ML18019A436

Requests Formal Confirmation That Offsite Emergency Plans Include List of Medical Facilities W/Capabilities to Provide Treatment for Radiation Exposure & Commitment to Full Compliance W/Response to Guard Remand

ML18019A436
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	10/25/1985
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Utley E CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
References
NUDOCS 8510310602
Download: ML18019A436 (8)

Text

Docket No.:

50-400 QGT 35 1985 Mr. E.

E. Utley Executive Vice President Power Supply and Engineering and Construction Carolina Power II Light Company Post Office box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Dear Mr. Utley:

EJordan ACRS (16)

DISTRIBUTION 50 40'0 I

NRC PDR L PDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading JLee BBuckley

Attorney, OELD JPartlow BGrimes

Subject:

Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

Regarding the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1

The recent Commission Statement of Polic on Emer enc Plannin Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b (12),

pu is e

in t e e era e ister ay 21, 19 ea s wit arrangements for medica services or 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. Cire 1985).

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) 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 Comission's forthcoming response to the GUARD remand.

Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Shearon Harris you are required to formally (1,) confirm that offsite emergency plans include a

list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to pro-vide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.

Sincerely, UAGa>>'<aL, SiGRED BY 85i03i0602 85i025 PDR ADOCK 05000400 F

PDR

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

S next page DL:L ¹3 D

BBuckley/yt g

1D/$+85 1DP)/

George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensing

1, Q

1>>

n t

Vt h

Vh r f,<y<<II

<<h-'Q Vf I

I I

It

~.

V 1

r<<

4 I'*

"~V.>)~ I.L>

"1 jrt VV4 fi

• ~

tf 4

',I hh i

<<Vt')

'I, hlhf 1'f tt*

'I 4 tl 1

'I 'v'"

I

<<J '1

'4 "*

I>>

1 I

lh

)T/4.)

(gfh ll hf 1

h fh+ g

~ hrf(h 1 t 4 V<<

r fit IV V

1 I'h h

X" 1

, It th

'I

<<Sh '

V)

I"

)

4 1(lt t

l t<< t

'I ~

1,

&~

'V I

I

.r tt tt

~ htv>>

h,":hh'$()

1 '1 i I~

>>4 '"'>>4>>l)6 "

lV' l

h irh ")

C n I')

J 4 P (I) L<<)>>.vt I

.",Rr );1 l

'11$

',i I

I rltfi' 1

P ) l>>h

~ff h<< ht'f

',,l v

11 1 t >>fi'r'4 I

t vl'

)

1 I

f'l fi; 1 'ill'h

'Jl ~ hh i I

I V>>

1 It t

1

Mr. E. E. Utley Carolina Power

& Light Company Shearon Harris CC:

George F. Trowbridge, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts

& Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Richard E. Jones.,

Esq.

Associate General Counsel Carolina Power

& Light Company 411 Fayetteville Street Mall

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 M. David Gordon, Esq.

Associate Attorney General State of North Carolina Post Office Box 629

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Thomas S. Erwin, Esq.

115 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Resident Inspector/Harris NPS c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

'Route 1,

Box 315B New Hill, North Carolina 27562 Charles D. Barham, Jr.,

Esq.

Vice President

& Senior Counsel Carolina Power

& Light Company Post Office Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Mr. John Runkle, Executive Coordinator Conservation Council of North Carolina 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Wells Eddleman 806 Parker Street Durham, North Carolina 27701 Mr. George

Jackson, Secretary.

Environmental Law Project School of Law, 064-A Univeristy of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Travis Payne, Esq.

723 W. Johnson Street Post Office Box 12643

Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. Daniel F.

Read CHANGE Post Office Box 2151 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Bradley W. Jones, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Region II 101 Marietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Richard D. Wilson, M. D.

