ML20210E805

Discusses Dispute Arising at 870120 Nrc/Fema Steering Committee Meeting Re Proper Interpretation of Medical Svcs (10CFR50.47).Relative Documents,Including Remand Order & Orders Issued by Aslb,Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20210E805
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	02/05/1987
From:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Krimm R Federal Emergency Management Agency
References
CON-#187-2459 OL, NUDOCS 8702100373
Download: ML20210E805 (59)

Text

__ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - - _.-- -_--_ __

4 RELATED COttRESPONDE,NQ%

2 %- cr , w,a

1. n% m o. u m a cw. 9.. m- m / m .

k

~

UNITED STATES

' -3,( a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 000KETED

'h  ; WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 IbbbC

\ * * * * * ,/ February 5,1987 '87 FEB -6 P4 :43 CFfs- .

00Cr.Lh * '*7 l 1 !, l,il fdEMORANDUM FOR: Richard If. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Ilazards Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM: Edward L. Jordan Director, Office of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission

SUBJECT:

SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION -

REMANDED PROCEEDING REGARDING 10 C.F.It.

5 50.47(b)(12), A RR ANGEf.!ENTS FOR ffEDICAL SERVICES During the NRC/FEflA Steering Committee meeting held on January 20, 1987, the referenced subject was briefly discussed. To summarize the background of this issue, in the course of the operating license proceeding regarding

/ San Onofre Nuclecr Generating Station Units 2 and 3, conducted in 1981, a dispute erose concerning the proper interpretation of 10 C.F.R.

$ 50.47(b)(12) portaining to arrangements for medical services. In particular, the controversy centered on whether the requirement for such arrangements extended to members of the public offsite who were exposed to high levels of radiation as opposed to such persons who were contaminated end traumatically injured. The Commission, in a decision issued in April 1983, CLI-83-10, determined that the requirement did extend to the former population of individuals but was satisfied by the inclusion of a list of capable medical facilities. In February 1985, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144, (D.C. Cir. 1985), reversed the Commission, holding that a mere " list" could not he equated with

" arrangements" os required by the regulation, and remanded the matter to the Commission for further action.

In September 1986, the Commission issued a policy statement providing its vicus on the need to provide additional measures to demonstrate compliance with 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(12). In addition , it remanded to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the San Onofre proceeding, the issue of the adequacy of arrangments made for medical services required by that rer ulation. In doing so, the Commission instructed the Licensing Board to hold the matter in abeyance pending development and implementation of detailed guidance by FEMA and the NRC staff. That guidance was issued in November 1986 in the form of Guidance Memorandum - FJedical Services 1. A 8702100373 87020S PDR ADOCKOSOOg1 O

9 50 1

I

Mr. Richard 11. Krimra copy of GM MS-1 was sent to .the Licensing Board and parties in the San Onofre proceeding on December 10, 1986.

, On December 29, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an Order resuming the proceeding and scheduling a conference call among the Board and parties for Jcnuary 12, 1987. In its Order, the Board opined that the impicmentation schedule contemplated by GM MS-1 " appears to be unneessarily long." ( You will recall that Gr1 InfS-1 provides that the arrangements called for are to be included in the annual update of the emergency plans following 9 months from the effective date of GM MS-1.) The principal matter of discussion during the conference call was, accordingly, the licensee's schedule for submission of revisions to the appropriate emergency plans which address the Guidance Memorandum. In response to the Licensing Board's suggestion that the revisions be submitted by April 1,1987 (as opposed to July 1988, aF would be permitted for San Onofre per the GM MS-1 provision), the licensee indicated that July 1, 1987 would be more realistic in light of the need to involve FEMA and appropriate government organizations. The staff supported the licensee's suggestion, noting that the GM MS-1 implementation schedule represented an acceptable outer bound for implementation. The staff also suggested that the licensee submit its plans for review by FEMA nnd that FET TA provide its evaluation prior to requiring the intervenor, GUARD, to raise any matters it might wish to contest; in this fashion, it would be more likely that better defined issues can be framed.

On - January 13, 1987, the Licensing Board issued a brief Order directing that the licensee submit appropriate revisions implementing GM MS-1 by July 1,1987 but that it should exert its best efforts to file them by April 1, 1987. If the licensee is unable to file revisions by April 1, it le to file a status report.

