Opinion ID: 518889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Withdrawal of Gubernatorial Support

Text: 33 FEMA regulations require the individual state to initiate formal review of state or local emergency plans. 44 C.F.R. Sec. 350.7(d) (1987) provides that the application for approval 34 shall contain a statement that the State plan, together with the appropriate local plans, is, in the opinion of the State, adequate to protect the public health and safety of its citizens living within the emergency planning zones for the nuclear power facilities included in the submission by providing reasonable assurance that State and local governments can and intend to effect appropriate protective measures offsite in the event of a radiological emergency. 35 Both parties are again in agreement on the facts. In February 1981, the State of Ohio submitted its plan to FEMA, and on August 15, 1986, the governor formally withdrew his support. 36 Nevertheless, in refusing petitioners' request for a hearing, the Director concluded that despite the withdrawal of gubernatorial support, the State was continuing to work actively and cooperatively in the development of emergency preparedness planning and exercises. Although Ohio's withdrawal of support must necessarily be a matter of serious concern, the NRC's conclusion to proceed is supported by a close examination of the record. Specifically, the issues of greatest importance to the Governor were those which could be resolved following further study and were not serious flaws making implementation of the plan impossible. Exactly such problems are contemplated by the regulations without necessitating a formal hearing. For example, 44 C.F.R. Sec. 350.14 (1987) allows the State to amend its plan at any time during the review process or even after formal FEMA approval. Since the NRC has provided a means for continuous state input, it is clear that a state's subsequent withdrawal of support does not automatically invalidate an existing plan or mandate a public hearing on whatever issues the state considers important. Such a possibility would substantially impair NRC's statutorily defined role as the ultimate adjudicator of the adequacy of emergency plans. 37