725 Hunter Street Apex, North Carolina 27502 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P.

Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Carolina Power 5 Light Company 2 -

Shearon Harris Dr. Linda Little Governor's Waste Management Board 513 Albemarle Building 325 North Salisbury Street

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

~ 8 s

s s

Enclosure s

80588 F&asal Re8I ~ les / Vol. 50. No. IIO / Tuesday.

May 2!. 1855 / Rules aud Re8uledous

~

~

10 CFR Part 50 Ernertlency planning, Statement of Policy

~o

'AOO4CY Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Acaotc Statement af Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR M.47(b)(12).

avMMAstY:The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ("D.C. Clrcultse or "Caurt") has vacated and remanded to the Nuclear Regulatory Cammtssion ("NRC"or

~mmtssfan") 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 arrangements for medical services for lndivfduals who might be expased to dangerous levels cf radiatian at locations ofisite from nuclear power plants. CUrlRD v. h'RC 753 Pdd 1144 (D.C. Cir. 19S5). The Court

~Iso vacated certain Ca&mission decisions which applied this interprctatton in the C-mrsissian proceetltng on opera tirg ltcenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Units 2 and 3 ("SONGS" ). However. the Court dfd not vacate or in any other way disturb thc operating licenses for SOaVGS. Moreover. the Court's remand left to the Conunlssion's sound dfscretton a wide range of alternatives from whtch to select an appropriate response to the Court's decision. This Statement ofPo!fcy provides guidance to the NRCss AtomicSafety an't Licensing Boards ("Ucenstng Boards" )

~nd Atomic Safety and Ucenslng Appeal Bocrds ("Appeal Boards" )

~

pending completion of the Commission's response to thc D.C. Circuit's remand.

SFFLCTtVF. OAm: May 21, 19S5.

Foll FVltTNDtIKFOltMATIONCONTACTo Sheldon Trubatch. Office of the General CounseL (202) 834-3224.

'IVttLfMKNTArtYtNFOAMATtONt LBackground Emergency planning standard (b)(t2) pravfdcs:

(b) The unsite and affsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards; (12) Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured fndtviduab.

10 CFR 50 47(b)(12).

The scope of this requirement was an issue ofcontroversy ln the adjudfca'.ary proceeding on the adequacy of the enlergency plans for SONGS. See generally. Utp-82-39. 15 iJRC 1'l83.

1188. 12¹ 1244-1257, 1850 (1982). The Ucensing Board concluded that planning standard (b)l12) required, among other things. the development of arrang n:ents for medical services for members af otfsfte publtc who might be exposed to excessive amounts ofradiatton as a result of a serious accident. 15 NRC al 1199. The Licensing Board did rect spec.'y what would constitute ad quate medical service arrangements for such overexposure. However, it found that there was no need to direct the ronstruction cf hospfuis. the purchaie of expensive equipment. th sla 58piting of medicine or any other table expenditure. the sole purpose of w"lch

Fttdaral Register / Vol. 50, No. 98 / Tuesday. May 21. 1985 / Rules and Reguiatiom 20893 would be lo guard against a very remote accident. Rather. the Vcensing Board believed that the emphasis should bc on developing specific piatts and training people to perform the necessary medical services. 15 NRC at 1200.

The Licensing Board also found.

pursuant to 10 CFR 50A7(c)(1). that

~ Ithough the failure to develop arrangements for medical services for members of the offsite public who may be injured in a serious accident was a deficiency in the emergency plan. that deficiency was not siyuficant enough to warrant a refusal to authorise the Issuance ofoperating Ucenses for SONGS provided that deficiency was cured within six months. 1$ NRC at 1199. (Thl~ period was subsequently extended by stipulation of the parties.)

Thc LIcensing Board provides several reasons which supported Its fincfing that this deficiency was Insignificant. hmong these were that the posttlbIUty of a serious accident waa very remote.

significantly less than one-In~-milUon per year. and that the nature of radiation exposure Injucy being-protected against was ituch that available medical urvices ln the area could be called upon on an adhoc basic for Injured members of the offslte pubfic.

The Licensing Board's Interpretation ofplanning standard (b)(12) was called into question by the hppeal Board.

hLhB-880, 18 NRC 127 (1982). In denpng a motion to stay the Ucenslng Board's decision. the hp peal Board suggested that the phrase "contaminated injured tndividuals" had been read too broadly to include Individuals who were severely irradiated. In the hppeal Board's view. the phrase was limited to Individuals onslte ind offslte who had been boch contaminated with radiaUon cctd traumatically injured. The record in San Onofre vras found to support a finding that adequate medical acrangements had been made for such Indiriduals.

