staff which have accompanied that increase, and the further increase in the regulatory work load which is expected to result from the growing utilization of nuclear energy for power generation, the committee is compelled to state the obvious: It is essential for the Commission to assure the maximum in efficient and effective utilization of personnel who are available. Too much of the valuable time of technical experts is being dissipated, perhaps unneces sarily, because of prolonged contested hearings for which these experts must prepare as well as participate. The committee most strongly recommends that the Commission promptly consider the need for further revision in its procedures for contested licensing hearings so that these hearings are not diverted, through innocence or by design, from their basic goal-the resolution of specific matters properly in issue. This move should be made on a priority basis to restore vitality and balance to the contested hearing phase of the licensing process." Congressmen Price and Hosmer added:

an

No real hope is seen for the needed improvement in the licensing process until more effective procedures are developed by the AEC to identify at the outset the specific issues properly in dispute thereby preventing every contention, regardless of its reasonableness, from being considered in evidentiary hearing. It seems elementary to the restoration of a viable administrative licensing process that procedural inadequacies must be corrected in the interest of both meaningful public participation and licensing efficiency. Once again, the Commission is urged to act on a priority basis under the broad rule making authority bestowed by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and to use the services of the Administrative Conference of the United States and interested members of the legal community for constructive ideas and assistance to alleviate the current problem. Implementation of recommendations for procedural changes in a timely manner would be a significant step to be responsive to those concerned with the need for protecting the environment while at the same time assuring a means by which an adequate supple of clean electrical energy may be realized, both of which are of great import to the public interest.

Further, should it develop that any needed procedural reforms will require legislation, the Committee stands ready upon request to consider such legislation. Calvert Cliffs Decision

Congressmen Price and Hosmer stated that a major influence upon the licensing process was the Calvert Cliffs decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 23, 1971. They stated that practically all of the basic problems raised by that decision stem from interpretation of NEPA and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1971. Corrective legislation, if needed, would be under the cognizance of the committees responsible for NEPA and water quality legislation, and could address the problems involved which are not concerned directly with the licensing of nuclear power plants-they affect all Federal activity within the scope of those basic Acts. In this regard, they noted that the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee will hold hearings on November 3 on the impact of the Calvert Cliffs decision. In addition, the Senate Public Works Committee is presently considering a substantial revision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to consolidate several diverse water quality Acts.

If it is demonstrated that the corrective legislation needed is not forthcoming from others, the Subcommittee will give careful consideration to any proposal relating to the implementation of NEPA in the limited sphere of licensing of nuclear power plants. It is noted that the Commission has published regulations which it believes will be adequate to meet the dual challenge of environmental protection without undue delay which would threaten the vitality of regional power supplies.

Other Matters for Consideration

During the hearings held in June and July, it was announced that additional hearings might be held later during this Session to receive testimony from interested members of the public on matters associated with nuclear power plant licensing other than in connection with H.R. 9285 and H.R. 9286. Congressmen Price and Hosmer said that these additional hearings also should await the corrective action taken under existing authority, and a reasonable opportunity will be given for the Commission to act in that regard.

Congressman Price said that in addition to the major issues already identified, other matters affecting the nuclear power reactor licensing process which should be the subject of additional consideration are: -The organizational structure and management techniques used for licensing and regulating nuclear facilities.

-The role of the States in setting radiation standards.

---The question of whether independent hearing examiners or Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards should conduct licensing hearings. -The extent to which legislative-type public hearings in lieu of the Administrative Procedure Act evidentiary hearings should be used to consider complex issues in a contested licensing proceeding and in rule making proceedings.

Public Participation

Congressman Hosmer stressed the importance of pointing the hearings more specifically at the problem areas involved in building power plants. He emphasized the need to facilitate public participation, and to focus it upon the specific areas of significance in the siting and building of power plants. He explained his views as follows:

H.R. 9286 would not solve the fundamental problems which exist in the licensing of nuclear power reactors. More viable licensing procedures are needed which afford interested members of the public an opportunity to express their views prior to the commencement of construction; require evidentiary hearings only on issues which the Commission determines a reasonable showing has been made that they are properly in dispute; and give meaningful opportunity for public participation in rule making proceedings on both procedural and generic technical matters. The AEC licensing process should complement and harmonize with overall power plant siting legislation which recognizes AEC's radiological role and the role of State and regional bodies in all other non-radiological environmental matters. Overlapping, repetitive and uncoordinated public hearings on environmental matters must be avoided.

Effective and meaningful public participation in matters of radiological safety always has been and should continue to be emphasized as a matter of great importance. AEC's regulatory procedures should be designed to achieve complete disclosure to the public of the environmental impact of a proposed nuclear power plant and to provide for appropriate participation by interested members of the public. These objectives, however, should be achieved without cumbersome administrative requirements resulting in unnecessary delays in allowing completed plants to go into operation.

