ML20214N530
| ML20214N530 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1986 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#386-697 CLI-83-10, OL, NUDOCS 8609160336 | |
| Download: ML20214N530 (12) | |
Text
491 e
2 KEttF bHN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATCRY COMMISSION 12 R202 C0t'MISSIONERS:
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman OFFICd u a.. ;, a Thomas M. Roberts 00CKETING *. ITt V!G BRANCH James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr SEVED SEP 151986 In the Matter of SOUTilERN CALIFORNIA EDIS0ft DOCKET N05. 50-361 OL
- COMPANY, 50-362 OL (San Onofre fluclear Generating
~
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
)
REMAND ORDER INCL 1-83-10,17fRC528(1983), the Commission interpreted 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)") as applicable to individuals both onsite and offsite, construed "cuntaminated 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 NRC at 536-37. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (" Court") held that the Comission had not reasonably interpreted planning standard (b)(12) when it generically found that a pre-accident list of treatment facilities ccnstituted
" arrangements" for post-accident medical treatment of radiologically-expcced members of the public. CUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 0609160336 860912 PDR ADOCK 05000361
[h()1.
s 0
2 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
For this reason, the Court vacated and remanded the relevant portion of CLI-83-10.
In a Policy Statement issued contemporaneous 1y with this Order and attachcd hereto, the Consnission re-affirms its prior construction of planningstandard(b)(12)asapplicabletobothonsiteandoffsite individuals and to individuals suffering only from severe radiological exposure but otherwise uninjured. However, in response to the Court's remand, the Comission inust interpret " arrangements" to require more
~
than the development of a list of area treatment facilities.
Nonetheless, the necessary additional arrangements need not be elaborate. As set out in the attached Policy Statement, the Consnission has concluded that the arrangements required under planning standard (b)(12) should include (1) a list of local or regional medical treatment facilities and transportation providers appropriately annotated to show their capacities, special capabilities or other unique characteristics, (f) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or local or state governments to facilitate or obtain written agreements with the listed medical facilities and transportation providers, (3) provision for making available necessary training for emergency response personnel to identify, transport and provide energency first aid to severely exposed individuals, and (4) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or state or local governments to see that appropriate drills and exercises are conducted which include simulated severely-exposed individuals.
The Comission has directed the staff to develop, consistent with the attached policy statement and within 60 days, detailed and specific
e i
3 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 ccnznercial 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 appropriateness of training, and drills or exercises associated with the handling of severely exposed persons.
This matter is renianded to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
~
and should be held in abeyance until the staff's detailed, generic guidance on planning standard (b)(12) is issued and implemented. Upon receipt of that guidance, the Board should initiate appropriate proceedings to consider the adequacy of the applicant's emergency medical arrangements with due regard to the attached Policy Statement and subsequent generic staff guidance.
It is so CRDERED.
Fo the Comn sion
- E s
\\
Et o
/ "SA1UEL J. ClilLK g
4
- g it Secretary of the Commissien 4
Dated at Washington, D.C.
this l day of september, 1986 Commissioner Carr was appointed Commissioner after this order was affirmed by the Commission.
lie did not participate in this action.
~
i5D01 fluCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Emergency Planning - Medical Services AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission ACTION:
Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)
SUf EARY: The Nuclear Regluatory Comission ("fiRC" or "Comission")
believesthat10CFR50.47(b)(12)("planningstandard(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 informed judgment of the NRC staff, subject to general guidance from the Cemission, the exact parameters of the minimally necessary drrangements for fredical services. To fulfill this mandate the staff (and FEliA) will issue appropriate guidance to ifcensees, applicants, and state and local governments.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
(" Court") vacated and remanded a previous Comission interpretation of planningstandard(b)(12)whichrequiredonlythedevelopmentand maintenance of a list of treatment facilities on which post-event, ad hoc arrangements for tredical treatment could be based. CUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Pending final Comission action in
m
. [7590-01]
response to the GUARD remand, the Commission 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 requirements of planning standard (b)(12) as interpreted by the Commission prior to GUARD, and where the applicant committed to full compliance with the Commission's final response to the GUARD remand.
The Commission'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.
~
EFFECTIVE DATE:
September 17, 1986 FOR FURTHER INFCRMATI0ft CCNTACT:
C. Sebastian Alcot Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cennission, ifashington, D.C.
20555. Telephone (202) 634-3224.
SUPPLEMENTARY IllFORf'ATICft:
I.
Introduction In the wake of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the Nuclear Regulatory Cor. mission ("NRC" or " Commission") prcmulgated regulations requiring its licensees and applicants for licenses to operate commercial nuclear power reactors to develop plans for emergency responses to accidents at their facilities. Among those requirements was 10 CFR 50.47(t)(12) (" planning standard (b)(12)"), which provides:
e [7590-01]
(b) The onsite and offsite emergency response plan for nuclear 4
power. reactors must meet the following standards:
(12) Arrangements are made for medical services for 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) (" SONGS decision"), the Commission itself faced for the first time the question whether planning' standard (b)(12) applied to members of the public who 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 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)planningstandard (b)(12) applied to individuals both onsite and offsite; (2) " contaminated injured individuals" was intended to include seriously irradiated members of the public as well as members of the public who are not seriously irradiated but also are traumatically injured from j
other causes ard 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 list of local treatment facilities.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit i
~
concluded that the Commission had not reasonably interpreted planning
\\
, [7590-01]
standard (b)(12) when it generically found that a pre-accident list of treatment facilities constituted " arrangements" for post-accident medical treatment. GUARD v. NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1985). For this reason, the Court vacated and remanded that part of the Comission'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 clear that the Comission had on remand, in its sound discretion, flexibility in fashioning' a reasonable interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).
