ML20045E786

Indexes to Nuclear Regulatory Commission ISSUANCES.July- December 1992

ML20045E786
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1993
From:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:
References
NUREG-0750, NUREG-0750-I02, NUREG-0750-V36-I02, NUREG-750, NUREG-750-I2, NUREG-750-V36-I2, NUDOCS 9307060044
Download: ML20045E786 (73)

Text

.

NUREG-0750 Vol. 36 Index 2 INDEXES TO:

NUCLEAR 5 REGULATORY COMMISSIONilSSUANCEST f

July -. December 1992:

nil

w. -

y

. j yg;

v

^

l

$hhf?

' g.

t i

en e2 9307060044 930630 PDR NUREG 0750 R PDR

(#8YN

' J '

v p' 7 ~i+a

.+

'^

+

4 K

s

! I t

M l'"<

g s

r m

Available from Superintentendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Post Office Box 37082.

Washington, D.C. 20013-7082-A year.'s subscription consists of.12 softbound issues.

4 indexes, and 2-4 hardbound editions for this publication.

Sing'e copies of this publ'ication l

s

are available from National Technical.

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 p

p*

p L:.

. Errors in this publication may be reported to the Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Seivices

' Office of Administration 4

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.i

.. Washington, DC 20655 (301/492-8325) i 1

ic h,

. 1 I

.& :t ' '

.?-l

. _ Q,,t ([ ^

f, '.:;; lg ',

246ac.;:i:1

NUREG-0750 Vol. 36 l

Index 2 INDEXES TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ISSUANCES t

t July - December 1992 P

3

)

Y a

U.S. NUCL' EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Prepared by the Division of Freedom of information and Publications Services Office of Administration.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 (301/492-8925) i

'es n

.o

~,-

,,8 v-

,-m--

u b

.I Foreword Digests and indexes for issuances of the Commission (CLI); the' Atomic

- Safety and Licensing Board Panel (LDP), the Administrative Law Ju' ges (AIJ),

d the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the Denials of Atitions for Rulemaking (DPRM) are presented in this document. Ecse digests and indexes are intended to serve as a guide to the issuances.

Information elements common to the cases heard and mled upon are:

Case name (owner (s) of facility) lhil text reference (volume and pagination)

Issuance number Issues raised by appellants Legal citations (cases, regulations, and. statutes)

Name of facility, Docket number Subject matter ofissues and/or rulings Type of hearing (for construction pennit, operating license, etc.)

Type of issuance (memorandum, order, decision, etc.).'

These information elements are displayed in one or more of five separate formats arranged as follows:

1. Case Name Index The case name index is an alphabetical arrangement of the case names of.

the issuances. Each case name is follov by the type of hearing, the type of-issuance, docket number, issuance nurrm., and full text reference.

2. Digests and IIcaders

]

De headers and digests are presented in issuance number order as follows:

7 the Commission (CLI), tie Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board Itiel (LBP),'

'the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) the Directors' Decisions (DD), and the

' Denials of Petitions for Rulemaking (DPRM).

The header identifies the issuance by. issuance number, case name, facility.

name, docket number, type of hearing, date of issuance, and type of issuance.

De digest is a brief narrative of an issue followed by the resolution of the-issue and any legal references used in resolving the issue. If a given issuance.

. covers more than one issue, then separate digests are used for each issue and are designated alphabet cally.

i

.)

lli i

.-i,.

l

.q i

s

?

o -

-'r s

7 l

i

' 3. Legal Citations Index

. This index is divided into four parts and consists of alphabetical or alpha-i'

- numerical arrangements,of Cases, Regulations, Statutes, and Others._ These citations are listed as given in the issuarces. Changes in regulations and statutes may have occurred to cause changes in the number or name and/or arplicability T!

T' of the citation. It is therefore important to consider the date of the issuat.ce.-

De references to cases, regulations, statutes, and others are generally followed by phrases that show the application of the citation in the particular -

issuance. These phrases are followed by the issuance number and the full text refererce.

4. Subject Index -

a Subject words and/or phrases, arranged alphabetically, indicate the issues

'e F

and subjects covered in the issuances. De subject headings are followed by phrases.that give specific information about the subject, as discussed in the issuances being indexed. Rese phrases are followed by the issuance number -

. and the full text reference.

5. Facility Index De index consists of an alphabetical arrangement of facility names from

1. ;

the issuance. The name is followed by docket number, type of hearing, date,

-type of issuance, issuance number, and full text referer.ce.

W e

1 L

r 5

i

_ ~

i i

n CASE NAME INDEX ADVANCED MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

ENFORCEMEVT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Distrussing Proceeding); Docket W 3016055-OM

{

(ASLBP No. 87-555-01 OM) It'---

' ming Order); LBP-92-36,36 NRC 366 (1992)

ALABAMA POWER COMPAhT CIVIL PENAL 1T; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Sentement Agreement and Ter amating Proceeding); Docket Nos. 54348 CivP. 54364-CivP (ASIEP Na 91-62602-CivP); IEP-9171, 36 NRC !!7 (1992)

ARIZONA PUBUC SERVICE COMPANY, et at REQUEST IUR ACI10N; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R.12.206; D det Noa.

50-528,54529,50-530t DD-92-4,36 NRC 143 (1992)

REQUEST 10R ACTION; DIREClVR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; Dmid Nos. 50-528, 54529,54530; DD-917,36 NRC 338 (1992) a BABCOCK AND W11rOX t ~

DECOMMISSIONINO; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Allowing 1%Litiarn:rs to Amend or Supplenen Their llearing Request); Docket No. 74135-DCOM (ASLBP No. 92-66743.DCOM) (Materials License Na Sh.1145); IEP-92 24,36 NRC 149 (1992)

DECOMMISSIONINO; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petitimers' Request for Immediate -

Cessadan of Site Cleanup Activities); Docket Na 74135-DCOM (ASLBP No. 92 667 03-DCOM)

(Materials noense No. SNM-145); IEP-92-31,36 NRC 255 (1992)

DECOMMISSIONINO; MEMOFANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Paitioners' Request.far Roomsideration of Stay Derhl Order); Docket No. 74135-DCOM (ASISP Na 92-667-03 DCOM)

(Maierials license No. SNM-145); IEP-92 35,36 NRC 335 (1992) ~

i CLEVE!AND ELECIR1C IILUMINATING COMPANT and TOLEDO ED1$0N COMPANT ANTITRUST; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 50-444A, 54346-A (Applicadons to i

Suspend Andtrust Condicians); CLI-92-II,36 NRC 47 (1992)

ANTITRUST; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Oranting City of Brouk Park Motion for Iste i

Interventian); Dxket Noa. 50-440-A,54346-A (ASLBP No. 91-64441 A) (Suspension of Antit sst i

Cmditions) (Facility Operstang Uceses Nou NPF-58, NPF-3); IEP-92-19,36 NRC 98 (1992)

ANITTRUST; DEQSION (Oranting Summan Disposition in Favor of NRC Staff and Intervenms en

" Bedrock" Imgal lasue and Denying Applicants' Requests to Suspend Amitnut Doense Conditions:

Dismissing Catentmns on Staff Bias; and Terminating Proceedmd; Docka Nos. 54440-A,5434&A'-

(ASLBP Na 91-644-01-A) (Suspension of Antitnut Conditions) (Facility Operadng Ucense Na NPF-58, NPft?); LBP 92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992)

DANIEL BORSON on Behalf of PUBUC CITIZEN i

l DENIAL OF PELT 110N FOR RU11MAKINO; Docket Na PRM $454; DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 31 (1992) l DETROIT EDISON COMPAhT, ci al.

I REQUEST IOR ACI1ON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 62.206; Docket Na 54341; DDw92 8,36 NRC 347 (1992) i OENERAL EIICIRIC STOCKilOLDERS' A1RANCE, a al.

DENIAL OF PETT110N IOR RULEMAKINO; Docket Na PRM 2019; DPRM-92-2,36 NRC 37 (1992) l l.

l l

l,'

1 I'

\\

l l

l l

i.

l

5 CASE NAME INDEX E

GENERAL PUBLIC IJf!U71ES NUCLIAR CORPORATION, et al.

.. OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENr; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disnusaing Proceedingh Dodet h 54320-OLA-2 (ASGP, Na 91-643-11-OLA-2) Obst-Defuchng Moniscued Starsgeh IRP 92-29. 36 NRC 225 0992)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMOPANDUM AND ORDER (Reconsidering Order Dum6 sing Pnoeedmg); Docket h 543200LA-2 (ASLBP h 91443-11-OLA-2) (Pust-Defueling Mrmutwed Storage); IRP-92-30,36 NRC 227 (1992)

GEO'HI3I ASSOCIAH3 INC.

MATERIALS UCENSE REVOCATION; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Na 030-20693 -

(laamse A 2S18205-02); CU-92-14,36 NRC 221 (1992)

MATERIALS UCENSE REVOCA'nON; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Providing far Ge+ Tech's Answer to Revocauen Ordcrh Docket h 03040693 EA (ASISP Na 9347401-EA) (Materials Urmae h 29-1822205G2);ISP-92-33,36 NRC 312 0992)

GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et at OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Factual Dmpute About Randence; Evidersiary lleanngh Dockes Nos. 54424-OIA-3. 544250LA 3 (ASLBP Na 96-671-01-OIA-3) (Transfer to Southern Nucleark LBP42 38,36 NRC 394 0992)

IIOUSTON UGirnNO AND POWER COMPANY, et al-ENFORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 54498,50499; CU-9210,36 NRC 1 (1992) '

REQUEST IOR ACDON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CF.R. 51206; Dociet N<s. 50498, 50499; DD-92-5,36 NRC 231 (1992) ~

IDUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES, LP.

MATERIALS UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Discovezy Duputes Pertauung to Contentions L and MX Docka Na 703070 ML (ASLDP h 91441-02-ML) (Special Nuclear Maierials License); 1RP-9215A 36 NRC 5 (1992)

NORTIIEAST NIX 1 EAR ENTRGY COMPANY OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Establishing Pleading f

Schedule); Docket h 54336 OLA (ASUIP & 92-665401A) (IOL Fa DPR45) (Spers Fuct

- Pool Designh IRP'9217,36 NRC 23 (1992) -

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Imposing Sanctims upon CCMN and Striking Ptsitionsk Dacket h 54336-OLA (ASLRP W 92465-02-OIA) (Spent Fuel Pool Design) (FDL No. DPR45); LBP-92 26,36 NRC 191 0992)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORAhDUM AND ORDER (Filing Schedules and Preheadng Conferece); Doda h 50-336-OIA (ASIRP W 92465-02 OIA) (Spent Ibei Pool.

Design) (IOL h DPR45h LBP-92-28,36 NRC 202 0992)

Of110 EDISON CDMPANY :

ANIT!1tUST; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Doda h 50440 A (Applicatims to Suspend Anutrust Cmdinensh CU-9211,36 NRC 47 (1992) -

ANTITRUST; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grsating City of Brook Pad Mode for late 1merwnumh L%cket h 50440 A (ASIRP h 91444-01 A) (Suspensim af Antitrust Cmditions)

(Facility Opemting License h NPF-58); 1RP 9219,36 NRC 98 (1992)-

ANITIRUST; DEC2SION (Orinung Samnary Disposition in Favor of NRC Staff and Intervenom m

" Bedrock" legal lasuo and Denying Applicants' Requests to Suspend Andirust Ucase Candmors, Dismissing Cantmuons en Staff Bias; and Terminating Proceedingh Docket No,54444A (ASISP h 9144441-A) (Suspenman of Antiuust Conditions) (Facility Operating Ucense h NPF-56; LBP-9232,36 NRC 269 0992)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELICTRIC COMPANY OPERATING UCENSB AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (filing Schedules and Prehearms Caference); Duda Naa, 542754LA-2,54323-OLA 2 (ASLRP Na 9246943 OLA 2)

(Construction Period Recovery) (Facility Operating Ucenses Nas DPR-80 DPR-82h 1RP-92 27,36 NRC 196 (1992) b I

t Y

~

(

'I I

f

. CASE NAME INDEX '

j.

' PIP!NG SITCLAUSTS, INC, and IORREST I. ROUDEBUS11 d.b.a. PSI INSPECTION, and d.b.a.

PIPING SPECIAUSTS, INC.

ENIORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nm. 01429626-OMAOM-2 (Ucess Revocation Ucense Suspension) (Byproduct Material Ucense No. 24-2482641), CU-92-16, 36 NRC.

351 (1992) l ENTORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Proposed Resolunm of the Casek Dockes No-03429626CM&OM-2 (ASIEP Nos. 92453-02 OM, 92462-06-OM-2) (Byprodua Material Damas Na 2424826 01) (EA 91136,92-054) (bcense Revocanon, Ucanse Suspension); IEP-9216,36 NRC 15 (1992)

EhTORCEMENT; FINAL INT 11AL DECISION (Revoking Ucesek Dodet Nos. 034296260M&OM-2 (ASLBP Nos. 92453424M, 92462-06CM 2) (Ucense Revocation. IJcense Suspamon) (Bypmdua Material Ucense Na 24-24826-01) (EA 91134 92454); LEP-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992)

RANDAIL C OREM, D.O.'

DGORCEMINT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Na 3431758-EA (Byproduct Material Ucenas Na 342620101k CU-9215,36 NRC 2510992)

ENTORCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Appming Settlement Agreernent and Terminating Pmoending); Docket Na 03431758-EA (ASLBP Na 9245641-EA) (EA 91154) (Byproduct Material Ucense No. 34 26201-01); IEP.92-Is,36 NRC 93 (1992)

' SACRAMI:NTO MUNICIPAL U11111Y DISTRICT DECOMMIS$10NINO; PREIIEARINO CONITRENCE ORDER (Terminating Pr==%g); Docket Na -

54312-DCDM (ASIEP Na 92 663 02-DCOM) (Decommissioning Plan) (Facility Operating Ucense No. DPR-54); IEP-92 23,36 NRC 120 0992)

SAETY UGTT CORPORA 110N et al.

MATERIA 13 UCENSE; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; Docket Nos. 03405984MLtE2, 030 05982-MIAE2; CU-9213,36 NRC 79 (1992)

MATERIALS UCENSE: MEMORANDUM; Docket Nos. 03045980 MIAE2, 030-05982-MLAE2 (ASLBP Nos. 92 659-01-ML,9246442rE2): 1EP 9216A,36 NRC 18 (1992)

ST. JOSEPII RAD 10!DGY ASSOC 2ATES INC., and JOSEPII 1. FISHER, MD. (d.b.a. ST. JOSEP11

/

RADIOIDGY ASSOCIATES, INC., and FIS1tER RADIOLOGICAL CLINIC)

Eh10RCEMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Request to Set Aside immediam

. FEactiveness of Enforcernent Order); Docket Nos. 03400320 EA. 999-90003 EA (ASLBP No.

93472-02-EA); IEP-92-34,36 NRC 317 (1992)

TEXAS ITIIIIITES EIICTRIC COMPANY, et al.

CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruhng an Inicrvention Permans and Taminating Pmceedms); Docket Na 50446CPA (ASIEP No. 9246541-CPAX IEP42-37,36 NRC 370 (1992)

.OPERATINO UCENSE AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; MEMORANDUM AND

' ORDER; Dodet Nos. 54445-01ACPA,504460L; CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992)

REQUEST IOR ACIlON; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.F.R. 6 2.206; Dodet Nm. 50-445, 50446; DD-924,36 NRC 325 (1992)

UMl:TCO MINERA13 CORPORATION

' MATERIAIS UCENSE AMENDMENT; MEMORANTJUM AND OFDER (Request for IIcaring and Stay of Uconse Amendmmt); Docket No. 4048681-MIA (ASLBP No. 9246641-MLA) (Sourts Materials Ucense No. SUA 1358); IEP-92-20,36 NRC 112 (1992)'

MATERIA 13 UCENSE AMENDMINT; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Amendment); Docket Na 4408681-MIA (ASIEP Na 9246601-MLA) (Source Materials Ucense Na SUA 1358); IEP-92-22, 36 NRC 119 (1992) 3 i

,e

..~.~.

..- ~ ~..

~

-n.,

t; 1

1 DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TIIE NUCISAR REGULATORY COMMLSSION 4

Q192-10 IIOUS1DN UGIIIING A POWER COMPANT, et al. (South Texas Nject, Units I and 2).

Do<iet Nos. 50498,54499; ENIORCEMINT; hly 2,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Cannussion denies the madon of llouston Lighting & Power Company to modify or quash ten (10) Office of Inwsugations' (01) subposr.as issued to certain South Texas Nject ernployees and managanent offwials in an investigation emccraing Lomas L Saporito, Jr. Of issued the subpoenas after those individuals enempted to condition their voluntary testimmy. %c Comnussion finds that OI's refusal to guarantee as a precondition to a compelled interview that a witness will unequivocally recave a cery of his transcript does not violaim the Administrative Procedure Act.

D Transcript rights granted under sec: ion 555(c) at the Administrative Procedurs Act do not eatend to Latimmy voluntarily given. United States v. Wrray 297 F.2d $12,821 (2d Cir.1962); An'y General's Mamal en the Adminis:rative Procedure Act,67 (1947).

C Sation 555(c) of the Administrative Ncedure Act requires that when testinxmy is compelled frorn a party w a witness, that person is entitled, upon peyment of costs, to obtain a copy of his transcribed I

testracny. Ilowever, a " compelled" witness' sight to obtain a transcop of his testimmy may be limited in.

nonpublic investigatory promedings to inspeedon of the transcript, upon a showing of " good cause" by the i.

agency..

D he invocation d the good-cause eaception contained in -u 555(c) of the Adminisustive..

Procedure Act is within the agency's discretion and applies to situaties where evidena is taken in a case l

in whidi prosecuturis may be brought later and it would be detrimental to the due execution of the laws to

).

permit copies of the transcript to be circulated. Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC,360 F.2d 856,858 pth Cir.1966).

a E

. An agecy is not required to make a good-cause descrmination prior to receiving testimony imm

. I i

e witnas. SEC v. Sprmher,594 F.2d 317,319 (2d Cir.1979).

j CLI-92-11 OIIIO EDISON COMPANY (1%rry Nuc1 car Power Plant, Unit 1) and CLEVEIAND E11CTRIC.

a 1

ILI.UMINATING COMPANY and 1DI.IDO EDISON (DMPANY (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; i

Davis-Bcuse Nuclear Pomu Stadon, Unit I), Docket Nos. 50 440-A,50 34GA (Applications to Suspend Antaxust Condaims); AN'11 TRUST; August 12,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

The Commission denics Ciy of Oeveland's appealef a Prehcaring Conference Order,LBP-9138, 34 NRC 229 (1992), which.prunted Applicarns' hearir:g petidons. The Canmission deternunes that iu broad authority to amend licenses at the request oflicensee enends to requests for amendments to antitrust

- I cmdidons. The Conmussion also denies City of Cleveland's motion for revocation of the Commission *a I

referral of the hearing requests to the Licensing Board. As Commission deternnnes that the Licensing i.

Boasd's developman of a detailed record and analysis of the comples issues raised in this proceedmg will aid the Comrmasion in any seview that rnay be undertaken.

B Arnedrnents to operating licenses am concernplated unden both the Attanic Energy Act (AEA) l l

and the Commanon's implementing reguladma. See AEA ll161,182, !83,187,189,42 U.S.C. Il 2201,

. j l

2232,2233,2237,2239 (1988); 10 C.F.R. 4I50.90,50.92 (1992).

C IIcaring rights pmvided in sectim 189 of the Atanic Energy Act may be invoked not enly by I

interesied manbeis of the pubhc tut also by license applicants or licasees. 42 U.S.C. 62239(n)(1)(1988).

D Ahhough a hanse applicara or licensen may have a sight to a hearing under ser. tion 189 of the AEA ifiu interest is adversely affected (e.g.,if a licerme or amendment applicatim is denied or s license is i

. 1 l

f 4

.,..... -. - ~

r e

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tite NUCLEAR RFGULATURY COMMISSION suspmded nr revoked), a hearing sme stiU be requested, otherwise Staff's decision is Anal. See 10 C.FA li 2,103(b), 2.105(d),2.10B(b),11205 (1992).

4 E

.1ho Commusion has Jarnsdictie under sections 103,161, and 189 of the AEA to entertain -

Applicaras' request to smed their limnaes to suspend the effect of andtrust cmditions. Neither the statutory language rw the legislative history of section 105 of the AEA suggests that Congress imended anutrust license condhions to be benutable,inespective of whether the condhions have beenme urdust over time.

Neither llauman Lighung and Power Co. (Sotuh Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), CU-7713,5 NRC 1303 (1977), nor Florida Pbwer and Light Co. (St. Imcie Nuclear Power Piara Unit I; Turkey Poira Nuclear Generating Plaut. Units 3 and 4) A1AB-428,6 NRC 221 (1977), puhibh suspenson of antiuust conditions at a licensee's sugucst.

F

. Staff's cesideration of Applican nendment request was not a " hearing" that satisfies section 189 of the AEA; Staff's decrmination was admnustrative in nauuo and does not suf5ce as an adjudicatory wview of the application request.

CU.9212 1EXAS tJIll111ES EIIf11t1C COMPANY, et al. (Comanche Peak Sicam Elecuic Station Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50445-OLACPA,54446 014 OPERATING UCENSE AND CONS 11tUC110N 1TiRMIT AMENDMINT; August 12,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

1he Commission omics Pttitimers'sequests for late intervenuon in the Cornanche Peak OL proceedings and the Unit 1 CPA proceeding, whidi were closed in 1988 pumusnt to a setdanent agreemmt.

The Commissim funher denics Petitioners

• motions to inicsvene and to reopen the at wrd in the Unit 2 proceeding,6nding that Petitinners have failed to satisfy the criteria for late intervertum and far morening d the record. The Cornenission funher dmies the requests for protective orden, fur suspension d the Una 1 operating license, and for arsi erguman on the motims before k.

D Once the Commission has issued an operating lianse for a unh, that action effectively closes out as oppostunity for a hearing on that licese or on any conare permh - *-- Any subsequmt challenge to that unk's license must take the farm of a pecition under 10 CfA $ 2.206 for an order unda /

+

7 10 CJA $ 2.20L C

B-a oral argument is cicarly discretionary under 10 CIA 6 2.763, the Comrm==t sequires that a party serling eral argumers must explain how eral argument sculd assist h in reachmg a decisim.

The Commissian may dmy requests for cral argument what based en the pany's wrinen submissions that it f. ally undermands the positions of the participaans and has suffacient inicumstian upon whicle to base its -

decision.

D A paitimer is not baned inrn requesting oral argument on a petition for late intervenuon, The seguirement in 10 CFA $ 2.763 ihat a nxtuest for oral arstunent be made in a "brief" enly applies to

. pleadings that constitute an " appeal."

E Fw the Carnnussion io grant a peution for late imervenuan, a pethioner naist dernanstrate a favorstic balancing of the five factos sa forth in 10 CFA 6 2.714(aXI)C)-(v). Those 6ve facuss are: (1) good cause,if any, for falhue to fue en time; (2) the svallabuity of other means far prosecung the pcsisimer's interest; (3) the catent to which the peutioner's participation might reasonably asrist in developing a sound record; (4)ihe caters to which the petitioner's interest will be reprimersed by existing parties; and (5) the -

est na to whidi the petitioner's panicipatice will bmsdent the issues or delay the psoceeding.

F 1he test for"gnad cause"is not si,<jly when a pethioner becomes aware of she iraterial h secks to inuaduce into evidence Instead, die test is whm the information became available and when a petitimer seasonably should have becarne swane of that information, In essence, not ordy must a pennoner have acted promptly afier learning of the new information, but the information itself nmst be new information, not information already in the public domain. "

O Whm an interversion is extremely untimely and the pethioner puedy fails to demansuste any good cause for late iraervention, h must make a compelhng case that the other four factors seigh in its favor in ;

erdcr to satisfy the late-filing standard.

11 J A petitioner has satis 6ed the second preg of the Sve factor " late merveraian test" where there is currently no engning pr*=4 g and therefore no other means by which that petitioner's interest can be t

protected.10 CJA 6 2.714(sX1)(ii).

6 1

. i 1

-i m

]

l a

]

DIGESTS.

ISSUANCE $ OF Tile NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1-A pedtiona has' satisfied the fourth prang of the five factor " late intervention ust" where there is cwrently no ongoing pmceeding and hmime no tuber party able to repn: set that petidona's inscrest.10 CIA $1714(aX1)(iv) ~

3 la evaluanns the Sve factors to ha met by a pcthioner aceking a grant of late imervention, the seemd and founh factors are the least imputant of the Eve.

K When a paddoner addresses the third criterien. "the catet to which (its) pardcipadm might seasonably saaist in developing a sound record" h should set out with as rnuch parbculanty as possible the precies issues it plans to cour, identify its prospective witneares, and surnmarize their propnsed testimony.

L Bamns the most compcIhng countervailirs consideradons, an ineacusably tardy irnervendon' petition stands bule char a of success if hs grant would likely accesmn an ahessdon in hearing schwe=

or the establishmere at sa andmly new heating.

M Sectiar *.734(b) of 10 C.PA requires that a mudan to reopen the record must be accanpanied by ens or ma e af!! davits which set fanh the factual and/or technical basis for the movant's claim. If a peddoner fails to comply with this requienent, the C

'on may day a request to mopen the record because of this defect alone. -

A etitioner cannot become a party to a procendmg N

Once the Commission has determined that p

based on the secord before it, a peutioner cannat seek to senpa the record of that pr-img.

O The"umchness" respurernant of 10 CIA 12.734 is not whether a motim to senpen is filed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of a pension for late interventsen; instead the test is whether the informadm upon whidi du morani selies could have beui presented to the NRC at an earher daie.

P The purpose undedying a gtsnt of con 6dendality is to preserve the alleger's identy frorn public disclosure what such disclosure could cause harm to the alleger. Ilowever, even a known alleger can be -

granted eenfideraiality by the NRC Staff if that person can denenstats that sane harm might otherwise befa!! thern or their sources.

Q A grant of con 6daniality is act depedas en an individual's sucass in seeking a grant of.

intervention or reopening of the record.

R A petitioner may not sequest suspesian of an operating license as pan of a pmatiut for lais intervendan. Those manors are mas pmperly placed before the NHC under the grocedures specaned in 10 CfA I 2.206.

QJ.9213 SAFELY LIGifT CORPORATION, et at (Bloomsburg Site f"-A-h and License Penewal Denials) Dadet Nos. 03049805MLAMir2,(0045982-MLAMle2; MATERIAIS LICENSE; August 12, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A-

~ On soview of an order. IJIP-92-13A. 35 NRC 205 (1992), which emaalidated an informal proceeding under subpart L of 10 CSA Part 2 whh a formal proczeding under Subpan G, the Commission determims that the Ikensing Baned and the Presiding Of5cer exceeded their authority by not seeking prior '

Comnussion authernataca for omsohdation in view of the seguireman in 10 CIA 5 2.1209(A) (1992) that the Commission approve applicadan of ahernative hearing proceduas for Subpait L pr-lings. The Comnussion authesizes, however, the consolidsdon of the pmceedmgs.

B Even in the abacace of a pedtim for review, the Comnussion sataina ha supervisory power over adjudications to step in et any stage of a proceedmg end decide a inauer itself..

C In the irserest of reaching an expeditious re=4*w=i of a novel issue raised in a proceedsag, the Commissian may grwa a petitaan for soview without awaiting a aply fan any sapeding pany. Because the grant of a paidm mly indicates that an issue is worthy of Cornmission eensideration, svspondents am nos prejudiced if they are provided a subsapaart opportunity to presers their views en the merits of the,

.. issue scoepted for soview.

D Ahhnugh the Coremission caruhacts seview of interlocuncry orders of gresidtr.g officers sparingly,1 the Cunmission may take review of en l.a Lae, order to semove douta as to the prrper casolurim of an -

unusual or novel questian er to cure an error, pesticulady when the mauer bears on the underlying authmiry -

of the presiding officer to take certain action in a geoceeding.

E Ahhough the Comnussim's supavisory power extends to cimanatences dist do ant meet the standards for review speciSed in 10 Cf.R. 62.786(b) and (g), the Commission adherus es a general ads to the standards codded in those regulations. -

G 7

F w

/

• O e-r

s l.

Y.

