ML20134Q335

Requests Confirmation That Offsite Emergency Plans Include List of Local or Regional Medical Facilities Which Can Provide Treatment for Radiation Exposure & Commitment to Full Compliance to Guard Remand.Fr Notice Encl

ML20134Q335
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/04/1985
From:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8509090294
Download: ML20134Q335 (6)

Text

F

^

September 4,1985 DISTRIBUTION:

. Docket Nos. 50-413/414 NRC PDR Docket Nos: 50-413 Local PDR and 50-414 PRC System LB #4 r/f EAdensam MDuncan KJabbour Mr. H. B. Tucker, Vice President DMatthews, EPB Nuclear Production Department GSimonds Duke Power Company Attorney, OELD 422 South Church Street JPa rtlow Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 BGrimes EJordan

Dear Mr. Tucker:

ACRS (16)

Subject:

Catawba Nuclear Station - Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

The recent 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 arrange-ments for redical 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 states the Comission's belief that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested cases, the staff, may find that applicants who:

1) have met the requirements of $50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Commission before the GUARD decision; and

2) commit to full compliance with the Comission's response to the GUARD remand, meet the requirements of 650.47(c)(1) and, therefore, are entitled to a license on the condition of full compliance with the Commission's forthcoming response to the GUARD remand.

Accordingly, we request you (1) confirm that offsite emergency plans for the Catawba Nuclear Station include a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to provide treatnu!nt for radiation exposure, and (2) comit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.

8509090294 850904 PDR ADOCK 05000413 F PDN

2 i

l Please provide the additional information requested within 45 days of receipt of this letter. Should you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact the Licensing Project Manager, Kahtan Jabbour at (301) 492-9789.

Sincerely,

/S/ Carl R. Stable for Elinor G. Adensam, Chiet Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page l

l l

l l

l l

DL:L

/b

1. 4 0

i s

DL .lt #4 LA:QLLB#4 M0tlnc}an )L ws l KJabbour/hne A FAdensam l 8/7fj/85 8/rI/85 8/g/85 V hj /85 l

F Mr. H. B. Tucker Duke Power Company Catawba Nuclear Station CC:

William L. Porter, Esq. North Carolina Electric Membership Duke Power Company Corp.

P.O. Box 33189 3333 North Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611 J. Michael McGarry, !!!, Esq.

Bishop, Libeman, Cook, Purcell Saluda River Electric Cooperative, and Reynolds Inc.

1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W. P.O. Box 929 Washington, D. C. 20036 Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector Suite 600 Route 2, Box 179N 3100 Smoketree Ct. York, South Carolina 29745 P.O. Box 29513 Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Region !!

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

Mr. C. D. Markham 101 Marietta Street NW, Suite 2900 Power Systems Division Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Westinghouse Electric Corp.

P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Robert Guild Esq.

P.O. Box 12097 NUS Corporation Charleston, South Carolina 29412 2536 Countryside Boulevard Clearwater, Florida 33515 Palmetto Alliance 2135 i Devine Street Mr. Jesse L. Riley, President Columbia, South Carolina 29205 Carolina Environmental Study Group 854 Henley Place karen E. Long Charlotte, North Carolina 28208 Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice Richard P. Wilson, Esq. P.O. Box 629 Assistant Attorney General Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 S.C. Attorney General's Office P.O. Box 11549 Spence Perry, Esquire Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Room 840 100 Memorial Drive 500 C Street Greer, South Carolina 29651 Washington, D. C. 20472 Mark S. Calvert. Esq. Mr. Michael Hirsch Bishop, Libeman, Cook, Federal Emargency Management Agency Purcell & Pevnolds Office of the General Counsel 1200 17th Street, N.W. Poom 840 Washington, D. C. 20036 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D. C. 20472 Brian P. Cassidy, Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region !

J. W. McCormach P0CH Boston, Massachusetts 02109

ENCL.05URE 20892 Federal Registee / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday, hfay 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

("plannir g standard (b)(12)") which stated that a hit of treatment facilities const;tuted adequate arrangements for reed. cal services for mdividuals who might be es;esed to dangerous levels cf

- radiat.cn at locations offs.te from nuclear power plants CUARD v.NRC.

