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

Heading: Substantive Deficiencies

Text: 32 Petitioners also charge the NRC with violating its own regulations by approving a plan with numerous substantive deficiencies.
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
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
45 Petitioners also argue that a union resolution by school bus drivers not to participate in the event of a radiological emergency was a serious inadequacy in the plan, making it uncertain whether evacuation could be carried out successfully. In his decision the Director concluded that the bus driver resolution did not substantially threaten the adequacy of the plan, since FEMA had characterized the drivers' resolution as nonbinding and had further indicated that measures were being taken to resolve the union's remaining problems to ensure their full participation in the plan. In FEMA's view the union members are willing to cooperate, attend meetings and participate in training related to their emergency duties. 46 The Director's conclusion on this issue is supported not only by FEMA's findings, but by the planning standards set forth at 10 C.F.R. Sec. 50.47. Although this section lists a variety of protective actions to be included for the plume exposure pathway EPZs, including evacuation planning, it fails to set forth any specific requirements, particularly with regard to the issue of driver availability. Cf. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 789 F.2d 26, 44 (D.C.Cir.1986) (Because the NRC was not required by its regulations to consider the potential complication effects of earthquakes on emergency planning in its decision to license ... there is no merit to petitioners' claim that they were denied a hearing on the issue). Additionally, the regulations advise the NRC to defer to FEMA findings on points within its expertise, which the Director did in this instance. Since NRC and FEMA were closest to the threatened strike, and since the agency is to be afforded broad discretion, we abide by the Director's decision. The Second Circuit in County of Rockland v. NRC, 709 F.2d 766, 776-77 (2d Cir.1983), reached a similar conclusion in holding that NRC's refusal to take enforcement action on the bus drivers' threatened lack of cooperation was not improper. 47 In summary, although this issue has been troubling to us, based on the Director's findings and the language of the regulations, we conclude that the Director did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the request for further proceedings. A contrary ruling on our part might be construed as holding that a resolution by possible participants not to participate in an emergency plan amounts to mandatory grounds for granting section 2.206 requests. While we do not hold that such a circumstance can never be the basis for finding the existence of an abuse of discretion, certainly such an abuse is not suggested by the showing made here in support of the request for a hearing. 48
49 In its petition the State of Ohio noted that it was continuing to examine sixteen issues of concern in Davis-Besse's emergency plan, but failed to identify any of the issues. The Director responded that Ohio's lack of specificity with regard to the nature of the issues made it impossible for the NRC to address the problems, and based his denial on petitioner's own failure to satisfy the relevant regulation. See 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.206 (requiring petitioner to set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request.). As the Director noted, petitioners are not prevented from raising these issues altogether, since they may submit a second 2.206 petition.