ML20137Z333
| ML20137Z333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1985 |
| From: | Joseph Kelly Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Eddleman CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., EDDLEMAN, W., Federal Emergency Management Agency, NORTH CAROLINA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCIES, NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| CON-#485-433 82-472-03-OL, 82-472-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8512110273 | |
| Download: ML20137Z333 (6) | |
Text
_
. /7
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C9cy. ,M-L3Q[
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAfD Before Administrative Judges: IO ppfp7 JamesL.Kelley,Chairmanho)('.Jrm Dr. James H. Carpenter "
,/
M (,7 -
Glenn 0. Bright SERVED DE0101985
)
In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-400-0L
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-472-03 OL) and )
NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL )
POWER AGENCY ) December 9, 1985
- )
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant) )
)
ORDER (Concerning Arrangements for Medical Services)
Mr. Eddleman's Contention 57-C-7, as originally drafted, alleged a number of deficiencies in arrangements for medical treatment and services. The Board rejected most of this contention on various grounds, but admitted a narrowed version of it focusing on the adequacy of lists of hospitals with capabilities to provide treatment for persons suffering radiation injuries. 20 NRC 389, 400-404. Insofar as 57-C-7 sought to challenge the adequacy of such treatment capabilities, we rejected it as barred by the Commission's ruling in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station),17 NRC 528 (1983).
The Applicants subsequently filed a motion for summary disposition of the narrowed version of Eddleman 57-C-7, which the Staff supported. Mr.
8512110273 851209 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR 350a -
Eddleman did not oppose that motion, which the Board granted. Order of February 27, 1985.
Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit set aside the Commission's San Onofre ruling and remanded the case to the Commission for further consideration of the medical services question. Guard v N.R.C. , 753 F.2d 1144 (1983). Mr.
Eddleman then moved that we reconsider our ruling on Contention 57-C-7, as it had been originally submitted, or as it might be modified in light of the Court of Appeals' decision. Motion of March 1, 1985. The Applicant and Staff responded, suggesting that a ruling on the Eddleman motion would be premature in view of the likelihood of forthcoming generic Commission guidance to Licensing Boards on responding to the court's ruling. Responses of March 13 and 15,1985. The Board took no action at that time. On May 16, 1985, the Commission issued its
" Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 C.F.R.
50.47(b)(12)", providing interim guidance on how post-Guard medical service contentions should be addressed.
In the absence of final Commission guidance on this question, the Board must now address Mr. Eddleman's motion to reconsider in light of the Commission's interim guidance and any other relevant considerations.
First, Mr. Eddleman should advise the Board and parties whether he wishes to press his pending motion. If not, that will resolve the matter. If so, the parties are directed to file pleadings addressing the pending motion, including consideration of the following questions (and any other matters they consider pertinent):
9
- 1. Should Eddleman 57-C-7 now be admitted as originally draf ted
-- except for the " list" issue already resolved by summary disposition
-- or in some other modified form?
- 2. If so, state exactly how such a contention should be worded.
- 3. How should any admitted contention be addressed under the Commission's May 16 Statement of Policy?
- a. Would any discovery be necessary?
- b. Could disputed matters be resolved by affidavits, without a hearing?
Pleadings are to be filed on the following schedule:
Mr. Eddleman December 20, 1985 Applicants December 27, 1985 ,
Staff and FEMA December 31, 1985 The Board expects to address and resolve this matter expeditiously.
Reply pleadings will not be accepted without advance permission of the Board.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
, Qa . . . . . / - b!JJs AD(MINISTRATIVEJUDGEJa ps L. Kelley, Chairmafi Bethesda, Maryland
Attachment:
Statement of Policy
20092 Federal Register / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulations or minutes must be retained, under Predicting whether a particular meeting (" planning standard (b)(12)") which will consist of discussions "sufficiently stated that a list of treatment facihties subsection (b) of this section. constituted adequate arrangements for
- * * - - focused on discrete proposals or issues D:ted at Washmston. D C., this teth day of as to cause or be likely to cause the medical services for individuals who M:y,1985. individual participatmg members to might be exposed to dangero s levels of For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory form reasonably firm positions regarding radiation at locations offsite from Comminion. matters pendmg or hkely to arise before nuclear power plants. GUARD v. NRC.
