ML20132E239

Requests Formal Confirmation That Offsite Emergency Plans Include List of Local or Regional Medical Facilities & Commitment to Full Compliance W/Nrc Response to Guard Remand in Order for NRC to Issue License

ML20132E239
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek
Issue date:	09/26/1985
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mittl R Public Service Enterprise Group
References
NUDOCS 8510010027
Download: ML20132E239 (8)

Text

.

20892 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday. May 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulations

(" planning standard (b)(12)") which stated that a list of treatment facihties constituted adequate arrangements for medical services for individuals who might be exposed to dangerous levels cf radiation at locations offsite from nuclear power plants. CUARD v. NRC.

753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1963). The Court also vacated certain Commission decisions which apphed this -

interpretation in the Ccar.ission proceetling on operating licenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Units 2 and 3 ("SONCS"). However, the Court did not vacate or in any other way disturb the operating licenses for SONCS. Moreover. 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 i,f Po!!cy provides guidance to the NRC's Atomic Safety and I.icensing Boards ("Ucensing Boards")

and Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Appeal Boarda (" Appeal Boards") .

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

EFFECTWE D Aft:May 21.1985.

FOR PUftTNEA lesFORM ATIOst CONTACT:

Sheldon Trubatch. Office of the General Counse1. (202) 634-3224.

sumptamastTAmy peeroamattoet:

1. Beckground

.- Emergency planning standard (b)[t2) prevides: -

(b) The unsite and offsite emergenty response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:

i (12) Arrangements are made for

medical services for contaminated inlured individuals.

10 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 MCm M50 generally. LDP-62-39.15 NRC 1163.

1186,-1200.1244-1257.1290 (1982). TF.e Emwgency Planning; Statement of Licensing Board concluded that p!anning standard (b)(12) required, amoeg other things. the development of arranFements Acasecv: Nuclear Regulatory for medical services for members of

• ' Commission. o:Tsite public who might be exposed to acy,oec 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)(12). 1199. The Ucensing Board did r.cl specify what would constitute adcquate suesmAmy.'Ihe United States Court of medical service arrangements for such Appeals for the Districl of Columbia overeuposJre. However. it found that Circuit ("D.C. Circuit" or " Court") ha s there was no need to direct the vacated and remanded to the Nuclear r.onstruction cf hospitsts.the purchae 8510010027 850926 Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or of espensive equipment. the stovapelina PDR ADOCK 05000354 " Commission") that part ofits of medicine or any other large p PDR Interpretation of to CR 50.47(b)(12) expenditure. the sole purpose of which

Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 9a / Tuesday. May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 20893 would be to guard against a very remote cf area facihties capable of treanns such have been or will be taken promptly. or accident. Rather, the !.icensing Board injunes. that there are other compelling reasons believed that the emphasis should be on Subsequently. Southern California to permit plant operations."

developing specific plans and training Edison provided a list of such facihties

, For the reasons discussed below, the people to perform the necessary medical to the Ixensing Board.ne Licensing Commission believes that utensing services.15 NRC at 1200, Board found that the list satisfied Boards (a'nd, the uncontested situations.

De Ucensing Board also found, planning standard (b)(12). GP-83-47. Is the staff) may find that applicants who pursuant to 10 CR 50.47(c)(1). that NRC 128 (1963). Dereupon. the staff have met the requirements of although the failure to develop amended the San Onofre licenses to i 50.47(b)(12) se interpreted by the arrangemer.ts for medical services for rem ve the meryney planmng c ndition previ uslyimp sed.44 m Commission beforethe GUARD decision members of the offaite public who may and who comnut to full comphance with be injured in a serious accident was a 4 246(Septmbat 1983)" the Commission's response to the deficiency in the emergency plan. that  !!.%e Court's D=dataa Cl/ARD remand meet the requirements deficiency was not significant enough to In Cuord v. NRC. the Court vacated of I 5a47(cH1) and. Guefon. am warrant a refusal to authorize the the N-mef anion's interpretation of entitled to heense conditional of full issuance of operating IIcenses for planning standard (b!(12) to the extent cornpliance with the Commission's SONGS provided that deficiency was that a bet of tnetment faclities was response to the GUARD remand.'