, DIGES'TS

)

ISSUANCl3 OF TIIE NUCIEAR REOllLATORY COMMISSION '

)

F 1he - 3

' consolida6an of a Subpart O and a Subpan L proceeding raised a substantial

~

~

and important)nindictional quantian and affeaad the subpart L proceeding in a pervasive and unusual manner such that dtscatumary intedocutory seview by the Commission of the consolidatiat order was warranted.

~

0

' A hearing en the denial d a materials' license is edinarily severned by the informal hearing procedures in Subpart L of 10 CIA Pan.2; Cornmission appmval is required for the applicadan of i

shernative procedures in such proceedings.

II Ahhough procedures in Subpart O of 10 CIA Fan 2 may have general applicatirat to all types -

of Commission proceedings other than rulemaking, application d Subpart O nuus be daermined in the ccaneat d the special mies that are apphed to other proceedings. In any conflict between a general mie in

]

- Subpart O and a special mle in another subpart, the special rule governs. Sen 10 CSA il 2.2,2.3 (1992).

j 1

Ahhough the concept of consolidstion of proceedings embodied in 10 CFA 5 2.716 (1992)is not

' un itself inconsisters with Suivan L pmceduits, conversi<si of a Subpart L pr~=Img into a Subpast O t

pmceedmg thmugh consolidatim of pramahngs requires Cermnission authorintion in orier k give proper effect to limitation specified in 30 CIA 4 2.1200(L) (1992) whh respect to the adopticsi d ahernatiw -

hearing pmcedures in Subren L proceedings.

J-As a gesmral practice, the Cornnussion defera ao the Licerning Board's judgment on the consoli-dation of proceedings, abners the mont unusual csrcumstances.

~

K

% earnmon litigarna, the poimual

-^y d issues, and the avcadance of unnecessary litigation over procedural maners weighs in this esse in favor of consolidatiest d a Subpan L prc~~Mg w th a Subpart O gvoceeding.

CtJ-92-14 OIOTEGI ASSOOATES (Ono-Tedi Laboratories), Dodos Na 030 20693 (Licaise Na 29-18205-04; MATTRIALS IJCENSE REVOCATION; October 21,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A-The Camruss>nn refers to its Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASIEP) a late-filed and de5cas =equest by Ono-Tech Associates for a heniing an an order mvoking ha materials licmse for falhao to pay the annuallicmse fee required by 10 Cf.R. Pan 171. The tw" directs the presuhng officer to consider the hearing sequest under the critetia for late filings in 10 CFA 52.714(aXI),in the absence -

d regulations governing late-filed and de6ciers hearing requests on enforcement orders..

B The Cmunission also pmvides guidance en any hearing held on this issue, because this is the fust hearing re:past on enforcanent sanaians fe faihus to pay licanas fees. The Commission sdagests that

' the scope of any hearing should be limited to whether the lacensee's fee was propedy ansessed and that ch!1enges to the fee schedule w ha undedying methodology would not be proper in this type of proceeding.

CL192-15 n RANDAtl C. OREM, D.O., Docket Na 3431758-EA (Hyproducs Maistial 1) cense No. 34-26201-01); ENIOROMENT; November 2,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER A

1he C-

-- directs the Staff to answer a questum pennining to Staff's utionale for esserning to a term of a seidement agreement betwecn Staff and the IJcesee which would resolve and terminate

, a licerme revocation proceeding. Pending funher order, the Cornmssion cwninues the time within which it may review the IJcensing Board's arder, IEP 9218, 36 NRC 93 (1992), approving the settlernerit agreement

' CL2-92-16 ' PIPINO Spir!AIJSTS,INC, and FORREST L ROUDEBUSil, d.b.a. PSI INSPECHON, and d.b.a. PIPING SPECIAIJSTS, INC (Kansas City, Masari), Dodet Nce. (DO 29626-OM&OM-2 (13mnse Revocatina,1)ccuse Suspension) (Bypmduct Material IJcerse No. 24 2482641); l!3 HSE REVOCA-710N; Decernber 1,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -

A

. % Comnussien dernes the lacenace's petition for review of the Atomic Safay and licensing Boaid's Fmal Initial Decision, ISP'92-25, wluch sustained Staff's order revaking Ucensee's byproduct.

' rnateriallicense, because the Commission fmds no clear ermr or other substantial spestirms of law or policy -.

that would warrant Commission review pursuant to 10 CJA 62.786. ~

D-

- in determining whether to grara, as a mauer of discredon, a petition far review et a IJcensing Board order, the Commission gives due weight to the saistance of a substantial question with respect to consideratiarm set fonh in 10 Cf.R.12 786(bX4).

.g 1

s Y

I

___m 4

a 1

DIGESTS i

ISSUANCES OF Ti!E ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS

-{

i; LBP-9215A LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES,L.P. (Claiborne Ennchment Cauer), thiet Na 70-3074ML i

(ASIEP Na 9144102 ML) (SpecialNuclear Materials Ucense), MATERIA 13 UCENSE; My 8,1992; I

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Discovery Disputes I%rtaining to Contmuons L and M) l A

Security plans are to be withheld from public disclosure,irrespectim of whether discovery of the documents is sought frorn the Nuclear Regulatory Cannussim or the applicant.

I B

An applicant has no obligation to estabbsh that the secunty plan is privileged or confidendal.>

Section 1790(d) d 10 C.F.R. deans it to ba C

An applicara has no chligation under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790(b)(1) to submit an affidavit for having

{

l the security plan withheld frorn public disclosum Swnm 2.790(b)(1) requires such an affidsvit when a.

]

pcrse " proposes" that the docurnent be withheld because it catains confiden6al cuent' crcial or financial -

n i

[

informanon. In the case of a security plan,is has already beest deemed to be such informadan under section I

g 1790(d).

D Where an applicant has snado a prima facie case that the secunty plan abauld be withheld from public disclostne and that an in camers proceedmg is required in order io fashion an appropriate protective I

order tmder which pornons of the security plan could be made availablelo the intervmor, the refusal d the j

intervenor to par 6cipate in the in carnera procemimg is an effective weiver of its right to further crandderation j

of its discovery request of the maner. N applicant should not respond to the dismytry request, and the motion to aanpel shah be denied.

LBP-92-16 PIPING SPF43ALISH, INC., and IORREST L. ROUDEBUSIl d.h.a. PS) INSPECDON, and d.b.a. P! PING SPLCIALISTS, INC. (Kansas Chy, Missouri), Docket Na030 29626-OM&OM-2 (ASulP

['

Nos. 92453-02 OM, 92462 06-OM-2) (Dyprodud Material Ucense No. 24 24826-01) GM 911% 92 :

I 054)(Ucmse Revocation Ucmse Supension); ENIORCEMENT; July 10,1992; MEMORANDUM AND -

ORDER (Ptopused Resolunon d the Case)

{

A After an eviderniary hearing had been crmducted and proposed findings were pending in this '

j enfmement accian, the Usensing Daard dismycred language in the licensa makira the Radiction Safety Officer

• completely naponsible"im comptance with asfety reguladona. Consequency, tis Board issued a i

proposed resciution of the case under whidt the license would be mvoked without any fautbar determination j

of the degree of responsibility of the solo proprietar of Ucensee, h Board scheduled oral argumera on -

j this proposition, which had not been addressed by the parties.

)

i 1

l B

When a Licensing Bosni decovered grounds for decisim that had not been argued by the parnes, I

l it decided in armounce s gunposed decisim and to invite oral argumess by ihe panien.

UiP-9216A SAFETY UGirf CORPORATION, et al. (Bloomsburg Site Decernmissioning sul License Re-i '

newal Denials), Dodet Nos.03045984MIAE2,03405982 M1AE2 (ASLBP Nos. 92459-01-MI.

I 924M-02 MI,2); MATERIALS LICENSE; July 17,1992; MEMORANDUM I

LinP-9217 NORTIIEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millsime Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2),

j.

Dodet Na 50 336-OIA (ASLBP Na 92465-02-OLA) (IOL Na DPR-65) (Spet Fuel bt Design);

OPERAUNG LICENSE AMENDMENT; My 29,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Estabbshing Pleading Schedule) '

LBP-921E RANDALL C. OREM, D.O., Drxket No. 03431758-EA (ASLBP Na 92456-01 -EA) (EA 91 154)

(Byproduct Material Heense Na 34-26201 01); ENIORCEMPRT; August 6,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Approving Settlement Agmement and Terminating Pmcceding) l i

9 l

l l

,,.-_A,_.

n

r s

DIGESTS ISSUANCis OF Tile ATOMIC SAITTY AND IJCENSING BOARDS LBP-92-19 01110 EDISON COMPANY (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1) and QEVilAND EllCiltlC

' ILLUMINATING COMPANY and 10EDO EDISON CDMPANY (Perry Nuclear Puwer Plant, Unh 1; Davis-Besso Nuclear Power Stanon, Unit 1), Docket Nos. 50-440-A,54346-A (ASISP No. 91644-01-A).

(Suspmsmn of Arditrust Conditiorr)(licDity Operedng Ucenses Nos. NPF-58, NPF-3); ANITIRUST; Au-gust 6,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Grandna City of Brook Park Madon fw iste Intervenuan)

A In this Mernorandurn and Order, the Ucensing Board grants a late iracrvention pennon. The Board concludns that (1) recrut A.Jr have cured a previously identified deficiency in the Petitioner's standng to intervene in the proceeding, and (2) a balancing of the five factors set fonh ht 10 C.FA 12.714( X1)(i}-(v) gwarning late intervention favors grannna the Petauoner party status.

B A municipal ordinance that makes provisions for all the elemerns essenual to carrying out the cmstruction, operaticut, and maintenance of a mumcipal electrical sysiern demonstrasco that the enac6ng.

mumespality's irarest in the proceeding as a customer and competitor of a utility applying for suspension s

..W

. of its facility's operating bcense andtrust condinons is tangibio enough to afford the nanicipality standing, C

Ahhough a usaticipality's slauical sysicsn is in its incipient stage, the anuncipality's indication that it phimately may wish to invoke the protectim afforded by operanna license andtmst coalitions iruposed pursuant to sec6an 105 cf the Atcanic Energy Act (AEA),42 U.S.C. 6 2135, makes its expressed irnerest 5

in preserving those antitrust prwisims one that falls within the " zone of intausta" cmsted by AEA secdon 105.

D in the 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1) five-factar balancing test governing late irnerversion,the first factor d"[g} cod cause, if any, for failure to fde on time"is important because,in the almence of " good cause" there guer:Dy nast be a compelling showing regarding the other four factors. Sea MP-9138,34 NRC 229,249 & n.60 (1991).

E Bearing in mind the Appeal Board's observation that " newly acquired" standing is generally unsuitable es a basis for" good cause" Catolina Power and Ughs Ca (Shearmt 11arris Nuclear Power f

Plant, Units 1-4). AIAB-526,9 NRC 122,124 (1979),an act of independent utility occurnng after the j filing deadline that, ordy consequently, has the effect of affording standing is not so tuunaniorum as to

. permit intervention only upon a substandaDy enhanced showing on the oder late interventwo faaors.

F la desermmma whether " good cause" esists for a late-fdad intervention petition, the sigmfacance to be placed on the amours d delay "will generaDy hinge upon the posture of the proceeding at the time the pentius surfacat" Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nucicar Project No. 3), ALAB-747,'

18 NRC 1167.1173 0983).

O

"[The distinctive nature of the Comnussion's authority to cmsider and address the validity of the antitrust cunditaans it imposed 1 cads os to agree with [the Petidencr] that na other forum er means now available can provide equivalent protection for bs interest in socing that the emis6ng license conditmns ase maintained." IEP 91-38,34 NRC at 247.

11.

Challenge to a Isie irderwentmo paition that seeks to equate the duplicadon of issues whh a similarity of the emisdng participants' irumosis is misdirected. See Duke Power Co. (Amendment to Materials Ucenas SNM-1773 -Transpanatiori of Spaa hel frorn Oconee Nuclear Station for Sierage at McGuire -

Nuclete Station), AIAB 521,9 NRC 146,150 0979). Rather, the quesuon is, given the snatters at issue, will the emiating parties c!fectively repmsent the Peuunner's interests nelative to those maners.

I Argumeet that e Ptaatione's interests can be adequately.,

' by the caisting panies because hs witnesses would be avaDable to those parties fads to afford pruper recognition to the valus of Mt" rights enjoyed by a party, including conducung cross <aamination. See Duke Power Co.,

A1AB-528. supra,9 NRC at150 & n.7J J

Laie-caners to the agency's adjudicatory process generally must take the proceedmg as they fmd

' it. See, e.g., Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoseham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), AIAB-743,18 NRC.

387. 402 (1983). None:heless, the addition of a latoenner brings the possitslity that its panicipation win broaden the issues or otherwise slow the poceeding.1his prospect is assessed in the ftfth 1ste-fdod factor, which quite propedy has been donorninated as "of imrnense importance in the overau balancing process."

' id.

IEP-92 20 lNr!TCO MINERALS CORPORATION, Docket No. 40-08681-MIA (ASLBP No. 92-66641 MIE, (Source Materials Ucense Na SUA-1358); MA1T. RIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; August 5 1992; MLMORANDUM AND ORDER (Request for IIcaring and Stay of Ucense Amendment)-

il 10 d

4 N

s., 7 n-e DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tile ATOMIC SAITTY AND IJCENSING BOARDS WIP-92 21 ' A1ABAMA POWER COMPANY Ooseph M. Erley Nuclear Plant. Units I and 2). Dacket Nos. 5434g-CivP, 54%4CvP (ASLBP No.' 91426 02CvP); CIVIL PENALTY; August 12, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Apprimns Senlernent Asmanent and Terminating Pidina)

UIP-92r22 UMETCO MINERAIS CORPORATION, Dodct No. 40-08681-MLA (ASLBP No. 9246641-

, MIA) (smico Maiesials License No. SUA-135g); MA1T. RIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT; August 12.

1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Amendmern)

LBP-92-ZI. SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL (JITUTY DISTRICT (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station).

Docket No. 54312.DCOM (ASulP No. 92463-02-DCOM) Ww g Plan) (hciliry Operating n

License Nc6 DPR-54); DECOMMISSION!NO; August 20,1992; PRElIEARING CX)NIIRENCE ORDIX 6erminating Proceedsg)

A-In a proceeding concernang a pmposed decommissioning plan far a facility, the Licensing Board zules that, because the single peshinner for intervenuon lacks standing to partacpae, has ubnuned no geoposed corsenuens adequate for adjudicatim and, for that reason, also doos not warrant diacrononary imervention, the petizion should be denied and the proceeding terminated.

B To panicipais as a pany in an NRC sdjudicatory pr-ding, a petitioner must initiaBy demonsusic both that it has standing and has pmffered at least one viable cissemian 10 Cf.R ll2.714(a)(2) and (d)(1)(iii]L C

De Comrmssum spplies c-.p..- judicial concepts of standmg, whi& sequire a petitimer

+

to demonstrate that (1)it has suffered or will hkely suffer"injmy in fact" frcen the action under review, an -

hde.y that would be redressable by a favorable decision in the proceeding; and (2) the injury falls within tWzme ofinterats" et least argushly saught to be protected by the statute being enfarood D

in determming whether injury in fact has been ade:paately na farth, a Womains Board is limited to assanons actuaDy pleaded by the petitioner, it any not assume er presume foots amt actually pland E

A licensee must serve relevant documents on eller parties, not upon petitimers for imervention.10 Cf.R. (( 2.701,2.712. Adjudicatary documents filed by panies susponsive to or bearing upon haervention /

peuuons must be served en the petnianers.

~

F An organisation may gain standing in two ways: (1) in hs own right, assumma one of its own interests has been er awy be adversely affected, er (2) as a.,

tive of one er more of its members, assuming that auch mernhers otherwise have standing, the inurests it seeks to pnnecs are germans to the organization's purposes, and neither the claim asserted nor the relief requesuzi require th(individual member's participsuon in the lawsuiL il

. - In seeking representananal standing, anirgenization normally must provide affidaviis of rnembers who authorire the organization to reprcnent thdr knerests.

H An orgaruzaunn pleading injury to informationalinterests, such as the faihue to neceive information appearing in an 4 c 1 impact staternent, must allege caplich. A--

! harm with a direct impact upon the petit

• ner. A generalized claire is nts enough.

m I

De gresumption d standing for thnee living or working within 50 rriles d a facility applies only in pmesedmss involvmg reactor construction permits, operating licenses, or sigmficant amendmesas therma, whers thate is clear implications far the offsite envirtrimera or a clear pmenumi for cifsite - -, - - -

In other sinastions, a petitianer must allege some specific injury.

J.

Prosecunn d fmancial interests such as caesssive electric rates or higher fuel costs is not within r

- the sme d interests prw by the Atomic Energy Aa or the National Emoronmental Policy Act.

K Da most important r:rherim far evaluating whether discreuonary standing should be granted is the catent to whi& the panicipam's participation may reasonably be expected to easist in developing a sound record.

L The NRC may apply callsteral estoppel principles, where appropinie. Collateral estoppel requires an identity of issues. It is an equitable dactnne, not sequired as a maner of law, that should be applied only wath a sensitive agard for any changed circurmtances er the passitte existence of some public interest factors. Alabama hwer Co. Oosegdi M. Furley Nuclear Plars, Units I and 2), CU44-12,7 AEC 203; ALAB-1g2,7 AEC 210 (1974).'

1 M

. Inaarporating by seference Staff questions to a licensee, wicheut emplaining their significance, fails to conform to the pleading requiremeens f<r corsernions.

11 a.

5 i

• d

p r

Y f

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF TihE ATOMIC S AITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS

.f N

As amended in 1989,the Rules of Practice requim, with asped to contatims, a spectSc statanent oflaw w faa to be raised er centmerted, a trief emplanatian d the bases, a concise stausners of sqpartirs

facts or expat cramon" together with aferences to specine sounes and documerus of whia the petinnner is aware and upon which b pet.:icmcriramds to nely, and sufEcsetinformatim to show a genuine disputa with the applicant (or licensee) on a material issue. If proved, the conteraion must maitle the paitioner to niief.

O he d-- -

environrrantal miew supplemmis the operanne liomme review and thus a

need mly re8ect new infarrnanon or signdicara em6:unetal change associated with ^~- h ing er i

storage af spent fuel 10 CFA 5 51.53(b).

P De areironmersal impact of A-A'-ing can normally be delineated in generic terms g

through reference to the Omenc Environmentallmpact Statemcia m P----

-- - -- cf Nuclear Facilities (NUREG4586). To the extera that knpsas from decommissiming a pamcular plara are significa,aly ti s diffenma fnxn the gmeric impacts, they may be covered in a supplemental impact stauxnatt -

I ~

Q he scope of a decanmissioning action must be contrasted with the empe of an action to disconunue facility genanan (for whida no license is mquimd). Need for power and the environmamal effects of seplacement power niste to ceasing operatims, not to d-

' ' g.

R An agency need consider only ahamstives that lead to the objocnve of a proposal. For decomnus-sioruna, the NRC need emsider only ahernate forms of decomemssioning, togaher with the "no action" ahernaive. Resumed operation is an ahernative only to the cessation of operations, not to d ~~h":t -

. IEP-92-24 BADCOCK AND WIlf0X (Apollo, Pmnsylvania Fuel F=bacation Facility), Docks Net 70-135-DCOM (AS12P No. 92-667-03-DCOM) @+

_ Pian) (Materials lla:nse No. SNM-145);

DECOMMIS$10NING, September 4,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Allowmg Petitioners to Amend or Supploman heir Headng Request)

A In this 10 CFA Pan 2 Subpart Linformal poceeding, the Presiding OI5cer grants the Petinoners an opponauty to supplemera er amend their hearing request to address questims about their standing and whether they bsve presented litigable issues.

11 Unlike a formal adjudicatory proceeding under 10 C.FA Pan 2, Subpan G, in an htformal proceeding under Subpsrt L the paitioner requesdng a hearing doce not have the night to amend or supplanent an otherwise timely hearing petition once the deadline specifad in 10 C.FA il 205(c) for submnung hearing sequests has passed.

C In an informal adjudicatie under 10 C.FA Pan 2, Subpan 1. a peuuoner may amaxi or supplement a timely hearing request only as prnuned by the pranding ef6cer, who in affordai.this discretionary.

authority under the general powers granted by 10 CFA $ 21209 to ngulate the onurse of an informal pro-4g. %e presidmg dheer nkains that discretaan at least up through the point at whis k or she males a Enal ruling t: pan the suffunency of the hearing squest. -

D la addressing the maner of standing in a >---

' ' M proceeding, to establish " injury in fact" is naast he shown how any sDegei harmful radiological, envuunmanal, or other legally cognisable effects that wi!! arise from activities under the -f d plan et issue will cause injury to each individual er organizational petitimer or, in the case of an organizanon relying upon..,- k.,,,1 mandmg, the members h represents. See, e.g., Sacramanio Municipal Utility Distna (Rancho Seco Nuc1 car Generating

~ Station), IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120,12%30 (1992); Northern States Ibwer Co. (Pathfmder Atomic P1mn),

IEP-89-30,30 NRC 311,314-17 (1989)..

E In conuust to de rules governing the adnussion of caumnes in fcrmal adjudicanons, see 10 C.FA -

5 2.714(bX2),in specifying their amas ad concern about the licmaing activity that is the subject mauer of the pmceeding, see 10 CFA $11205(dX3), the petinoners do not have to pia forth a cornpichensive exposition in support of the issues they wish to litigate. Nonaheless, to petwide the presuhng of6cer with a heuer undastanding of their claims to aid him er her is making an informed determmation about whether bee maumes are " germane" to the proceedir:g, see 10 CFA 52.1205(g), the peutioners are well served by paiding as much substantive information as possible regarding the basis for the concerns speci5ed in their hearing petitiert.

F In suhrrutting an amadod er supplemersed hearing petition, if the peutioners wish to raise and provide information regarding mauers that were not spect5ed in their initial hearing petainn, they must make a showing that win satisfy the late 41mg requirements of 10 C.FA (11205(k).

12 1

1 4

I I

g

g p

p DIGESTS b

ISSUANCES OF TIIE ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS.

- IEP-92 25 PIPING SPECIAllSTS,INC., and IORREST L ROUDEllUSIl d.b.a. PSI INSPECI10N, and d.b.a. PIPING SPECLAUSTS, INC. (Kansas Oty, Missouri), Docket Nos. CW2962GOM&OM.2 (ASGP Nos. 92r653 024M,92-662 0GOM-2) (licane Revocatim, hanse Suspmsian) (Byproduct Material License No. 24-2482601) (EA 91 136,92054); ENIORCEMENT; September 9,1992; FINAL INITIAL DEOSION (Revoking license)

A De Ucesmg Board sustains a Suff order zevoking the license of a company that ernployed one licensed radiogmpher Ors Radiation Safety Offner) under the supervision of a petsm who had no experience with radiography and no traimns in NRC regulations. Fan the circumstances surmmding the issuance of this license and from its wotding, the Board infened that the owner licensee was sesponsible for all the actions of its Radiation Safety Officer, to whom the license delegated

• complete sespecibility and amhaity?

B he Board also concludes that there have been extensi"e failums by been.oo and its owna to comply with NRC regulations. Ucerses has failed to act as a seasonable manager of hoensed activities, failed to detect and correct violations caused by an employee, willfully suem; sed to conceal violations from NRC Staff, and given untruthfulinformation to the Staff during its inspections and investigations. Moreover, the Ucmaec's owner was untruthfulin unne aspects d his testimmy both during a formalinvestigation and before the licensing Board.

C Frorn the ri -- surnading the issuance ofits license and from its wording, the Board infened that the -. h was responsibic for all the actims ofits Radiation Safcay Of1icer, to whern the licanse delegated "oumplere aspesibility and authority?

D Re Board sustains the revocation of a bypoduct material license for extensive failures by the licmsee and hs owner to comply with NRC regulations. bcensee has failed to act as a reasonable manager oflicensed activities; failed to delect and correct violations caused by an employee; willfully enempted to conceal violannns fan NRC Staff; and given untauthfu1information to the Staff during its inapactions and investigatime. Moreover,the Licensee's owner was untnahful in some aspects of his testunony both during /

a formal investigation armi befose the licesing Board.

E It is net likely that, after a lengthy evidentiary hearing, a board would agree with the Duecsor in every detail of an order nevoking a license. Noris that necessary in order to sustain the Dinctor's decision.

Atlantic Ree-rch Corp (Alexandna, Virginia), ALAB-594,11 NRC 841,848 49 (1980) (the a4udicatmy hearing in a civil penahy pmcesiding is essennally a trial de novo, subject mly to the principle that the board snay not assens a greaict penahy than the Staff); compare IIndey Medical Cerner (One 11adey Plaza, Flint, Michigan), AL1-87-2,25 NRC 219,224-25 (1987).

IEP-92-26 NOKnIEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millsime Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2),

Docket No. 5433&OIA (ASI.BP New 92-665-0241A) (Spent het Pool Design) (IOL No. DPR-65);

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sefacrnber 17,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Omnesing Sanctions gun CCMN and Striking Petitions)

IEP-92-27 PAGFIC OAS AND EIBCTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 arut 2), Docket Nos. 54275-OIA-2,5432301A-2 (ASIBF No. 92WMD-OLA.2) (Consuucticai briod Recovery) (Facility Operating IJcenses Nos. DPR-80, DPR-82); OPERATING LICENSE AMENDMENT; Sepember 24,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Filing Schedules and Prehcanna Cmference)

A in a proceeding concerning the proposed extenson d operstmg limnses to recover er nsapture into thoselicenses the period of constn.ction of the reacion, thelicensing Board determines shat a patinon sequesting a hearing and lerve to intervene is de5cias but permits,in accordance with the Rules of Practica, the Paitioner to file an amended peution, erher panics to narond, and schedules a prehearing conference.

'B A petitioner for interversion sney amend its irnarvention petinan withcan Icave of the licensing board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference. The hcensing board may aber that 15-day penod.10 C.F.R. Il 2.714(a)(3),2.711(a)J C

Merely becaase a petinoner may have had standing in an earher prcreeding does not automatically grant standing in subsequent proceedmgs, even if the scope of the earlier and later proceedings is similar.

IEP-92r28 NOKnIEAST NUGIAR ENERGY COMPANY (Millstone Nuclear Power Stauan, Unit 2),

+

Dodes Ne. 5433&OIA (ASIRP No.92-665 024LA) (5 pent het Pool Design) (IOL No. DPR45);

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sepember 30,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on heinons for Leave to Intervme) r i

w.

i

DIGESTS ISSUANCE 3 OF Tile ATOMIC SAETY AND LICENSING BOARDS

-i LBP-92-29 GENERAL PUBUC UIlllITES NUCIIAR CORPORATION, et al. (Three Mile Island Nucicar Stanan, Unit 2), Docket No. 50 32401A-2 (ASGP Na 91-643-11-OLA-2) (Pust-Defuding Mmitamd

- +

Storage); OPERATINO IJCENSE AMENDMLNT; October 5,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Isismissing Proceedmg) e A-The Ucensing Board dimnisacs this proceeding prior to admining any party,in nespmse to a joint motion of au Petinoners to withdraw the only pending armtenitons. Ahhough om juirs modon requested a dismissal"with prejudice," the licensing Board afused to act on this aquest because h had not seen t!se settlement agremnant, nar had h been given legal argument or factual evidence to persuade k to take the requested acte.

B A licensing board may afuse to dismiss a pmceeding "with prejudice," even though all ihe partacipams joindy sequest that anion, maless k is persuaded by legal and faaus! arguments in support p

d that request.

LBP-92-30 OENERAL PUBUC U11UTIES NUCGAh CORPORATION, et at (Three Mile 1aland Nuclear -

Station, Unit 2), Docket Na 50-320OIA-2 (ASLBP Na91-643-11-OIA-2)(Post-Defuding Monitored Storage); OPERAllNO UCENSE AMENDMENT; October 16,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Reomsidering Order Damasms Proceeding)

A De facensing Beant, having been provided the test of the sculanent readied by da participania, aconsidered us previous dismissal oider and modified h to be a dramssal with prejudice.

B A petition may be dismissed with prejudice providing ht a board reviews the seulemmt and finda, consistent with 10 CF.R. 6 2.759, that it is a " fair and seasonable seidement."

LBP-92-31 BABCOCK AND WIILOX (Apollo, Pennsylvania het Fabrication Facility), Docket Nc6 74 135-DCOM (ASGP Na 92 667 03-DCOM) (Materials IJcense Na $NM-145); DFLOMMISSIONINO; Neverther 12, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petitioners' Request for bnmediate Censsten of Site Cleanup Aedvities)

A in this informal adjudicadon under 10 CE.R. Part 2, Subpart 1 the Presadang Of!icer denies the /

5 1%:idones'sequest to sisy ongoing A -

. setivides as (1) untimely, and (2) failmg to satisfy the four factor test for stays spa:i6ed in 10 Cf.R. Il1788,2.1263.