Samuel IXhtlk, the agency" will require nothing short of 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). The Ccurt divmation. And,if the Commission also vacated certain Commission Secretary of the Commi sion. decisions which applied this guesses wrong. there is no remedy Separate Statement on Chairman because if there is no " meeting" there interpretation in the Commission PilladinMunshine Act Rulemaking will be no notice, no transcnpt, and no proceedmg on operating licenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
I fully support the proposal set forth in minutes.
this notice of rulemaking to change the If the Commission insists on going Units 2 and 3 (" SONGS"). However, the forward with the proposed rule. it Court did not vacate or in any other way Commission's Sunshine Act rules.
However. I disagree with the policy should a least have made clear in the disturb the operating licenses for d; cision to use the revised definition of statement of considerations what SONGS. Moreover, the Court's remand a " meeting" during the intenm period change to present practice the rule is left to the Commission's sound dunng which pubhc comments are intended to effect.The Commission discretion a wide range of alternatives rec:ived and a final rule is pubbshed. should have explained, with concrete from which to select an appropriate I doubt the usefulness of such intenm examples, exactly what kind of meetings response to the Court's decision. This rpplication. If, on the one hand, the now held by the Commission will be Statement of Policy provides guidance C;mmission appbes the new definition treated as " gatherings" under the to the NRC's Atomic Safety and nirrowly-that is. if it exempts from the proposed rule. Or, if the intent is to Licensing Boards (" Licensing Boards")
definition of " meeting " only the clearest create a new type of meeting not now and Atomic Safety and Licensing of cases-then it will not gam much of held by the Commission, that should Appeal Boards (" Appeal Boards")
value from intenm application. If. on the have been made clear. pending completion of the Commission's oth;r hand, the Commission applies the I also cannot support the .
response to the D.C. Circuit's remand.
n;w definition broadly, then it risks Commission's decision to make this rule EFFECTIVE DATE:May 21,1985.
potentially counter. productive immediately effective by applying it FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
consequences for its overall objective to while the comment penod runs. A rule changing the manner in which the Sheldon Trubatch. Office of the General conform its rules to the Sunshine Act.
Commission implements the Counsel. (202) 634-3224.
Separate Views of Commissioner Government in the Sunshine Act, an act SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Asselstine the purpose of which was to provide the I approved publication of the public with "the fullest practicable I. Background p e en ng eS s in ct only in ci o aking c sees of the Federal **g"'
II"'I E "" "E * *
- crder to obtain comment on those f,overnment" (P.L No.94-409 l 2). is (b) The onsite and offsite emergency ch:nges. However. I have significant clearly a rule in which the public has an THp nse am nuc at pow" concerns about the difficulty of interest.The Commission should await "'C "
administenng the proposed standard public comment before putting the rule which make it impossible for me to
*"da d
into effect.The Commission has (12) Arrangements are made for andorse the proposed rule. I particularly operated under its present rule for eight medical services for contamina'ed invite comment on the concerns years without catastrophe. Waitmg injured individuals.
cxpressed below- thirty more days for pubhc comment 10 CR 50.4Nb)(12b The Sunshine Act is not an easy act to hardly seems to be an onerous burden. The scope of this requirement was an interpret or to apply.This is the pnmary re son the Commission's present (FR Doc 8b12:17 Filed 5-20 85. 8.45 am) issue of controversy in the adjudicatory regulation was wntten as it was. The aumem caos rswo.m proceeding on the adequacy of the Commission's regulation sets up a bright emergency plans for SONGS. See line for determinmg what constitutes a generally. LBP-82-39.15 NRC 1163.
m;eting and what does not. While the v10 CFR Part 50 1188.-1200.1244-1257.1290 (1982). The Commission may have given up some Licensing Board concluded that planning Emergency Planning; Statement Of standard (b)(12) required. among other fl;xibility when it set up that bright line Policy thmgs. the development of arrangements st:ndard. it did so with a reason. A standard which provided more AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory for medical services for members of flexibility would, of necessity. have Commission. offsite public who might be exposed to been less certain and would have ACTION: Statement of Policy on excessive amounts of radiation as a created problems of interpretation. result of a serious accident.15 NRC at Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 1199. The IJcensing Board did not Adopting a more flexible standard 50.4Nb)(12).