At the January 20 Steering Committee meeting it was recognized that there are resource constraints and other priorities that both FEMA and the NRC are encumbered by. With this in mind, it was requested that FEMA determine the time that it anticipates will be necessary to complete its review of the medical service arrangements contained in the revised San Onofre plans and whether, and to what extent, it will require that these matters be drilled prior to development of a FEMA finding on the issue. (As reflected in the transcript of the conference call, counsel for the licensee is of the opinion that a drill is not needed to demonstrate compliance with the Guidance Memorandum; see, Tr. 9-10.) Because the issue relates principally to offsite planning, the NRC staff's schedule will Isrgely be dependent on FEMA's timetable. To the extent that such matters might bear on the schedule to be developed by the Licensing Board, it would be desirable to inform the Board and parties as soon as possible.

For your information and convenience, attached are copies of the Commission's Remand Order as well the the Orders subsequently issued by the Licensing Board. A copy of the Board Notification issued by the staff en December 10, which appends the Commission policy statement relevant to

<? .

~

Mr. Richard 11. Krimm .

' :/L' ,,

i p,

medical services, as well as a copy of the transcript of tlie January 12, 1987 conference call are also attached. (Please note that the transcript c6ntains a

4 number of errors including the names of counsel for the; licensee - it should ,

~,

read f.1r. Pigott, not Pickett - and counsel for the intervenor + it should J' rend Pir. P.?cClung, not f,1cQuang.) C w , . , .

To facilitate the effective review and participation of both ths IIRC staff and ' ' ,

2 FTf1A in this proceeding, I would suggest that appiopriate tidhnicsl and '

legal staff discuss the foregoing matters as soon as practicable. .The NRC '

contact on this matter is Lawrence J. Chandler, Special Litigation Counc91, ' '

Office of the General Counsel; he can be reached at 402-8658.

t w.

y Edward L. Jordan, Director <

Division of Emergency Preparedness  ? -

and Engineering Respon'se -

Office of Inspection and Enforcement Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~~ ,

Attachments: As stated

, y.

4 le

,n ) #

1. $  %., y

( .

.) I

,s

, *4 b'

V' ,

w ,

i y ,, "

,..,e r

s 4

4

\

6 5

ws t

9

4

-0 UNITED STATES OF -AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0FNISSION

.C0f*PISSIONERS:

e Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal "

Kenneth M. Carr In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0t! } DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COMPANY, ) 50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3) )

)

REMAND ORDER i

InCLI-83-10,17NRC528(1983), the Commission interpreted 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)") as applicable to individuals t

both onsite and offsite, construed " contaminated injured individuals" as I . including members of the public who were exposed to dangerous levels of

! offsite radiation following an accident, and held that the requirement that there be " arrangements ... for medical services" was satisfied by the development of a list of area medP.11 reatment facilities. 17 NRC 4

at 536-37. On appeal, the United Sbtu .turt of Appeals for the l District of Columbia (" Court") held that the Comission had not reasonably interpreted planning standard (b)(12) when it generically found that a pre-accident list of treatment facilities constituted

" arrangements" for post-accident medical treatment of radiologically-exposed members of the public. GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d l bl.(ob3jh i

I

. * \

l

. 2 -

1142(D.C.'Cir.1985). For this reason, the Court vacated and remanded the relevant portion of CLI-83-10.

In a Policy Statement issued contemporaneous 1y with this Order and attached hereto, the, Comission re-affirms its prior construction of planning standard (b)(12) as applicable to both onsite and offsite individuals and to individuals suffering only' from severe radiological exposure but otherwise uninjured. However, in response to the Court's remand, the Comission must interpret " arrangements" to require more than the development of a list of area treatment facilities.

Nonetheless, the necessary additional arrangements need not be elaborate. As set out in the attached Policy Statement, the Commission has concluded that the arrangements required under planning standard (b)(12) should include (1) a list of local or regional medical treatment facilities and transportation providers appropriately annotated to show their capacitie,s, special capabilities or other unique characteristics, (2) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or local or state governments to facilitate or obtain written acreements with the listed medical facilities and transportation providers, (3) provision for making available necessary training for emergency response personnel to identify, transport and provide emergency first aid to severely exposed individuals, and (4) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or state or local governments to see that appropriate drills and exercises are conducted which include simulated severely-exposed individuals.

The Comission has' directed the staff to develop, consistent with the attached policy statement and witfiin 60 days, detailed and specific

. 3

~

guidance dn the nature of the medical services to be available to .

~

exposedindividualsandontheapplicationofplanningstandard(b)(12) to NRC licensees and applicants for licenses to operate comercial nuclear power reactors. The Comission has also directed the staff to consider whether and under what criteria it is necessary or appropriate for the staff to verify the appropriateness of training, and drills or exercises associated with the handling of severely exposed persons.