733 F. d 1144 (D C. C:r.1985). The Coart also vacated certa:n C:mmission decisions wh:ch ap;hed this -

inter;.retation in the Commission proceedmg on operateg beenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Unita 2 and 3 ("SONCS"). However, the Court did not vacate or m any other way d;sturb the operstm SONGS hforeover, g bcenses for the Court's remand left to the Commission's sound d!scretion a w.de range of altematives from which to select en appropriate response to the Court's decision. This Statement of P: hey provides gulden 6e to the NRC's Atomic Safety and ucensing Boards ("Ucensms Boards")

and Atomic Safety and beensmg Appeal Bocrds (" Appeal Boards") -

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

anscrivt cart: Alay 21.1983.

Pon runtwen ineoaMAftom contact:

Sheldon Tr batch. Office of the General Counsel. (:J:)6 M-3 4 syPPLEMENTAnY INFoaMAfloN:

f. Back ground Emergency planning standard (b;(12) pret! des:

(b) The unsite and offsite er9'P2ene) response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:

(12) Arrangements are made for med cal seruces for ccniaminated ir. lured indiudwals.

....m 10 CFR 50 471b!(12).

The scope of this requirement w as an issue of controsersy in the adju$catory

~

proceeding on the adequacy of the emergency plars for SONCS See 10 CFR Poet M general 4. LDp-42 39.15 NRC 1163.

1186 1:00. 1214-1257.1:90 (1982l T6.e Emergency %; Statement of beensms Board concluded that pl ann.ng W standnrd (bill:) required. amors oth:r thir.gs.the development of arranger ents

• . AseMen Nuclear Regulatory for medical services for rnembers af Commission, offsite public who might be exposed to O' ActMHz Statement of Po!!cy on CH8've amounts of radiation as a Emergency Planning Standard to CFR result of a senous ace! dent.1S NRC at 60 47(b)!!21. 11v3 The Ucensms Doard did nct eussasaan ne Uruled States Court of --mespect?y what would corstatute sJcquate fical service arrargements for such Appeals foe the Dietrict of Columbia overenpos are. Howes er. it fourd that Circuit ("D C. Circult' or " Court") has there was no need to, direct the vacated and remanded to the Nuclear construction of hospitf s, the purchen Regulatory Commiselon l"NRC" of '

of espensive equipment. the stotipilingt

Commiselon") that part of its of medicine or any other large interpretation 0110 CFR to.47(b)(12) empenditure, the sole piirpose of which E. g e

Federal Register / Vtl. 50. N3. 98 / Tu:sday May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulati:na 20893 would be to guard against a very remote of area facihties capable of treatmg such have been or will be taken promptly, or accident. Rather, the Ucensing Board injunes.

that there are other compellms reasons beheved that the emphasis should be on Subsequently. Southern Cabfornia to permit plant operauons."

developing specific plans and training Edison prosided a Let of such facdpties people to perform the necessary medical to the ucaosing Board. The Ucanaing For the reasons discussed below. the Commission beheves that ucensing senices.15 NRC at 120. Board found that the list asushed Boards f and, the uncontested situations, The Ucensms Board also found planning standard (b)(12). l.BP-63-47.18 NRC 128 (1963). Thereupon. the staff the staff) may find that applicants w ho pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). that have met the requirements of although the failure to develop amended the San Onofre licenses to remove the emergency plannmg i 50 47(b)(12) as mterpreted by the arrangements for medical services for Commission beforethe CL'ARD decision members of the offsite pubhc who may con & tion previ us,1y imposed. 48 FR and who commit to full comphance with be injured in a senous accident was a 43246(September 1963).

the Cernmiesien's response to the deficiency in the emergency plan. that  !!.no Cemet's Decision CUARD remand mest the requirements deficiency was not slgruficant enough to of l 50 47(c)(1) and, hafm am wattant a refusal to authonsa the in Cuord v. NRC. the Court vacated the Commlulon's laterpretsuon of enntled to hcense con &tional of full issuance of operating bcenaea for comphance wuh the Commisuon's planning standard (b)(12) to the extent SONCS provided that deficiency was re ponse to h CUARD remand.'

