ML20206L560
| ML20206L560 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood, 05000000, Crane |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Kammerer C, Parler W, Stello V NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 M860731B, NUDOCS 8608200221 | |
| Download: ML20206L560 (16) | |
Text
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
/
S I
o UNITEJ STATES f
g NUCLEAR RE ULATORY COMMISSION M
g a
w AsHINGTON, D.C. 20066
% *****4 August 8, 1986 OFFEE OF THE
~
MCRETARY k
v( h MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
g (p, LN g' Executive Director for Operations William C. Parler, General Counsel Carlton Kammerer, Director Office of Congressional Affairs Joseph J. Fouchard, Director Office of Public Affairs
,l FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta (
})
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFI FhhrION/DISCUSSIONAND VOTE, 3:30 P.M.,
THURSDAY)
JULY 31, 1986, COM-MISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I.
SECY-86-203 - Aamodt Application for Reimbursement for Participation in the TMI-l Restart Proceeding The Commission, by a 4-0 vote, approved an order denying an application to the Commission by Marjorie and Norman Aamodt for an award of attorney fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) for their participation in the Three Mile Island, Unit 1 restart processing.
The Commission order cites a recent court decision ruling that Section 502 of the Commission's Appropriation Act, Public Law 99-141 (November 1, 1985) prohibits the payment of EAJA awards to intervenors in NRC proceedings.
(Subsequently, on July 31, 1986 the Secretary signed the Order.)
II.
SECY-86-221 - Braidwood--Draft Order Taking Commission Review of Subpoena Issuance The Commission, by a vote of 4-0, approved an order directing the Braidwood Licensing Board to certify the relevant record of the adjudication to the Commission in order to resolve a dispute over whether the Braidwood Licensing Board's issuance of a subpoena to a particular individual would compromice an ongoing investigation by the Office of Investigations.
The Commission also directed the Board to refrain from taking the action contemplated in the Board's July 22, 1986 " Notice of Intent" pending Commission disposition of the matter.
(Subsequently, on July 31, 1986 the Secretary signed the Order.)
kD fohfj860008 PT9.7 pDR
i.
III.
SECY-86-168 - Final Revision of 10 CFR Part 35 " Medical Use of Byproduct Material"
~
The Commission, by a 4-0 vote, approved the final revisions to 10 CFR Part 35 subject to the following:
1.
All misadministrations resulting in a whole body dose greater than 500 mrem or an organ dose of 2 rem (assuming a conservation weighting factor of four) should be reportable to the NRC as well as to the patient's attending physician.
Records of all misadministrations, regardless of dose, should be retained by the licensee and subject to review by NRC inspectors.
The commission also agreed that the staff should develop a standard report format to ensure uniform and complete reporting of medical misadministration data and that reporting requirements for therapeutic and diagnostic misadministrations should now be made an item of compatibility for Agreement State status.
2.
The rules should be modified to retain the requirement of prior NRC approval for changes in procedures that are potentially important to safety including but not limited to those involving leak testing, radioactive surveys, calibration of instruments, equipment quality assurance procedures and changes in areas used within a facility which would affect ventilation and the use of xenon-133 gas.
Minor changes in procedures that are not important to safety need not have prior NRC approval.
The final rule should be modified as noted above and forwarded to SECY for signature and publication in the Federal Register.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense 9/15/86)
A public announcement should be made and the appropriate Con-gressional Committees informed when the Commission publishes the rule.
Appropriate licensees should be sent copies of the new rule.
(EDO/OCA/OPA)
(SECY Suspense:
9/15/86)
IV.
SECY-86-184 - Emergency Planning - Medical Services The Commission, by a 4-0 vote, approved a policy statement and order as (as attached) in respond the Guard remand.
The policy statement and order should be revised as noted on the attached copies and returned for signature and publication in the Federal Register.
(OGC)
(SECY Suspense:
9/15/86)
e.
