ML20138M333

Requests Confirmation That Offsite Emergency Plans Include List of Local or Regional Medical Facilities Capable of Providing Treatment for Radiation Exposure Prior to Issuance of OL

ML20138M333
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/25/1985
From:	Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Harrison R PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
References
NUDOCS 8511010130
Download: ML20138M333 (6)

Text

- - . . - .- ... - - . . - --.

OCT 2 51985 Docket Nos.: 50-443 DISTRIBUTION and 50-444  : Docket File 50-443/444.  ;

NRC PDR l

LPDR - BGrimes t

Mr. Robert J. Harrison NSIC EJordan

President and Chief Executive Officer PRC System ACRS (16)

~ Public Service Company of New Hampshire LB#3 Rdg Post Office Box 330 JLee >

! Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 VNerses Attorney, ELD

Dear Mr. Harrison:

JPartlow

Subject:

Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) i Regarding the Seabrook Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2 i

The recent Comission Statement of Policy on Emergency Plannino Standard 2 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), published in the Federal Register (50 FR 20892) May 21, 1985, deals with arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured I

individuals, and provides Interim Guidance (see Section III of the Federal l Register Statement, copy enclosed) with respect to the recent court decision i

GUARD vs NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D. C. Cir. 1985). The Interim Guidance states j the Comission's belief that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested cases, .

the staff, may find that applicants who

I (1) have met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Comission before the GUARD decision, and l (2) comit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand, meet the requirements of 50.47(c)(1) and, therefore, are entitled to a license on the condition of full compliance with the Comission's forthcoming response  !

j to the GUARD remand.

Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Seabrook you are required to formally (1) confinn that offsite emergency plans include a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to pro-vide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) comit to full compliance j with the Comission's response to the GUARD remand.

i Sincerely,

! wisawAL Stunr.o af I B511010130 851025 PDR

{ ADOCK 050004 3 George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 i Division of Licensing j

Enclosure:

As stated 1 cc: See next page

) rs i

)

Aff. 3 VWer f/yt DL GW ton '

I 10/2,2G5 10/ /85 3

1 1 1

_- _ - - - ~ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ -

. . \

Mr. Robert J. Harrison Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Nuclear Power Station ec:

Thomas Dignan, Esq. E. Tupper Kinder, Esq.

John A. Ritscher, Esq. G. Dana Bisbee, Esq.

Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State Hosue Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire Resident Inspector Post Office Box 330 Seabrook Nuclear Power Station Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Comission <

1 Post Office Box 700 Dr. Mauray Tye, President Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Sun Valley Association 209 Sumer Street Mr. John DeVincentis, Director Haverhill, Massachusetts 01839 Engineering and Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company Robert A. Backus, Esq. 1671 Worchester Road O'Neil, Backus and Spielman Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 116 Lowell Street i

Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. A. M. Ebner, Project Manager United Engineers & Constructors Ms. Beverly A. Hollingworth 30 South 17th Street 7 A Street Post Office Box 8223 Hampton Beach, New Hampshire 03842 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 William S. Jordan, III I

Mr. Philip Ahrens, Esq.

Diane Curran Assistant Attorney General i Hamon, Weiss & Jordan State House, Station #6 20001 S Street, NW Augusta, Maine 04333 Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009 Mr. Warren Hall 4

Jo An, shotwell, Esq. Public Service Company of Office of the Assistant Attorney General New Hampshire Environmental Protection Division Post Office Box 330

One Ashburton Place Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 i Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq. Ms. Jane Doughty General Ccursel 5 Market Street Public Service Company of New Hampshire Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Post Office Box 330 i Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. Diana P. Randall

' 70 Collins Street Regional Administrator, Region I Seabrook, Nes Hampshire 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission '

631 Park Avenue Richard Hampe, Esq.

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency 107 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 l

\

7_______.

Public Service Company of Seabrook Nuclear Power Station i New Hampshire cc:

1 Mr. Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Mr. Alfred V. Sargent,

, City Hall Chairman 1

126 Daniel Street Board of Selectmen 1

Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Ms. Letty Hett ,, Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Town of Brentwood U. S. Senate

. RFD Dalton Road Washington, DC 20510 Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 (Attn

Tom Burack)

Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Senator Gordan J. Humphrey Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 1 Pillsbury Street Drinkwater Road Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844 (Attn: Herb Boynton)

Ms. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Owen B. Durgin, Chairman Town of Kensington, New Hampshire Durham Board of Selectmen i RDF 1 Town of Durham l East Kingston, New Hampshire 03827 Durham, New Hampshire 03824 Charles Cross, Esq.