ATTACHMENT

H.R. 9285 (S. 2151) would amend the existing requirement in the Atomic Energy Act for mandatory review by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) of each application for licenses for commercial nuclear facilities. As amended, such applications would be reviewed by the ACRS if specifically requested by the Commission

or, in the absence of a Commission request for review, if the ACRS notified the Commission in writing that ACRS review is deemed warranted.

H.R. 9286 (S. 2152) would require a site authorization from the AEC prior to the clearing of the proposed site and commencement of construction activities on nuclear power plants. A mandatory public hearing would be required before a site authorization could be issued and there would be a thorough review and full public exploration of all aspects radiological and non-radiological of the site's suitability for a nuclear power plant.

Under H.R. 9286, once a site authorization had been issued, the utility then would apply for a contsruction permit for the plant. The application for a construction permit would contain the technical details on the reactor being proposed. Once the AEC is satisfied that the proposed reactor meets the Commission's safety requirements, notice would be published that the Commission plans to issue the construction permit. No public hearing would automatically be held at the construction permit stage, but persons whose interest might be affected would be afforded the opportunity to request a hearing. A person who sought to intervene at the construction permit stage would be required to raise an unresolved question significantly affecting the health and safety of the public. H.R. 9286 would not provide for a hearing at the operating license stage.

Under the present Atomic Energy Act, determinations of the suitability of the site is a part of the construction permit proceeding which is the subject of a mandatory public hearing. The Commission has by regulation permitted some work on the proposed site before the construction permit is issued, and has provided for exemptions from the requirement of a construction permit to allow more extensive site preparation work to be conducted prior to the issuance of the construction permit. Also under the present Act opportunity for hearing must be afforded at the operating license stage, or the Commission can at its own initiative decide to hold a hearing.

A fundamental objective of H.R. 9286, according to AEC, is to provide through the mechanism of an early site hearing for earlier and more effective public participation in the most fundamental decisions respecting the construction and operation of nuclear facilities.

37

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN PRICE

[Extract from Congressional Record, Nov. 1, 1971].

POWERPLANT SITING

(Hon. Melvin Price, of Illinois, in the House of Representatives, Monday, November 1, 1971)

Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, last week the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy's Subcommittee on Legislation, which I am privileged to chair, announced that it will not report AEC proposed legislation to amend certain of the existing provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which concern the licensing of nuclear power facilities to the full committee during this session. A summary of the objectives of the AEC's legislation and the reasons for the decision not to report the AEC legislation are stated in the press release which I will place in the RECORD at the end of my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, extensive public hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Legislation on the AEC's proposed legislation in June and July 1971, and the four-part record of these hearings is now available. I shall place in the RECORD at the end of my remarks a staff analysis of the hearing record. Although the testimony at the hearings supported the objectives of the AEC's proposed early site legislation to provide for early resolution of environmental issues, it was abundantly clear that overall procedures are needed to resolve those matters in an orderly and timely basis. Overall, powerplant siting legislation, now before other committees of the Congress, is needed to provide for a coherent and rational plan for the consideration and resolution of environmental issues at an early date, with appropriate opportunity for public participation and complete public disclosure of environmental and safety matters, without causing undue construction and operating delays. I urge the support of the efforts by other Members who have labored long to develop realistic overall powerplant siting legislation which would be acceptable to all of the various elements involved.

At the same time, AEC should take steps to insure that its procedures are adequate to assure that there is appropriate public participation in AEC licensing and that the process is handled effectively and expeditiously. I note that AEC Commissioner Doub, in a recent speech, supports changes in AEC hearing procedures and expressed the view that there can be substantial progress through changes which are within AEC's present capabilities. I am pleased to include the Commission's speech in the RECORD and my letter to Chairman Schlesinger which urged that priority attention be given to the procedural changes which have objectives such as the ones covered by Commissioner Doub.

Chairman Schlesinger also gave a major speech last week which I commend to the attention of all interested in the actions which must be taken to deal with problems which now exist in the licensing of nuclear powerplants. Chairman Schlesinger's address in addition to placing in proper perspective the role of AEC and the responsibilities of the nuclear industry also underscores the obvious-fundamental questions of national policy must be decided with the framework provided by the Congress. As of now, no framework exists to provide overall guidance for the orderly and timely resolution of environmental issues associated with power generating facilities. A piecemeal legislative solution to the existing problems should only be at tempted as a last resort and in the long term would probably be counterproductive. What is needed is a cooperative effort by all concerned to help in the development of a sound framework and institutions implementing it. Neither AEC, industry, public interest groups nor the Congress can sit on the sidelines and hope that somehow these problems will be resolved satisfactorily. I am pleased to include Dr. Schlesinger's speech in the RECORD:

"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 quality 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 au