As noted in the policy statement, the NRC staff is to prepare appropriate guidance for licensees and applicants to implement the policy statement.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
11/15/86)
Attachments:
As stated cc Chairman Zech Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commission Staff Offices PDR - Advance DCS - 016 Phillips
a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Emergency Planning - Medical Services AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)
Su MARY: The Nuclear Regluatory Comission ("NRC" or "Comission")
believes that 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)") requires
~
pre-accident arrangements for medical services (beyond the maintenance of a list of treatment facilities) for individuals who might be severely exposed to dangerous levels of offsite radiation following an accident at a nuclear power plant. While concluding that planning standard (b)(12) requires such additional arrangements, the Comission leaves to the infomed judgment of the NRC staff, subject to general guidance from the Comission, the exact parameters of the minimally necessary arrangements for medical services. To fulfill this mandate the staff (and FEIM) will issue appropriate guidance to licensees, applicants, and Y
state and local governments.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(" Court") vacated and remanded a previous Comission interpretation of planning standard (b)(12) which required only the development and oN maintenance of a list of treatment facilities Jeone which post-event, ad
)(
hoc arrangements for medical treatment could be based. GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Pending final Comission ar' ion in
, [7590-01]
response to the GUARD remand, the Commission had issued a statement of interim guidance which permitted, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), the issuance of full power licenses where the applicant satisfied the requirementsofplanningstandard(b)(12)asinterpretedbythe Comission prior to GUARD, and where the applicant committed to full compliance with the Commission's final response to the GUARD remand.
The Comission's prior interim guidance will continue to govern the issuance of full power licenses until issuance and implementation of the NRC staff's specific guidance on this matter at which point the new policy will apply.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
===1.
Background===
In the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission ("NRC" or "Comission") promulgated regulations requiring its licensees and applicants for licenses to operate comercial nuclear power reactors to develop plans for emergency responses to accidents at their facilities. Among those requirements was10CFR50.47(b)(12)("planningstandard(b)(12)")whichprovides:
(b) The onsite and offsite emergency response plan for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:
(12)Arrangementsaremadeformedicalservicesfor contaminated injured individuals.
In Southern California Edison Company, et al. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10,17 NRC 528 (1983) ("SCNGS decision"), the Comission itself faced for the first time the question whetherplanningstandard(b)(12)appliedtomembersofthepublicwho
e [7590-01]
were exposed to offsite radiation following an accident at a nuclear power facility but were not otherwise injured and, if so, to what extent.
In considering this question, the Commission sought the views of the parties in the SONGS proceeding.. reviewed the principal purposes of the planning standard, analyzed the likelihood of serious exposures
{
J to the public requiring emergency medical treatment, and evaluated the type of emergency treatment likely to be required. Based on this review, the Commission concluded as a generic matter that:
(1) planning l
standard (b)(12)appliedtoindividualsbothonsiteandoffsite, I
(2) " contaminated injured individuals" was intended to include seriously irradiated members of the public as well members of the public who are not seriously irradiated but also are traumatically injured from other causes and radiologically contaminated, and (3) adequate, post-accident arrangements for necessary medical treatment of exposed members of the public could be made on an ad hoc basis if emergency plans contained a d
list of local treatment facilities.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Comission had not reasonably interpreted planning standard (b)(12) when it generically found that a pre-accident list of treatment facilities constituted " arrangements" for post-accident medical treatment. GUARDv.NRC,753F.2d1144(D.C.Cir.1985).
For this reason, the Court vacated and remanded that part of the Ccmission's SONGS decision that had interpreted planning standard (b)(12) to require only the preparation of a list of local treatment facilities. However, in doing so, the Court made cicar that the
- [7590-01)
Comission had on remand, in its sound discretion, flexibility in fashioning a reasonable interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).