Faced with these differing interpretations. the Conunission certified to itself the issue of the interpretation of placming standard (b)(12). CU~-27e 18 NRC 883 (1982).

hfter hearing from the parties to the San Onofce proceeding and the Fedcfal-Emergency Management hgency (FEMA). the Cocnmission determined among other things. that: (1) planning standard (b)(12) applied to individuals both onsite and offsite; (2)

-contaminated injured Indivldwls"was intended to indude seriousl irradiated members of the pubfic: and (3) adequate medical arrangements for such injured ittttividttsis would be provided by a list of area fsciUUes capable of treating ouch injuries.

Subsequently. Southern California Edison provided a Ust of such facUities to the Licensing BoarcL The Vcensing Board found that the Ust satisfied planning standard (b)(12). LBP-83-47, 18-NRC128 (1983). TTtereupen. the staff amended thc San Onofre licenses to remove the emergency planning condition previously imposed. 48 FR 43248 (September 22. 1983).

ILTba Cotttct'a Docisloa In Ctrom'v. NRG thc Court iacated the Commission's intcrpra taUon of planning standard (b)(12) to the extent that a Ust of treatment faciliUcs was found to consUtute adequate arrangements for medical services lor offsite Individuals exposed to dangerous levels oftadiaUon. f53 FM at 1148.

1150j. Tha.Court did not review any other aspects on the Commission's Interprets Uon ofplanning standard (b)(12). In parUcubu. bectLuse the Court's decision addressed the adequacy ofcertain arrangements for only oKsite Individuals. tha decision, docs not affect the emergency planning findings necessary forlow power opera tion.

WIth regard to full-power operation.

the Couct also afforded the NRC substantial Qexibilltyln Its reconsideraUon ofplanning standard (b)(12) to pursue any raUonal course, 753 FM at 114L Possible further Commission action might range frocn reconsideration of the scope of the phrttse "contaminated Injured indNduals" to imposifion of"genuine" arracgements for members of the public exposed to dangerous levels of radiaUon. ld. UnUI thc Commission detecnrined how itwillproceed to respond to the Court's remantL the Commission provides the following interim guidance to the boards In authorixtng. and to the NRC staff in Issuing. ~ fuU-power operating licenses.

IILIntecim Guidance The Commission's regulations specifically contemplated cectain equitable excep Uons. of a Umited duration. from the requirements of M.47(b). Including those presently uncertain requirements here at issue.

Section M.47(c)(1) provides that:

"Failure to meet the applicable standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this section may result in the Conunission's decfining to Issue an operating license: demonstrate to the satlsfacUocc of the Commission that defidencles in the plans ace not significant for the plant in question, that adequate interim compensating actions have been or willbe taken promptly. or that there ore other compelling reasons to permit plant operations."

For the reasons discussed below, the Commission believes that Vcensing Boards (and. the uncontested situations.

the staff) may find that appficants who have met the requirements of I RI.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Conunission beforethe GUARDdecision

~ nd who cocnmit to fullcompliance with the Commission's response to the CfJARD remand meet the requirements of I M.47(c)(1) and. therefor. are enUtled to Hcense conditional offull compliance with the Commission's response to the CUARD remand.'he Commission rcfies upon several factors in dicecting the LIcensing Boards and, where appropriate. the staff to consider carefully the applicabiUty of

$ 50 47(c)(1) for the limited period necessary to fina}Ize a response to the recent GUARD decision. Because the Commission has not determined how. or even whether. to define what consUtutes adequate arrangements for offslte Individuals who have been exposed to dangerous levels ofradlaUon. the Commission believes that until lt pcovidcs further guidance on this matter.

