ML20138H145

Informs That Util Must Commit to Full Compliance W/ Commission Forthcoming Response to Guard Remand & Confirm That Emergency Plans Include List of Local or Regional Medical Facilities Which Can Treat Exposure Cases

ML20138H145
Person / Time
Site:	Byron, Braidwood, 05000000
Issue date:	10/23/1985
From:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Farrar D COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
References
NUDOCS 8510280275
Download: ML20138H145 (8)

Text

.. -- -_._ _ .. - _ _ _ .

Y' '

o na y

ff 3 -[ gg o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f- W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555

, p

%, ...../ OCT 2 31985 Docket Nos.: STN 50-455, STN 50-456 and STN 50-457

, Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Director of Nuclear Licensing Comonwealth Edison Company Post Office Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690

Subject:

Interim Guidance on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12)

Regarding Byron Station, Unit 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2 As we informed you by telephone on September 26, 1985, the recent Comission Statement of Policy on Emergency Planning Standard 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12), pub-lished in the Federal Register (50 FR 20892) May 21, 1985, deals with arrange-ments for medical services for contaminated injured individuals, and provides Interim Guidance (see Section III of the Federal Register Statement, copy en-closed) with respect to the recent court decision GUARD vs NRC, 753 F.2d 1144 (D. C. Cir. 1985). The Interim Guidance states the Commission's belief that Licensing Boards, and in uncontested cases, the staff, may find that appli-cant's who:

(1) have met the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the Comission before the GUARD decision; and (2) comit to full compliance with the Comission'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 to the GUARD remand.

i i

er e

8510280275 851023 hDR ADOCK 05000455 PDR

1 .

Mr. Dennis L. Farrar j Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Byron Station, Unit 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, you are required to fonnally (1) con-firm that offsite emergency plans include a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to provide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.

Sincerely, W 9%-

8. J. Youngblood, Chief g,,LicensingBranchNo.1 Division of Licensing 4

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page i

l L

1

l

. . . . - . . .... . l

. .Twe R 19 95 "eMa 20892 Fed:.r:I Register / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tuesday. May 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulations

(" planning standard (b)(12)") which stated that a list of treatment facihties constituted adequate arrangements for rnedical services for ind;viduals who might be exposed to dangerous levels cf radiation at locations offs;te from nuclear power plar.ts. CUARD v. NRC.

753 F.2d 1144 (D.C. Cir.1983). The Court also vacated cr tain Commission decisions who o apphed this -

interpretation L. the Cc:nmission proceetling on opera ting licenses for the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Units 2 and 3 (" SONGS"). However the Court did not vacate or in any other way disturb the operating licenses for SONGS. Moreover, the Court's remand left to the Commission's sound discretion a wide : ange of alternatives from which to select an appropriate response to the Court's decision. This Statement of Po! icy provides guidance to the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (" Licensing Boards")

and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards (" Appeal Boards") .

pending completion of the Corr. mission's response to the D.C. Circuit's remand.

EFFaCTive c ATE:May 21.1985.

FOR PURTMER INFORMATION CONTACT Sheldon Trubatch. Office of the General Counsel. (202) 634-3224.

SUPPttMENTARY INFonMATioN:

L Background

. ' i nergency planning standard (b)(12) provides:

(b) The onsite and offsite emer2enry response plans for nuclear power reactors must meet the following standards:

(12) Arrangements are made for medical services for contaminated injured individuals.

to CFR 50.47(b)(12).

The scope of this tequirement was an issue of controversy in the adjudicatory

- proceeding on the adequscy of the emergency plans for SONGS. See M Cm M M generally. LDP-82-39.15 NRC 1163.