that a het of treatment facahnes was cured within six months.15 NRC at found to constitute adequate The Commission telles upon several 1199 (This penod was subsequently .

arrangements for me& cal services for estended by stipulation of h parties.) factors in directm3 the Ucenoms Boards offsite m&viduals a posed to danseroua and. where appropriate.the staff to The Licenams Board provides several levels of ts&suon. 753 F.2d at 1146, reasons whjch supported its finding that consider carefully the applicabihty of 1150). De Court did not rev6ew any 8 50 47(c)(1) for the hmited penod this deficiency was insig:uficant. Among other aspecta on the Commission's necenary to finalize a response to the these were that the posetbihty of a laterpretsuoc of planning standard sertout acc6 dent wee very remote. recent CUARD decision. Because the Ib)(12) . In particular. becamos the Cornmhslon hee not determined how, or algnificantly less than one.in.a.million

• Court's decislon addressed the per year, and that the nature of even whether, to define what constitutes adequacy of castain arrangemaras for adequate arrangements for offetta radiatton esposure injury being only offs.ta in&viduals, the decasion protected against was such that indmduals who have been exposed to does not affect the ernergency planning dangerous levels of redishon. the assilable me& cal services in the area fmdinsa riecessary for low power could be called upon on an cdhoc beste operauon.

Commission betime that untilit

. provides further guidance on this matter, forinjured members of the offstle pubhc. With regard to full. power operation. l.ncensing Boards (or. in uncontested The bcenains Board's Interpretauon the Court also afforded the NRC rnartere, h staff) should first consider was called substant al flentbdity in its of plann.n3 standard into queston by the Appesi (b)(12) Board. reconsiderauon of planning standard the app!!cability of to CML 50 4?(c)(1)

A!.AB-eaa.16 NRC !? (19621. In (b)(12) to pursue any rauonal course. 733 before considenns whether any ad&Uonal acuono are required to den >ing a mobon to stay the ucensing F.2d at 1146. Poss!ble further implement pf anning standard (b)(121 Doard a decistork the AppealBoatd Commission action might range from Such consideration is partcularly suggested that the phrase " contaminated reconsideration of the scope of the apprepnate because the CUARD injured andmduals" had been read too PhSe " contaminated inluted brosdly to include and viduals who were individuals to imposition of"genume, decision leaves open the posobihty ht mo&ficatico or rnaterpretation of snerely irra&sted. in the Appeal arrar'gementa for members of the pubtle planning standard (b)(12) cculd tuult in Board's view, the phrase was hrnited to esposed to dangerous levels of a deternannt on that no pnot in&viduals onsite and offsite wbo had ts&suors /d. Until the Comminion arrangements need to be made for off.

been both contaminated w tth radlauon determtned how it will proceed to rupond to the Court's remand, the atte in6viduals for whom the end traumatically injured. ne record in consequences of a hypothettcal accident San Onofre was found to sup rt a Commteston providn the followtag are hmated to esposure to reistion.

finding that adequate me&ca interim guidanca to the boarda in authortsta and to the NRC staffin in considering the appbcabihty of to arrangements had been made for such , CFR SO 47(c)(1), the Ucensing Boards i in&siduals, inutns.a . power opersung heannee.

land,in sncontuted casu. the staff)

Faced with these 6ffenns  !!!. laterise Guldense should consider the uncertainty over the interpretations, the Commission contmurd vtabihty of the current The Comimesion's regulauona certified to Itulf the issus of the specifically contempletsd certata meaning of the phron " contaminated interpretation of plantnnt standard equitable netphons, of a bmated injured m&viduals Although. that (b)(12). CU-42-::'.16 NRC 66311942), darauors from the requirements of phrase curnntly includes members of After hearing from the parties to the the offote pubhc esposed to high Inels Onofre proceeding and the Fedefal . unoortain San 50 47(b). incloding those presently requirements here at inue. of rs&auen.the CUARD, court has Emeryeney Management Agency Section ga47(c)(1) provideo thau clearly left the Commission the

