ML17054B979

Requests Confirmation That Offsite Emergency Plans Include List of Medical Facilities Having Radiation Exposure Treatment Capabilities & Commitment to Full Compliance W/ Forthcoming Commission Response to Encl 850521 Guard Remand

ML17054B979
Person / Time
Site:	Nine Mile Point
Issue date:	10/28/1985
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hooten B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP.
References
NUDOCS 8511060108
Download: ML17054B979 (12)

Text

Docket No. 50-410 OCT 28 198$

DISTRIBUTION Mr. B. G. Hooten Executive Director of Nuclear Operations Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC LB¹2 Reading EHylton MHaughey

.'ordenick,OELD ACRS (16)

JPartlow BGrimes EJordan SHlack

'MGa l. ta nl's

'FKantor

SUBJECT:

INTERIM GUIDANCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING STANDARD 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

REGARDING THE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 The recent commission Statement of Polic on Emer enc Plannin Standard 10 CFR 50.47 b

12 pub is ed in t e edera Re ister FR 20892 May 21,

1985, dea s wit arrangements for medica services for contaminated injured individuals, and provides Interim Guidance (see Section III of the Federal Register Statement, copy enclosed) with respect to the recent court decision GUARD vs NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

The Interim Guidance states

'ttte Comission's belief that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested

cases, the

staff, may find that applicants who:

(1) have met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Commission before the GUARD decision, and (2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD

remand, meet the requirements of 50.47(c)(l) and, therefore, are entitled to a license on the condition of full compliance with the Commission's forthcoming response to the GUARD remand.

Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Nine Mile Point Unit 2, you are required to formally (1) confirm that offsite emergency plans include a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to provide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.

Any questions concerning the enclosure should be directed to the Licensing Project Manager, Mary Haughey (301) 492-7897.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See n t page 7qW LB¹ M

LB¹2/DL/BC MHaughey:lb

'Butler 10/g///55 10/~55 Original Signed i'alter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No.

2 Division of Licensing SS~ >060X08 851028 PDR ADQCK 05000410 F

PDRJ

~

I t

J

'l I

C k

t

~ ~

gp,R RGg(

~o cs I

fs cs

+

+**4'ocket No.50-41G

~ 0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OCT 2S 1985 Mr. B. G. Hooten Executive Director of Nuclear Operations Niagara liohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202

SUBJECT:

INTERIM GUIDANCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING STANDARD 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

REGARDII'IG THE NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT 2 lhe recent commission Statement of Polic on Emer enc Plannin Standard 10 CFR 50.47 b

12

, pub ished in the Federa Re ister 50 FR 20892~

May 21,

1985, dea s with arrangements for medica services for contaminated injured individuals, and provides Interim Guidance (see Section III of the Federal Register Statement, copy enclosed) with respect to the recent court decision GUARD vs NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1955).

The Interim Guidance states the Commission's belief that. Licensing Boards, and in uncontested

cases, the

staff, may find that applicants who:

(1) have met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Commission before the GUARD decision, and (2) cormiit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD

remand, meet the requirements of 50.47(c)(l) and, therefore, are entitled to a license on the condition of full compliance with the Commission's forthcoming response to the GUARD remand; Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Nine Mile Point Unit 2, you are required to formally ( 1) confirm that offsite emergency plans include a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to provide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.

Any questions concerning the enclosure should be directed to the Licensing Project Manager, Mary Haughey (301) 492-7897.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page Walter R. Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No.

2 Division of Licensing

~ ~

~

0

~

~

Hr. B.

G. Hooten Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Nile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 CC:

Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr.,

Esq.

Conner 8 Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania

Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

20006 Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus

Syracuse, Hew York 12223 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau Hew York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Certes New York, Hew York 10047 Resident Inspector Nine tlile Point Nuclear Power Station P. 0.

Box 99

Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. John W. Keib, Esq.

Niagara flohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 llr. James Linville U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Norman Rademacher, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West

Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

,Mr. Paul D.