would have made it easier for the specify what would constitute adequate Commission to misapply the Act
SUMMARY
- The United States Court of medical service arrangements for such inadvertently in a particular case. Appeals for the District of Columbia overexposure. However. it found that The standard in the proposed rule Circuit ("D.C. Circuit" or " Court") has there was no need to direct the suffers from just these problems. vacated and remanded to the Nuclear constniction of hospitals, the purchaae r Because the standard is vague and Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or of expensive equipment, the stockpilmg >
subjective. it will be much more difficult " Commission") that part of its of medicine or any other large r to administer than the present standard. interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12) expenditure. the sole purpose of which
I h
Federal Registae / Vol. 50, No. 98 / Tuesday, May 21, 1985 / Rules and RegulationD 20893
. y-
- g. ' =
weeld he to gesed agamst a very remote of area facdities capable of treating such have been or will be taken promptly, or P accident. Rather, the Ucensing Board injuries. that there are other compelling reasons believed that the emphasis should be on Subsequently. Southern California to permit plant operations."
developing specifte plans and fraininr Edison provided a list of such facuities For the reasons discussed below, the g people to perfonn the necessary medical to the Licensms Board.The Ucensing Commission believes that Ucensing services.15 NBC at tagg; Board found that the list satisfied Boards (and, the uncontested situations, planning standard (b)(12). LBp-83-47.18 the staff) may find that applicants who ne th:ensms Board also found. NRC 123 (1983). Thereupon. the staff have met the reqmrements of pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), that amended the San Onofre licenses to i 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the although the failure to develop. rem ve the emergency planning arrangements for medical servfees for Comnussion before the CUARD decision condition previously imposed. 4a FR and who commit to full compliance with members of the oKsite public who may 43246 (September 22,1983). the Commission's response to the
[ be talwed in a sortees accident was a CUARD remand meet the requirements deficiency in the emergency plan, that 11. N Coast's Decision deficiency was not sigmficant enough to of I 5a47(cM1) and thenfom, am in Cuoniv.NRC the Court vacated entitled to license conditional of full warrant a refusalto authonze the the '5 ' '"#s interpretation of compliance with the Commission's issuance of operating licenses for planning standard (b)(12) to the extent SONGS provided that deficiency was response to the CUARD remand.'
that a list of treatment facdities was cured within six mornhs.15 NRC at found to constitute adequate - ne Comminion relies upon several 1190. (his period was subsequently arrangements for medical services for factors in directing the Ucensing Boards extended by stipulationof the partias4 offsite individuals exposed to dangerous and, where appropriate, the staff to ne Licensing Board provides several levels of radiation. 753 F.2d at 1146. consider carefully the applicability of reasons which supportedits Mng1 hat 11506 no Court did not revnew any I 50.47(c)(1) for the limited penod this deficiency was Lasign ficaat. Among- other aspects on the Commission's necessary to finalise a response to the these were that the possibility of a interpretatino of planning senadard recent CUARD decision Because the senous accident weewery senatet. *
(b)(12) . In particular, becauwe 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 natare el %cy of cartain arrangements for. adequate arrangements for offsite radiation exposureinjury being only offsite individuals, the decision, - individuals who han been exposed to pse4eefed against wee such that does not affect the emergency plannmg dangerous levels of radiation, the available medlemi services hr the ever findmgs nera==ary for low power Commission believes that untilit couldba==11=d speson an ad Amo basic operation. -
provides further guidance on this matter, forinjured members of the offsite pubhe. With regard to full power operation. Ucensing Boards (or,in uncontested ne Ucensing Board a Interpretation . the Court also efforded the NRC matters, the staff) abould first consider of planning atandard (b}[12) was called substantial Dexibility in its the applicability of10 CFR 50.47(c)(11.
into question by the Appeal Board. reconsideratson of planning standard before considermgwbether any ALAB-eeecte NRC 127 (1982). fir-(b)(12) to pursue any rational course,753 additional actions are requimd to denying a motion to stay the Ucensmg F.2d at 1148. Possible further implement planning standard (b][12).
Boards decision the Appeal Board Commission action might range from Such consideration is particularly suggested that the phrase " contaminated reconsideration of the scope of the appropriate because the CUARD' injured indtudunid' had been ased too phrase " contaminated injured decision leaves open the possibility that broadly to inak=le indivuinais erho were individus!s" to imposition of " genuine" modification or reinterpretation of severeiy irradaated. la the Appeal arrangements for members of the pub!!c planning standard (b)(12) could result in Board's view. thaphrase was lauted la exposediadengsmus levels of a determination that no prior individuals onsits and e5mie who had ., radimeland Until the Commission arrangements need to be made for off.
d=e===a==rt how it will proceed to site individuals for whom the been both contaminated with radiation and treamiatically injund. hrecord hi ; respondsethe Courts remand, the consequences of a hypothetical accident Commianian provides the followin8 are limited to exposure to radiation.
