ML20132D085

Recommends That Listed Applicants Expecting 1985 Commission Decision for Full Power License Be Explicitly Advised of Encl Interim Guidance for 10CFR50.47(b)(12) Re Emergency Planning.Guidance Relates to Guard Vs NRC Court Decision

ML20132D085
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	06/03/1985
From:	Jordan E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:	Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20132D087	List: ML20132D085 ML20132D218 ML20135D101 ML20135D113
References
NUDOCS 8506170312
Download: ML20132D085 (6)

Text

%

F. K A w ro ft t gf UNITED STATES y

b s,( 'g NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION l

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t

,,t gt- ) "L [j E f i m <<

/ June 3,1985 I

MEMORANDUM FOR: Hugh L. Thompson, Director  !

Division of Licensing i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Edward L. Jordan, Director  :

Division of Emergency Preparedness  !

and Engineering Response >

Office of Inspection and Enforcement  !

SUBJECT:

INTERIM GUIDANCE ON EMERGENCY PLANNING 2  !

STANDARD 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) i The recent Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)  !

published in the Federal Recister (50 FR 20892) May 21,1985, deals with arrange- i ments for medical services for contaminated injured individuals and provides Interim Guidance (see Section III, Enclosure 1) with respect to the recent court '

decision GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). The Interim' Guidance l

states the Commission's belief that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested cases, j tne staff, may find that applicants who:  ;

1) have met the requirements of 550.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Ccmmission before the GUARD decision; and i i

2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD l remand, .. _ ,, ,_ ,

m*et the requirements of 550.47(c)(1) and, therefore, are entitled to a license  !

on the~ condition of full compl1ance-with :the Commission's forthcoming response - -:

to the GUARD remand.

We recommend that those applicants whose Commission Decision for a full power license is scheduled within the calendar year 1985, be advised explicitly of t the Interim Guidance for 550.47(b)(12) and the need to (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 Comission's response to the GUARD remand. Enclo- t sure 2 is a list of these plants and their scheduled decision dates. Appropriate j j licensing representatives for Palo Verde Unit 1, Wolf Creek, and Limerick Unit 1 have been advised of the Interim Guidance in telephone conversations with their  !

respective NRR Project Managers.  :

CONTACT: Robert A. Meck, IE Ao2 AoR4  ;

bh \1 _)

w w.

Hugh L. Thompson 4 Please direct questions regarding this matter to my staff member, Robert Meck, at extension 24854 t ward Jordan, Di rector ~

Divis](of of Emergency Preparedness and Tngineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement Encicsures:

1. Policy Statement (50 FR 20892)

2. List of Facilities

,s.

t

ENCLOSURE 1 20892 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tucsday, May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

(" planning standard (b)(12)") which stated that a list of treatment facihties constituted adequate arrangements for medical serv:ces for individuals who might be exposed to dangerous levels cf radiation at locations offs.te from nuclear power plants. CUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 iD.C. Cir.1985). The Court also vacated certain Ccmmission decisions which applied this -

interpretation in the C mmission proceeding on operating licenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Units 2 and 3 (" SONGS"). Howeve . the Court did not vacate or in any other way disturb the operatin SONCS. 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 Licensmg Beards ("Ucensing Boards")

and Atomic Safety and utensing Appes! Bocrds (" Appeal Boards")

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

EFFECTIVE DATE:May 21.1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPP1.EMENT ARY INFORMATICM:

1. Background

Emergency planning standard (b)(12) prevides:

(b) The unsite and offsite emer2enr*-

response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:

(12) Arrangements are made for medical services for centaminated injured individuals.

.. ...y ...g .. s . p , '.T 10 CFR 50.47(bl(12).

-- s c. f;.O  :.." ,.

- The scope of this requirement was an Issue of controversy in the adjudicatory

- proceeding on the adequacy of the emergency plans for SONGS. See 10 CFR Part 50 generaUy. LDP-82-39.15 NRC 1162.

1186.-1200,1214-1257.1290 (1932?. T'.e Emergency Planning; Statement of Ucensing Board concluded that p!anning Policy stendard (b)(12) required. among other

.- things, the development of arrangements AcEncV: Nuclear Regulatory

'* Commission. for rnedical services for members of offsite public who might be exposed to AcT1ose Statement of Policy on excessive amounts of radiation as a Emergency Planning Standard to CFR result of a senous accident.15 NRC at 50.47(b)t12). 1199. The Ucensmg Board did nct spec:fy what would constitute adcquate sumwARr.The United States Court of medical service arrangements for such Appeals for the District of Columbia overexposure. However. it found that Circuit ("D.C. Circuit" or " Court") has there was no need to, direct 1he vacated and remanded to the Nuclear construction cf hospitts, the purchne Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or

' Commission") that part ofits of expensive equipment, the stockpihng interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b](12) of medicine or any otherlarge expenditure, the sole purpose of which

Federal Register / Vcl. 50. N2. 98 / Tu;sday. May 21, 1985 / Rul;s and Regulations 208 %

would be to guard against a very remote accident.Rather the Licensing Board of area facilities capable of treatmg such have been or will be taken promptly, or injunes.

believed that the emphasis should be on that there are other compelling reasons Subsequently. Southern California developing specific plans and training Edison provided a list of such facilities to permit plant operations."