This matter is remanded to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and should be held in abeyance until the staff's detailed, generic guidance on planning standard (b)(12) is issued and implemented. Upon receipt of that guidance, the Board should initiate appropriate proceedings to consider the adequacy of the applicant's emergency medical arrangements with due regard to the attached Policy Statement and subsequent generic staff guidance.

It is ORDERED.

p $ g?% --

Fo the Com sion

• E s t 00 I hrJ t

/ " SAMUEL J.LCHILK R

V,4 hirit 4 Secretary of the Comission Dated at Washington, D.C.

this day of September,1986 l

• Commissioner Carr was appointed Commissioner after this order was affirmed by the Commission. He did not participate in this action.

n . _ . ._

15001 flUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Emergency Planning - Medical Services AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission ,

ACTION: Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

SUI' MARY: The Nuclear Regluatory Comission ("URC" or "Comission")

believes that 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)") requires pre-accident arrangements for medical services (beyond the maint'enance 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. While concluding that planning standard (b)(12) requires such additional arrangements, the Comission leaves to the informed judgment of the NRC staff, subject to general guidance from the Comissio,n, the exact parameters of the minimally necessary dTrangements for medical services. To fulfill this mandate the staff (and FEl%) will issue appropriate guidance to licensees, applicants, and state and local governments.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

(" Court") vacated and remanded a previous Comission interpretation of planning standard (b)(12) which required only the development and maintenance of a list. of treatment facilities on which post-event, ad, hoc arrangements for medical treatment could be based. CUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Pending final Comission action in

• - [7590-01] -

response.to the GUARD remand, the Comission issued a statement of interim" guidance which pemitted, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), the issuance of full power licenses where the applicant satisfied the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) as interpreted by the Comission prior to GUARD, and where the applicant comitted to full compliance with the Comission's final response to the GUARD remand.

The Comission's prior interim guidance will continue to govern the issuance of full power licenses until issuance and implementation of the NRC staff's specific guidance on this matter, at which point the new policy will apply.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

September 17, 1986*

FOR FURTHER INFCRMATION CCNTACT:

C. Sebastian Alcot, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.

20555. Telephone (202)634-3224.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORfMTION:

I. Introduction In the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Cormission ("NRC" or "Comission") promulgated regulations requiring its licensees and applicants for lir.r.nses to operate comercial nuclear;powe;r reactors to develop plans for emergency responses to accidents at their facilities. Among those requirements was 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)"), which provides:

i

[7590-01]

.- (b) The onsite and offsite emergency response plan for nuclear

- power reactors must meet the following standards:

(12) Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.

InSouthernCaliferniaEdisonCompany,etal.(SanOnofreNuclear .

GeneratingStation, Units 2and3),CLI-83-10,17NRC528(1983)(" SONGS decision"), the Comission itself faced for the first time the question whether planning standard (b)(12) applied to members of the public who were exposed to offsite radiation following an accident at a nuclear power facility but were not otherwise injured, and if so to what extent.

In considering this question, the Comission sought the views of the ,,

parties in the 50 HGS proceeding, reviewed the principal purposes of the ;

planning standard, analyzed the likelihood of serious exposures to the public requiring emergency medical treatment, and evaluated the type of emergency treatment likely to be required. Based on this review, the Comission concluded as a generic matter that: (1)planningstandard (b)(12) applied to individuals both onsite and offsite; (2) " contaminated injured individuals" was intended to include seriously irradiated members of the public as well as members of the public who l

are not seriously irradiated but also are traumatically injured from ,

1

' other causes and radiologically contaminated; and (3) adequate, post-accident arrangements for necessary medical treatment of exposed members of the public could be made on an ad hoc basis if emergency plans contained a list of local treatment facilities.

l l On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Comission had not reasonably interpreted planning l

l

[7590-01] -

standard (b)(12) when it generically found that a pre-accident list of tritatmenf facilities constituted " arrangements" for post-accident medical' treatment. GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). For this reason, the Court vacated and remanded that part of the Comission's SONGS decision that had interpreted planning standard (b)(12) to require only the preparation of a list of local treatment facilities. However, in doing so, the Court made clear that the Comission had on remand, in its sound discretion, flexibility in fashioning a reasonable interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).