Saa Ommenom fened 2 suppasm ; , latedm gaMance to the boards in finding that adogmaas nedseal&.e In considering the applicability of 10 authertuime,and to the NRC staff la CFR 50.47(c)(1), the Ucensing Boards arrangements had been made for suelo luukg a Asu-power operaung hcenses. (and, in uncontasted cases, the staff) individuals. ( w should consider the uncertainty over the Faced with these differing ; t HL Interna Calanc.
interpretations. the Commiseica . ' )e' "lieCaramission's regulations c ntinued viability of the current certifiedteItastethslugusof11e 7; speciftsaBy contemplated certain meanmg f the phra,se contaminated injured individuals. Although, that interpretuttaa of stand ==i equitehle excepdons, of e Iknited phrase currently includes members of (b)(12). (IInf dtuaman, from the requirereents of the offsite public exposed to high levela .
After . 3s tus San 50N(b). including those pienently f radiation.the CUARD. court has Onoise psessedlag . Federal unomrtain requirements here at issue, clearly left the Conuninion the hemagsmagg sare6ne 50M(cR1) provtdes that:
(FEMA), r==-'= M "Failuso to meet the applicehle
%cansees who have alreah obtamed operame among ctbar things, thst! ~. standards set forth in paragra ph (b) O(
h'*"*** ba.ed on comphance we m.
I- standardMGS) this section may result in the both M a
M1 Commissian's Maing to issue an. [3 g [ e, contaminatet was operatinglisensas demonstrate to the com. i.co.,m wie , dief.r.no eterpretauen of that pianma6atandani er em isessaded WISM _ IY*MV satisfactioEsf AlheColamisesos that ***""hF en esemptma would be wM r===hase dge publig: , e deGcienciesin the plana are not
- medical'arsengemente significant for the plaat in questsom that. [. tf,(),",,e4 i.,g",, .p c individeals M be y. 2 %, a liel- adequate interim compeneating acticas - enforcement acneen pursenet to to crH rest 26 sus.
w.
~
',% s-YNYWD"I
- i 5.M #7 M^' Nf [.
discretion to " revisit" that deAnition in a- ditB@.' ' I 1' IQ4 ' ash
^
fashion that could recove exposed resonably find that m, 1 - N Individuals from the coverage of regardingcompliance . k, #
M 3'
- 4 M O - 7"
^- '
O ~m planning standard (b)(12),herefore. . 50.47(bMt2) shall be ucensing Boards (and. la issonatested ' which could have been s. 4*4 d ee Court's decielon in GUAMv.NRCP%i 0' ,ay ejeW cases, the staff) may reeeemabiy ,
conclude eat no additionalactions '- U " '~
should be undertaken now on the y' Dated at ~
~v "IEd.~~ F W -88"" t *%~- ["O 4
streng f the present interpretation of r h "b ~ .
- H ~
7 #"~ ."#""
Nem b heoreover, the l'ammisman believes that Licanaine Boards (and la 8""II N ' * W* YO : and SecreraryofF N
{
uncontested cases, the staff)could reasonably find that any deSciency (FR Doc. 85-1221s filedanspegsatI63sthl A ,
saAa e coca reno. ewe , *w . s, e s
~' E*MMMlk. ft ' 4 , kz~ '
I l
~
whichinay be found in eessplying with a .'oJ.4 ,ew n l
' '* 9 t finalized, post-GUARDplemming . J ,, .- g % ,
0 st:ndard (b)(12) is insignineant for the ggg g g,ggyQtg , _. , gw j- <-
am' a f.
purposes of10 CIR 50.47teg1).%e low g g _. ,
probability of accidents which might 4.g , .- w .3 7,. .: g, aew I , '
Wj cnuse extensive radiation exposure 12 CFR Parte 708. 748 and 700M % I
F* %* I during the brief period necessary to .* M 2.
fin:lize a Commission response to e g gggg GUARD (as the San Onofr:1Jcensmg ,,,,u,, ggg, a m ..w ,s 3 )
Botrd found, the probabilitiof such an Aeasecy:NationalCreditUniesc er- 4o.'" WMEM accident is less than one la a uniman per Administration (NCUA).
yIar of operation), and the slow , . . Jg' @/>
?D ' PART . .: . .~ ..
