything, but just to make 20 sure that we are thinking along the same lines, in terms of 21 the kind of a filing that you would be making, Mr. Pickett, 22 l oh, in terms of say the list of facilities, I assume that 23 it is your thoughts unless you had already filed were 24 adequate and need to just reference them or refile them, is 1
I 25 that correct?
r
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L -"-"" s-"- " " ~
4290 01 07 9 I
1 OMTbur 1 MR. PICKETT: That would be correct.
p 2' JUDGE KELLEY: And then if you are required to i
3! go through some sort of drill or exercise, would you go through the drill or the exercise and then file some sort of 4[
5[r written description of what you did; is that what we would 6 expect?
7 MR. PICKETT: Well, that raises a question.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: I am not saying that is exactly 9 what it ought to be. I am just trying to elicit some notion 10 of what we can expect.
11 MR. PICKETT: Well, what we would like to see 12 would be that when we have put together our implementation 13 that it would be submitted, and submitted to the NRC 14 Staff / FEMA, for their review as to whether or not it meets 15 the guidelines.
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
17 MR. PICKETT: And that after that kind of a l
18 review we would then be in a position to determine whether 19 or not there are any hearing issues left.
! 20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
l l 21 MR. PICKETT: Now, we do not contemplate any 2 2 ;1 drills with respect to plan implementation. I assume that l
23 drills will be nececessary under the guidelines and the 24 regular emergency planning procedures after that, but for
! 25 purposes of implementing these guidelines and complying with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.. s _ m .,. -
i 4290 01 08 10 s
1 OMTbur 1 ,.
the remand, we consider that the plan modifications should 2 be adequate.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Again, I don't mean to
[
4i raise or decide any issue today, but just to get some 5 helpful notion of what the various parties may be thinking i
6' about.
i 7, Ultimately, you are going to put together an 8 implementation package of some kind, and that is going to 9 reflect --
10 MR. PICKETT: Correct.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: -- your understanding of what the 12 t guidance requires. It may reflect what you think FEHA
{
13 thinks you should do. And you will file it, and Mr. McQuang 14 for his client may or may not be satisfied with it. But we 15 would then decide in sort of a contention context whether it 16 was satisfactory or not. Is that fair?
17 MR. PICKETT: No, I think that is where we 18 , probably looked at it a little bit differently, 19 Mr. Chairman.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
21 MR. PICKETT: We would look that after our 1
22 'l submittal of the package or after our putting the package 23 together --
24 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
(
25 MR. PICKETT: -- that prior to Mr. McQuang and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
2CW.:w Nationwide Coserage W.1.W.
4290 01 09 11 3
t'A OMTbur 1 his clients reviewing it for purposes of issue spotting, 2 that there would be an NRC/ FEMA review.
3 JUDGE KELLEY: I didn't mean to disagree with 4 that.
5 MR. PICKETT: Okay.
i 6 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.
e 7 Now, Mr. McQuang, isn' t it sensible? If there is 8 going to be a FEMA review of this implementation package, it 9 seems sensible that it go ahead and.go through that process 10 before it goes into the contention stage; wouldn't you 11 agree?
12 MR. MC QUANG: I think that would be helpful for 13 formulating contentions.
14 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes. Yes, right.
15 MR. MC QUANG: I don't want to do the work of 16 FEMA.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
18 All right. So to restate, Mr. McQuang, at the 19 risk of being somewhat repetitious here, you will do what 20 you think you need to do; you will submit it to the Staff 21 ' and FEMA; the Staff and FEMA will review it and presumably react in some way to it; and then you would file it with the 22 )
i 23 Board.
24 Is that correct?
25 MR. MC QUANG: That would be our suggestion, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
g.7.m., s_ m g..,, sm -
,4290 01 10 ,
12 1 OMTbur 1 yes.
2 , JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. Chandler, does that sound right to you?
