ML20072N635
| ML20072N635 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/2020 |
| From: | John Tappert Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | Mckenna T - No Known Affiliation |
| Shepherd, Jill 301-415-3280 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072N633 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML20072N635 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 May 12, 2020 Thomas McKenna Auhofstrasse 28 3423 St. Andrae Woerdern AUSTRIA 040
Dear Thomas McKenna:
This letter responds to your correspondence to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), dated March 10, 2020.1 In your correspondence, you requested that the NRC amend its regulations at Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) and revise related guidance.2 You requested that the NRC revise its regulations and related guidance to (1) improve the protection of overall public health by ensuring certain protective actions that will most likely do more good than harm during a general emergency at a nuclear power plant (NPP) and (2) address mental health effects expected from a general emergency at an NPP.
The NRC has reviewed your petition for rulemaking and concluded that the NRC does not have the authority to implement one of the requested changes. Specifically, with regard to your second request to amend NRC regulations to address mental health effects expected from a general emergency at an NPP, consideration of mental health effects is not within the NRCs legal authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA). The Commission has interpreted the AEA to not require consideration of psychological health effects as part of the NRCs mandate to protect public health and safety against the physical risks associated with radioactivity. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the Commissions interpretation of its authority.3 Because the NRC does not have the authority to implement your second requested change, the NRC is not docketing your correspondence as a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.803(b)(2). If you choose to resubmit your request, you should consider whether your revised request is within the authority of the NRC to adopt, as stated at 10 CFR 2.802(c)(2)(i).
In addition, your petition proposes updating rulemaking and related guidance but does not explain why rulemaking is the most favorable approach to address the problem or issue, as opposed to other NRC actions such as licensing, issuance of an order, or referral to another Federal or State agency (10 CFR 2.802(c)(2)(ii)). Although not required for docketing, this information often assists the NRC in its evaluation of incoming petitions.
1 Available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) under Accession No. ML20072N639 as submitted March 10, 2020, as a public petition for rulemaking.
2 The correspondence notes the following guidance should be revised to align with the proposed rulemaking:
NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supp. 3, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants: Guidance for Protective Action Strategies, and NUREG/CR-7110, Vols. 1 and 2, State of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses Project.
3 People Against Nuclear Energy v. NRC, 678 F.2d 222, 250 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
T. McKenna If you have any questions, please contact Cindy Bladey, Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Rulemaking Support Branch, Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, by phone at 301-415-3280 (toll-free at 1-800-368-5642), or by e-mail at Cindy.Bladey@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, John R. Tappert, Director Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards John R. Tappert Digitally signed by John R.
Tappert Date: 2020.05.12 09:14:36 -04'00'