For the reasons discussed below, the people to perform the necessary medical to the Licensing Board.The Licensin8 services.15 NRC at 1200. Board found that the list satisfied Commission believes that I.icensing The Licensing Board also found. planning standard (b)(12). LBPm7.18 Boards (and. the uncontested situations.

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). that NRC 128 (1963). Thereupon, the staff the staff) may find that applicants who have met the requirements of although the failure to develop amended the San Onofre licenses to arrangements fcr medical services for rem ve the emergency plannmg i 50 47(b)(12) as mterpreted by the members of the offsite public who may condition previously imposed. 48 FR Commission before the GUARD decision be injured in a serious accident was a 43246 (September 1983).

and who commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the defic:ency in the emergency plan. that II. The Court's Decision deficiency was not significant enough to CUARD remand meet the requirements In Cuord v. NRC. the Court vacated of I 50.47(c)(1) and, therefore. are warrant a refusal to authorize the issuance of operating licenses for the Co m-iWon's intarpretation of entitled to heense conditional of full planning standard (b)(12) to the extent compliance with the Commission s SONGS provided that deficiency was that a list of treatment facilities was response to the GUARD remand) cured within six months.15 NRC at found to constitute adequate 1199. (This penod was subsequently . The Commission relies upon severn!

arrangements for medical services for factors in directing the Licensing Boards extended by stipulation of the parties.)

The Licensing Board providea several offsite individuals exposed to dangerous and, where appropriate, the staff to reasons which supported its Ending that levels of radiation. 753 F.2d at 1146. consider carefully the applicability of 1150). The Court did not review any 150.47(c)(1) for the limited period this deficiency was insignificant. Among other aspects on the Commission's necessary to finalize a response to the these were that the possibility of a interpretation of planning standard sertous accident was very remote. recent CUARD decision. Because the (b)(12) . In particular, because the Commission has not determined how, or significantly less than one-in-a-million per year, and that the nature of

• Court's decision addressed the even whether, to define what constitutes adequacy of cartain arrangements for adequate arrangements for offsite radiation exposure injury being only offsite individuals, the decision.

protected against was such that individuals who have been exposed to does not affect the emergency planning dangerous levels of radiation. the asallable medical services in the area findings necessary for low power ,

could be called upon on an cdhoc basic operation. Commission believes that untilit  !

fcrinjured members of the offsite public.

provides further guidance on this matter.

With regard to full-power operation. Ucensing Boards (or, in uncontested The Licensing Board's Interpretation the Court also afforded the NRC of plannmg standard (b)(12) was called matters, the stafi) should first consider substantial flexibdity in its into question by the Appeal Board. reconsideration of planning standard the applicability of to CFR 50 47(c)(1)

(b)(12) to pursue any rationas course. 753 before considering whether any ALAS-680.16 NRC 12:'(1982). In decying a motion to stay the 1.icensing additional actions are required to F.2d a t 1148. Possible further Bocrd's decision. the Appeal Board Commission action might range from implement planning standard (b)(12).

surgested that the phrase " contaminated reconsideration of the scope of the Such consideration is particularly injured mdividuals" had been read too appropriate because the CUARD phrase contam,inated injured brcadly to include individuals who were individuals" to imposition of " genuine" decision leaves open the possibdity that snerelyirradiated.In the Appeal modification or reinterpretation of arrangements for members of the public Board's view, the phrase was lunited to exposed to dangerous levels of planning standard (b)(12) could result in a determination that no prior individuals onsite and offsite who had radiation./d. Until the Commission arrangements need to be made for off-been both contaminated with radiation determmed how it wd! proceed to end traumatically injured. The record in respond to the Court s remand. the site individuals for whom the '

San Onofre was found to support a Commission provides the following consequences of a hypetheticalaccident finding that adequate medical ntenm guidance to the boards in are limited to exposure to radiation.

arrangements had been made for such

~

adonzmg. and to the NRC staff in .

