Information Notice 1986-98, Offsite Medical Services
SSINS No.: 6835 IN 86-98
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.
20555
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 coordinatio with the NO staff.
As noted in the
referenced policy statement, the Commission has determined that these modifi- 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
appropriate regional office or this office.
IarL.
[ordan, Director
Division
Emergency Preparedness
and Engineering Response
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
Attachments:
1. FEMA Guidance Memorandum MS-1
2. List of Recently Issued IE Information Notices
Technical Contact:
Edward M. Podolak, IE
(301) 492-7290
8611260006
Attachment 1
December 2, 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472 MEMORMNDM FOR:
Regional Directors
Acting Pegional Directors
t
FI4:
(
W Coghlin
f'pute Associate Director
State and Local Programs and SUPport
SUBJECT:
Guidance Memorandum (@1) MS-I, Medical Services
The attached GM MS-1, Medical Services, is forwarded for your use in
providing guidance to State and local officials in developing their
radiological emergency response plans and in evaluating the medical
services capabilities of State and local governments.
The origins of this GM and its development and approval have been somewhat
different from other GM's. This GM was developed as a result of a series
of legal decisions involving NRC which determined that the existing
interpretation of the required pre-accident medical arrangements for
contaminated injured individuals was not sufficient.
Those decisions led
NRC to issue a policy statement (Attachment B) on September 17, 1986, indicating that the NRC staff (in cotsultation with FEMA) would develop
detailed guidance on the necessary pre-accident arrangements for medical
services by November 17, 1986.
We have worked closely with NRC in recent weeks in the preparation of
this guidance.
Unfortunately, the short deadline did not permit our
usual procedure of obtaining Regional and other oamrents before issuing
this final guidance.
If you have any questions about MS-1, you may contact James Thoaws at
646-2808.
A list of all current operative Q4's (Attachment C) is also
provided for your information.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. GM MS-I, Medical Services
B. Emergency Planning - Medical Services,
September 17, 1986, 51 FR 32904
C. List of Operative GM's
Attachment 1
December 2, 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472 NOV 13 1986 GUIDANCE MEMORANDUM MS-1
MEDICAL SERVICES
Purpose
This Guidance Memorandum (GM) provides interpretation and clarification of
requirements contained in the Nuclear Regulatory Cormnission rule, 10 CFR 50.47 (b)(12) and the associated guidance in NUREG-0654/FEMA-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
Commission (NRC) titled 'Emergency Planning - Medical Serviceso (51 FR 32904).
In this policy statement, NRC states its belief that 10 CFR 50.47(b)T12)
("arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured
individuals") requires pre-accident arrangements for medical services (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-I, Revision 1, the temm contaminated injured' means
1) 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 determined that this
standard requires pre-accident arrangements for medical services for offsite
individuals who might be exposed to dangerous levels of radiation following an
accident at a nuclear power plant. The following guidance applies to the eval- uation of the medical services aspects of State and local emergency plans under
the criteria in NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-I.
Standards, Evaluations Criteria, Areas of Reviews and Acceptance Criteria
A. Assignment of Responsibility (Organization Control)
Planning Standard
Primary responsibilities for emergency response by the nuclear facility
licensee, and by State and local organizations within the Emergency Planning
Zones have been assigned, the emergency responsibilities of the various sup- porting organizations have been specifically established, and each principal
response organization has staff to respond and to augment its Initial response
on a continuous basis.
Attachment 1
IN 86-98_
December 2, 1986 -2-
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 information. 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
agreements. The signature page format 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
medical 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
technical information (e.g. treatment protocols) and treatment capabilities for
handling "contaminated injured" individuals. An indication of Joint Commission
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 capabilities.)
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.I. 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 individuals.
Attachment 1
IN 86-98 December 2, 1986 -3-
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
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.
L.3. Evaluation Criterion
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 Radiation 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.
Attachment 1
IN 86-98 December 2, 1986 -4-
Planning Standard
0. Radiological Emergency Response Training
Radiological emergency response training is provided to those who may be
called on to assist in an emergency.
0.4. Evaluation Criterion
Each organization shall establish a training program for instructing and quali- fying personnel who will implement radiological emergency response plans. The
specialized initial training and periodic retraining programs (including the
scope, nature and frequency) shall be provided in the following 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:
1. FEMA handbook, videotape, slides and instruction manual titled 'Hospital
Emergency Department Management of Radiation Accidents," SM 80/1984.
