ML20132D085
| 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: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506170312 | |
| Download: ML20132D085 (6) | |
Text
F. K A w ro ft t
gf UNITED STATES y
s,(
'g NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION l
b
,, g ) "L [j E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t t-f i
t
/
June 3,1985 m <<
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.
10 CFR 50.47(bl(12).
...y...g.. s. p, '.T The scope of this requirement was an s
c.
f;.O 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 for rnedical services for members of Commission.
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 sumwARr.The United States Court of spec:fy what would constitute adcquate Appeals for the District of Columbia medical service arrangements for such Circuit ("D.C. Circuit" or " Court") has overexposure. However. it found that vacated and remanded to the Nuclear there was no need to, direct 1he Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or construction cf hospitts, the purchne
' Commission") that part ofits of expensive equipment, the stockpihng of medicine or any otherlarge interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b](12) 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 of area facilities capable of treatmg such have been or will be taken promptly, or accident.Rather the Licensing Board injunes.
that there are other compelling reasons believed that the emphasis should be on Subsequently. Southern California developing specific plans and training Edison provided a list of such facilities to permit plant operations."
people to perform the necessary medical to the Licensing Board.The Licensin8 For the reasons discussed below, the 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 although the failure to develop amended the San Onofre licenses to have met the requirements of 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 CUARD remand meet the requirements deficiency was not significant enough to warrant a refusal to authorize the In Cuord v. NRC. the Court vacated of I 50.47(c)(1) and, therefore. are issuance of operating licenses for the Co m-iWon's intarpretation of entitled to heense conditional of full SONGS provided that deficiency was planning standard (b)(12) to the extent compliance with the Commission s cured within six months.15 NRC at that a list of treatment facilities was response to the GUARD remand) found to constitute adequate The Commission relies upon severn!
1199. (This penod was subsequently.
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 levels of radiation. 753 F.2d at 1146.
consider carefully the applicability of reasons which supported its Ending that 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 recent CUARD decision. Because the sertous accident was very remote.
(b)(12). In particular, because the Commission has not determined how, or significantly less than one-in-a-million
- Court's decision addressed the even whether, to define what constitutes per year, and that the nature of adequacy of cartain arrangements for adequate arrangements for offsite radiation exposure injury being only offsite individuals, the decision.
individuals who have been exposed to protected against was such that does not affect the emergency planning dangerous levels of radiation. the asallable medical services in the area findings necessary for low power Commission believes that untilit could be called upon on an cdhoc basic operation.
fcrinjured members of the offsite public.
With regard to full-power operation.
provides further guidance on this matter.
The Licensing Board's Interpretation the Court also afforded the NRC Ucensing Boards (or, in uncontested of plannmg standard (b)(12) was called substantial flexibdity in its matters, the stafi) should first consider the applicability of to CFR 50 47(c)(1) into question by the Appeal Board.
reconsideration of planning standard before considering whether any ALAS-680.16 NRC 12:'(1982). In (b)(12) to pursue any rationas course. 753 decying a motion to stay the 1.icensing F.2d a t 1148. Possible further additional actions are required to 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 appropriate because the CUARD injured mdividuals" had been read too phrase contam,inated injured decision leaves open the possibdity that brcadly to include individuals who were individuals" to imposition of " genuine" snerelyirradiated.In the Appeal arrangements for members of the public modification or reinterpretation of Board's view, the phrase was lunited to exposed to dangerous levels of planning standard (b)(12) could result in individuals onsite and offsite who had radiation./d. Until the Commission a determination that no prior been both contaminated with radiation determmed how it wd! proceed to arrangements need to be made for off-end traumatically injured. The record in respond to the Court s remand. the site individuals for whom the consequences of a hypetheticalaccident San Onofre was found to support a Commission provides the following are limited to exposure to radiation.
finding that adequate medical ntenm guidance to the boards in 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
~
(and. in uncontested cases. tne staff)
Faced with these diffenng IIL Interim Guidance interpretations. the Commission should consider the uncertamty over the certi' led to itself the issue of the The Commission's regulations continued viability of the current 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).
After hearing from the parties to the San duration. from the requirements of pnrase currentlyincludes members of Onofre proceeding and the Fedefal -
50.47(b). including those presently the offsite public exposed to high levels uncertain requirements here at issue.
f radiation. the CUARD, court has Emergency ManaNement Agency (FEMA). the Commission determined Section 50.47(c)(1) provides that:
clearly left the Commission the
" Failure to meet the applicable among other things. that- (1) Planning standards set forth in parsgrsph (b) of
%cma* ** dan alnady *med opumas standard (b)(12) applied to individuals this section may result in the both onsste and offsite: (2)
Commission a declining to issue an
$'j'.",j",d " ,*P! *[y'C'g, "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 satisfaction of the Commission that
'a'erP'etauon or in.: piusuas si.no.rd or so come into comphance arh any dattereni members of the public:and(3) adequate deficiencies in the plans are not
}', C M F,,*"g" g Q "",*[d y',"* ] "d-medical arrangements for such injured significant for the plant in question that 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 should be undertaken now on the Dated at Washington. D.C. this teth day of 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 delsying the licensees of those y....
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
1
_.