II. Arrangements Beyond A List Of Treatment Facilities Required r
After{+--m jreconsideration of this matter following the GUARD TA es p
decision, the Comission has decided to re-affirm 46e. prior interpretation planningstandard(b)(12) applies to i dividual l
oth onsite d offsite, an that the term " ontaminate injured I.
individual includes se ously irradiate members of the publ
,evenJ l
ghought y are not o erwise physicall injured.[Whenoriginallyfaced with the question whether the phrase " contaminated injured individuals" was intended to encompass, inter alia, members of the public who, as a result of an accident, were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, the Comission found no explicit and conclusive definition of the phrase l
in the regulation itself or its underlying documents. Nonetheless, the Commission concluded that given the underlying assumption of the NRC's j
cmergency planning regulations that a serious accident could occur and j
the Comission presumption that such an accident could result in offsite individuals being exposed to dangerous levels of radiation (concurred in by the Federal Emergency Management Agency), the prudent risk reduction purpose of the Comission's regulations required interpreting planning g standard (b)(12) to apply to such offsite exposed individuals. [In }
I Fre nsidering th sue, the Comis on h been per aded hat a i
diffe nt in al in rpretation as e scope of cove e of th (plannin tandard(b)(1,.
which ould requ arra ments a for
- [7590-01]
those offs e members of the pub ic who are traumatic ly injured and radiolog ally contaminated, i not reasonable.
f L
However, the Comission has come to a different result with respect to the minimum arrangements necessary for individuals who might be seriously exposed, but not otherwise injured in a radiologic emergency.
In originally resolving the scope of arrangements issue, the Comission focused on the particular needs of offsite exposed individuals for emergency medical treatment of their radiation injury.
In this fashion, the Comission made a distinction between the need for immediate or
~
near-term medical care, which was in its view the goal of planning standard (b)(12), and the need for long-term medical care. As to exposed individuals, the Comission found that:
the special hazard is posed by the radiation exposure to the patient. The nature of radiation injury is that, while medical treatirent may be eventually required in cases of extreme exposure, the patients are unlikely to need emergency medical care (footnote omitted). The ncn-immediacy of the treatment required for radiation-exposed individuals provides onsite and offsite authorities with an additional period of time to arrange for the required medical service.
17 NRC 535-36. From this, the Ccmission reasoned that the long-term treatment needs of exposed individuals could be adequately met on ad hoc basis.
l l
linvcc, After reconsideration in light of the GUARD decision, the Comission has concluded that some additional planned arrangements i
beyond the development of a list of treatment facilities are necessary hn Order to ensure the ::;rg r.cy adicel Licai.mem, vi Uic..ee. -Lem peoasaa 4on svo unt.
M e m s n **< c
- y;;; tem; cf ;;vare redietivi. c 9 uaoic and to aw we effective management of A
of emergency medical services [patenthll; mrbrdencyin the hours or days following a severe accident. H.w su sa rr e. < a n ne u /*,v c..are vw as, T.
n ateeum rm v a s-
- 4..w r e.it re rw mar rr e vr eveseo tt, g r e b d O s A/ Q t (J o ta st M L $>
L. A ni 43 6 A d d b % A*TC Y
fi tsT e rv C3Q e
AN A<A Hee a A.sa s.
.y O
s-s [7590-01]
r-he level of offsite radiation exposure easonably likely to result to member of the public from low-probability se re accident would t
seldom constit e an immediate threat to life or li requiring emergency medical i rvention. Based on the empirical ata available, N
bebwa100remwhole-bo dose, clear-cut precursory symp ms are not expect to occur. The probab ty of an accident resulting offsite exposures significant numbers of dividuals in excess of a 10 em whole-body dos is extremely low. Nonet less, low-probability releases poter.tially resul g in some offsite exposur in excess of this level arepossibleanddopkideareasonablebasisfor me emergency planning considerations.
by pu blic b l%G vvus 5 b yO55 u d Cd5d Oddu Od b bc
[ %d y
~
IC aycb p1:r= d fer 2 e minimally necessary arrangements for these (see personf14k;b te b: ::= Qexposedneednotbeelaborate. As tH4r nny ise previously stated by the Commission, "[i]t was never the intent of the regulaticns to require directly or indirectly that state and local governments adopt extraordinary measurcs, such as construction of additional hospitals or recruitment of substantial additional medical
. personnel, just to deal with nuclear plant accidents." 17 NRC at 533.