Eddy Hew York State Public Service Commission Nine tlile Point Nuclear Station-Unit II Post Office Box 63

Lycoming, New York 13093

~I I

'4VVVI%4

~

Paul 3 I98S &Pro Federal Register / Vo). 50, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

~

~

10 CFR Part 50 Emergency Plannirtg; Statement of Policy

'OElscv: Nuc)car Regulatory Commission.

AOTIoe Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

auMMAIIY:TheUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Circuit"or "Court") has vacated and remanded to the nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"or "Commission") that part of its interpretation of 10 CFR 50 47(b)(12)

("planning standard (b)(12)") which stated that a list of treatment facilities constituted adequate arrangelnents for medical services for individua)s who might be exposed to dangerous levels cf radiation at locations offsite from nuclear power plants. C UARD v. KRC.

753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1965). The Court also vacated certain Commission decisions which applied this

~

ir.terptetation in Lite C"mmission proceetling on operating licenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Units 2 and 3 ("SONGS"). However. the Court did not vacate or in any other way disturb the operating licenses for SONGS. MoreovdHhe Court's remand left to the Commission's sound discretion a wide range of alternatives from which to select an appropriate response to thc Court's decision. This Statement of Policy provides guidance to the NRC's Atomic Safety and

'Licensing Boards ("Licensing Boards" )

and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards ("Appeal Boards-)

pending completion of thc Con:mission's response to the D.C. Circuit's remand.

EFFEcTIYE oATE: May 21. 1965.

FOlt FUltTHEIIIIIFOIIMATIOH COIITACT.

Sheldon Trubatch. Office of the General Counsel, (202) 634-3224.

SVFFLEMENTAIIYIIIFOIIMATIOIC L Background Emergency planning standard (b)(13) provides:

(b) The unsite and of!site emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:

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

10 CFR 50.47(b)(12).

The scope of this requirement was an issue of controversy in the adjudicatory p.oceeding on the adequacy of the emergency plans for SONGS. See generally. LDP-62-39. 15 iVRC 1163.

1 66.-1200. 1244-1257. 1290 (1962). The Licensing Board concluded that planning standard (b)(12) required. amorg other thirgs, thc development of arrangerrents for medical services for members of oifsite public who might be exposed to excessive amounts of radiation as a result of a serious accident. 15 NRC ct 1199. The Licensing Board did nct speci!y what would corstitute adequate, medical service arral.gements for such overexposure. However, it found that there was no need to dircct1he ronstruction ofhospitds. the purchase of expensive equipment. Ihe sto kpilinII of medicine or any other large expenditure. the sole purpose of which

~ ~

~ e

~ 0

~

Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 96 / Tuesday. May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regu)atlona 20693 would bc to guard against a very remote accident. Rather. the Ucensing Board believed that the emphasis should be on developing specific plans and training people to perform the necessary medical services. 15 NRC at 120fL The Ucensmg Board also tound.

pursuant to 10 CFR SOA7(c)(1), that although the failure to develop arrangements for medical services tor members of the offsile public who may be injured In a serious accident was a deficiency in the emergency plan. that deficiency was not significan enough to warrant a refusal to authorize the issuaace ofoperating Ucenses for SONGS proildcd that deficiency was

~

cured within six months.15 NRC at 1199. (This period was subsequently extended by sfipulation of the parties.)

The Ucensing Board provides several reasons which supported its finding that this deiiciency was InsigniTicanL Among these were that the posttlbiUty of ~

serious accident was very remote.

signiiicantly less than one-Inw million per year, and that the nature of radiation exposure injury being prolected against was such that available medical services in the area could be called upon on an ad hoc basic for injured mefnbers of the offsite public.

The Uccnsing Board's Interpretatioa of planning standard (b)(12) was called into question by the hppeal Board.

