ML19340D100
| ML19340D100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/22/1978 |
| From: | Kelley J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Gilinsky V, Hendrie J, Kennedy R NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340D094 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8012290073 | |
| Download: ML19340D100 (3) | |
Text
f-
+q,
-- %. - -... _,,,..,,, ' " ^ ^ ' ' '
y 'e "A
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
i '.
~
j $
CASHINGToN, 0. C. 20555
" O, S/,E.
March 22, 1978 pJ MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Kennedy ommissioner Bradford FROM:
aames L. Kelley Acting General Counsel
SUBJECT:
DOE LICENSING LEGISLATION Acting Chairman Gilinsky has asked this office to provide comments on the proposed " Nuclear Siting and Licensing Act of 1973," forwarded to the Congress by the Department of Energy last Friday, March 17.
The Commission has already received from the Executive Legal Director an analysis of major features of the bill, by memorandum of March 16, and a comparative text accompanied by a discussiori of problem areas, by memorandum of March 20.
We are in general agree-ment with the ELD analyses, and are simply providing herein some additional observations.
Overall, we believe that the bill contains a number of desirable features -- all of which have been discussed in prior Commission consideration of earlier drafts -- and that the package is deserving of Commission support.
(We are, however, less optimistic than DOE that the bill can even-tually cut licensing times in half.)
The process of repeated redrafts of the legislation has improved the language con-sider 2.bly and eliminated a variety of problems.
As described by ELD, however, not all of NRC's comments on previous drafts are reflected in the current draft.
And some new features in this draft' appear to raise some new problems, i
A.
Significant Concerns 1.
Judicial review.Section 185(b) leaves in doubt the nature of'the judicial review available in facility licensing.
The language that a " state shall defend" any determination d3i
Contact:
Peter Crane y
634-1398 v
1 i
N N-L
s#
8 0 1 2 2 g:0 0 D..
7
=:
=:
. =..,
7
=
a.
\\
[m The Commicsion March 22, 1975 7
.._4 with respect to the need for the facility leaves unclear whether the licensing of the same plant could be subject
. 'ZT to litigation in district and appellate court at the same
- jdisi or different times, or in different appellate courts. (page 9
- ,.agg of bill.)
Similarly, section 195(e), dealing with Commission.
i approval of a state program, and 195(g), dealing with termi-4'5E nation of such approval, do not indicate whether and where
....sm...
judicial review of such action by the Commission could be
"[3fp 4
obtained.
(pages 38 and 42.)
.s.;;,.:
(
2.
Section 103(a)(1)(c) states that-hearings on NEPA
- ((
issues will be adjudicatory "only where necessary to resolve
. TE:~
particular factual or legal questions which are essential to E.T21 l
the outcome of the proceeding."
This appears designed to
- yL create a narrow hybrid hearing, in which determinations of ssa the specific impact of a specific facility will be made largely
$5 in a legislative mode.
As a conceptual matter, one may ques-M45?
tion whether this type of determination (as opposed, say, to
" 57 j
a more generic proceeding on a standardized design) is well 2E suited to the hybrid proceeding.
It also seems questionable si whether the Atomic Energy Act and NEPA determinations are an either so clearly differentiated in fact, or conceptually so different, as to justify adjudicatory hearings for the former and a hybrid hearing for the latter.
(page 12.)
1]
l 3.
Section 194(e) states that the Commission shall, within six months of enactment, determine those facilit ies for which CP applications are pending that propose to use designs which would be eligible to qualify under the bill as
=4
.m approved standardized designs.
This " instant standardization" 55 is, in our view, impracticable.
It should, as the Commission
- [f?
has recommended previously, be stricken from the bill.
(page 23.)
35 it?
4 Section 195 does not appear to mesh with Section 185.
ek The former takes an " approved program" approach that includes jE 4
both need for the facility and environmental acceptability,
.TE :
whereas the latt.r merely requires the state to make a
~~ l~
determination of need for the facility. -This appears to create alternative and possible conflicting procedures for the state's need-for-facility determination.
A. preferable EeE:
approach might be to apply Section 185 for all state cer-71 tifications of need and limit Section 195 to the question
~:1G"
- L *::::
Een g=5
":LT*":."
': ^ LT.':
21,.--
i
.2
. 1,(
'% =n
' N
- l==-
NThe Commission March 22, 1978 of environmental acceptability.
(pages 6 and 31.)
3.
Mihor Matters
- = ~.
1.
Section 185(b) seems to leave open the possibility
"[.;,
of multiple certification by different states, when the m...,.i facility is to be owned jointly by utilities in more than ze-=,
one state.
(page S.)
~
r 2.
Section 192(b)(2)(B) should perhaps indicate that
[i..
the required finding by the Commission or itr designee as to the requirements of the law having been met can only be
.,~_
tentative, as section 192(c)(2) indicates it is meant to be.
p- -
(page 20.)
.=
r.
3.
Section 193(f) leaves unclear what is meant by a
..l.E..
" generic future need for electric power," and clarification
.. jls might be useful, if possible.
(page 25.)
- Me 4
Section 195(e)(4), like section 185(a), speaks of M
state procedures " comparable" to those that would be employed
="
by the Commission, but leaves unclear what this means.
Pre-sumably, this is somewhere between " identical" and
" compatible".
(pages 6 and 39.)
cc:
OPE SECY
.=
11;* ".
- =
{
I
- l***
t i:: ?
.i?
=-
- .
- t 5
e E?
qq:
{
.i 2
_ 3-:
=:.------
~~-
,-