ML20128G602
| ML20128G602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| From: | Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Edelman M CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507090254 | |
| Download: ML20128G602 (6) | |
Text
A EE004
[
o'g UNITED STATES
["
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%..... o' M 261985 Docket Nos.: 50-440 and 50-441 Mr. Murray R. Edelman, Vice President Nuclear Operations Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101
Dear Mr. Edelman:
Subject:
Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)
Regarding the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 The recent Commission _ Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), published in the Federal Register (50 FR 20892) May 21, 1985, deals with arrangements for medical 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 thTComission's belief that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested cases, the staff, may find that applicant's who:
(1) have met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Comission before the GUARD decision; and (2) comit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD
- remand, meet the requirements of 50.47(c)(1) and, therefore, are entitled to a license on the condition of full compliance with the Comission's forthcoming response to the GUARD remand.
8507090254 850626 PDR ADOCK 05000440 l
F PDR i
l
JUN 2 6 585 Mr. Murray R. Edelman The Cleveland Electric Pe'rry Nuclear Power Plant Units 1 and 2 Illuminating Company cc:
Jay Silberg, Esq.
Mr. Larry O. Beck Shaw, Pittman, & Trowbridge The Cleveland Electric 1800 M Street, N. W.
Illuminating Company Washington, D. C.
20006 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.
The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Parmly at Center Road Perry, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator, Region III U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Donald T. Ezzone, Esq.
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Mentor, Ohio 44060 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.
618 N. Michigan Street Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 John G. Cardinal, Esq.
Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047
ENC (.050RE 1
(
20092 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulatio ns
(" planning standard (b)(12)") which _
stated that a list of treatment facihtie constituted adequate arrangements for medical services forindwiduals who might be exposed to dangerous levels cf radiation at locations offs.te from nuclear power plants. CUARD v.NRC 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C Cir.198!). The C also vacated certeln Commission decisions which applied this -
interpretation in the Ccmmission proceeding 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 operatin SONGS. Moreover, g licenses for the Court's remand left to the Commission's sound discretion a wide range of alternatives from which to select an appropriate response to the Court's decision. This Statement of Policy provides guidance to the NRC's Atomic Safety and ucensing Boards ("Ucensing Boards")
and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards (" Appeal Boards")
pending completion of the Cornmission's response to the D.C Circuit's remand.
appBCTfva cafe:May 21,1965.
pon pusmosn ssponesafsoss coorfacTt Sheldon Trubstch. Office of the Genera Counsel. (202) 634-3224.
sumptaasestfamy meronssaflow:
L Backpound Emergency planning standard (b)(12]
provides:
(b) The onsite and offsite emergency response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the fo!!owing standards:
(12) Arrangements are made for w
medical services for contaminated injured Individuals.
to CFR 50.47(b)(12).
The scope of this requirement was an issue of controversy in the adjudicatory proceeding on the adequacy of the
- emergency plans for SONGS See M M M g6 generally. LDP-42-39.15 NRC 1163.
1186.-1200,1244-1257.1290 (1962). TS.e I " 8'"'Y %
d Ucensing Board concluded that planning
"'Y stendard (b)(12) required, among other things, the development of arrangernents aesssev: Nuclear Regulatory for medical services for members af Commission, offsite public who might be exposed to acTses Statement of Policy on excessive amounts ot radiation as a Emergency Planning Standard to CFR result of a serious accident.15 NRC at 30.47(b)(12).
1199. The Ucensing Board did nct eussesaav: The United States Court of specify what would constitute adequate Appeals for the District of Columbia medical service arracaements for such Carcuit ("D.C Circuit" or " Court"l has overeupoem. However. it found that vacated and remanded to the Nuclear there was no need to direct the Regulatory Comunisason ("NRC" or constmtinn cf hospit.ff s, the p,ch.ne
" Commission") that part ofits of empensive equipment, the stockpihn te laterpretation of to Cm 30.47(b)(12) of medicine or any otherlarge empenditure, the sole purpose of ahich
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulatione20893 would be to guard agemet a very remote of area facihues capable of treanna such
=
accident. Rather, the Ucensing Daard injuries have been or will be taken promptly. or beliesed that ti emphasis should be on Subsequently, Southern Cahfornia that there are other compellms reasons developing specific plans and training Edison prosided a bet of such facdttice to permit plant operations."
people to perform the necessary medical to the Lcensing Board. De Ucenama For the reasone discussed below, the services.15 NRC at 1200.
