Opinion ID: 476269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The March 15, 1985 Order Authorizing Full-Power Operation

Text: 13 Petitioners make a two-pronged attack against the Commission's March 15, 1985 Order authorizing full-power operation of the Waterford-3 facility. First, they contend that the Commission's decision was unlawfully based on information not contained in the administrative record in violation of both the APA's and the AEA's adjudicatory hearing requirements. Second, petitioners assert that the pending motions to reopen the record should have been resolved before the final operating license was issued. 14 These arguments reveal a misunderstanding of the procedures that must be followed before full-power operations may be approved.
15 Section 185 of the AEA establishes a two-stage process for the construction and licensing of nuclear power facilities. The first entails the issuance of a construction permit to an applicant whose application meets with the Commission's approval; the second involves the issuance of an operating license after the Commission is satisfied that all relevant requirements for the construction and operation of the facilities have or will be met. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2235. 16 The AEA and regulations issued by the NRC pursuant to the Act provide the procedural framework for the Commission's exercise of its responsibilities at each stage. Before a construction permit is issued, and after appropriate public notice has been published, the Licensing Board must hold an adjudicatory hearing on the application. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2239; 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.104(b). On the other hand, hearings on operating license applications are held only when an interested person requests one, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2239(a), 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.714, or when the Commission sua sponte finds that a hearing is required in the public interest. 10 C.F.R. Secs. 2.104 and 2.105. Absent a party's request or a sua sponte determination to hold a hearing, the Commission may ... issue an operating license ... without a hearing.... 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2239(a). 17
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
23 Petitioners assert they were unduly prejudiced by the Commission's reliance on extra-record evidence because they were given no opportunity to respond. We disagree, finding that petitioners enjoyed all the procedural rights afforded by the APA and the AEA in the context of a motion to reopen, including adequate opportunity to respond and supplement the administrative record. 24 The material contested by petitioners as outside the adjudicatory record was made available to them and could have been used in the reopening proceedings. As noted by the Appeal Board in its April 4, 1985 decision rejecting petitioners' basemat motion: 25 The staff has now supplied extensive affidavits and reports in response to our questions. Accepting our invitation to comment on the staff's filings, LP & L likewise has submitted more detailed information on the basemat. Although afforded a like opportunity to comment, [petitioners] have filed nothing on this matter since their brief December 1983 motion. 26 ALAB-803, 21 N.R.C. at 578 (Apr. 4, 1985). In the case of the second motion, petitioners took advantage of the Appeal Board's invitation to respond to further submissions by LP & L and the NRC concerning the quality assurance/management character motion. ALAB-801, 21 N.R.C. 479 (Mar. 22, 1985); ALAB-812, 22 N.R.C. 5 (July 11, 1985). 27
28 Petitioners also claim that their motions to reopen should have been decided prior to the Commission's authorization of full-power operation, to which we reply: (1) Such a stance is inconsistent with long-standing NRC regulations and practice; and (2) the issue is now moot, as both motions have since been resolved against petitioners. 29
30 In order to minimize delays in putting a completed nuclear power plant into operation, operating license proceedings are conducted simultaneously with its construction. Frequently, due to the time-consuming nature of the licensing review process, plant construction is completed by the time the Licensing Board renders its initial decision authorizing a license, but before the Commission's internal review of the Licensing Board's approval has been completed. 31 In an effort to prevent costly delays following the Licensing Board's initial approval, the Commission has instituted procedures under which a non-merits determination is made by the Commission as to whether the operating license shall be effective immediately upon issuance.... 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.764(a). This determination, which is without prejudice to a decision on the merits on issues raised in the licensing proceedings, is termed an immediate effectiveness review. This review allows the Licensing Board's authorization of full-power operation to become effective while the resolution of contested issues continues through the internal appeals process. Id. 32 Prior to the 1979 Three-Mile Island accident, the NRC's regulations allowed full-power operation of a nuclear reactor upon the issuance of the Licensing Board's initial decision approving such operation. No additional action was required by the Commission. See 36 Fed.Reg. 828 (1971); 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.764 (1979). This decision was immediately effective notwithstanding the filing of an appeal with the Appeal Board unless the Licensing Board provided otherwise or unless a stay was issued by the Appeal Board or the Commission pursuant to the Commission's rules of procedure. Id. 33 In response to increased concerns over nuclear plant safety following the Three-Mile Island incident, the Commission revised its regulations as they pertained to the effective date of Licensing Board decisions. Under current regulations, those decisions will not become effective until they are reviewed and explicitly approved by the Commission. 10 C.F.R. Secs. 2.764(a), (f)(2)(i) (1985). The regulations further provide that unless the Commission otherwise directs, the Commission's decision on immediate effectiveness is without prejudice to any pending appeal on the merits, or to any subsequent formal adjudication. 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.764(g) (1985). In short, section 2.764 specifically contemplates Commission approval of a full-power operating license prior to the resolution of appeals or motions associated with ongoing challenges. 34 In its March 15 decision, the Commission carefully considered whether the issues raised in petitioners' two motions warranted a stay of the Licensing Board's decision authorizing Waterford-3 to operate at full power. As is the case with all immediate effectiveness reviews, the Commission's March 15 decision did not represent an adjudication on the merits. In that decision, the Commission went no further than to determine, in the light of all information in the administrative record (including that provided by petitioners), that a stay of the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's decision was not required by the public interest. In the Commission's words, 35 [t]he current record has provided a reasonable basis to conclude that the plant can be operated safely at full power, pending resolution of the issues currently before the Appeal Board and we so find. 36 CLI-85-3, 21 N.R.C. at 475 (Mar. 15, 1985). We find that conclusion to be well within the Commission's discretion. 37 It is petitioners' implicit position that the regulatory scheme enshrined in section 2.764 is inherently flawed because it permits licensing decisions to become effective prior to a review on the merits. That position is without support. Nothing in the AEA makes resolution of all appeals by an Appeal Board mandatory prior to Commission action on a Licensing Board's initial decision. To the contrary, section 191(a) of the AEA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a), vests wide discretion in the Commission to establish one or more atomic safety and licensing boards ... to conduct such hearings as the Commission may direct and make such intermediate and final decisions as the Commission may authorize.... Id. 38 The Commission is thus well within its discretion in providing in 10 C.F.R. Sec. 2.764 for immediate effectiveness of Licensing Board initial decisions upon Commission review notwithstanding the pendency of appeals to the Appeal Board, and especially notwithstanding motions to reopen on which the Appeal Board has not yet ruled. We conclude that the section is lawful and that the Commission complied with its requirements. 39
40 With regard to petitioners' attack on the propriety of authorizing full-power operations pending final agency action on the motions to reopen, the issue is now moot. As of January 30, 1986, both motions to reopen have been denied. 41 The Appeal Board rejected petitioners' motion to reopen on the basemat cracking issue on April 4, 1985. ALAB-803, 21 N.R.C. at 575 (Apr. 4, 1985). One month later the Commission refused to review the Appeal Board's ruling, thus completing the NRC's administrative process on this issue. Petitioners did not seek judicial review. On July 11, the Appeal Board denied the motion to reopen on the quality assurance and management issues, except with respect to the OI investigation, which it referred to the Commission. ALAB-812, 22 N.R.C. at 58 (July 11, 1985). Finally, on January 30, 1986, the Commission rejected this remaining basis for the motion to reopen and also declined to review the Appeal Board's July 11 decision. CLI-86-1, 23 N.R.C. 1 (Jan. 30, 1986). With the resolution of all pending matters now complete, the issue of whether action should have been taken on these motions prior to the Commission's authorization of full-power operations is moot. 42