B Am 10 Cf.it 52.1205(!) makes clear, for a requested materials (or nactor operaior) licensing action th$ is subjeu to chauenge in a Subpart L informal adjudication, the pendency of a hearing request er an engaing pmcading does not preclude the Staff (acnns under hs gmeral authority delegated by the f%-W aes NRC Manual, ch. 0124-032) fmm grarsing a sequested licaming action effective immatistely. As a cournerbalance, section 2.1263 pnmdes that if a requested beansms action is approved and is made effective irnmediately by ths Staff, then any patticipara in an ongoing informal adjudicanon cancermns that actim can sequest that the presiding dficer stay the affectiveness of the licensing maien.

C -. Section 2.1263 spedfies that a suy request must be submined promptly, at the later a enher (1).

the tirne a hearing nr irnervention petition is due to be filed, or (2) 10 days frorn the Staff's grant of the requested 1xamsing sedan. The first time lirnit generally applies if a Staff licensing medan is taken more than lo days berme a hearing er imervesumn petidan is dus to be filed.

D The application of the time limits in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.1263for filing a stay sequest,.

that a hearing petitioner er intervmor has same kind of seasonably pmmpt notics, either actual er constructive, that a contested inquat for licensing action has been afproved and made effective. Compara 10 Cf.R.

~'

I2.1205(c)(2)

-L A presidmg officer's determination to permit a headng petition concernmg a licensms action to be suppiameted does not automatically extend das time for filing a stay request agarding that action A litigant that wishes to catend the time for making a filing must do so by making an caplicit nquest. See 10 CJA il2.711,11203(d).

F

. De standard for obtaining a stay, which is set fonh in 10 Cf.R. 52.788 and is incorporated imo the Subpart L Rulce of Practice by section 11263, specifies that die movania nest demonstrate (1) a strong showing that they are likely to prevail en the merita; (2) that unless a stay is grarned they will be irreparably

- injured; (3) that the granting of the stay will not harm ether parties; and (4) where the public imerest lies.

0-in addressing the stay criteria, a litigant must come forth with more than general or conclusory assertions in orda to aemonstrate ha entitlesnent to relief. See Unbed States Departmera of Energy (Clinch Raver Breeder Reactor Plant), AIAB-721,17 NRC 539,544 (198M.

A 14 4

T i

9 v

i P

. DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND (JCENSING BOARDS II -

la stay lingation, Os participama should use affidavits to support any factual presersanma that may be subject to dispute See 10 LF.R.12.788(a)(3).

1 Because no ene of the four stay criteria, of itself, is dispnsinve, the strength or weakness of a

- maara's showing on a pardcular factor win determine how atmna its showing rnust be oc die taher factors.

See Cleveland Dentric Illuminating Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unita 1 and 2), AIAB-820,22 NRC 443,746 n.8 (1985).

J De anoond assy factor - irreparable injury -is so central that failing m demonstrate isieparable injury requires that the movent make a pardcularly strong showing relanve to the other factas. See Public Service Co. of New llampshire (Seatecok Station, Unita 1 and 2), CL1-943,31 NRC 219,260 (1990).

K

' A movant's reliance upon a listma of ama of cmcern in its imaring petition, along with the otherwias unesplained assertics: that it espects to prevail m thoce ismes, is inadequate to mort its burden under the rust stay criteria to establish a likelihood of success on the merita. See Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp. (West Chicago Rare Earths F3cility), AIAB-928,31 NRC 263,270 0990).

L A movant's faihus to make an adequata showing niative to the fma two stay criteria makes an.

catensive analysis of the third and fourth factors unnecessary. See long Island lighting Co. (Shoseham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), AIAB-810,21 NRC 1616,1620 (1985).

M An applicant's showing segarding causuive, addaional financial expenduures it must make if a stay is granted is a relevant consideration under the thhd stay criterion - harm to other parties. See Philadelphia Doctric Cm (Lirnerick Genaating Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB408,21 NRC 1595,1602 03 0985).

LBP-92-32 OIDO EDISON COMPANY (Perry Nuclear Pooar Plant, Unit 1) and CIIVELAND EIICIRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY sad 'IDIIDO EDISON COMPANY (Perry Nuclear Power Plars, Unit 1; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Stanon, Urut 1), Docket Nos. 50 444A,54346-A (ASLBP No. 91-644-01 A) (Suspension of Arnitrust Condnaens)(Facility Operating License Nos. hW58, NPF-3); ANITfRUST; eavernber 18,1992; DEGS'ON (Oraming Summary Disposinon in F3vcr of NRC Staff and Intervenors on "Bedmck" legal lasuo and Deriying Apphcants' Requesta to Suspend Amitmst IJoenas Conditions, /

Disnusring Canennons on Staff Bias; and Terminating Proceeding) -

A In this Decision, the Licanang Board rules ou cross-suonans for summary disposinon m the "bedmdt"legalissue of whether the Commission has authority under sectim 105c d the Atornic Energy Act (AEA),42 U.S.C. 42135(c), to retain araitmst conditions in a nuclear facility's operating license if the actual cost of sniclear facility electncit, is higher than ahernadve sources.

B The sepose doctrines of ns pai:sta, collateral estoppel,laches, and law of the case are applicable in l

NRC adjm!icatory pmceedmas generally. See, e.g., Safety Light Corp. (Blomusburg Sr.se Decontamination),

CU-92-9,35 NRC 156,159-60 (1992) Daw of the case); llouston lighting and Power Co. (Smah Texas Project, Units 1 and 2). CL1-77-13,5 NRC 1303,13210977) Caches); Alabams Powcr Co. Ucseph M.

Furley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2), C1174-12,7 API 2(D,203 04 (1974) (res judicats and collateral smappel)

C ne apose doctrmes of ns kdicata, collateral estoppel, laches, and law of the case all may be applied in antitrust proceedings becouas "[1]itigation has the same conclusive power in aantmst og elsewhere? II P. Ameda & D. Turner, Annuust law 1323, et 106 (1978).

-D In applying the repose doctnnes of nes judicata, collateral estoppel, laches, and le* of the case, particular saantion must be paid to changed circumstances, either factual or legal. See 14. at 10619,125-28.

See also Farley,0174-12,7 AEC at 20344 (nonantanan coment).

E De npose dacszine of law of the case acts to bar rubrigation of the sacne issue in subsequent -

stages of the sarne proceeding. See,e.g., Anr.ona v. California,460 U.S. b05,618 (1983) Ses generally 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Pisctice and Pmcedure 64478 0981).

F The repose doctones of as judicata and entlateral esteppel are somewhat salated. As descobed by the Supreme Court- "Under the doctrine of us judicata, a judgmera on the merits in a prior suit bars a second suit involving the same parnes er their privies based si the same cause of actim. Under the doctrine of collatemi estoppel, on the other hand, the second action is upon a different cause of acrim and the judgrnent in the prior suit pecludes ulitiganon ofissues actually htigatal and necessary to the outeume of the fust action? Parklane ilosiery Co. v. Shore,439 U.S. 322,326 n.5 (1979) (citations omiued). Both doctrines thus bar relitigation 6 y the same panies of the same substaraive issue, Res judicata also bara '

litigation of an issue that could have been litignied bi the pri<r cause of action.

15 e.

t s

w S '.

4

~

r-DIGESTS.

ISSUANCES OF Tile A10MIC SAITTY AND IICENSING BOARDS O

< To establish de defense oflaches, which is an equitable doctrine that bars the late filing of a claim :

if a party would be pnjudiced because afits actions during the imerim were taken in reliance en the right challenged by the claimant "'the evidence must show both that d.e delay was unressanable and that k

- prejudiced the defendant.'" Van Bourg v. Nitre,388 F.2d 557,565 (DC Cir.1967) (quoting I%well vm hiert,366 F.2d 634,636 (D.C. Cir.1966)).

II he absence c(" subject mattes

• jurisdiction may be raised at any time in a geoceedmg without -

mand to timeliness ennsideranons. See gewrally 5A Wright & Milla, Federal Praedce and Pmcedure i1350, at 200 04 (2d ed,1990)..

I la making a daiermmation under AEA section 105c about the arzitrust unplications of a licensing acum, the Commiazion must act to ensure ht two sesuhs do not catain: Activitice under the license unait not (1) " maintain" a " situation inconsistent with the antitrust hws" w (2) "cmate" such a situatim. -

j In snaking its ultimate deternunation about whether en applicarsi activines under the license wiu resuk in a "altuation incormistent with the antitrust laws," the term " maintain" permhs the Commusion to lock at the applicant's past and present ampetitive performance in the alevant market whereas the word "cnete" armsions that the Commission's assessment will be a fwwanblooking, predictive analysis camerning alm canpethive environment in which the facility will opersta See Alabama Power Cow v. NRC,692 F.2d 1362,1367-68 (11th Cir.1982), cert. & sued,464 U.S. 816 (1983).

J

~ ' Fw any statuiary interpretation question, a licasing board nwst fast look si the suuctum and wording of the provisien in question in an effet to discern us $1ain meaning."

K In specifying which federal antitrust laws are implicated in an NFC arniuust review AEA secum 105 references au the major provisiana governmg antitrust reguhtim, including the Sherman, Clayton, and Fedwal Trade Commission Acts.

L Under AEA section 105c h is not necmsary that the "situaticst" under coruideration in the NRC's antitnut review involve an actual violation of the speci6ed antitrust laws before the Commissica can act The Commission has a broader authority that encumpasses those instances in which there is a " reasonable f probability" that those laws "ar the policies clearly undedying those laws" will be infringed. Alabama Pbwer Co.,692 F.2d at 1368.

M

. It is a basic tena that "the antarust laws seek to prevent conduct whidt weakens a denteoys competitica" E. Kintner, An Anntnut Primer 15 (2d ed.1973); see Toledo Edison Co, (Devis-Beus Nuclear Ibwer Station, Unita 1, 2, and 3), AIAB-560,10 NRC 265, 279 & n.34 (1979) (principal' purpose of Sherrnan, Cayton, and Federal Trade Conmuasist Acts is preservation of and encouragemmt -

af carnpetition).

N._ One of the cardinal precepts of antitrust segulation is that a commercial entity that is dominant in the relevant market (even if ha daninance is hwfully gained) is accountable for the manner in which h

- esercises the degree of mases power that daninance affords. See Ouer Tail Power Co, v. United States. -

410 UA 366,377 (1973). See also A. Neal,%e Antitmst laws a the United States 126 (7d ed.1970). -

O_

" Market power" is generaDy defined as the " power of a firm to affect the price which will prevail an the madet in whidi the firrn nadea." L Sullivan. Ilandbook of the Law of Araitmst i1, at 30 (1977).

See also II Ameds & Turner, supra,1501,'st 322 ("Madet power is the ability to mise price by restriedns -

eutput") If a Arm passesses marka power such that k has a substantial power to caelude competiums by seducing prioc, then it is ennsidered to have " monopoly powa." See Su11 sun, supra,622, at 76 78, P

. If an ersity with madet dominance tailizes hs market power widi the gatrpane d desuoying onmpetams er to otherwise fomcicae canpeution or gain a competitive advantage, then its conduct wiu violate the antitrust laws, specificaBy section 2 of the Sherman Am. See, e.g., Eastman Kodak Co. v. lmage Technical Services, lac,119 L Ed. 24 265,294 (1992); OtterTail Power Co 410 U.S. et 377, Q

Under generat enduust principles, what is required scladvs to a particular carnpatitive simatim is an analysis of the existenos and use d nurka poww among competing firms to determine whether anticemcentive conditions caist. This assessment is,in turr,, based upm a number of different factors that have been recognized as providing some indicia d a firrn's competitive patency in the selevant market,

'J

' inchiding firm stre, maaet concentrenan, barriers to enuy, pricing pobey, profitability, and past competitive

- conduct. See Sullivan, supra, il 22 32, at 74-93.

16

.g 1

Ii '

DIGESTS ISSUANCFS OF Tile ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS R'

Nothing in AEA section 105c, or in the peninent andtrust laws and cases, supparu de propositia that traditional smiuust madet power analysis is inapplicable in the frst instance when die assessment of the cornpraidve impact d a pardcular asset (LA, a nuclear facihty) is involved.

S

Cmaisters with the antitrust laws referzoced in AEA section 105c, what uhimately is atissue under that provision is not a competitor's comparative ecst of doing business, but rather ha possession and use of madet power. And if a canmercial antity's market dmunance gives it the power to affect curnpetidon, how it uses that power - na merely its cost of doing business - semains the locus for any anuuust analpis under section 105c.

T During an andtrust review under AEA section 105c,if h can be demonstratal that market power has sw would be misused, than with cause to believe that the applicant's "acdvities under die Scense would cmate or mainLain a situadon inconsistent with the amhmst laws" the Connuission can innervale to take seinedial measures. On the other han,d. If the Comnussion scaches a judgment that an otherwise dominara udlity has not and wi!! not abuse ha market power La., that its "activides under the licase" will aca

• create ce maintain a situation irmnsisters whh the antimmt laws " then the Comadssion need not interade.

U In scaddng a judgment under AEA section 105c about a utility's "activhics under the license,* thr, Canmisalon is permined to undertake a "bmad inquiry"irao an applicarst's conduct See Alabama Power Co, t&2 F.2d at 1368.

V-AEA section 105c directs that the focus of the Commission's consideration during an andtsust mysew must be whether, considering a variety of factors, a melear utility has madet dormnanac ami,if so, given its past (and predicted) cunpatidve behavior, whether at can and will use that market power in its sedvitie voladng to the operadon of ha licased facihty to affect adversely the compentive situation in the selevers market.

W

" Absent a clearly exptessed legislative intentbn to the sunrary, [the language of the statute itself) must ordinaruy be regaided as conclusive." Cmmwnw Pmduct Safeiy Canmission v. GTE Sylvania,Inc, 447 U.S.102,108 (1980)). 'Ihe Supreme Cmrt recently has gone evesi further, indicating that, when the /

wnsds of a statute are unambigueus, no further judicialinquiry into legisladve history of the language is permissible: "[C]anons of consuuction am no more than rules of thumb that kip courts deternune the mesmns of legisladon, and in irser;wenna a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before an others. We have stated time and again that courts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what h means erst means in a statute what it says there. When the words of a stause are unambiguous, then, dus first canon is also the last: t ' Judicial inquiry is compicie.'" Connecucut Nanonal Bank v. Germain, 117 L Ed. 2d 391,397-98 0992)(citations orniuser X

- The "best source of legislative history" is the cmgressional repons en a particular bill. See Alabama Power Co,692 F.2d at 1368.

Y.._ Sistements of witnesses dudrag a congressional enmrmnee hearing that are neither made by a mernbcr of Congnus nor referenced ha the solevant committee seport are normally to be accorded little, if any, weigts., See Kelly v. Robinson,479 U.S. 36,50 n.13 (1986).

Z An equal protection challange to an economic classification is reviewed under the redonal basis standard, which requhes that any classificadens established in the challanged statute um.st rationally furthee a legitimate governracra objective. See, e.g, Nordhnger v. Ilahn,120 L Ed. 2d 1,12 (1992).

AA AEA section 105 reflects the congressional concern that the unique iedmology undedying com-mercial power reactors, which in its cruciat initial suges was largely governrners developed and fmenced, should not become a tool for increasing the competitive advantage of some private utilides at the expense of others. See Alaberna Power Co.,692 F.2d at 136849. See also Consumers Power Co. (Midland liani, Units I and 2), AIAB452,6 NRC 892,1095 (1977)..

EB A legislative body will be afforded a large measure of deference in its dicace of which aspects of a perucular evilit wishes to climinate. See, e.g., Minnesota v. Clover Imaf Cremmay Co.,449 U.S. 456, 4 6 (1981).

CC In reviewing an agency decision a!!cgedly subject to bias, including improper legislative inJ1uence,,

the indepaidet assesamers of an adjudicatory decisionmaker negarding the merbs of the parties

• 1egal (as

+

opposed to factual) ponaions wiu attenuate any earlier impmpriety. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. FPC,563 F.2d 588,611 12 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied,434 U.S.1062 (1978).

17 Y

hs.

i s

I 4

N' t

i

~

DIGESTS

' ISSUANCES OF Tite ATOMIC SAITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS i

DD.

Rooted as k is in emisens antitrust law prmeiples, a previous agency fmding under AEA secum 105c(5) that a

• situation inconsistunt with the antitmst laws" eaists and mquires the impositian of remedial license ccndities cannat be ebrogated merely because of fmancial adversity. Compan 1.P. Amcda & D. -

Turner, Amutrum law 1104, at 7-8. ("{r]he courts beve given almost undevianng priority to ecmpetitice over claims that restrictive agmemenus are necessary to mitigate economic disuess. %e reasoning has been clesdy stated; given the compeddve mandate of the entorust laws, such claims must be addressed to

, Congress rather than the couns"(footncaes emitted).) -

LBP-92-33 GIOTEQ1 ASSOCIATES. INC (Geo-Tech Laboratories, 43 South Aveue, Fanwood, New Jersey 070231 Dockcs Na 030-20693-EA (ASGP Na 9M7041-EA)(Materials License Na 29-1822205-02); ENIORCEMEhT; November it,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Pmvuhng for Geo Tech's Answer to Revocation Order)

LBP-92 34 ST, JOSElH RADIOIJOGY ASSOCIA'IIS, INC., and JOSEPil L HSIIER, M.D. (d.bia. ST.

3 JOSEPil RADIOLDGY ASSOCLATES, INC., and MSIIER KAPIOLOGICAL CIlNIC) Docket Nos.

030-00320-EA, 999-900(B-EA (ASGP Na 93472-02EA); ENIORCEMENT; November 20, 1992; MEMORANDE.lM AND ORDER (Danying Request to Sea Aside immediate Effectiveness of Enfanzment Order)

A In this Memorandum and Order, the Uccaiaing Board dennes the 1%utioner's modon, pursuant to 10 C.FA 5 2202(cX2Xi), to set aside the immediate effectiveness nf an NP.C Staff enforcernant esder.

B Pursuant ta lo C FA 52.202(cX2Xi), a person to whnm the Conmussion has issued an immodately effective estforcemers ordar may tree to set aside the hnmediate effectiveness of the onier en the smund that *the order, including the need for bnmediate effectivencas, is not based e adegaats evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or ermr.".

C Pursuant to 10 C.FA 52.202(cX2Xi), a sebaside motion must state with partacularity the reases why the mforcernent order is not based upon adequate evidesma and the madon mua be accornpanied by

/

affidavits or other evidence miied upon by the movant.

D Pursuant to 10 CFA 62.202(cX2Xi), the Licensing Board must "uphnid the immediate cffectivec ness of the order ifit fmda that theas is adequate evidence to suppat irnmediate effectiveness" and the s

adequate evidence test is avs when the

• facts and 5-- within the NRC staff's knowledge, d which it has reasonably trustwenhy information, are sufficiers to warrant a person of reasonable cautien to believe that the charges specified in the order are true and that the orderis necessary to protea the public -

heshh, saiery, or interea." 57 Fed. Reg. 20,194,20,1% (May 12,1992).

LDP 92-35 BABCOCK AND WIlf0X (ApoEo, Pennsylvania Fsel libdcation licilityk Docles Na 70-135 DCOM (ASLBP Na92467-03-DCOM)(Materiala Ucense No. SNM-145); DECOMMISSIONING; Decemba 10,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petitioners' Request for Reconsideratim of Stay Deniel Order).

A, he Presiding Officer denics a medan for reconsideration of LBP-92 31,36 NRC 255 (1992),

fmding the movants failed to establish that decision denying their motion for a stay was in erior.

B In accordance with 10 C.FA H 2771,11259(b), a d;ssatisfied litigant in a 10 C.F1 Part 2, Subpart L informal adjudicatary pic-Ag can seek seconsideration of a final determmation by the.

Comrrussion or a pasiding efficer based a the claim that the pardcular decision was ermneous.

C A movara seeking reconsideration of a final decision nmst do so en the basis of an elaharataan upun, or vennement of, argurnents geevioinly advanced, generally on the basis of information not previously l

svailable. See Caaral Electric Power Cooperative,Inc. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-e 81-26,14 NRC 787,790 (1981); Termessee Valley Authority (llattsville Nuclest Plain, Uniia IA,2A, IB, 4

. and 2B), ALAB-418,6 NRC 1. 2 (1977).

D.

A reconsideration request is not an occasion for advancing an einirely new thesis or fue simply reiterating argurnents Feviously pmffered and rejected. See Summer, Cl181-26,14 NRC at 790; img

< Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statinn, Unit ik C1188-3.28 NRC 1,2,4 (198811 E.

Individual 1cgislators who seek to particapate in NRC sdjudicatory pmceedmss have standmg to do

' so if they can show their persmal irnerests are impacted by the particular licensing activity at iraue; they do ant have standing to represent their constiments' interests gencrully. See Combustion Engineering, Inc.

. Olematiie Tvs1 Fabrication Facilityl LBP-89-23,30 NRC 140,145 (19891 18 M

i k

P

.lL

..h 5

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF Tite A1DMIC S AITTY AND LICENSING BOARDS F

Ahhough a hearing painon regarding a matetials licmse amendmera najucst generally can be filed as soon as an amendmera applicanon is submined to the agary, a request for a stay relative to that g

ammamers application is not appmpriate until the Staff has taken action to grara the amendment requent and to make ow apprwed licawing action cHective. See 10 CJA il 2.1205(c),0),2.1263. See alne Long Island Ughting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statim, Unit 1), ClJ-91-8. 33 NRC 461,464 (1991).

O A nonadjudicatory request for mIief under 10 CSA $ 2.206 genaa!!y is not a maner within the province of a presiding o&cr in a Subpset L adjudicatory proceeding.

2P-92 36 ADVANCED MFNCAL SYSTEMS,INC. (One Factmy Row, Geneva. Ohio 44041).Dmiet No.

3016055-OM (ASGP Na 37-555-01-OM) (Dr--

' ' L Order); ENIORCEMENT; Dummber 14, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Disrmssmg Proceeding) _

A in this case the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board dismisses the pmcending for the lack of a L:

cornrovened inaue.

B in an enforccaners proceeding, once the licenses haa voluntarily complied with the Sta!Ts.

enforcemet order requiring cleanup.and decornaminatie of the licensee"s bypmduct materials facility, the controvened issue upon which a proceeding may be bened -- whether the ada was justified - has become mont IllP 9237 U.XAS UfIlllTES EIICTRIC COMPANY, et at (Comanche Peak Sir.am Electric Stanon, Unit 2). Docken No. 5444&CPA (ASGP No. 92 66841-CPA); CONSTRUCDON PERMIT AMENDMFNf; December 15, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Imervennon Paitirais and Terminating Proceeding)

A The Lksing Board denies peuums im leave to intervene and to hold hearings on the grounds i>

that Petitioners did not have the sequiaite interest fa standing as sequired by 10 CIA 52.714(a)(1) or limidoness have failed to file an admissible conternian as required by 10 CIA 52.714(b)(1)..

11 Petamners' claims of injury based on alleged violatuna of anploymet rights do not prtwide the

/

sequisite interest im standing in an application proceeding to catend 0 e constructica permit completion date for Unit 2 of the Comanche Peak Steam Ele:tric Stenon.

C INuuoners' claims of injury based on alleganons that they were denied the right to appear as wimassos in a prior pmeceding to catend the construction completion date for Unit 1 of the Comanche Peak Steam Elseuie station do act provide the requisit.e haerest for standmg in the subject. application.

D.

A contention filed in an applicatim pmcealing to catend the compicuan date of a construcuan permitis not adminible where it does not directly challenge the Applicant's alleged good-cause justification for the delay. Petitioners' allegations of corporate wrongdoing do not sher that a genuine dispute sakns with the Applicant en its justification fca the delay.,

E Petinonars' carnemian is inadmissible smder 10 C.FA 52.714(b)(2)0ii) where the conumbon fails.

to contain su&ient infarmatinn to slww that a genuine dsputa esists with the Applicant on a materialissue oflaw er fact and does not include references to the specific partiona of the afplicanon that Petitioners may -

dispate.

LDP-92-38 OEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et at (Vogtle Electric Generanns Plant, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nas. 54424-OLA-3, 50 425-OLA-3 (ASGP No. 9647101-01A-3) (Transfer to Southem Nuclear);

OPERATING IJCENSE AMENDMENT; December 24,1992; MEMORANDUM.AND ORDER (Factual Dispute About Residence; Evidentiary Hearing)

A The lacmsing Board determined that there was a factual dispute concernaag the caters #

3 Petitioner's contacts with the Vogtle Plant, and it scheduled an evidantiary hearing on this one issue as part of a adeduled prehearing ccriferece.

B An evidemiary hearing may be held to deterrrune whesher or not petitimer has met the criteria for.

stan&ng.

4 19 i

d h

4 i

k

. DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DECISION f

DD-924 AR17DNA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAhT, et at (Palo Venie Nuclear Generanna Stanon, Units j

1. 2, and 3), Dcxkes Nos. 50 528,50 $29,50 530; REQUEST POR ACTION; August 12,1992; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DICISION UNDER 10 CIA l2.206 1-A The Duncur of the Offwe of Nuclear Reactor Regulauan deus the mnainder d a Painen -

sutenined by Mrs. Unda E. Macin!! (Paidaner) requesting acdan with agard to the Palo Verde Nuclear j

Gener:6ng Station of Arizons Putsis Service C4snpeny, et at (1xansee).

B in he IWition, Petitioner alleged that serious violadons existed at the Palo Verde facihty sn the systems for emergency lighdng and fue prosecuan. In a Pardal Dutctor's Decasion issued on October St.

]

1990 (DIF90 7,32 NRC 273), eds aspect d Peunoner's request for ocnon pumuant so 10 CSA I2.206 f

was denied. -

l C

Petitioner had also aueged L..,-., L.6. by Licaane personnel rgardir.g NRCinspectim activines, specificaDy that bcssues penannel acted improperly to " water down"inspecnon 6ndings, suwress serious violadars, and disendit an NRC inspector. Based on an investigadan by the NRC's Office of theInspector -

I.

Oeneral, these aDega6ons were found to be without ment. Acconhngly, the Director denied this aspect d

[

the Petitioner's regaest for action pursuant to section 2.206.

f DD 92-5 IlOUSTON UGifTING AND POWER COMPANY (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), Docket i

Nos. 5N98,5M99; REQUEST FOR ACHON; October 5,1992; DIRiflDR'S DECISION UNDER 10 i

CFA I2.206 i

A The Director of the Office d Nuclear Reactor Regulation grants in part and dernes in put a Petition suhmined pursuant to 10 CIA 6 2.206 by Mr. Thomas J. Saporito (Paitioner) aquesung acnon with regard to the S.anh Texas Project (STP). Units I and 2, of the Houston Lighting and Power Canpany (Licanee).'

B twisioner seguessed the NRC to inidata swift and efecdvs aedons to cause the IAenses to adequately train aD S17 employees in Secunty Procedures, use of the Work Pm:ess 1% gram, Mairamance j

Work Practices and P"-as and use d the Planner's Guide, as well as aH STP Security Fusoe -

f permannel in the use of accurity pmcodarea. In response in the Petinon, a special NRC team inspecuan was a

caducted whidi substantiated some d the Pennioner's concerns and usuhed in conective acxicrs by the Ucznsect 1 hose aspecta of the Fusinon subssannated by the NRC and corrected by the Ucensee are grarsed. -

C With regard to dus IWitioner's sequest fa action pursuara to sec6an 2.206 for the institution of proceauhngs pursuais to 10 CIA 62,202 and for immediam uvocanon of all escorted access at the STP site, and for an immediste shutdown of all maimenance activity there, the Director finds minimal safety significance associaiad with the cancerns raised in the Petidtst and desses those partions of the IWition.

8 DD-924 TEXAS ITTIIITIES E!IfDt1C COMPANY,et at (Comandia Peak Steam Electric Stancet. Units r

l 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50445, 50-446; REQUEST FOR ACTION; Novanba 19, 1992; DIRECTOR *S.