ALAB-880,16 NRC 127 (1982). In dcnpng a motion to stay the Licensing Board's decision. the Appeal Board suggested that thc phrase "contaminated injured individuals" httd been read too broadly to Include individuals who were severely irradiated. Ia the Appeal Board's view, thc phrase was limited to individuals onsite and offsitc who had been bofh contaminated with radiation end traumatically injured. The record in Saa Onofirc was found to support a finding that adequate medical arrangements had been made for such individuals.

Faced with these differing inlerprclations. the Commission certified to itself the issue of the interpretation of planmng standard (b)(12). CLI-82-27. 16 NRC 863 (1982).

After hearing from the parties to the San Onofre proceeding and the Fcdefal-Emergency Management hgcncy (FEMA), the Cofamission determined among other things. that: (1) Planning slandard (b)(12) applied to individuals both onsite and offsite: (2)

"contaminated injured individuals" was Intended to Inchtde seriousl irradiated members of the public".and (3) adequate medical arrangements for such injured individuals would be provided by a list of area faclfities capable of treating such injuries.

Subsequently. Southern California Edison provided a Ust of such facilities to the Licensing BoartL The Uccnsing Board found that the list satlsfied planning standard (b)(12). LBP-83-47. 18 NRC 128 (1963). Thereupon. thc ala ff amended the San Onofre licenses to remove the emergency planning condition previously Imposed. 48 FR 43248 (September 22. 1983).

II.The Coart'a Decisioa In Cuord v. NRC thc Cotut vacated thc Commlsstoa'a Interpretation of planning standard (b)(12) to the cxtcnt that a liat of treatment faciUties vras found to constitute adequate arrangements for medical services for offslte individuals exposed to dangerous levels ofradiation. 753 FM at 1146, 1150j. The Court did nol review any other aspects on the Commission's lnterpretatioa ofplanaing standard (bj(12). In particuhu. because the Court's decision addressed the adequacy of certain arrangements for only offsite IatUvlduals. tha decision.

does not affect the emergency planning findings necessary for low power operation.

Vl'Ithregard to full-power operation, the Court altto afforded the NRC substantial IIexlbIUtyin its reconsideration ofplanning standard (b)(12) to pursue any rational course. 7S3 FZd at 1146. Possible further Commission action might range from reconsideration of the scope of the phrttsc "contaminated injured indiidduals" to imposition of "genuine" arrangements for members of the public exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. 1d. Until thc Commission determined how it wiU proceed to respond to thc Court's remand. the Commission provides the following inlerim guidance to the boards in authorizing. and to the NRC staff in issuing. ~ full-power operating Ucenscs.

IILInteri Guidance The Commission's regulations specifically contemplated certain equitable exceptions, of ~ Umited duration. from the requirements of SOA7(b). including those presently uncertain requirements here at issue.

Section SIL47(c)(1) provides thaL "Failure lo meet the applicable standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this section may result in the Conunissioii's dccIInlng to issue an operating license: demonstrate to the satisfaction of the ConUnission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for thc plant in question, that adequate interi compensating actions have been or willbe taken promptly. or that there are other compelling reasons to pefmi! plant opcrations.-

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission believes that Licensing Boards (ind, the uncontested situations.

the stafI) may find that applicants who have met the requirements of

$ SOA7(b)(12) as interpreted by the Commission bcfornhc GUARD decision and who commit to fuU compliance with the Commission' response to the CUARDremand meet the requirements of 5 SIL47(c)(l) and. therefore. are entitled to hcense conditional of full compfiance with the Commission's response to tjtgCUARD remand.'he Commission relies upon several factors ia directing the Ucensing Boards and, where appropriate, the staff to consider carefully the applicability of I SOA7(c)(l) for the limited perio necessary to finalize a response to the recent CUARD decision. Because thc Conunission hcs not dctctmincd how, or even whether. to dcfine what constitutes adequate arrangemcnts for OHsite individuals who have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, the Commission believes that until It provides further guidance on this matter.

