ML20127J135

Emergency Planning & Preparedness, 10CFR50 Final Rule.Nrc Findings Will Be Based on Review of FEMA Findings as to Whether State & Local Emergency Plans Adequate

ML20127J135
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/03/1985
From:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
References
FRN-50FR19323, RULE-PR-50 NUDOCS 8505210385
Download: ML20127J135 (5)

Text

F}

e.

Q 990 sows RULE 1

M _ - -

($7) FA l9SA3 f7590-01]

00CHETED USNRC U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 W W -3 PM Emergency Planning and Preparedness GFFicE OF SECRETARY 00CKETING & SEPvlCI.

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. BRANCH _

ACTION: . Final Rule.

SUMARY: In response to a decision by the United' States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Nuclear Regulatory Comission is revising its emergency planning and preparedness regulations for nuclear power reactors. The decision requires that the NRC remove the provision stating that emergency preparedness exercises are not required for any

. initial licensing decision.

EFFECTIVE DATE: Imediately.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theresa W. Hajost, Attorney, Office of

.the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.

20555; Telephone: (202)634-1493.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.1984), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the NRC's 1982 amendment (47 FR 30232, July 13, 1982) to its emergency planning and preparedness regulations, 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) (1984), which stated that emergency preparedness exercises were part of the operational inspection process and thus were not required for any initial licensing hearing or decision. The court held that " Congress did not grant the Comission discretion to remove so material an issue as g the-results of offsite emergency preparedness from required section 189(a)

Y'Ip " knDL U5%0 ) " '

gsag3es8505o3 50 50FR19323 PDR e

y. 2 [7590-01]

hearings." 735 F.2d at 1451. On January 7,1985, the Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari filed by several Utility-Intervenors in the case, '

and on January 30, 1985, the Ccurt of Appeals fonnally vacated the 1982 amendment.

The basic effect of the court's decision and of the rule change which follows is that the results of pre-licensing emergency preparedness exer-

.cises may be subject to litigation before the Licensing Board. The revi-sion does not change the general predictive nature of the Comission's findings on emergency planning and preparedness issues.

Because the D.C. Circuit held that the Commission did not have the statutory authority to promulgate the 1982 amendment, it is unnecessary to provide notice and an opportunity to comment on this revision, which should be viewed as an outgrowth of the 1982 rulemaking proceeding. For the same reason the Commission finds good cause for making the revision effective on publication in the Federal Register. The revision is an administrative change to conform the text of 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) to the result in the case.

The court specifically focused on the last sentence added to 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) by the 1982 Amendment. Thus, this sentence is being deleted from 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2).

Papenvork Reduction Act Statement This revised rule contains no information collection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

g 3 [7590-01]

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this revised regulation is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(3). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this revised regulation. Moreover, when promulgating the original emergency planning and preparedness regulations in 1980, the NRC prepared an " Environmental Assessment for Final Changes to 10 CFR Part

'50 and Appendix E of 10 CFR Part 50, Emergency Planning Requirements for Nuclear Power Plants" (NUREG-0685, June 1980), and concluded that under the criteria of 10 CFR Part 51 an environmental impact statement was not required for the Commission's emergency planning and preparedness regula-tions, which included 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2) as hereby revised.

List Of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 2

' Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under +.he authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and section 553 of Title 5 of the United States Code, the NRC is adopting the following revisions to 10 CFR Part 50.

g 4 [7590-01]

PART 50 -- DCMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES

1. - The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 169, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as-amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2c82);

secs. 201,'202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C.

5841,5842,5846), unless otherwise noted.

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Sections 50.57(d), 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415,96 Stat.2071,2073(42U.S.C.2133, 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Sections 50.100-50-102 also issued under sec.186, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.

2273),is50.10(a),(b),and(c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a)areissuedundersec.161b,68 Stat.948,asamended(42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); $$ 50.10(b) and (c) and 50.54 are issue'd under sec. 1611, 63 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(1)); and $5 50.55(e),

-50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

1 5 [7590-01]

2. In i _50.47, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:

5 50.47 Emergency plans.

(a) * * *

(2) The NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [ FEMA] findings and determinations as to whether State and local emergency pisns are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented, and on the NRC assess-ment as to whether the applicant's onsite emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. A FEMA finding will primarily be based on a review of the plans. Any other information already available to FEMA nay be considered in assessing whether there is reasonable assurance that the plans can be implemented.

In any NRC licensing proceeding, a FEMA finding will constitute a rebut-table presumption on' questions of adequacy and implementation capability.

DatedatWashington,D.C.,thisJ day of 44r , 1985.

I For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission JOHN C. MYLF Assista t Secretary of the Commission