l Chairman, Board of Selectmen Shaines, Hardrigan and J

Town Hall McEaschern South Hampton, New Hampshire 03827 25 Maplewood Avenue 1

Post Office Box 366

!' Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Board of Selectmen t for the Town of Newbury i Newbury, Massachusetts 01950 Mr. Guy Chichester, Chaiman l Rye Nuclear Intervention j

Ms. Cashman, Chairman Committee Board of Selectmen c/o Rye Town Hall i Town of Amesbury 10 Central Road j Town Hall Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913 Jane Spector Honorable Richard E. Sullivan Federal Energy Regulatory

, Mayor, City of Newburyport Comission i Office of the Mayor 825 North Capital Street, NE

! City Hall Room 8105 i Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Washington, D.'C. 20426 l Mr. Donald E. Chick, Town Manager Mr. R. Sweeney Town of Exeter New Hampshire Yankee Division 10 Front Street Public Service of New Hampshire Exeter, New Hampshire 03823 Company 7910 Woodmont Avenue Mr. William B. Derrickson Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Senior Vice President Public Service Company of New Hampshire Post Office Box 700, Route 1 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 i

f

- - . . _ - . _-- . , . , _ ~ . . . , , _ _ _ . . , - . . , , - - - - -. _ -

l 7 L lh. I Viu f L 20092 federal Register / Vol. 50 No. 9a / Tuesday. May 21, 1985 / Rules and Regulations 1

(" planning standard (b)(12)"l which stated that a !ist of treatment facilities l constituted adequate arrangements for i medical services forladividuals who might be exposed to dangerous levels cf

, radia!!an at locations offshe from nuc! car power pla nt s. CUARD v. NRC, 753 f.2d 1844 (D.C. Cir.1985). The Court also vacated certain Cs:nmission decisions which applied this -

ir.terpretation in the C:mt.issisn proceeding on operating licenses for the San Onofre Nucles. Generating Ststion.

Units 2 and 2 ("SONCS"). Hewever, the Court did not vacate or in any other way disturb the operating wenses for SONCS. Moreover, the Court's rema nd left to the Comminsion's sound discretion a wide range of alternatives frorn which to select an appropriate response to the Court's decision. This Statement of Po!!cy provides guidance to the NRC's Atomic Safety and ucensing Boarda ("Ucensing Boards")

and Atomic Safety and ucensing l Appeal Boards ("Appes1 Boards") .

pending co:npletion of the Commission's response to the D.C. Circuit's remand.

,, EFFtcTrVE Daft:May 21.1985. ,

F081 FURTNEA INFOR M ATION CONTACT: f Sheldon Trubatch. Office of the General l

Counsel (202) 634-3224. -

7

- sveruMtxTAr.y twFoaM ATIOpr:

L Background i

- , Emergency planning standard (b)(12) preddes: *

(b) The unsite and ofhite emergency l response plans for nuclest power  !

reactors must meet the following standards: i (12) Arrangements are made for raedical services for contaminated injured individuals.

to CFR 50.47(b)(12).

The scope of this requirement was en issue of controversy in the adjudicatory proceeding on the adequscy of the emergency plans for SONGS. See generally. WP-82-39.15 NRC 116".

to CFT: Part 50 1186.-1*D0.1244-1:57.1200 (1982). The Ernergeocy Ptanning15tatement of Ucensing Board concluded that planning g standard (b)(12) required. amorg other

. things.the development of arrangernents

.. Acencr.N. clear Regulatory for medical services for members af

.. Commission. o:Tsite public who might be exposed to Acnoec Statement of Policy on excessive amounts of radiation as e

, Emergency Planning Standard to CFR result of a senous accident.15 NRC at t

50.4 7[b)(12). 1199. The Ucensing Board did r.ct specify what would consti:ute adequate i

suuuAAr.The United States Court of medical service arrariernents for such l Appeals for the District of Columbia overexposare. However. it four:d that l

CJrcuit ("D.C. Circult" or " Court") h a e there waa no need to direct the vacated and remanded to the Nuclear construction cf hospibs.the purcha.e Regulatory Commission ("NRC' or of espensive equipment.the stonpilinet

• • Commisalon") that part of its of medicine or any otherlartte interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12) eapenditure the sole purpose of which

.. . . . . ~ . . ~ . . _ . .