II. Arranaements Beyond A List Of Treatment Facilities Required When originally faced with the question whether the phrase " contaminated injured individuals" was intended to encompass, inter alia, members of the public who, as a result of an accident, were exposed to dangerous levels of rad.iation, the Comission found no explicit and conclusive definition of the phrase in the regulation itself or its underlying documents. Nonetheless, the Comission concluded that the prudent risk reducticn purpose of the Comission's regulations required interpreting I planning standard (b)(12) to apply to such offsite exposed individuals, given the underlying assumption of the NRC's emergency planning regulations that a serious accident could occur and the Comission presumption that such an accident could result in effsite individuals being exposed to dar.gerous levels of radiation (a presumption concurred in by the Federal Emergency Management Agency). After reconsideration of l - -- .- . . . . . ___ - -

' [7590-01]

thjs matter following the GUARD decision, the Comission has decided to re-affir'm this prior interpretation of planning standard'(b)(12).

However, the Comission has come to a different result with respect to the minimum arrangements necessary for individuals who might be seriously exposed, but not otherwise injured, in a radiologic emergency.

In originally resolving the scope of arrangements issue, the Comission focused on the particular needs of offsite exposed individuals for emeroency medical treatment of their radiation injury. In this fashion, the Commission made a distinction between the need for imediate or .

near-term medical care, which was in its view the goal of planning standard (b)(12), and the need for long-term medical care. As to exposed individuals, the Comission found that:

the special hazard is posed by the radiation exposure to the patient. The nature of radiation injury is that, while medical treatment may be eventually required in cases of extreme exposure, the patients are unlikely to need emergency medical care (footnote omitted).. The non-immediacy of the treatment required for radiation-exposed individuals provides onsite and offsite ,

authorities with an additional period of time to arrange for the required medical service. 17 NRC 535-36.

From this, the Comission reasoned that the long-term treatment needs of exposed individuals could be adequately met on ad hoc basis.

After reconsideration in light of the GUARD decision, the Comission has concluded that some additional planned arrangements'beyond the l

development of a list qf treatment facilities are necessary to provide additional assurance of effective management of emergency medical l

services in the hours or days following a severe accident. However, the l

. [7590-01] ,

Comission continues to believe that the long-term treatment needs of ,

exposec ' individuals can be adequately met on an ad hoc basis.

The minimally necessary arrangements for the person that may be exposed need not be elaborate. As previously stated by the Comission, "[i]t was never the intent of the regulations to require directly or

> indirectly that state and local governments adopt extraordinary measures, such as construction of additional hospitals or recruitment of substantial additional medical personnel, just to deal with nuclear plant accidents." 17 NRC at 533. Rather, the Comission believes that

> satisfactory arrangements should include (1) a list of local or regionaT I medical treatment facilities and transportation providers appropriately

• annotated to show their capacities, special capabilities or other unique characteristics, (2) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or local or state governments to facilitate or obtain written agreements with the listed medical facilities and transportation providers.

(3) provision for making available necessary training fer emergency -

response personnel to identify, transport, and provide emergency first aid to severely exposed individuals, and (4) a good faith reasonable i

effort by licensees or state or local governments to see that l appropriate drills and exercises are conducted which include simulated severely-exposed individauls. If good faith efforts are not successful l

in a particular case, the licensee shall provide or arrange for adequate compensatory measures, . consistent with the Comission's intent to limit the need for extraordinary measures noted above. The compensatory measures must be apprcved by NRC. This level of planning would help l

l

l. [7590-01]

~

(1,) provide additional assurance of the cooperation of medical faciliti'es, (2) ensure proper training, (3) ensure the availability of transportation, and (4) demonstrate a capability to provide necessary services through drills and exercises.

The Comission has directed the staff to develop, consistent with this interpretation of the planning standard, detailed and specific guidance on the nature of the medical services to be available to exposed individuals and on the application of planning standard (b)(12) to NRC licensees and applicants for licenses to operate comercial nuclear power reactors. The Commission has also directed the staff to consider"

~

whether and under what criteria it it. necessary or appropriate for the staff to verify the appropriateness'of training, and drills or exercises associated with the handling of severely exposed persons.

The Commission has determined that the arrangements contemplated under this Statement of Policy are the minimum required by a reasonable readingofplanningstandard(b)(12). Accordingly, although implementation of this reading of the standard will entail some additions to, and some modifications of, the emergency procedures and organizations for which licensees are ultimately responsible, the requirements of the backfit rule,10 CFR { 50.109 (1986), for a cost-benefit analysis and a finding that the costs of the modifications i

are justified by a subs',tantial increase in safety are not applicable, since these modifications fall under the backfit rule's exception for

. modifications necessary to bring facilities into compliance with*a rule

• [7590-013 of_the Comission. See 10 CFR 95 50.109(a)(2) and (a)(4) (1986). The an'alysi,'s'which the backfit rule requires be done to justify the application of any of its exception provisions constitutes the core of this Statement of Policy. See Id.