1186.-1200.1244-1257.1290 (1982). Tt.e Emergency Planningt Statement of Licensing Board concluded that planning W standard (b)(12) required. among other things, the development of arrangernents

, Asasect: Nuclear Regulatory for medical services for members of

~' Commission. orisite public who might be exposed to AcTioet Statement of Policy on excessive amounts of radiation as a Emergency Planning Standard to CFR result of a serious accident.15 NRC at 50.47(b)(12). 1199.The Licensing Board did nel specify what would constitute adcquate SussesARY:'!he United States Court of medical service arrangements for such Appeals foe the District of Columbia overexposare. However. It found that Circuit ("D.C. Circuit" or " Court") has there wee no need to dire:t the l

vacated and remanded to the Nuclear construction cf hospit:Hs. the purchnee Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or of empensive equipment the stoc'a piling

" Commission") that part ofits of medicine or any other large interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12) expenditure the sole purpose of which

l i

l Federal Regist:r / Vol. 50. No. 98 / Tursday. May 21. 1985 / Rulzs cnd Regulstions -

20893 would be to guard against a very remote of area facilities capable of treating such have been or will be taken promptly. or accident. Rather. the Ucenting Board injuries. that the e are other compelling reasons believed that the emphasis shou'd be on Subsequently. Southern California to permit plant operatione.

developing specific plans and training Edison provided a list of such facilities For the reasons discussed below, the people to perform the necessary medical to the Ucensing Board.The Ucanaing Commission believes that Ucensing services.15 NRC at 12ca Board found that the list satisfied Boards (a'nd, the uncontested situations.

He Ucensing Board also found, planning standard (b)(12).1.BP-43-47.18 the staff) may find that applicants who pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1), that NRC 128 (1963). Thereupots. the staff have met the requirements of although the failure to develop amended the San Onofre licenses to i 50.47(b)(12) as interpreted by the arrangements for medical services for remon the ernergency planning condition previ ly imposed. 44 FR Commission beforethe CUARD decision members of the offsite public who may and who commit to full compliance with be injured in a serious accident was a 43246 (Septem 1283). the Commission's response to the deficiency in the emergency plan, that  !!.no Court's Daciales CUARD remand meet the requirements deficiency was not significant enough to d i Sa47(cH1) and. Genfom. am In Coord v. NRC. the Court vacated warrant a refusal to authorize the the Comminion's interpretation of entitled to hcense conditional of full issuance of operating licensea for planning standard (b)(12) to the extent compliance with the Commission's SONGS provided that deficiency was rf 8Ponse to the CUARD remand.8 that a list of treatment facilities was cured within six months.15 NRC at found to constitute adequate ne Commission telles upon several 1199. [his period was s ubsequently . arrangements for medical services for factors in directmg the Ucensing Boards extended by stipulation of the parties.) offsite individuals exposed to dangerous and, where appropriate, the staff to The Licensing Board providas several led. of radiadori. 753 F.2d at 1146. consider carefully the applicability of ressons which supported its findmg that t150).ne Court did not review any I 50.47(c)(1) for the limited period this deficiency was insignificant. Among other aspects on the Commission's necessary to finalize a response to the these were that the possibility of a interpretation of planning standard recent CUARD decision. Because the serious accident was very remote. (b)(12) . In particular, becanae 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 nature of adequacy of cartain arrangements for adequate arrangements for offsite radiation exposure injury being only offsite individuals, the decision. individuals who have been exposed to protected against was such that does not affect the emergency planning dangerous levels of radiation. the available medical services la the area find.ngs necessary for low power Commission believes that untilit could be called upon on an adhoc basic operation. . provides further guidance on this matter.

forinjured members of the offsite public. With regard to full-power operation. Ucensing Boards (or,in uncontested ne Ucensing Board's Interpretation the Court also afforded the NRC matters the staff) should first consider of pianning standard (b)(12) was called substantial Dexibility in its the app!!cability of to CHL 50.47(c)(1) into question by the Appeal Board. reconsiderstion of planning standard before considering whether any Al.AB-680,16 NRC 127 (1962). In (b)(12) to pursue any rational course 753 additional actions are required to denying a motion to stay the Ucensing F.2d at 1146. Possible further implement planning standard (b)(12).