DECISION UNDER 10 CJA 62206 i

A The Duw: tor of the Office of Nudear Reactor Regulanon denies a petinon fdsd by Ms. $4ndra 1.mg '

l Dow, Dispossbie Workens d Canands Peak Stearn 13ectric Stadon, and Mr. R. Micky Dcm. SpecificaDy, the Petition aucged that Teams Unlinea Idectric Company (ITHC or beensee) failed to demaustrate ths necessay character and capsbaity that are the primary faciers to be considered la granting a liccame; that the Licenses has shown a " downward spiral"in violannna, reptstable incidents, and NRC Staff ecsuarns;

};

and that the NRC Staff failed to sespond to requesu fcr infwmanan abous severa1 incidents. Petitioners ll also off'ered, as they have previously, to give the Commission transcripts of siaseen secls d audio tapes that cmtain convena6ais beween the Ucensee and censin individ als that aHegedly indicate duplicity between i

l i

l 21 l

L P

,y..%.,

,-.,-.,-~,..

w.-

,,-m--

r-DIGFETS ISSUANCES OF DfRFCTORS' DECLSIONS Region IV and the licensee. Ptaatmners requested that the Commission order the immediais smadown d Unit I d Cananche Peak Steam Bactric Station, institute a pmceeding to modify, suspend, er sevoke de license held by TUDC for Unit 1, and suspend considering whether to catend or mod 2fy da construction permh for Unit 2 d the facihty ursil resolution of any pmcending penaining to the hczuse for Unit L -

DD 924 ARIZONA PUB 1JC SERVICE COMPAhT, as sl. (Pale Verde Nuclear Ocnerating Stanon. Units

1. 2, and 3), thcies Nasc 50 528, 50 529, 50 530; REQUEST JUR ACTION; hovember 24, 1992; DIREC1DR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R. 62.206 A

The Direaar Office of Enfacernent, grants in pan and denies in part a Ittition 61cd pursuant to 10 Cf.R. 42.206 by Devid Colapinto en behalf of Sarah C. Danas and tisde E. Machell (Pentioners The Pennaners alleged that dry had been subjected to harassment, intimidadan, discnnunane, ed a *husnle wodt erwironment" by the Atiram Pubhe Service Company (APS) at de Palo Verde facility, in violation of the Commissim's Empicyoc Protection pnwisions. The Peutimers sequested that the NRC ir.itiate a pr-4 directing APS to show cause why the Palo Verde heenses should not be revoked, modified, or 3

suspended, and assess a civil pmahy against APS in the smaum of at least 31.2 million. To the cuent that the Painon sequested that the NRC take enforcemers action against APS, the Petition has been granted.

To em enent that the Petinan sequested a civil penahy above 3130,000 and sequemed that prnmahnss be initiated to show cause wby the license should not be revoked, modtfied, and/or suspended, it has been denied.

8 The NRC normaUy has defered acuan on sectam 210 cases umil aher a fmal decisian by the Secretary of Labor en the allegatiana d discamination.

C In the futa the NRC Staff win normally take enforamas action in signincant cases d discrimination aher se initial andmg cf dascrammation by a Depattment of Leba Administrauvelaw Judge (ALf). Ilowever, in light d the faa that au ALI R--

' " Decisiana are automatically aviewed by the Secusary of Labor, the NRC will allc= a licenses to defer a response 1o a Nu6ce of Violadm until after the Enal ruling by the Secunary

/

D The appropnate guidance for assessing a civil pmalty is found in the Cannusamn's Enforcemera

}

IV. icy. N Enforcemerit Policy classina, diffems types of violsuons by their relative severity, provides cammples of the types d vio;ations and the __...dc.d severity levels for these violanans, desenbes j

the d-- in which forrnal sanctions, includmg orders, civil penalties, and nonces of violation ase appropriate, and provides !aaers that should be considered in determining whether the proposed civD

}{

+

penaby should be mitigated or escalated.

E.

The NRC was and is cercorned over any percepnan that an employee might uffer diacriminaten f

because of raising safety concerns.

DD-924 -

DETROIT EDISON COMPANY, et al. (Enrion Fernd Aurnic Pbwer Plant, Unit 2), Docket No.

~ 5 50-341; krQUEST IOR AC110N; Novuoher 25,1992; DIRECIDR'S DECISION UNDER 10 Cf.R.

I 2.206 A

The Direcsar, Office of Enforcesnent, grassa in part'and denies in pan a Petinon Aled pumusra l

so 10 CTA 12.206 by Edwin A. Slavin, Jr., on behalf of Camlyn larry (Petisimer). N Pcaitioner mquested that enforcement acnna he taken against Detroit Edison Company (DECO) including assessmern.

-[

of a substarnial civil penahy; that Petismer and her counsel be aDowed to be present during certain phone convernanans er meetings between the 'O M DECoq that seasonable empennes incurred by Pauuaner '

and her counsel relanng to the enfacemers action be paid by DECO; and that an enforcaners conference.

{

. previously held be seconvened to sDow Pezinaner and her counsel to parucipew As bases for her sequesta, 1%ussoner asserts that the Comt of Appeals la de Slath Circuit has upheld a fmfing by the Secnsary d.

labor that Deco discrinunated against her and deceived her about her righis negarding Eling a complaint -

i wuh the Department of labor. The Pention bas bem granted to the calcis that de Petiumer sequemed that '

enfwoommt action be taken, and denied to the caters that the Pendener aquested that a civil penalty be :

~!

assessed and an enfmtement confenmos be reconvmed. (the Director d Enforcernera dmied IWitioner's request to be present during phone conversanans er moeungs in s letter issued prior to this Decision.)

Il

' The NRC normany withholds enforcement acrim until the comp!cuan d the DOL pmcess..

l C

A Severity I.evel11 violation is one of very significant agulatory cmcern and normahy resuhs in s civD pmahy.

o 4

I i

^ )

b 5

E

+

ny-I

n c1 x

te E.

0 DIGESTS.

r ISSUANCES OF DIRECTORS' DF.CISIONS

). --

3-D'

.. While in the past,the NRC welied for the comp 1cuan of the Secretary of Latds sview of a case befmt taking enforcement acuan, secat cbanges in the NRC's approedi regardmg the taking et mforcer at actaan in sad casas will sesuh in enforcernus action being taken in appmpnais cases folkwing the issuance f a Recamrnanded Deciske and Order by e DOL Administrative Law Judge.

o E

I e

h 5

f.

b

..=

s l

e 23 f

.h I

s E

a g

M m

........ _ _ _ _. ~..... -..

i i

i i

o d

DIGESTS ISSUANCES OF DENIALS OF PETIT 10N FOR RUlf.MAKfNG 4

i.

DPRM-92-1 DANIEL BOR50N en Behalf a PUBLIC CITI7IN. Docka No. PRM 50-54; My 27,1992; DENIAL OF PE1TnON TOR RULEMAKING A

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a penda:t for rulcrnaking (PRM 5454) imm Daniel Barson on behalf d the Public Citizen. The Pentimer aquested slut the NRC amend its aguladms regarding the licensing of independent power producers to construct or operate commesial nuclear power reactors. The petition is beiryg denied on the basis that cursers NRC reguladma pnwide authwity for the licensing d an Independent Power Producer (!PP) should such an applicatim be sutunined and for a review of the applicant's financial qualiScadons to cmstruct and operste a commercial power a

mactor.

f.

B The caisdng regulations in 10 Cf.R. Part 50 pnwide authority to nequest the necessary information from non etility applicarns to perfum a fmancial qualificadons aview, as well as require the applicants to set aside funds for demmmasioning of the seactor.

C Eadt licensen, utility or non4idlity,is required by 10 C.P.R. I140.21 to maintain adequate mmies, through several apprwed methods indicated in that section, to guaramce paymerit of defened premnans in satisfy its responsibility under the PricerAndersan Act.

DPRM-92-2 GENERAL IIIC11 tlc STOCKIIOLDERS' ALLIANCE, et al., Docket Na PRM 2419; July 27,.

1992; DENIAL OF PE11 TION 10R RU1IMAKING A

ne Nuclear Regulatory Canmission (NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM 2419) from Beuy Schroeder on behalf d the General Electric Stockholdes' Alliance, et al. The Pentioner mquested that the NRC issue a nguladan so segune that a detectable oder be injected into the anissions of nuclear

' l power plarns and other nuclear pmcesses over wisch the NRC has jurisdicdon. De petition is being denied on the basia that the propcsed action is not necessary because: (1) current manisming and ernergency

. l respmse procedures prwide an adequate lent of safety; (2) it would not asuh in any increased proteedon l

d the public heahh and safety and as a result would not meet the Commission's *Backfit Rule " 10 Cf.R. '

$5a109; (3) the prgased saian is not technically feasible; and (4) the injection of odors in detectable concentradons over the Ernergency Planrdag Zone for a nuclear power plant or suitable area fer other nuclear facility would likely be detrimental to the environmera. -

1 l,

B The following todmicalissues are discussed. Emergency Plans; Emironrnemal Effects of Odor. -

~

ains; 11eahb EHects; low-tmel Radiation Releases: Radioactive Plumes; Radiological Monitorms.

. I l

l i

i l

l 25 l

I

. }

l.-

t l'

l l

. ~. -.,.

.,n

-c

..~.. -.

..,x

.. ~.. -. ~ - -

-. - ~ - -..

8 A

1-5 i

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES l

Advanced Nuclear Nels Corp. Omport of South African Enriched I ranium Ilcasfluoride), CLI-87 9,26 NRC 109,112 0987) basis for denial of requests fcr oral argument; C1J-9212,36 NRC 68 0992)

Air Courier Conferman of Amenca v. Arnaican Postal Wwkers Union, AFLCIO,498 U.S.

112

1. Ed. 2d 1125,1134 0991) irQury in-fact and sone-d-interests tests for standing to antervene; IEP-92 23,36 NRC 126 (1992)

Alabama Power Co. (Alan R.11arton Nuclear Nat, Utdts 1, 2, 3, and 4; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Nat, Unite I and 2), CL1-75-12,2 NRC 373 (1975) j Commission practice to defer to licensing board's judgment on consolidation of pmoeadings;

"(

C11-9213,36 NRC 89 (1992)

Alabama Pbwer Co. (Joseph R Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB 182,7 AEC 210, reman <ied J

j i

on other grounds, CL1-74-12,7 AEC 203 fl974) l applicabuity of collatern! estoppel where similar claims have b4n asserted as basis for standing in I

another pmoeeding; IEP-92 23, 36 NRC 12627 (1992)

(

l Alabama Power Ca (Joseph R Farley Nuclear Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-182,7 AEC 210,215 m.7, remanded on other smunds, CIJ-74-12,7 Aff 203 (1974) j f

. l treshners d operedng liomaa proceeding as involving the same "cause d acdon" as a construedou

{

pennit pmeneding, for rue judicata purposes; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 284 (1992).

E,-

Alabama Fbwer Co. Ocmeph R Farley Nuclear Nat, Units 1 and 2), C1174-17 7 AEC 203,20301 (1974) 7 afplicatility of as judicata and collateral estappel in NRC pru gs; LEP 92-32,36 NRC 283 n

l 0 992)

~ I i

Alabama Power Co. v. NRC,492 F.2d 1362,1367-68 (11th Gr.1982), cert. denied,464 U.S. 816 (1982)

.1 interpretadon of " maintain" and "creste" regarding situadans inemsistent with antitrust laws; u

IEP-92-32,36 NRC 288 (1992)

American Federation of Tobacco Growem v. Neal,183 F.2d 869 (4dt Cir.1950) justifwation for refusal to make monopoly facilitics available in a competitor; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 294 0 992) i Arimma Public Service Co. (Palo Wde Nuclear Gmeradng Station, Units I, 2, and 3), C1J 9112, 34 NRC 149 0991) specificity equired d conteinions; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 215 (1992)

Arizona 1%1ic Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Uruts 1,2, and 3), CLi-9112,34 NRC 149,155 0991) basia and spetincity requirernets far contaaions; IEP-92-37, 36 NRC 376 0992) 4 Arizara Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station. Units 1, 2, and 3), CLI-91-12, 34 '

NRC 149,155 al (1991) i pleading rquirements for comanuors;IEP42-17,36 NRC 28 (1932)

Anzona Public Servios Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generauna Station, Units 1,2, and 3), CLI-9112,34 -

NRC 149,155-56 0991).

board limitations in determining whether injury in fact has beca adequately set fordq IEP 9223,36 NRC 127 (1992)

}

27 J

1 e

1 II v.

y v

.-n.-n-,,,., r

........ ~ - -... _.., _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

p- -

4 Uf LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES

[.

' Arirma Public Service Co. (Pa's Verde Nuclear Generanns Stauon, UnL 1,2, and 3), DD-92-1,35 NRC c

133, 143 4 4 (1992)

- i N

standard for inantution of show-cause proceedman; DD-927. 36 NRC 345 0992)

Arizona Public Service Co. (Pelo Verde Nuclear Generating Stanon, Urnis 1,2, and 3), LBP-91-19,33 NRC 397 0991) specifu:ity requised of cornenuons; 1EP.92-28,36 NitC 215 0992)

Anzona Public Service Co. (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Stanon. Units 2 and 3),IRP-85-26,22 NRC 118 0 985) dismisaal of proceeding with prejudics because of seulemet agreemeat; ISP-92 30,36 NRC 228 (1972)

Arizona v. Ca16tnia,460 U.S. 605,618 0983) law of the case as har to relitigation of same issue in subsequent stages of the same proceeding:

1RP-92-32,36 NRC 283 (1992) s Armed liroes Radiology Research Instituin (Cobah-60 Sarage Facility), A1AB482,16 NRC 150,154 0 982) geographic proximity as basis for standing in operating license emendment proceedings; ISP-92-28, 36 Nr 212 0992)

.Atiantic Reseant Corp (Alexandria, Virginia), A1AB-5W,11 FRC 841,848-49 (1980) need for licensing board's agreerners in everv detail in order so sustain directs a decisicut; '

t 12P 92 25,36 NRC 187 n.45 (1992)

Atlantic Research Corp. (Alexandria, Virginia), CL1-80-7, il NRC 413,426 0980) rerponsibiiny of licensece for acts of their ernployees; IEP 92 25,36 NRC 173-74 0992)

- Bc!! oui v. NRC,725 F.2d 1380 (D.C Cir.1983)

Commission authority to defmo and limit the scope of a proceeding; LBP-92 28,36 NRC 210 (1992)

Bellotti v. NRC,725 F 2d 1380,1383, IJ86 (D.C Cir.1983).

deperulence of shird-party hearing rights on licensen's request for a hearing; UM211,36 NRC 54 n.19 0992)

Boston Edism Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Pbwer Stana), IEP-85-24, 22 NRC 97,98 99 (1985), aff*d en other 7 gmunds, A1AB-816,22 NRC 4610985) geographic pruimity as basis for standing to innervene in operating license amedment proceeding;

IEP-92,38,36 NRC 395 0992) l Boston Edison Co. (PUgrim Nuclear Power Stat' o, Unit 2),IEP-74-63, 8 AEC 330,33132,335-36, aff'd, AIAB-238,8 AEC 656 (1974) -

newly acquired standmg or organizananal existence as basis for irnerveraien; 13P 92-19,36 NRC 105 (1992).

Carolins ?ower and Light Co. (Shearas 11arris Nuclear Power Plant Units 1-4), ALAB-5M,9 NRC 122, 124 0 979).

~

newly acquired standing or erganizational esistence as basis for intervenuort, IEP-9219,36 NRC -

l 105 (1992) ~

l

%ter for Science in the Public interest v. Regan,727 F.2d 1161,1170 0984) dismissal of proceeding for lack of centrovened issue; ISP-92 36,36 NRC 368 0992).

Ceras! Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Virgit C Sumrner nae Station, Unit 1), CLI-8126,14 NRC 787 0981) advancemers of a new thesis in sequests for reconsideranon; LBP-92-37,36 NRC 391 (1992).

Ceraral Electric Power Coopmtive, Inc. (Virgil C Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CL181-26,14 NHC 787, 790 0 981) basis for roccrmderation of a Saal determinatinn; IEP-92,35,36 NRC 35/ 0992)

. Chesapeake & Ohio Rauway Co. v. United States,571 P.2d 1190,1194 (D.C Cir.1977) '

legishtive histcry sisage for statutory inteepnsatim; 1BP-92-32,36 NRC 300 (1992)

. Cities of Statewine v. AEC,441 F.2d 962 (D.C Cir.1969);,

Commission authority to enforce licensa canditions; CLL92-11,3C NRC 56 a.30 (1992) i e

t i

s.

n s

1

- +

+

r 4

s I

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Cnizes Against Burhngton, Inc. v. Busey,938 F.2d 190,195 (D.C. Cir), cen. denied U.S.

116 L. Ed. 2d 638,112 5. Ct. 616 0991) -

ahernadves to decemrrussioning to be considered under NEPA: MP-92-23,36 NRC 135 (1992)

Oty of Angoon v. Ilodel, 803 F.2d 1016,1020-22 (9th Or.1986) (per curiarn), cen. denied, 484 U.S.

870 (1987) ahernatives to decommissierung to be considered under NEPA; IEP-92 23,36 NRC 135 0992)

City of West Chicago v. NRC,701 P.2d 632 Oth Cir.1983) '

adequacy d Subpart L to satisfy hearing aquirernents a due process in license renewal proceeding; CU-92-13,36 NRC 90 0992)

Oeveland Electric Ilksninsting Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Piars, Unit 1), IEP-92-4,35 NRC 114 (1992) board limhations in determirdng whaher injury in fact has been adequaiety est fonh; IEP 92 23,36 NRC 127 0992)

Qeveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), OP 92-4,35 NRC 114,125-26 0 992) standing in an endier proceeding as basis for standing in a subsequent pinmeding; 1EP-92 27,36

. NRC 198 0992)

Ceveland Elearic 111uminstir.g Ca (Perry Nuclear Ponr Plant. Units 1 and 2) AIAB-820,22 NRC 743, 746 n.8 0985) 1 weight given to showing us individual stay faaors;1RP-92-31,36 NRC 263 (1992)

Oeveland Electric illuminatmg Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Piara, Units 1 and 2), A1AB-820,22 NRC 743, 747 (1985)

Arreparable hyury standard for grant of a stay; LDP 92 35,36 NkC 364 0992)

Oeveland Electric L1uminating Ca (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), IEP-82-114,16 NRC 1909,1914 0982); 1EP43-77,18 NRC 1365,1396 0983)

Combustion Engineering, Inc. Olematite Pue! Fabrication Facuity), IEP 89-23, 30 NRC 140,145 (1989).

/

quality assmance violations and managernas compesace; LBP-92 25,36 NRC 1710992)

Amerest requiremera fa interventam in NRC proceedings: IEP-9235,36 NRC 358 n.9 0992).

Commercial Capital Corp. v. SEC 360 F.2d 856, 858 (7th Cir.1966) good-cause exception to transcript rights CU4210,36 NRC 3 0992)

Connecticut Bankers Ass'n v. Board of Ocworaars,627 FN,245,251 (1980)

- showing -ry to establish hearing rights: LBP-92-37, 36 NRC 376 (1992)

Connocucut National Bank v. Germain,1171. Ed. 2d 391,397-98 0992) ~

conclusive natmo cf clear and unambigueus language in a statute; LBP-92-32,36 NRC 3010992)

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Ondian Poire, Units I,2, and 3), QJ-75-8,2 NRC 173,176 0 975) standard for institution of show<:ause pr-~4ne.s; DD-92 5,36 NRC 248 0992); DD-92-6,36 NRC 137 (1992); DD42 7,36 NRC 345 (1992) -

Consamr.r Pinduct safety Commission v. GIE Sylvania, Inc.,447 U.S.102,108 0980)

conclusive *sture d clear and unambiguous language in a statute; LEP-92c32,36 NRC 301 (1992)

Consuram Te Co. (Midland Plant. Units 1 and 2), A1AB452,6 NRC 892 0977) m a,

+rnwi irnerpretation of AEA sectim 10$c; LBP-92 32,36 NRC 296 0992)

Coen r

• tw.:. Ca (Mu!1and Plans, Units 1 and 2), CU-79-3,9 NRC 107 (1979) dismissal of proceeding with guejudice because of seulement agnernent; 1EP 92-30,36 a

a 0 992)

Dairyland Power Cooperative (la Crosse Boiling Water Reactor), IRP-842412 NRC 367,37a WO responsibility for determination d hearing sequest in show-cause proceeding: CU-92rtl,36 w.

nA7 0992)

- DcIlums v. NRC,863 P.2d 968,971 (D.C. Cir.1988) -

claim of deial of rigs to amear in ancaher proceeding as basis inr standing to intervene; 1BP 92 37,36 NRC 375 (1992) t injury-in-fact and zone-of-interests tests for standing to innervene; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 126 0992)

. 29 I

'i 1

i l

. :1

'l i

y

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAsrs

' ikuuit Edson Co. (Erurico Fermi Atomic lbwer Plant, Unit 2), AIAB-475,7 NRC 752 (19/8) cost comparism interpretation of AEA sectwn 105c; ISP-9232,36 NRC 296 0992)

Deteant Edism Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Ibwer Plars, Unit 2), A1AD-707,16 NRC 1760,1764-65 (1982) discovery of informade that was publicly availatd,6 meths prim to the date of the pende as good cause fw 1sie inservention; QJ-92c1% 36 NRC 70 (1992)

Detroit Edison Co. (lhrico Fermi Aicmic Ibwer Piara, Unit 2) IEP 79-1,9 NRC 73,77 (1979) authorintim nquimd for repasentational standing; IEP 92 27,36 NRC 199 (1992)

Duke Power Co. (Amendment in Materials Licene SNM-1773 - Transpanatim of Spera Fuel fem.

Oconee Nuclest Station im Storsse at McGuire Nuclear Station), AIAB-528,9 NRC 146,150 (1979) ability of other parties to sepresent late interversaan pentione!'s interests; LEP42r19,36 NRC 109 (1992)

Dda Power Co. (Amandment to Materials Ucess SNM-1773 - Transportatio:i of Spent Fuel imm

. Oconee Nuclear Station fw Storsse at McGuire Nuclear Station), AIAB-528,9 NRC 146,1510979) demonstration of agreseraational standuts: IBP 92-27,36 NRC 200 0992)

Daka Puma Co. (Catawba Nuclear Statiat, Units 1 and 2), Q183-19,17 NRC 104I (1983) status of corneramns Aled after the fust prehearing emfermee; IEP-92 23,36 NRC 140 0992)-

Duke Prmr Co. (Ptukins Nuclear Station Urnts 1,2, and 3), ALAB-431,6 NRC 460,462 (1977) showing necessary on other factors where gond catne has not been dernanstrated for late intervendon; (1J 9212,36 NRC 73 (1992)

Duquesne Ught Cn. (Beaver Valley Power Statim, Unit 2). IEP-54-6,19 NRC 393,411 (1984) standard for agamzational standing; C119212,36 NRC 76 n_9 0992) liasunan Kodak Cm v. Image Technical Services, Inc.,119 L. Ed. 2d 265,294 (1992) conduct of dominars commercial amity that violates andtrust laws; LBP-92-32,36 NRC 2910992)

Envirocam of thah, Inc., IEP-92-8,35 NRC 167,182-83 (1992)

-/

standard for discredonary inte.vention; IEP42 23,36 NRC 1310992)

Flast v. Cohen,392 U.S. 83,95 (1%8) dismissal of promedmg for ladt of controverted issue; LBP-92 36,36 NRC 368 0992)

Flosids Ibwer and Ught Co. (St. Imcie Nuclear Ibwer Plant, Unit 1; Turkey Point Nulcar Generadng Plant, Units 3 and 4), AIAB-428,6 NRC 2210977)

Commiasma authority so conduct postlicensing antitrust review; CU-9211,36 NRC 51 (1992) 1%ida Power and Ught Co. (SL 1mcie Nuclest Ibwer Piara, Unit 1; Turkey Piura Nuclear Gmeranna Plant, Units 3 and 4), CU-77 26,6 NRC 538 0977)

~ '

Canmission authority to decline review d appeal board decisions; CU-92-11,36 NRC 57 n.32

' 0 992) -

Ibida Power and Ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Power 1%nt, Units I and 2), CU-89-21,30 NRC 325, 329 (1989) applicability of 50 mile presumpuen of standing in decommissioning pmceedings; IEP-92 23,36.

NRC 129 (1992) application of judicial concepts of standing in NRC yr

' ss; IEP-92 28, 36 NRC 208 0992)

Florida PWwer and Ught Co. (St. Lucie Nuclear Ibwer Plant, Units I and 2), CU-89-21, 30 NRC 325, 329-30 0 989).

geographic proximity as basis fw standing in operating license -

- proceedings; UIP-92-27 36 NRC 200 0992)

Ihida Ibwer and Ught Co. (Turkey 1%s Nuclear Generating Plara, Ur.its 3 and 4), A1AB-952,33 NRC 521, 329 0.991) basis for aganizational standing: LBP-92 28,36 NRC 213 0992)

Fort Pierm Utilities Authergy v. United states, 606 F.24 986, 2001 n.17 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied,444 U.S. 842 0979)

Commission authority to review antitrust snatters; CU-92-11,36 NRC 58 (1992)

Foundannn en Eca,nmic Tmids v. Lyng,943 F.2d 79,84 (D.C. Cir.1991) standmg en the basis of informational injury; IEP 92 23, 36 NRC 126 0992) -

s V

1,

u W

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CAS13 '

~ franks w Bowman Consuucuan Co.,424 U.S. 747 0976) dismissal of geneeedmg fw laa d ecuarovened issue; IEP-92-36,36 NRC 368 0992)

General Emetric Co. (Wilmington, Nath Catolina Facilny), DD-86-11,24 NRC 325,33132 0986) defczn1 af actaan - employee discrumnation cases by NRC undt decision by Secretary d labor,

- DD-92-7,36 h 341 (1992)

General Docuic Ca (Wilndngton, Nath Camhna Facility), DD-89-1,29 NRC 325,330 (1989) deferal d action on employee discrimination cases by NRC until decision by Secrusary of labor, DD-92-7. 36 NRC 3410992)

Gundian Fedwal Savings and Iman Asa's v. FSUC. 589 F.2d 658,663 (D C, Cir.1978) procedural praections to perscrw subjecs to agmey invesngations; CU-92-10,36 NRC 3 (1992)

Gulf Oil Cap. v. PPC,563 F.2d 588,611-12 (3d Or,1977), cent. daied, 434 U.S.1062 (1978) auenuation of bias in an ageney's decision by independent assessmers by an adpdicatory decisionmaker of merits of panien* legal positions; LBP-92 32,36 NRC 308 (1992)

Gulf States Unlitics Ca (River Bond Station Units 1 and 2), AIAB-183,7 AEC 222,226 (1974) geographic proximity as hsis for standing to imervene in omstruedan permh eatension proceeding;-

1BP-92 37,36 NRC 389 0992)

--Culf Sutes Utilities Ca (River Bcad Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-183,7 AEC 222,223-24 0974)

~

- geograpluc groximhy as basis fa standing on operating license ameruiment proceedings; IEP 92 25, 36 NRC 212 (1992)

Oulf States Utilitics Co. (River Bend Station, Unita 1 and 2), AIAB-444,6 NRC 760,768-78 0977)

Lw..G,w, by reference, of the questions asked by Staff concerning the L-..

1 repost as basis Ice coenention; IEP 92 21,36 NRC 136 0992)

Gun South, Inc. v. Brady, 877 F.2d T8, 56243 (11th Cir.1989)

M " authority to modify license condinons that prova unjust aner time; C1J-92r11,36 NRC 59 0 992)

/

11eitrnuDer v, Stokes,256 U.S. 359,3610920) dismissal of proceeding for lack of contravened issue; ISP-92-36, 36 IJAC 368 0992)

. 11ouston lighnns and Pier Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Gencrating Staden Unit 1), ALAB 535,9 NRC

~ 377,392-97 0779).

standard far demonstrating rup "

1 injury; IEP-92-27,36 NRC 199 0992).

Ilousran lighting and Power Co. (ADes Ocek Nuclear Genaating Statio's, Unit 1), AIAB-535,9 NRC 377. 3FF97 0979)

. afSdsvis seqtaremas m establish organizatimal standing; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 126 0992)

Ilounun 1.ightieg and Power Co. (Allens Cred Nuclear Gencrating Station Unit 1), AIAB-582,11 NRC 239, 242 0 980) economic concerns as basis la standing to intervene in construcuan perrmt extension ring; c

1EP-92-37,36 NRC 375 0992l) llouston lighting and Power Ca (Allens Creek Nuclear Generatir,g Station, Unit 1), ALAB471,15 NRC 508, $13 ale 0982).

counsers legal ability as basis for late intervention pentioner's showing of abilhy to contribute to a sound record; 1EP-9219,36 NRC 107 (1992)

. Ilouston Lightmg and Power Ca (South Texas bject Units 1 and 2), A1AB 381,5 NRC 582,59491 0 977) tastment of opwating license proczeding as involving the same cause of action" as e construction

, permit proceeding, for res jadicata purposes; LDP-92-32,36 NItC 284 0992)

Ikaston Lighnng and Ptmer Ca (South Tess Nject, Uniss 1 and 2), QJ-77-13,5 NRC 1303 097f)

Comnussion authority a enn6xt posthoensing antiuust review; QJ-92-11,36 NRC 510992)

llouston Lighting and Power Ca (South Teams Project, Units 1 and 2), QJ 77-13, $ NRC 1303,1321 0 977) - '

l a;plicability of ladus in NRC proceedmas; IEP-92 32,36 NRC 283 0992) 1 31 1

P 4

7 F

m f

_. f

f

^

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASTS

' 11oustan Ughting and Power Co. (South Teams Pmjact, Unitt I and 2), IEP 76-41,4 NRC 571,575 0 976) anmunent of operadng homme i- - 1 g as imotving the same cause of action" as a construction permit pacendmg. for ses judicata purposes; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 284 (1992)

IInuston Ushting and Pouer Ca (Saiah Teams Pmject, Unhs I and 2), IEP.79-lo,9 NRC 439,443

' (1979)

,pngraphic goalmiry as basis for standmg to knarvene in consuucuan permit eniension poceedg IEP-92 37,36 NRC 374 (1992) llousum Lighting and Poner Ca (South Teams Pmject, Units 1 and 2), IEP-79-10,9 NRC 439,447-48, sff'd, ALAB-549,9 NRC 644 (1979) -

showing requinxi no dammstrate ir@try-in-fact; IEP-92,27. 36 NRC 199 (1992) llurs v. Washington Stats Apple Advertising Comm'n,432 U.S. 333,343 (1977) indwidual member's particirstion requinsnents where organizational stavuhng is grarned on the basis of sepresenistiori d that manber, IEP-92-23,36 NRC 126 (1992) lindey Medical Carner (One Hurles Plaza, Flint Michigan), A1187-2,25 NRC 219,224 25 0987) limits se board powers in civil penahy paceedmas; LBP-92r25,36 NRC 187 a45 (1992)

Inquiry into Three Mile Island Unit 21s.ak Rate Data liisi5 cation. IEP-8715,25 NRC 671 (1987),.

aff'd, CU-88-2,27 NRC 335 (1988) preponderance of the endence standard tw weiskhg evidenas; IEP.92 25,36 NRC 186 (1992)

Joseph J. Macktal, CU-8912,30 NRC 19,23 n.1 (1#9) standard for obtaining oral argument; CL19212,36 NRC 68 0992)

Kansas Gas and 12ectric Ca (Wolf Creek Genermung Station, Unit 1), ALAB-327,3 NRC 408,413-18 (1976) '

standards for decovery of security plans; IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 8 (1992)

Kelly v. Robinson,479 U.S. 36,50 a.13 0986)

/

weight ginn to statements of witness who testined segarding the desirabihty of arnitrust endisims; IEP-92 32,36 NRC $02 (1992)

KeroMcGee Qurnical Cap. (Wcs: Chicago Ram Eanha Facility), A1AB-928,31 NRC 263,270 0990) burden tm stay movants to establish likehhood of success on the merits; IEP-9231,36 NRC 264 (1992)

Ker>McGee Chemical Corp. (West Odcago Rare I:arths Facility), CU-82-2,15 NRC 232 (1982), aff'd

'sub oom. City of West Odesso v. NRC,701 F.2d 632 (7th Cir.1983) appropriate forum for seview of amendmart sequest; 01-9211,36 NRC 60 nA8 (1992)

Kimball v. Kimba!!,174 UJ.158,162 0898) demissal of pecceding far ladt d cannweried insur, IEP-92 36,36 NRC 368 0992) lag Island Ughting Co. Gamespcrt Nuclear Ibwer Statinrt, Unita 1 and 2), ALAB 292,2 NRC 631, 650 5) 0 975) s weight given to potetial for delay of pmceeding in deterrnaung late interventum sequests; CU-9212, 36 NRC 75 0992)

Img Island Ughtmg Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Staten Unit 1), ALAB 743,18 NRC 387,397 0 983) speci5 city required in support of facser (iii) for late bnervanion; CU42-12,36 NRC 74 0992)..

1mns Island Ushting Co. (Snareham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-743,18 NRC 387,402 (1983) impset d late intervennr petnioner's participatim on trusdaning or delaying a paccedmg, IEP-92-19,36 NRC 110 0992)

Img taland Ug!ning Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB 810,21 NRC 1616,1620 0 985) -

- weight gins to 6rst two factors in desermining stay requests; IEP-92-31,36 NRC 266 (1992) lang Island Ughting Ca (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CU-88-3,28 NRC 1, 2,4 0988) 4 advuncement of new thesis er seineration of pmvious arguments as basis for motim for noonsideratim; IEP-92-35,36 NRC 357 n.4 0992) 32 2;

i 9

)

-h 2

t i

e

T:g-IIGAI CITATIONS INDEX CASES

- Img Island IJahting Co. (Shardtara Nuclear Pom Stanon, Unit I), C1189-1,29 NRC 89,93-94 (1989) aflidavit requisernent for monans la reopen; Cl19212,36 NRC 76 0992)

Img Island IJghting Co. (Shord,arn Nuclear Power Stadon, Unit 1), C1190 8, 32 NRC 201,20748 (1990),,

Stion dersed, CU41-2,33 NRC 610991) unsupported general refennees to radiological consequences as basis for standing: 1EP-92 23,36 NRC 130 0992) lag 1aland IJghtmg Ca (Shonham Nuclear Power Stannn, Unit 1), CU-91-8,33 NRC 461,468 (1991) timehness of stay requests; IEP-92-35,36 NRC 359 0992)

Img taland 1)ghting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Powa Station, Unit 1). C1192-4,35 NRC 69,77 (1992) preeffectiveness hearing for deccennussioning; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 137-38 (1992)

Img Island Lightmg Co. (Shoreham Nuc1 car Power Stanon, Unit 1),1EP 92-15,35 NRC 209 (1992) dienissal of proceeding with prejudice because of sentement agreernent; IEP-92-30,36 NRC 228 0 992) i Indaiana Energy Services, LP. (Claiborne Enrichment Center), IRP-91-41, 34 hRC 332, 346, 357-58 (1991) incorporation by reference of the quescons asked by StaK concerning the envimnmental report as basis for comenton; LBP 92 23,36 NRC 136 0992)

Imisiana Puwer and IJaht Ca (Waterford Steam Electric Stanan, Unit 3), AIAB412,22 NRC 5,48,51 (1985) weight given to licanace's candar in deciding whether to sevoke its licznse; GP-92-25,36 NRC 163 n.6 (1992)

I misiana Ptmer and 13sht Ca (Waterfoni Sicam Electric Station, Unit 3), C1173-25,6 AEC 619 (1973)

I cost comparison irnerpretaticst d AEA section 105c; LBP 92-32,36 NRC 296 0992)

Lujan v. National Wildlife Pederation,497 U.S. 871,88243,111 L Ed. 2d 695,712-13 0990) standing an the basis of infwrnadonal injury; 1RP-92-23,36 NRC 126 (1992)

/

Lujan v. Defenders d Wildlife, _ U.S.

112 S. Ct. 2130,2136 0992) injury-in-fact showing necessary to esublish standing to intervene; LBP-92 37,36 NRC 374 (1992)

Mearopolitan Edison Ca Ohree & laland Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-772,19 NRC 1193.1207

- (1984), rev'd in part on other smunds, C1185 2, 21 NRC 282 (1985)

Canuniasion authority to consider a licmscs's character and integrity in deciding whether ta revoks

((

its license; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 163 (1992)

Metapolitan Edison Co. (Three h 1 stand Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB4M,21 NRC 1195,1198 n.3 (1985) effect d pending Was issue en appeal d deternunanon of bedmck legal irsues; 11PW132,36 NRC 308 n.130 0992)

Metropohtan FAman Ca Ohree h Island Nuclear Stanon, Unit 1), A1AB407,21 NRC i N. "t;4 '

M85) in camera ewatstian of safeguards information; LBP'92-15A,36 N,C 13 0992)

Mcanpolitan r4te@a Tiree h Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), AMB 815,22 NRC 108, %

(1985) timelmess requuerners for mask i y; C1192-12,36 NRC 76 (1992)

Metropolitan Edison Ca Ohree & A.3 eclear Station, Unit 1), C1183-25,18 NRC 327,331 n.3 0 983) five-factor test im late kservasion; CU-9212,36 NRC 69 (1992)

Metropolian Edison Co. Ohree h 1 stand Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CU43 25,18 NRC 327,332 (1983) tat for atanding to intervens in NRC proceedmas; LEP-92-37,36 htC 374 0992)

Metropolitan Edison Co. Ohree h Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CU-83-25,18 NRC 327,332-33 (1983) s applicadan d judicial cancepts a standing in NRC proceedmgs; IEP-92 23,36 NRC 126 (1902);-

IBP-92-27,36 NRC 199 0992); IEP-92-28,36 NRC 208 (1992)

Meinpolitan Edison Co. Ohree h Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CU 85 2,21 NRC 282,316 0985) injury-in-fact and zone-of-interesta testa for sunding to intervene; LDP-92-23,36 NRC 126 (1992)

- j e

' ].

j

'W t

g-g; IIGAL CITAT80NS INDEX CASi3

- Metropolitan Edison Co. (Ihrea MJa Island Nuc1 car Satum, Unh 1), C1185-9,21 NRC 1118, !!36 37 0 945) mandard to determine licensee's character and iniegrity; 1.11F92 25,36 NRC 163 a.6 (1992)

' Miln<a Ca v. Richardam, 350 F. Supp. 221 (5.D. Ill.1972) change a circumstances that renders a statute in violadon of equal perAection principtea; IEP-92 32.

36 NRC 307 (1992)

Minnesota v. Clover lear Cmamery Ca,449 U.S. 456,446 0981) deference affarded to a legislative body in its chcio of which aapocta af a particular evil h wishca to shminate; IEP-92-32,16 NRC 307 0992)

Musiasippi Ptmer and IJght Ca (Gand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units I and 2), ALAB 704,16 NRC 1725 -

(1982) weight aivan to 14 of another party to repusers Ime innervendon petitioner's intercsis: C119212, 36 NRC 74 (1992)

Nordlinger v.11ahn,1201. Ed. 2d 1,12 (1992) equal pmtection challenge no econonue classifwation such as A' A section 105c; IEP-92 32,36 NRC

+

306 0 992) -

Northern Indiana Public Service Co, (Bailly Omerating Stanon, Nuclear 1), AIAD-619,12 NRC 558, 563 45 (1980) standing requirements for construction permh extension proceedma; IEP-92 37,36 NRC 374 (1992)

Neethern Indiana Public Service Ca (Bailly Generating Sution, Nuclear 1), A1AB-619,12 NRC 558,564 (1980) showing of injury-in. fact for irserveuen in operating 1;oense extension pnecating; IEP-92-27,36 NRC 200 (1992)

Nonhern States Power Ca (Pathfinder Aiornic Plam), IEP-89-30,30 NRC 311,314-17 (1989) discreuonar' authority of pesidmg dficer in informal proceeding to aDow arnendman of headng

/

. requent; IEP-92-24, 36 NRC 152 0992)

Ohio Ediam Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Piars, Unit 1), CLi-91-15,34 NRC 269 0991), seccusaideradon

. denied C1192-6,35 NRC 86 0992) '

Canmissen supervisory authority in absence of s'petitim for review; C1192-13,36 NRC 55 (1992)

Ouer Tail Power Ca v. United States,410 U.S; 366,377 (1973) acemraabality of daninara cornmercial ernity for hs market power, IEP-92 32,36 NRC 290 (1992)

Pacific Gas and Electric Ca (Diablo Canym Nuclear Power Plara, Units I and 2), AIAB410,5 NRC 1398,1402 (1977) ~

NRC authority to limit access to secudty plan documents; LBP-9215A,36 NRC 3 (1992)

Parklans Hosiery Co. v. Shore,439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979)'

relationship betwan res judicata and collateral estoppel; ISP-92-32,36 NRC 285 (1992)

Parklano Ikmery Ca v. Shore 439 U.S. 322,331 n.15 0979) apphcability of collateral estoppel where Subpart G and Subpart 1, proceedings are consolidated; CLl4213,36 NRC 88 0992); 1EP-92-16A,36 NRC 210992)

Philadelphia Electric Ca (limerick Generades Statim, Units ! and 2), AIAD-808,21 NRC 1595, 16024)3 0 985) economic harm as cause fw grant of a stay; IEP-9131,36 NRC 267 (1992)

Philadelphia Electric Ca (IJmarick Geners&W Statksi Unna 1 and 2), LBP-8243A,15 NRC 1423,1437 0 982) standard fu establishing standing to intervene by an organimatiat; IEP-92-37,36 NRC 389 0992)

Philadelphia Electric Ca (tirnerick Ocneranng Stadm. Unita 1 and 2), IEP 89-24,30 NRC 152 0989)

[;

disnusaal of pra~~Ang with pejudice because of aeulemers agreement; IEPL92 30,36 NRC 228 ~

0 992) h t

t

LEGhb CITATIONS INDEX CASFS Philadelphia Bactric Ca (Peadi Bauam Asomic JNmer Stauon, Units 2 and 3), AIAll 540,9 NRC 428, 434 0979) bases for consolidation of pmceedmgs; CU-9213,36 NRC 89 (1992) -.

Purtland General lucarie Co. 0%ble Sprms: Nudear ihs. Unita 1 and 2), AIAll 333 - 3 NRC 804, 806, aff'd, CU-7627,4 NRC 610, 614 (1976)

Enandal immsta as basis for intavention in "-"ng pmceeding; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 131 0 992)

Patland General Electric Ca 0%No Springa Nudest Plant, Units 1 and 2) CU 7626,4 NRC 608 (1976) standards for innerlocutory review; CU-92-13,36 NRC 85 (1992)

Portland Gmeral Deazic Co. 0%ble Springs Nudear Plara, Units 1 and 2), CU-7627,4 NRC 610, 612 13 0 976) zone of irnerena for materials license amendmera hearings; IEP-92 20,36 NRC 115 (1992) -

1%rtland General Emotric Co. 0%ble Springs Nucles: Plam, Units 1 and 2), CU-7027,4 NRC 610,613 (1976)

~

test for standing to imes une in NRC proceedmgs; IEP 92 37,36 NRC 374 0992) 7 Pcutlaw! Omeral Eactric Co. %ble Spnnga Nudcar Plant, Units 1 and 2), CU-7627,4 NRC 610, 613-14 0 976) irdury'irefact and zone-d-imerests tests for standing to irnenvene; 1EP-92r23,36 NRC 126 0992) -

Partland General Doctric Co. (Pebbie Springs Nudear Plant, Units I and 2), CU-?&27,4 NRC 61% 614

'(1976) application d judicial emceps of standing in NRC proceadmas; IEPL9228,36 NRC 208 0992)

Poecli v, Zudtet,366 F.2d 634,636 (D.C. Cir.1966) -

showing necessary to establish the dermse d laches; LBP-92-32,36 NRC 286 0992)

Public Service Ca of Indiana (Marble Ilia Nuc1 car Generating Station, Unita 1 and 2), AIAB-316,3

/

NRC 167,170L71 (1977) -

scope of licensing boani's and presidmg d6cer's powers; QJ4213,36 NRC 86 (1992)

Puh Service Ca of New IIsmpshire (Seabrook Station, Unit 1) CU-91-14,34 NRC 261,26667 0991) irdury-in-fact and== d '_

. seats for irserventmn; IEP-9%27,36 NRC 199 0992)

Puh Service Ca of New Ilampshire (Scabsook Station, Unit 23, CU-844,19 NRC 975,978 0984) ecmsnic concerns as basis for standing to intervene in consuuction permit euensica pr== ding; 4

' IEPL92-37,36 NRC 374 (1992)

Puh Service Co. of New Ilampshire (SeabrorA Station Units 1 and 2), CU-89-3,29 NRC 234,240,

' 241 0 989) incorporation of massive documents by reference sa basis for a contcsmon: IEP-92,37,36 NRC 379 0 992)

Puh Service Ca of New Ilampshire (Seabmak Station, Units 1 and 2), CU-903,31 NRC 219,229 0 990).

Commission supervisory suthority in absence nf a petitim for review; CU-9213,36 NRC 85 0992).

' Puh Service Ca of New IIsmpshire (Seabmok Station, Units 1 and 2), cl-90-3,31 NRC 219,260 0 990) i weight given to irreparabis injury showing in grant of a stay; IEP-92-31,36 NRC 263 (1992)

Puga Sound Power and ught Ca (Skagithlanford Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 700,16 NRC 1329,1333-34 0982) standant for organizational standing; CU-9212,36 NRC 76 n.9 0992)

- Sacramento Municipal Utihty Distria (Rancho Seco Nuclear Gerienting Station), QJ-92-2,35 NRC 47,56 0 992) _

spplicatim a judicial omcepta d standma in NRC pmecedmas; IEP-92 27,36 NRC 199 0992);

IEP92-28,36 NRC 208 0992)

~-

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Gmerating Station), IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120, 127 30 0 992) standing to intesvene in '--

'--g pmocedmss; LBP-92 24,.36 NRC 153 0992) 35

/

f t

b

. 1

)

s J'

9.

m

)

Mp LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX CASES Safety Ught Corp (Bloomshw8 Site Decentaminanon), CU-92-9,35 NRC 156,158 0992) standards for interlocutory review; C1192-13,36 NRC 35 0992) i t

. Sarcty Ught Corp. (Blounaburg Site Dec.ontammation), C1192-9. 35 NRC 156,159-60 (1992) appbcability of law of the case in NRC proceedings; 1RP-92-3136 NRC 283 (1992)

San I uis Obispo Mothers fw Peace v. NRC,751 F.2d 1287,1314 (D.C. Or.1984), aff'd on banc, 789 F.2d 26 (D C, Or,), cert. dmied,479 U.S. 923 0986)

Canmission authority to rescind a suspension d an amurust license condition; CU-92-II,36 NRC 59 0 992)

Sanks v. Georgia,401 U.S.144,148 0971) dismissal of pr~=~fMg fw lack d aantravened issve; LBP-92 36,36 NRC 368 0992)

Schnader v. Rusk,377 U.S.163,168 09M) e+. ! pnnocuan requiremmts and AEA section 105c; IBP-92-32,36 NRC 306 (1992)

SEC v. Sprecher,594 F.2d 317,319 (2d Or.1979) determination, prior to innerview, of good <suse excerdon for release of transcript; Q192-10,36 NRC 4 0992)

Sholly v. NRC,651 F.2d 780, 79) (D.C. Gr.1980) (per curiam), vacated as moot and remanded,459 U.S.1194 (1983).

-dependence of thir& party hearing rights on licensee's request for a hearing; CU-92-11,' 36 NRC 54 '

a19 (1992)

South Camlina Elecuie and Gas Co. (Virgit C. Summer Nuclear Stadon, Unit 1), ALAB-642,13 NRC 881, 894-95 (1981), aff'd sub nam. Fair 6cid United Action v. NRC,679 F.2d 261 (D.C. Or.1982)

+

weight given to lack of another party to represent late intervenuan petitioner's interesta; CU-92-12, 36 NRC 74 (1992)

Stataners a Pulicy on Cmduct of Ucensing Proceedman, CU-81-8,13 NRC 452,454 0981) manctions for failone to comply with irnervmuon requirements; LBP-92-26,36 NRC 195 0992).

Systern Federation v. Wright,364 U.S. 642,647 0961).

Cmmd=aion authority to modify licecas conditiona that prove urdust afur time; Q19211,36 NRC 59 0 992)

Tennesses Valley Authority (Bmwna Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),1BP 7610,3 NRC 209,216 0 976).

irrorporation, by reference, d the quessans asked by Staff concerning the errvironmental repon as basis for santemien; 1BP-92 23,36 NRC 136 0992)

Tennesses Valley Authonty (Itartsville Nuclear Plant, Units 1A,2A. IB, and 2B). ALAB-418,6 NRC 1,2 (1977) lusis for reconsidersuon of a final determination; 13P-92 35,36 NRC 357 (1992)

Tennessee Valley Authoniy (Watts Bar Nuclear Plant, Unita 1 and 2), ALAB-413,5 NRC 1418,1420 21 (1977) financial interests as basis for intervendon in deannmissioning proceedmg; ISP 92-23,36 NRC.131 0 992)

Teams thilities Elecuse Ca (Cananchs ihk Steam Electric Statius. Unit 1), AIAB468, 25 NRC 912,.

935 0 987) scope of inaues litigable in catstruenon permit eatmaien proaaling; 1RP 9h37,36 NRC 377 (1992)

Teams Utilities Doctric Ca (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 1), al-8615,24 NRC 397, 402 03 0 986) good cause for delay in completion of con 6.ruction of nuclear power plant; LBP-92-37,36 NRC 377 0 992)

Teasa Utihties Electric Ca (Cornanchs Peak Steam Electric Statiat. Unha 1 and 2), CU-88-12,28 NRC 605, 608 09 (1988), aff'd. Chizens for Fair Unlity Regulation.v. NRC, 898 P.2d 51 (5th Or.1990),

ccet. denied, til S. CL 246 0 990) five futor test fw late irnervention; CU-92-12,36 NRC 69 (1992)

Teams thilities Electric Ca (Comanche 1%ak Steam Electric Stsdon, Units 1 and 2), CU-921,35 NRC 1 (1992) criteria for anpening a record, CU-9212,36 NRC 66 (1992).

9 36 s

a b

t 7

4 k

Y

+

+

e

i' o

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX '

CASIN

i Toledo !!dison Ca (Davis-Besse Nuclear her Station Units 1,2, and 3), AIAB.560,10 NRC 265 (1979) suspension of antitrust condinons at a bcznsee's request; C1J 92-11,36 NRC 58 (1992)

- Toledo IWison Co. (Davis-Besse Nucleer Ibwer Stanon, Units 1,2, and 3), IEP 77-1, 5 NRC 133 0977),'

aff'd as modified, AIAB-560,10 NRC 2C (1979) purpose of antitrust omdations on operating licenses; IEP 92-32,36 NRC 279 0952) '

Union Doctric Co. (Ca11 sway Plant, Unh 1), A1AB-740,18 NRC 343,346 (1983) quality seguired in construction of nuclear plants; IEP-92-37,36 NRC 3810992)

Union of Correrned Scintists v. NRC,711 P.2d 370, 381 (1983) limits en agency's interpretation of its own rules; IEP-92 20,36 NRC 114 0992)

i

- Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,711 F.2d 370,382-83 (D.C. CS,1983) '

scope of Commission enforcement authorhy: CI2-9211,36 NRC 57 n.31 (1992)

Union of Concerned Scianists v, NRC. 735 F.2d 1437,1446 (D.C. Gr.1984), cen. denied,469 U.S.

' 1132 (1985) dependence of third-party hearing rights on licensas's sequest fw a hearing; C[J.9211,36 NRC 54 n19 (1992) '

United Oas L,v.-...: Ca v. Callery Propertiet,382 U.S. 223,229 (1%5)

Commission autlwrity to modify license conditions that prove unjust after time; CLJ-92-11,36 NRC

- 59 0 992)

United States v. Murray,297 F.2d 812,821 (2d Cir.1962)

OI policy to withhold voluntary interview transcripis undt md of investigation; CIJ-92-10,36 NRC 3 n.10992)

United Sistes v. Swift & Ca. 286 U.S; 106,11415 0932)'

Commission authority to modify license conditions that prove unjust afur time; QJ-92r11,36 NRC

-- 59 0 992).

United States v. Swift & Co.,286 U.S.106,116 0932) poternial of nuclear plants for contnbunns to a situation inconsistent with antitsust laws; IEP-92 32,.

- 36 NRC 30') (1992)

Unhed States Department of Energy (Clindi River Breeder Reactor Plant), A1AB-721,17 NRC 539,544 0983) -

demonstration of endtlement to a stay; IEP-92r31,36 NRC 263 0992) van Bours v. Nitre,388 F.2d 557,565 (D.C, Cir.1967) showing necessary to establish the defense of laches; IEP-92-32, 36 NRC 29 (1992)

Vermont Yankes Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankes Nuclear Ibwer Station), AIAB-138,6 AEC 520 -

523 n12 0973) timeliness mpurernent for motions to reopen; CLI-92-12,36 NRC 76 0992)

Virginia Electric and Power Ca (Nonh Anna Ibwer Station, Units I and 2), ALAB-522,9 NRC 54,56 (1979) geographic proximity as basis for standing to intervene in construction permk extension proceeding;

~

IEP 92-37,36 NRC 374 (1992) i Virginia Electric and Power Ca (Nonh Anna Nuclear her Station, Units 1 and 2), A1AB-522,9 NRC 54, 56 57 0979) geographic prealmity as basis for standing on operating licmse amawinznt proceedings: IEP92-28, 36 NRC 212 0992)

Wanh v. Seldin,422 U.S. 490,511 (1975) basis for organizational standing; LBP-92 28,36 NRC 213 (1992)

Washington Public Power Supply Systern (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2), DD.84-7,19 NRC 899,923 '

0 984) standard for institution of show-cause pinceedings: D1192 5,36 NRC 248 0992), DD-92-6,36 NRC 337 (1992) 4 37 4

J i

l l I

i

)

i 1

1 9

t y

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX -

. CASFS

- Washingina Puh Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747,18. NRC 1167 1873 (1983)'

signincanos to be placed on amount d delay in deternunmg admissibility of late irservendon pentim; IEP-92-19, 36 hitC 106 (1992) '

Washingian Puh Power Supply Systern (WPPSS Nuclear Pmject, Nos.1 and 2), CLI-82-29,16 NRC '

1221,1229 (19R2)

. scope of lasues litigable in construcCan perma extension pmceeding; ISP-92-37, 36 NRC 377 (1992).

. Weisainger v. Southern Rauway Co.,470 F. Suly. 930 (D.S.C 1979) change in 4-*--

that anders a statute in violadon of equal pmtection principles; IEP-92-32, 36 NRC 307 (1992)

Wisconsin Docuic Ibwer Co. (Poirs Bead Nuclear Plant, Unit 1), ALAB496,16 NRC 1245,1263 (1982) use of discovery to pavide bases for cornenuans; IEP 92-37,36 NRC 384 (1992)

Yankee Nucicar Power Cap. (Verment Yankes Nuclear Power Station),IEF90'6,31 NRC 85,90 (1990) -

showing of injury-infact for intervennon in operadng license enensim proceeding: IBP 92-27, 36 A'itC 200 (1992) r l

P 4

. j

?

t i

L 9

+

r

- 3g a

.}

i s

4 "W

a.

7 P

W e-

.~_

... -. ~.

s i '

d' a

fe-d a

0 t

1.

I LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS I

10 CFA 2.2 determmsats of applicability of Sub;mrt O pmcedures; CL1-9213,36 NRC 87 (1992) 10 CFA 13 f-governing rule in cordlicts toween geness! rule in Suhpan G and a special rule in another subsart; C1J92-13,36 NRC 87 (1992) 10 CFA 1101 1

Staff denial as a 6nal Comnussim decisim; C1J-9211,36 hRC 60 (1992) j.

10 CFA 1101(c) 1 standard for a significara danges icview; C1J-92-11,36 NRC 60 n45 (1992) 10 CFA 1103(b),2.105(d) 6nality of Staff decision whore hearing is not requested by applicara fw heense amendmmt; 039211, 4

l 36 NRC 54 (1992) 10 CFA 1105(d)(1) 3 i

respesibility for determination of hearing request in show-cause proceeding; CLI-9211,36 NRC 60 1

j n.47 (1992)

.I l

responsihihty of licennee or applicara to request a beanns on adverse licensing dedsions; CIJ-92-11; 36 j

NRC 53 (1992)

=l I

l 10 CFA 1108(b)

Enality of Staff decision where boaring is not requested by applicars for license amendment; CJ-92.ll.

.l i

36 NRC 54 (1992) 10 CFA Part 2, Subpart B mforcanent action rather than license reewal denial for viniation of sectim 30.35; C1J-9213,36 NRC i

90 (1992)

?