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
and Managerial Aspects" by Science-Thru-Media Inc.,'303 Fifth Avenue, Suite
803, New York, NY 10016.
N. Exercises and Drills
Planning Standard
Periodic exercises are (will be) conducted to evaluate major portions of emer- gency response capabilities, periodic drills are (will be) conducted to develop
and maintain key skills, and deficiencies identified as a result of exercises
or drills are (will be) corrected.
Attachment 1
In 86-98 December 2, 1986 -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 qualified drill
instructor. Each organization shall conduct drills, in addition to the biennial
asvad* exercise at the frequencies indicated below:
c. Medical emergency drills
A medical emergency drill 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 performed as part
of the required biennial aRnua4'* 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.1.) 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-i.
Attachment 1
IN 86-98 December 2, 1986 -6-
NRC Coordination
This Guidance Memorandum has been prepared'in coordination with the
As noted in the referenced NRC Policy Statement, the Cotmmission has
that these modifications fall under the backfit rule's exception as
to bring facilities into compliance with a rule of the Commission.
NRC staff.
determined
necessary
.;
Attachment 1
1N4 b0-Y
Decemaer 2, 1986 Attachment B
No. SO I Wednesday. September 17. 19B8 I Rules and Regulations
K 42905 Federal Rezister I Vol. 51.
-
such additional arrangements, tbo
Commission leaves to the Informed
fudmnent of the NRC staff. subject to
genital guidance from the Commission.
the exact parameters of the minimally
necessary arrangements for medical
services. To fulfill this mandate the staff
(and FEMA) will isue appropriate
gidance to licensees. applicants, snd
state and local gOVErnmsntsa
The United States Court of A ppeal
for the District of Columbia Court)
vacated and remanded a preious
Commission Interpretation of planning
standard (1b(121 which required only th
development and maIntenance of a Ust
of treatment facilities on which post.
event, adkhoc arrangements for medical
treatment could be based GUARD v.
AMC 753 F2d 1144 (D.C Cir. 1985).
Pending final Commission action Xi
response to the GUARD remand the
Commilsion Issued a statement of
interim guidance which permitted.
pursuant to 10 COR S0.47(CcXI the
isuance of full power licenses when
the applicant satisfied the requirements
of planning standard (b)(12) as
Interpreted by the Commission prior to
GUARM and where the applicant
committed to full compliance With the
Comnission's final response to th
GUARD remand. The Commission's
prior interim guidance will continue to
Bovern the Issuance of lull power
ficenses until issuance and
Implementation of the NRC staff s
specific guidance on this matter, at
which point the new policy Wil applyt
£flcTWI DAtJ September17 1966
FOR FURMR WFORMATSON COWTACU
C. Sebastian Aoot. Office of the
General Counsel. U.S Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washnton.
DC 2=5. Telephone (202) 634-224.
SU"UNIMTARY IORAOC
L Introducion
I the wake of the Tree Mie Island
accident In 1979. the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission ("NRC" or -Commission")
promulgated regulations requiring Its
licensees and applicants for licenses to
operate commercial nuclear power
reactors to develop plans for emergency
responses to acciTents at their facilities.
Among those requirements was 10 CFR
50.47(b)(12) ("'pannln standard
(bX12R which proves:
(b1 The onsits end effaite meqlcy
nsponse plan bor auctear power mtorr
must meet the lowing stndArd:-
1:21 Arrangements ame made for medical
erucses bor contaminated Iniured indidualus.L
In SouLhtern Colifornio Wison
Compony, o ol (San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station. Units 2 and 3). CIJ-
53-10.17 NRC 528 (lu3) (-SONGS)
decislonal t
Commission Itself faced
for the &St time the question whether
planning standard (b)(12) applied to
members of the public who were
exposed to offeite radiation foilowing an
accident at a nuclear power facility but
were not otherwise Injured, and if so to
what extenL In considering this
question. the Commission sought the
views of the parties in the SONGS
proceeding, reviewed the principal
puposes of the planning standard.