' ~

fedtral ' Register / Vol. 50. No. 9a / Tuesday". May 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulations 20a93 i

would be to guard against a very remote of arte facilities capable of treenna euch hewe been or will be taken promptly or accident. Rather. the Ucensing Doerd injunes. that there are other compelling reasons believed that the emphasis should be on Subsequently. Southern Californla to permit plant operationa."

developing specific plane and training Edison prodded a Ust of such facilities for the tvuono diecussed below the

people to perform the necessary medical to the Ucenslag Board. The Ucenaici Commission believes that ucensing i services.15 fiRC at 1200. Board !ound that the tist eatisfied a ( 1 p6 7. is Boude (a'nd. h uncontested situatione.

The Ucensing Board eleo found.

pursuant to 10 CIR 50.47(c)(1). that "[' j the eteff) may find theI applicants who

"' " " * * " I l although the fallute to develop 8""ded the San Onofre i C'""8 I l 50.47(b)(12) es interpreted by the

! arrangements for medical services for members of the offeite public who may

"]ioprs'io y p a FR Commission befort the CUARD decision

'"d

• h '#'"*i' ' t"u **

• PII'"C' *1Lh 4324e (September 22.1943).

be Iniend in a serious occident was a the Commirsion e response to the deficiency in the emergency plan. that 11.The Court's ru t- CUARD remand meet the requiremente deficiency was not significant enough to In Cuord v.NRC the Court vocated of I 27(c)(1) and. therefore, are warrant a refusal to authorue b ther -taalon's intarpntados of entided to license conditional of fuu issuance of operatlag uceaua for planning standard (b)(12) to the extent compliance with the Commiesion's SONCS provided that deficiency wee that a list of tnetment facilities wee '"P**** to the CUARD remand.'

cured withia six months.15 NRC at found to coneutute adequate The Comminion tellee upon several i 1199.(This period wee subsequently . errengements for medical services for factors in directing the Ucenslag Boards eatended by stipulation of the parties.) offeite individuals exposed to dangerous and, where appropriete. the etaff to The Ucensing Board provides several levels of redieuon. 753 F.2d at 1166. consider carefully the opplicability of noons which supported its BadIng that 11501.The Court did not review any I 50.47(c)(1) for the !!mited period this deficiency was insignificant. Among other aspects on the Comrninion's necenery to fine!in a response to the I these were that the possibility of a laterpreta tion of planning standard

' recent CUARD decielon. Because the serious acddent wee very remote. (b)(12). !a particulaa. becanne the significandy fees than one-in+million Commission has not determined how. or

• Court's decielon addrened the even whether, to define whot constitutes per year. and that the nature of adequacy of certala arrangementa for adequate arrangements for offeite radiation exposure injury being only offsite individuals b dedsion. Individuele who have been exposed to protected against wee 'sech that dou not affect b emergency planning dangerous levels of todiadon. the avallable medical services la b eres findings necessary forlow power Comminion believes that untilit could be called tipon on an odhoc basic operetion. . 4 provides further guidance on thle matter, for injured members of the offeite public.  %'ith regard to full. power operetion. Ucensing Boards (or. In uncontested

'the Ucensing Boerse laterpretation the Court sieo afforded the NRC matters, b staf!) should first consider of planning standard (b)(12) was caUed subetantial Sexibility la its the applicability of to CR 50.47(c)(1) into question by the Appeal Board. reconalderation of planning standard before considering whether any AI.AS-eco.13 NRC 127 (1982). In (bM12) to punue any retional course, m additianal actions are required to den 34 ag a motion to stay the Ucensing F.2d at 1144. Poselble further implement planning etendard (b)(12).

. Boar (e decision, the Appeal Board . Commi,nion action might range from Such considerstion is particularly suggested that the phrsee " contaminated neensuiunden of the scope of the appropriate because the CUARD injured individuale"had been read too phrou contaminatedinjured

' decision lesvez open the pouibility thet

. broadly to include individuate who were indMduals to imposidon of" genuine- modificatfoo or reinterpretation of 4

severely itudiated. In the Appeal arrarigements for members of the public p! arming standard (b)(12) could result in Board's view, the phrase wa s limited to exposed to dangerous levels of a determinetion that no prior individuals onsite and oITeile who had radiationdd. Until the Commluton arrangemente need to be mede for off.

been both contaminated with radiation determined how it will proceed to nspond to the Court a mmand, b site individuale for whom the end trauma tically injured. The record in consequences of a hypothetical accident Sea Onofn wee found to support a ","g",I" [,, "h are lim ted to eaposure to redietion.

finding that adequate medical In c nsidering the applicability of to

! arrangemente had been made for each ' authorizing. and to the NRC staff in UR W7(cX1), b Uansing Boards individuale. luulng e fu!!. power opereting licemes (and. In uncontested cases, the etaff)

Faced with these differing  !!L !sterbe Cura-

• should consider the uncertainty over the interpretations, the Commission

• The Comminion's reguladona , continued viability of the current certified to itself b taeue of the specifically contemplated certein meaning of the phrese "contemineted interpretation of planrririg standard equitable exceptions, of a limited injund individuals." Although. that (b)(12). CU-42-27.16 NRC sa3 (19a2). duretion, from the requireroente of phrese currentlyinclude: members of After hearing frorn the parties to the San 50.47(b). Including bee preuntly the offsite public exposed to high level.

