period of the operating license pursuant to sections 103 (ċ) and 183 of this Act, and for purposes of judicial review under section 189e. Subsection c. of section 185 as it would be amendedauthorizes the Commission to rely upon a certification of need for the facility and the results of the consideration regarding alternative sources of generating capacity that are made by competent Federal, state or regional governmental entities upon an appropriate verification by the certifying organization. This subsection has been added to eliminate a duplicate review by the Commission of these environmental findings which are needed to support licensing decisions under applicable provisions of Federal law, and which have been made by other appropriate governmental organizations. If a proper certification is made, it shall be conclusive for determining compliance with applicable Federal law, and the findings shall not be reviewable in a Commission proceeding or in Federal Court involving its review of a Commission decision. The bill would not affect judicial review of a Federal agency's certification pursuant to laws other than the Atomic Energy Act; however, no additional rights to judicial review of Federal agency certifications are intended to be created. Determinations regarding alternative energy sources made by governmental organizations cannot preempt the Commission's regulatory authority over radiological hazards. Accordingly, a state could not substitute its judgment for that of the Commission regarding the radiological hazards of a nuclear facility in determining a preference for energy options. The Commission will develop and provide to the states its assessment of the radiological hazards of the nuclear alternative which could then be used by the states in their respective considerations of energy alternatives. Subsection d. has been added to ensure that the Commission shall not commence a proceeding to modify a final determination made in any prior proceeding involving a particular. facility, facility site, or design approval for that facility, unless there is a substantial reason to do so. For purposes of this subsection, a final Commission determination, for which no hearing was requested or needed, would be accorded the same weight and effect as a prior final Commission determination made after a hearing. The person or entity requesting the modification must make a substantial evidentiary showing, as defined in section 201 of the Act, in accordance with procedures to be established by the Commission that the modification is required to comply with Commission requirements relating to this Act or other pertinent Federal laws. The bill defines a substantial evidentiary showing, for purposes of this section, subsections 193f. and 194e., to be a showing of evidence by the proponent of the modification that is sufficient to justify the conclusion that the proposed modification of the previous NRC final determination is required to comply with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, other providions of Federal law or the Commission's regulations. The bill also specifies that, in reaching its conclusion on the sufficiency of the proponent's evidentiary showing, the Commission will consider only the evidence presented by the. proponent of the proposed modification as well as any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. However, any party can present, and the Commission can consider, argument concerning the sufficiency of that evidence. For purposes of this subsection, a proponent would include the NRC staff. This requirement for a threshold evidentiary showing imposes the burden on the proponent of a proposed modification to a final. Commission determination to present at the outset sufficient facts, reasoning and supporting technical analysis to demonstrate that there is a substantial basis for believing that the proposed modification is needed to comply with the Atomic Energy Act, other Federal law or the Commission's regulations. In determining the sufficiency of an evidentiary showing under this section, the Commission is not expected to conduct a detailed review of the merits of each element of the proponent's case, such as would normally occur after the submission of evidence from parties favoring and opposing a proposed modification in a Commission licensing proceeding. However, the Commission, in assessing the sufficiency of the proponent's threshold evidentiary showing, may take official notice of any fact of which a court of the United States may take judicial notice and may apply its technical judgment based upon technical or scientific facts within the knowledge of the Commission as an expert body. For purposes of this subsection, and subsections 189a. (1) (D), 193f. and 194e. the term "Commission's regulations" is intended to refer to those regulations of the Commission in effect at the time the modification is proposed. This subsection is intended to limit NRC initiated changes after a final Commission decision. It is not, however, intended to limit the ability of the NRC staff to question whether such changes should be made or to restrict staff effort in examining proposed changes. Under current law, after a proceeding to modify a license is commenced by issuance of an order under 10 CFR 2.204,. the proponent of the modification has the burden of going forward to make a prima facie case. The evidentiary burden imposed by this subsection and counterpart subsections 193f. and 194e. is similar, but would apply at an earlier phase before a formal order commencing a proceeding can be issued. The requirement in these subsections would not affect the Commission's or the NRC staff's authority to seek and obtain information from licensees about public health and safety problems. Indeed, it is quite possible that liçenseesupplied information would be the basis for satisfaction of the evidentiary burden requirement. Subsection 185e would provide that nothing in section 185 affects state authority over radiation hazards. Thus, this Act would not create any new state authority over radiation hazards. Section 102. Hearings and Judicial Review. This section amends section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of . 1954. Section 189 affords members of the public the opportunity to request and participate in hearings on proposed licensing actions relating to specific nuclear facilities and activities. The amendments to section 189 eliminate the present requirement for a mandatory hearing, even if no hearing is requested by a member of the public, for the issuance of a construction permit for commercial production and utilization facilities or testing facilities. The Commission would still be required to afford an opportunity for hearing and would hold a hearing at the request of any person whose interest may be affected. This change reflects the judgment as provided in section 2(a) (11) of the bill that adjudicatory hearings should not be held where there are no material issues of fact placed in dispute. This section also would permit the Commission at its discretion to use hybrid-type hearing procedures, as specified in subsections c. and d., instead of the formal adjudicatory procedures which have been used in the past. Subsections 189a. (1) (A) - (C) would require that prior notice of various kinds be given and opportunity for public hearing afforded at key points in the licensing process for site approvals, design approvals, construction permits, operating licenses, combined CP/OLS and preoperational reviews for plants which have been previously issued a combined CP/OL. These provisions do not apply to materials and export licenses. They are covered by existing law. Subsection 189a. (1) (B) requires that special notice by publication in major newspapers having national circulation be given on the receipt and prior to the granting of an application for the approval of a facility design under Members of the public throughout the nation may wish to participate in public proceedings on design approval requests and this is a special mechanism for providing them with appropriate notice. Design approvals section 194. |