10 CFA 12001204 l

forum for handling squests for nudacadon of license condidas; CIJ-92-11,36 NRC 58 n.38 (1992) 10 CFA 2.202 fonmi for addressing bcensee's failure to comply with fmancial assurance requirements as basis for licenas dadal; CLI 92-13. 36 NRC 22 (1992) i l

forum for dallenges to operating licenses; Cll-9212,36 NRC 67 (1992) imposidan of dectsnmissioning requirements thrmgh an enforcemera actiori; Cl.J-92-13,36 NRC 86 l

n.16 (1992)

'l l

irnpropneues by NRC pesmnel se6ardmg NRC inspectim activities: DD-92-4, M NRC 144 (1992) i

(

pmcedures fcr hearmas on enforcement orders; CIJ4213,36 NRC 83 (1992) revocsGon of materials license far failure to pay annual fee; 111P-92-33,36 NRC 312 (1992) l security training deficiencies and violaden of maintenana procalures as hesis for request for action i

under; DD42-5. 36 NRC 232 (1992) i standard far institutice of show-cause pmceedings; DD-92-5,36 NRC 248 (1992)

'l 10 CFA 2.202(aX3) responsilility of licensee or applicant to requeet a hearing en adverse licensing dedssons; C1J-92-11,36 NRC 53 (1992) 10 CFA 1202(b) l naponsibility of licensee to answer chargcs in svocanon order. IJ1P 92-33,36 NRC 315 (1992) l

>l.

j,-

39 l

1e P

l l

-l i

.r LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX

' RECLT.ATIONS 10 CF.R. 2.202(cX2Xi)

I annmde for dallenging immediately effective order, IEP 92-34,36 NRC 319,32122 0992) inidation of informal proceedings by submission of stay request; LDP-92-35,36 NRC 359 (1992) 10 CFA 2.203 purpose of board ivview of seuleman agreements; IEP-9218,36 NRC 93 0992); 1EP-92-21,36 NRC 119 0 992) satiement agreemait as cause for termination of proceedmg; C1192-15,36 NRC 2510992);-

1EP-92-18,36 NRC 94 (1992); IEP-92-21,36 NRC 118 (1992) 10 CFA 1206 n

,..M of sequests for miser that are not directed to Enocutive Director for Operadona or Office a

of Nuclear Material Safeny and Safeguards; 1EP-92 35,36 NRC 359 n.12 (1992) emergency lighting and 6m pmtection systems at Palo Verdes sDegati<ms of violadons in: DD 92-4,36 NRC 144 0992) employce disenmination at Palo' Verde; DD-92-7,36 NRC 343-46 0992); DD-92-8. 36 NRC 348 0 992) forum far dia11enges to operating licenser, CLI-9212,36 NRC 67,77 0992) fomm fw handling sequests for modincadan of F.ense conditians; CU-92-11,36 NRC 58 n.38 (1992) fonan far sequesting enforcemera action; CU-9212,36 NRC 710992) management charaaer and ccenpetene at Comanche Peak; DDf2-6,36 NRC 3%37 (1992) security training dc6ciencies and violation of maintenance pmcedures as basis for request for sedan under. DD-92-5,36 NRC 232 (1992) standard for institution of show-cause proceedings; DD-92-6,36 NRC 337 0992) 10 CFA Part 2, Subgert O contrast d Subpan L sules with: 1EP-92-24,36 NRC 151-52 0992) procedures applicable for consolidated Sabpset O and Subpart L proceedings; CU-92-13,36 NRC 82

/

- 0 992) 10 CFA 1700 procedures fw hearings on enforcesnent mauern; CU-92-13,36 NRC 83,86 (1992) 10 CFA 1700L1790 -

establishment of licensing board and procedurra for bearing m license denial; CU-92-13,36 NRC 83 0992) L procedures mt soutinely available in informal groceedings; CU-9213,36 NRC 82 (1992) 10 C F11701 fa0um of petitioners to comply with service requirements; ISP-9217,36 NRC 29 n.10 0992)

. responsibility of petitioners for service of documents; LEP 92 26,36 NRC 192 0992) 10 CFA 1701(b) scope of document service in pectianers; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 138 (1992) 10 CF.R. 2.701(c) basia far duermining completion d Aling; LBP-92-28,36 NRC 205 0992) 10 CFA 2.711 '

eatensim of time for filing stay requesta; IEP-92-31,36 NRC 262 (1992) sequence and timing of the Eling of amended and supplemernal petitions; IEP-92-17,36 NRC 29 (1992) 10 CF.R.1711(a) board authority to alter desdhne for filing contentions; IEP-92 27,36 NRC 198 (1992)

. burdai of showing good cause for estavian of time for fling; LEP-92-37,36 NRC 392 0992) L 10 CFA 1712 service of adjudicatory documents on peunoners; IEP-92 23,36 NRC 138 0992) 10 C.FA 2.733..

notice of appearance requiremonta for Elir.s answas to revocation orders; IEP-92-33,36 h1C 316 0994

-i

i

i 4

w r

e

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CFA 1713(b) standants fw informing presiding ofSect of nonce of appearance et camel; IEP-92-24,36 NRC 154, 155 0 992)

'10 CFA 1714 deadhne for hearing requests and intervenon petitims en spera fuct pool ammdment; ISP-92-28. 36 7

NRC 204 0992) senpe of oppommity to imervene; IEP-9128,36 NRC 2110992) standsid for admission of applicants as intervmors, CU-9211,36 NRC 54 (1992) standing end contersaan,ma for irservention; IEP-92-27,36 NRC 198 0992) 10 CIA 1784(a) standing spanners for buervenuan; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 126 0992) 10 CFL 2.714(aXI) applicability to lata 61ed hearing sequesta en aforcernera orders; CU-92-14,36 NRC 222 (1992) applicannn of fivs factor tens to late-filed hearing requests; IEP-92-33,36 NRC 313 0992) five factors so be addressed by untimely imerversion petinans; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 204,205 0992);

UIP-92-37,36 NRC 385,386 (1992) 3b

. interest reguamnas for imervenon; IEP-92-27,- 36 NRC 199 0992); ISP-92 37,36 NRC 373 0992) requimnent for wrinen inicrversma pennion; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 207 0992) 10 CFA 2.714(aXIXi)-(v)

Sve-feaar test for admission of late-Gled canennons; IEP-92-17,36 NRC 28 0992) five faaer test for late intervamon; CU-9212, 36 NRC 69 0992); IEP 9219,36 NRC 101, lot,111 6

0992); IEP 92-32,36 NRC 282 (1992)

Everfaaer test fu russtimely filings, need for panieriers to address; IEP-92-26,36 NRC 192.194 -

0 992)

/

10 CFA 1714(aX2).

crimia to be addressed for late imervenuan; QJ-92-12,36 NRC 69 0992) imerest aspect of standing to intervcer, IEP 92-23,36 NRC 126 0992) partiadarity required of irnervemian petitims; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 2M (lv92); 1EP-92-37,36 NRC 373. 375, 390 (1992) particularay seguired to establish standing; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 127 0992) ;

10 C.FA 1714(aX3) -

amendasa of hearing peunans, deadline for; IEP 92-24,36 NRC 152 (1992) amendment of issevention petition withrea prior approval of licensing board or presiding officer, IEP-92-17,36 NRC 27 0992); IEP-92 23,36 NRC 125 0992); 1.BP 92 27,36 NRC 198 0992)

. provision for late 61ed irservenaan paities IEP-92 28,36 NRC 207 0992) vested sight to amend earnestima; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 140 0992) 10 CF.R.1714(b) contention requirement for knervention; IEP-92-23, 36 NRC 126 (1992) apacificity required of conianuans;IEP 92-28,36 NRC 214 0992) standards far =Amissim of corpentions; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 132 0992) 10 CFA 1714(bXI) contannon mpumnera for intervention; 1EP-9217, 36 NRC 27 0992); IEP-92 28,36 NRC 205 (1992)

- deadline for filing irnervenian peution surplaners that comains contenuan list; IEP.9217,36 NRC 27 (1992) 1 10 CFA 1714(bX2).

basis and spectficity requiraneras for contentions in construcuan permit exiennian proceedmas:

1EP-92 37,36 NRC 376 (1992) g coment of catentions;IEP-92-27,36 NRC 200 (1992) contennan requucenent for intervenuan: IEP-92-17,36 NRC 27 (1992) sped 6 city seguire ; for admission of contemxsis in formal proceedings; UIP 92 24,36 NRC 154 0992)

'7

- 10 CFA 1714(bX20) incorporation of snassive documents by reference as buis for a contention; IEP-92 37,36 NRC 379 0 992) 41 i

f

' 40 k

.u.

^

s LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RFGl?IATIONS interpretation of; LEP 92-28, 36 NRC 215 (1992)

. support nquired for harassmet and indmidation claims; ISP-92-37,36 NRC 384 (1992) 10 C.FA 1714(b)(2Xiii) -

good cause for delay in compledon nf consuuc6on of nuc1 car powcr plant; 1RP-92-37,36 NRC 380 0 992) 10 CFA 2.714(c) deadlina for 61ing heanna mjuest on myocanon of materials license for failure to pay annual fee; ISP-92-33,36 NRC 314 (1992)

' 10 CFA 2.714(d) injury in-fact standard for interversion,13P-92-19,36 NRC 103 (1992) standants fw adadasion of corneramns; 1RP-92 23,36 NRC 132 (1992) standas for admission of cornessions in construction permit exumnion proceedings; LEP-92-37,36 NRC 376 (1992) 10 CIA 1714(d)(1)

. facurs considered by boards in ruling on admissibility of cornadona; 13P 92 27,36 NRC 201 (1992) factors to be addressed by interversion pannons; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 208 (1992)

- 10 CIA 1714(dX1)(iii) effect of an ader that demonstruics interest for purposes of intervation; 12P-92c23, 36 NRC 126 (1992) 10 CFA 2.714(dX2) facurs considered by bosrds in ruling on admissibility d cornentwns; 1RP-92 27,36 NRC 201 (1992) 10 CFA 1714e appeatability of order denying irnervendon; ISP-92-23,36 NRC 141 (1992); 1RP 92-37,36 NRC 393

' (1992) -

appeals of irnervennon orders; 1RP-92 28, 36 NRC 220 (1992) appeals of licensing board decismns; C1J-9211,36 NRC 50 (1992)

. designation of petitioners as parties; LEP 92-23,36 NRC 138 a31 (1992l) 10 CFA 2.714a(s) appeals d irnerversion orders; IEP-9219,36 NRC 111 (1992).

t 10 CFA 2.714a(b) 2 appealability of orders denying interventsn; LBP-92-37,36 NRC 393 (1992) 10 C.FA 2.716 -

authority for licensing board and presiding offser to consolidate Subpan G and Subpart L proceedings; CLI-92-13,36 NRC 87 (1992)'

basis for emnolidade of Subpsrt 0 and Subpart L proceedings as Subpart 0 paceeding; QJ-9213, 36 NRC 84 (1992): 13P-9216A,36 NRC 20 n.6 (1992) conschdation d Subpast O proceedings; LBP-9216A,16 NRC 20 (1992) 10 CFA 1718(1)

Commission supervisory smhority in absence of a peddon for seview; QJ-92-13,36 NRC 85 (1992) 10 CFA 2.718(m) sapence and timing of the filing of amended and supptomatal pentions; LEP-9217,36 NRC 29 (1992) 10 CFA 2.732 burde d showing good cause for extension d time for filing: 1BP-92-37,36 NRC 392 (1992) l 10 CFA 2.734(b) afadavit mguirement for motions to reopen; CL1-92-12,36 NRC 76 (1992) 10 CFA 1734(c)

J' mpusts for pnmacuve ordcss for named and unnamed persons; CIJ-92-12,36 NRC 77 (1992) 10 CFA 1740lb)(1) comenuon requirernet far intervmuon; LEP 92-37,36 NRC 384 (1992) smaion to compel disclosure d evidence contaming privileged or ccmfidential cnmmercial information;-

IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 9 (1992) t i

^

l b

1 i

.N_

t

k. -

~ _

J LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RIBUIATIONS standanis far discovery of secunty plans; IEP 92-15A,36 NRC 8 (1992) use d discovery to provide bases for cornendans; IEP 92-37,36 NRC 387 (1992) to CFA 1740(c) '

applicabiluy of prcsecdvs orders to secunty plans; IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 11 (1992)

' 10 CFA 1740b esemptian for prcerictary information; ISP-92-15A,36 NRC 13 (1992) 10 CFA 1741(e) applicability to privsely passessed documerna; LEP-92-15A, % NRC 9 (1992)

NRC authority to limit access to sccurity plan documeras; IEP-9215A,36 NRC 8 (1992) 10 CFA 2744 pmceduses for obasining dommerus not svailatAe under secnon 1790; IEP-9215A,36 NRC 7 (1992) 10 CFA 1744(e) baris for accera to safeguards information; LEP-9215A,36 NRC 12 (1992) 10 CFA 1751a amendment of hearing pctatuma, deadline for; 12P-97-24,36 NRC 152 (1992) 10 CFA 1759 NRC position on setdemers agstrnata; IEP-92 30,36 NRC 228 (1992) 10 CFA 1760 6nality d inidal decisian; 1EP-92 25,36 NRC 187 (1992) 10 CFA 2.763 discretim of Comm2ssim to a!)ow ors! argument; CU-92-12,36 NRC 68 (1992) form of request tw orst argumera CL1-92-12,36 NRC 69 n.4 (1992) 10 CFA 1771 bases fa motions for reconsideration; IEP-92-35,36 NRC 357 (1992) 10 CFA 1772(,i) referral of licenses *a hearing request on license denial and condngent order to Odef Adnumsustive Judge of heensing board pancl; CU42-13,36 NRC $3 (1992) 10 CFA 1786 sppeals of initial dectsaan; 1EP-92 25,36 NRC 187 (1992) extamim of Commission supervisory powers to cirurnstances that do act roecs the standards-for review; CU-9213,36 NRC 86 (1992) petition for xview of revocation of bypmduct material limnae; Q192r14 36 NRC 352 (1992) 10 CFA 1784a)

Commiasion authocty to review licensing board orders; CI19215,36 NRC 251 (1992)

Comotission supervisory authority in sheence of a petiden for review; CL19213,36 NRC 85 (1992) 10 CFA 1786(bX1) deadline for seeking Canmission review; ISP-9136,36 NRC 368 (1992) petida for soview mandated prior to meding judicial aview; IEP-92r25,36 NHC 188 (1992) 10 CF.R.1786(bX2)

Isngth and conusa of petauma for sview; IEP 92-25,36 NRC 188 (1992); IEP-92 36,36 NRC 368 (1992)-

10 CFA 1786(bX3) ennsideration of staff views Eled in response to beensees' opporidon to ha petition for review, C1192-13,36 NRC 85 iL8 (1992) timing, length, and content d petinon for seview; IEP-92-36,36 NRC 368 (1992) 10 CFA 1786(bX4) considerations in shacretenary grant of pendon for review; CLI-9216,36 NRC 352 (1992)

' desdlme for appeal of ininal decision; IEP 92-25, 36 NRC 187 (1992) extenaien of Commissian supervisory poners to cirurratances that do not sneot the standanis for review; CU-9213,'36 NRC 86 (1992)

.10 CFA 1786(bX4Xii), (iii) -

jurisdictimal questions raised by omsolidation of Subpsrt O and Subpart L pmecedings; CU-9213,36 NRC 86 (1992) 43 i

d

r:.

J.

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGULATIONS 10 CF.R.1786(g) standanis for iraedocisory revice, CU-f 2-13,36 NRC 85 (1992) 10 C.FA 1786(8X2) t effect of consnLdatimt enler for *naposes of interlocutory review; C119213,36 NRC 86 (1992) 10 CFA 1788 factors to be addressed far grant of a stay; 1.BP-92r20,36 NRC 116 (1992); LBP-92-31,36 NRC 260, 268 (1992); IEP-92-35,36 NRC 359 (1992) showing necessary for grant d a stay; 1RP-92-31i 36 NRC 262 (1992) 10 CFA 1788(aX3) affidsvit support for may requests; IEP-92-31,36 NRC 263 n.12 (1992)-

10 C.FA 1790 applicability to pnvately possessed docunwrns; IBP-9215A,36 NRC 9 (1992) burde to estabbsh privDege and

'y of documents; 13P 92-15A,36 NRC 10 (1992) 1 disclosuus of applicara's physical pmtectan and material contml and accountaMhty pmgram for special nuclear maierial IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 7,11 (1992),

NRC suthority to limit necess to semity plan documents; ISP 92-15A,36 hTC 8 (1992) 10 CFA 1790(a) possession of security plans by applicars and NRC; LBP-92-15A,36 NRC 8 (1992)

' 10 CFA 1790(b)(1)

O

.10 CFA 1790(d) burden at pany asserting privnege and confidentiality; IBP 92-15A 36 NRC 10,11 (1992) -

burden to establish privilege and confidentiality of docurnans; 1RP-9215A,36 NRC 10,11,12 (1992) 10 CFA 1790(dXI)

- status of appucant's physical pnxect>on and material ernarol and accountabil ty program fer special nuclear material; 12P-92-15A,36 NRC 7,10 (1992)

- 10 CFA 1802(c) standard for docketing a petith for rulemaking; DPRM-92-2,36 NRC 41 (1992) 10 CFA 1803 -

institution af promedinga that am without merit and a waste of public usaunxs; DPRM-92-2,36 NRC dl (1992) 10 CFA 1905 pmcodure far attaining access to safeguards information; 13P-9215A,36 NRC 12 (1992) 10 CFA Part 2, Subpart L procedons applicable for consolidated Subpart G and Subpart L pro.:eedings: CU-92-13,36 NRC 82 -

. (1992) procedures applicable to materials licensing maners, 0192-13,36 NRC 83 (1992)-

10 CFA 11201 applicable rules where Subpart O and Subpart L poceedings are consolidated; LDP 9216A,36 NRC 20 '

n.6 (1992) 10 CFA 112012.1263

[

procedures for herinp on materiala license maners; CU-92r13,36 NRC 86 (1992) T

~

pmcedures applicable for consolidated Subpan 0 and $ubpart L prococaings; CU 92-13,36 NRC 82 (1992)

- 10 CFA 11201(a)

. sgantion ef pa-Amgs en lismse dernal and contingent order; CU-92-13,36 NRC 83 (1992) statutory language of mandatory diration and exclusivity: 12P-92-16A,36 NRC 20 n.6 (1992) 10 CFA 11201(b) :

pmcedures fa hearings on estforcerners orders; CLI-92-13,36 NRC 83 (1992) 10 CFA 11203(d)

? extension of tune for Bling stay requests: LBP-92-31,36 NRC 262 (1992),

10 CFA 11205 fmality d Staff decision where hearing is art requaned by applicara for license amendment; CI192-11, 36 NRC 54 (1992) f T-N'

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX RIEULATIONS respasibility for decrmmadun of hearing squest in show<ause poceedmg; CU 92-11. 36 NRC 60 n.47 (1992) 10 CF R. 2.1205(b) right of licensee to seek pnxedures other than Subpart L when a hearing naquest is made; CU 92-13, 36 NRC 36 n.15 (1992) 10 CJA 2.1205(c) amendmera or supplemanianon of hearing requesu; LBP 92-24,36 NRC 152 (1992) timeliness of stay requesta; GP-92-35,36 NRC 359 (1992) 10 CFA 11205(c)(2) relevance of notice requircenants for requests for licensing acnons to tune limits for stay requesia; LBP 92-31,36 NRC 262 a.9 (1992) timeliness of hearing requests; IEP-92 20,36 NRC 113 (1992) 10 CIA 11205(c)(2)(i) and (ii) deadline for filing hearing requesta; DP-92-20,36 NRC 113,114 (1992) 10 CfA 11205(d) standing and contention.,_ c for intervenuan in informal proceedings; UIP 92-24, 36 NRC 151 (1992)

' 10 CFA 11205(g) regulatory seguirernents for grant of hearing request on materials bcense amendmern.; UIP-92 20,16 NRC 115 (1992)

, scopo d issues litigable in deconunissioning proceeding; 2P-92-31,36 NRC 259,263 n.18 (1992) speci5 city required for admission of comennons in informs! Proceedings; LEP 92-24,36 NRC 154 (1992) 10 CFA 2.1205S) showing necessary on la.a-fued hearing requests;1RP-92-24,36 NRC 154 (1992)

/

Stata Staff discussions en license amendmcra as good cause for unnmely hearing sequent; LBP-92-20, 36 NRC 115 (1992) 10 CIA 112050).

effect of pendecy of hearing request on Staff grant of requested licensing action effective immediately; LDP 92-31,36 NRC 261 (1992) timeliness of stay requests; LDP 92 35,36 h1C 359 (1992) 10 CFA 2.1205(n) appeal of ader graming hearing rapest and dmying stay request; LBP-92 20,36 NRC 116 (1992) 10 CJA 11207 eacepnen far consolidanon of Subpart O and Subpast L proceedings; CU-9213,36 NRC 87 m.20 (1992) 10 CfA 11209 discretimary authority of presidmg of6cer in informal pr==a4g to allow amendment d hosring requeat; ISP-92-24, 36 NRC 151,152 (1992) 10 CFA 11209(d).

Commiscion supervisory authority in absence of a painon for review; CU-92-13,36 NRC 85 (1992) 10 CFA 112094) authority no apply other procedures in Subpart L poceedest CU-9213,36 NRC $7 (1992)

- Camruission appaval of use of thernanve }vocedures; Q.J-9213,36 NRC 87 n.20 (1992) 10 C.FA 2.1213 Staff participadon in informal paceedings; IEP-92 24,36 NRC 152 n 1 (1992) statemers of basis for monlawyer's authority to act in a represeruanonal capacity; IRP92-24,36 NRC 155 (1992)

- 10 CFA 11231,11233 basis far presiding ofGcer's decision in informal proceedings; CU 92-13,36 NRC 82 (1992) 10 CFA 11237(b) basen for anodons for reconsideradon; ISP-92-35,36 NRC 357 (1992).

burden est pmponent of a stay; LBP-92 20,36 NRC 116 (1992) 45 s

k N

p

-; I w

i LEGA'L CITATIONS INDEX RIGGt!!ATIONS 10 CFA 2.1261 referral of licensee's hearing sequest on license dmial and cutingent order to Quel Administisdve Judge of licensmg board panel; CUM 13,36 NRC 83 (1992) 10 CFA 2.1263 '

four factor test for grant of a stay; IEP-92-35,36 NRC 359 (1992) prematunty of stay aquest; IEP-92-35,36 NitC 359 0992) stay of licase amedment pendmg complaion of adjudicadm; IEP-92 20,36 NRC 116 0992) timeliness of request fa stay of decommissiming activities, IEP-92-31,36 NRC 260,261, 262 n.9 267 (1992) simelmess of stay requests; IEP-9235,36 NRC 358 (1992) 10 CF.R. Pan 2 Appendia C civil penalties fur employee discriminadon; DD-92-7,36 NRC 341 (1992); DDM8,36 NRC 350 (1992) 10 CFA Pan L Appendia C,I reasons for revocatum d a license; IEP-9225,36 NRC 163,187 0992) 10 CFA Pan A Appendia C, VA responsibiluy of licensees for acts of their employees; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 173 (1992) 10 CFA Pan 2, Appendia C. V.CO)(s) reasons for avocadon of a license; IEP-92 25,36 NRC 163 0992) 10 CFA Part 2. Appendia C, VE estforcancre action against an individust for employee discrimination; DD 92-7,36 NRC 343 a6 0992).

10 CFA 9.17(aX4) a atatus of applicant's physical protection and material contrul and econuntability program fa special nuclear matmial; IEP-92-15A, 36 NRC 7 (' 992) 10 CFA 9.19 o

material that is exeanpt frau discloses; LDP-92-15A,36 NRC 10 0992) 10 CFA 19.11 failum to post required documans; LBP 92-25,36 NRC 165,190 0992) 10 CF.R. Part 21

. seports of defects in components at Comanche Peak; DD-92-6,36 NRC 331 (1992) 10 CFA 30.3 possession ok syproduct material with a licese; IEP-9234,36 NRC 320 (1992) 10 CFA 30.9 material falso statement by licensee on his role as radiographer's assistant; IEP 92 25,36 NRC 170 (1992) 10 CFA 30.9(a) failure to record uses of NRC-licensed bypmduct material; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 164,182 0992) -

false oral infarrnation on anilizatim logs; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 164,168,188 0992)

.10 CF.R. 30.35 appbcadon of Eubpan G procedures to material license denial to permit captoradon of possible arbitrary and dilaturv action by Staff; Q192r13,36 NRC 88-89 (1992) comnwnshty si M.es between funding requirements fw decommissioning unda one orda and failure to meet fundmg obligations unos another; CU 92-13,36 NRC 88 (1992) -

' failure cd licenses to canply with fmancial assurance seguiremeras as basis for license deial; C1192-13,36 NRC $2 0992) 10 CFA 34.11(c) delegation of complete mpesibility and authodty to radiation safety of5cerl IEP-9225,36 NRC 172 0 992),

' to CFA 34.20(bX1)

. failuse to mark radiographic esposure devices with licensee's address and phone number: 1EP-92-25,36 NRC 164 (1992)

I

.[

g l

q-r

'W

{-

i.

.i -

W, l

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX s

REGl*LATIONS _

10 CFA 3426

- failure to maintain completa secords of quarterly pysical invetories of scaled sauras; LEP-92-25,36 NRC 164,190 (1992)

^-

10 CFA 34.27 -

falsi6 cation of utuzzadon legs; IEIL92-25,36 NRC 164,167,188 (1992) 10 CF.R. 34.31(b).

failms of licenses to provide cogies of operating and amcrgency procedures to sudiographer, GP-92-25, 36 NRC 169,189 (1992) -

unauthorized use of radiographic equipment; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 170 0992) 10 CFA 3433 fauurs to wear personnel snanuaring devices; LSP-92 25,36 NRC 164,167,169,170.189 (1992) limnaae's mis as a radiographer's snaistant in violanen d; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 164,169-70 0992) 10 C.F.R. 3433(c) failme to perfum surveys when radiographic caposure devices were placed in storage; IBP-92-25,36

. NRC 164,167 (1992) 10 CFA 34.42 failum to past high radiadon areas; LEP 92-25,36 NRC 164,190 0992) p

' 10 CFA Part 50.

applicability of Snancial quahncations seguirements to indepedent power prodacers; DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 33,35 0992) 10 C.FA 50.7 employee discrimination at Palo Verde; DD 92 7,36 WRC 339,342,343 n.6 0992) 10 C.FA 50.76) prevern on of " coerced" sailement agrecraenta; CLI 92-12,36 NAC 73 0992) p T

10 CFA 5033

+

NRC suthority to request informatim from non-utility applicams to perform a nnancial quahncations seview; DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 35 0992) 10 CFA 50.34(c) possossion of security plans by applicant and NRC; IEP-9215A,36 NRC 8 (1992) t.'

10 CFA 5039 '

+

L puesession of security plans by applicars and NRC; GP-92-15A,36 NRC 8 0992) 10 CFA 50.49 civu penalty for violadon of enviromnenal quahncadon requirements for electrical equipment important

. to safety; 1RP-92-21,36 NRC 117 0992) 10 CFA 5034(p) licensee authority to make dianges to security plan; DD 92 5,36 NRC 237 (1992)

~ 10 CFR. 50.55(b) eatension of ematruction compledon date, grounds for; DD-92-6,36 NRC 327 (1992); IEP-92-37,36 NRC 372 0992) -

10 CF.R. 5037 demonstration of Anancial quali6 cations by non-utility smlicants for operating licenses; DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 35 (1992) 10 CFA 50.58(b)(6) -

jurisdiction for pre <ffectivmens heanns on decommissionirg; IBP-92 23,36 NRC 137 0992) 10 CFA 50.72 seportability d employee injuries; DIA92-6,36 NRC 329 0992) '

10 CFA 50.73 contant of reports of inciden.a and rescem trips; DD-92-6,36 NRC 3310992)

.10 CFA 50.75 funding plan requiremeras for decommissioning; 13P-92-23,36 NRC 136,137 (1992)

'NRC authority to sequest information frorn neut: lay applicants to perform a 6nancial qualincadone review; DPRM 92-1,36 NRC 35 0992) '

47 i

'N.

3 0;.