Onofre proceeding and the Fedefel - uncertain requirements bere at iaeue. of rediedon the CUARD. court hes ,

Emergency Management Agency Section 50.47(c)(1) provides that: clearly left the Commission the l

(FEMA). the Coramission determined " Failure to meet the applicable '

I among other things, thee (1) Planning standarda eet forth in peregreph (b) of 'ta==== -6. ha" stmdr *Wm hemnas etendard (b)(12) applied to individuale this section mey result in the "a* bad ="**phaaca ** **

both oneite end offeite:(2) Cornmission*e declining to luue an C*"'"

, $ ,'y*"]**d"'C Z ,*,*4 ', $ **

"conta mina ted injured individuals" wa s operating licenn; demonstrate to 6 .. ,s ,,,, ,,,, . . , 4,t r ,,,,,

f intended to indude seriously irradiated estisfaction of the Comminion bt "u' dom'aa* *8 ***amma suadad = =

\ members of the public: and (3) adequate deficiencies in the plans are not " e'- '""*+d medical arrangemente for such injured significant for the plant in question that ,'.'$",'a, C-h'",'$'4 r s a ,,'*" w"*a

~ *'ald

,',7,/,',, .. 6*

in<lividuals would be provided by a tiet adequate intenm compenseting actione eal m .a a e . .. to cra em a xx.

I *

' 208h ' Fedtral Register' / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday.' .%.y 21. 1985 / Rulee and Regutslions tliscretion to 'revielt" that definition in a differently, the Ucensing N,ards could

'*shion that cou!J remove uposed reasonably find that e .f hearing

'viduate from the coverage of regording compliance with to CFR

.tning standard (b)(12).nerefore. 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues ucensing Boards (and. in unconteated which could have been heord before the cases.the stalT) may reasonably Court's decision in CUARD v.NRC

• conclude that no additional actions Deted et Weeklostoa. D.C. this teth day of should be undertaken now on the u,,, m ngth of the present interpretation of Moreover, b Commisalon believes 5'""*3I N

• thet Ucenalag Boards (and.la S*entory of de Comsdes Am.

uncontested caen, the staff) could Int Dec.as-tute ru.d s-ao-u: sm eml -

re:sonably And that any de5ciency espo caos n which may be found la complying with a flaa!Ized, post CUARD plemains st:ndard (b)(12)la lasignlAcant for b purposes of to CFR 5447(c)(1).ne low probability of accidents which might cause extenalve radiation exposure during the brief period necenary to An:!!se a Comunisalon nesponse to CUARD(as the Sea Onofre Ucensing soard found, the probabt!ity of such an

~ accident is less than one la a af1! Ion per year of operation), and the slow evol: tion of adverse reactions to overexposure to radiation are generic matters applicable to all plante sad licanalng situations and over which there la no genuine controversy. Both of de those factors weigh la favor of a finding

• that any deb 4-4*e between present liansee planning (which complies with

'caunission's pre CUARD

• jretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12)) .

m reture planning la accordance with the finst laterpretation of pleaning ,

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

• CUARDdecision.willnot be safety signincent for the brief period la wh!ch it takes licensee to implement the final standard.

la addition, as a matter of equity. 6 Commission believes that Ucensing

• soards (and. la uncontested casea the staff) could reasonably End that there are "other compel! Lng reasons to avoid deladng the liernsees of those )

spplicants who have complied with the -

l Commission'a pre CUARD section '

30.47(b)(12) requirements. Where i i

app!! cants have acted la good faith "

roll *::rce on the Comtnisalon's prior interpretation ofits own regulation. the re:sonableness of this good faith rs!!ance indicates that it would be unfalt t) delay !! censing while the Commission completes its response A6 the CUARD .

remind.

Finally. if Ucensing Boards find that these factors adequately support the  ;

application of to CFR 50.47(c)(1). then '

t>-<e Ucensing Boards could conclude f a hearings would be warranted. ,,  ;

.\ lore, until the Commission cu cirdes its CUAAD remand and instructs its boards and its staff

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __