Opinion ID: 476269
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adjudicatory Hearing Requirements

Text: 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