- In considering the applicability of10" individuals. 188uin8 8 full-Power operating licenses. CFR 50.47(c)(1). the Licensing Boards Faced with these diffenng IIL Interim Guidance (and. in uncontested cases. tne staff) interpretations. the Commission should consider the uncertamty over the The Commission's regulations continued viability of the current certi' led to itself the issue of the specifically contemplated certain meaning of tne phrase centaminated interpretation of plarming standard equitable exceptions of a lirnited injured individuals. Although. that (b)(12). CU-82-2:7.18 NRC 883 (1982). pnrase currentlyincludes members of After hearing from the parties to the San duration. from the requirements of ,

50.47(b). including those presently the offsite public exposed to high levels Onofre proceeding and the Fedefal - f radiation. the CUARD, court has uncertain requirements here at issue.

Emergency ManaNement Agency Section 50.47(c)(1) provides that: clearly left the Commission the (FEMA). the Commission determined " Failure to meet the applicable among other things. that- (1) Planning standards set forth in parsgrsph (b) of ,

standard (b)(12) applied to individuals %cma* ** dan alnady *med opumas  !

this section may result in the both onsste and offsite: (2) Commission a declining to issue an $'j'.",j",d  ; *[y'C'g,

" ,*P!

"contammated injured individuals" was operatinglicense demonstrate to the ,i.na e (bum .nu .i.e be upect.4 euher so intended to include senously irradiated come into comphance arh any dattereni satisfaction of the Commission that 'a'erP'etauon or in.: piusuas si.no.rd or so members of the public:and(3) adequate deficiencies in the plans are not medical arrangements for such injured significant for the plant in question that }', C M F,,*"g" g Q "",*[d, y',"* ] "d- ,

individuals would be provided by a list adequate intenm compensating actions

,,q=.ei cound i..d io mmenon of .a enforcemeni ecn n purw.nno so cn P ,, : mr

20894 Federal Register / Vcl. 50. Nr. 98 / Tuesd y. Wy 21. 1985 / Rulis cnd Regulations discretion to " revisit" that definition in a differently, the Ucensing Boards could fashion that could remove exposed reasonably find that any heanng .

individuals from the coverage of regarding compliance with 10 CFR planning standard (b)(12).Therefore. 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues U:ensing Boards (and. in uncontested which could have been heard before the casts. the staff) may ressonably Court's decision in GUARD v. NRC conclude that no additional actions Dated at Washington. D.C. this teth day of should be undertaken now on the my.19a5.

strIngth of the present interpretation of thit term. 7, g ,;

Moreover, the Commission believes samall.Chn, that Ucensing Boards (and. in secretaryofthe commission.

uncontested cases, the staff) could [nt Doc. as-12:ta FUed 5-m-45. a:45 aml reasonably find that any deficiency sumo coon riso.ei-a which may be found in complying with a fin:!ized, post-GUARD planning standard (b)(12) is insign:ficant for the purposes of 10 CFR 50.47tc)(1). Die low probability of accidents which might cause extensive radiation exposure during the brief gieriod necessary to fintlize a Commission response to GUARD (as the San Onofre Ucensing Board found, the probability of such an tecident is less than one in a million per yIar of operation), and the slow Ev:lution of adverse reacticas to ovirexposure to radiatica are generic mitters applicable to all plants and licensmg situations and over which there is no genuine controversy. Both of those factors weigh in favor of a finding -

that any deficiencies be: ween present licensee planning (which complies with the Commission's pre-GUARD interpretation of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12))

and future planning in accord.ince with t'te finc! interpretation of planning candard (b)(12) as a response to the CUARD decision will not be safety significant for the brief period in which it t* kes licensee to imp:ement the final , '-

strndard. "

In addition, as a matter of equity, the Commission believes that Ucensing Bo:rds (and. in uncontested cases, the staff) could reasonably find that there are "other compelling reasons to avoid y.... ,. ,

delsying the licensees of those , , , . .

applicants who have complied with the Commission's pre-GUARD section .

50.47(b)(12) requirements. Where applicants have acted in good faith

• reli nce on the Commission's prior int 7rpretation ofits own regulation, the re:s:cableness of this good faith reli:nce indicates that it would be unfair t:a d; lay licensing while the Commission completes its response Ab the GUARD rem:nd.

Finally. If Ucensing Boards find that th;s2 factors adequately support the applica tion of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), then those Licensing Boards could conclude th:t no hearings would be warranted.

. Therefore. until the Commission ,

concludes its GUARD remand and in:tructs its boards and its staff l

r ENCLOSURE 2 List of Facilities Scheduled for Full Power Licensing Decisions in 1985 Facility Commission Decision

1. Palo Verde Unit 1 5/30/85

2. Wolf Creek 6/03/85

3. Limerick Unit 1 6/85

4. Diablo Canyon Unit 2 7/03/85

5. Fermi Unit 2 7/15/85

5. River Bend 8/85

7. Watts Bar Unit 1 8/85

8. Perry Unit 1 10/85

9. Shoreham Unit 1 .

1985 l

l I

l l

. 1

-