Licensing Boards (or. In uncontested matters. the stafi) should first consider the appficabifity of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(l) before considering whether any additional actions are required to implement planning standarci (b)(12)

Such consideration ls pacUcularly appropriate because the GUARD decision leaves open the possibility that modification or reinterpretation of planning standard (b)(12) could result in a dcteccnlnation 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.

ln considering the applicability of 10 CFR 50 47(c)(1), thc Vccnsing Boards (and. In uncontested cases. the staff) should consider the uncertainty over the continued viabilityof the current meaning of the phrase "contaminated injured individuals." hlthough, that phrase currently includes members of the offsite public exposed to high levels of radiaUon. the GUARD. court has dearly left the Commission the

'ceoeeee

<<ho have already obterncd operatioa liccnece baaed on compliance <<ith the Comm4eion'e prevtoae tntcrpretet!on p4nninS

~tendard tbictzt wiNabo bc expected either to

~ into cxrtnpliance with eny diferent htlerprcteuoo oi that pieanina elandard or lo exp4in why an excraation would be warranted.

Failure to provide en ederteete baric for an excmptioo rettaael cadd leod to inili~ lion oi en eniorccmant ection parerrent to CO Crit p rt S Xtc.

~ '

II 20894 Federal Register / Vol. 50, Ho. 98 / Tuesday.

Wfay 21. 1985 / Rules cnd Regulations tliscretlon to "revisit" that dcfinitlon fn a

'hion that could remove exposed

'viduals from the coverage of

.ming standard (b)(12). Therefore.

ucenafng Boards (and. h uncontested cases. thc staff) may reasonably conclude that no additional actions

~hould be undertaken now on the strength of the present hterpretatlon of that tenn.

Moreover. the Commfsalon believes that Uccnafng Boards (and. In uncontested cases, the staff) could reasonably find that any deficfency whfch may be found h complying with a (ha fired. poa GUARDplanning standard (b)(12) Is hsfgnfficant for the purposes of10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). The fow probability ofaccidents which might cause extensive radiation exposure durhg the briefperiod necessary to finafhc a Commfsafonresponac to GUARD (aa the San Onofre Ucenahg Board found. the probability ofsuch an accident fs ksa than one h a millionper year ofoperatfon), and the slow evolutfon ofadverse reactfona to overexposure to radiation are generfc matters applicable to all planta and licensing aftuatfons and over which there Is no genuhc controversy. Both of those factors weigh fn favor ofi findhg that any deficfcncka between present licensee planning (whfch compffes with ommfssfon'a GUARD ptetatfon of10 CFR 5047(b)(12))

future plannhg h accordance wfth thc final hterpretatlon ofplanning standard (b)(12) aa ~ response to the GUARDdecision. wlffnot bc safety significan for the brief perfod ln which lt takes licensee to Implement thc final

~tandard.

fn addi tfon. aa a matter ofequfty, the Commission believes that Ucenalng Boards (and. h uncontested cases, thc staff) could reasonably Qnd that there are "other compellhg reasons" to avoid defiyfng the lfcensees of those applicants who Lave complied with the Commission'a p~UARD section 50A7(b)(12) requirement+ Where applicants have acted fn good faith reliance on thc Commission'a prior interpretation ofits own regulation. the reasonableness of this good faith reliance Indicates that It would be unfair to delay llcenahg while the Commission completes fts response Pb the GUARD remand.

Hna fly.IfUccnsing Boards find that these factors adequately support the application of 10 CFR 50A7(c)(1). then tf "~e Uccnaing Boards could conclude o hearings would be warranted.

lore. until the Conunlaalon a <<ciudcs Its GUARDremand and hstfucts Its boards and Its a'taff dNercntfy. thc Ucenslng Boards could reasonably find that any hearing regarding compliance with 10 CFR 5087(b) (12) shall be Ifmited to issues which could have been heard before the Court'a decision In GUARDv. NRC Dated at Vlalhlnatoa. D.C. lhie 1 Cth day of L4y. lsas.

For the CommlIIIoiL, Saniwf ). CbQk, StcIerary ofdie Commission.

(Fft Doc. aS-t22te F0ed S-ZO-aS: LES aml

~ v ~

v~