Board found that the bet satisfied Commission beheves that Ucenoms De Ucensing Board also found, planning standard (b)(12). l.Bp-43-47,18 Boards (and, the uncontested situations.
have me)t the requirements oft pursuant to 10 CF1t 50.47(c)(1). that NRC 128 (1983). Thereupon. the staff although the failure to deselop amended the San Onofre licenses to snangements for medical services for remove the emergency plannmg I Sc 47(b)(12) se interpreted by the members of the offeite public who may condition previously imposed. 44 nt Commiselon befonrthe CUARD decision be injured in a certous accident was a 43246 (September 22,1983) and who commut to full compliance with the Commission's response to the deficiency in the emergency plan, that II.no Canet's tw4h deficiency was not significant enough to CUARD romand meet the requiremente wanant a refusal to authorne the in Cuord v. N/IC, the Court vacated d i 5a47(c)(1) and, emfm em issuance of opereung bcenses for the Comnuulon's interpretauas d antitled to heense conditional of full SONGS provided that deficiency w as planning standard (b)(12) to the extent compliance with the Commission's cund within six months.15 NRC at that a bet of treatment facalities was resPonas to the CUARD rerr:and.'
1199 (Die period was subsequently found to constitute adequate De Commimeon relies upon several emtended by stipulation of the parties.)
arrangements for medical eersices for factore in directing the Ucenema Boarde The Ucensing Board providas several offsite individuals exposed to dangerous end where appropriate, the staff to levele of radiation. 753 F.2d at 1166, consider carefully the applicability of reasons which supported its $nding that 11500 De Court did not avww any I 50.47(c)(1) foe the limited penod this deficiency was insignificant. Among other aspects on the Commieston'snecasesry to finalize a response to the
, these were that the poenibility of a interpmtation of planning standard recent CUAAD deciolon. Because the serious accident was very remote.
(b)(12),In particulae, becmase the Commission has not determined how, or significantly less than one.in.e-mi4 son
- Court's decision addressed the even whetber, to define whet constitutes per year, end that the nature of rediation exposure injury being adequacy of certain arrangements for adequate arrangements for offeite protected against wee such that only offsite individuela, the decision individuals who have been exposed to asailable medical services la the eres does not affect the emergency planalas dangerous levels of todistion, the could be called upon on an adhoc basic findings necanary forlow power Commiselon believes that untilit operation.
for injured members of the offelte pubhc.
With regard to full. power operation, provideo further guidance on thle matsag, De Ucensing Board's Interpretation the Court also afforded the NRC
!Jerneing Boards (or, in uncontested siplanning standard (b)(12) was called substantial Gentbdaty la its matters, the staff) should first consider into queshon by the Appeal Board.
reconsideration of planning standard the applicability of to CF1tjo 47 ALAB-4co.16 NRC 127 (1982). In (b)(12) to pursue any totional course,753 before considering w den}ing a motion to stay the Ucensing F.2d at flee. Possible further additional scijons are required to Soard's decision, the Appeal Board Commlesion action might range from implement planning standard (b)(12).
suggested that the phreee " contaminated mconsideradon of the scope of the Such consideration is particularly injured individuale" had been read too phrase " contaminated injured appropriate because the CUARD broadly to include individuals who were individuale" to impoeltfon of "genume" decision leaves open the possibility that sewerely irradiated. In the Appea.
arrar'gemente for members of the public modification or reinterpretation of Board's view, the phrase was lunited to
- Posed to dangerous levels of planning standard (b)(12) could result in individuals onsite and offeite who had redieuon. Id. Until the Commluion a determination that no pnor been both contaminated with redsstion determined how it will proceed to arrangements need to be made for off, end traumatically injured. De record in respond to the Court a mmand, the site mdividuale for whom the San Onofre was found to support a Commiselon provides the fo!!owing consequences of a hypotheticalaccident findmg that adequate medscal laterun guidance to the boards in are limited to exposun to radiation.
in conaldering the applicabihty of 10 art n to had been made for such au s
an o th a
}
yp
, c)
, ye,n,i
~
Faced with these diffenng til. Interim Guldense interpretations, the Commission should consider the uncertainty over the artified to itself the issue of the ne (%mmieston's regulatione continued vtability of the current interpretation of planering standard specifaelly contempleted certsia meanmg of the phrase 'cor tammated (b)(12). CLI-42-27. ta NRC e43 (1982).
equitable esceptions, of a limited injured individuals. A!though, that After hearing from the parties to the San durahon, from the requiremente of phrase curnntly includes members of Onofre proceeding and the Fedefel -
30.47tb), including bee presently the offsite public exposed to high levele Emergency Management Agency uncertain requirementa bere at leave.