! . _ . Board's decision. the Appeal Board . Comenission action might range from Such consideration is particularly l

suggested that the phrase " contaminated reconsiduation of the scope of the appropriate because the CUARD injured individuals" had been read too phrase " contaminated injured decision leaves open the possibility that i . broadly to include individuals who were individuals" to imposition of " genuine" modification or reinterpretation of severely irradia*ed. In the Appeal arrangernents for members of the public planning standard (b)(12) could result in Board's view, the phrase was lunited to exposed to dangerous levels of a determination that no prior individuals onsite and offsite who had radiation./d. Until the Commiulon arrangements need to be made for off.

been both contaminated with radiation determined how it will proceed to site individuals for whom the end traumatically injured. ne record in resp ad to the Court s remand, the consequences of a hypothetical accident San Onofre was found to support a Commission provides the following are limited to exposure to radiation.

finding that adequate medical interim guidance to the boards in in considering the applicability of to arrangements had been made for such ' authorizing. and to the NRC staff in CFR 50.47(c)(1). the Ucensing Boards individuals. Inuing. a full-Poww OPenting licensaa (and,in uncontested cases, the staff)

Faced with these differing  !!L Interim Guidance should consider the uncertainty over the interpretations. the Commission The Commission's regulations , continued viability of the current certified to itself the issue of the specifically contemplated certain meaning of the phrase " contaminated interpretation of plarming standard equitable exceptions, of a limited injured individuals. Although. that (b)(12). C11-62-27,16 NRC 883 (1962). duration, from the requirements of phrese currently includes members of After hearing from the parties to the San 50.47(b). including thoaa presently the dsite public exposed to high levels Onofre proceeding and the Fedefd - unwrtain requirements bere at issue. of radiation. the CUARD. court has Emergency Management Agency Section Sa47(c)(1) provides that: clearly left the Commission the (FEMA). the Coramission determined " Failure to meet the applicable among other thing , that-(1) Planning standarde set forth in paragraph (b) of 'La*==mbo haa alr**dy obiam=d oper= ties atendard [b)(12) applied to individuals this section may result in the '***"b'"d*"'**#'*"**

both oneite and offsite:(2)

" contaminated injured individuals" was Commission's declining to inaue an operating license: demonstrate to the D$'iGijC'i.4.D *"'

e i Wi. wiet ear derfa==e intended to inchade seriously irradiated satisfaction of the Commission that We'Prttaho of that phamme standard or se members of the public: and (3) adequate deficiencies in the plans are not ['j,$F,l*J,'yQ$d y,*,[*,"'*d' medical arrangements for such injured significant for the plant in question, that . ,n ,ag i 4 e. wi..no. .r Individuals would be provided by a list adequate laterim compensating actiona ._

.: .co n pure = eat w na crR ran : me.

e - +-- - - - - - - - - - - -e- ' "-- -~ * ' - ' " - " ~ "

'20894 Fed:rd Register / Vd. 50. No. 98 / Tutsday. Me 21. 1985 / Rules and Regulations

.- discretion to " revisit" that definition in a differently, the Ucensing Boards could fashion that could remove exposed reasonably find that any heanng individuals from the coverage of regarding compliance with to CFR planning standard (b)(12).Therefore, 50.47(b)(12) shall be limited to issues Ucensing Boards (and, in uncontested which could have been heard before the cases. the staf!) may reasonably Court's decision in GUARD v.NRC -

c nclude that no additional actions Dated et Weekington. DC this teth day of should be undertaken now on the - y, y, 3,g, strength of the present interpretation of ,, g,,

that term.

Moreover the Commission believes S** d I M that Ucensing Boards (and. In Sect'to'y */'A' Co**i88/*"-

uncontested cases, the staff) could (F1t Doc.as-1221s Filed N Eu eml reasonably find that any defic'ency - onesrene w s which may be found in complytag with a finalized, post CUARD planains st:ndard (b)(12) is insignificant for the purposes of to CFR 50.47(c)(1). The low proDability of accidents which might cause extensive radiation exposure durias the brief period necessary to finalize a Commission response to GUARD (as the San Onofre Ucensing Board found. the probability of such an accident is less than one in a mi!! ion per year of operation), and the slow evolution of adverse reactions to overexposure to radiation are generic m:tters applicable to all plants and licensing situations and over which there is nu genuine controversy. Both of those factors weigh in favor of a finding -

that any deficiencies between present .