analyzed the likelihood of serious
exposures to the public requirin
emergency medical restmaent. and
evaluated the type of emergency
treatment likely to be required. Based on
this review, the Commission concluded
as a neric matter that (1) PlannIng
tsnd rd (b)t12) applied to Individuals
both onsIts and oaita. (2)
- contaminated Injured individuals was
Intended to Include seriously irradiated
members of the public as well us
members of the public who an not
seriously Irradiated but also are
traumatically injured from other causes
and radiologically contaminated. and (3P
Atdeq'uatn. post-acc Ident arrngements
for necessary medical tretment of
exposed sembers of te public could be
made ona n od~c
basisb if aemeenc
plans contained a list ofcal "atmam
On appeal. the United States Cort of
Appeals for the p.C. Circuit concluded
that the Commission had not reasonably
interpreted planning standard (bl2U2)
when It generically found that a p- accident list of treatment facilities
constituted "arrangements" for post.
accident medical treatment CUUARD v.
MRC 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir 19851W
For
this reason. the Court vacated and
remanded that part of the Commission's
SONGS decision that had interpr ted
planning standard (b)ll) to require only
the preparation of a list of loca
treatment facilities. Hower, In doing
so. the Court made clear that the
Commission had on remand. In its sound
dlscretlon. flexibility in fashioning a
reasonable interpretation of plann
standard (b)(12)
IL Anangemants Beyond A kUst Of
Tnatment Fadlities Requird
Whe originally aeed with the
question whether the phrase
"contaminated injard individuals" was
Intended to encompass, Inter alic.
members of the public who, as a result
of an accident. were exposed to
dangerous levels of radiation. the
Commission found no explicit and
conclusive definition of the phrase In the
regulation Itself or its underlyint
documents. Nonetheless, the
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
tO CFR Par s0
Emergency PlabnInn-Medical
Services
aocmr. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
imfnow. Statement of Policy on
Emergency Planning Standard 10 CR
50.47(b)(12)
S1UMAR rThe Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
CNR'
or "Commission)
believes that 10 CR S47(b)(12)
rplanning standard (bl(12)') requires
rtea ccident arrangements for medical
.. *ervices
(beyond the maintenance of a
list of treatment facilities) for
individuals who might be severely
exposed to dangerous levels of offilte
radiation following an accident at a
nuclear power plant. While concluding
that planning standard (b)(12) requires
IN 86-98 Federal Register I Vol. St. No. 160 l Wednesday. September 17, i988 / Rules and Regulations 32905
Commission concluded that the prudent
risk reduction purpose of the
Commissions regulations required
interpreting planning standard (b)(12) to
apply to such offllie exposed
Individuals. given the underlying
assumption of the NRCS emergency
planning regulations that a serious
accident could ovur and the
Commission presumption that sudc an
accident could result In offadte
individuals being expsed lo dangerous
levels of radiation (a presumption
concurred In by the Federal Emergency
Mfana;emenl Agency). After
reconsideration of this matter following
the GUARD decision, the Commission
has decided to neaffirm this por
interpretation of planning standard
(b)12).
However, the Commission has come
to a different result with rpect to the
minimum arrangements necessary for
Individuals who might be seriously
txposed. but not othervbse injured. in a
radiologic emergency. hIn otiginally
resolving the scope of arsnnemercita
IssUe, the Commission focused on the
particular needs of offjite exposed
Individuals for emerency medical
treatment of their radiation injury. In
this fashion, the Commission made a
distinction between the need for
'
Immediate or nearterm medical care.
which was in Its view the goal of
planning standard (b)121. and Ohe need
for long -term medical care. As to
exposed individuals. the Commission
found that.
the special hazard Is posed by the radistion
expOSURe to te Patient The natuef d
radition Injurytr that. wile medical
eatment ay e eventually reqirdIn
uses O~e~bf
ft exposure, the pate
are
unliliely to aued emewrgncy m cat cOrS
(footnoe omitted) The sonoa
aCy of lb
tratment requind for uudiatioomxpwd
Indivd&als provides ensita ad oU its
authiiiu with an add tional "ar
oft de
to aivangi for the required medica Ivic.
(17 NRC LU-.)
From thfs the Cominiuton reasoned
that the long-term treatment needs of
exposed Individuals could be
adequately met on odhoc basis.
After reconsideration In light of the
GUARD dedslon. the Commlislon bu
concluded that snme additional planned
rrangements beyond the development
of a list of treatment facilities are
Necessary to provide additional
assurance of effective management of
emergency medical services In the bow-s
or days following a severe accident.