746-(MMbe*N -
H v ts f "a Acnoet Final rule., - 3.%e e3thysity el4ation;4aetta CM w '.
svolution of adverse reacticos to ._.
Part745 is savised to seed assfollows y.qt overexposure to radiation are generic ausssaany:This matters applicable to all plants and tion maku &me ' 'and any'au6erity citatiostfollowing any ' : ;
licensing situations and over which technical changes NCUA at$ord, sech@ 7h ====a===d , i in order to correct citations an update i there Ia no genuine those factors contrave[a weigh in favor .aflading .Boeregional of office information. Masmmwemmfum 17ea ' # - m %m ,, f.m ,
th:t any deficiencies betereestpresent EFFECTIVE DATE:May 21.1965. % :
licensee planning (which osepties with anna.ne. Natianal Credit Union- IYI O , .s s
thi Commisston's pre-GUARD ~ Administration,1776 G 8treet NW., ,
4MCFRHIOWis manaMC ,' .
Interpretation of 10 CFR 80.4?(bX12)) . Washington, D.C. 20436. changing the olisties fresa4m to ,
,~
and future planning in accordance with the finalinterpretation of planning Pon MR3eIR WP0nssADON CoastACT: ,
Hattle M. Man. Staff Attorney ' < u i 701.23.J *W'
-4
- J-%O F A c-standard (b)(12) as a response to the' -
GUARD decision. will not be safety Department of Legal Services, at the ' PART- 796={AMl' eJ ' J WM above address or telephone:(302) 357 L %e maahestly estation fuehw significant for the briei period in which Part 790 wommene med as h; d it takas licensee to implement the final 1030.
serndard. suretassnerTAny essPonesanose %me . Authority Sec120.TSStat.essf12U.iCl
- treet sec. eso, es stat.tosttts U.mc.vesf, A
. In addition, as a matter of qquity, the technical emiendments are being usade -
to the NCUA Regulations. ne first le to mdees odemse nosed. . > e m. - m ;
Commission believes that Ucansing ,
Boards (and. In uncontested cases, the i 703.3(e)(12 CFR 703.3(e)) where a typographicalerror in a citation is g 700.2 (Aessneedl I.1 C. I stiff) could reasonably find that there W M apparing in 6 McX1) I are "other compelling reasons" to avoid corrected. De second is to I 745.3(d) (12 la revised to read as follows: /, l dilaying the licensees of those CFR 745.8(d)). A regulation referred to in , , , , ,
~ '
4 epplicants who have complied with the 1745.3(d) has been renumbered. %fs :
amendment makes the appropriate "' (c) , , ,. l Commission's pre-GUARD section " **'
50.47(b)(12) requirements. Where change to l 745.3(d).%e last (1) *
- l
~ ' '
applicants have acted in good faith amendment is to I 790.2(c)(1)(12 CFR . l reliance on the Commission's prior 790.2(c)(11).This Sectica contains a a.ema j,,, ,,;, ,,,,,, '
' 3,, ,,,,,, ;"r i
intsrpretation of its own regulation, the chart of NCUA's regional offices, their I
,,,,,,,4;,,p - %,;;;tg,; g, w reasonableness of this good faith addresses, and the states which each of , c reliance indicates that it would be unfair the regional ofBem serve. Some of the - mm w esem ?- t l
to delay ifcensing while the Commission information contained in the chart has
"""**'s- *="*'""*"'
completes its response to the GUARD changed since its last publication in the m".,w n"."a Es. ' l Federal Registee.%e amendment . - im"*' **'a=* 14 remand.
Finally,if Ucensing Boards find that updates the information found in Abe? oM*o"m,s .e me a some saw, chart. omsen u=vi=s thsse factors adequately support the ame rum "-
l I
application of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), then those Ucensing Boards could conclude No regulatory analysis has been made for these amendments since they are 7*
went
'7 ,
that no hearings would be warranted. merely technical amendments for a
'" %"" E ,'e't7,'.,g***" "
Derefore, untd the Commission concludes its GUARD remand and typographical error, a renumbenng and an updating of regionaloffice g"
L ,,',""
se==, *A seser. -
n-instructs its boards and its staff information. . caama revemene W'
. t
?
Y l
_