Rather, the Commission believes that satisfactory arrangements should o tt ot ts.s e o s. n a m <- s include (1) a list ofhm44ed] local t-w facilities and transportation providers appropriately annotated to show their capacities,.special capabilities or other unique characteristics, characteristis;ev- (2) a goed faith reasonable effort by licensees oR t. <. a a et s rs+re. c a v an uaa ~ rs to facilitate or obtain written agreements with the listed
~
4 medical facilities and transportation providers, (3) provision for making available necessary training for emergency response
. personnel to identify, transport, and provide emergency first
ha _
aid to severely exposed individuals, and (4) a good-faith eR ST4TE o tt L
- c a4 L G-o u eA v ri era /7-5 reasonable e.ffort by licensees to see that appropriate drills and exercises are conducted which include simulated severely-exposed individuals.
If good faith efforts are not successful in a particular case, the licensee shall provide or arrange for adequate compensatory measures, consistent with the Commission's intent to limit the need for extraordinary measures noted above.
The compensatory measures must be approved by NRC.
ret our c e d o o. re ams t 4 s s *<t4 aic e This level of planning would help (l(eneesethecooperation Y
of medical facilities, (2) ensure proper training, (3) ensure the availability of transportation, and (4) demonstrate a l
capability to provide necessary services through drills and exercises.
l l
l l
l l
f i
. [7590-01]
femer ncy first aid to severel exposed individuals, d (4) the conduct l of app opriate drills and exerci es which include simula ed' severely exposed individuals. Thi level of planning woul help (1) ensure the cooperation of medical fa ilities, (2) ensure pro er training,(3 ensure the availability transportation, and
)
demonstrate a c ability to provide neces ary services through ills l
)
and exercises.
The Commission has directed the staff to develop, consistent with this interpretation of the planning standard, detailed and specific guidance on the nature of the medical services to be available to exposed individuals and on the application of planning standard (b)(12) to NRC licensees and applicants for licenses to operate comercial nuclear power reactors. The Commission has also directed the staff to consider whether and under what criteria it is necessary or appropriate for the staff to verify the[xtec.; nd] appropriateness of h: i;1iz:f]
training,@<Wr:n] and drills or exercises [for.Tedi:21 2M
- e=]associatedwiththehandlingofseverelyexposed tr:r P ++t'--
ei.
persons.
The Commission has determined that the arrangements contemplated under this Statement of Policy are the minimum required by a reasonable readingofplanningstandard(b)(12). Accordingly, although implementation of this reading of the standard will entail some additions to, and some modifications of, the emergency procedures and organizations for which licensees are ultimately responsible, the requirements of the backfit rule,10 CFR $ 50.109 (1986), for a cost-benefit cnalysis and a finding that the costs of the modifications
' [7590-01]
are justified by a substantial increase in safety, are not applicable since these modifications fall under the backfit rule's exception for modifications necessary to bring facilities into compliance with a rule of the Comission. See 10 CFR $$ 50.109(a)(2) and (a)(4) (1986). The analysis which the backfit rule requires be done to justify the
-application of any of its exception provisions constitutes the core of this Statement of Policy. See Id.
III. Interim Guidance In its prior statement of policy, the Connission identified three wiucA factors Mjustified an interim policy of granting applicants for i
full-power license an equitable exception to the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) where the applicant I
satisfied the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) as interpreted j
by the Connission prior to the GUARD decision, and committed itself to full compliance with any additional requirements imposed by the Connission in response to the GUARD remand. Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), 50 FR 20891 (May 21, 1985). The three factors were:
(1) the possibility that the scope of planning standard (b)(12) would be limited, (2) the possibility that compliance with the post-GUARD requirements could be found to be insig-nificant due to the low probability of accidents during the interim
. period, and-(3) the possibility of "other compelling reasons" justifying a brief exception where applicants relied in good faith upon prior Consnission interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).