However, the Commisalon continues to
believe that the long-term treatment
needs of exposed individuals can be
adequately met on adhoc basis.
Tbe minimaly necessary
arrangements for the person that may be
exposed need not be elaborate. As
previously stated by the Commissio
"it was never the intent of the
reulsltions to require directly or
Indirectly that state and local
governments adopt extraordinary
measures. Such as construction of
additional hospitals or reruitment of
substantial additional medical
personnel. just to deal with nudesr
plant accidents.' 17 NRC at 133. Rather.
the Commission believts that
satisfactoty arrangements shoudd
include (13 a list of local orneglonal
medical treatment facilities and
transportation providers appropriately
annotated to show their capacities, special capabilities or other uiue
characteristics. (23 a good faith
reasonable effort by licensees or local cr
state governments to facilitate or obtain
written agreements with the listed
medical facilities and transportatin
providers. (33 provision for naking
available necessary training for
emergency response personnel to
identity. transport and provide
emergency frst aid to severely exposed
Individuals, and (4) a good fith
reasonable effort by licensees or state or
local governments to see that
appropriait drills and exercises am
conducted which Include simulated
severely-exposed individuals. If good
faith efforts are not successful In a
particular case. the licensee shall
provide or arrange for adequate
compensatory measures. consistent with
the Commissiona intent to limit t e
need for extraordinary measures noted
above. The compensatory measures
must be approved by NRC. This levelof
planning would help (2) provide
additional assurance of the cooperation
of medical facilities. (23 ensure proper
training. (3) ensure the availability of
transportation, and (4) demonstrate a
capability to provide necessary services
through drills and exercis
.
TAe Commission has directed the staff
to develop, consistent with this
Interpretation of the planning standU d
detailed and specific guidance on the
aslure of the medical services to be
available to exposed Individuals and on
the application of plaruning standud
rb)(21) to NRC licensees and applicants
or licenses to operate commercial
nuclear power reactors The
Commission has also directed the staff
to consider whether and under what
criteria it is necessary or approprIate for
the stat to verity the approprilatenss of
training, and drills or exercises
associatet 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
reading of planning standard (bflt.2)
ccordingly. although Implementtlion of
tbisrewading of the standard w ill entail
some addibions to. and some
modifications of. the emergency
procedures and organizations for which
lcens ees ar ultimately responsible. the
requirements of the backlit rule. 0 CFR
0.109 1986). for a cost-benefil analysis
and a finding that the costs of the
modifications are justified by a
substantial Ineresse in safety are not
applicable, since these modification. fall
under the backfil rule's exception for
modifications necessary to bring
facilities into compliance with a rule of
the Commission. See 10 CiR 50109 (al2) and (*X4) (1986). The analysis
which the backht rule requires be done
to justify the application of any of Its
exception provisions constitutes the
core or tis Statement of Policy. Sem
m. inerim Guiam
In Its prior stalement of policy the
Comm-ssion ldentified thee factors
which Justified an Interim policy of
gr nting applicants for ull-power
ctnse an equitable exception to the
requi reent of planning standard
(b)(12) unter 10 Clh 5047(c)(l) where
the applicant satisfied the requiremnats
of planning standard (b)(12) as
Interpreted by the Commission prior to
the GUARD decision and committed
Itself to ful compliance With any
additional requirements Imposed by the
Commission in response to the GUARD
remand. Statement of Policy on
Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR
50.471b(1l2). So TR 2CaM (May ZL 2DM)
The three factors wara: (13 the
possibility that the scope of planning
standard (b)(12) would be limited. (2)
the possibility that delay in complia
with the post-GUARD requirements
could be found to be Insignificant due to
the low probability of accidents during
the interim period and (3) the possibility
of 'other compeling reasons JuStifyin
a briefexception whe
applicants had
relied In good faith upon prnor
Commiss~ion Interpretation ofplaning
standard
](b12).
In this Stateent ofPolicy Interpretint
planning standard (b)112) the
Commission directs the NRC stall to
develop tin Consultation with JEhA)
and issue by 12/17/68 appropriate
detailed guidance on the exact contours
of the necessary arrangements
consistent with the CocrmissIon'r
determination that planning standard
(b)(22) require arrangements for medical
Attacnment
i.