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX REGit1ATIONS 10 CF.R. 50.75(d) decommissioning report requiremmts for non-taJiry applicants; DPRM.921,36 NRC 35 (1992) 10 CFA 50.75(cX2) acceptable financial assurance snechanisms for decommissuming by a non utility bcensee; DPRM-92-1, 36 NRC 35 (1992) 10 CFA 50.80 dmumstratim el financial qualifwadons by nm-utijdy arplicants for operanns hcenses; DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 35 (1992) 10 CFA 50.82 release d sits fw unnstricted use afur decommissionmg; IEP-92-23,36 hRC 124 (1992) 10 CFA $0.90 Canmission authority to ammd entitrust license cmditions; C13-9111,36 NRC 51 (1992)

-- Canmission authonty 1o amend licenses; C1J.92-II,36 NRC 53 (1992)

'.10 CFA 50.91 jurisdamon for preeffectivmess hearing on damnnussumirg; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 137 (1992) 10 CFA 50.91(aX4) issuance of license amendmmt painr to headng contesung amendmers; IEP32-17.16 NRC 25 (1992) 10 CFA 50.92 Cumnnssion authority to amend licenser, C1J-9211,36 NRC 53 (1992) jurisdation for pro <ffectivmess heanns on decommissioning; IEP-92-23,34 NRC 137 (1992) no sign 16 cant hazards determmation en license amednumt inewporating pr< posed changes to spent fuel pml tedmical speci$ cations; 1EP-92-17,36 NRC 24 (1992).

Lff issuance of license amendment following considerstian of enmmans from iruervention peuuonar, r

IEP-72-28,36 NRC 204 (1992) 10 CFA 50109 addition d odoraras to radioactive emissions from nuclear power scactors; DPRM-92-2,36 NRC 43 (1992)..

10 CFA Part 50 Appedia R defriencies in emergency lighting systern at Palo Verde; DD-924,36 NRC 145 (1992).

10 CFA 51.20,51.21 environmeenal assessnent versus -.L...al impact statement for deemmussaaning; IEP-92 31,36 NRC 264 (1992) 10 CFA 51A5 mandatory requimnems for enviremersal repons; IEP-92-23l36 NRC 133 (1992) 10 CFA 51.53(b).

coment d erwirmmental report for decommissionms; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 134 (1992) 10 CFA Part 70 challenge to demmnussmning eder, IEP-92-31,36 NP.C 258 (1992) f request far inconsideration of denial of stay of deconmussioning; IEP-92-35,36 NRC 357 (1992) 10 CFA 71.5 defwencies in shipping paper sequimumns for radioactive materials; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 164 (1992) faihrrs to properly mark radioactive material shi;gsng containerr, IEP-92 25,36 NRC 164,190 (1992) 10 CFA Part 73.

physical security plan seguinnents for licoshg; DD-92 5,36 NRC 237 (1992) 10 CFA 73.2 definition d safeguards informatim; IEP-9215A, 36 NRC 8 (1992)

. defiration d security plan as safeguards infamation; LEP-92-15A,36 NRC 12 (1992) 10 CF.R 73 21 disclesure of safeguards information; IEP-9215A,36 NRC 9 (1992) 10 CF.R. 73.21(c)(1) hasis far sceoss to safeguards information; IEP-9215A,36 NRC 12 (1992)

O P

.p i

c;

FR k ':

f,.

1 LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX Rrt;uanoss 10 CF.R. 73.21(cX2)

' basis for access to safeguards information; IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 12 (1992) paahics for breach d a protecnve crder. IRP-92-15A,36 NRC 12 (1992) 10 C.FA 74.33 material corared and accournability documems as safeguards informauon; 1BP-9215A,36 NRC 5-9 (1992) 10 CFA 95.35 disclosure d dommeras containing. La part, confidential natimal accurity information; LBP-92-15A,36 NRC 9 (1992) 10 CFA 95.35(a) limitanon on access to security plans; LBP-92-15A,36 NitC 12 (1992) 10 CFA Part 140 applicabuity of fmancial qualifications.veguirements to independet power praam; DPRM-921,36 NRC 33 (1992) 10 C.F.R.140.21.

satisfaction of fmancial suspmaibilities to guaramm paymern d deferred premiums unda Price Anderson Act; DMtH-921,36 NRC 35 (1992) 10 C.F.R.140.21(f) shcanative methods of guarameeing payment d defened premiurns under Price Andurson Act;

' DPRM 92-1,36 NRC 35 (1992) 10 C.FA Part 171 sevocana d materiala license for failure to pay annual foe; IEP-92-33,36 NRC 312 (1992) sevncanon d materials liomas far failure to pay fee: CLI-92-14,36 h1C 222 (1992) 49 C.FA 172.201(d) and 172.203(d) dencimcies in shipping paper.6, __ for radianctive nu w: rials; 12P-92 25,36 NRC 164,190 (1992) -

. 49 CFA 173.25 failure to pmperly mark radioacnvo rnalerial sinpping cxrnainers; LBP 92-25,36 NRC 164,190 (1992):

49 CF.R.177.817(4) deficiencies in shining paper sequinsnents for radioscuve materials; IEP-92 25,36 hTC 16&,190 (1992) 49

?-

.a

(,,

_ 1 d,

1 1

A i

1-1 l

l LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATI)TES j

i r

l l

Admmistrative Proceduso Act,5 U.SC 6551(c)

' l procedural pmoctions to persons subject to agency investigations; CIJ-92-10,36 NRC 3 (1992) 4 j :

Atomic Energy Act,11,42 U.S.C. 62014 (1988) hearing rights d hcensees or applicams; QJ-92-It,36 NRC 53 (1992) i Atomic Foergy Act, 81,42 U.SC 2111 incuporanon of academas agteement irso order appming agament and dismissing proceeding; IEP-92-18. 36 NRC 93-94 (1992) possession of byproduct material with a license; LBP-92-34,36 NRC 321 (1992)

Atomic Energy Act,103,42 U.SC 2133 andtrust review requirements for canmercial nuclear power plarns; CU-9211,36 h C 56 (1992) i l

Commimon amhority to suspend arsitrat license condinons; Q192-11,36 NRC 59 (1992) terminatim d proceedmg because t

.Atlanent agreemeat; IJ3P 92-21,36 NRC 118 (1992)

Atomic Energy Act,103c,42 U.Sc $2133(c) catension of aerm of operating license to recaptme construct:an period; 1EP-92 27,36 NRC 197 (1992).-

Atomic Energy Act,104b l

licmsing of plass without antatrust review; CU 92-11,36 NRC 56 (1992)

Atwnic Energy Aa,105,42 U.SC 62135 i

l limits on Comrmsamn anntrust jurisdiction; Cll-92-11,36 NRC 51,52,56 (1992) sone-d-interests tat for inicrversiort; LBP-9219,36 NRC 104 (1992)

Atomic Energy Act,105c,42 U.SC 12135(c)

Cannnssion authority to amend antitmst license condinons; C1J-92r11,36 NRC 55,57 (1992).

plain meaning of; IEP-92 32, 36 NRC 287-98 (1992) l postheensing antitrust seview to determine adverse andtrust aspects of a luxnse; QJ-92-11,36 NRC $6 (1992) i Atomic Energy Act,10$c(2),42 U.Sc (2135(cX2) forum for dcsermining signincance cf changes that have occurred since enginal smitrust review; CU-9211,36 NRC 56 (1992)

Atomic Energy Act,105c(5),42 U.Sc $2135(cX')

i

(

legislative history reJevant io; IEP-92 32,36 NRC 299-306 (1992) pmpose of amitrust sumdidons an opersting licenses; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 719 (1992) l Atomic Energy Act,105c(6). 42 U.S C 62135(cX6) j considerations in determining whesher a_ license should be issued; IEP-92-32, 36 NRC 310 (1992) j Atom;c Energy Act,161. 42 U.Sc 2201 ~

Commission smhonty to smsad licenscs; CU-9211,36 NRC 53 (1992)

Canmission authmity to suspend smitrust license conditions; CU-92-11,36 NRC 59 (1992) l incaporation of setGement agmement irao order appnwing agmement and dismissing pmceedmg; IEP-92-18,36 NRC 93-94 (1992)

Atomic Energy Aa,161(b), (o) 42 U.SC 2201(b), (o).

l terminatim of procanding becausa of seulement agament; IEP-92-21,36 NRC !!8 (1992) i Atomic Energy Act, 182,183,137,42 U.S C. 2232 (1988)

Canmisman authority to amend licenses; C1192-11,36 NRC 53 (1992)

- i e

51

?

t e

,,w--

w w-were, wr i,-c--

i..

y w

w

~

1 f

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX STATUTES Ammic Energy Jun,186,42 U.SC 2235 reasons fa revocation af a license; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 162,163 0992)

Atomic Energy Act,189,42 U.S C. 2239 0988) e Comnussion suomity w amend licenses; CL192-11,36 NRC 53,59 0992)

Commisman authonty to suspend antitrust license conditions; CLI-9211,36 NRC 59 0992) -

. Auxnic Energy Act,189(a) 1 Conimisman authority to defme and limit the scope of a WHg; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 210 0992) buerest requirunent for interveritirag IEP-92-27,36 NRC 199 0992)

- Atomic I:ncrgy Act,189(a)(1).

hearing rights of licensees or a;ylicants; Q192-11,36 NRC 50,53,54 0992) irnerversion rights in NRC proceedings; IEP 92 28,36 NRC 207 0992)

Auxnic Energy Act,191,42 U.Sc 2241 terminstion d proceedmg because of scalement agreement; 1EP-92-21,36 NRC 118 0992)

Atomic Energy Act,191a,42 U.SC (2241(a) issuance of '

" g orda prior to completion of adjudicatory hearing; IBP-92 23, 36 NRC 137 0 992)

Ammic Energy Act,234,42 U.Sc $2282 purpose of licensing boerd review of soulament agreemerna; IEP.92 21,36 NRC 119 0992)

Energy Reorganisation Aa,210,42 U.Sc $5851 discrimination against employees inr engaging in protected activity: DD-92-7,36 h1C 340 0992) -

National Envimnmarmal Policy Act. 42 U.S.C. 62021b

' EIS requirements far -

• - - IEP-92 31,16 NRC 264 0992)

Ohio Constitution, Art. XVIII,164-5 establishment of a munidpal icility: 12P-92-19,36 NRC 103 0992) 5 i

4 I

1 5

- i

• e a

a g

(-

7-1in

- M

-r Fir

l I

l l

4 i -

i LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX OTHI'RS l

3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agmey 0986) Q. at 509-10 1

responsihuity of heensees for acts of their employers; IBP-92-25,36 NRC 173 (1992) l 1 P. Areeds & D. Turner, Anutrust law,1104, at 7-8 pnarity to compaitim over claans that resuictive agreemaits are necessary to mitgaie economic disness; 1EP-92-3136 NRC 309 m.135 0992) 1 Il P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antinust hw 1323, et 106 0978) applicability of pnnciples d sepme in NRC proceedings; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 283 0992) 11 P. Areeda & D. Turner, Antitrust law,150'. at 322 defininon of " market po#, IRP-92-32,36 NRC 290 (1992)

Att'y Genar:1's Manual en the Admmastrative Procedurs Act 67 (1947)

/

O1 policy to withhold volurnary irnerview transengua until and of investigadon; CU-9210,36 NRC 3 y

j n.1 (1992)

ILR. Rep. No. 1470,91st Cmg.,2d Seas. 0970) z low cost as a predmaie for impostim d antitrust license omdnions; IEP.92 32, 36 NRC 301 (1992) '

f

(

H.R. Rep. No. 1980,79th Cong.,2d Sess. 265 0946) l transcript rights on vahusary testimony; CU-92-10, 36 NRC 4 n.2 (1992) 7 6

E. Kimner, An Antitrust Pnmer 15 (2d ed.1973)

C pancipal purpose of Sherman, Clayton, and Federal Trade Canmission acts; GP-92 3136 NRC 290 r--

l 0 992) 10.441[3. 3) (2d ed.1988)

~

IB J. Moore, J. Lucas & T. Nrri;. Mome's Federal Practice, l

applicability of co!! steal estappel where Sutgart O and Subpart L proceedings are consolidaied; I

l.BP-92-16A, 36 NRC 21 0992).

[

A Neal, The Antitrust laws of the IJnized States 126 (2d ed.1970) l1 accournability d skuninant commerdal ernity for its maict pomer; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 290 0992)

Prelicensing Aranrust Review of Nudear Power Plaras: Heanngs before the Joiin Comminee on Atomic 1

l'.nergy, 91st Cong.. Ist Sess. 37-38 0969) (ranarLa of Re. Ilolific14. JCAE Chairman) j purpose af prohibinoa against postheensing antitrust rwiew; (2J-92-11,36 NRC 56 0992)

Prelicensing Amitrust Review of Nudear Pourplaras: IIcarings on S. 212, IIR. 8289,11R. 9647, and S.

2768 Before the Joint Comm. on Atomic I:nergy,91st Cong.,1st & 2d Sem 0969-70) rationale for NRC prehoensing antitrust review; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 300 0992)

S. Rep. No. /52. 79th Cong., let Seas. 206 0 945) transcript rights on volumary testimony; C2J-92-10,36 NRC 4 n.2 0992) l S. Rep. No. 1247,91st Cong.,24 Sess. 0970) low cost as a predicate for irnposidan d anutrust license emonions; LEP-92-32,36 NRC 3010992) 4 i

1 A N. Singer, Sutherland Statamory Constnanm H 2134.35 (4th ed.1985) spplicable rules whas Subpart G and Subpart L groceedmgs are consohdated; IEP-92-16A,36 NRC 20 :

n.6 0992)

I 2A N. Singer, Sutherkal Sistmary Consuuadre, 5 48.06 (4th ed.1984) at 3(*

l weight given so legislauvo hisiery; Cll 92-10,36 NRC 4 n.2 0992)

L. Sullivan. Handbook d ti,a law d Anuuust i2, et 30 (1977) 6-.,

dermition of rnadet power"; IBP-92-32. 36 NRC 290 (1992) 4 k

j i-a i

~

..a....

.a__..,

.+ l

. p

'p s

LEGAL CITATIONS INDEX ornirms

/

- Sutherland Statutory r'---a gatos (4th.g,1934)-

_ oppbcable rules where Subpan 0 and Sabren L pmceedmas as consolidated; 1RP-9216A,36 NRC 20

. 3 na 0992)

~

i

3 Il C Wrigle and A, Mincr. Federal Practics and Pmeedum 61350, at 20044 (24 ed.1990)-

timeliness emsideratams in raismg absence of subject menar junsdiction; GP-92-32,36 NRC 287 n.46 (199 3 115 C Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Pmeedure 5 4423 (1981)

. applicabihty of collaterni estoppel whers Subpen d ar.d Subpen L pmoerhss are omsalidated; 2P-92-16A. 36 NRC 210992) 18 C. Wrista, A. Miller & E. Cooper. Fedad Practico and Pmcodure (4475 {1981) law of the case as har to relitigatim of same issue in subsequcun stages of the same procerkg; -

6 1RP 92-32,36 NRC 283 (1992)

' f P

h

/

k t

I L e

e F

L 4

';N. :

u o

l)

'h 4

I

-- -. ~...~~

._. ~ ~.. -..

y.

2 -

P b

P l

l I

i t

L 5

t l

SUllJECT INDEX i

l l

ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES advocanon of a posaiw before a superior appe!! ate tnbunal; IRP-92-16A,36 NRC 18 (1992) i ADMINISTRATIVE PROCI' DURE ACT ll good cause sucquim to transcript r:ghts; C1192-10,36 NRC 1 (1992)

I transcript rights on volusary tesdmony; Q192-10,36 NRC I (1992)

AITTDAVIT requirement fur having security plan withheld fun the public; IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 5 0992) suppat requised d challenges to irnmediata effectiveness of mforcement order, LBP 92-34,36 NRC.

L 317 0 992)

)

AIRLOCK l

cmployee injury in: DD-92-6,36 NRC 325 0992)

AMENDMENT of anutrust kenne conditions; CIJ-9* ll,36 NRC 47 (1992) of hearing petiden in informal hearing; LBP-92-24. 36 NRC 149 (1992)

I of interveraion petitions, deadlme for, IEP-92-27,36 NRC 196 (1992) l of regulations reganimg hcensing of independent power producers to construct or opernts commercial.

g nuclear power reactors; DPRM-921,36 NRC 310992) l See also Materkls license Ammament: Operating License Anu:ndment i

Ah"ITTRUST aucuntability of dominant commercial entity for its maAct power, IEP-92 32, 36 NRC 269 (1992) l ~-

ANITIVUST IJCENSE CONDITIONS ammdment of; C1192 II,36 NRC 47 0992) j Cornmission auderity to retain in nuclear facill:y's operedng licmse; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992) l intervention in Imudmg on suspezion of; IEP-92-19,36 ATC 98 (1992) i ANITTRUST PROCI1 DINGS applicability of repose doctrmes in; LBP 92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992) 4.

APITA13 1-dernal of request far stay; IEP-92-22,36 NRC 119 (1992)

ATOMIC ENERGY ACT authority to amend gersdng licenses; Q19211,36 NRC 47 (1992) bearing rights of applicants or licenseca; CIJ-92-11,36 NRC 47 0992)

)

injury-in-fact standant for standing to inurvere, IEP 92-19, 36 NRC 98 (1992) situation inconsisters with anderust tows; IEP-92 32, 36 NRC 269 (1992) 1 HIA5 attenuation in an agency's decisim by independens assessmet by an adjwficatory decisionmaker of merits of parties' legal positims; LBP 92 32,36 NRC 269 0992)

BYPRODUCT MATT. RIAL j

failure to record naes of; IEP 92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992) ownership versus possession: 12P-92 34,36 NRC 317 (1992) possession without a license; IEP-92 34,36 NRC 317 (1992)

'l BYPRODUCT MATERIAL IJCENSE revocatim d; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 156 0992) s f

ss J

b 4

4 4

i 4

0 g

4

....m,,.

..r......-.

>5 2 SUIUECf INDEX CIVIL PENAL 11ES for amployen discriminada at Palo Verde; DD-92 7,36 NRC 338 0992); DD-92-s,36 NRC 347 -

O 992) for loss of cooling to spent fuel paul; DD-92-4 36 NRC 325 0992) for violation of emirmmenal quahficalm aquirements for electrical equipment knponant to safcay; IEP-92 21,36 NRC 117 (1992) i for viol.ations et Cornancho Peak; DD-92-6,36 NRC 325 (1992)

CIVIL PINALTY PROCEEDING as a trial do novo; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992) limits on board powers in; IEPw25,36 NRC 156 0992)

COWATERAL ESTOPPEL L ',

applicabihty in NRC proceedings; IEP-92 32,36 NRC 269 (1992)-

appbcabihty where Subpait O and Subpan L proceedmas are conschdated; LEP-92-16A,36 NRC 18 0 9923 standasds far amlicadon in NRC proceedmgr, LBP 9123,36 NRC 120 (1992)

COMMISSION authority to derme and limit the scopo of a proceeding; IEP-92 28,36 NRC 202 (1992) supervisory authority over adjudicadans; CU-92-13,36 NRC 79 (1992)

See also Nuclear Regulsiory Comrnission -

. i

. CONFIDEN11AL INIORMAllON protection frorn disclosure; CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992)

CONFIDEN11AL NATIONAL SECURIIY INFORMATION L'

' status of semrity plan and material control and accountabihty program as; IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 5 (1992)

CONFIDENTIAII!Y

- burde to establiah; IEPG15A,36 NRC 5 (1992)

CONSOUDATION OF PROCEEDINGS standard for irserlocutary wviey d; C119211,36 NRC 79 0992)

Subpsrt L and Subpsst 0; C1192-13,36 NRC 79 0992); ISP-92-16A,36 NRC 18 0992)

CONSTRUCI10N entension of compladan date for; DD-92 6,36 NRC 325 (1992); LEP 92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992)

CONSTRUCTION PERMTT EXTENSION PROCEEDINGS -

+

scops of issues litigable in; IEP 92-37,36 NRC 370 0992) standing to irnervene in; IEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992)

CONITNTIONS basis and specificity requiremains for admianion of; ISP-92 37, 36 NRC 37n (1992) incorporation of massive documents by rerenmce as basis for; IEP-92 37,36 NRC 370 0992) plesdag requiremmts for, ISP-92 23;36 NRC 120 0992) scopo of issues litigabic in constructim permit eatension psoceedings; 1EP-92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992) specincity required of; IEP-92 28,36 NRC 202 0992)

COUNSIL notias of appearance of; IEP-92-24, 36 NRC 149 0992) '

CRf!1CAUTY ANALYSlf calcuhdan erros for span fuel poch IEP-9217,36 NRC 23 0992)

DECISIONS '

Sea Initial Decisions -

DECOMMISSIONING considersum of shernatives' to; ISP-92-23, 36 NRC 120 (1992)

. consolidatim with license renewat dmial proceeding; LBP-9216A. 36 NRC 18 (1992) environmental review for; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992)

' DECOMMISSIONING PROCEEDINO geogsphic pronimity as basis for standing in; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992).

standing to intervene in; IEP-92-24,36 NRC 149 (1992)

$4 r

?

e ll.

~

s-y e

+

.h V SUBJECT INDEX -

4' DEF1CIENCIES '

in emergency lighting systems at Palo Verde; DD 92-4,36 NRC 143 0992)

DFRATTIONS monopoly ponr, OP-92-32,36 NRC 269 0992).

DISCOVERY of security plans;1RP-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992) use d, so provide bases for conumtiors; LEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992) waiver of sight to: LBP-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992)

..DISCRIMINA710N enforcement action for, DD42 7,36 NRC 338 0992); DD-92-8,36 NRC 347 0992)

DISMISSAL OF PROCIIDLNO '

with prejudice, because of,mlernerit agreement; LBP-92-30,36 NRC 227 0992) withdawal of petsuoners as cause for, LBP-92-29,36 NRC 225 (1992)

DISQUALIFICATION

' t standards LBP-92-32,36 NRC 269 0992)

DOCUMENTATION deficiencies in shipping papers far radioactive mau: rials; LBP-92 25,36 NRC 156 0992) fathne to recad uses of bypmduct rnsurial; IBP-92-25,36 NRC 156 0992)

DOSIMFTERS failure to wear; 2P-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992)

DUE PROGSS seview of equa pmtection diallenges to econurnic classincation under ratimal basis standard; LDP.92 32,36 NRC 269 0992)

ECONOMIC ISSUES as basis for standing to intervene in construction permit extension proceeding ElliCIR1 CAL EQUIPMENT knportant to safety civil penalty for violation of environmental qualineatim aquiremans; lllP-92-21,

/

36 NRC 117 N EMEROENCY UG >" J SYSTEM deficiencies at Palo Verde; DD-92-4, 36 NRC 143 (1992)

EMERGENCY PLANS adequacy as a safety measus over the addition of odorants to radioanive emissims; DPRM-922,36 r

- NRC 37 0992)

-ENIORCEMENT ACI1ON applicability oflaie41ing criteria to bearing sequests on; CL142-14,36 NRC 2210992) for employee discrimination at Salo Verde; DD-92-7. 36 NRC 338 (1992); DD-92-8,36 NRC 347 0 992) -

ENFORCEMENT ORDER chauengas to immedisis effeaiveness of. LBP-92-34,36 NRC 31) (1992)

ENTORCEMENT POLICY '

sevocation of license: IB7-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992)

ENVIRONMENTAL EITECTS of odorants added to radioactive emissions: DPRM-92-2,36 NRC 37 0992)

. ENVIRONMENTAL QUAllF1CA710N

quirements for electrical equipment irnpartant to safety, civil penahy for violation of, LBP-92 21,36 -

NRC 117 0992)

- ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

' fw decornmissiming; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992)

- EQUAL PROTECTION

' chauenges to soonamic classincstion, aview under rational basis standard; IRP-92-32,36 NRC 269

O992)

' EVIDENCE

. p.p.1 d the evidence standard im weighing; ISP-92-25, 36 NRC 156 0992)

J I

Y y

i SUBJECT INDEX FALSIMCATION of utilizanan loss; LBP-92-25, 36 NRC 156 (1992) -

ITIS.

licmse, revocatim d license for failure to pay; 1EP-92-33,36 NRC 312 (1992)

FIIJNO3

' basis for daarmining comptede of; LBP-92-28,36 NRC 202 0992)

' IYRE PROIliCTION SYSTEM deAcicacies at Palo Verde, allegations of; DD-92-4,36 NRC 143 (1992)

IIEAITII Ef77 CTS of adoraras added to radioncdvs emissions: DPRM-92-2,36 NRC 37 0992)

IIEARING REQUEST deadline for fding; LBP-92-20,36 NRC 112 (1992)

- late-filed, criteria applied scr, IEP-92 33,36 NRC 312 (1992) lata fded, in informal proceedmgs; 2P-92 24,36 NRC 149 0992) on enforcernces actions, lata filed; CtJ 9214,36 NRC 221 (1992) on matenals licere amendment; IEP 92-20,36 NRC 112 0992) aupplemersada er ammdment of; LBP-92r24,36 NRC 149 0992)

- timelineu of;IEP-92 20,36 NRC 112 0992)

IIEARING RIGif!3 af appbcants or licornees; CIJ-92-11,36 NRC 47 (1992)

.' showing necessary a estabhsh; LEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992)

IIEARINGS en reivocanon d lismes for failum to pay license fee, acope ef; C1J42-14,36 NRC 221 (1992) on whether petnioner has met esteria fw standing; IEP 92-38,36 NRC 394 0992)

Staff consuleration of Applicants'. amendmers request an; C1J42-11,36 NRC 47 0992)

IMMEDIATE INNESS of enfarremera order, dia11enges toc LEP-92-34,36 NRC 317 0992)

IMPARTIAIJTY of adminisuadvs trial judges; IEF9216A,36 NRC 18 (1992)

IN CAMERA PROCEEDINGS sefusal of irnervenw to participate in: IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 5 (1992).

INCIDENTS corsers of licensee reports of; DD92-6,36 NRC 325 (1992)

INDEPENDENT POWIR PRODUCERS financial quahrwedans seview for construction and operanan of commercial nuclear pimer reacions;

' DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 310992)

INIORMALIIEARINGS '

amendmers of headng paidun in: LEP 92-24,36 NRC 149 (1992)

. er aden for reconsideratim in; IEP-92 35,' 36 NRC 355 0992) specifying amas of concern in: IEP'92-24,36 NRC 149 0992)

See also Subpart L Proceedings.