cured within six months.15 NRC at found to constitute adequate De Commission relies upon several 1199.(Ela period was subsequently arrangements for medical services for factors in directing the Ucensing Boards extended by stipulation of the parties.), offsite individuals exposed to dangerous and, where appropriate.the staff to The Ucensing Board providas several levels of radiation.753 F.2d at 1146. consider carefully the applicability of reasons which supported its findmg that 11501.The Court did not review any I 50.47(c)(1) for the limited period this deficiency was insignificant. Among other aspects on the Commission's necessary to finalize a response to the dese were that the possibility of a interpretation of planning standard recent CUARD decision. Because the senous accident was very remote. (b)(12) .In particular becanae the Com:nission has not determined how. or significantly less than one-in-a million

• Court's decision addressed the even whether to define what constitute:

per year, and that the nature of adequacy of cartain arrangsmants for adequate arrangements for offsite radiation exposure injury being only offsite individuala, the decision. individuals who have been exposed to protected against was such that does not affect the amergency planning dangerous levels of radiation. the asailable medical services in the area findinga necessary for low power Commission believes that untilit could be called upon on an adhoc basic operation. . provides further guidance on this matter, for injured members of the offsite public. With regard to full power operation. Ucensing Boards (or,in imcontested The Ucensing Board's Interpretation the Court also afforded the NRC matters. the staff) should first consider of planning staridard (b)(12) was ca!!ed substantial Dexibility in its the applicability of to CFR 50.47(c)(1) into question by the Appeal Board. reconsiderstion of planning standard before considering whether a ny A!.AB-480 to NRC 127 (1962). In (b)(12) to pursue any rational course. 753 additional actions are required to denying a motion to stay the Ucensing F.2d at 1146. Possible further implement planning standard (b)(12).

. Board's decisiom the AppealBoard . Commission action might range from Such considerstion is particularly suggested that the phrase " contaminated neonsiduation of the scope of the appropriate because the CUARD injured individuals" had been read too phrase " contaminated mjured decision leaves open the possibility that

. broadly to include individuals who wen individuals" to imposition of " genuine? modification or reinterpretation of severely irradiated. In the Appeal arrangements for members of the pubhc planning standard (b)(12) could result in Board's view. the phrase was limited to exposed to dangerous levels of a determination that no prior indinduals onsite and offsite who had radiatica /d. Until the Commission arrangements need to be made for off.

been twh contaminated with radiation deternmed how it will proceed to site individuals for whom the end traumatically injured. The record in nspond to 6e Court's nmand. the consequences of a hypothetical accident l San Onofre was found to support a Commission provides the followmg are limited to exposure to radiation.

finding that adequate medical interim guidance to the boards in authorizing, and to the NRC staff in In considering the applicability of to arrangements had been made for such CFR 50.47(c)(1), the Ucensing Boards individuals.

Issuing. a full Power operating licenses.

(and. In uncontested cases. the staff)

Faced with these diffenns  !!L Intertra Culdance should consider the uncertainty over the

, interpretations. the Commission The Commission's regulationa continued viabihty of the current

! certified to itself the issue of the specifically contemplated certain meaning of 6e phran " contaminated interpretation of plarming standard equitable exceptions, of a limited injured individuals. Although. that (b)(12). CU-42-27.16 NRC 883 (1982). duration from the requirernents of phrase currently includes members of After hearing from the parties to the San 50,47(b). including thoea presently b oHsite public exposed to high levels

, Onofre proceeding and the Fedefel - uncertain requirements here at issue. I radiats,on, the CUARD. court ha s

~

Emergency Management Agency Section 50.47(c)(1) provides that: clearly left the Commission the l (FEMA). the Cornmission determined " Failure to meet the applicable i

among other things, that- (1) Planning standards set forth in parasteph (b) of 't== -b. bm .irudy obia.ned eser iime l standard (b)(12) applied to individuals this section may result in the $'**",b. ekane, e

,m,wi . n n,n, l both oneite and cffsite:(2) Commission'a &clining to issue an einadud tb :: ..u .i b. ..pnied eon.< ie "contamina ted injured individuals" was operating license: demonatrate to the c . m is ns,wim .nrd.n m ai intended to inchade seriously irradiated satisfaction of the Commission thet ia'"premor uisi pwns ei.adud et so members of the public: and (3) adequate deficiencies in the plana are not . e o be m. .ni d f,'l*,'",j F,,. n , ,, , .

medical arrangementa for such injured significant for the plant m queation that . . ..,,, ,,,, , e.oia i a . ui.. .t . .

individuals would be provided by a list adequate interim compsnsatmg actions enforcem.ac .cs a pw i to is cra em a me.