[ FEMA). the Coramission determined " Failure to meet the appbcable among other things, thet. (1) Planning standarda set forth in paragraph (b) of sia nda td ib)it:) appted io inesidu.is ihissociion ,na resuiiin ih. %8"m

• ' $ ~4 ah han Ome d'ad we'as

• o'a r ' * * -

both onette and offsite:12) Commjasion's hchning to leeue an f," M i Eu'5' E Nei.4e. ' '* E "connmmated tulured individuals" wae operaung bcense; dernonstrate ta the se .es Intended to inctode serwuely irradiated .nm ear 4.tre m .

settefacum of the Cornanission that *'"s"'m oi ski e'eme members of the pubhc andl3) adequate deficiencies la the plane are not medical errangemente for sud injured j'/l'j,7,',,",j,'gfggedad * **h', *',;'/

• stuficant for the plant in queanors that ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,64,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r..

Individuals wou'd be provtded by a tiet adequate interim compensating acuono etm>=ei.u.= ow ii. is cn ein : a s.

_.._____-__-_.___-__---_-_--_-_-____-_-___.______J\____--__._______.--______________-_____- . _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . - - _ - - _ - _ _

20894 Federal Res! star / V:1. 50. No. CJ / Tu:sd:y. hle 21. 1985 / Rul:s cnd Reeulations discretion to " revisit" that definition in a differently, the Ucensing Boards could fashion that could remove esposed reasonably find that any heanns indmduals from the coverage of regarding compliance with to CFR planning standard (b)(12). Therefore. 50.47(b)(121 shall be limited to issues Ucensing Boards (and. In uncontested which could have been heard before the cases, the staff) may reasonably Court's dectoion in CUARD v. NRC c:nclude that no additional actions Dared at Washington. DC this teth day of sh:uld be undertaken now on the May. tees.

strength of the presentinterpretation of g, ,g th:t term.

Moreover, the Commission believes saanuelim ihat Ucensing Boardn (and. In 8'er't8'y */d' C8"88io^

uncontested cases. the staff) could Int Doc. as-12 ts Filed 6-a0-44, s.u em) reasonably find that any de5ciency s u ms onesres s thich may be found in complytag with a finaltsed. post GUAAD planning standard (b)(12) is inalgnificant for the purposes of to CFR 50.47(c)(1).The low probability of accidents wtuch might cause extensive radiation exposure duttng the brief pertod necessary to finalize a Comnussion response to CUAAD(as the San Onofre Ucensing Board found, the probabihty of such an accident la less than one in a milhon per y:ar of operation), and the slow ev:lution of adverse reactions to overexposure to radiation are generic matters applicable to all plants and hcensing situations and over which there is no genuine controversy. Both of th se factors weigh in favor of a findmg

• that any deficiencies between prennt licensee planning (which complies with the Commission's pre CUARD in::rpretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12))

and future plannirig in accordance with th finalinterpretation of plannir,g standard (b)!!2) as a response to the CCARD decision. will not be safety significant for the brief pened in which it takes bcensee to implement the final standard.

In addition, as a matter of equity, the Commleston believes that Ucensing Boards (and,in uncontested cases, the staff) could rea sonably find that there are "other compelkng reasons" to avoid delaying the licennes of those applicants who have comphed with the Commission's pre-CUAAD netion 60 47(b)(12) requirements. Where apphesnte have acted in good faith rehance on the Comminton's prior interpretstion ofits own ation, the reasonableness of tlJs faith tellence indicatu that it would be unfalt O delay licenelns while the Commluton comptetes its responn 36 the CUAAD remand.

Finally,if Ucensing Boarde find that these factors adequately support the application of 10 CTR 80.47(c)(1), then thon Ucensing Boerda sould conclude that no hearings would be warranted. .

. Therefore, until the Commiselon .

concludes its CUAAD romand and instructs its boards and lla staff