III. Interim Guidance -

In its prior statement of policy, the Comission identified three factors which justified an interim policy of granting applicants for full-power license an equitable exception to the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) where the applicant'

- satisfied the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) as interpreted by the Comission prior to the GUARD decision and comitted itself to full compliance with any additional requirements imposed by the Ccmission in response to the GUARD remand. Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), 50 FR,20891 (May 21, 1985). The three factors were: (1)thepossibilitythatthescopeof planningstandard(b)(12)wouldbelimited;(2)thepossibilitythat delay in compliance with the post-GUARD requirements could be found to be insignificant due to the low probability of accidents during the interimperiod;and(3)thepossibilityof"othercompellingreasons" justifying a brief exception where applicants had relied in good faith l

upon prior Comission interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).

i I .

In this Statement of Policy interpreting planning standard (b)12) the

- Comission directs the NRC staff to develop (in consultation with FEMA)

-__-...,._.--,.r__. , . _ _ . , . , , . , . . - , _ _ - . - , . --.._,.,mo_. __ . . - _ _.. - - . - . - - _ _ _

?

• [7590-013 aruf issu.e by 11/17/86 appropriate detailed guidance on the exact

co'ntours'of the necessary arrangements' consistent with the Commission's  ;

determination that planning standard (b)(12) require arrangements for medical services (beyond the maintenance of a list of pre-existing treatmentfacilities)foroffsiteexposedindividuals. The Commission i

believes that the last two factors, discussed in detail in its May 21,

> 1985 Statement of Policy, continue to justify reliance on the interim guidance for the period necessary for the NRC staff to issue and licensees, applicants, and state and local governments to implement the detailed guidance. Therefore, until appropriate detailed guidance

~

consistent with this policy statement is issued and implemented, the Licensing Boards may continue to reasonably find that any hearing regarding compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues which could have been heard before the Court's decision in GUARD v. NRC.

Dated at Washi,ngton, D.C. this I day of September, 1986.

For e Nuclear. Regt.atory Comission O

3. 6 (

SAMUEL J. CHILK,

(

Secretary of the Comission e e f

i

. r':

17-M l wasaansab

. e=!Es llll!P1ll5 ll!!lll!!l2

~

UNIT'ED STATES OF AMERICA

- . =.

NUCLEAR RECUT.ATORY CO?BIISSION

'!llllllllll!

In the Matter of ) ,

[-=.

. =.].=

) wclen '

SOUIHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ) Docket No.(s) 50-361 -as.--

COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-362 == m=

) N (San Onofre Nuclear Generating ) N Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3) ) s

) .......,.

) auw g us.:aa,wa.was

~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~

5lSfiff I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document (s) h"""$"

upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by =

the Office of the Secretary of the Cocenission in this proceeding in = uuuu accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - '-uu-Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and """".'f" Regulations.

...y

- u.wau y -a Dated at k'ashington, D.C. this 8""""""'

mm.-

/.J, y, day of O[/ 19[. pZZ

.s h

I. ---

~

B)()l/ ,.

%w2NW m_

Of fied 6f/ the Sect'ctary of the fommission '"""""*"

wwaunum

• f. T """

.T.Jrr.55 g ....-

e

,6

'a::mutus:st.

6 .'liJd.$.*s.'

8.'.

Ed.e. .IM..

,.;"~~"q ui .- ::.

';)

= ::=:.::

W*.:::::. :.:.$ .

i. .f.fffif 48 +&- I

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter cf )

)

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, ET AL) Decket No.(s) 50-3610L

) 50-3620L (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

)

SERVICE LIST

.Taman L. Kelley, Esc. Chairman David R. Pigott, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Samuel B. Casey, Esq.

'J.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Orrick. Herrington & Sutcliffe Washington, D.C. 20555 600 Montgomery Street San Francisco, California 94111 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Bodega ltarine Laboratory University of California P.O. Box 247 Boder,a Say, California 94923 Mrs. Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge Na.tional Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 ,

Counsel for NRC Staff Alan R. Watts, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director California First Bank Euilding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1055 North !!ain Street, Suite 1920 Washington, D.C. 20555 Santa Ana, California 92701 l

Richard J. Wharton, Esq. .