Uccnsing Boards (or, in uncontested matters. thc staff) should first consider the applicability of 10 CFR SIL47(c)(1) before considering whether any additional actions are required to implement planning standard (b)(12).

Such consideration is particularly appropriate bccausc the CUARD decision leaves open the possibility that modification or reinterpretation of planning standard (b)(12) could result in a det'crmination that no prior arrangements need to be made for off-site individuals for whom the consequences of a hypothetical accident are limited to exposure to radiation.

In considering the applicability of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), the Uccnsing Boards (and. In uncontested cases, the staff) should consider the uncertainty over thc ctfntlnucd viabilityof the current meaning of the phrase "contaminated injured individuals." Allhough. that phrase currently includes members of the offsite public exposed to high levels of radiclion. the CUARD. court has clearly left the Commission the

'Uceosees wbo have alteady obtained operetioa licenses based on compliance with the Commission' previous interpretation plsnninS

~lsndard ibiftzf willetso be expected either lo corno into aocnpiiance with eny different intvrpretalioo of thai pfarrntna standard or to explain why an exxfnfttion would be warranted.

Failure to provide an adequate basis for an exam ptioo request cauld lead to inili~ lion of en enforcemenl actlart pursuant to is Cyft part 1 205

0 ~

~l

~ 0 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday. May 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulations discretion to "revlslt"that definition in a fashion that could remove exposed individuals from thc coverage of planning standard (b)(12). Therefore, Licensing Boards (and. In uncontested cases. the staff) may reasonably conclude that no additional actions should be undertaken now oa the strength of the present interpretation of that tenn.

Moreover, the Commission believes that Ucenslng Boards (and, in uncontested cases. the stafi) could reasonably find that any deficiency which may be found Ia complying with a finalised. post&UAADplanning standard (b)(12) is Insignificant for the purposes of 10 CFR 50'(c)(1). Thc low probability of accidents which might cause extensive radiation exposum during the briefperiod necessary to finalhe a Commission response to CUARD (as the San Onofm Ucenslng Board found. the probability of such an accident Is less than one ln a millionper year ofoperation). and the slow evolution ofadverse reactions to overexposure to radiation are generic matters applicable to all plants aad licensing situations and over which them Is no genuine controversy. Both of those factors weigh ln favor of a finding that any deficiencie between present licensee planning (which compiles with the Commission's pre&UARD Interpmtation of10 CFR 50AF(b)(12))

and future planning in accordance with the fina interpretation of planning standard (b)(12) as a response to the GUARD decision. willnot be safety significant for the brief period ln which lt takes licensee to Implement the final standard.

ln addition. as a matter ofequity. the Commission believes that Ucenslng Boards (and. In uncontested cases, the staff) could reasonably find that there are "other compelling reasons" to avoid delaying the licensees of those applicants who have complied with th' Commission's preN UABDsection 50A7(b)(12) requiremeats. Where applicants have acted ln good faith

, re]jance un'he Commission's prior

=- Iriterpretation of its own regulation, the reasonableness of this good faith reliance indicates that It would be unfair to delay licensing while the Commission completes Its response P6 thc CUARD remand.

Finally. IfUcenslng Boards find that these factors adequately support the application of 10 CFR SOAKS(c)(1), then those Ucensing Boards could conclude that no hcarings would be warranted.

~ Therefore. until the Commission concludes its GUARDremand and instructs Its boards and its staff differently, the Ucenslng Boards could reasonably find that any hearing mgarding compliance with 10 CFR 50A7(b)(12) shall bc limited to Issues which could have been heard before the Court' decision ln CUARDv. ÃRC Dated at Wa ahhgtoa.D.C. this 1bth day of Ray. 1N5.

For the Commission.

Samuel J. Chilk.

Secretly ojthe Commieeion.

(FR Doc. t6-12218 FOed S-XHLR a:45 aml

0 ~

~,l