of radiation, the CUARD, court has (FIMA), the Commisseon determined Section 3047(c)(1) provides that:
clearly left the Commission the
" Failure to meet the applicable among other things, that-(1) Planning standarde set forth in paragraph (b) of
'ta==== entma ebec=d ewmnie standard (b)(12) applied to individuals thle section may result in the r
)""",' TQ$*",',*,",,M',gon,,,
d both onsite and offeite,(2)
" contaminated laiured individuale" wee Commission's declining to issue an
- a. g gugies.,,g.i e,,, wi.4,,0, i.
intended to inehade meriously irradiated operating license; demonstrate to the satisfact on of the Commissaan that es=eie.
pam.m.mneardft w o members of the public: and (3) adequate deficiencies la the plass are not
- * **u
. sin.:e. weo s.,ewis 7,7,,',",
....,, $.,',,,*,*.l.,*.7g%..hJ, eend medical arrangemente for sesch inlured eisnificant for the plant la quantion, that Indivi,4...t wni,M be omesaed t.y 3 l.:
v!cqise. ic im co imensatin6 :,ctana
,,e4 i 4
......r..
e
. % menisis w pi
'teis u,4r.namm.
s
- 20004 Federal Register / Vcl. 50. NL 9e / Tu:sday..\\ fay 21. 1985 / Rul:e and Regulations l
discretion to " revisit" that definition in a diffently, the Ucensing Boards could fuhion that could remove esposed reasonably find that any heanns individuals from the coverage of regarding compliance with to CFR planning standard (b)(12). nerefore.
50 47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues Ucensing Boards (and, in uncontested which could have been heard before the cases, the staff) niey reasonably Court's decision in CUARD v.NRC conclude that no addluonal actions should be undertaken now on the Deted et Wuhington. D C. this 16th day of strength of the present interpretation of my, goes, that terei.
Moreover, the Conuniselon believes W J. Chn, that Ucessing Boards (and. In Sect'tery e/the Commiwlon.
uncontested essee, the eteff) could
[m Doc. ab1221e Filed 6 30-48; tel esel reasonably And that any denciency ausse esse =
which may be found is cosiplying with e Amelised, poet.CUAAD planning i
standard (bX12) is insignincant for the purposes of 10 CFR 30.47(c)(1). The low probability of accidents which might cause extenolve radiadon exposure during the brief period necessary to Analise a Commission response to GUAAD(as the San Onofre Ucensing Beerd found, the probability of such an accident le less than one la e mi!!!on per year of operation), and the slow evolution of adverse reactions to everexposure to radiation are generic matters applicable to all plante end licensing situations and over which there le ao genuine oestroversy. Both of these factere weigh in favor of a Andmg that any de8ciencies between present liesasse plaaming (which complies with the ~~.n-s e pu,.CUAAD l
r interpretation of to CFR so.4f(b)(12 and netwo pleanlag la accordance w))ith the Anellaterpretation of planning standard (bM12) as a response to the CUAAD decision, will not be sefety signiAcant for the brief period in which it tekee licensee to implement the Anal standard.
biaddition, as a matter of equity, the Coeunloelon believes that Ucensing Boards (and la uncontweed cases the y
etsff)could reasonably Rod that thm are "other compelling reasons" to avoid e
delaying thelicensees of those epplicants who have complied with the Commission's pre CUAAD section to 4f(bM12) requiremente.wbm applicants heve acted in sood faith reliance on the th=s-a='s prior laterpretauen ofits own etion, the reesonableness of this faith reliance ladicates that it would be unfair to delay licensing while the Convaiselon completes its response ab the CUAAD i
romand.
Fleetly.if Weeneing Beerde And that l
these factere edegnetely support the applicaties of to CFR so.4f(cM1), then 9tooe Uceneirig poords eNid concl1de that as heariage would be warranted.
. Therefore, until the Commiselon l
eencludes its CUARD rwaand and klebuGts ile (seerde and its staff I
l l
l l
JUN 2 61985 Mr. Murray R. Edelman Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Perry, Unit 1. CEI is 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.
Sincerely, i
B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
\\
DISTRIBUTION:
I useRet 11Te ACRS(16)
DPerrotti a
NRCPDR EJordan RMeck i
LPDR JPartlow JKeppler NSIC BGrimes CNorelius PRC System OELD LBf1 R/F HThompson MRushbrook TNovak JStefano 0Matthews
/
/
- 1:DL LB#1:DL JStefano:kab BJYoungblood I
06/2 8/85 06/
/8s