Opinion ID: 518889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lack of Inclusion of Jerusalem Township (Lucas County) in the Emergency Plan

Text: 38 Petitioners also argue that NRC's failure to include Jerusalem Township, an area located within a ten mile radius of Davis-Besse, in the plan constituted a violation of the regulations since 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.54(s)(1) (1988) requires the licensee to submit a plan for the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) which [g]enerally ... shall consist of an area about 10 miles (16 km) in radius. 39 Petitioners are again correct on the facts. On December 7, 1981, FEMA informed the state that a separate Lucas County plan was required because portions of the county were located within ten miles of Davis-Besse. FEMA then proceeded to place its review of Davis-Besse on hold pending submission of a Lucas County plan. On December 9, 1985, Lucas County still lacked a plan, and FEMA threatened to disapprove the state plan because of this inadequacy. Apparently prompted by FEMA's ultimatum, on April 28, 1986, the Lucas County Commissioners voted to have an emergency plan prepared, and a letter was sent by the Ohio Disaster Services Agency to FEMA in July stating milestones and completion dates for the Lucas County plan. At the time the petitions were filed in November, however, the plan had not yet been completed but was still in the process of being tested. 40 In its response to petitioners, the NRC Director conceded this incompleteness, but maintained that progress on the plan was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the planning deficiencies would be corrected in an acceptable manner: 41 In practice, radiological emergency response plans are rarely if ever perfect and complete. This is the reason for the continuing FEMA and NRC oversight of this area. Deficiencies will be found and assessed for significance. While all deficiencies are expected to be corrected, not all will change a finding of reasonable assurance by the NRC.... 42 Specifically, as described above, interim measures have been implemented and the schedule for completion has been approved by FEMA and has been met to date. With respect to other deficiencies noted during exercises conducted at Davis-Besse, these have been of minor significance and either have been or are being corrected. 43 The Director's response, coupled with the language of the relevant regulations discussed below, provide clear support for our conclusion that the Director was acting within the bounds of his discretion in denying petitioners' request. 44 First, the regulation requiring a plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) is vague with regard to the specific area covered. The EPZ requirement describes the zone only approximately (about) in which [t]he exact size and configuration of the EPZs ... shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities.... 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.54(s)(1) (1988). Second, and perhaps more compelling, is the fact that even if NRC finds the emergency preparedness plan inadequate, it has the sole discretion to determine the appropriate action by tak[ing] into account, among other factors, whether the licensee can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction that the deficiencies in the plan are not significant for the plant in question, or that adequate interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.54(s)(2)(ii) (1988). Based on these guidelines, we conclude that the Director did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in finding that the scheduled deadlines set by the Ohio Disaster Services Agency provided reasonable assurance that Lucas County would be included in the emergency preparedness plan. 3