licensee planning (which complies with th2 Commission's pre-CUARD interpretation of to CFR 50.47(b)(12))

and future planning in accordance with

~~

th2 final interpretation of planning st:ndard (b)(12) as a response to the -

CUARD decision, will not be safety significant for the brief period in which l It takes licensee to implement the final i

standard.

l In addition, as a matter of equity. the Commission believes that Ucensing Boards (and. In uncontested cases, the st:ff) could reasonably find that there are "other compelling reasons' to avoid dilaying the licensees of those cpplicants who have complied with the Commission's pre CUARD section 50.47(b)(12) requirements. Where cpplicants have acted in good faith re:iance on the Commission's prior interpretation ofits own regulation, the reasonableness of this good faith reliance indicates that it would be unfair t 3 delay licensing while the Commission completes its response 36 the GUARD .

remand.

Finally,if Ucensing Boards find that th:se factors adequately support the l application of to CFR 50.47(c)(1), then those Ucensing Boards could conclude i that no hearings would be warranted. .

Therefore, until the Commission concludes its CUARD remand and instructs its boards and its staff 4

Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Commonwealth Edison Company Byron /Braidwood cc:

Mr. William Kortier Dr. Bruce von Zellen Atomic Power Distribution Department of Biological Sciences Westinghouse Electric Corporation Northern Illinois University Post Office Box 355 DeKalb, Illinois 61107 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Joseph Gallo, Esq. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Byron / Resident Inspectors Office 1120 Connecticut Ave., N. W. 4448 German Church Road Suite 840 Byron, Illinois 61010 Washington, D. C. 20036 Ms. Diane Chavez C. Allen Bock, Esquire 528 Gregory Street Post Office Box 342 Rockford, Illinois 61108 Urbana, Illinois 61801 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Thomas J. Gordon, Esquire 1907 Stratford Lane Waaler, Evans & Gordon Rockford, Illinois 61107 2503 S. Neil Champaign, Illinois 61820 Douglass Cassel, Esq.

109 N. Dearborn Street Ms. Bridget Little Rorem Suite 1300 Appleseed Coordinator Chicago, Illinois 60502 117 North Linden Street Essex, Illinois 60935 Ms. Pat Morrison 5568 Thunderidge Drive Mr. Edward R. Crass Rockford, Illinois 61107 Nuclear Safeguards and Licensing Division David C. Thomas. Esq.

Sargent & Lundy Engineers 77 S. Wacker Drive 55 East Monroe Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Rebecca J. Lauer, Esq.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Isham, Lincoln & Beale Resident Inspectors Office Three First National Plaza RR#1, Box 79 Suite 5200 Braceville, Illinois 60407 Chicago, Illinois 60602

i .

d Byron /Braidwood I

cc:

Regional Administrator

, U. S. NRC, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Erie Jones, Director Illinois Emergency Services and Disaster Agency 1 110 East Adams Springfield, Illinois 62705 Ms. Lorraine Creek Rt. 1, Box 182 Manteno, Illinois 60950 Mr. Michael C. Parker, Chief Division of Engineering Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, Illinois 62704 i Michael Miller Isham, Lincoln & Beale One First National Plaza

. 42nd Floor Chicago, Illinois 60603 Jane M. Whicher, Esq.

109 .1 Dearborn Street

, Chicago, Illinois 60602 i

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

OCT 2 31985 Mr. Dennis L. Farrar Accordingly, in order for us to issue a license to operate Byron Station, Unit 2, and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2, you are required to fonnally (1) con-firm that offsite emergency plans include a list of local or regional medical facilities which have capabilities to provide treatment for radiation exposure, and (2) commit to full compliance with the Commission's response to the GUARD remand.

Sincerely, (s)

B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc: See next page

_ Distribution:

?! Docket. File n NRC PDR'""*

Local PDR PRC System NSIC LB#1 R/F MRushbrook L01shan JStevens OELD ACRS (16)

JPartlow EJordan BGrimes LB#1/DL LB#1/D LB#1/DL L01shan/mac JStevens QJYoungblood to/?z /85 /C /J2:2./8 l0/g>/85