1

. - - - - - - =-

l

. 1 l

208H Fedir:1 Registxt / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday. Wy 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulations discretion to " revisit" that definition in a differently. the Ucensing Boar:!: could fashion that could remove esposed reasonably find that any hearing Individuals froin the coverage of regarding compliance with to CFR planning standard (b)(12). Therefore, 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues Ucensing Boards (and. la encentested which could have been heard before the cases. the staff) may reasonably Court's decision in CUARD v.NRC conclude that no additional actions Deled at Weekington. D.C. this teth day of should be undertaken now on the -

5:sy, seas.

strength of the present laterpretation of i that term. rd Wh Moreover.the Comrnission believes "" IM thet Ucensing Boards (and,in Secretary ofthe Conuniulon.

uncoritested cases, the staff) could lFR Doc. SS-1221e Filed Ho-ek 4.as em]

reasonably And that any denciency same caos -

which may be found in complying with a Analized, post CUAAD planning standard (b)(12) is lasignincent for the purposes of to CFR 50.47(c)(1).The low probability of accidents widch might cause extensive radiation exposure during the brief period necessary to finalise a Commission response to CUARD(as the San Onofre Ucensing Board found. the probability of such an accident is less than one in a million per year of operation), and the slow evolution of adverse nactions to

, overexposure to radiation are generic matters applicable to all plants and licensing situations and over which

, there is no genuine controversy. Both of those factors weigh la favor of a findmg -

that any de6ciencies between present licensee planning (which complies with the t'a==laata='s pre-CUARD

interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12))

cnd future planning in accordance with

~~

the Analinterpretation of planning "

i standard (b)(12) as a response to the .

CUARD decision. will not be safety signdicant for the brief period in which l It takes licensee to implement the Anal standard.

In addition as a matter of equity, the Commission believes that Ucensing Boards (and. In uncontested cases, the staff) could reasonably find that there ere "other compelling reasons" to avoid delaying thelicensees of those applicants who have complied with the Commission's pre-CUARD section 30.47(b)(12) requirements.Where '

applicants have acted in good faith reliance on the Commission's prior interpretation of its own regulation, the 4 reasonableness of this good faith

reliance indicates that it would be unfair l to delay licensing while the Commission completes its resporise A the CUARD .

remand.

Finally,if Ucensing Boards find that these factors adequately support the application of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), then those Ucensing Boards could conclude that no hearings would be warranted. .

Therefore, until the Commission .

concludes its CUARD remand and lastructs its boards and its staff

l- . .

i t  !

t Mr.' R. L. Mitti -

2.

i.

I ,

e

] Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Hope Creek, you

are required to formally.(1) confim that of fsite emergency plans include a j list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to pro-

~

l vide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) cortrait to' full compliance j with the Comission's response to the GUARD remand.

i Sincerely, Originalsigned by Walter Butler, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 3

3

' Division of Licensing j

Enclosure:

~ As stated cc: See next page t

) Distribution tDocket~ FUe; i NRC PDR ' ~

i Local PDR ,

PRC Systen i

4 NSIC

, LB#2 Reading j Ellylton i DWagner i

LDewey, OELD ACRS(16)

JPartlow

--0 Grimes i

EJordan

.D. Perrotti i

i DTri7d. M LB#2/DL/BC L DUagner:nl. .WButler l '09/2p85: 09/yy85 I

l

- , , - _ _ , . . _ _ . ___.y , _ - - , . ,., _.,y ,,,,, ,, m.,..__... y, s. , , , , , _ -., ,, , ,, .,. . _ _ _ _ . ,

. . l l + o,, UNITED STATES

- ~ o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, :; E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 l  %..... SEP 2 61985 Docket lio. 50-354 ,

4 j

i Mr. F. L. flitti, General Manager Nuclear Assurance and Regulation Public Service Electric and Gas Company

P.O. Box 570, T22A 1 hewark, hew Jersey 07101 i

i

Dear Mr. Mitti:

i Subfect: Irterim Guidance on Ervrgency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

Regarcin9 tis hepe Creek Generating Station j The recent Cor.nisticr. Statement of Policy on Emergency Plennir.c Standard

! 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), pubilshed la the Federal Register (50 FR 20892) flay 21, 1985, deals with crrungenier.ts for raedical services f cr certaminated injured individuals, and provic'es Ir.tcrira Guidance (see Section 111 of the Federal Fesister 5tatener.t. copy enclosed) with respect to the recent court decisior.

