ML20196B750
| ML20196B750 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/17/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196B718 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-98-257-C, NUDOCS 9812010175 | |
| Download: ML20196B750 (3) | |
Text
-
A F F I R M A T I O N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET j
TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN a
SUBJECT:
SECY-98-257 - FINAL RULE, PART 2, SUBPART M "PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENTS AND i
RECORDS, HEARING REQUESTS AND PROCEDURES FOR HEARINGS ON LICENSE TRANSFER APPLICATIONS" Approved I
Disapproved Abstain i
Not Participating
+
I COMMENTS:
4 l
See attached comments.
SIGN TURE
& U (J I], [Ylb V
DATE i
Entered on "AS" Yes K
No
- g20;og;g7;;;24 CoRRESPoN_DENCE PDR
l 1
Commissioner McGaffigan's Comments on SECY 98-257; I commend OGC for its good, quick, work on this rulemaking. The procedures established here hold the promise of efficiency, close Commission involvement (something that both industry and public interest groups seem to like, if for different reasons), and close questioning of the positions of the parties. As the FRN notes (page 33), the Subpart M process is similar to a legislative-style hearing, and I welcome this substantial step in what I have long argued is the right direction; but Subpart M differs from the typical legislative hearing in an important respect: It retains formal requirements for standing and admission of contentions. I see no pressing need in the context of license transfers to make such requirements less formal, but, as I said in my vote on the proposed 10 CFR Part 63, as a general matter our requirements on who may participate in a hearing should be more flexible. They should leave room for persons or organizations that could not meet judicial tests of standing but could contribute to the discussion of important issues. Everybody wins in such a situation.
I suggest only two changes (at bottom only one change) to the FRN. Two commenters (Florida Power and Light and Duke) say that informal, legislative-style hearings should be extended to other adjudicatory hearings. The FRN is too brief in reply. It says only that the comments go well beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and that the Commission declines to discuss the question. However, the context of this rulemaking suggests that we should make a somewhat longer response. For example, the FRN says that we're on record in court that section 189a does not require formal hearings, and the public September 4,1998, SRM on the proposed Subpart M says that the staff should seek legislation that supports that reading, and that
[t]he staff should review and advise the Commission on the legislative and rulemaking options that would fudher enhance the Commission's ability to utilize informal procedures in any proceeding in which formalized trial-type procedures are currently used.
Therefore, this FRN is an appropriate place to say something like the following.
On page 14 of the FRN:
Although Tthe suggestion goes well beyond the scope of the proposed rule, and the Ocamlee ca doce not rep ly to it here the Commission notes elsewhere in this n.otice thatjt hasl argue _d in court that section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act doeslnot require formal hearings, and the Commission has directed the staff to seek legislation that supports this reading of the Act. The Commission has also asked the., staff to advise the Commission on ways to enhance the Commission's ability to use. informal procedures in any proceeding in which formal procedures are currently used.
- =.
2
. On page 21 of the FRN:
Extension of the proposed procedures for license transfer applications to other types of NRC proceedings is beyond the scope of this rulemaking, encHhe Osin,.l;elsn de;lla;; to dl;;u;; the qu;;;;ca here but, as noted in more detail in T
response to an. earlier comment, the Commission ~is taking' steps to expand the use of.similar. procedures in other proceedings.
0 F
~, '
f, e*
?
a I
i e
e d
l I
I et