3f 4[ MR. CHANDLER: I think that is reasonable, 5lr ,
Mr. Chai rman. In fact, we had hoped to have with us this 6[ morning on the call some representative of FEMA, but we were f
7 ;,' not able to in the last minute get ahold of him.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
9 MR. CHANDLER: But, yes, we would expect that 10 once the licensee has submitted its plan it will be subject 11 to FEMA review and that subsequently would be an appropriate 12 time for Mr. McQuang to identify any issues the Intervenors 13 might have on this point. It is, after all, an offsite 14 emergency plan.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
16 ' JUDGE JOHNSON: Question?
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes, right.
18 ; JUDGE JOHNSON: Would this happen after formal i
- 19 comment by the NRC Staff and FEMA on the plan?
l
! 20 JUDGE KELLEY: The contentions submission?
21 -
JUDGE JOHNSON: Yes.
22 , JUDGE KELLEY: I think that is what you are 23 suggesting, is that right? Contentions come in after the 24 Staff and FEMA have reviewed the implementation?
I l 25 MR. CHANDLER: That would be the Staff's ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202- W r on Nanonside Coyerage 80NS6M6 a
. I r
4290 01 11 13
- 1 OMTbur 1 position, that is correct.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Fine.
3 I MR. PICKETT: That is also the Applicants' 4 position.
t 5, JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. And I think Mr. McQuang 6 i. agrees with that, too?
7 MR. MC QUANG: That is right. I have no problem 8 with that.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Well, perhaps we need not 10 anticipate beyond that. I think just getting this much in 11 the record is helpful.
12 I would be happy to entertain questions or 13 suggestions for other things we ought to take up now. Let 14 ' me just start with the Applicant.
15 Do you think you need anything else from your 16 perspective at this point?
- 17 MR. PICKETT
- The only question that arises in my i
i 18 mind, Mr. Chairman, is in the order you are going to put out 19 with a date on it.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
21 MR. PICKETT: Would that date refer to our i
i l 22 submittal to NRC/ FEMA for their review, or what date would 23 that be directed toward?
l i
24 JUDGE KELLEY: I was thinking of a date for 25 submission to the Board and parties. We can discuss that l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2e2-34~ * *m Nanonmde Cos crag 8t0336-p j
~ . , - . -
4290 01 12 14 1
1 OMTbur 1 further if you don't think that is appropriate.
2 But I mean, we are the Board and we are 3l setting -- we don't really care what day you submit a piece 4! of paper to FEMA or the Staf f. We are really interested in r
5 when you are going to submit it to us.
6 MR. PICKETT: Okay. I guess then -- I think from 7 the way the conversation has gone we are probably talking 8 about the submittal to the Board and parties for issue --
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
10 MR. . PICKETT: -- spotting, as it were --
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
12 MR. PICKETT: -- being the sort of the second
- 13 round. We would have submitted it to NRC for their review 14 and NRC would have reviewed it, given us some kind of a 15 position on it --
16 JUDGE KELLEY: Right.
17 MR. PICKETT: --
and then we would submit it to 18 the Board and parties for potential hearing purposes.
i l 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Right. That seems reasonable, i
j 20 MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Chandler i ,
l 21 a for a moment.
i 22 ' JUDGE KELLEY: Yes.
23 MR. CHANDLER: I am not sure that procedure, 24 though, won't just involve some unnecessary delay, that if l 25 the licensee were to provide copies to the Board and ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3 C..tr.t*.*- Nationwide Coserap 9 8 ' .t.to.m
. b i
4290 01 13 15 i
i OMTbur 1 parties of their submittal to the Staff --
2 JUDGE KELLEY: You are right. That might speed 3l' the whole thing up.
4- MR. CHANDLER: I think it would be beneficial 5 from that standpoint, Mr. Chairman, and the parties would 6 then be aware of that document being reviewed by the Staff 7' and, most importantly, by FEMA.
8 JUDGE KELLEY: We would then, I assume, await the 9 result of the FEMA review before we entertained contentions 10 that might benefit the Intervenors to have the FEMA review.
11 MR. CHANDLER: Correct.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: But they would at least have it in 13 hand earlier in time, and so would the Board.