INfTIAL DFr!SIONS finality d; IEP-92 25,36 NRC 156 0992)

INSPECIlON See NRC Inspection aNIT.RPRETATION af 10 Cf.R. 2.763; C1J-9212,36 NRC 62 0992) of 10 Cf.R. Part 50; DPRM-92-1. 36 NRC 310992) -

of 10 Cf.R. Part 140; DPRM-92-1,36 h7C 310992) -

of sacery's own rula, limits on; LEP-92 20,36 NRC 112 (1992) statutory, general rules for. ISP-9132, 36 NRC 269 0992)

' !NIERVENORS penatry for refusal no participais in in camera proceedings,

• 3P42,15A,36 NRC 5 (1992)

?

s) a w

s, SUBJECT INDEX

(,

INITRVENTION s

cananmn seguirement foc 1RP-92-23,36 NRC 120 0992); IEP 92-37,36 NRC 370 (1992) interest segnrement fw; CU 9212,36 NRC 62 (1992); IEP-92 37,36 NRC 370 (1992); IEP-92 35, 36 NRC 355 (1992)

- INITRVENTION PETTHONERS withdraws! of, as cause for dismissal of proceeding; IEP-92-29,36 NRC 225 (1992)

Ih7ERVIN!10N PETITIONS amendman of; 1EP 92 27, 36 NRC 196 (1992) deadline for fihng; IEP-92-28,36 NRC 202 (1992) deferral of rulmy pending amendment er supplementanon of; IEP-9117,36 NRC 23 (1992)

L late filed, good cause for; IEP-92-19,36 NRC 98 (1992) panicularity vaguired of; IEP-92-28,16 NRC 202 0992); IEP-92-37, 36 h1C 370 (1992) ~

sancnons for noncompliance with pleading requirements for, IEP-92 26, 36 NRC 1910992)

INTERVEhTION, IATE adequacy of exisnns represemation; IEP-9219,36 NRC 98 0992) assistance in developing a smed mxed; CU42-12,36 NRC 62 (1992) availabilny of other means to pmtect pathener's intmests; 1RP-92-19,36 NRC 98 (1992) bmsdening of issues or delay of groceedmg; 1RP-9219,36 NRC 98 0992) delay of proceedmg, potential fe, CIJ-92-12,36 NRC 62 0992) deial of aquan for; CLI-9212,36 NRC 62 0992) five factus to be addressed by petitions; IEP-92 28,36 NRC 202 0992) five-factor test for; C12-9212,36 NRC 62 0992) good-cause test for CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 099?)

other rneans to protect intavenor's irnerests; CU-92r12,36 NRC 62 (1992) other parues to pracot intervencr's interest; QJ-92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992)

JUDGES See Administrative Judges JURISDICTION 4

antitrust CU 92-11, 36 NRC 47 (1992) -

'. timeliness of challenges to; 1RP-92 32,36 NRC 269 (1992)

. IAOIES applicabDity in NRC r.-~Lw, IEP-92-32, 36 NRC 269 (1992) showing na~a==ey to estaMish the defense of, IEP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992)

IAW OF liiB CASE spplicabibty in NRC proceedings; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 269 0992)

IEGISIA1TVE IDSTORY -

weight given to, in statutory constructions; CU 9210,36 NRC 1 (1992)

- UCENSE

' language making indiation safety officer cornpletely responsible for cunpliance with safety segulations;

. ~

' !.RP-9216,36 NRC 15 (1992)

~

UCENSE CONDTIlON antitrust, authority to amend; CU-9211,36 NRC 47 (1992) a.JitrusL, irnervennon in promeding at suspension of; LBP-9219, 36 NRC 98 0992)

UCENSE FEES '

sevocanon of licmse for failum to psy; CU-92-1d,36 NRC 2210992)

UCENSE RENEWAL; denial, consolidanon with decomnussioning proceeding; IEP 9216A,36 NRC 18 0992) f UCENSEE EMPIDYEES

~

- reportability of injuries to; DD-92 6,36 NRC 325 0992)

'sdty procedures training,y.;. -.

s, DDL92 5,36 NRC 2310992) training and knowledge of work contrd process; DD-92-5,36 NRC 231 (1992) 1A ENSEE$

responsilmhty for acts of anployers; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992)

$9 s

j i

- l

~

.V I

i+

SUIlJECT INDEX UCENSES non-taility, Enancial qualificanons mder Pdoe Andenon Act; DPRM-921,36 NRC 310992)

UCENSING -.

of independent power producuns w cons.ruct er operaie cmunercial nuclear power neactom; DPRM-92-1, 36 NRC 31 (1992)

UCENSING BOARDS -

p

.responsiW1ity to seek Commission authorizane for consolidanno of proceedings CU-9213,36 NRC 79 -

(1992) seview of seulement agmerncina; IEP-92-30,36 NRC 227 0992) ijOllTLNG San Eneramcy Ughnng Systems LIMIT SWITOIES mislabeling of; DI)92 6,36 NRC 325 (1992)

IDSS OF COOUNG to spent fuel pool; DD-924 36 NRC 325 (1992)

MAINTENANCE.

work contral process for finding equipnent problems et South Teasa; DD-92 5,36 NRC 231 (1992)

MANAGEMEN!' CIIARACIER AND COMPETENCE st Comanche Paak; DD-924,36 NRC 325 (1992)

Comnussion authonty w consider,IBP-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992) standant for daermining; 12P-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992) weight given to licensee's candor in determuung whether to revoke its license; IEP-92-25,36 NitC 156 (1992)

MARKET POWER secounsability d darrunant commercial craity for, LDP-9232,36 NRC 269 (1992)

MATIRIAL CONTitOL AND ACCOUNTABIUIY e.

l7 disclosure of applicant's plan fw, LDP-9215A,36 NRC 5 (1992)

/

MKIT3tIAL FALSE STATEMENT by licersen on his solo as radiographer's assisuua; LBP-92 25,36 NRC 156 (1992)

MATERIALS UCENSE AMENDMENT cay pen 6ng completion of adjudication; IEP-92 20,36 NRC 112 (1992) w perform plaza processing tests on feed containing souxe material; IEP42 20,36 NRC 112-(1992)

MATERIAL 3 UCENSES' ~

pmcodums applicable so hearing en denial of, CU 9213,36 NRC 79 (1992) revocation for failure to pay annual fee; IEP-92-33,36 NRC 312 (1992)

- See also Bypmduct Material License MONOPOLY POWER..

definitiori ef; 1.RP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992)

.' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERADON

' basis for; 12P-92-35,36 NRC 355 (1992)

MUNICPAIJIY

+s Lf demonstration of ir@ary-in, fact for standing to imervene in antitrust pr-* Aing; IEP-9219,36 NRC 98 (1992)

- NAllONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POUCY ACT.

consideranon of shornatives e _'

• g; U1P-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992)

...;,- M review far decomnussioning; 1RP.92 23,36 NRC 120 0992)

'NO SIGNIFICANT 11A7ARDS DETERMINATION.

license amendment so incorporate spent fuel pool redesign in techracal specificationr, LBP-9217, ' 6 3

, NRC 23 (1992)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

~

of connuel, standant for neufying board of; LDP-92 24,36 NRC 149 0992) '

requiremets for filing answen so revocation orderr, LBP-92-33,36 NRC 312 (1992) -

c 1

~

r e

's

• 1

a SUBJECT INDEX.-

NRC INSPECTION.

unpropnenes at Palo Verde, allegations of; DD-92A,36 NRC 143 (1992)

NRC PROCEEDINGS petinms far svww; CU-92r16,36 NRC 3510992) r NRC REVIEW antitrust implicatims of licensing medans; ISP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992)

. NRC STAFF; questian' directed by Camussion in, regarding egreanent to forego further action against liccusee; C1192-15,36 NRC 251 (1992)

NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMhESSION authority to amend licensa; CU-92-11,36 NRC 47 0992) authority to retain antitrast condicians in a nuclear facility's operanna license; 12P-92 32,36 NRC 269 (1992) authority to review ina sing board wders; CU-92-15,36 NRC 2510992) deferral of action on diacrimination pending decisma by Secreary of Labor; DD-92-7,36 NRC 338 '

(1992); DD92-8,36 NRC 347 (1992) t enforcanas action in disenmination cases; DD 92 7,36 NRC 338 (1992); DD-92-8, 36 NRC 347 0 992)-

. See also Cormussie ODORANTS addition to radioactive anissions as a safety measure; DPRM 92-2,36 NRC 37 0992)

OPERA 11NG UCENSE AMENDMENT authority to approwe; CU-9211,36 NRC 47 0992) issuance prie to hearing contesung amaidment: IEP-92-17,36 NRC 23 0992) spent fuel pool redesign; 1BP-92-17,36 NRC 23 0992)-

to andafy administrative canuols over use of spent fuel poot; IEP-9128,36 NRC 202 0992)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT PROCEEDINGS geographic proximity as basis for aanding to imervene in: 1RP-92-28,36 NRC 202 0992); 1RP 92-38, 36 NRC 394 0992)

- OPERA 11NG UCENSES causinion to recaptum construcuan paiod; 12P-92r27,36 NRC 196 (1992) forum for challaiges tor, CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 0992)

ORAI, ARGUMENT cause for denial of; CU-9112,36 NRC 62 (1992) denial of request inr; CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 0992).

ORGANITA110NS.

standing to Janervene; 12P-9223,36 NRC 120 (1992)

PENAL 1T ~

for breach a pnnective order,12P-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992)

. See slao Civil Penaldes

' PIIYSICAL SECURIIT adequacy of South Teams policies and procedures; DD 92-5,36 NRC 231 (1992) escort responsibihties of licenses employees; DD-92 5,36 NRC 2310992)

' sailgating into protected and vital statian areas; DD 92-5,36 NRC 2310992) -

l training of licenses employees in pmcedrm f.m maintaining; DD 915,36 NRC 2310992)

PRFJUDGMENT atandards far, IEP-9132,36 NRC 269 0992).

PRESIDING OITICER discretionary authority of; 1RP-92-24,36 NRC 149 (1992).

jurisdiction over requests far relief under secdon lL206; 12P-9135,36 NRC 355 0992)

. responsibility to seek Commission authorization for consolidadoo of proceedings; CU-9213,36 NRC 79 (1992) 61

-l

-l

)

1 l

-1

4 4

m 2

1

~

k I

SUHJECT INDEX PRESSURE VALVES

- mislabeling of, DD-924,36 NRC 325 (1992)

- l lPRICP ANDERSON ACT -

Anancial quali5 canons.gi.c.; for non-utility 1 misers under, DPRM-921, 36 NRC 31 (1992)

PRIVIIJiGE '

burden to estabh; 2P-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992)

PRCTI'LCITVE ORDER denial of request for; CtJ-92-12,36 NkC 62 0992) penalty for breach of; IEP 92-15A,36 NRC 5 0992)

RADIAVON RELEASES low-level, addaion of odorants to facilitate detection of, DPRM-92136 NRC 37 (1992)

RADIATION SAFLTY OITICER delegation of complete mponsibility and authority to; IEIL92-25,36 NRC 156 0992)

.i revocation d licase for deficiencies by; IEP-92-16,36 NRC 15 (1992)

RADIOACTIVE EMISSIONS

' addition d odorums as a safety measure; DPRM-92-136 NRC 37 (1992)

RADIOACf1VE PLUMES

. technical discussion d; DPRM 92-2,36 NRC 37 0992)

RADIOGRAPflER faihus of licensen to pnwide operating and emergency procedures so; 1EIL92-25, 36 NRC 156 0992) :

performance of unlicensed activities as assistant so; ISP-92 25,36 NRC 156 0992)

RADIOGRAPIIIC EXPOSURE DEVICES failuxe to mark with licensee's addreas and phone raamber LBIL92 25,36 NRC 156 0992) failure to perform surveys at time d storage of; IEP-92-25,36 NRC 156 0992) falsification of utilization logs: IEP-92-25,36 NRC 156 0992) unauthorized use ef; LBP-92-25,36 NRC 156 (1992)

RADIO!JOGICAL MON 11DRING use of odorants to facilitate; DPRM-92-% 36 NRC 37 0992)

REACTOR CORE -

resin spillinto; DD-924,36 NRC 325 0992) :

REACIOR OPLRAIDRS

~

. elecping in contml room at Comanche Peak; DD 92 6,36 NRC 325 (1992)

REACTOR TRIP 3 content d licensee reposts of; DD-92-6,36 NRC 325 (1992)

REGULATIONS -

irnerpretation of 10 CF.R. 2363; C1J-92-Il 36 NRC 62 0992) interpatation of 10 CF.R. Part 50; DPRM-921,36 NRC 310992) userpretation of 10 C.F.R. Part 140; DPRM-92-1,36 NRC 310992)

See also Rules a Practice REOPENING A RECORD affidavit requirenza for, CIL92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992) denial of sequest for; CLL92-1136 NRC 62 0992) tunchness requimners fer, CIL92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992)

REPORTS

' of employes in, juries; DD-92-6,36 NRC 325 0992) of incidents and reactor trips, canent of; DIF92-6, 36 NRC 325 (1992)

RES JUDICATA-

< applicability in NRC proceedmas; IEP-92-3A 36 NRC 269 (1992)

REVIEW h-M denial because of a finding d no clear error or other =Artandal questions d law or policy; CtJ-9216,36 NRC 351 (1992)

~

imerlocutary, standers for grare of; CIL9213,36 NRC 79 0992)

~ f consolidation order, IEP 9216A,36 hTC 18 (1992) o 62 f

=,.

w

,, 3 SUBJECT * 'DEX of initial decisims; ISP-92-25,36 NRC 156 0992) of seulement agnanents, purpose d; IEP-92-18,36 NRC 93 0992) standard for C-grant of, without awaiting a reply fann any responding pany; Q3-92-13,36 NRC 79 (1992) -

REVOCA110N OF UCENSE fr deficiencies by radianon safety officer where that officer is made completely respassible;IEP-92-16, 36 NRC 15 (1992)-

far failum to pay license fee; QJ-92r14,36 NRC 2210992); IEP-92-33,36 NRC 312 (1992) reasons far; IEP-92c25,36 NRC 156 0992)

REVOCATION ORDER suponsitslity of licenses to answer charges in; IEP-92-33,36 NRC 312 0992)

RUIJMAKING standard for daisting pensions for; DPRM 92-2,36 NRC 37 0992)

RU115 OF PRACDCE affidsvit requisemera for renpcrung a um:ord; QJ42-12,36 NRC 62 0992) amendrnera of hearing petinan in infarmal hearing; IEP-92 24,36 NRC 149 (1992) amendnat of irnervention petitianr IEP-92-27,36 NRC 1% 0992)

- collateral atorpel; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992)

Comnussion supervisory authority over adjudicanons; CU-92-13,36 NRC 79 0992) contandon requiranera for haervention; 1EP-92-23,36 NRC 120 0992) discovery of security plans; IEP-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992) -

discretionary fractiocutory review of consolidation order, CU 9213,36 NRC 79 0992) d,screuanary standing to irnervene;IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120 0992) dismissal of proceedings with prejudice; IEP-92 29,36 NRC 225 0992) five faaor test for late irnervendon; CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 0992) forum for d>allenges to operating limnser: QJ-9312,36 NRC 62 (1992) good cause fur delay in filing intervernian pennan; CU-92-12,36 NRC 62 0992); UIP 9219,36 NRC 98 0 992) governing rule in conflia Insween a Subpart G rule and a special rule in another subpart; QJ-92-13c 36 NRC 79 (1992) '

hearing on whether peuunner has met criteria for standmg; 1EP-92 38,36 NRC 394 (1992)

• knmediate effecdvmens review; IEP-92 34,36 NRC 317 0992) injury-in-fact standaid for standing to inurvene;IEP-92-19,36 NRC 92 0992) irnercut rapuranas far intervenum; QJ-92-12,36 NRC 62 0992); IEPL92-35,36 NRC 355 (1992) traerlocuury review standard: CLI-92-13,36 NRC 79 (1992) jurisdiaires, nmaliness a challenges to; IEP-92 32,36 NRC 269 0992) late-filed areas of concern in infermal hearings; IEP 92 24,36 NRC 149 0992) monian for reconsideranon in informal headngr, IEP-92c35,36 NRC 355 0992) eral argument; QJ-9212,36 NRC 62 (1992) -

organizational standmg to intervene; IEP-92-23, 36 NRC 120 (1992) pleading 4. -.;.; for cornennes; LEP42 23,36 NRC 120 0992) premature requans for stay in informal proceedings; IEP 92 35,36 NRC 355 0992) ~

pnxedures applicable to hearing as materials lu:ense denial: CU-9243,36 NRC 79 0992) propsidary determinatims; IEP-92-15A,36 NRC 5 0992)^

protection of conManial information fran disclosure; CU-9212,36 NRC 62 0992) repose doctrines in NRC pmceedings; IEP-92c32,36 NRC 269 (1992) -

service of documerus on petitioners; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 120 0992) -

settleman agreemera as cause for dismissal af proceeding with prejudice; IEP-92 30,36 NRC 227.

(1992) spedfying areas of concern in informal hearings; IEP-92-24,36 NRC 149 0992) standard for Cammission grant of review without awaiting a reply frore any esponding pany;-

CU-9213,36 NRC 79 (1992) standing to intervene; IEP-92 23,36 NRC 120 0992) 63 i

w v

.{.-

SUIUECT INDEX standing' to irnervene in construcuan permit extension proceedings; IEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 0992) standing to intarvene in decommissiming pmceed ng; IEP-92-24,36 NRC 149 (1992) standing to intervene on basis of standing in an endier pmceeding; IEP-92 27,36 SIC 1% 0992) timelinas requirernent for reopenmg a recard; C1192-12,36 NRC 62 0992) sone of irperests fa standing to intervene; IEP-92-23,-36 NRC 120 (1992)

SANC110NS for noncompliance with pleading 4.-._ for interventian petitims; IEP-92-26,36 NRC 191 (1992)

SEAIID SOURCl3 inventories of; IEP-92 25,36 NRC 156 0992)

SECURflY documents, willful falsi6 cation of; D1>92 5,36 NRC 2310992)

SECURflY ItANS disconry of,1EP-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992)

SERVIG OF DOCUMENTS.

on petitioners; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992) sanction far failure to comply with mquuements far; IEP'92-26,36 NRC 191 (1992)

SETI1EMENT AGREEMEhT -

dismissal of proceedmg with prejudice because of, IEP 92 30,36 NRC 227 0992) licensing board review of; LBP-92-30,36 NRC 227 (1992) licensing boani seview 4 prior to dismissal of pmmeding with prejudice; IEP-92 29,36 NRC 225 (1992) purpose of licensing board review of; IEP-9218, 36 NRC 93 0992); LBP 92 21, 36 NRC 117 (1992)

Staff agreemers to forego funher action against hcensee as acrm of; CU-92-15,36 NRC 2510992) termination of pmceeding because of, CU-9215,36 NRC 2510992) 5111PPING CDNTAINERS for radioactive materist, failure so pmperly seatk; LBP-92 25,36 NRC 156 0992)

SilOWCAUSE PROCEEDINGS standard for institution of; DD 815,36 NRC 231 (1992); DD-92-6,36 NRC 325 0992)

SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL confidentiality of material control s'nd secountability program; LBP-9215A,36 NRC 5 0992) 5 PENT ITEL POOL criticality analysis emus for; IEPL9117,36 NRC 23 0992); LBP-92-28,36 NRC 202 0992) license amendment for redesign of; LBP-9217,36 NRC 23 (1992) penahy for loss of cooling to; DD-924,36 NRC 325 0992) sesin micases into; DDL924,36 NRC 325 0992)

STANDING 1D INTERVENE application of judicial concepts in NRC pmceedmas; IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120 0992); LBP 92-28,36 -

'. NRC 2(11 (1992) claim el denial of right to appear in another proceeding as basis for; L9P-92 37,36 NRC 370 (1992) discretionary; LBP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992) financial imerests a basis for, IEP-92 23,36 NRC 120 0992); IEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 0992)

--i g proceeding; LBP 92 23,36 NRC 120 (1992);

geographical proiumity as be is in ^

n LBP 92-28,36 NRC 202 (1992); IEP 92-38,36 NRC 395 0992) hearing en whether petitioner has met criteria for,IEP-92-38,36 NRC 394 0992) in cmstruchon permit extension proceedings;IEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 0992).

mjury in fact in decanmissiming promeding; IEP 92-24,36 NRC 149 0992)'

(,

injury in fact showing far; LBP-92-19,36 NRC 98 0992); IEP-92-37,36 NRC 370 0992)

. injury to informational interests as basis for, IEP-92-23,36 NRC 120 0992) newly accpured, as basis for late irnervenuen: IEP-92-19,36 NRC 98 (1992)..

organizatienal, representation requirements for, LBP-92-23,36 NRC 120 (1992); IEP-92-28, 36 NRC -

202 (1992) ~

pleading requiremeras to establish; LBP 92 23,36 NRC 120 (1992) standing in an earlier proceeding as basis for, IEP-92 27,36 NRC 1% 0992) 64 D

44

ym cll t;UBJECT INDI'X STATE OF UTAll hearing request on materials license amendment; IEP-92-20,36 NRC 112 (1992)'

STA1UI'ORY CDNSTRUCIlON delsrence given is legislative body in hs chodce d which aspects of a panicular evG it wishes to eliminate; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992) general rules fe, IEP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992) language of mandatory dunaian and exclusivity; IEP-9216A,36 NRC 18 (1992) legisis;!ve history sourtes; IEP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (199@

weight given to legislative history; C1J-92-10,36 NRC 1 (1992) weight given to plain language d a statute; LBP-92-32,36 NRC 269 (1992)

STAY appeal d dmial d mquest for, IEP-92-22,36 NRC 119 (1992)

' burden en proponera of sequest for; IEP-92-20,36 NRC 112 (1992) criieria for grant of; IEP-92-20,36 NRC 112 (1992) of maierials license amendmers pending compledon of adjudication, denis1 of svxtuest for. LBP-92-20, 36 NRC 112 (1992) prematute sequest for,1BP-92-35,36 h1C 355 (1992)

SUBPART O PROCEEDINGS censolidation with Subpan L proceedings; C119213,36 NRC 79 (1992); IEP-92-16A 36 NRC 18 (1992)

..SUBPART L PROCTIDINGS -

Commissian approval needed for application of shernauve hearing procedures for CIJ 92-13,36 NRC 79 (1992) consolidadon with Subpart G proceedmas; Cll 92-13,36 NRC 79 (1992); ISP-9216A,36 NRC 15 (1992)

See also informal Hearings

/

SUBPOENAS motion to quash or modify; CI19210,36 NRC 1 (1992)

SUSPENSION OF IJCENSE denial of request far, CLI 92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992)

TECIINICAL SPECFICATIONS bcenso amendmers to incorporate spera fuel pool redesign in LSP-9217,36 NRC 23 (1992)'

TERMINA110N OF PROCFEDING,

satlerners agreement as basis for, C119215,36 NRC 251 (1992); 1EP-9215,36 NRC 93 (1992);

IEP-92-21,36 NRC 117 (1992)

TES11 MONY volatary, transcript rigba en; CL1-9210,36 NRC 1 (1992)

TRAINING.

security proceduns, licensee employee requuemeras for. DD-92 5,36 NRC 231 (1992)

TRANSCRIPTS of compelled beerviews, nght a wimess to: CL1-92-10,36 NRC 1 (1992)

VIDIATION of envirunmernal qualificatino requiremems for electrical equipment impor, ant to safety, civil pmahy for, IEP-92-21,36 NRC 117 (1992)

WIThT.SSES transcript rights of, Q192-10,36 NRC 1 (1992)

ZONE OF INTERF5115 for materials licenza amendment hearmgs; IEP-92 20, 36 hTC 112 (1992) 65 f

~.

~..

d d

f 1

J FACILITY INDEX r

a APOUD, PENNSYLVANIA IML FABRICATION FACIJrY; Didet Na 70135-DCOM DECOMMISSIONINO; Sepuxnber 4,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Allowing Petitioners to Amend or Supplement Their }Icaring Request); LBP-92-24,36 NRC 149 (1992)

DECOMMISSIONINO; November 12,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Petitimers' Request for immediate Cessation of Site Ocar.up Activities); 2P-92-31,36 NRC 255 0992)

DECOMMIS510NINO; December 10, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Denying Pehers' Request for Reconsideratim c( Stay Denial Order); 12P-92 35,36 NRC 355 (1992)

CLAIBORNE ENRIQ! MENT CEVfER; Docket No. 743070-ML MATERIA 13 UCENSE; July 8,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Dacovery Dwputes Pertaining to Catentions L and M); 2P-92-15A,36 h1tC 5 (1992) i mMANOIE PEAK STEAM Elf 4TRIC STATION, Unh 2; Docket No. 50-446CPA CONSTRUCDON PERMIT AMENDMIAT; December 15, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i

(Ruling on Intervention Petities and Terminating Pmceedet); 12P-92 37,36 NRC 370 (1992)

COMANOIE PEAK STEAM ELPLTRIC STATION, Units 1 and 2; Didet Nos. 5M45,50446 REQUEST IUR ACTION; Novanber 19, 1992; DIRECIUR'S DEOS10N UNDER 10 C.FA l2.206; DD 92-6,36 NRC 325 (1992)

COMANCIE PEAK STEAM EMCTRIC STATION, Units 1 and 2: Docact Nos. 50445-OIACPA, 5044&OL j

OPERATING UCENSE AND (X)NSTRUCTION PERMIT AMENDMENT; August 12, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDut; C1J-92-12,36 NRC 62 (1992) -

DAVIS-BESSE NEXLEAR POWER STATION, Unit 1; Docket Na $4346-A l

ANTITRUST; August 6,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting City of Broult Paa Motion for Late Interversion); 12P-92-19,36 NRC 98 (1992)

ANTITRUST; August 12, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-9211,36 NRC 47 (1992) i ANIT!1tUST; November 18, 1992; DEOSiON (Granting Summary Daposition in Favor of NRC Staff and Iniervanors on "Bedmck'* Iegal Issue and Denying Applicants' Requesu to Susped Anutrust Ucense Conditions; Damissing Cmtennms on Staff Blas; and Terminating Proceedmg);

a IRP 92-32, 36 NRC 269 (1992)

DIABID CANYON NUCLEAR JOWER PLANT, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-2WO!A-2, j

50 323<XA-2 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sepicmber 24,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDut (Filing Schedules and Prehearing Conference); IEP-92-27,36 NRC 196 (1992)

I.NRICO FERMI ATOMIC POWER PLANT, Unit 2; Dadet No 54341 REQUEST IOR ACDON; Novunber 25, 1992; DIRECTOR'S DEOSION r n R 10 Cf.R.

4 j

$236; D1192-8. 36 NRC 347 0992)

GEO'TIOf LABORATORIES; Docket No. 030 20693 MATFRIA13 UCENSE REVOCATION; October 21,1992; MEMORANDUM / ND ORDut; CU-92-14,36 NRC 221 (1992)-

MATutIALS UCENSE REVOCATION; November 18, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER j

l I

(Puniding for Goo Tech's Answer to Revocation Order); IEP-92-33, 36 NRC 312 (1992)

JOSEPl! M, FARIIY NUCGAR PLANT, Units 1 and 2; Docket Nos. 54348CvP 50-364.QvP CIVIL PENALTY; August 12,17/2; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Appnwing Settlement Agreement and Ternanating Prooradir$; LBP-92-21,36 NRC 117 (1992) l 67 r

i k

i-f 6

I I

I FACILITY INDEX 1

MILJ3 TONE NtK1 EAR PO%T.R STAMON, Unh 2; Docket Na 543364)1A OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; July 29,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Establishing PL.edmg Scheduk ; 1RP-9217,36 NRC 23 0992) f OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Sepianber 17, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Imposing Sanctions upon CCMN and Suiking Petiuans)i 12P 92-24 36 NRC 1910992)

OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMEND Scie 30,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Raling on Pctitions for leave to Irnervene); 1RP-92-28,36 NRC 202 0992) -

PAID VERDE NUCIJAR GENERATING STADON, Unas 1,2, and 3; Docket Nos. $4528,54529, 54530

' REQUEST IDR ACDON; August 12, 1992; FINAL DIRECTOR'S DEQSION UNDER 10 C.P.R.

,5 52.206; DD 92-4,36 NRC 143 0992).

REQUEST FOR ACDON; Nowmher 74, 1992; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.FA 12.206; DD-92-7,36 NRC 338 0992)

- PERRY NUCU!AR POWER PIANT, Unit 1); Docket Nos. 54440 A ANTITRUST; August 61992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Onnting Chy of Brook Pad Motion fm 1. ate Intetventionk IEP 92-19. 36 NRC 98 0992)

ANTITRUST; August 12, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-92-11,36 h1C 47 (1992)

ANTITRUST; Nevernher 18,1992; DIrJSION (Granting Sumraary Disposhion in Favor of NRC Staff and Intervonors en "Bodrock" 14g4 lasue and Denying Applicants' Requests to Suspend Anuuust uoense Corkkions: Dismissing Contasims on Stan Bias; amt Terminating Proceeding);

LBP-92-32,36 NRC 269 0992)

RANCTIO SECO NUCtJAR GENERAVNO STA110N; Dodset Na 54312 DCOM DECOMMISSIONING; August 20, 1992; PRETIEARING CON!IRENCE ORDER (Terminating Procandingh LBP-92 23,36 NRC 120 (1992)

SOLTill TEXAS PROE.CT, Units I and 2; Docka Nos. 50498,54499 ENPORCEMENT; July 2,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER; CU-92-10,36 NRC 1 (1992)

REQUEST FOR ACHON; October 5,1992; DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 C.PA 5 2.206; DD92 5,36 NRC 2310992)

T1 TREE MILE ISIAND NUCLEAR STADON, Wit 2; Docket No. 50-320-OIA-2 OPERA 11NG UCENSE AMENDMEND October 5,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Dismissing Proceedmg); UIP-92 29. 36 NRC 225 0992) '-

OP12ATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; Outcher 16, 1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Racmaidering Order Danissing Pmcoeding); ISP-92 30,36 NRC 227 (1992)

VOGUE EUiCTRIC GENERATING PLANT, Urtiis 1 and 2; Dockst Nos. 544244)1A 3. 50425-OIA-3 OPERATING UCENSE AMENDMENT; December 24,1992; MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Factual Dapure About Residence; Evidemiary IIcaring); LBP-92 38,36 NRC 394 0992) a 63

..J

4 5