GUARD vs hRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D. C. Cir. 1985). The Interim Guidance st6tes j the Coctr.ission's belief thtt licensing Boards, and in uncor.testEc Cases,

the staff, ray fird th6t applicants who

I j (1) have ret the ruuirerrents of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) es irterpreted by the j Cctnission before the GUAku c;ccision, and

, (2) cemit to full compliance with the Consnission's response to the GUARD l remand, 4

l meet the requirerents of 50.47(c)(1) and, therefore, are entitled to a license on the condition of full compliance with the Consnission's forthcoming response to the GUARD remand, i

l I i l,

l

j.

J 4

I' l'r. R. L. !!itti j Public Service Electric & Gas Cc. Hcpe Creek Generating Station i

1' Cc-I Grccery Pinor Susan C. Remis j Richarc Hubbard Division of Public Interest Advocacy >

j Dale Bridenbaugh New Jersey State Department of j IJ.HS Technical Associates the Public Advocate.

4 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Richard J. Hughes Justice Comples i San Jose, California 95125 CN-850.

i 1renton, hew Jersey 08625 Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esquire Office of Legal Counsel Conner & Uctterhahn Department of !!cturd hescurces

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. and Environnental Control Lcshinstcn, D.C. 20006 89 Kings highway ,

i P.O. Box 1401

Dover, Delaware 19903 i  ;

ht.iwrd Fryling, Jr. , Esquire Mr. V. W. But roues, Project Engineer

Asscciate General Solicitor Bechtel Power Corporation t

Pttlic Service Electric & Gas Con. pay 50 Beale Street P. C. Bcx 570 T5E P. O. Box 3965 l Newark, New Jersey G7101 ' San Francisco, California 54110 i .

1 Mr. J. ii. Ashlcy '

Resident Jr.s ctcr Senior Licensing Engineer U.S.N.R.C. c/o Public Service Electric & Gas Co.

l F . C. Cox 241 Bethesda Office Cer.tcr, Suit 550 Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 4520 East-West Highway Bethesca ,14aryland 20814 l i<ichard F. Engel l Depty f tterrey General Mr. A. E. Gierdino Divisior cf Lu: l'anager - Quality Assurance .L&C l Environnental Prott.ction Secticn Public Service Electric f. Ces Co.

1 Richarc J. hushes Jc'tice Conplex . P. O. Box A

! CH-112P Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 l Trentcn,fiew Jersey C8625

. Mr. Robert J. Touhey, Mr. Anthony J. Pietrofitti.

1 Acting Director General Manager 1 DNREC N vb fer of Power Production Engir.eu ins j Envircrrental Centrol Atlantic Electric

89 Kings Highway 1199 Black horse Pike i P. O. Box 1401 Pleasantville, New Jersey 08232 i Dover, Cel n ere 19903 1 Regional Administrator, Pegion I 1 fir. R. S..Solvesen U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I General Mar.ager-Hope Creek-Operation 631 P6rk Avenue i Public Service Electric & Gas Co. King of Prussit., Pennsylvania 19406 i P.O. Box A

Hancocks Bridge, New Jersey 08038 l

}

Public Service Eltctric 6 Las (c. - liope Creek Ger. err.tirc Stetion cc:

Mr. B. A. Presten Public Service Electric h Gas Cc.

Hope Creek Site MC12Y Licensing Trailer 12LI Foct of Button wood Read Hancock's Bridge, New Jersey 08038 Ps. Rctecca Green New Jersey Bureau of Radiation Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, hew Jersey 08628 f

Mr. R. L. Iti;ti /ccordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Hope Creek, you are required to formally (1) confirra that of f site erergency plans ir.clude a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to pro-vide treatment for radiution exposure, and (2) comit to full cerrpliance with the Comission's response to the GUARD remand.

Sircerely, Walter Butler, Chief Licensing Branch iso. 2 Division of Licersirg Erclosure: As stated cc: See riext page