Dealing with intervenors is a time-consuming process. Most intervenors ask appropriate questions, albeit somewhat repetitiously. Some intervenors are deliberately exploiting existing procedures in order to cause delay. To the extent that delaying tactics have been used as a tool to force the provision of information that the intervenors may feel that they have been improperly denied, it is understandable. There is a direct way of dealing with this problem. To the extent that delaying tactics have been employed sheerly for the purpose of delay, to put off month-by-month or year-by-year the operation of plants and imposing costs on industry and the public, it cannot be condoned.

Environmentalists have also been raising questions that transcend the issues involved in individual plants. The question has been raised, by Michael McCloskey of the Sierra Club among others, whether our society for environmental reasons viewed broadly ought not curb its appetite for energy and for electric power. It is a legitimate social question. It is not unreasonable to question whether neon signs or even airconditioning are essential ingredients in the American way of life. More fundamentally it is not unthinkable to inquire whether energy production should be determined solely in response to market demand. Some of you I suspect have strong views on this matter. You should be prepared, whenever the necessity arises, to present your position to the public just as the Sierra Club does and I suspect that at this reading you are likely to have the public with you.

Whatever the private views of the Commissioners, it would seem to me inappropriate for the Atomic Energy Commission to take a position on this issue. The AEC should be officially neutral. It is the AEC's mission to provide energy options that will serve public needs-in whatever manner the public prescribes those needs. The AEC lacks authority and consequently should avoid becoming entangled in the determination of broad social issues of this type.

III. FUTURE PROSPECTS

Let me address one more issue as I draw to a conclusion. In the reaction to Calvert Cliffs it has been remarkably clear that the utility industry does not relish operating in the spotlight of public attention. The traditional ways of doing business seem preferable. A utility could get on with the job of installing a 100 or 200 megawatt fossil-fueled plant and nobody really needed to be consulted save for the property owners and the local authorities, who could be dealt with on a private basis. Nowadays every plant seems to be drawn into public controversy. I can understand the nostalgia. The old ways were neater and more efficient, at least in a limited sense. But this is 1971. We are more crowded. There is a heightened public sensitivity on environmental issues--an insistence by the public that it be consulted. We shall all have to learn to operate under these changed conditions. You will not only have to operate in the glare of publicity, you will have to take your case to the public. Do not expect us to do this for you.

I have heard the charge that the AEC has been "over-reacting." The new regulations are tough; you will agree, however, that they comply with the spirit of the court's decision. While they are tough, they are workable. I am surprised and concerned therefore by the attitude of discouragement to which I referred previously. These new

regulations present no insuperable difficulties, if no insuperable difficulties, if you will get on with your part of the job and we get on with ours. For our part, we shall make every effort to minimize the time to be absorbed in the review process. Some components of the review can be carried on in parallel rather than in series. A suitable cost-benefit study can normally be developed on the order of two months, particularly if there is a suitable format. There are scores of qualified individuals who can do the requisite work. The cost will be miniscule in relation to the total cost of a plant or in relation to the cost of delays. You will need guidelines for such studies and you shall have them.

If there are endless conversations about one or even two years delay and we all sit on our hands, the delays will be endless. Let us not sit back and fail to take the steps indicated in the regulations—and take them as expeditiously as possible. In this respect I can assure you the AEC will make every effort to move the paper and proceedings along quickly. But in some situations we can only follow your lead. For example, how many of you have filed show-cause orders with regard to ceasing construction on your plants? We are still awaiting requests to go to one percent power or twenty percent which is permitted under the regulations. We can never act on requests that are not transmitted to us. Handwrining will serve no purpose. As I suggested earlier, a great deal can be accomplished within the framework of the regulations. Self-help is the best help. In the absence of adequate response from the industry the question of just who it is that is "overreacting" will be more readily resolved.

Now, some of my words have been strong and some of my message has not been easily palatable. You may have concluded that I have spent too much time discussing why your expectations may be pitched too high and why your actions have been pitched too low. You may also have felt that I have spent too little time discussing the responsibilities of the AEC. You are right. But you should also understand that we have a full appreciation of the formidable job ahead of us. I have indicated the respects in which the responsibilities of the Commission and industry should be viewed and emphasized. A government agency has separate responsibilities, distinct from those of industry. What are those responsibilities? The first is to conduct its business in an efficient manner, so that we are not the source of delay. The second is to avoid changing the rules of the game for other than sound reasons. You have every right to demand that of us.

You have a right to demand that licensing reviews be expeditiously carried out. Improvements clearly are needed. But this is a task which requires action on both our parts. For example, in 1969, the Internal Study Group, established by the Commission to review its Regulatory Program, after consulting at length with all segments of the nuclear industry, reported that:

The lack of a comprehensive set of regulatory safety criteria and industry codes and standards relating to the safety of nuclear power plants contributes to the uncertainty concerning regulatory requirements and to the length of time required to conduct regulatory safety evaluations.

It concluded that:

There is an urgent need for substantially increased participation and support of these efforts by all segments of the nuclear industry, especially the utilities.

While some improvements have been made, it is nonetheless clear, that the need in this area has not been met, and that greatly intensified effort-on both our parts--is needed to develop nuclear industry criteria and standards.

In this and other respects I have cited a determination to do our job better. In many areas we have already taken or initiated the actions necessary to strengthen and augment our capabilities to do this. We intend to redouble our efforts, firm in the view that we can best be of help to the nuclear industry and the public by carrying out our own responsibilities effectively. I think the more you reflect on the matter that is really all that you require from a government agency with regard to your well-established programs.

