Opinion ID: 476269
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Examination of Extra-Record Evidence

Text: 18 In the event a hearing is not requested, and with respect to those areas not contested when one is, the Commission must examine all factors it considers relevant to the safety of the reactor. Thus in making its operating licensing determinations, the Commission must take account of all relevant information in the administrative record whether or not it is part of the adjudicatory record. 19 The Commission's ability to review the entire administrative record is particularly appropriate with regard to pending motions to reopen the record. As the Third Circuit recently stated in In Re Three Mile Island Alert, Inc., 771 F.2d 720, 732 (3d Cir.1985): 20 At the outset, we reject petitioner's contention that the Commission cannot rely on extra-record material in assessing the significance of evidence submitted in support of a motion to reopen the record. Newly proferred material is by definition extra-record. Because it is also new by definition, in the vast majority of cases, limiting the Commission's consideration of a motion to reopen to data already in the record would require that the moving party's allegations be accepted at face value. We think such a rule arbitrary and unworkable. If the Commission has, or can obtain through investigation, information bearing on the subject matter of a motion to reopen, we conclude that it should be free to use that information in deciding that motion. 21 In reaching its March 15 decision, the Commission was required to examine the petitioners' pending motions to reopen the formal adjudicatory record on the subjects of basemat cracking, quality assurance, and management competence. Of necessity, these motions introduced newly proferred material that could only be assessed in the light of up-to-date information not in the Licensing Board's original adjudicatory record. This assessment was both proper and necessary in light of the Commission's regulatory mandate to make a decision based on a consideration of the gravity of the substantive issue, the likelihood that it has been resolved incorrectly below, the degree to which correct resolution of the issue would be prejudiced by operation pending review, and other relevant public interest factors. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.764(f)(2)(i). 22