07).

'

MARCH 13, 19 5,

,-

,-

EbY?cU-

,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMPISSION '5"; .u o

m :s pg 93.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'*[O:5.M EJq.: ,; ,_

In the Matter of )~ ~ '

)CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND )NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL -

POWER AGENCY ) 50240I OL.)

'-

(Shearon Harris NLclear Power Plant, )Units I and 2) )

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVENOR EDDLEMAN'SMOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

T. INTRODUCTION

On March 1, 1985, Intervenor Wells Eddleman filed a motion for

reconsideration'of the Board's ruling with regard to his Contention

57-C-7 on the basis of the recent Court of. Appeals decision in the

case of GUARD v. NRC, No. 84-1091, (D.C. Cir. Feb. 12,1985). " Motion -

To Reconsider Re: Contentior,57-C-7"[hereinafterMotion]. For the

reasons set forth below, the Staff recommends that the Board hold this

motion in abeyance pending receipt of Commission guidance concerning the

implementation of the GUARD decision..

II. BACKGROUNDL

-

L On April 12, 1984, Mr. Eddleman proposed Contention 57-C-7.

" Wells'Eddleman's Contentions On The Emergency Plan (2d set)" at 6-7.

As originally propo' sed that contention stated:

The plan, Part 1 pp 66, 68 71, does.not provide the plans of various_

hospitals to treat radiation victims, can treat no more than 96 asplans state, and do not provide for training or protection of

,

i

-2-.

smergency personnel transporting these victims to hospitals. (SeePt 1 p. 85 - handwaving). Quite obviously, more than 96 victimsO-

-could be contaminated with radiation in an accident at Harris. Cf.~NUREG-CR 2239 p 2-43 data as adjusted per numbers on pp C-4 and C-5thereof (corrections for Indian Pt vs. Harris) gives Harris early

p. 2-43) gures about 5.5% of those in the tables 2.5-1 and 2 (ibidinjury fi

or.200 more persons (except with evacuation to 25 miles,,

100earlyinjuries).s

-The Board ruled on the admissibility of this contention in its Order

of August 3,1984. Carolina Power 8-Light Company and North

Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power

Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-298, 20 NRC 389, 400-404 (1984). The Board

ruled that the portion of the proposed contention relating to training of

those designated to transport radiation victims to hospitals was rejected

on the arounds-that the cited sections of the emergency plan did not

provide support for the contention, and that it lacked specificity.

Id. at 402. With' respect to the portion of the contention which alleges

that the plans of particular hospitals to 'reat radiation victims are not ,

contained in the emergency plans, the Board ruled that neither NRC

regulations nor guidance suggest that an emergency plan should contain

detailed plans for each hospital. Id. at 401. The Board also rejected

'this portion of the contention. Id. Finally, the Board altered the part

of the Contention 57-C-7 which alleged that there were insufficient

. facilities to treat the number of radiation victims which could be_

expected in the event of,an accident, and admitted it in its altered

form. Iji.at402. The Board ruled that it was barred from consideration

lof this part of the Contention, as originally proposed, by the Commission's

decision:in Southern California Edison Co., (San Onofre Nuclear Generating

O

_

_ __ _ ___ - _ _

.

-3-.

* ' Stati$n, Units 2and3),CLI-83-10,17NRC528(1983). M. The contention

which fhe Board admitted states 1/:

Neither the State ERP nor the county ones make clear whether thehospitals listed in Section V.B.3 of the State ERP are prepared totreat severe radiation exposure per se. Plans should include lists -

of local and regional hospitals with the necessary capabilities toprovide medical services for those seriously injured by radiationalone.

Discovery was conducted by Mr. Eddleman and the Applicants on the,

admitted contention. Applicants filed a motion for summary disposition

of the contention on January 2, 1985. " Applicants' Motion For Summary

|Disposition of-Eddleman 57-C-7." The Staff, through FEMA, supported

Applicants' Motion. " FEMA' Staff Response to Applicants' Motion For

Sumary Disposition of Eddleman 57-C-7" (February 1,1985). On

| February 27, 1985, the Board granted Applicants' motion for summary

disposition. " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Eleven Summary Disposition

Motions)." In its Order the Board recognized the existence of the.

GUARD decision, and provided a copy of it to all parties. The Board

stated that the decision did not appear to affect its sumary disposition

ruling on this contention. M.at2.On March 1,1985, Mr. Eddleman filed the instant motion. He has

asked the Board _to admit his proffered contention 57-C-7 either in the

form in which it was proposed, or modified by the Board in a manner

consistent with the Court's decision. -

-1/ The exact wording of the contention was not contained in the Board'sAugust 3, 1984 Order, but was agreed upon by the parties andapproved by the Board. " Order Approving Joint Stipulation CodifyingCertain Admitted Contentions" (December 6, 1984).