Southern California Edison Company Univ. of San Diego School of Law ATTN: 'tr. James H. Drake Environmental Law Clinic Vice President Alcala Park 2244 IJalnut Grove Avenue San Diego, California 92110 Rosemead, California 91770 Lyn Harris !!icks

, . Advocate for GUARD

! Charles R. Kocher, Esq. . 3908 Calle Ariana .

. James A. Beoletto, Esq. San Clemente, California 92672 ~

~

Southern California Edison Company 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 l

l.

s' 50-3610L, -3620L Board and parties continued: -

PhyllisM.Gallag5er,Esq. .'

1695 West Crescent Avenue, Suite 222 Anaheim, California 92801 Mr. James C. Holcombe Vice President - Power Supply San Diego Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.

Fleming, Anderson, McClung & Finch 24012 dalle; de la Plata Suite' 330 .

Laguna Hills, California 92653 e

O 9

9 e O

r-2^

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges James L. Kelley, Chairman Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Elizabeth B. Johnson In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-361-OL 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON )

COMPANY, E &. ) (ASLBP No. 86-538-06-OL-R)

(San Onofre Nuclear Generating December 29, 1986 Station, Units 2 and 3)

ORDER (Initiating Proceedings Concerning Emergency Medical Arrangements)

By memorandum dated December 10, 1986, the flRC Staff served on the Board and Parties FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1 concerning arrangements for medical services required by 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12). In its Remand Order of September 12, 1986, the Commission directed this Board, following receipt of this Staff-FEMA guidance, to " initiate appropriate proceedings to consider the adequacy of the applicant's emergency medical arrangements . . . ." Commission Order, p. 3. This Order is in response to that Commission directive.

The emergency medical arrangements called for by the Commission's Statement of Policy and the more detailed Staff-FEMA guidance presumably have not yet been fully implemented by the licensee and the' interested UU GL/ (6 9 N c21

( .

N State and local governments. Indeed, under the Staff-FEMA guidance as we read it, implementation would not be required until "the next annual update [of the San Onofre emergency plans] following nine months from the effective date" of the FEMA guidance memorandum. FEMA Guidance Memorandum, p. 5. See also Staff Board Notification, p.1. The annual update of the San Onofre plans is due in July. This means that, under the Staff-FEMA view of an appropriate implementation schedule, upgraded emergency medical arrangements would not be required for San Onofre until July 1908. Considering the nature and extent of the arrangements now called for by the Staff-FEMA guidance, the arrangements the Itcensee in this case has already made, and the fact that such arrangements are, by hypothesis, required to protect public health and safety, the period of time proposed by the Staff and FEMA for implementation appears to be unnecessarily long.

The Board's tentative view is that the licensee should be able to complete and submit its upgraded medical arrangements to the Board and parties by April 1, 1987. The Board is scheduling a telephone conference with the parties for Monday, January 12, 1987 at 1 p.m., EST to discuss the Board's proposed implementation date or other implementation dates the parties may wish to propose. The Board will then set a specific implementation date and this proceeding will remain in abeyance until the licensee serves its upgraded emergency medical arrangements. At that time, the Board will establish procedures for

('

'i the filing of any specific contentions the Intervenor GUARD may wish to advance with respect to such arrangements. This is the only notice the parties will receive of the January 12, 1987 telephone conference.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ms Y.

s L. Kelley, Chairman J@INISTRATIVEJUDGE ADM Bethesda, Maryland ,

O 1

i 1

2 z t.5

.-?

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges cri CGC-James L. Kelley, Chairman Cadet H. Hand, Jr.

Eli:abeth B. Johnson SERVED JAN 141987

)

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-361-OL 50-362-OL SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON -

COMPANY, _ET _AL. (ASLBPNo. 86-538-06-OL-R)

)

San Onofre Nuclear Generating January 13, 1987 Station, Units 2 and 3)

ORDER (Setting Deadline for Implementation of Medical Arrangements)

The Board has considered the views of the parties on an appropriate deadline for the Applicants to submit their showing of implementation of emergency medical arrangements to the Board and parties and FEMA, as expressed in the telephone conference of January 12, 1987. Such showing shall be submitted no later than July 1, 1987. Furthermore, the Applicants shall exert their best efforts to submit such showing by April 1, 1987. If the "oplicants cannot meet the April 1,1987 date, they shall submit to the Board and parties a status report of their progress at that time.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A 4 JpsL.KelTey,Cb/irman ADMINISTRATIVE JU NE Bethesda, Maryland e701200122 870113 PDR ADOCK0500g1