Opinion ID: 419921
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Follow Agency Regulations

Text: 32 Intervenors NYPIRG/UCS argue in substance that NRC regulations require the Commission to shut down or to take other enforcement action against a nuclear facility if it determines that (1) the state of emergency preparedness does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency; and (2) the factors enumerated in 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.54(s)(2)(ii) (1982) do not lead to a different result. We disagree. 33 NRC regulations provide that if the Commission determines that a finding of reasonable assurance cannot be made, then it must decide whether enforcement action should be taken. In reaching its decision, the Commission is guided by, among other factors, the relative significance of the deficiencies, whether adequate interim compensating measures have been or will be taken promptly and whether there are additional compelling reasons for continued operation. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.54(s)(2)(ii) (1982). In this case, the Commission considered, among other factors, that substantial progress had been made to correct deficiencies at Indian Point, that the remaining problems would likely be corrected within a short period of time and that the likelihood of a severe nuclear accident in the intervening correction period was extremely remote. Weighing these factors, the Commission determined that no enforcement action should be taken at this stage in the emergency planning process at Indian Point. We find nothing in the language or legislative history of the AEA or ERA, nor in the regulations promulgated by the Commission, that would preclude it from relying on these factors when considering whether enforcement action is necessary. Congress has given the Commission considerable latitude to decide the difficult questions that arise with respect to nuclear safety. See Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543, 558, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1219, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978). We will not unduly circumscribe that latitude by placing unwarranted restrictions on the agency review process.