L l
l
i
- [7590-01]
InthisStatementofPolicyinterpretingplanningstandard(b)12),
the Comission has directed the NRC staff to develop (in consultation 60 DAYS withFEMA)andissueby appropriate detailed guidance on the exact contours of the necessary arrangements consistent with the Comission's determination that planning standard (b)(12) require arrangements for B evan o medical services ( ther th= the maintenance of a list of pre-existing treatment facilities) for offsite exposed individuals. The Comission believes that the last two factors, discussad in detail in its May 21, 1985 Statement of Policy, continue to justify reliance on the interim guidance for the period necessary for the NRC staff to issue and licensees, applicants, and state and local governments to implement the detailed guidance. Therefore, until[th: '"'O in) appropriate detailed as sas u co n.oc o z nn s erstH rdo guidance consistent with this policy statement, the Licensing Boards may A.
continue to reasonably find that any hearing regarding compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues which could have been heard before the Comission's decision in GUARD v. NRC.
For the Comission SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the Comission Cated at Washington, D.C.
this day of June, 1986.
6 UllITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION i
C0m!SSIONERS:
i Nunzio J. Palladino, Chair 1 nan Thomas M. Roberts James K. Asselstine l
Frederick M. Bernthal Lando W. Zech, Jr.
)
In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
)
DOCKET NOS. 50-361 OL COMPANY.-
)
50-362 OL
)
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
REMAND ORDER In CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528 (1983), the Comission interpreted 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)") as applicable to individuals both onsite and offsite, construed " contaminated injured individuals" as including members of the public who were exposed to dangerous levels of offsite radiation following an accident, and held that the requirement that there be " arrangements... for medical services" was satisfied by the development of a list of area medical treatment facilities.
17 tiRC at 536-37. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals or the District of Columbia (" Court") held that the Comission ha/ not l
reasonably interpreted planning standard (b)(12) when it generically found that a pre-accident list of treatment facilities constituted
" arrangements" for post-accident medical treatment of radiologically-exposed members of the public.
GUARD v. t:RC, 753 F.2d l-
2 1144(D.C.Cir.1985). For this reason, the Court vacated and remanded relevant portion of CLI-83-10.
Ir. a Policy Statement issued contemporaneous with this Order and attached hereto, the Comission has re-affinned its prior construction of planning (b)(12) as applicable to both onsite and offsite individuals and to individuals suffering only from severe radiological exposure but otherwise u'ninjured. However, in response to the Court's remand, the Comission must interpret " arrangements to require more than the development of a list of area treatment facilities. Nonetheless, the necessary additional arrangements need not be elab' orate.
As set out in the attached Policy Statement, the Comission has concluded that, the arrangements required under planning standard. (b)J12) should include evu p d -
.r.
(1) a list of[:: cdited] local treatment facilities and' transportation e
p 'p/j provide appropriately annotated to show their capacities, special capabilities or other unique characteristics, (2) written agreements r
g d
with the listed medical facilities or transportation providers (3) provision of necessary training for emergency response workers to identify, transport and provide emergency first aid to severely exposed individuals, and (3) the conduct of appropriate drills and exercises which include simulated severely-exposed individuals.
The Cosmission has directed the staff to develop, consistent with
(,o.193 the attached policy statement and within detailed and specific guidance on the nature of the medical services to be available to exposed individuals and on the application of planning standard (b)(12) to NRC licensees and applicants for licensees to operate comercial f
3 e
nuclear power reactors. The Comission has also directed the staff to consider whether and under what criteria it is necessary or appropriate for the'. staff to verify the7entent= sad} appropriateness of{pH=WM]
r training, E;f; :ahand drills or exercisesEf= =et=
- =
os4 ge %g fPnw m t:ti-- - --- f :: /associatedwiththehandlingofseverelyexposed c* @ [
persons.
("
6 This matter is remandedM to the Atomic Safety and Licensing c, 4
- Board and should be held in abeyance until[in;== -J]A MM +.
~
the staff's detailed, generic guidance on planning standard (b)(12)
Upon receipt of that guidance, the Board should initiate appropriate proceedings to consider the adequacy of the applicants emergency medical arrangements with due regard to the attached Policy State' ment and subsequent generic staff guidance.
~
It is so ORDERED.
For the Comission SAMUEL J. CHILK Secretary of the C0 mission Dated at Washington, D.C.
this day of June, 1986.
-..i-.
i-O