IN 86-98 December 2, 1986 32908 Federal Regstuer I Vol. 51. No. 10 / Wednesday, September 17, 1986 J Rules end Regulation
s
services (beyond the maintenance ot
list of pre-ixlsting tnatment facilties)
for oWfite exposed individual. The
Commission believes that the last two
factors. discussed In detail iA its May 21
1gs5 Statement of Policy. continue to
justify reliance on the Interim guidance
for the period necessary for the NRC
staff to issue and licensees. applicant, and state and local governments to
Implement the detailed uldance.
Therrr^Ore. until appropnoatc det ited
guldance consistent with thi policy
statement Is issued and implemented.
the Ucensin g Boards may continua to
reasonably tund that any hearing
regarding compliance with 10 CFR
So.47(b)(121 shall be limited to Issues
which could have been heard before the
Court's decision in CUAAD v. NBC.
Dated at Washlnon. DC. tis Uth day of
Septembet. 1916.
For the Nudest Reguator Commission.
Samuel 1. COiL.
Sectarfry Ofhe Commiueion
rFi DoMe 56258 Filed 6-2166 1:43 aml
SW. cm
n1 411
Attachment 1
December 2, 1986 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
Attachment C
November 13, 1986
OPERATIVE GUIDANCE MEMORANDA
Number
Date
Title
4
5
8
16
17
18
20
4/1/80
4/1/80
(Revised-
10/19/83)
4/2/80
(Revised-
10/19/83)
8/7/80
1/8/81
5/21/81 (Revised-
10/19/83)
10/19/83
2/27/84
10/19/83
4/5/84
7/15/85
7/15/85
10/1./85
Radio Transmission Frequencies and Coverage
Agreements Among Governmental Agencies and Private
Parties
Regional Advisory Cammittee Coordination with Utilities
Standard Regional Reviewing and Reporting Procedures for
State and Local Radiological Emergency Response Plans
Joint Exercise Procedures
FEMA Action to Qualify Alert and Notification Systems
Against NURE3-0654/F!MA-REP-1, Rev. 1 Foreiqn Language Translation of Public Education Brochures
and Safety Messages
Acceptance Criteria for Evacuation Plans
Recordkeeping Requirements for Public Meetings
Radiological Emergency Preparedness for Handicapped Persons
Remedial Exercises
Staff Support in Evaluating REP Exercises
Policy on NUREM-0654/FEMA-REP-1 and 44 CFR 350 Periodic
Requirements
21
22
24 EX-1 EX-2 PR-1
Attachment 1
December 2, 1986 2
IT-i
PI1-
1041/85
10/2/85
12/3/85
11/13/86
11,43/86
A Guide to Dcurments Related to the REP Program
FEMA Action to Pilot Test Guidance on Public Information
Materials and Provide Technical Assistance on Its Use
Federal Response Center
Medical Services
Protective Actions for School Children
FR-1 MS-1 EV-2 *
- GM-21 will be retitled as GM EY-1 when it
is revised.
S I ' '-
. ;.
'W
Attachment 2
December 2, 1986
LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED
IE INFORMATION NOTICES
Information
Date of
Notice No.
Subject
Issue
Issued to
86-97
86-96
86-95
86-94
86-93
Emergency Communications
System
Heat Exchanger Fouling Can
Cause Inadequate Operability
Of Service Water Systems
Leak Testing Iodine-125 Sealed Sources In Lixi, Inc.
Imaging Devices and Bone
Mineral Analyzers
Hilti Contrete Expansion
Anchor Bolts
IEB 85-03 Evaluation Of
Motor-Operators Identifies
Improper Torque Switch
Settings
Failures Of Scram Discharge
Volume Vent And Drain Valves
Pressurizer Safety Valve
Reliability
Limiting Access
Authorizations
Requests To Dispose Of Very
Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302
11/28/86
11/20/86
11/14/86
11/6/86
11/3/86
11/4/86
11/4/86
11/3/86
11/3/86
All power reactor
facilities holding
facilities
All power reactor
facilities holding
All NRC licensees
authorized to use
Lixi, Inc. imaging
devices
All power reactor
facilities holding
All power reactor
facilities holding
All power reactor
facilities holding
All PWR facilities
All power reactor
facilities holding
fabrication and
processing facilities
All power reactor
facilities holding
86-82 Rev. 1
86-92
86-91
86-90
OL = Operating License
CP = Construction Permit