Let me reiterate: the Atomic Energy Commission, like any government agency, exists to serve the public interest. The public interest may overlap, but it is not coincident with private interests. Private interests may, and indeed through the operation of the well-known invisible hand are likely to, serve the public interests. The motivation is different. The role of a government agency, designed to achieve and enforce public goals, is distinct. Yet, as the Atomic Energy Commission performs its public role, I believe that it will help you to achieve your legitimate and long-run objectives.

Thank you very much.

36

JAEC/SCHLESINGER: LETTER AND PRESS RELEASE

Hon. JAMES R. SCHLESINGER,

Chairman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission,
Washington, D.C.

OCTOBER 19, 1971.

DEAR DR. SCHLESINGER: I am enclosing a copy of a press release which I have authorized for release this afternoon. The press release states that the Subcommittee on Legislation which I chair will not report the AEC's bills on early site (H.R. 9286) and ACRS (H.R. 9285) to the full Committee during this session. The reasons for that decision are set forth completely in the press release.

The press release also reiterates several earlier suggestions by the Committee that the Commission act under the existing authority bestowed on it to make procedural changes in the licensing hearing process which are long overdue. I am pleased to note that Commissioner Doub in his recent speech believes that corrective action is necessary.

Although these matters have been discussed and considered for some time, the remedial action has been slow. It would be very much appreciated if the Commission would advise me of the specific procedural changes which are being considered, and the target dates for their implementation. I would also like to know the extent to which the services of the Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States and other interested persons will be used in this effort. I would like to be informed of any obstacles which are foreseen to implementing the procedural changes which may be needed to provide for more effective public participation in the licensing process and to restore vitality to the administrative licensing process.

I close in noting that the press release also stated that if it develops that needed procedural changes will require additional legislative authority, the Committee stands ready upon request to consider carefully any proposal which the Commission forwards to the Congress. I very respectfully urge that this matter be given priority attention. Sincerely yours, MELVIN PRICE, Chairman, Subcommittee on Legislation.

JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY ANNOUNCES THAT THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION'S REGULATORY LEGISLATION WILL NOT BE REPORTED THIS SESSION

Vice Chairman Melvin Price of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy and Congressman Craig Hosmer, ranking minority member, announced today that the Subcommittee on Legislation, of which

Congressman Price is Chairman, will not report the AEC proposed legislation (H.R. 9285, S. 2151, and H.R. 9286, S. 2152) concerning the licensing of nuclear power facilities to the full Committee during this Session. (A summary of the objectives of these is attached.)

Extensive public hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Legislation on these bills in June and July, 1971, and Mr. Price announced that the four-part record of these hearings is now available. (“AEC Licensing Procedure and Related Legislation")

Mr. Price, in announcing the decision not to report the legislation to the full Committee this Session, stated:

The testimony presented at the hearings emphasized the need for procedural changes to improve the licensing process for nuclear power reactors. Although the objective of the AEC's proposed early site legislation of providing for early resolution of environmental issues was generally viewed favorably by the witnesses, numerous valid questions were raised regarding its practicability. Such matters as the relationship between the early site and construction permit proceedings, the relationship of the early site authorization proceeding to other requirements such as the review required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), requirements under water guality legislation, and the permits under the Refuse Act of 1899, the opportunity for hearing at the operating license stage, and the compatibility and harmony of the siting provisions in H.R. 9286 with general power plant siting legislation currently pending before other committees were not thoroughly developed in the testimony. Furthermore, considerable doubt has been expressed as to whether sufficient information could reasonably be made available at the early site authorization stage to settle with finality all significant site-related environmental matters.

In view of such questions and in the absence of any clear showing by the AEC that the proposed legislation would resolve any short-term problem even if enacted this Session, it would appear more prudent for legislative action to await further developments on overall power plant siting legislation currently pending before other committees. An objective of over all power plant siting legislation should be to recognize the AEC's responsibility for all radiological considerations associated with nuclear plants, and to place in State and regional authorities the general responsibility for deciding other environmental matters. It is hoped that such legislation, which is vitally needed to provide our nation with a coherent and rational power plant siting policy, will soon be enacted. In the meantime, the Commission is urged to work with States, such as Maryland, which have recently enacted power plant siting legislation to assure that appropriate State officials are aware of applicable requirements for the approval of sites for nuclear plants and that everything is done to coordinate the required approvals.

Congressman Hosmer commented on what the AEC could do but has not done under its present authority to improve the efficiency of its licensing operations. He said:

A substantial number of comments at the hearings indicated that most of the present difficulties in the licensing of nuclear power reactors might be resolved by selective changes in AEC's administrative procedures for the conduct of its public hearings. These comments addressed such diverse matters as a need for early public access to information concerning the application, revised procedures to require a reasonable initial showing to support matters which are alleged to be in dispute and therefore properly the subject of an evidentiary hearing, additional guidance to presiding Licensing Boards, more judicious use of the AEC's rule making authority, possible prohibition of site construction prior to issuance of a license, and the use of legislative-type hearings where there are no intervenors. Similar views have been expressed in Committee correspondence to the Commission, in the Committee's report authorizing AEC appropriations for fiscal year 1972, in a study by the staff of the Administrative Conference of the United States, and by others. The pertinent language in the Committee's authorization report for fiscal year 1972 warrants repetition: "In view of the increased regulatory work load, the recent additions to the