14 MR. CHANDLER: Yes.
15 JUDGE KELLEY: That may be a better idea.
16 Do you agree with that, Mr. Pickett?
17 MR. PICKETT: We could comply with that, 18 Mr. Chairman.
i 19 JUDGE KELLEY: Go ahead and serve the Board and 20 the parties and FEMA at the same time, with the idea that 21 [ contentions then wouldn' t be ripe for submission until af ter 22 ;l
. the FEMA analysis came in. Sound all right?
23 MR. PICKETT: That is fine with us.
24 MR. MC QUANG: That sounds all right to me.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Mr. McQuang?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
nu .n. >- n c. -n-
4290 01 14 16 k '
i OMTbur 1 MR. MC OUANG: Yes, sir.
I 2[ JUDGE KELLEY: Okay.
3l MR. CHANDLER: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. Chandler 4 j, .
again.
5' A question, though, of Mr. Pickett: would it be 6' possible for Mr. Pickett to indicate whether that date then 7, would track with his July 1 date, or sooner if possible?
8 JUDGE KELLEY: Well, I am assuming --
9 MR. PICKETT: Yes, that is the date I was 10 thinking of.
11 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Yes, you were thinking, 12 from what you just said and what I assumed anyway, was that
(
13 when you say maybe by April but give us till July you meant 14 for simultaneous submission to the Board and parties and 15 FEMA?
16 MR. PICKETT: That is correct.
17 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, I understand.
18 MR. PICKETT: Which means there would be a little-19 ; bit longer before NRC got back and before we are in a 20 position to define any issues that may be outstanding.
21 JUDGE KELLEY: Correct, okay.
22 Well, let's see, I guess I was asking you, 23 Mr. Pickett, if you had other things and we got this date 24 clarified.
25 Anything else, Mr. Pickett?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
I 4290 01 15 17 1 - OMTbur 1 MR. PICKETT: . No, I don't believe so.
2 JUDGE KELLEY: Okay. Mr. McQuang, anything else?
3 MR. MC OUANG: No, that will be fine.
4, JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, Mr. Chandler?
5 MR. CHANDLER: Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.
6 JUDGE KELLEY: Judge Johnson, have we covered I
7 this waterfront?
8 JUDGE JOHNSON: I think so, quite well.
9 JUDGE KELLEY: Why don't I call you back later 10 today or tomorrow morning about this? Okay?
11 JUDGE JOHNSON: Fine.
12 JUDGE KELLEY: And then for now we will sign off, s
13 thanking you all for participating, and Judge Johnson and I, 14 if we can reach Judge Hand, which I hope we can, will decide 15 this submission deadline question within the confines of 16 what we talked about, and we will put out a short 17 confirmatory order.
18 Okay?
19 MR. CHANDLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
20 JUDGE KELLEY: Anything else from anybody else?
21 (No response.) i 22 s JUDGE KELLEY: Okay, thank you very much. Maybe 23 I will call you tomorrow.
24 JUDGE JOHNSON: Fine. Thanks, Jim.
25 JUDGE KELLEY: Right, fine. Thank you.
, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
t 2c3r_.3 o- Nat.onude Cos erane C23DC%
l
?
' 4290 01 16 ! 18-i 1 OMTbur 1 i (Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the telephone 2 ; conference was adjourned.)
3 i 4 j I
5 6 ;
I 7 l a,
i 9[ .
10 f 11 k l-4 12 }
( l 13 14 15 :
16 .
17ij f
18 6 i
19 g 20 I e
i 21 22 l ,
23 ,,
i 24 l5 a
l 25 5 i
l, l ; ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. ;
i :o:-3r-3 m Nanon idecoserase si'336 p
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER s -
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: ,
NAME OF PROCEEDING: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON' COMPANY, et al.
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
DOCKET NO.: -
50-361-OL 50-362-OL s
PLACE: WASHINGTON, D. C.
d k DATE: MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 1987 s were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ,
(sigt) M k. h[o I
l (TYPED)
JOSEPH R. MAGGIO ,
Official Reporter ACE-FEDEPAL REPORTERS INC.
Reporter's Affiliation,
,