..

-_-_

,-

. . .

-4-,

'1

*III. DISCUSSION

The Court of Appeals in GUARD, supra, rejected the Commission's

generic interpretation of the phrase " arrangements . . . made for medical

services" in .10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(12) of the Commission's regulations,

and remanded the matter to the agency for action consistent with the

Court's opinion. GUARD, supra, slip op. at 13. The Court found that the

Commission's requirement of a list of hospitals in the area with the.

capability for treating radiation victims did not satisfy 9 50.47(b)(12).

Id. at 10.

As this Licensing Board has already recognized, the Commission could

take actions based on this decision which would impact the Shearon Harris

proceeding. Rulings on Summary Disposition, supra at 2. The Court of

Appeals in its decision mentioned a number cf courses which the.

Commission could follow. Therefore, it is likely that the admissibility

'and scope.of any contention on the subject of arrangements for medicalL

services would depend on the course the Commission chooses to follow.

The Staff understands that the Office of the General Counsel is preparing

a discussion of the possible options open to the Commission concerning thec

implementation of the GUARD decision. Deferral of any action on this

motion would also prevent inconsistency, and the possible fruitless,

expenditure of time and resources if.the Board takes action prior to the

Commission's guidance. Therefore, the Staff recommends that the Board

defer any action on Mr. Eddleman's Motion until the Commission issues

some guidance on the subject.

.

T

y .- -..,...,,..-.,.m , , - s ,_ , _ -_ . _ _ , m-._-

.

-5-.

J 1 IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Staff recommends that the Board

hold Mr. Eddleman's Motion in abeyance pending the receipt of guidance

from the Commission. In addition, as the Board noted in its ruling on

the original contention, it has several facets. The Staff would suggest

that the parties' views should be sought on the effect of the Commission's

guidance on each part of this contention and the need for the Board to

reconsider its ruling on each part when the guidance is issued.

Respectfully submitted,

UML NEJanice E. MooreCounsel for NRC Staff

Dated at Bethesda, Marylandthis 13th day of March,1985

. . .

.

, ,

_

.

.

#UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

BEFORE THE ATLMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

In the Matter of ))

~ CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND )NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OLPOWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL

)(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO INTERVEN0REDDLEMAN'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned proceedinghave been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail,first class, or deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internalmail system (*), this 13th de of March,1985:

James L. Kelley, Chairman * Richard D. Wilson, M.D.Administrative Judge 729 Hunter StreetAtomic Safety and Licensing Board Apex, NC 27502U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Washington, DC 20555

Mr. Glenn 0. Bright * Travis Payne, Esq.Administrative Judge 723 W. Johnson StreetAtomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 12643U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27605Washington, DC 20555

Dr. James H.~ Carpenter * Dr. Linda LittleAdministrative Judge Governor's Waste Management BuildingAtomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Albermarle BuildingU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 325 North Salisbury StreetWashington, DC 20555 Raleigh, NC 27611

_

Daniel F. Read John Runkle, Esq. Executive CoordinatorCHANGE Conservation Counsel of North CarolinaP.O. Box 2151 307 Granville Rd.Raleigh, NC 27602 Chapel Hill, NC 27514

Steven Rochlis Spence W. Perry, Esq.Regional Counsel Associate General CounselFEMA Office of General Counsel1371 Peachtree Street, N.E. FEMA

. Atlanta, GA 30309 500 C Street, SW Rm 840Washington, DC 20472

r . . . .

!-

-2-.

AtomiESafetyandLicensingAppeal Bradley W. Jones, Esq.Board Panel * Regional Counsel, USNRC, Region II

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietta St., N.W. Suite 2900Washington, DC 20555 Atlanta, GA 30323-

Robert P. Gruber George Trowbridge, Esq.- Executive Director Thomas 4 Baxter, Esq.

Public Staff - NCUC John H. O'Neill, Jr. , Esq.F.0. Box 991 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridgebleigh, NC 27602 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

Wells Eddleman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board718-A Iredell Street Panel *Durham, NC 27701 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555

Richard E. Jones, Esq. Dr. Harry Foreman, AlternateAssociate General Counsel Administrative JudgeCarolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 395 MayoP.O. Box 1551 University of MinnesotaRaleigh, NC 27602 Minneapolis, MN 55455

Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Dr. Reginald L. GotchyAtomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and LicensingAppeal Board Appeal Board

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ComissionWashington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555

Mr. Howard A. WilberAtomic Safety and Licensing

U c ar Regulatory Comission d k hOWashington, DC 20555

Janice E. Moore -

Coulsel for NRC Staff

. . . - - . - -