II. Arranaements Beyond A List Of Treatment Facilities Required
^
then originally faced with the question whether the phrase " contaminated injured individuals" was interded 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 in the regulation itself or its underlying documents. Nonetheless, the Commission concluded that the prudent risk reducticn purpose of the Comission's regulations required interpreting planning standard (b)(12) to apply to such offsite exposed individuals, given the underlying assumption of the NRC's emergency planning regulations that a serious accident could occur and the Comission presumption that such an accident could result in offsite Individuals being exposed to dargerous levels of radiation (a presumption concurred in by the Federal Emergency Managenent Agency). After reconsideraticn of
e
' [7590-01]
this matter following the GUARD decision, the Comission has decided to re-affirm this prior interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).
However, the Commission 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 Commission focused on the particular needs of offsite exposed individuals for emeroency medical treatment of their radiation injury.
In this fashion, the Comission made a distinction between the need for imediate 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 Commission found that:
the special hazard is posed by the radiation exposure to the patient. The nature of radiation injury is that, while medical treatment may be eventually required in cases of extreme exposure, the patients are unlikely to need emergency medical care (footnote omitted). The non-i mediacy 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 Comission reasoned that the long-term treatment needs of exposed individuals could'be adequately met on ad_ hoc basis.
After reconsideration in light of the GUARD decision, the Comission has concluded that some additional planned arrangements beyond the development of a list of treatment facilities are necessary to provide additional assurance of effective management of emergency medical services in the hours or days following a severe accident. However, the
4 [7590-01]
Comission continues to believe that the long-term treatment needs of exposed individuals can be adequately met on an ad hoc basis.
The minimally necessary arrangements for the person that may be exposed need not be elaborate. As previously stated by the Commission, "[i]t was never the intent of the regulations to require directly or indirectly that state and local governments adopt extraordinary measures, 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 Comission believes that satisfactory arrangements should include (1) a list of local or regionaT medical treatment facilities and transportation providers appropriately annotated to show their capacities, special capabilities or other unique characteristics, (2) a good faith reasonable effort by licensees or local or state governments to facilitate or obtain written agreements with the listed medical facilities and transportation providers, (3) provision for making available necessary training for emergency response personnel to identify, transport, and provide energency first aid to severely exposed individuals, and (4) a good faith reasonable-effort by licensees or state or local governments to see that appropriate drills and exercises are conducted which include simulated severely-exposed individauls.
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. This level of planning would help
4
-7
[7590-01]
(1) provide additional assurance of the cooperation of medical facilities, (2) ensure proper training, (3) ensure the availability of transportation, and (4) demonstrate a capability to provide necessary services through drills 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 commercial 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 appropriateness lof training, and drills or exercises associated with the handling of severely exposed persons.
The Commission has determined that the arrangements contemplated under this Statement of Policy are the minimum required by a reasonable reading of planning standard (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 6 50.109 (1986), for a cost-benefit analysis and a finding that the costs of the modifications are justified by a substantial increase in safety are not applicable, l
since these modifications fall under the backfit rule's exception for modifications necessary to bring facilities into compliance with a rule l
I
4 2
- 8 ~-
[7590-01]
of the Commission. 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 Commission identified three factors which justified an interim policy of granting applicants for full-power license an equitable exception to the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) where the applicant '
satisfied the requirements of planning standard (b)(12) as interpreted by the Commission prior to the GUARD decision and committed itself to-full compliance with any additional requirements imposed by the Ccmm'ission 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 delay in compliance with the post-GUARD requirements could be fcund to be insignificant 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 had relied in good faith upon prior Commission interpretation of planning standard (b)(12).
In this Statement of Policy interpreting planning standard (b)12) the Commission directs the NRC staff to develop (in consultation with FEMA) 4 6
4 9_
[7590-01]
e and issue by 11/17/86 appropriate detailed guidance on the exact contours of the necessary arrangements consistent with the Commission's determination that planning standard (b)(12) require arrangements for medical services (beyond the maintenance of a list of pre-existing treatment facilities) for offsite exposed individuals. The Commission believes that the last two factors, discussed 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 appropriate detailed guidance consistent with this policy statement is issued and implemented, the Licensing Boards may continue to reasonably find that any hearing regardina compliance with 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited-to issues which could have been heard before the Court's decision in GUARD v. NRC.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this l } d l ' ' day of September, 1986.
For e Nuclear Regulatory Commission
/
O
(
SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary of the Ccmmission
.